2010.02.09 CC Committee Meetings Agenda PacketAGENDA
City Council Committee Meetings
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
February 09, 2010
6:00 p.m.
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not
public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below.
1. Community/Development Services Committee
Meeting Room: Council Chambers
A. AM-2757
(15 Minutes)
Continued discussion on regulations concerning bikini barista stands.
B. AM-2790
(10 Minutes)
Discussion regarding changes to City Code 5.05.060, Dogs on Public Grounds.
C. AM-2800
(30 Minutes)
What can be made available to Council on appeal?
D. AM-2798
(15 Minutes)
Request from Historic Preservation Commission for waiver of certain fees related to historic
structures.
E. AM-2793
(30 Minutes)
Proposed Title 18 Code amendments to allow use of City right of way for bistro and outdoor
dining and placement of art in City right of way.
F. AM-2794
(15 Minutes)
Proposed policies for Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update.
G. AM-2756
(15 Minutes)
Continued discussion regarding the removal of colored street markings used locating utilities.
H. AM-2795
(15 Minutes)
Discussion on PRD setbacks.
I. AM-2796
(15 Minutes)
Discussion on Conditional Use Permits for home occupations.
2.Finance Committee
Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room
A. AM-2791
(10 Minutes)
Alderwood Water Supply Contract final review.
B. AM-2802
(15 Minutes)
Wireless internet rollout in Council Chambers.
C. AM-2792
(15 Minutes)
Funding proposal for the Building Maintenance Fund 116.
D. AM-2801
(15 Minutes)
Discussion and review of long-term difference between presentation in relation to the Fire
District 1 Contract in November of 2009 and finance update of January 25, 2010.
3.Public Safety Committee
Packet Page 1 of 89
3.Public Safety Committee
Meeting Room: Police Training Room
No items scheduled.
4.ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 89
AM-2757 1.A.
Continued Dscussion on Regulations Concerning Bikini Barista Stands
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilmember Dave Orvis Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Continued discussion on regulations concerning bikini barista stands.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
B. Regulations concerning bikini barista stands. (November 10, 2009 - Council Committee
Meeting) Councilmember Orvis noted the ordinance the City of Everett had recently passed
addressing this issue, and wondered whether Edmonds’ codes cover this same subject, or whether
any updates should be considered. Rob Chave said the ordinance had been forwarded to the City
Attorney’s office and they should be able to provide a review and any recommendations for
consideration at next month’s Committee meeting.
ACTION: Continue discussion at the December Committee meeting in order to obtain input from
the City Attorney.
A. Continued discussion on regulations concerning bikini barista stands. (December 8, 2009
Council Committee Meeting) Councilmember Orvis indicated this was a continuation of the
previous (November) meeting on this item. Bio Park provided a short summary of the city’s
existing regulations covering adult entertainment, which focuses on regulating conduct that would
be considered lewd or defined as
being covered under the adult entertainment definitions. Mr. Park felt the existing regulations
would also address any issues regarding behavior that would be associated with these new types
of businesses, but that there was not a dress code or equivalent regulation that would be applicable
so long as the behavior was not considered to be “adult entertainment.” Council member Orvis
asked that the specific actions taken by the City of Everett be reviewed to see if there was
something
‘missing’ from Edmonds’ codes.
ACTION: No action taken at this time; further discussion will be held at the Committee meeting
in January.
Narrative
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Packet Page 3 of 89
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 11:16 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 11:43 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 12:30 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 01/25/2010 03:10
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 4 of 89
AM-2790 1.B.
Discussion Regarding Changes to City Code 5.05.060 Dogs on Public Grounds
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:10 Minutes
Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding changes to City Code 5.05.060, Dogs on Public Grounds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Schedule a Public Hearing at an upcoming City Council Meeting regarding recommended changes
to the City Code 5.05.060 in regard to dogs on public grounds.
Previous Council Action
The subject of permitting on-leash dogs on the Sunset Overlook was discussed at the Community
Services / Development Services Committee on March 17, 2009.
Narrative
The current Edmonds City Code 5.05.060, Dogs on Public Grounds (attachment), designates parks
and areas within them as on or off-leash areas. Currently there are eight designated parks where
dogs are permitted. Seven of these require the dogs to be on-leash and at one, Marina Beach
South, dogs are permitted to be off-leash.
Staff recommends that three new areas be designated as permitted on-leash sites:
1. Sunset Overlook Park: the path and grassy strip that is west of Sunset Avenue. Citizens have
requested this change in the past to allow people to not only walk their dogs here but also to sit on
the numerous memorial benches along the overlook in the company of their canine companions.
2. Hickman Park Trails: during the lenghtly public input phase in advance of the construction of
Hickman Park, testimony indicated a strong desire to enable dog walking along the 3,500 feet of
paved and wooded paths of this new park. This is consistent with other City parks with pathways
(Sierra, Seaview, Yost, Pineridge, etc.).
3. New Park at 162nd Street: This overlook park will have a small interior trail and many benches
for resting and viewing. This park will be particularly attractive for people walking in the
neighborhood that will be connected via the new 76th Ave W/75th Pl W walkways to the new park
and on to Meadowdale Beach Park. The new walkways will enable a continuous off-street
walkway from Edmonds northern boundary to downtown Edmonds.
In addition it has been suggested that dogs be permitted on-leash on the paved paths of Brackett's
Landing North and South. Staff recommends that this not be allowed due to the safety, control,
and maintenance problems outlined in the attached "Dogs Memo Feb 2009".
Packet Page 5 of 89
and maintenance problems outlined in the attached "Dogs Memo Feb 2009".
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Dogs on public grounds ECC
Link: Dog Memo Feb 2009
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/03/2010 11:28 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 11:43 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 12:30 PM APRV
Form Started By: Brian
McIntosh
Started On: 02/02/2010 08:39
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 6 of 89
Packet Page 7 of 89
Packet Page 8 of 89
Packet Page 9 of 89
Packet Page 10 of 89
AM-2800 1.C.
What can be made available to Council on appeal?
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:Councilmember Dave Orvis Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
What can be made available to Council on appeal?
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Councilmember Orvis requested that this topic be placed on the agenda for discussion.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 02:23 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 02:44 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 03:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/04/2010 02:06
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 11 of 89
AM-2798 1.D.
Historic Preservation Commission Request for Waiver of Certain Fees / Historic
Structures
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:15 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Request from Historic Preservation Commission for waiver of certain fees related to historic
structures.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution for full Council consideration.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission has made the following request regarding
pre-application fees for historic buildings. Fees are adopted by Council resolution, and only the
City Council can provide waivers or modify fees established by resolution.
PERMIT FEES & MEETINGS FEES - The owners of historic structures on either the
National/State or local Edmonds register, when making substantial improvements, or adapting to
other uses (i.e. residential to commercial use) are charged fees when meeting with the Edmonds
Building Official and later such fees are applied to permits. This acts as a disincentive to the
improvement of these historic structures. The EHPC requests that these fees ($625 charge per
meeting with building officials), be waived for structures which are already on the National, State
or local register.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 12:36 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 12:51 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 01:55 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 02/04/2010 12:10
PM
Packet Page 12 of 89
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 13 of 89
AM-2793 1.E.
Proposed Title 18 Code Amendments
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Robert English Time:30 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Title 18 Code amendments to allow use of City right of way for bistro and outdoor
dining and placement of art in City right of way.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Discuss proposed amendments and determine schedule and process for presenting amendments to
the full council.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
In spring 2009, a local restaurant secured a street use permit to use public right of way adjacent to
their business for outdoor dining. The restaurant's proposal included fencing within the right of
way to create an exclusive dining area for its patrons. After the fencing was installed, the City
received several citizen complaints about lack of sidewalk clearance for pedestrian passage.
Because of citizen feedback and problems with sidewalk clearance, it was determined that more
specific guidelines should be developed to address similar applications in the future.
Staff will provide a copy of the draft ordinance and a redlined version of the code section at the
meeting. The administrative policy and draft fee resolution are attached. The administrative
policy will provide staff with guidelines on how to administer the proposed code amendments
and the resolution will establish a fee for use of public right of way.
Staff contacted several cities in the region to review existing code and policies related to this
issue. The amendments and guidelines were then developed and refined based on input from the
Community Services Director, City Engineer, Planning Manager, Building Official and the City
Attorney.
The proposed amendments to Title 18 also address the installation of art work within the public
right of way. The changes outline the application process, submittal requirements and provision to
have the proposed art work reviewed by the Edmonds Art Commission. The Edmonds Art
Commission would then provide a recommendation to the Community Services Director and City
Engineer for use and consideration in permit issuance.
This item is being presented for discussion, and staff is requesting direction from the Committee
on the proposed changes and the process for presenting this information to the full Council.
Packet Page 14 of 89
on the proposed changes and the process for presenting this information to the full Council.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Draft Resolution
Link: Draft Administrative Policy
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 02/04/2010 04:15 PM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 02/04/2010 04:40 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 04:55 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/05/2010 07:07 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/05/2010 07:57 AM APRV
Form Started By: Robert
English
Started On: 02/03/2010 04:49
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/05/2010
Packet Page 15 of 89
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING FEES FOR
STREET USE PERMITS.
WHEREAS, ECDC 18.70.050 establishes that application fees and the
compensation to be paid to the public for the use of public right of way shall be established by
resolution and that such resolutions are adopted in the sole legislative discretion of the City
Council of the City of Edmonds, and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the business development impact of
outdoor cafes and bistros, artwork and other temporary exclusive commercial uses of this public
right of way generally enhances the urban environment and provides for an active street scape
and street life in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan policies, and
WHEREAS, however, the City Council finds that the temporary exclusive
commercial use of the public right of way should result in appropriate compensation to the
public for such use, now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Pursuant to the authorization of ECDC 18.70.050, the following fees are
established for compensation to be paid for the temporary exclusive commercial use of public
rights of way.
1. The following Street Use Permit fees are hereby established for the temporary
exclusive commercial use of public rights of way:
A. A “right of way use fee” in the sum of $1.05 per square foot
per month and an amount of 12.84% leasehold excise tax on the
{WSS734588.DOC;1\00006.900000\} - 1 -
Packet Page 16 of 89
{WSS734588.DOC;1\00006.900000\} - 2 -
total monthly amount shall be paid to the City. Right of way use
fees shall be paid monthly on or before the first day of each month.
Failure to remit the use fee by the 15th day of each month may
result in the revocation of the Street Use Permit pursuant to ECDC
18.07.040 A(2)b.
B. A $30.00 annual administrative renewal fee shall be paid to
the City. Failure to remit the annual renewal fee by January 15th of
each respective year may result in the revocation of the Street Use
Permit pursuant to ECDC 18.07.040 A(2)b.
2. Such fees shall be effective for all applications and annual permit renewals
processed after the effective date of this resolution. The resolution shall be effective
immediately upon passage.
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2010.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 17 of 89
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
o
f
8
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
o
f
8
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
o
f
8
9
AM-2794 1.F.
Proposed Policies for Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Time:15 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Proposed policies for Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
None. Information only.
Previous Council Action
On December 16, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement
with Herrera Environmental Consultants for updating the City's Stormwater Comprehensive Plan
and Stormwater Management Program.
On February 24, 2009, Staff and the Consultant briefed the City Council on the upcoming update
to the Stormwater Management Program.
On June 9, 2009, Council was briefed on the Stormwater Code (ECDC 18.30) and the Illicit
Discharge Code (EMC 7.200).
Narrative
The Engineering Division is in the process of updating the 2003 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan.
The Stormwater Comprehensive Plan guides the City’s stormwater utility in three main areas:
1. Operation and maintenance of existing and future City-owned stormwater infrastructure.
2. Planning of stormwater capital improvement projects to reduce flooding and other
detrimental effects of excessive stormwater runoff such as water quality and aquatic habitat
degradation.
3. Form the basis for a rate structure for the utility to accomplish items 1 and 2 in a
cost-effective manner and in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
Over the past 7 years, since the last update of the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, there have
been changes to the scientific and regulatory approach to stormwater management, and capital
need has been identified. The policies that form the basis for the current comprehensive plan are in
the “Water Resources and Drainage Management” section of the “Land Use Element” of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 1). These policies were adopted by Ordinance 2527 in
1985. At that time the City had not formed a stormwater utility and, therefore, these policies were
not in the “Utilities Element” of the plan. The draft new proposed polices (Attachment 2) will
Packet Page 21 of 89
replace those currently in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and will be placed in the “Utilities
Element” of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment 2 presents draft goals and policies to guide the stormwater utility for approximately
the next 6 years. To reflect the intent of these new goals and policies, it is proposed that the title of
the plan be changed to “Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan” to emphasize the nexus
between stormwater runoff and its effects on surface waters in the City, such as Puget Sound,
Lake Ballinger, and the many creeks that flow though the City.
The goals are as follows:
• Goal A: Manage the storm and surface water system through a combination of the preservation
of natural systems and engineered solutions to:
- Provide for public safety
- Prevent property damage
- Protect water quality
- Preserve and enhance critical areas such as fish and wildlife habitat
- Maintain a hydrologic balance
- Promote sustainability
• Goal B: Preserve, protect and, where feasible, restore wetlands, shorelines, surface water, and
ground water for fish and wildlife, appropriate human use, and the maintenance of hydrological
and ecological processes.
• Goal C: Use education as a tool to increase protection of critical areas and understanding of
sustainability and other environmental values.
• Goal D: Provide adequate funding through an equitable stormwater utility rate structure and
outside funding sources to support the necessary programs under goals A, B, and C.
To achieve stated goals, program areas have been set up, each with their own guiding policies.
The program areas are:
1. Flood Protection
2. Water Quality
3. Aquatic Habitat
4. Stormwater Utility Funding
Stormwater utility fund policy SWUF-8, as proposed, would incorporate the cost of storm
drainage infrastructure for Council-approved transportation projects into the stormwater utility rate
structure. For planning purposes and stormwater rate analysis, a 15 percent share of the cost of all
transportation projects with significant storm drainage infrastructure would be funded though the
stormwater utility.
Next Steps:
Policies will form the basis for the new Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan. A draft
Plan is scheduled to be out for public comment in the second quarter of 2010.
Packet Page 22 of 89
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exerpt-Land Use Element of Comp Plan
Link: Draft Proposed Policies
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 02/04/2010 09:59 AM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 02/04/2010 11:16 AM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 11:36 AM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 11:43 AM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 12:30 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 02/04/2010 08:00
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 23 of 89
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
4
o
f
8
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
5
o
f
8
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
o
f
8
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
o
f
8
9
DRAFT February 3, 2010
1
STORM AND SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND
POLICIES
Goal A: Manage the storm and surface water system through a combination of the preservation
of natural systems and engineered solutions to:
Provide for public safety
Prevent property damage
Protect water quality
Preserve and enhance critical areas such as fish and wildlife habitat
Maintain a hydrologic balance
Promote sustainability
Goal B: Preserve, protect, and, where feasible, restore wetlands, shorelines, surface water, and
ground water for fish and wildlife, appropriate human use, and the maintenance of hydrological
and ecological processes.
Goal C: Use education as a tool to increase protection of critical areas and understanding of
sustainability and other environmental values.
Goal D: Provide adequate funding though an equitable stormwater utility rate structure and
outside funding sources to support the necessary programs under goals A, B, and C.
PROGRAM AREA 1: Flood Protection
The flood protection program area is designed to meet Goals A & C by setting forth the following
policies:
FP-1: Comply with all applicable, relevant, and appropriates requirements from the Federal, state, and
local governments related to flood protection.
FP-2: Resolve long standing flooding impacts; prevent new flooding impacts to homes, businesses, and
other facilities. Ensure adequate surface water services for existing and anticipated development at
service levels designated by the Capital Facilities Element and Capital Improvement Plan.
FP-3: Preserve and protect natural surface water storage sites, such as wetlands, aquifers, streams and
water bodies that help regulate surface flows and recharge groundwater.
FP-4: Restrict the water runoff rate from new development to a rate that does not damage downstream
resources, usually the same rate as predevelopment conditions. Additional requirements which are more
restrictive than this general policy may apply in the case of substantial redevelopment of parcels which
were originally developed under non-existent or outdated stormwater control standards and contain large
areas of impervious surfaces, have a high percentage of total impervious surfaces, or have identified
drainage or water quality problems.
FP-5: Promote development design which minimizes runoff rate and volume by limiting the size of the
building footprint and total site coverage, minimizing impervious surfaces, maximizing the protection of
Packet Page 28 of 89
DRAFT February 3, 2010
2
permeable soils and native vegetation, and encouraging use of permeable pavements and surfaces, where
appropriate.
FP-6: Property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of stormwater management facilities and
pollution control structures which are located within the boundaries of their property. The City shall
monitor and enforce this maintenance requirement and shall be responsible for the maintenance of
facilities within City owned property and public right of ways. The City will work with property owners
and maintenance providers to see that the waste associated with the maintenance of these facilities and
structures is disposed of properly.
FP-7: Where feasible, stormwater facilities, such as retention and detention ponds, should be designed to
provide supplemental benefits, such as wildlife habitat, water quality treatment, and passive recreation.
FP-8: Increase the Public’s knowledge of stormwater runoff issues and support public involvement in the
City’s stormwater management program.
FP-9: Cooperate with the Department of Ecology and neighboring jurisdictions, including participation in
regional forums and committees, to improve regional surface water management and resolve related inter-
jurisdictional concerns.
PROGRAM AREA 2: Water Quality
The water quality program area is designed to meet Goals A & C by setting forth the following policies:
WQ-1: Implement the required provisions of the Western Washington Phase II Municipal stormwater
Permit, issued by the Department of Ecology to protect receiving water quality from degradation from
runoff from the City’s municipal stormwater system.
WQ-2: Comply with other all applicable, relevant, and appropriates requirements from the Federal, state,
and local governments related to water quality.
WQ-3: Protect water quality by implementing best management practices for runoff treatment for new
development and redevelopment projects. Additional requirements which are more restrictive than this
general policy may apply in the case of substantial redevelopment of parcels which were originally
developed under non-existent or outdated stormwater control standards and contain large areas of
impervious surfaces, have a high percentage of total impervious surfaces, or have identified drainage or
water quality problems.
WQ-4: Promote the use of Low Impact Development techniques in site planning and Best Management
Practices Implementation to the extent feasible to mitigate the effects of development and redevelopment
on water quality.
WQ-6: Protect water quality through the continuation and possible expansion of the street sweeping
program.
WQ-7: Protect water quality by educating citizens about proper waste disposal and eliminating pollutants
that enter the stormwater system as a result of lawn and garden maintenance, car cleaning or maintenance,
roof cleaning or maintenance, or direct disposal into storm drains.
Packet Page 29 of 89
DRAFT February 3, 2010
3
WQ-8: Property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of stormwater management facilities
and pollution control structures which are located within the boundaries of their property. The City shall
monitor and enforce this maintenance requirement and shall be responsible for the maintenance of
facilities within City owned property and public right of ways. The City will work with property owners
and maintenance providers to see that the waste associated with the maintenance of these facilities and
structures is disposed of properly.
WQ-9: Cooperate with the Department of Ecology and neighboring jurisdictions, including participation
in regional forums and committees, to improve regional surface water quality issues solve related inter-
jurisdictional concerns.
PROGRAM AREA 3: Aquatic Habitat
The Aquatic Habitat program area is designed to meet Goals A, B & C by setting forth the following
policies:
AH-1: Comply with all applicable, relevant, and appropriates requirements from the Federal, state, and
local governments related to aquatic habitat.
AH-2: Actively participate in regional species protection efforts, including salmon habitat protection and
restoration.
AH-3: Protect critical wildlife habitat, such as wetlands, including habitats or species that have been
identified as priority species or priority habitats by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, from
the negative affects of uncontrolled stormwater runoff form development and redevelopment. Habitats
and species of local importance will also be protected in this manner.
AH-4: If wetlands are used as part of a storm drainage system, assure that water level fluctuations will be
similar to fluctuations under natural conditions and that water quality standards are met prior to
discharging stormwater into a wetland.
AH-5: Habitat restoration efforts should focus on those areas that will result in the greatest benefit to the
resource and that have been identified by the City as priority for restoration. The restoration of the
Edmonds Marsh shall be a priority.
AH-6: The City should develop basin stewardship and education programs to prevent surface water
impacts and to identify opportunities for restoration. The following issues should be considered when
formulating plans and implementing projects which have the potential to impact stream basins: public
access, respect for private property, restoration of the feature to a more natural state, retention of native
vegetation, improvement of surface water management in the basin, improvement of fish habitat and
channel substrate, and streambank stabilization.
AH-7: Streams shall not be permanently altered except for:
Habitat restoration;
Water quality restoration;
Flood protection;
Correction to bank erosion;
Road crossings when alternative routes are not feasible; or
Private driveway crossings when it is the only means of access.
Packet Page 30 of 89
DRAFT February 3, 2010
4
Alterations, other than habitat improvements, should only occur when it is the only means feasible and
should be the minimum necessary. Any alteration to a stream should result in a net improvement to
habitat and streams should be encouraged to return to natural channel migration patterns, where feasible.
In cases where stream alteration is consistent with this policy, channel stabilization techniques shall
generally be preferred over culverting.
AH-8: Identify surface water features with restoration potential and attempt to obtain citizen involvement
and community consensus on any future attempt to restore features which have been altered. Restoration
efforts may include the daylighting of streams which have been diverted into underground pipes or
culverts.
AH-9: Solutions to stream habitat problems should focus on those types of problems that first protect and
preserve existing habitat, then enhance and expand habitat in areas where wild anadromous fish are
present, and lastly, enhance and expand habitat in areas where other wild fish are present.
AH-10: The City shall work with citizens and watershed interest groups, and cooperate with King
County, Snohomish County, and other local governments, regional governments, state agencies, and
Indian tribes in developing and implementing watershed action plans and other types of basin plans for
basins which include or are upstream or downstream from the City.
PROGRAM AREA 4: Stormwater Utility Funding
The Stormwater Utility Funding program area is designed to meet Goals A, B, C & D by setting forth the
following policies:
SWUF-1: The utility will have primary authority and responsibility for funding the implementation the
City’s Comprehensive Surface and Stormwater Management Plan, including:
• Responsibilities for planning, design, construction, maintenance, administration, and operation of
all city storm and surface water facilities,
• Establishing standards for design, construction, and maintenance of improvements on private
property where these may affect storm and surface water management, and
• Implementation of water quality and aquatic habitat policies.
SWUF-2: All parcels in the City will be charged a fee as set by the City Council that will be used to fund
stormwater programs detailed in the Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan. The rate will be
based on the number of Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) on each parcel. One ESU shall represent 3,000
square feet of impervious area. All zoning types except single family residential shall be charged based
on the actual impervious surface area on the parcel at the rate defined by City Council per one ESU. The
minimum charge shall be one ESU.
SWUF-3: Each single family parcel shall be charged the rate for one ESU, regardless of the actual
impervious surface area on the parcel. The Public Works Director, may impose a fee larger than one ESU
on any single family parcel causing an unreasonable burden on the storm or surface water system.
SWUF-4: Acknowledge that all residents benefit from using the paved (impervious) surfaces within the
City’s right-of-ways and these impervious surfaces create a significant burden and cost to the City’s
stormwater system that must be adequately funded to maintain in working order and to comply with
applicable Federal, state and local water quality regulations.
Packet Page 31 of 89
DRAFT February 3, 2010
5
SWUF-5: In addition to any other charge prescribed by this chapter, a stormwater management system
development charge shall be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit or development permit
issued under the Edmonds Community Development Code (“permit”) by the owner of any property,
residential dwelling unit, or other structure that may hereafter be constructed in the city which benefits
from the stormwater utility system constructed by the city. The stormwater management system
development charge shall be set by City Council based on the number of ESU added to or created by the
permit.
SWUF-6: The City’s Public Works Director shall make adjustments to the said utility rates in an
accordance with the following provisions:
• Upon written application, a customer may request review said utility fee. The applicant shall state
the specific conditions and/or facilities on the site which the applicant feels warrants adjustment
of the rate as applied to the property.
• The Public Works director shall have the authority to increase or decrease rates up to 50 percent
of the level set by City Council. Factors personal to the property owner, such as ability to pay (,
shall not be considered. The sole criteria for adjusting the rate shall be a determination that the
physical characteristics of the site and in particular the stormwater detention, retention and/or
treatment facilities as installed thereon by the owners, or lack thereof, have significantly:
o Increased the burden which the property places upon the City’s stormwater utility (in the
event of an increase) or
o Decreased the burden (in the event of a decrease) by providing additional benefits over
and above those which the average property places upon the utility through on-site
improvements including but not limited to on-site pollution control mechanisms or
technologies which relate to water quality and the property’s impact upon the city’s
stormwater management system.
SWUF-7: If the owner of a single family parcel qualifies for a “low income senior citizen exemption” as
determined by the County Assessor under RCW 84.36.381 is exempt paying from said utility fee as long
as the owner remains a “low income senior citizen.” It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to
demonstrate qualifications for this fee exemption.
SWUF-8: Acknowledge that any new or replaced City-owned transportation project will be required to
comply with all stormwater management requirements in ECDC 18.30. In meeting these requirements,
the transportation projects will incur significant costs. To off-set these cost, for budgeting purposes, 15
percent of the cost all Council-approved transportation projects with significant storm drainage
infrastructure would be funded though the stormwater utility and this amount will be reflected in the rate
structure.
SWUF-9: The City shall actively seek outside funding to leverage or complement utility funds in order
to implement the City’s Comprehensive Storm and Surface Water Management Plan such as:
• Local, state and federal grants
• Loans such as from the Public Works Trust Fund
• Future bond measures
• Other cross-jurisdictional funding mechanisms
Packet Page 32 of 89
AM-2756 1.G.
Removal of Colored Street Markings Used Located Utilities
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilmember Plunkett Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Continued discussion regarding the removal of colored street markings used locating utilities.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For discussion only.
Previous Council Action
At the December 8, 2009 Council Committee Meeting, Councilmember Orvis reviewed
Councilmember Plunkett’s memo in regards to removing colored street markings. Staff expressed
concerns about the feasibility of removing the paint marks required by the utility locate laws. The
markings could be covered over with black paint on asphalt surfaces.
Eventually the black paint wears off which then exposes the original color paint. Black would also
not match the concrete surfaces. Pressure washing off the paint usually scars the concrete and
asphalt surfaces. The paint usually fades and wears off in a matter of months. The committee
decided that more research is needed for this item.
Narrative
Attached is an email from the City Attorney's office which outlines the City's legal authority in the
matter. It should be noted that if the City made it a requirement to remove colored street markings
for utility locating, significant staff time would be required to monitor the removal of the
markings. In addition, staff would also be required to remove the markings for City constructed
improvements in the City right-of-way. This would necessitate the City to hire an additional full
time employee to meet the additional labor need. As was previously discussed, there is no perfect
method to remove the paint. Pressure washing is very time consuming and in many cases will
leave permanent marks on the pavement. Also, the new storm water regulations require the wash
water to be collected and disposed of into a wastewater treatment system.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
To be determined
Attachments
Link:
Packet Page 33 of 89
Link: City Attorney Correspondence - Colored Street Markings
Link: Councilmember Plunkett Memo - 9-21-09 Colored Street Marking
Link: Citizen Email Correspondence
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Public Works Noel Miller 02/04/2010 11:21 AM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 11:36 AM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 11:43 AM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 12:30 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 01/25/2010 03:06
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 34 of 89
Packet Page 35 of 89
Packet Page 36 of 89
Packet Page 37 of 89
Packet Page 38 of 89
Packet Page 39 of 89
AM-2795 1.H.
Discussion on PRD Setbacks
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilmember Orvis Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Discussion on PRD setbacks.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Councilmember Orvis asked that this be placed on the agenda for discussion.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Orvis PRD Fix
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 11:16 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 11:43 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 12:30 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 02/04/2010 10:48
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 40 of 89
PRD Ordinance Amendment
Our PRD ordinance requires a landscape buffer surrounding a PRD if homes along the
exterior of the PRD are clustered (have reduced side setbacks). By ordinance, the depth
of the buffer is equal to the rear set-back of the applicable zone. For example, 15 feet in
RS 8.
Council minutes indicate that the intent was to reduce the visual impact of clustering (the
impact being a “solid wall” appearance compared with more traditional single family
spacing).
Unfortunately, in a recent court decision, the judge ruled that the landscape buffer
may overlap the set-back area.
The court’s decision allows the bizarre result that homes may be built and sold with
entirely useless back yards. No swing sets, no grills, no patio or deck, just a required
landscape buffer from the rear wall of the dwelling to the edge of the lot. This is bad
policy, and could result in a very nasty surprise for home buyers. It could also become an
enforcement issue for the City.
I suggest that you amend the ordinance to make it clear that the landscape buffer may not
overlay required setbacks.
You need not be too concerned with whining from developers, since they are not required
to provide the landscape buffer unless they choose first to do a PRD, and second to
cluster exterior lots. If they are working on a PRD where they do not wish to provide the
required buffer, they can simply develop the exterior lots with normal side setbacks and
no additional buffer would be required.
Packet Page 41 of 89
AM-2796 1.I.
Discussion on Conditional Use Permits for Home Occupations
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilman Plunkett Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Committee:Community/Development Services
Information
Subject Title
Discussion on Conditional Use Permits for home occupations.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Councilman Plunkett asked that this be placed on the agenda. Please refer to the attached
memorandum.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: PLUNKETT CUP Administrative
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 11:16 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 11:43 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 12:30 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 02/04/2010 10:51
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 42 of 89
Packet Page 43 of 89
AM-2791 2.A.
Alderwood Water Supply Contract Final Review
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:10 Minutes
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Review Committee:Finance
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Alderwood Water Supply Contract final review.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the agreement be reviewed and forwarded to the City Council for approval
once the contract is prepared in its final form.
Previous Council Action
Status Reports were provided to the Finance Committee on June 9 and November 10, 2009.
Narrative
For the past two years, Edmonds staff have been participating in a collective negotiation with the
Alderwood Water District, the Mukilteo Water District, the City of Lynnwood, and the City of
Mountlake Terrace in order to revise an existing long term wholesale water supply contract which
has been in effect since 1978. Attached is the Final Draft of the proposed wholesale water supply
agreement which will serve as the primary source of potable water for the City of Edmonds for the
next 45 years.
The City Attorney previously provided a memo, which is included, summarizing the overall legal
considerations of the contract. Negotiations since that time have addressed many of the concerns
raised in his memo. The third attachment shows the financial impact of the contract comparing the
current contract formula to the new contract formula. The overall effect to the wholesale pricing of
water is an estimated increase of 5.7% to the water utility purchases. This will result in a net
expenditure increase of 2% to the City’s water budget. The effective date of the new contract will
be September 20, 2010.
In comparison, the cost of water using the Seattle Public Utilities contract is 18% higher in the low
demand season (October through April) and 80% higher in the high demand season (May through
September) than the proposed Alderwood contract.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Wholesale Water Agreement of 12-01-09
Packet Page 44 of 89
Link: Exhibit 2 - Memo from City Attorney
Link: Exhibit 3 - Contract Pricing Formula
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 01:55 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 02:44 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 03:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 02/03/2010 01:00
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 45 of 89
Packet Page 46 of 89
Packet Page 47 of 89
Packet Page 48 of 89
Packet Page 49 of 89
Packet Page 50 of 89
Packet Page 51 of 89
Packet Page 52 of 89
Packet Page 53 of 89
Packet Page 54 of 89
Packet Page 55 of 89
Packet Page 56 of 89
Packet Page 57 of 89
Packet Page 58 of 89
Packet Page 59 of 89
Packet Page 60 of 89
Packet Page 61 of 89
Packet Page 62 of 89
Packet Page 63 of 89
Packet Page 64 of 89
Packet Page 65 of 89
Packet Page 66 of 89
Packet Page 67 of 89
Packet Page 68 of 89
Packet Page 69 of 89
Packet Page 70 of 89
Packet Page 71 of 89
Packet Page 72 of 89
Packet Page 73 of 89
Packet Page 74 of 89
Packet Page 75 of 89
Packet Page 76 of 89
Packet Page 77 of 89
Packet Page 78 of 89
Packet Page 79 of 89
Packet Page 80 of 89
Packet Page 81 of 89
AM-2802 2.B.
Wireless Internet Rollout in Council Chambers
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Wireless internet rollout in Council Chambers.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
An update on this topic will be provided at the meeting.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 02:23 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 02:44 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 03:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/04/2010 02:21
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 82 of 89
AM-2792 2.C.
Funding Proposal for the Building Maintenance Fund 116
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Kim Karas
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:15 Minutes
Department:Public Works Type:Action
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Funding proposal for the Building Maintenance Fund 116.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize an additional source for funding for Building Maintenance Fund 116 to preserve and
keep City Buildings functioning utilizing half of the $600,000 in proceeds from the sale of
equipment associated with the City's Fire Stations to Snohomish County Fire District No. 1.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds building facilities are in need of augmented capital funding support to
preserve and maintain their safety and serviceability. There continues to be an increasing backlog
of project work required for their preservation, and the historic level of transfers from the general
fund to capital facilities projects Fund 116 is a quarter of what is truly needed. At this level, there
are entire projects listed in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in excess of this annual
funding that otherwise stand never to be done. Unless we begin to address this shortfall now, we
will see increasing instances of costly emergency repairs brought on by deferring repair and
renovation projects among our facilities. Our buildings are growing older; the newest is Fire
Station #16, and it sees its seventh year of service in 2010. Public Safety, the next youngest,
attains its eleven-year anniversary. None of us would envision purchasing and operating a new car
for these periods of time without foreseeing that there are significant bills coming for adequate
upkeep.
The new 2010-16 CIP which is attached identifies projects that are needed to keep our building
facilities safe and operable. However, the gap between planned funding for capital projects and
what is needed is also readily apparent. In 2009, the City contracted with Fire District #1 to
provide emergency fire and medical services. As part of this contract, the district paid a one-time
sum of $600,000 to the City for the purchase of equipment associated with the three fire stations.
In this agreement, the City opted to retain ownership of the stations because of the revenue from
transport fees, but ownership of these stations also requires maintaining them and eventually
replacing them when the time comes. This understanding supports the reinvestment of this funding
into facilities the City must keep in service, and because it relieves additional pressure from the
already-strained revenue underpinning the general fund.
Packet Page 83 of 89
At the start of this calendar year, there is approximately $100,000 carried over in Fund 116,
Facilities Maintenance Capital Projects. The highest priority projects will easily deplete the
available funds and keep the City from making progress into the growing project backlog. The
most needed projects that cannot be fully funded is the renovation work for the Edmonds
Historical Museum. Insufficient funding leaves the City in a position not to take advantage of a
state grant, already conditionally awarded and now held in reserve. This grant will fund 1/3 of the
estimated $150,000 cost to complete a full renewal of the building’s exterior envelope. Without
additional capital support, this unique opportunity to leverage increasingly scarce state funding for
the work on the Museum will be lost. Additionally, there is HVAC work and other repair work
that needs to be done at the fire stations. By the conscious choice to keep ownership of the fire
stations, the City is now obligated to address the capital needs of these three buildings operated
today by Fire District #1.
For a number of years now, the Capital Improvement Program projected for the City’s facilities
under Fund 116 has documented a need for approximately $200,000 per year more than is
regularly scheduled to be allocated. Due to the current shortage of revenue into the City’s General
Fund, there are no annually stable sources of funding available to increase the transfer to meet this
need. Therefore staff recommends setting aside $300,000 of the $600,000 for the purpose of
investing in the useable life of the City’s facilities. This money would fund the following priority
projects:
2010
Museum Exterior Repairs $100,000 ($48,000 state match added)
Anderson Center Roof Replacement $30,000
FS #16 Painting $5,000
FS #17 Carpet $12,000
Cemetery Bldg. Gutters $5,000
Wade James Gutters $5,000
2011
Anderson Center Radiators $75,000
Wade James Roof Replacement $30,000
2012
Anderson Center Oil Tank $30,000
FS #20 Interior Painting $10,000
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: CIP-2009-2015-Facilities-1-25-10
Packet Page 84 of 89
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 12:36 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 12:51 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 01:55 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kim
Karas
Started On: 02/03/2010 01:55
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 85 of 89
Capital Improvements Program
Buildings Maintenance- Fund 116
Projects for 2009-2015
PROJECT NAME 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Anderson Center Interior Painting $10,000 $40,000
Anderson Center Exterior Painting $30,000 $30,000
Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $25,000 $50,000 $35,000
Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $65,000
Anderson Center Blinds $20,000
Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $50,000
Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $15,000 $50,000
Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $10,000
Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $30,000
Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $150,000
Anderson Center Roof Replacement $30,000 $25,000
Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $5,000
City Hall Elevator Replacement $150,000
City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $25,000 $20,000
City Hall Security Measures $20,000
City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $35,000
Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $50,000 $80,000
Fire Station #16 Painting $5,000
Fire Station #16 Carpet $30,000
Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $20,000
Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000
Fire Station #17 Interior Painting $15,000
Fire Station #20 Carpet $15,000
Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $10,000
Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement $35,000
Library Fire Alarm System Replacement $30,000
Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $4,500
Library Plaza Brick Façade Addition $21,000
Library Wood Trim
Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $15,000
Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $20,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $10,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning
Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement $25,000
Museum Exterior Repairs $150,000
Public Safety Chiller Repair $50,000
Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $2,000
Public Safety Exterior Painting $35,000
Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet
Public Works Yard LED Lighting $28,000
Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maint.$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Senior Center Entry (CDBG/CTED Funding)$170,000
Senior Center CMU Elastomeric Sealing (CDBG)$150,000
Senior Center Roofing $97,000
Senior Center Siding (CTED)$60,000
Wade James Theater Gutter Replacement $5,000
Wade James Theater Roof Replacement $30,000
Total Facilities Projects $170,000 $552,000 $436,500 $260,000 $256,000 $255,000 $255,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2009-2015
Beginning Cash Balance $51,300 $107,900 $38,900 $7,116 $2,116 $1,116 $1,116
Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer from Gen Fund #001 $56,600 $250,000 $254,716 $255,000 $255,000 $255,000 $255,000
Sno. Co. CDBG 2005 Grant (Secured)$130,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CTED Grants $40,000 $157,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sno. Co. CDBG Grant (Not Secured)$0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
EECBG Funding (Secured)$28,000
Utility Grant Funding (Not Secured)
WA State HCPF Grant Funding (Secured)$48,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenues $277,900 $590,900 $443,616 $262,116 $257,116 $256,116 $256,116
Total Facilities Projects $170,000 $552,000 $436,500 $260,000 $256,000 $255,000 $255,000
Ending Cash Balance $107,900 $38,900 $7,116 $2,116 $1,116 $1,116 $1,116
Items in blue font are funded through normal allocations.
Items highlighted in yellow are added with supplemental funding.
Packet Page 86 of 89
AM-2801 2.D.
Difference Between November 2009 Finance Update and January 25, 2010 Update
City Council Committee Meetings
Date:02/09/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:Councilmember Michael Plunkett Time:15 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Committee:Finance
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and review of long-term difference between presentation in relation to the Fire District
1 Contract in November of 2009 and finance update of January 25, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Councilmember Plunkett requested that this topic be placed on the agenda for discussion.
Councilmember Plunkett provided the attached copy of the 10-16-09 Option 4 Finance Forecast
with the Fire District 1 Contract.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 10-16-09 Option 4 - Forecast with FD1
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 02:23 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/04/2010 02:44 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/04/2010 03:06 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/04/2010 02:07
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/04/2010
Packet Page 87 of 89
Packet Page 88 of 89
Packet Page 89 of 89