2009.03.10 CC Committee Meetings Agenda PacketAGENDA
City Council Committee Meetings
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
March 10, 2009
6:00 p.m.
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not
public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below.
1. Community/Development Services Committee
Council Chambers
A. AM-2132
(10 Minutes)
Review of proposed Ordinance adopting WAC 51-16-030 building code exemption provisions
for emergency shelters for the homeless.
B. AM-2131
(10 Minutes)
Review proposed authorization to advertise Request for Qualifications for selection of plan
review consultants.
C. AM-2139
(15 Minutes)
Edmonds economic stimulus initiatives.
D. AM-2140
(10 Minutes)
Review of Planning Board recommendation for park naming policy.
2.Finance Committee
Jury Meeting Room
A. AM-2143
(5 Minutes)
Police surplus property.
B. AM-2144
(10 Minutes)
General Fund Report for the month ending February 28, 2009.
3.Public Safety Committee
Police Training Room
A. AM-2137
(15 Minutes)
Final status report on 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan.
B. AM-2138
(15 Minutes)
Draft 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan.
C. AM-2135
(10 Minutes)
Review of 2009 Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with City of Lynnwood.
D. (30 Minutes)Municipal Court review.
Packet Page 1 of 63
AM-2132 1.A.
Building Code Exemption Provisions for Emergency Shelters for the Homeless
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/10/2009
Submitted By:Ann Bullis, Building Time:10 Minutes
Department:Building Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Review of proposed Ordinance adopting WAC 51-16-030 building code exemption provisions for
emergency shelters for the homeless.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward and recommend approval of the draft Ordinance to the City Council.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
Staff has received inquiries from nonprofit organizations in Edmonds about providing emergency
temporary housing for homeless persons in buildings that they own during extreme weather
conditions. Typically these buildings were built for assembly purposes only, and were not
designed or constructed to meet requirements for over-night occupancy of a shelter.
Amendments by local jurisdictions of State adopted building codes which affect residential
buildings must be reviewed and approved by the State Building Code Council (RCW 19.27.060).
Staff has researched and found that local jurisdictions are permitted by the State to adopt an
ordinance for the purpose of providing for occupancy exemptions for housing for homeless
persons without approval from the State Building Code Council as set forth in WAC 51.16.030.
WAC 51.16.030 requires that the Ordinance contain the following information:
The character of use or occupancy of an existing building located in this state, may be changed in
order to provide housing for indigent persons, without conforming to all of the requirements of the
State Building Code provided that:
1. The building official has reviewed and approved the proposed exemption; and,
2. The proposed housing for indigent persons is less hazardous than the existing use; and,
3. Any code deficiencies exempted pose no threat to human life, health or safety; and,
4. The building or buildings exempted are owned or administered by a public agency or nonprofit
corporation; and,
5. The exemption is authorized for no more than five years, subject to renewal of the exemption by
the building official.
Organizations interested in providing emergency temporary housing for homeless persons in their
Packet Page 2 of 63
Organizations interested in providing emergency temporary housing for homeless persons in their
buildings must first obtain a Compliance Permit from the City. This is reviewed by both the
Building Official and Fire Marshal. The Compliance Permit can be approved for up to 6 months
and is renewable.
If this Ordinance is not adopted, the City would have to present a local amendment to the State
Building Code Council for review and approval.
It is important to stress that life-safety codes are not exempt under this resolution.
The proposed Ordinance adequately addresses the requirements of WAC 51-16-030 and staff
requests that it be forwarded to City Council for adoption.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proposed Ordinance
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/04/2009 09:33 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/04/2009 09:52 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2009 03:31 PM APRV
Form Started By: Ann
Bullis
Started On: 03/02/2009 11:50
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2009
Packet Page 3 of 63
{BFP721630.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ALLOWING EMERGENCY EXEMPTIONS
FOR HOUSING FOR INDIGENT PERSONS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, nonprofit groups have inquired about providing temporary assistance
and emergency shelters to indigent persons;
WHEREAS, RCW 19.27.042 permits cities to allow emergency exemptions to the
State Building Code for housing for indigent persons; and
WHEREAS, WAC 51-16-030 establishes guidelines for approving said
exemptions; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to support public and nonprofit agencies as they
prepare to provide needed services to indigent persons, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 19.27.042 and WAC 51-16-030, the character of
use or occupancy of an existing building located in the City of Edmonds may be temporarily
changed in order to provide emergency temporary housing for indigent persons without
conforming to all of the requirements of the State Building Code; PROVIDED that the proponent
of an exemption applies and is approved for a compliance permit for the proposed exemption,
and complies with conditions thereto. Compliance permits for exemptions shall be reviewed and
approved by the City’s Building Official, in consultation with the Fire Chief or his designee,
based on the following guidelines: (1) any code deficiencies to be exempted pose no threat to
Packet Page 4 of 63
{BFP721630.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
2
human life, health, or safety; (2) the building is owned or administered by a public agency or
nonprofit corporation; and (3) the proposed emergency temporary housing for indigent persons is
less hazardous than the existing use. A compliance permit for an exemption shall be valid for no
more than 180 days, except that the City’s Building Official, in consultation with the Fire Chief
or his designee, may approve a renewal based on the same guidelines as the initial permit. As a
condition of approval, a building for which a compliance permit for exemption is issued shall not
be used to house indigent persons for more than fourteen days during any consecutive thirty day
period. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall be cause to suspend or revoke the
permit.
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.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 5 of 63
{BFP721630.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 6 of 63
{BFP721630.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 4
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of
Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said
ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ALLOWING
EMERGENCY EXEMPTIONS FOR HOUSING FOR INDIGENT PERSONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 7 of 63
AM-2131 1.B.
Request for Qualifications for Selection of Plan Review Consultants
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/10/2009
Submitted By:Ann Bullis, Building Time:10 Minutes
Department:Building Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Review proposed authorization to advertise Request for Qualifications for selection of plan review
consultants.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward and recommend approval of authorization to advertise Request for Qualifications to City
Council.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The City of Edmonds Building Division utilizes consultants for structural plan review and
non-structural plan review for various types of building permit applications on an as-needed basis.
The City’s rosters for Structural Plan Review Consultants and Non-structural Plan Review
Consultants are in need of updating for the following reasons:
• Number of consultants on roster needs to be increased to allow for more timely review.
• It has been 2 years since current consultant contracts were updated.
• Allows for opportunity to evaluate consultant fees for plan review services provided.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Draft RFQ Structural CC
Link: Draft RFQ NonStructural CC.pdf
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/02/2009 01:12 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/02/2009 01:20 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/03/2009 08:14 AM APRV
Form Started By: Ann
Bullis
Started On: 03/02/2009 07:04
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/03/2009
Packet Page 8 of 63
Page 1 of 5
Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
DRAFT
CITY OF EDMONDS
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Consultant Services
Update Structural Plan Review Consultant Roster
Submittal Due Date: April 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Pacific Local Time
The City of Edmonds, Washington is soliciting a statement of qualifications (SOQ) from
individuals or firms interested in providing Structural Plan Review Consultant Services
associated with building permit applications.
OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE
The City of Edmonds Building Division utilizes consultants for structural plan review for
various types of building permit applications. Historically, the scope of projects
commonly range from single family dwellings to 5-story commercial buildings. City
zoning now permits high-rise buildings in some areas, so the consultant would be
expected to perform structural review for such projects. It is the intention of the City to
select and contract with more than one consultant for these services.
CITY ADOPTED CODES
Current codes adopted by the City of Edmonds:
• International Building Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• International Residential Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• Uniform Plumbing Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• International Mechanical Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• International Fuel Gas Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• International Fire Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• Washington State Energy Code
• Washington State Ventilation Indoor Air Quality Code
• Washington State Historical Building Code, 1991 Edition
• Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition
• Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition
• Edmonds Community Development Code (including applicable section
amendments to the above noted codes)
The City is proposing to adopt the 2009 editions of the codes effective July 1, 2010.
PROJECT SCOPE
The selected consultant(s) must be versed in structural plan review of various types of
structures.
The consultant(s) must be capable of providing pick-up and delivery of plans and
documents. When the contract is executed the following service (turn around) times will
Packet Page 9 of 63
Page 2 of 5
Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
be expected: (review turnaround times may be revised from time to time upon both
parties written agreement).
Standard Plan Review Times
Type of Project First Review Subsequent Reviews
Single Family Dwellings 7 working days 5 working days
Multi-Family Dwellings 15 working days 7 working days
Commercial < 100,000 sf 15 working days 10 working days
Commercial > 100,000 sf and
High-rise
20 working days 10 working days
All Other Projects 7 working days 5 working days
The consultant(s) must be able to pick-up plans within one working day of notification by
the City of Edmonds and return reviews complete within the prescribed Standard Plan
Review Times specified above. The consultant(s) shall perform plan review following
receipt of completed project documents and necessary supporting data, as noted in the
letter of transmittal from the City. The consultant(s) shall provide notice to the City
within 24-hours of receipt of the letter of transmittal and project documents, of any
individual circumstance of non-compliance or anticipated difficulty, which may have an
effect on performing the plan review.
It is essential that the consultant(s) provide qualified, experienced staff, capable of and
devoted to the successful accomplishment of the work performed under the terms and
conditions of an awarded contract. Structural plan reviews must be completed by a
structural engineer, duly registered and licensed in the State of Washington.
The consultant(s) shall issue to the City formal written comments for each set of project
documents reviewed. The consultant(s) shall specifically detail elements requiring
revision to comply with the City adopted codes and regulations. The consultant(s) shall
return project documents to the City for final dispensation.
Review documents should consist of comment letters citing code deficiencies and
identifying the review as the first, second, or third review. Required Special Inspections
and/or deferred submittals shall also be noted in the comment letter. All final review
documents should be marked accordingly to indicate that they have been approved for
release pending City approval.
When requested by City staff, meet with City staff and other interested parties to conduct
at least one preliminary assessment of projects proposed to be submitted to the City for
permit. These meetings will be used to allow the City staff and consultant to become
familiar with the proposed project and ascertain any major code issues that may be
present. On occasion, consultant(s) may also be requested to attend an initial
“preapplication” meeting with City staff and representatives of the project. Such
meetings will be based on an hourly rate by as mutually agreed to at the acceptance of the
proposal and execution of agreement and will last no longer than two hours each.
Packet Page 10 of 63
Page 3 of 5
Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
Location will be determined through mutual agreement of all parties, but typically at City
Hall.
Telephonically or in person, provide verbal and/or written technical construction code
assistance to City staff regarding projects under review or construction in the City, when
requested.
Consultants(s) may be required to perform services in addition to those described above,
and the City will compensate the consultant(s) by hourly charges as mutually agreed to at
the acceptance of the proposal and execution of agreement.
The City is currently considering providing electronic plan review. Confirm if your firm
is capable of accommodating electronic plan review.
No questions, either written or oral, will be taken by City of Edmonds staff related to the
technical components of this RFQ.
SUBMITTAL
One unbound original, three bound copies and one electronic copy of the SOQ shall be
submitted to the City of Edmonds, Office of the Building Official, 121 Fifth Avenue
North, Edmonds, WA 98020-3145. The deadline for qualifications by interested parties
is April 13, 2009 by 4:00 PM, Pacific Local Time. Respondents assume the risk of the
method of dispatch chosen. The City assumes no responsibility for delays caused by any
delivery service. Postmarking by the due date will not substitute for actual receipt of
qualifications. Qualifications shall not be delivered by facsimile transmission or other
telecommunication or electronic means.
Supplemental information, such as brochures, may be submitted if desired.
Qualifications shall be limited to single space, typewritten pages (minimum 12 point
font) and shall be no more than 30 pages (including resumes) and bound in a single
volume. A page is defined as one side of an 8 ½ by 11 inch page. The one original shall
be unbound and the three copies shall be bound. The following format and content shall
be adhered to by each firm and presented in the following order:
SOQ Evaluation Components/Criteria:
Executive Summary: An executive summary letter should include the key elements of
the respondent’s SOQ, an overview of the consultant team, a statement of why your firm
should be selected, and what differentiates your firm from others in this particular
project. Indicate the firm name, address, telephone number, fax number, website address
and e-mail address information of the respondent’s office located nearest to Edmonds,
Washington, and the office from which the plan review services will be provided.
Provide information on the form of business organization (i.e., corporation, partnership,
individual, joint venture, other), and what year the business was established. Provide the
name of the individual whom will be the City’s primary contact for consultant services.
Provide a general statement of the firm’s history, and how long the structural engineer(s)
have been performing plan review for jurisdictions.
Packet Page 11 of 63
Page 4 of 5
Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
Project Approach: Describe your firm’s work plan for this project. Describe your plan
review process. Provide review times and fees. Who is involved with the decision
making process for the development of the work plan, and the elements of the proposed
work plan. Provide a sample set of plan review comments produced by your firm.
Related Firm Experience: Provide a listing of all firms on our proposed team, type(s) of
expertise that each firm can provide, and how long each firm provided these type(s) of
expertise. Indicate if the prime consultant has worked with proposed sub-consultant(s)
on similar projects in the last three years. If yes, provide name of the project, each firm’s
role on the project and the dates the services were performed. Limit examples to one
project for each sub-consultant firm. Provide a list of up to ten plan review projects that
your firm has completed within the last three years in Washington State, including name
of project, general scope of project, location, jurisdiction served, valuation and general
description of review.
Qualifications of Proposed Structural Engineer Plan Reviewer(s): Provide up to three
examples that demonstrate their experience as a structural plan reviewer(s) on similar
projects. Include name of project, general scope of project, location, jurisdiction served,
valuation, and general description of review. Demonstrate familiarity with relevant
codes, regulations and procedures.
Expertise of Key Staff (Prime and Sub Consultants): List each key team member’s
role/responsibility on your proposed team. For each member, provide up to three
examples of prior relevant projects. Include name of project, general scope of project,
location, jurisdiction served, valuation, and general description of review.
References/Past Performance: Provide reference information for a minimum of three (3)
years with a maximum of ten (10) similar projects for public sector clients. References
shall include the name of project, general scope of project, location, contact person and
information of the jurisdiction served, valuation, and general description of review.
The City’s Evaluation Team will use the following criteria to evaluate each SOQ:
Criteria Points
Project Approach 0-20
Related Firm Experience 0-25
Qualifications of Structural Engineer Plan Reviewer(s) 0-15
Expertise of Key Staff (Prime and Sub Consultants) 0-20
References/Past Performance 0-20
Maximum Points 100
The SOQ will be the basis from which interested firms will be selected. At the City’s
option, following the City staff evaluation of the SOQs received, selected firms may be
invited to make oral presentations before the City’s Evaluation Panel. The City’s
representative will provide additional details outlining the preferred content of the
Packet Page 12 of 63
Page 5 of 5
Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
presentation to each firm or team of firms that are invited to participate. Upon
completion of the evaluation, the City’s Evaluation Panel will determine the most
qualified firm(s) based on all materials and information presented, which will be placed
on the City’s structural plan review roster.
Any form failing to submit information in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
RFQ may be subject to disqualification. The City reserves the right to change the
qualifications schedule or issue amendments to the RFQ at any time. The City reserves
the right, at its sole discretion, to waive immaterial irregularities contained in the SOQs.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all SOQs at any time, without penalty. The
City reserves the right to refrain from contracting with any respondent. Firms eliminated
from further consideration will be notified by mail by the City as soon as practical.
The City of Edmonds encourages disadvantaged, minority and women-owned firms to
respond.
Attachments: City of Edmonds Professional Services Agreement
Packet Page 13 of 63
Page 1 of 5
Non-Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
DRAFT
CITY OF EDMONDS
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Consultant Services
Update Non-Structural Plan Review Consultant Roster
Submittal Due Date: April 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Pacific Local Time
The City of Edmonds, Washington is soliciting a statement of qualifications (SOQ) from
individuals or firms interested in providing Non-Structural Plan Review Consultant
Services associated with building permit applications.
OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE
The City of Edmonds Building Division utilizes consultants for non-structural plan
review for various types of building permit applications. Plan review services include,
but are not limited to building, mechanical, plumbing, medical gas systems, fire systems,
energy efficiency. Historically, the scope of projects commonly range from single family
dwellings to 5-story commercial buildings. City zoning now permits high-rise buildings
in some areas, so the consultant would be expected to perform non-structural review for
such projects. It is the intention of the City to select and contract with more than one
consultant for these services.
CITY ADOPTED CODES
Current codes adopted by the City of Edmonds:
• International Building Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• International Residential Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• Uniform Plumbing Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• International Mechanical Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• International Fuel Gas Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• International Fire Code, 2006 Edition, with State Amendments
• Washington State Energy Code
• Washington State Ventilation Indoor Air Quality Code
• Washington State Historical Building Code, 1991 Edition
• Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition
• Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition
• Edmonds Community Development Code (including applicable section
amendments to the above noted codes)
The City is proposing to adopt the 2009 editions of the codes effective July 1, 2010.
PROJECT SCOPE
The selected consultant(s) must be versed in non-structural plan review of various types
of structures.
Packet Page 14 of 63
Page 2 of 5
Non-Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
The consultant(s) must be capable of providing pick-up and delivery of plans and
documents. When the contract is executed the following service (turn around) times will
be expected: (review turnaround times may be revised from time to time upon both
parties written agreement).
Standard Plan Review Times
Type of Project First Review Subsequent Reviews
Single Family Dwellings 7 working days 5 working days
Multi-Family Dwellings 15 working days 7 working days
Commercial < 100,000 sf 15 working days 10 working days
Commercial > 100,000 sf and
High-rise
20 working days 10 working days
All Other Projects 7 working days 5 working days
The consultant(s) must be able to pick-up plans within one working day of notification by
the City of Edmonds and return reviews complete within the prescribed Standard Plan
Review Times specified above. The consultant(s) shall perform plan review following
receipt of completed project documents and necessary supporting data, as noted in the
letter of transmittal from the City. The consultant(s) shall provide notice to the City
within 24-hours of receipt of the letter of transmittal and project documents, of any
individual circumstance of non-compliance or anticipated difficulty, which may have an
effect on performing the plan review.
It is essential that the consultant(s) provide qualified, experienced staff, capable of and
devoted to the successful accomplishment of the work performed under the terms and
conditions of an awarded contract.
The consultant(s) shall issue to the City formal written comments for each set of project
documents reviewed. The consultant(s) shall specifically detail elements requiring
revision to comply with the City adopted codes and regulations. The consultant(s) shall
return project documents to the City for final dispensation.
Review documents should consist of comment letters citing code deficiencies and
identifying the review as the first, second, or third review. Required Special Inspections
and/or deferred submittals shall also be noted on the comment letter. All final review
documents should be marked accordingly to indicate that they have been approved for
release pending City approval.
When requested by City staff, meet with City staff and other interested parties to conduct
at least one preliminary assessment of projects proposed to be submitted to the City for
permit. These meetings will be used to allow the City staff and consultant to become
familiar with the proposed project and ascertain any major code issues that may be
present. On occasion, consultant(s) may also be requested to attend an initial
“preapplication” meeting with City staff and representatives of the project. Such
meetings will be based on an hourly rate by as mutually agreed to at the acceptance of the
Packet Page 15 of 63
Page 3 of 5
Non-Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
proposal and execution of agreement and will last no longer than two hours each.
Location will be determined through mutual agreement of all parties, but typically at City
Hall.
Telephonically, or in person provide verbal and/or written technical construction code
assistance to City staff regarding projects under review or construction in the City, when
requested.
Consultants(s) may be required to perform services in addition to those described above,
and the City will compensate the consultant(s) by hourly charges as mutually agreed to at
the acceptance of the proposal and execution of agreement.
The City is currently considering providing electronic plan review. Confirm if your firm
is capable of accommodating electronic plan review.
No questions, either written or oral, will be taken by City of Edmonds staff related to the
technical components of this RFQ.
SUBMITTAL
One unbound original, three bound copies and one electronic copy of the SOQ shall be
submitted to the City of Edmonds, Office of the Building Official, 121 Fifth Avenue
North, Edmonds, WA 98020-3145. The deadline for qualifications by interested parties
is April 1, 2009 by 4:00 PM, Pacific Local Time. Respondents assume the risk of the
method of dispatch chosen. The City assumes no responsibility for delays caused by any
delivery service. Postmarking by the due date will not substitute for actual receipt of
qualifications. Qualifications shall not be delivered by facsimile transmission or other
telecommunication or electronic means.
Supplemental information, such as brochures, may be submitted if desired.
Qualifications shall be limited to single space, typewritten pages (minimum 12 point
font) and shall be no more than 30 pages (including resumes) and bound in a single
volume. A page is defined as one side of an 8 ½ by 11 inch page. The one original shall
be unbound and the three copies shall be bound. The following format and content shall
be adhered to by each firm and presented in the following order:
SOQ Evaluation Components/Criteria:
Executive Summary: An executive summary letter should include the key elements of
the respondent’s SOQ, an overview of the consultant team, a statement of why your firm
should be selected, and what differentiates your firm from others in this particular
project. Indicate the firm name, address, telephone number, fax number, website address
and e-mail address information of the respondent’s office located nearest to Edmonds,
Washington, and the office from which the plan review services will be provided.
Provide information on the form of business organization (i.e., corporation, partnership,
individual, joint venture, other), and what year the business was established. Provide the
name of the individual whom will be the City’s primary contact for consultant services.
Packet Page 16 of 63
Page 4 of 5
Non-Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
Provide a general statement of the firm’s history, and how long the plan reviewer(s) have
been performing plan review for jurisdictions.
Project Approach: Describe your firm’s work plan for this project. Describe your plan
review process. Provide review times and fees. Who is involved with the decision
making process for the development of the work plan, and the elements of the proposed
work plan. Provide a sample set of plan review comments produced by your firm.
Related Firm Experience: Provide a listing of all firms on our proposed team, type(s) of
expertise that each firm can provide, and how long each firm provided these type(s) of
expertise. Indicate if the prime consultant has worked with proposed sub-consultant(s)
on similar projects in the last three years. If yes, provide name of the project, each firm’s
role on the project and the dates the services were performed. Limit examples to one
project for each sub-consultant firm. Provide a list of up to ten plan review projects that
your firm has completed within the last three years in Washington State, including name
of project, general scope of project, location, jurisdiction served, valuation and general
description of review.
Qualifications of Proposed Plan Reviewer(s): Provide up to three examples that
demonstrate their experience as a plan reviewer(s) on similar projects. Include name of
project, general scope of project, location, jurisdiction served, valuation, and general
description of review. Demonstrate familiarity with relevant codes, regulations and
procedures.
Expertise of Key Staff (Prime and Sub Consultants): List each key team member’s
role/responsibility on your proposed team. For each member, provide up to three
examples of prior relevant projects. Include name of project, general scope of project,
location, jurisdiction served, valuation, and general description of review.
References/Past Performance: Provide reference information for a minimum of three (3)
years with a maximum of ten (10) similar projects for public sector clients. References
shall include the name of project, general scope of project, location, contact person and
information of the jurisdiction served, valuation, and general description of review.
The City’s Evaluation Team will use the following criteria to evaluate each SOQ:
Criteria Points
Project Approach 0-20
Related Firm Experience 0-25
Qualifications of Structural Engineer Plan Reviewer(s) 0-15
Expertise of Key Staff (Prime and Sub Consultants) 0-20
References/Past Performance 0-20
Maximum Points 100
The SOQ will be the basis from which interested firms will be selected. At the City’s
option, following the City staff evaluation of the SOQs received, selected firms may be
Packet Page 17 of 63
Page 5 of 5
Non-Structural Plan Review Consultant Request for Qualifications
invited to make oral presentations before the City’s Evaluation Panel. The City’s
representative will provide additional details outlining the preferred content of the
presentation to each firm or team of firms that are invited to participate. Upon
completion of the evaluation, the City’s Evaluation Panel will determine the most
qualified firm(s) based on all materials and information presented, which will be placed
on the City’s non-structural plan review roster.
Any form failing to submit information in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
RFQ may be subject to disqualification. The City reserves the right to change the
qualifications schedule or issue amendments to the RFQ at any time. The City reserves
the right, at its sole discretion, to waive immaterial irregularities contained in the SOQs.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all SOQs at any time, without penalty. The
City reserves the right to refrain from contracting with any respondent. Firms eliminated
from further consideration will be notified by mail by the City as soon as practical.
The City of Edmonds encourages disadvantaged, minority and women-owned firms to
respond.
Attachments: City of Edmonds Professional Services Agreement
Packet Page 18 of 63
AM-2139 1.C.
Edmonds Economic Stimulus Initiatives
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/10/2009
Submitted By:Rob Chave, Planning Time:15 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds economic stimulus initiatives.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve identified initiatives for presentation to City Council for action as an interim ordinance.
Previous Council Action
Council adopted Ordinance #3699 in October, 2008, which extended building permit
applications and extensions from 180 to 360 days. This ordinance is in effect for a period of two
years from adoption.
Council also adopted Ordinance #3726 in February, 2009, which allows the Building Official to
waive required progress inspections in order to renew building permits.
Narrative
Following up on previous Council action on two Building Division initiatives, Edmonds City Staff
have made progress on identifying further areas to help the local building and development
economy cope in these difficult economic times.
Specifically, we have identified three areas that could be addressed by the City either by
administrative action or through Council adoption of an interim zoning ordinance. We believe
these initiatives would help provide some relief without sacrificing standards for development.
The details of the proposals are summarized in the attached memo (Exhibit 1).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Economic Stimulus Memo
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/05/2009 08:33 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/05/2009 08:34 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/05/2009 08:38 AM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 03/04/2009 11:46
AM
Packet Page 19 of 63
Final Approval Date: 03/05/2009
Packet Page 20 of 63
City of Edmonds Planning Division
Date: March 1, 2009
To: Edmonds City Council Development Services/Community Services
Committee
From: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Subject: Edmonds Economic Stimulus Initiatives
Following up on previous Council action on two Building Division initiatives, Edmonds
City Staff have made progress on identifying further areas to help the local building and
development economy cope in these difficult economic times.
Specifically, we have identified the following three areas that could be addressed by the
City either by administrative action or through Council adoption of an interim zoning
ordinance. We believe these initiatives would help provide some relief without
sacrificing standards for development.
1. Extend the effective period for design review approvals by one year from the
current 18 months to 30 months. A second alternative would be to allow two
one-year extensions to a design review approval rather than the current one-time
extension. [ref. ECDC 20.13.040]
2. Remove the code requirement for two-year landscape maintenance bonds,
relying instead on code enforcement to assure compliance. [ref. ECDC 20.13.040]
3. Adopt a new parking standard for the Highway 99 Corridor which would
implement a consistent minimum standard for all commercial and residential
development instead of the parking-by-specific-use method currently applied.
Patterned after the general downtown parking rules, development in the
Highway 99 Corridor could have the following standards:
1 space per 500 sq. ft. of commercial space
1 space per dwelling unit
The Master Builders of Snohomish and King County prepared and distributed an issue
brief entitled “Economic Stimulus for Housing” in December 2008. Staff has reviewed
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 21 of 63
2
the list, noting that the City has already accomplished a number of items, and is actively
working on others. The following is the Master Builders’ listing of example actions that
could be part of a housing stimulus plan at the local level; City staff comments are in
italics.
1. Extensions for approved preliminary plats, short plats and building permits.
Already accomplished in part. Edmonds has already changed its building permit
regulations to allow building permit applications and extensions to be effective
for one year each instead of the normal six months, and to allow the Building
Official to waive progress inspections normally required when renewing a permit
for a second year. Consistent with this approach, staff believes it would be
reasonable to either (1) extend the period of time a design review approval is
effective from the current 18 months to 30 months, or (2) allow for two one-year
extensions instead of one. This requires a code change, but could be implemented
on an interim basis.
2. Alternatives and process improvements to performance and maintenance
bonds.
Currently a landscape maintenance bond is required for most commercial and
multi family projects. Maintenance bonds require applicants to pay for their
establishment, and staff review time is needed to review and track these bonds up
until they are released. The potential benefit to the city is that there is some
assurance that required landscaping will be established (maintained) for at least
two years after project completion, yet no landscape maintenance bond has ever
been called into use by the city. To save costs and staff resources, it may be time
to change to an enforcement-driven system instead of using maintenance bonds.
This requires a code change, but could be implemented on an interim basis.
3. Increased density bonuses for sustainable development projects.
The city has been researching and developing this approach, most recently in its
neighborhood business and multi family zones. There may be opportunities for
this type of approach in some zoning districts, but this is not a quick fix and
requires a thorough code review process.
4. Reduced parking requirements.
This has already been accomplished in the downtown business area. The
Highway 99 Task Force has been advised that there is an opportunity to change
parking standards along the Highway 99 corridor in response to increased transit
service (such as the impending bus rapid transit). There are a number of benefits
to reduced parking standards in that corridor – including reduced impervious
area devoted to vehicle parking (which directly results in reduced costs associated
with storm detention and site improvement costs as well as storm development
fees), more developable area for jobs and housing, and a more streamlined
permitting process for business retention and recruitment. This requires a code
change, but could be implemented on an interim basis.
Packet Page 22 of 63
3
5. Flexible road standards.
Reducing our current road standards or establishing flexible road standards is
not a quick change and would require significant effort to implement.
6. Reduced building setbacks.
This could be an incentive available for sustainable development practices.
However, this is not a quick change and would require thorough code review.
7. Increased heights and floor area ratios.
This could be an incentive available for sustainable development practices.
However, this is not a quick change and would require thorough code review.
8. Flexible standards for low impact development.
This is something being examined as part of the city’s work on low impact
development (e.g. work on revised stormwater regulations). However, this is not
a quick change and would require thorough code review.
9. Consider options related to moving the point of collection of all locally
administered impact fees to a date closer to the end of the development and
building process.
Already accomplished. Edmonds only levies impact fees for transportation. While
the fees are assessed at the development approval stage, they are not collected
until issuance of a building permit.
10. Continue to only require the replacement or repair of cracked sidewalks
when critical to address structural or safety defects.
In part, this is already being done. Where sidewalk, curb & gutter exists adjacent
to a proposed development, the City does not impose a blanket requirement to
remove and replace the improvements in their entirety. Replacement is limited to
those areas that are failing, damaged during construction, or need to be
reconstructed to meet ADA standards.
11. Advocate for a federal stimulus package that includes resources for local
public works infrastructure projects, which may allow for reductions in or
reimbursements of transportation and school impact fee programs to local
jurisdictions.
Already done. The city has been involved from the start of the federal initiative,
monitoring and lobbying for stimulus dollars wherever and whenever possible.
12. Coordinate with water and sewer utilities regarding the timing of sewer
charges to coincide with occupancy permit issuance.
Water and sewer connection fees are currently assessed at the time of issuance of
sewer and water permits. A developer is not required to pay for water & sewer
permits until they are ready to install those utilities.
13. State Environmental Policy Act exemption threshold changes.
Packet Page 23 of 63
4
The city is reviewing its SEPA regulations as part of the code revision process,
and will be presenting options to the Planning Board and City Council at the
appropriate time – currently expected to be later this year.
14. Changes to level of service standards.
Edmonds’ level of service standards have worked reasonably well, considering the
city is largely built out in most of its jurisdiction. The Sustainability Element
calls for developing a multi modal approach to LOS standards, but this is not a
quick fix and will need more research and development.
15. Credit for open space.
This could be part of an incentive available for sustainable development practices.
However, this is not a quick change and would require thorough code review.
Packet Page 24 of 63
AM-2140 1.D.
Review of Planning Board Recommendation for Park Naming Policy
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/10/2009
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh, Parks and Recreation Time:10 Minutes
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Review of Planning Board recommendation for park naming policy.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Accept Planning Board recommendation for park naming policy and place it on the March 17,
2009 Council Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
A DRAFT policy was discussed at the City Council CS/DS Committee meeting November 10,
2008 where it was recommended that the DRAFT Policy go to the Planning Board for review and
revisions.
Narrative
In the near future the City of Edmonds hopes to be dedicating at least two new neighborhood
parks at the Old Woodway Elementary School site and at 162nd Street in Meadowdale. The City
does not have a park naming policy and staff recognizes that there may be multiple names
submitted from the public for these sites.
Staff investigated several park naming policies adopted in other cities and found common themes
throughout. The attached DRAFT policy was developed using those examples to review and
refine the document at the January 28, 2009 and February 25, 2009 Planning Board meetings.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Park Naming Policy DRAFT
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/05/2009 08:33 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/05/2009 08:34 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/05/2009 08:38 AM APRV
Form Started By: Brian
McIntosh
Started On: 03/04/2009 03:30
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/05/2009
Packet Page 25 of 63
DRAFT Park Naming Policy
Purpose
The purpose of the policy is to establish consistent standard procedures and guidelines for
the naming of public parklands owned and/or operated by the City of Edmonds. The
renaming of parks is strongly discouraged.
Policy
The naming of City parks, park areas and park facilities shall be the function of the City
of Edmonds Planning Board with assistance from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Department.
Diversity, balance and creativity will be sought during adoption of names. The name
selected for a site will be recommended to the Edmonds City Council for final approval.
Objectives
A. Provide name identification for individual parks, park areas or park
facilities.
B. Provide criteria for the process of naming parks, park areas or park
facilities.
C. Provide opportunities for public input including a public hearing at
Planning Board.
D. Ensure that the naming of parks, park areas, or park facilities is controlled
by the Edmonds City Council through recommendations from the
Planning Boarding..
Criteria
The naming of parks, park areas, and park facilities should be approached with caution,
patience, and deliberation.
Names submitted for consideration should provide some form of individual identity in
relation to the following:
A. The geographic location of the facility; this includes descriptive names.
B. An outstanding feature of the facility.
C. An adjoining subdivision, street, school, or natural feature. No park shall
be given the same name as an existing school site or public facility, except
where the sites abut one another.
D. A commonly recognized historical event, group, organization or individual
(living or deceased).
E. An individual or organization that contributed significantly to the
acquisition or development of the facility to be named. This can include
Packet Page 26 of 63
either a deed or substantial monetary contribution, or contribution toward
acquisition and/or development of the park or park facility (typically not
less than 50 percent of the value of the property or improvements).
F. Outstanding accomplishments by an individual for the good of the
community. Quality of the contribution should be considered along with
the length of service by the individual – this to be fully substantiated by
person making recommendation.
G. Any individual who provided an exceptional service in the interest of the
park system as a whole. Typically, while serving in a public office, public
officials should not be considered as a candidate for naming.
Donated Land
Parks and park facilities that are donated to the City can be named by deed
restriction by the donor (i.e. Hutt Park in Edmonds). The naming and acceptance
of land is subject to recommendation by the Planning Board and approval by City
Council. Naming rights are not guaranteed if the donation of parkland is a
dedication as required by the subdivision ordinance (parkland dedication).
Naming Process
Parks Department staff will notify the Planning Board about proposed naming
opportunities. The recommendation of the Planning Board will be subject to final
approval by City Council action.
1. Temporary Naming
In the case of a new project, a temporary name will be designated by the City staff for
identification during acquisition and/or development of the park area or park facility.
Because temporary designations tend to be retained, the naming process for a new park
should be carried out as quickly as possible after its acquisition or development.
2
. Permanent Naming
Citizen involvement in the naming process is encouraged and may be accomplished in a
variety of ways throughout the naming process.
A. Individuals, groups and/or organizations interested in proposing a name
for an existing un-named park area or park facility may do so in writing
using a “Park Naming Form” that outlines the naming criteria. These will
be presented to the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department for
consideration by the Planning Board.
Packet Page 27 of 63
B. A variety of means to encourage public participation to submit a name
(citizen contests, recommendations from previous owners, historical
review of the site, etc.) may be implemented by the Parks, Recreation &
Cultural Services Department at the request of the Planning Board. The
“Park Naming Form” will be available through the City website, copies
available at City Hall and the Anderson Center, and publicity through
Public Service Announcements, Channel 21, and other means.
C. The Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on the proposed names..
D. The Planning Board will make a naming recommendation to the City
Council.
3. Park Renaming
Critical examination will be conducted to ensure that renaming the park will not diminish
the original justification for the name or the prior contributors. Renaming will follow the
same procedures as naming the park.
A. Only parks and facilities named for geographic location, outstanding
feature or subdivision should be considered for renaming. Parks that have
been named by deed restriction shall not be considered for renaming.
B. Parks and facilities named after individuals shall not be changed unless it
is found that because of the individual’s character the continued use of
their name would not be in the best interest of the community.
Packet Page 28 of 63
AM-2143 2.A.
Surplus Equipment
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/10/2009
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon, Police Department Time:5 Minutes
Department:Police Department Type:Action
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Police surplus property.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend that all property other than the ballistic vests be sent to Propertyroom.com for auction
or disposed of as noted in the attached document. Staff recommends that this agenda item be set
for the Consent Agenda.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
From time to time the Police Department has surplus property that needs to be disposed of. The
items listed on the attachment are no longer used by the Police Department because they are out
dated. The property is auctioned, destroyed, or returned to the manufacturer in particular the
ballistic vests.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Mar 2099 Surplus Property
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/05/2009 08:33 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/05/2009 08:34 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/05/2009 08:38 AM APRV
Form Started By: Gerry
Gannon
Started On: 03/05/2009 07:07
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/05/2009
Packet Page 29 of 63
Packet Page 30 of 63
Packet Page 31 of 63
Packet Page 32 of 63
Packet Page 33 of 63
Packet Page 34 of 63
Packet Page 35 of 63
AM-2144 2.B.
General Fund Report For the month ending February 28, 2009
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/10/2009
Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov, Administrative Services Time:10 Minutes
Department:Administrative Services Type:Information
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
General Fund Report for the month ending February 28, 2009.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Attached you will find a brief narrative on General Fund Revenues and Expenditures for the month
ending February 28, 2009.
Also included is a revised forecast which includes the following updates from the forecast
provided at the retreat:
1. Reduced the 2010 CPI estimate from 4.5% to 2%, increased 2010 Ending Cash by $500,000.
2. Reduced Sales tax revenue by $500,000 in 2009 and 2010, reducing 2010 Ending Cash by
$1,000,000.
3. Reduced the 2009 estimated revenue from the Transportation Benefit District by $150,000 due
to implementation issues at the Washington State Department of Licensing.
The net impact of these changes resulted in a 2010 Ending Cash Balance of ($680,000).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: General Fund Report For the month ending February 28, 2009
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/05/2009 01:12 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/05/2009 01:14 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/05/2009 01:16 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kathleen
Junglov
Started On: 03/05/2009 12:26
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/05/2009
Packet Page 36 of 63
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 4, 2009
To: Finance Committee
From: Kathleen Junglov, Finance Director
RE: General Fund Report For the month ending February 28, 2009
Attached you will find charts containing revenue collections and projections for the major General Fund
revenues with the exception of Property taxes. Significant revenue from Property taxes are receipted in March
and April, and October and November, therefore monthly forecasts are not prepared. The REET forecast has
also been included (page 4), however it is important to remember REET is receipted into a stand alone fund
and is not part of the General Fund.
As you can see, Sales tax receipts continue to decline. Based on this and the fact that the current economic
climate continues to deteriorate we have decided to reduce our forecast by another $500,000.
Following the charts (page 5), you will find our revised Strategic Outlook which includes three updates from
the forecast presented at the retreat.
1. Reduced the 2010 CPI estimate from 4.5% to 2%, increased 2010 Ending Cash by $500,000.
2. Reduced Sales tax revenue by $500,000 in 2009 and 2010, reducing 2010 Ending Cash by $1,000,000.
3. Reduced the 2009 estimated revenue from the Transportation Benefit District by $150,000 due to
implementation issues at the Washington State Department of Licensing.
The net impact of these changes resulted in a 2010 Ending Cash Balance of ($680,000).
We continue to monitor the Governor’s budget and the possibility of a decrease in pension contribution rates.
General Fund expenditures appear to be on target at 15.63% of budget.
City of Edmonds W Administrative Services
Packet Page 37 of 63
2009 BUDGET 5,369,949
Revised Forecast 4,633,386
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 8.00% 10.21% 6.97% 7.32% 8.84% 7.63% 8.02% 9.17% 8.11% 8.36% 9.32% 8.06%
Cumulative Forecast % 8.00% 18.21% 25.18% 32.50% 41.33% 48.96% 56.98% 66.15% 74.26% 82.62% 91.94% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 370,446 473,171 323,146 338,969 409,442 353,337 371,756 424,687 375,761 387,477 431,903 373,292
Cumulative Forecast $ 370,446 843,617 1,166,763 1,505,732 1,915,173 2,268,511 2,640,267 3,064,953 3,440,714 3,828,191 4,260,094 4,633,386
Actual Collected $ 339,676 435,279
Cumulative Collection $ 339,676 774,955
YEAR END FORECAST 4,248,532 4,256,274
Projected YE Variance (384,854) (377,112)
Budget Variance % -8.31% -8.14%
City of Edmonds
2009 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model
SALES AND USE TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Actual Budget
2009 BUDGET 902,000
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 13.90% 14.53% 13.40% 10.77% 9.33% 6.27% 4.81% 3.40% 3.24% 3.71% 6.34% 10.30%
Cumulative Forecast % 13.90% 28.43% 41.84% 52.61% 61.93% 68.21% 73.01% 76.41% 79.66% 83.36% 89.70% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 125,365 131,103 120,905 97,136 84,116 56,588 43,376 30,660 29,240 33,430 57,180 92,901
Cumulative Forecast $ 125,365 256,468 377,373 474,509 558,625 615,212 658,588 689,248 718,489 751,918 809,099 902,000
Actual Collected $ 125,589 151,001
Cumulative Collection $ 125,589 276,590
YEAR END FORECAST 903,614 972,770
Projected YE Variance 1,614 70,770
Budget Variance % 0.18% 7.85%
GAS UTILITY TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Actual Budget
General Fund Report for the Month Ending February, 2009 Page 2 of 5
Packet Page 38 of 63
2009 BUDGET 1,353,897
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 6.22% 7.65% 10.20% 7.90% 8.06% 6.65% 9.65% 7.68% 7.98% 10.20% 7.29% 10.51%
Cumulative Forecast % 6.22% 13.87% 24.07% 31.97% 40.03% 46.68% 56.33% 64.01% 71.99% 82.19% 89.49% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 84,266 103,515 138,066 107,023 109,081 90,006 130,655 103,973 108,092 138,155 98,763 142,303
Cumulative Forecast $ 84,266 187,781 325,847 432,870 541,951 631,957 762,612 866,584 974,676 1,112,831 1,211,594 1,353,897
Actual Collected $ 61,681 180,408
Cumulative Collection $ 61,681 242,089
YEAR END FORECAST 991,028 1,745,454
Projected YE Variance (362,869) 391,557
Budget Variance % -26.80% 28.92%
City of Edmonds
2009 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Actual Budget
2009 BUDGET 1,492,400
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 9.83% 11.94% 10.34% 10.69% 8.99% 7.78% 7.24% 6.28% 6.63% 5.78% 7.47% 7.03%
Cumulative Forecast % 9.83% 21.78% 32.11% 42.81% 51.80% 59.58% 66.82% 73.10% 79.73% 85.50% 92.97% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 146,716 178,264 154,276 159,586 134,207 116,112 108,076 93,685 98,902 86,233 111,441 104,902
Cumulative Forecast $ 146,716 324,980 479,256 638,842 773,049 889,161 997,238 1,090,923 1,189,825 1,276,058 1,387,498 1,492,400
Actual Collected $ 148,433 162,088
Cumulative Collection $ 148,433 310,521
YEAR END FORECAST 1,509,869 1,426,001
Projected YE Variance 17,469 (66,399)
Budget Variance % 1.17% -4.45%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
1,750,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Actual Budget
General Fund Report for the Month Ending February, 2009 Page 3 of 5
Packet Page 39 of 63
2009 BUDGET 750,000
TOTAL
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Monthly Forecast % 7.12% 5.85% 8.32% 8.50% 7.87% 11.20% 10.73% 8.55% 10.12% 7.03% 8.35% 6.36%
Cumulative Forecast % 7.12% 12.97% 21.30% 29.80% 37.67% 48.86% 59.59% 68.14% 78.26% 85.29% 93.64% 100.00%
Monthly Forecast $ 53,422 43,876 62,426 63,744 59,053 83,966 80,471 64,093 75,875 52,757 62,643 47,675
Cumulative Forecast $ 53,422 97,298 159,723 223,468 282,521 366,487 446,958 511,051 586,925 639,682 702,325 750,000
Actual Collected $ 33,425 13,822
Cumulative Collection $ 33,425 47,247
YEAR END FORECAST 469,257 364,191
Projected YE Variance (280,743) (385,809)
Budget Variance % -37.43% -51.44%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX
City of Edmonds
2009 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model
2009 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Actual Budget
General Fund Report for the Month Ending February, 2009 Page 4 of 5
Packet Page 40 of 63
Executive Summary - Current Forecast
5-Mar-09 City of Edmonds: Strategic Outlook
2008 2008 Actual 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
RESOURCES Outlook @ 1/28/09 Budget Outlook Budget Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook
Beginning Fund Balance 3,641,250 3,641,250 977,951 1,341,971 1,273,265 250,724 (680,411) (2,171,350) (4,294,170) (7,057,494)
Property Tax 12,318,023 12,285,719 13,930,174 13,930,174 14,160,062 14,079,066 14,279,073 14,473,588 14,713,748 14,963,827
Sales Tax 5,872,412 5,695,365 6,035,849 4,799,287 6,185,850 4,799,287 5,159,260 5,403,302 5,663,114 5,940,101
Utility Tax 4,585,756 4,711,822 5,102,314 5,102,314 5,225,311 5,225,311 5,366,766 5,512,676 5,663,207 5,818,531
Other Taxes 297,400 314,639 297,500 297,500 297,500 297,500 302,900 308,403 314,009 319,723
Licenses/Permits/Franchise 823,565 879,743 1,389,943 1,389,943 1,417,437 1,417,437 1,452,873 1,489,195 1,526,425 1,564,585
Construction Permits 695,000 675,820 707,000 707,000 689,767 689,767 655,278 622,514 591,389 561,819
Grants 30,680 46,245 11,144 11,144 4,644 4,644 - - - -
State Revenues 702,110 709,947 745,942 745,942 752,426 752,427 744,793 752,286 759,911 767,671
Intergov't Service Charges 973,496 1,046,064 1,323,320 1,323,320 1,356,705 1,356,705 1,398,224 1,441,123 1,485,452 1,531,265
Interfund Service Charges 1,242,448 1,187,717 1,322,009 1,322,009 1,355,059 1,355,059 1,388,936 1,423,659 1,459,251 1,495,732
Chgs. for Goods & Services 1,761,747 1,775,112 2,778,154 2,628,154 3,200,194 3,200,194 3,232,801 3,268,594 3,307,533 3,349,584
Fines & Forfeits 525,050 593,122 592,500 592,500 640,300 640,300 656,308 672,715 689,533 706,771
Misc Revenues 659,167 671,526 580,193 580,193 521,276 521,276 519,096 523,424 531,141 540,692
Annual Revenues 30,486,854 30,592,841 34,816,042 33,429,480 35,806,531 34,338,972 35,156,308 35,891,479 36,704,713 37,560,301
Annual Revenue Growth 2.7% 2.4% 2.1% 2.3% 2.3%
Resources 34,128,104 34,234,091 35,793,993 34,771,452 37,079,796 34,589,696 34,475,897 33,720,130 32,410,543 30,502,807
2008 2008 Actual 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Expenses by Function Outlook @ 1/28/09 Budget Outlook Budget Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook
Labor 22,775,243 22,641,730 23,962,708 23,962,708 25,023,721 24,525,020 25,549,410 26,587,977 27,715,738 28,909,335
Supplies 726,174 649,907 706,890 706,890 703,966 703,966 721,565 739,604 758,094 777,047
Services 3,890,765 3,856,224 3,839,886 3,839,886 3,854,755 3,854,755 3,986,945 4,125,840 4,271,938 4,425,783
Intergov't 1,813,968 1,788,660 2,038,555 2,038,555 2,094,083 2,094,083 2,172,724 2,254,645 2,339,994 2,428,926
Capital 78,000 45,295 40,000 40,000 30,000 30,000 30,750 31,519 32,307 33,114
Debt Service 1,393,921 1,393,924 1,415,817 1,415,817 1,423,951 1,423,951 1,429,439 1,445,956 1,446,922 1,475,975
Transfers 1,417,786 1,414,034 1,396,111 1,396,111 1,486,970 1,486,970 1,576,267 1,619,110 1,663,153 1,738,429
Interfund 1,054,296 1,102,346 1,120,761 1,120,761 1,151,362 1,151,362 1,180,146 1,209,650 1,239,891 1,270,888
Total Expenses 33,150,153 32,892,120 34,520,728 34,520,728 35,768,808 35,270,107 36,647,247 38,014,300 39,468,037 41,059,498
Expense Growth 2.2% 3.9% 3.7% 3.8% 4.0%
2008 2008 Actual 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Outlook @ 1/28/09 Budget Outlook Budget Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook
Current Resources 30,486,854 30,592,841 34,816,042 33,429,480 35,806,531 34,338,972 35,156,308 35,891,479 36,704,713 37,560,301
Total Expenses 33,150,153 32,892,120 34,520,728 34,520,728 35,768,808 35,270,107 36,647,247 38,014,300 39,468,037 41,059,498
Annual Balance (2,663,299) (2,299,279) 295,314 (1,091,248) 37,723 (931,135) (1,490,938) (2,122,821) (2,763,324) (3,499,196)
Ending Fund Balance 977,951 1,341,971 1,273,265 250,724 1,310,988 (680,411) (2,171,350) (4,294,170) (7,057,494) (10,556,691)
- - 0 - - - - - -
Target Ending Fund Balance 2,762,513 2,741,010 2,876,727 2,876,727 2,980,734 2,939,176 3,053,937 3,167,858 3,289,003 3,421,625
Updates made since passage of 2009-2010 Budget that are included in Current Forecast:
2/6/2009
(1) 2008 Ending Cash Balance updated to reflect preliminary 2008 actual results.
Approximately $110,000 in additional revenue, and additional $250,000 of underexpenditures.
(2) Sales Tax Revenue forecast reduced by $736,000 in 2009 and $886,000 in 2010.
3/2/2009
(3) Reduced 2010 CPI estimate from 4.5% to 2% - Labor only.
(4) Further reduced sales tax forecast $500,000 in both 2009 & 2010.
(5) Reduced TBD revenue due to DOL implementation issues.
General Fund Report for the Month Ending February, 2009 Page 5 of 5
Packet Page 41 of 63
AM-2137 3.A.
Final Status Report on 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan, Update #4
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/10/2009
Submitted By:Tom Tomberg, Fire Time:15 Minutes
Department:Fire Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Final status report on 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Place on the City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. Upon Council
approval, post on Fire Department website.
Previous Council Action
Council approved the 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan (initial biennial plan) on November
28, 2006. Update #1 was presented on June 12, 2007, Update #2 on March 4, 2008, and Update #3
on October 21, 2008.
Narrative
Providing the final status report on the Council-approved 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan
to the Public Safety Committee and the Council meets the intent of the City of Edmonds Strategic
Plan II. Council Public Policy Statement, Objective D. Develop Public Safety Work Plans, Tasks 1
- 4.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2007-2008 EFD Work Plan Update #4
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/04/2009 11:19 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/04/2009 11:20 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2009 03:31 PM APRV
Form Started By: Tom
Tomberg
Started On: 03/04/2009 10:14
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2009
Packet Page 42 of 63
EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
Date: March 10, 2009
To: Public Safety Committee
From: Thomas J. Tomberg, Fire Chief
Subject: 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan Update #4, Final
Below is the Final 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan Update (4th of 4). Providing this
status report on the Council-approved 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan to the Public
Safety Committee on March 10, 2009 meets the intent of the City of Edmonds Strategic Plan
II. Council Public Policy Statement, Objective D. Develop Public Work Plans, Tasks 1 – 4.
The most current, and final, status on the 2007-2008 plan items appears in bold and is
marked #4.
ADMINISTRATION
1. Inculcate the workplace safety ethic into every aspect of Department operations.
#1. Over the past several years the fire service has become increasingly alarmed about
Firefighter deaths and injuries. Edmonds has integrated a number of safety
programs described in the Series 600 Safety Standard Operating Procedure into
Department operations including a brief “Tailboard” review of a safety topic at the
beginning of each shift, a Near-Miss Reporting System, annual participation in the
international Firefighter and EMS “Safety Stand Down,” holding members
accountable for safe work practices, and a formal accident review process.
#2. Safety continues to be a major Department focus when engaged in routine
activities, during training, and/or on the emergency ground.
#3. The Department continues to study and implement safety procedures and programs
from a list of required written programs that include:
x Accident Prevention Program per WAC 296-305-01509(12)(b). Done - SOP 600
Health and Safety.
x Safety Committee per WAC 296-305-01505(4). Done - SOP 600.01.
x Lock Out / Tag Out Program per WAC 296-24-110. Done - SOP 605.02.
x Emergency Responses, Notification, Evacuation, Training Programs per WAC
296-800-310, 296-24-550, 296-24-567. Numerous Department SOPs address
these subjects.
x Hazard Communication Program per SOP 296-305-01505(3)(a)(v).
x Program requirements re wearing respiratory protection on the job per WAC
296-305-04001(4) is under development.
OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF
Packet Page 43 of 63
x Program to protect employees from occupational exposure to bloodborne
pathogens per WAC 296-305-02501, 296-62-08001. Done - SOP 604.02 and
SOP 606.02.
x Hearing Conservation Program per WAC 296-305-02005, 296-62-09015 is
under development.
#4 Safety program research, implementation, and integration of best practices
continues:
x Instituted Eye Protection (SOP 604.02) program.
x Instituted Gross Decontamination at Fire (SOP 604.03) program.
x Near-Miss Program comments are fully integrated into the Department’s
Post-Incident Analysis (SOP 101.02).
x Incident Safety Officer comments are fully integrated into the
Department’s Post-Incident Analysis (SOP 101.02).
x Transition Safety Survey (SOP 605.04) now under EFD heading, two-sided,
and on waterproof paper.
x Program requirements regarding wearing respiratory protection on the job
per WAC 296-305-04001(4) (SOP 604.01 Respiratory Protection Program).
x Hearing Conservation Program per WAC 296-305-02005, 296-62-09015
continues under development.
x Study feasibility of installing restraining systems in enclosed crew and
patient spaces where dislodged equipment could cause injury.
x Study feasibility of acquiring removable traction footwear for use under
ice and snow conditions. New emphasis in this area after 2008-2009 winter
snow and ice events refocused Department attention.
2. Conclude a new collective labor agreement with IAFF Union Local 1828.
#1. Negotiations are expected to begin in mid-2007. The current CLA expires on
December 31, 2007.
#2. IAFF Union Local #1828 approved a new collective labor agreement on January 29.
Council approved the 2008-2010 agreement on February 5.
#3. Nothing new to report.
#4. Negotiated Mandatory Physical Fitness Program (SOP 503.01) with IAFF
Union Local 1828 effective January 1, 2009.
3. Improve the Washington State Rating Bureau rating of the City from Class 4 to Class 2
over time and within budget.
#1. Improving the City’s fire defense rating from a 4 to a 2 is a long term goal pursued
incrementally over time through the regular budget process. The WSRB last
evaluated Edmonds in 1990.
#2. Fire Administration continues to look for opportunities to improve in areas judged
deficient by WSRB raters; however, financial and staffing constraints preclude any
significant progress in the near term.
2
Packet Page 44 of 63
#3. The Department is meeting with Public Works personnel to discuss procedures for
purchasing and installing fire hydrants throughout the City. Additional stakeholders
are the Olympic View Water District, developers and individual property owners.
Improvements to the emergency water delivery system reduces the number of
Washington State Rating Bureau deficiency points and improves the fire protection
rating of the City which in turn could lead to a reduction in fire insurance premiums
paid by residential property owners and some commercial property owners.
#4. A Decision Package has been submitted to the Mayor and Council requesting
authorization to purchase fire hydrants out of the General Fund for
installation at City locations under a draft policy submitted by the Fire
Department.
4. Review business practices with the Mayor, Directors, and Fire Staff with the intent of
reducing General Fund expenditures by 2009.
#1. The Mayor has scheduled individual department presentations at Director’s
Meetings through October 2007 aimed at reducing General Fund operating costs
and running an efficient and effective local government.
#2. Fire Administration made their department presentation on July 30, 2007. The
financial challenges each department faces were included in the packet at the
February 1-2 Council Retreat.
#3. Fire Administration proposed three initiatives to reduce financial pressure on the
General Fund:
(1) adopt EMS Transport User Fees in 2009.
(2) renegotiate the Esperance fire/EMS service contract with Snohomish County
Fire Protection District #1 effective 2009.
(3) participate in a Southwest Snohomish County consultant study on
establishment of a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority.
#4. Of the initiatives proposed by Fire Administration to reduce financial pressure
on the General Fund (regular property tax), the status is:
(1) EMS Transport User Fees implemented January 1, 2009.
(2) Esperance Fire/EMS service contract with Snohomish County Fire
Protection District #1 continues in negotiation.
(3) The Regional Fire Protection Service Authority group consisting of
representatives from Brier, Edmonds, Fire District 1, Lynnwood,
Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, and Woodway has held one meeting.
(4) The Woodway Fire/EMS service contract was increased by $22,953 to
$360,497.
3
Packet Page 45 of 63
5. Implement the City of Edmonds Substitute House Bill 1756 Compliance Plan.
#1. The plan was approved by Council on November 28, 2006. The first 1756
compliance report based on 2006 response data is scheduled for presentation to
the Public Safety Committee on June 12, 2007.
#2. Completed. See above paragraph.
#3. Council approved the 2007 Substitute House Bill Compliance Plan report on July
15, 2008.
#4. Nothing new to report.
6. Educate and inform the public on the emergency medical services levy.
#1. At the March 2007 retreat, Council decided to run the EMS levy no sooner than
2008.
#2. Although subject to change, at the February 2008 Retreat, Council expressed their
unofficial preference to run the EMS levy lid lift on April 22, 2008.
#3. On May 20, 2008, Edmonds citizens voted to lift the lid on the permanent EMS levy
with a vote of 74.68% (7,851) for and 25.32% (2,662) against out of 10,513 ballots
cast. The EMS levy is expected to generate 3.856 million dollars in 2009. In 2008,
the levy generated 2.4 million dollars.
#4. Nothing new to report.
7. Review alternate funding sources for Department operations.
#1. The Department keeps an inventory of alternate funding sources, for example, EMS
transport fees, charging for false alarms, and an annual benefit charge. As directed,
Fire Staff is prepared to analyze and report on alternate funding sources.
#2. At the February 2008 Retreat, Council directed Fire Administration to bring forward
more information including potential models for an EMS transport billing system that
would only bill insurance carriers.
#3. Fire Administration proposed initiatives to reduce financial pressure on the General
Fund:
(1) Adopt EMS Transport User Fees in 2009
(2) Renegotiate the Esperance fire/EMS service contract with Snohomish County
Fire Protection District #1 in 2008, effective 2009
(3) Participate in a Southwest Snohomish County consultant study on
establishment of a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority.
#4. Of the initiatives proposed by Fire Administration to reduce financial pressure
on the General Fund (regular property tax), the status is:
(1) EMS Transport User Fees implemented January 1, 2009.
(2) Esperance Fire/EMS service contract with Snohomish County Fire
Protection District #1 continues in negotiation.
4
Packet Page 46 of 63
(3) The Regional Fire Protection Service Authority group consisting of
representatives from Brier, Edmonds, Fire District 1, Lynnwood,
Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, and Woodway has held one meeting.
(4) The Woodway Fire/EMS service contract was increased by $22,953 to
$360,497.
8. Align the annual work plans of the Fire Chief, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal, Battalion
Chiefs, and Executive Assistant with the Mayor’s annual goals and objectives, and
policies that emerge from the annual Council Retreat, and majority policy directives
received from elected officials through the Mayor.
#1. The Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal, Battalion Chiefs, and Executive Assistant have
annual written work plans aligned as described above. The individual work plans
are part of each employee’s annual performance evaluation.
#2. See above paragraph.
#3. Nothing new to report.
#4. Nothing new to report.
9. Align the Fire Work Plan with other City departments and pertinent outside agency work
plans.
#1. The two-year Fire Work Plan is built with an understanding of pertinent outside
agency work plans.
#2. See above paragraph.
#3. Nothing new to report.
#4. Nothing new to report.
10. Work with the Mayor, Council, and Directors on city-wide environmental stewardship and
energy conservation issues.
#1. The Department is working with Public Works Facilities and Fleet Maintenance to
implement city-wide environmental stewardship and energy conservation issues.
The Department instituted a battery recycle system in 2005, and is investigating
opportunities to acquire a hybrid staff vehicle through the regular replacement
program.
#2. Above efforts continuing. The Department expects to participate in new City-wide
initiatives as they are presented.
#3. Under the leadership of Battalion Chief Don White and Firefighters Dean Warren
and David Stevens a Department-wide Conservation Program is under development
to begin in 2009. Goals include:
(1) Reduce the use of consumable products.
(2) Reduce annual utility and service costs at each Fire Station by 20 percent.
(3) Reduce annual vehicle fuel costs by 15 percent.
5
Packet Page 47 of 63
(4) Increase participation in recycling.
The Conservation Committee will meet with Facilities Manager Jim Stevens on October
21 to discuss the Energy Star Partners Program to learn how Fire can specifically fit into
the program.
#4. Process identified by Conservation Committee in original proposal, currently
in Step 5. Implementation of the project is proceeding in the following
manner:
(1) Submitted program overview to C-Shift Battalion Chief; review and
submit proposal to Fire Administration – Done.
(2) Conservation Committee meets to discuss program in detail – Done.
(3) Conservation Committee meets with Public Works to discuss program
goals and how PW can assist – Done.
(4) Review historical costs associated in each program area, approximately
12-24 month data history – Done.
(5) Evaluate each facility and review applicable operational procedures.
Prepare a reduction plan for each area based on the findings – in
progress.
(6) Submit reduction plans and recommend updates/changes needed to
include associated costs.
(7) Provide education to employees regarding overall plan, intended benefits,
and how each employee can participate.
(8) Perform program evaluations and provide progress reports to Battalion
Chief.
11. Work with the Snohomish County law enforcement and fire consortium to implement a
wireless network.
#1. As the contact, AC Correira receives regular updates on the progress of the county-
wide wi-fi initiative.
#2. The Public Safety Technology Committee (PSTC) has been reconstituted into a
county-wide organization and has taken on responsibility for steering the wireless
project. SNOCOM Director Steve Perry chairs the PSTC.
#3. Work is continuing. If the City institutes EMS Transport User Fees in 2009,
computer tablets and paperless reporting will be the method of documenting all
emergency incidents.
#4. A Decision Package has been submitted to the Mayor and Council to acquire
the computer hardware and software to implement the paperless reporting
system. NOTE: Snohomish County EMS has issued a RFQ for a county-wide
system.
12. Review the Civil Service Commission hiring/promotional requirements for Assistant Fire
Chief and Fire Marshal.
#1, #2, #3. Nothing to report.
6
Packet Page 48 of 63
#4. The Fire Marshal has been recalled to active duty by the US Navy for
the second time since 9-11. His expected return to duty date is March 2010.
13. Review the annual Performance Appraisal form.
#1. Battalion Chief Doug Dahl developed draft changes and lead the discussion on the
new department performance appraisal system at the April 17 Officer’s Meeting.
The new appraisal system is out for intra-Departmental review and comment and
will be implemented July 1.
#2. The new performance appraisal system was implemented July 1. Some minor
modifications are under discussion.
#3. SOP 501.08 Performance Appraisal has been updated several times since mid-
summer. With the cooperation of IAFF Union Local 1828, the annual appraisal form
dimensions have been incorporated into the new Peer Review component of
promotional assessment centers.
#4. Nothing new to report.
14. Continue working towards a paperless office.
#1. The Fire Chief, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal, four Battalion Chiefs, and the
Executive Assistant met with Chief Information Officer Carl Nelson to review
Department needs and City paperless and electronic initiatives on April 12. The
energy, interest, and ideas were interesting, funding best practices and technology
upgrades will be challenging.
#2. Discussions are ongoing with Administrative Services and Information Technology
personnel.
#3. See the #3 response to items 10 and 11 above. Paperwork reduction is implicitly
part of the Conservation Program referenced in 10. above. To date steps have been
taken to transmit and store documents electronically where feasible and reduce the
use of paper in the following areas:
x Performance appraisal process
x Accidents reports
x Dailey Time Report
x Vacation forms
x Shift Trade forms
x On-line storage of SCBA forms
#4. Ongoing.
15. Actively seek out grant opportunities.
#1A. The Department submitted a $111,000 F.I.R.E. Act Grant to replace turnout boots,
turnout pants, suspenders, turnout coat, gloves, helmet and hood.
#2A. The Department was unsuccessful in this grant request.
#3A. Nothing new to report.
7
Packet Page 49 of 63
#4A. The Department has been unsuccessful in pursuing grants to acquire
replacements for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)–turnout coats and
pants.
#1B. AC Correira has applied for a $1,500 Injury Prevention Grant as a representative
from the North Region EMS (Snohomish, Island, Skagit, Whatcom, and San Juan
counties) with a focus on elderly fall prevention (See #22). Stevens Hospital and
the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department have been invited to partner in the
endeavor.
#2B. The grant was awarded and the Public Safety Committee will receive a
presentation on Edmonds Stay In-Step, Guide to Maintaining Your Quality of Life at
the February 12 meeting.
#3B. A Stay in Step Fall-Prevention, Steps You Can Take brochure was developed and
made available for distribution throughout the City in hard copy and on the Fire
Department and City web. The Department has submitted articles on falls
prevention to the print media and information appears on the Fire Department
website. On September 23, Assistant Chief Mark Correira participated in a Falls
Prevention Symposium sponsored by North Region EMS.
#4B. Nothing new to report.
OPERATIONS AND TRAINING
16. Place the public safety boat in service.
#1. The Public Safety Boat / Marine 16 / Charles W. Cain was placed in service on
May 1, 2007. Missions include EMS, fire suppression, hazardous materials
response, technical rescue, command and control, and Police Dive Team support.
The boat was formally commissioned on June 2.
#2. Both public safety departments anticipate active deployment of the vessel when
the 2008 boating season begins.
#3. The public safety boat has been deployed as required to date.
#4. Nothing new to report.
17. Study acquiring access to or construction of a local training facility that allows on-duty
crews to remain in the immediate area. Consider existing facilities, a new facility,
multidisciplinary use, scope, costs, location, and political feasibility.
#1. An internal Department committee continues to meet in an effort to determine the
most cost-effective way to provide training that does not require, or minimizes the
need for, on-duty units to be placed out of service. As emergency call volume
increases, it becomes more and more challenging to deliver training on duty.
8
Packet Page 50 of 63
#2. The committee continues to meet but the costs for a local facility are daunting and
suitable land scarce.
#3. Property adjacent to Fire Station 16 came up for sale to the City under a previously
negotiated right of first refusal. A City purchase offer was subsequently refused and
no counter offer has been forthcoming. The City has asked the principle to make a
counter offer or to present an offer from a qualified buyer so the City can consider
its options. The site offers many options to include a site for Fire Administration, a
non-burning training facility, both uses, or for resale if a more appropriate site
becomes available. Fire Administration is the only department administration in the
City whose leadership is not located in a building where it can readily see,
communicate, and interact with the employees it is expected to lead, supervise, and
manage.
#4 The parties responsible for disposition of the property adjacent to Fire Station
16 have been asked to advise the City when a bonafide offer to purchase has
been received so the City can determine whether to exercise its right of first
refusal. In this uncertain environment, a Decision Package has been
submitted to the Mayor and Council to acquire the property.
18. Identify future staffing and apparatus needs to keep pace with call volume increases and
community demographics.
#1. The Department has long sought to bring the 8 to 5 staff up to the 7.5 positions as
recommended by the Council-commissioned Ewing & Company Study published in
1997. The Department currently has six daytime staff. The EMS levy offers the best
opportunity to address this deficiency. Farther out, the Edmonds demographic will
require additional EMS capability both in on-duty shift personnel and additional
vehicles (See #24).
#2. Council has determined to hold an EMS levy lid lift in 2008. In preparing the 2009-
2010 biennial budget, the Department will seek a combined Fire Inspector – Public
Educator position for the Fire Prevention Division who had three personnel in 1985,
lost one employee and have not added additional personnel for 26 years.
#3. Fire Administration elected not to pursue the Fire Inspector – Public Educator
position due to the lack of space in Fire Administration, the challenging financial
times, the potential for property acquisition and the construction of a Fire
Administration building, and the possibility of future regionalization.
#4. Based on the current levy lid lift scenario discussed at the February 6 City
Council Retreat, Fire Administration has submitted a Decision Package to the
Mayor and Council to bring Daytime staffing levels to seven personnel, .5
below the level recommended by the Council-commissioned 1997 Ewing &
Company study.
19. Plan for two retirements that create two promotional opportunities at both the battalion
and company officer levels.
9
Packet Page 51 of 63
#1. One of the two retirements announced for 2008 was unexpectedly accelerated to
December 2006. One Battalion Chief and one Lieutenant were promoted to fill the
vacancies. Both the Battalion Chief and Lieutenant eligibility lists were extended by
the Civil Service Commission to April 5, 2008.
#2. In addition to the planned vacancies discussed above, 2007-2008 unplanned
departures included a Firefighter/Paramedic and Firefighter. In 2008, another
Battalion Chief, and one Firefighter/Paramedic have announced plans to retire.
#3. Nothing new to report.
#4. Nothing new to report.
20. Finalize the career development plan for interested employees.
#1, #2, and #3. Soon to be under development.
#4. Currently in development. The plan will require modification to the Acting
Company Officer Certification Program (SOP 301.02) and Acting Battalion
Chief Certification Program (SOP 301.03), and integrating the Lieutenant and
Battalion Chief promotional testing requirements already negotiated by the
City and IAFF Union Local 1828 (MOU, 2-21-06).
21. Implement a new computer-based training records management system.
#1. Computer-based, RMS training plan has been implemented and is in the feedback
stage.
#2. Nothing new to report.
#3. The computer-based training records system is fully implemented.
#4. Nothing new to report.
10
Packet Page 52 of 63
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
22. Study the opportunities for targeting specific demographic groups with public
education programs that reduce their use of the EMS system, for example,
address fall hazards for the elderly population.
#1. AC Correira has applied for a $1,500 Injury Prevention Grant from North Region
EMS (Snohomish, Island, Skagit, Whatcom, and San Juan counties) with a focus on
elderly fall prevention. (See #15).
#2. See #15 above.
#3. A Stay in Step Fall-Prevention, Steps You Can Take brochure was developed and
made available for distribution throughout the City in hard copy and on the Fire
Department and City web. The Department has submitted articles on falls
prevention to the print media and information appears on the Fire Department
website. On September 23, Assistant Chief Mark Correira participated in a Falls
Prevention Symposium sponsored by North Region EMS.
#4. Nothing new to report.
23. Work with Snohomish County Public Health Department to prepare for an influenza
pandemic (bird flu), as required.
#1. The Snohomish County bird flu plan remains under development by the Snohomish
County Health Care Pan Flu Planning Task Force. Fire Staff provided an April 24
update on task force progress to the Mayor, Directors, Fire Group, and SNOCOM.
#2. The Snohomish County Health Care Response to Pandemic Influenza was
published in November 2007. Assistant Chief Correira represented EMS on the
Committee.
#3. Nothing new to report.
#4. Nothing new to report.
FIRE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
24. Add one staff person to the Fire Prevention Division to perform fire inspector and public
educator duties. Address vehicle and space needs.
#1. When Council decided to move the EMS levy lid lift back to 2008, this opportunity
was postponed (See #18).
#2. See #18 above.
#3. Fire Administration elected not to pursue the Fire Inspector – Public Educator
position due to the lack of space in Fire Administration, the challenging financial
times, the potential for property acquisition and the construction of a Fire
Administration building, and the possibility of future regionalization.
11
Packet Page 53 of 63
12
#4. Based on the current levy lid lift scenario discussed at the February 6 City
Council Retreat, Fire Administration has submitted a Decision Package to the
Mayor and Council to bring Daytime staffing levels to seven personnel, .5
below the level recommended by the Council-commissioned 1997 Ewing &
Company study.
25. Develop a succession plan for the Fire Inspector position.
#1, #2, #3, #4. Nothing to report.
26. Work with City, Port of Edmonds, and State staff to ensure the Edmonds Crossing
Project and/or waterfront development provides unimpeded vehicle access to the west
side of the BNSF railroad tracks.
#1. Fire Staff keeps in regular contact with Community Services Director
Stephen Clifton who assures the Department that public safety access to the
Edmonds Crossing project overhead access to and from the ferry, and west of the
railroad tracks when a train is blocking will be addressed.
#2. On November 30, 2007 the Mayor and Director Clifton invited Department
representatives to meet with WSF staff designing the project. This meeting is yet to
occur.
#3. Nothing new to report other than tough economic times have rendered this project
precarious.
#4. Nothing new to report other than from a financial standpoint, the times are
bleaker now than they have been for many years.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Place on the City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. Upon
Council approval, post on the Fire Department website. Providing the final status
report on the Council-approved 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan to the Public
Safety Committee meets the intent of the City of Edmonds Strategic Plan II. Council
Public Policy Statement, Objective D. Develop Public Work Plans, Tasks 1 – 4.
Packet Page 54 of 63
AM-2138 3.B.
Draft 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/10/2009
Submitted By:Tom Tomberg, Fire Time:15 Minutes
Department:Fire Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Draft 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Forward the 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan to the Council Consent Agenda with a
recommendation to approve. Upon Council approval, post on the Fire Department website, and
update City Strategic Plan II Council Public Safety Policy Statement, Objective D. Tasks 1 - 4.
Previous Council Action
Council approved the initial work plan, the 2007-2008 Fire Department Work Plan, on November
28, 2006 under the auspices of City of Edmonds Strategic Plan II Council Public Safety Policy
Statement, Objective D. Tasks 1 - 4.
Narrative
The 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan is for the second biennium under City of Edmonds
Strategic Plan II Council Public Safety Statement, Objective D. Tasks 1 - 4.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Draft 2009-2010 EFD Work Plan
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/04/2009 11:19 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/04/2009 11:20 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/04/2009 03:31 PM APRV
Form Started By: Tom
Tomberg
Started On: 03/04/2009 10:50
AM
Final Approval Date: 03/04/2009
Packet Page 55 of 63
EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
Date: March 10, 2009
To: Public Safety Committee
From: Thomas J. Tomberg, Fire Chief
Subject: 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan Draft
Previous Council Action:
Council discussed the City Strategic Plan at the March 2006 Retreat. On June 27, 2006,
Council approved adding to the plan Policy Objective II. Council Public Safety Statement
with five objectives, one of which, Objective D. Develop Public Safety Plans has four
tasks, four deliverables, due dates, and assigned team responsibilities.
After a November 14, 2006 presentation, the Public Safety Committee directed Fire Staff
to place the initial Fire Department Work Plan (2007-2008) on the Council consent
agenda with a recommendation to approve. Council approved the initial Work Plan on
November 28, 2006.
Narrative:
The attached plan is the second biennial Work Plan, required by the City Strategic Plan
Objective II. D. 1-4.
Attachment:
2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan Update Draft.
Administration
1. Align the annual work plans of the Fire Chief, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal,
Battalion Chiefs, and Executive Assistant with the Mayor’s annual goals and
objectives, policies that emerge from the annual Council Retreat, and majority
policy directives received from elected officials through the Mayor.
2. Align the Fire Work Plan with other City departments and pertinent outside
agency work plans.
3. Inculcate the workplace safety ethic into every aspect of Department operations.
Complete list of outstanding safety programs in Department standard operating
procedure format.
OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF
Packet Page 56 of 63
4. Develop and distribute a Fire Department Customer Service Survey. Evaluate
responses and implement changes to improve Department operations as
appropriate.
5. Complete negotiations with Snohomish County Fire District 1 on a new contract
to provide Fire/EMS services to Esperance.
6. Provide internal and external stakeholders with information about Council-
approved initiative(s) that will improve and/or stabilize the City’s long-term
financial future to include a levy lid lift, internal city reorganization,
regionalization, consolidation, elimination, or others means yet to be determined.
7. Acquire a site to construct a Fire Administration building consistent with City
Council intent when the voters passed the 1996 Public Safety Bond. Located on
the third floor of City Hall since 1997, Fire Administration is the only City
department administration not located with the primary group of employees it
leads and manages.
8. Work with the Mayor, Council, Directors, and appropriate outside others on city-
wide environmental stewardship and energy conservation issues through the Fire
Department Conservation Program Committee.
9. Through City and fire service channels, advise lobbyists and industry
spokespersons on legislation that improves the City’s financial condition and Fire
Department employees’ health and safety, respectively.
10. Perform an internal evaluation and consult with the City Attorney on whether to
invite Washington Labor & Industries to conduct a Voluntary Protection Program
inspection of safety and health management inside the Department.
11. Implement the peer-driven and self-governing career development plan for
interested employees under International Fire Service Accreditation Congress
(IFSAC) auspices. Company Officers and acting Company Officers will certify as
Fire Officer I in Year One (2009) of the program; Battalion Chiefs and acting
Battalion Chiefs (Fire Officer II) will certify in Year Two (2010).
12. Work on the long-term plan to purchase a single, shared SNOCOM-SNOPAC
Computer-Aided Dispatch System (CAD).
13. Work on the long-term plan to purchase a single, shared SNOCOM-SNOPAC
Fire Records Management System (RMS).
14. Implement the Mandatory Physical Fitness Program (SOP 503.01).
15. Improve the City’s Washington State Rating Bureau rating, over time and within
budget, from Class 4 to Class 2.
16. Work with the Snohomish County law enforcement and fire consortium to
implement a wireless network.
2
Packet Page 57 of 63
17. Actively seek grant opportunities.
18. In 2010, negotiate a new collective labor agreement with IAFF Union Local 1828.
Operations and Training
19. Acquire Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for use in fire suppression
operations consistent with National Fire Protection Standard 1971, Standard on
Protective Ensembles for Structural Firefighting and Proximity Firefighting.
20. Replace the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) compressor that
provides breathing air for Firefighters wearing personal protective equipment and
a SCBA during interior fire suppression operations.
21. Replace fire hoses in three diameters – 4 inches, 2½ inches, and 1¾ inches and
three lengths – 100 feet, 50 feet, and 25 feet.
22. Acquire sufficient tools and equipment to equip Engine 20 and Ladder 20 the
same, obviating the need to move equipment from one apparatus to the other.
The vehicles are cross-staffed by the same crew.
23. Develop a fund program to replace expensive individual or in aggregate tools and
equipment that exceed their useful life.
24. Work with Public Works to develop a fire hydrant acquisition program, and an
installation policy.
25. Acquire a training site that allows on-duty crews to remain in the City. See #7
above.
Emergency Medical Services
26. Acquire electronic Patient Care Reporting hardware and software as identified in
the EMS Transport User Fees White Paper presented to the Mayor and Council
on September 12, 2008.
27. Provide Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) equipment for the back-up vehicle.
28. Evaluate January 1, 2009 implementation of EMS Transport User Fees program.
Fire Prevention and Public Education
29. Add one staff person to the Fire Prevention Division to perform fire inspector and
public educator duties. Address vehicle and space needs. The Department has
long sought to bring the Daytime staff up to the 7.5 positions recommended by
the Council-commissioned Ewing & Company Study published in 1997. The
Department currently has six daytime staff.
3
Packet Page 58 of 63
30. Work with local Fire Marshals – Edmonds, Snohomish County Fire District 1,
Lynnwood, and Mukilteo – to establish safe and temporary Cold Weather
Shelters in area churches that comply with life and safety codes.
Recommended Action
Forward the 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan to the Council Consent Agenda with
a recommendation to approve. Approval by Council places the current work plan in the
City of Edmonds Strategic Plan II. Council Public Policy Statement, Objective D.
Develop Public Work Plans, Tasks 1 – 4. Status updates to the plan are submitted to
and approved by the Public Safety Committee. The initial plan and status updates are
posted on the Fire Department website (www.edmonsdsfire.org).
4
Packet Page 59 of 63
5
Packet Page 60 of 63
AM-2135 3.C.
City of Lynnwood: Prisoner Detention Agreement
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:03/10/2009
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon, Police Department Time:10 Minutes
Department:Police Department Type:Action
Committee:Public Safety
Information
Subject Title
Review of 2009 Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with City of Lynnwood.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
To be placed on the Consent Agenda authorizating the Mayor to sign the agreement.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The City of Lynnwood and the City of Edmonds originally signed a Prisoner Detention
Agreement in January 1998. The agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of our utilization
of Lynnwood jail services. Since that time, there have been several addenda to the agreement
regarding remuneration issues.
Lynnwood has presented us with an addendum (received February 27, 2009) essentially effective
January 1, 2009, covering our portion of the Whatcom County cooperative prisoner transport
service. Our share of the fee for 2009 is $13,979.33. Our fee for 2008 was $14,449.66.
Whatcom County provides daily prisoner transportation service along the I-5 corridor from
Bellingham to Seattle. The total costs of Whatcom County's NW Mini-chain are divided
proportionately among participating agencies based on the number of prisoners transported. This
is a "pass through" amount charged to Lynnwood and then billed to us by Lynnwood.
Funds are already allocated in the approved 2009-2010 budget in Police (general fund) prisoner
care.
All other terms and conditions of the Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of Lynnwood
remain unchanged.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2009 Prisoner Agreement
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
Packet Page 61 of 63
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/03/2009 02:51 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/03/2009 02:53 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/03/2009 03:40 PM APRV
Form Started By: Gerry
Gannon
Started On: 03/03/2009 01:00
PM
Final Approval Date: 03/03/2009
Packet Page 62 of 63
Packet Page 63 of 63