AGENDA Edmonds City Council September 18, 2007 7:00 p.m.

Transcription

AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
September 18, 2007
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.
Approval of Agenda
2.
Consent Agenda Items
A.
Roll Call
B.
AM-1163
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2007.
C.
AM-1169
Approval of claim checks #98783 through #98891 for September 6, 2007 in the amount of $319,217.90 and
#98892 through #99093 for September 13, 2007 in the amount of $318,362.23. Approval of payroll direct
deposits and checks #45490 through #45583 for the period of August 16 through August 31, 2007 in the amount
of $819,048.67.
D.
AM-1170
Findings of Fact regarding the September 4, 2007 Closed Record Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's denial of a
side yard setback variance at 18600 Sound View Pl. (Appellant and Applicant: Dr. Raymond Bogaert / File
Nos. V-2006-102 and AP-2007-4).
E.
AM-1168
Approval of SRI Technologies, Inc. Contract for Temporary Capital Projects Manager.
F.
AM-1165
Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section, to add a new paragraph to specify
the City’s regulation of rockeries, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
G.
AM-1167
Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code 10.25.030 relating to the scope of the Civil Service system.
AM-1171
(60 Min)
Continued City Council deliberation on the Closed Record Review held on 08/28/07 regarding an appeal
of the Hearing Examiner’s approval of a 27-lot Preliminary Plat (Woodway Plat) located at 23700 104th
Avenue West. (Appellant: Lora Petso / Applicant: Burnstead Construction / File No. P-07-17 and
PRD-07-18)
AM-1166
(45 Min)
Closed Record Review regarding the Planning Board approval to rezone property located at 9521 and
9531 Edmonds Way from Multi-Family Residential (RM-1.5) and Single Family Residential (RS-8) to
Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW). Applicants: A.D. Shapiro Architects/Valhalla
Properties / File No. R-07-35.
3.
4.
5.
Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)
6.
AM-1164
(15 Min)
Report on City Council Committee Meetings.
(5 Min)
Mayor's Comments
(15 Min)
Council Comments
7.
8.
9.
Adjourn
Packet Page 1 of 229
AM-1163
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:
09/18/2007
Submitted By:
Sandy Chase
Department:
City Clerk's Office
Review Committee:
Action:
2.B.
Time:
Type:
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2007.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft September 4, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Draft Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox
Approved By
1
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
2
Mayor
Gary Haakenson
3
Final Approval Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Final Approval Date: 09/12/2007
Date
Status
09/12/2007 09:36 AM
APRV
09/12/2007 09:40 AM
APRV
09/12/2007 09:43 AM
APRV
Started On: 09/12/2007 09:35
AM
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 4, 2007
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Olson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Mayor Pro Tem
Ron Wambolt, Council President Pro Tem
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Al Compaan, Acting Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Zach Lell, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
ALSO PRESENT
Hilary Scheibert, Student Representative
1.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A.
ROLL CALL
B.
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2007.
C.
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #98630 THROUGH #98782 FOR AUGUST 30, 2007 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $662,225.46.
D.
AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS
FROM CONSULTANTS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UPDATE.
E.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GRAY AND OSBORNE, INC. FOR
THE 76TH AVENUE WEST/75TH PLACE WEST WALKWAY AND 162ND STREET SW
PARK PROJECTS.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 4, 2007
Page 1
3.
F.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE TOWN OF WOODWAY.
G.
REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON AUGUST 28, 2007 FOR THE MCC FEEDER
INSTALLATION AT THE WWTP AND AWARD TO EWING ELECTRIC, INC. FOR
THE AMOUNT OF $30,582, INCLUDING SALES TAX.
INTRODUCTION OF STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE HILARY SCHEIBERT FROM EDMONDS
WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson introduced Student Representative Hilary Scheibert, a senior at EdmondsWoodway High School and briefly described her interests and activities. Student Representative
Scheibert expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to serve as Student Representative.
Councilmember Dawson suggested delaying Agenda Item 4 until Caldie Rogers, President, Greater
Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce, arrived.
5.
RECONSIDERATION: JULY 17, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED
VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 17008 - 77TH
PLACE WEST, EDMONDS.
City Attorney Zach Lell explained this was a reconsideration of a matter previously before the Council.
The key issue for the Council was acceptance of the appraisal the petitioner previously offered with
regard to the proposed right-of-way vacation. He explained the legal standards with regard to the
compensation for a street vacation were flexible other than State Statute and the City’s code established a
limit on the compensation the City could require: one-half the appraised value of the vacated right-ofway. He advised the Council could direct the staff to obtain its own appraisal or direct the petitioner to
obtain a new appraisal. Although not technically a quasi judicial matter, but because it was a contested
proceeding, out of an abundance of caution Mr. Lell recommended Councilmembers disclose any ex parte
communications with the petitioner or any interested party in this proceeding.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt read a letter from Nancy Monson, the property owner across the
street from the subject property, into the record. The letter stated her opposition to the proposed vacation
of the right-of-way, citing neighborhood opposition to the project due to the density and elimination of
nearly all trees and natural growth in the area. Her letter pointed out the right-of-way preserved some
green space and the owners who recently purchased the property did so with full knowledge of the rightof-way and setback requirements and she did not support waiving those requirements. She was in favor
of preserving the character of the neighborhood and preserving green space. She also objected to the
$1,680 proposed in compensation to the City for 560 square feet of right-of-way as $3.00/square foot, was
considerably less than the assessed values in the neighborhood. Ms. Monson recommended the proposed
right-of-way vacation not be approved.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why Councilmembers needed to make disclosures if this was a legislative
versus a quasi judicial matter. Mr. Lell agreed with the characterization of this matter as legislative rather
than quasi judicial, acknowledging the disclosure requirement legally applied only to quasi judicial
matters. However, as this was a contested proceeding, he advised Council out of an abundance of caution
to make disclosures. He stated that any failure to make a disclosure was unlikely to prejudge the matter.
September 4, 2007
Page 2
Councilmember Plunkett advised he received the letter from Ms. Monson as well as had a long discussion
with her in which she described why the Council should not approve the right-of-way vacation, similar to
the description in her letter.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt advised he also had a discussion with Ms. Monson.
Councilmember Dawson recalled Council initially voted to approve the vacation and Council President
Pro Tem Wambolt later requested reconsideration which the Council agreed to in order to have some
additional questions answered. She recalled one of the issues raised previously was the code did not
describe the appraisal methodology that should be used. Because the cost of another appraisal would be
similar to any additional amount the City would acquire via a higher property value, the Council preferred
to add language to the code regarding the appropriate methodology. She asked if that had been done and
how discrepancies regarding the appropriate appraisal methodology would be avoided in the future.
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the code currently specified the type of appraiser who must
conduct the appraisal but did not identify a method; it was presumed an acceptable method would be
utilized. He responded to an earlier Council question regarding how the method for determining value via
an appraisal was added to the code, explaining prior to 1993, the method for determining value was based
on assessed value. The code was changed in 1993 to require an appraisal because assessed value was not
necessarily related to the property value as assessments were not done on a regular basis and were
typically triggered by a sale. Assessments were now done on a regular basis and more accurately
reflected the property value. He suggested rather than mandating an appraisal methodology, returning to
the assessed value basis for determining property value. He noted a benefit of using assessed value would
be that no one would incur the cost of an appraisal. He planned to pursue this suggestion with the
Assessor’s Office and the Community Services/Development Services Committee.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether staff had any knowledge of the assessed value of this property.
Mr. Chave answered he did not. He recalled the appraisal report included assessed values for comparable
properties which ranged from $26 to $34/square foot. He noted it may be difficult to determine the
assessed value of this property as it was recently constructed.
Councilmember Dawson asked the affect on the property owner if the Council did not vacate the property
or if the Council determined a higher value for the property. Mr. Chave commented whether the assessed
value or appraised value were used, it was only a starting point for determining the value of the vacation.
He referred to examples in the packet. In this instance denying or delaying the vacation would have
significant impacts on the applicant because something that was approved to be built but changed in the
field did not comply with the code and unless resolved, the property owner would be required to remove
the portion of the building that did not meet the code. He commented a delay in anticipation of a change
in the code language was not advisable as any change would require review by the Planning Board, which
was potentially a lengthy proceeding.
Councilmember Dawson asked if staff had conversation with the property owner regarding whether they
would be willing to pay a higher amount. Mr. Chave answered no. Councilmember Dawson
recommended the Council determine whether they planned to vacate the property and if they wanted to
require a higher amount, offer the property owners an option such as the assessed value of comparable
properties of $26/square foot. Mr. Chave agreed that was a possible option. He did not recommend
seeking another appraisal as the Council knew enough about the property’s potential value to establish a
value.
Councilmember Dawson observed there was sufficient basis in the record to utilize half of the low end of
the reasonable value of the property. Mr. Chave agreed.
September 4, 2007
Page 3
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt noted the current Snohomish County assessed value of the land was
$300,000 for 4,792 square feet or $62.60/square foot. Half of that would be $31.30/square foot or
$16,000. He recalled one of the reasons the applicants wanted the vacation was to build a deck. Mr.
Chave was uncertain, recalling there was a problem with a chimney that was later converted to usable
space.
Councilmember Moore recalled City Attorney Scott Snyder informed Council they first must make a
finding that the vacation was in the public’s interest. Mr. Lell agreed that was inherent in any street
vacation procedure; the Council was prohibited from vacating any publicly owned right-of-way unless
there was a public purpose underlying the decision. Councilmember Moore asked whether it must be
beneficial to the general public. Mr. Lell answered the Council had significant discretion; the definition
of public interest or public purpose was broad enough to include whatever compensation the Council
required, returning the property to the tax rolls, or eliminating any future City maintenance responsibility.
He summarized it did not require that every member of the public necessarily benefited; only that the
Council determined there was a public benefit.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the City did any maintenance on this property. Mr. Chave
answered he did not believe so, noting it was not paved or in any active use. Councilmember Moore
referred to two on-street parking spaces in the right-of-way and staff’s indication they were not needed.
Mr. Chave commented that referred to the street end, not the area to be vacated.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
DENY THE REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt recalled when the Council last discussed this vacation, he was not
satisfied with the value that had been determined. After reviewing the letter from Ms. Monson, he
realized he had not examined closely enough whether the right-of-way should be vacated. He looked at
the property over the weekend and observed there were two parking spaces that were being used on a
Sunday afternoon. He commented there was no other space in this area for parking; one driveway did not
appear to be able to accommodate the resident’s vehicle due to the steepness of the grade. He noted there
was also very little open space and the vacation of the right-of-way would eliminate a large percentage of
the remaining open space. He found it was not in the public best interest to vacate this property.
Councilmember Plunkett noted he raised the issue of reconsideration. He pointed out the area proposed
to be vacated was not open space; the PRD already had open space and this land was owned by the City
and was not part of their open space. The $62/square foot value was for improved land; this right-of-way
was unimproved. For unimproved land, the assessed value was $29.76/square foot. He noted the
assessed value of land on property on Talbot Road was $44.82/square foot. Staff believes the value is $26
- $32/square foot. He explained the assessed value of unimproved land of approximately $30/square foot
equates to a market value for the vacation square footage of approximately $16,000. As the property is an
economic remainder, its value was less than unimproved land, bringing the value down to $8,000. Thus
the Council could determine a value of $1,500 to $3,000 appropriate and had in the past accepted $1,400 $1,600 as payment for vacations of property worth $2,000 - $4,000. Based on his review, he found
$1,400 acceptable and comparable to Council precedent in past vacations.
Councilmember Marin advised he would vote against the motion. When the Council last deliberated, he
voted against the motion as a protest vote, finding the property owner acted in good faith to seek an
appraisal. He recommended proceeding with the value determined via the appraisal.
September 4, 2007
Page 4
Councilmember Dawson agreed with Councilmember Marin and expressed her appreciation for
Councilmember Plunkett’s comments that established a basis for the property’s value. She supported
adopting the ordinance as previously drafted with compensation of $1400.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Moore noted Councilmember Plunkett’s comments clarified the public benefit and the
Council precedent.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3662. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRO TEM WAMBOLT OPPOSED. The ordinance approved is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING CERTAIN
UNOPENED STREET RIGHT OF WAY OF 77TH PLACE WEST LOCATED ADJACENT TO
17008 - 77TH PLACE WEST AS DESCRIBED HEREIN; ESTABLISHING THE TERMS OF
VACATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
6.
CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER’S DENIAL OF A SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE AT 18600 SOUND VIEW PL. APPELLANT AND APPLICANT: DR.
RAYMOND BOGAERT (FILE NOS. V-2006-102 & AP-2007-4
City Attorney Zach Lell recommended establishing an oral argument schedule that includes an order of
presentation for speakers and time limits. He recommended based on past practice the order of
presentation be staff, a 10-minute presentation by the appellant who is also the applicant, and three
minutes for each party of record, followed by rebuttal by the appellant if they reserved any time. As this
was a quasi judicial matter and the Council was governed by the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, he
recommended the Council disclose any ex parte communications as well as state for the record they had
not prejudged the issue or were otherwise biased.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson, Councilmembers Marin, Moore, Orvis, and Dawson and Council President Pro
Tem Wambolt stated they had no ex parte communication and were not biased in any way.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he had many communications with Vicki Haynes and Paul Lippert but
not in regard to this matter.
Mr. Lell advised as this was a closed record proceeding, the information provided to the Council must be
limited to facts in the record contained in the Council packet. To the extent any party may attempt to
interject new, factual testimony, he recommended the Council establish a rule under which any party
wishing to object to information must do so by the end of the proceeding or the objection would be
waived. Mayor Pro Tem Olson agreed.
Planner Gina Coccia displayed a vicinity map and identified the property at 18600 Sound View Place.
She relayed staff’s recommendation that the Council uphold the Hearing Examiner’s decision to deny the
variance. She summarized the applicant, Dr. Bogaert, applied for a variance to reduce the required 10foot side setback on the north and south property lines to 5 or 8 feet. She clarified the original request
was for a 5-foot setback on the north and south property lines and the revised request was for an 8-foot
setback on the south property line for the house, 8-foot setback on the north for the house and a 5-foot
setback on the north property line for the new, detached 3-car garage. She advised eaves were permitted
in the setback area; the applicant requested the eaves be allowed to project into the setback.
September 4, 2007
Page 5
Ms. Coccia referred to the staff report dated September 15, 2006 that contained staff’s recommendation to
deny the original variance application for the 5-foot setback. At the applicant’s request, the hearing was
continued to allow them to work with the neighbors on a solution that would adequately address their
concerns. The applicant revised their application as described above and the Hearing Examiner’s
decision to deny the variance was based on the revised proposal.
Councilmember Orvis asked the width of the lot. Ms. Coccia answered it was 50 feet wide with a 10-foot
setback on each side, leaving a buildable width of 30 feet. Councilmember Orvis asked the buildable
square footage of the lot without the variance. Ms. Coccia displayed a drawing provided as an attachment
to the July 2007 staff report that identified maximum lot coverage and a building footprint. She advised
the lot was over 15,000 square feet and over 300 feet deep but only 50 feet wide. She acknowledged the
property owner could construct a narrow, long house without a variance. She noted the buildable
footprint identified on the drawing was to illustrate their ability to build a long, narrow house.
Councilmember Orvis noted the drawing identified the buildable footprint as 5,191 square feet.
Applicant/Appellant
Chris Thayer, counsel for the applicant, Raymond Bogaert, asked to reserve 3 minutes for rebuttal.
He explained this was a non-conforming lot with dimensions of 50 x 300 feet, zoned RS-12 which
required 10-foot side setbacks, resulting in a 30-foot wide buildable lot. As the drawing illustrated, the
buildable footprint would accommodate a long, skinny, tall house. He explained the existing structure
encroached on the setback as the structure predates incorporation into Edmonds. The proposed structure
seeks a 2-foot setback variance on the north and south boundaries and 5-foot setback variance for the area
of the garage. He pointed out the structures on the north and south and the existing structure on the
Bogaert property currently encroach into the setbacks; the amount of the encroachments were described in
his application. He summarized the net linear feet of variance sought for the new construction was
substantially similar to the current encroachment by the existing structure although the depth of the
encroachment into the setback was less.
He recalled the majority of the objections voiced at the Hearing Examiner Meeting were that the proposed
house would be located substantially west of the existing structure. He explained the existing structure
was located far east on the narrow property and the current view from the house is a long narrow tract of
land before the water; the neighbors’ houses to the north and south were located closer to the water which
the Bogaerts also wished to do as well as minimize the impact to the neighbors. He noted the neighbors’
objections state the house proposed by the Bogaerts would impact their views and natural light entering
their property. He referred to documentation and photographs they submitted disputing those assertions.
He summarized the neighbors on the north and south would prefer the Bogaerts not build a new house
closer to the water as it would result in a house between them versus the vacant portion of the Bogaerts
property that exists between them now. He concluded whether the Bogaerts built their house further to
the west should did not affect their variance request.
Mr. Thayer acknowledged it was physically possible to build a 30-foot wide long, narrow and tall house
within the 10-foot setbacks; however, that was not the type of structure envisioned by the Edmonds code.
The structure the Bogaerts propose would address the neighbor’s concerns as much as possible and would
be aesthetically pleasing. He noted a 30-foot wide, 3-story townhouse type structure, a house the
Bogaerts could construct without seeking a variance, would have more massing and look more imposing
when viewed from the side. Instead the Bogaerts have proposed a structure with a minimal variance that
would have no impact on the neighbors.
Councilmember Plunkett interjected Ms. Haynes wrote him a letter that was included in the packet. Her
letter was written as a Commissioner on the Historic Preservation Commission regarding historic overlays
but did not make reference to this action. Mr. Lell advised if the letter did not have a direct bearing on
September 4, 2007
Page 6
this application/proceeding, it was beyond the scope of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Out of an
abundance of caution, he invited any parties of record and the appellant to rebut the substance of the
letter. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the letter referred to the character of the neighborhood in
general and did not reference a specific lot. He advised the letter would not bias him in any way. Mr. Lell
advised it would not have a direct bearing on this proceeding and recommended the Council proceed. Mr.
Thayer had no objection.
Mr. Thayer continued, explaining the Hearing Examiner based her conclusion on, 1) the application was
inconsistent with the existing RS-12 zoning regulations to phase out non-conforming uses and stated if
the Bogaert’s house were destroyed entirely in a natural disaster and they were required to rebuild, they
would be required to comply with the existing zoning regulations. He commented the 10-foot sideyards
envisioned for the RS-12 zone were not designed for a non-conforming, narrow lot as a RS-12 lot was
intended to be 80 feet wide with 10-foot wide setbacks on each side. He disagreed with the Hearing
Examiner’s finding that non-conforming uses were to be uniformly phased out, noting the variance
process was intended to recognize unique circumstances. As his allotted time had expired, Mr. Thayer
urged the Council to review the materials in the record.
Parties of Record
Ron Nations, Edmonds, property owner to the south of the Bogaert property, explained his primary
concern was maintaining an overall aesthetic sense in the community. He expressed concern with a
reduction in their home’s value, their sense of privacy, and sense of a small home in a quiet neighborhood
by a large structure located closer to their home than regulations allow. He commented on the negative
trend over the past 15 years of “wedging” large structures onto small lots after removing trees and
shrubbery and wanted to avoid that trend in their neighborhood. He compared Edmonds to Woodway and
Lynnwood, concluding large structures on small lots resulted in a more urban feel that was less livable
and destroyed privacy, natural features, open space, and wildlife habitat. He pointed out these issues
applied to lot setback as in accordance with physics, a reduction in the distance from a source of sound
increased the sound. He was also concerned with visual impacts.
Vicki Haynes, Edmonds, property owner to the south of the Bogaert property, expressed concern with
the “saming” of Edmonds and the loss of its character. She pointed out one of the tests for granting a
variance was whether it was detrimental. She found the proposed variance detrimental, pointing out the
impact of reducing the setback with regard to available light, and sense of space, air and privacy. She
reiterated Mr. Nations’ comment about “wedging” houses on small properties. She acknowledged the
properties were very deep and narrow and not well suited to large homes. She commented University
Colony where these properties were located had a very special character extending back to the turn of the
century. She requested the Council deny the variance request.
Charles Greenberg, counsel representing the Wilsons, property owners to the north of the Bogaert
property, began his comment.
Mr. Thayer objected to the brief the Wilson’s counsel faxed him at approximately noon today,
questioning whether the City’s code allowed for the filing of a brief by another party in a closed record
appeal. Assuming the Council allowed the filing of the brief, he requested the brief not be admitted into
the record as he had not had an adequate opportunity to review and/or rebut issues raised in the brief. Mr.
Lell recommended procedural issues be addressed at the conclusion of argument. City Clerk Sandy
Chase advised a copy of the brief was provided at Councilmembers places on the dais this evening.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern the information was not provided in a timely manner. Mr.
Lell explained the City’s code allowed parties to an appeal to submit timely written argument but did not
define timely submitted. He relayed Mr. Snyder’s indication this has historically meant the Council has
September 4, 2007
Page 7
received briefing up to and during closed record appeals. As that had been the Council’s past practice, he
recommended the Council continue that practice tonight. The appellant could raise an objection to any
attempt in the briefing to interject factual assertions not contained in the closed record.
Councilmember Dawson commented Mr. Lell’s recommendation was that anything submitted up to and
during the closed record proceeding was timely, and unless one of the parties requested a continuance, it
was unlikely the Council would have an opportunity to review the information prior to their decision. Mr.
Lell agreed, commenting the Council had the discretion to continue the matter to a future meeting to
allow the Council an opportunity to review material that was submitted.
Mr. Greenberg advised he consulted with Mr. Snyder and was advised information could be submitted as
late as today knowing it may not be thoroughly reviewed under the circumstances. He preferred the
materials be considered and if required continue the proceeding. Mr. Lell asked Mr. Thayer whether he
was objecting to the substance of assertions made in the brief or the timeliness. Mr. Thayer answered
there were no new facts raised in the brief but he had not had an opportunity to review it thoroughly. He
relayed his client’s preference not to continue this matter unless absolutely necessary.
Mr. Greenberg continued with his comments and advised on appeal, the Council must consider whether
the Hearing Examiner made an error in analyzing the issues. He noted the Hearing Examiner confirmed
staff’s recommendation that a variance was not appropriate. He pointed out the six requirements of the
variance statute, asserting none of the requirements had been met with the exception of perhaps one. He
referred to a similar situation outlined in the record where a 30 foot wide house was constructed within
the required setbacks on a 50-foot lot on Sound View Place. He noted one of the requirements of the
variance statute was special circumstances which the Hearing Examiner found was not met. He
contended granting the variance would provide the Bogaerts a special privilege. He supported the
Hearing Examiner’s decision to deny the variance application.
William Wilson, Edmonds, property owner immediately adjacent to the north of the Bogaert property,
commented there was little time for their counsel to submit materials sooner. He referred to a letter his
wife submitted today. He explained the houses in the area were currently staggered with one higher on
the slope and back on the bluff, the next home forward and the next back, etc. He advised their original
structure was constructed in 1919 and was located 4 feet from the north property line of the Bogaert
property and a walkway is along the property line. The Haynes structure is also very close to the
Bogaert’s south property line. He disagreed with Mr. Thayer’s statement that their only issue to the
Hearing Examiner was the western placement of the Bogaert structure, explaining their primary concern
was the reduction in the side setback because their home was located close to the property line. He noted
the Bogaerts’ existing home, located up the slope was less intrusive to neighbors.
Mr. Lell asked Mr. Thayer if he had received the letter written by Ms. Wilson. Mr. Thayer answered no
and was provided a copy.
Nicole Wilson, Edmonds, property owner to the north of the Bogaert property, pointed out all property
had restrictions and potential purchasers bore the burden of determining whether the property would meet
current and future needs and if not, change one’s vision or needs to suit the property rather than seeking to
make the property conform. She commented a reasonable person could assume the City’s codes would be
enforced with variances granted only under extreme circumstances that constituted an undue hardship and
not simply to accommodate a preference when an alternative was available.
Walter Yeager, Edmonds, property owner to the north of the Wilsons, commented when these homes
were built 80 years ago, most were summer homes with few regulations on setbacks, etc. He commented
September 4, 2007
Page 8
the former owner of the Wilson property dealt with the setback issue when they sought to expand their
house by purchasing a 50-foot lot between their house and his house.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented large homes had been constructed on small lots in this area.
Rebuttal
Mr. Thayer referred to site plans contained in Exhibit B of the Bogaert application. The first, existing
buildings and vegetation, illustrated the existing house, carport and vegetation. The next drawing
illustrated the proposed residence, highlighting the areas where the variance was sought on the northern
and southern boundaries of the most western portion of the residence and the northern boundary of the
garage. He noted the Bogaerts were open to discussing whether the existing carport was retained. The
next drawing was the buildable footprint that identified sight lines for the properties to the south and
north. He pointed out this drawing illustrated even without a variance the Bogaerts could construct a
long, narrow house that extended west on the property. He concluded these drawings showed the lengths
to which the Bogaerts have gone to propose a structure that would have the least impact on their
neighbors. He summarized the variance was consistent with the goals and purposes of the zoning
ordinances and was reasonably necessary given the non-conforming nature of the lot that was too narrow
for an RS-12 lot.
Mr. Lell asked if there were any parties of record or the appellant/applicant had any objections that
information provided was outside the record or any Appearance of Fairness challenges. No objections or
challenges were voiced.
Councilmember Moore explained the Council was restricted to the information contained in the record
and could not ask questions if the answer was not contained in the documentation. The Council could not
take into account emotional argument and must rule according to the regulations in place.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
WAMBOLT, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER’S DECISION AND STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE VARIANCE.
Councilmember Dawson found the Hearing Examiner made the correct decision and staff’s
recommendation was appropriate because under the City’s code the request did not meet the variance
criteria. With regard to whether this was the minimum variance necessary to achieve a buildable
structure, she pointed out no variance would be required to build a structure. She noted although there
had been emotional pleas made to the Hearing Examiner and Council, the Council must base their
decision on whether the variance request met the provisions in the code. She noted none of the property
owners, although their current structures encroached into the setback, would not be allowed to rebuild in
the setback. She acknowledged the lot was narrow; however, a structure could be constructed that
adhered to the setback requirements. Although the property owner might find a wider footprint more
aesthetically pleasing, it was not required to construct a home on this lot and the code did not require
property owners be allowed to construct the house of their choice.
Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, commenting the Bogaerts made a reasonable request
via exploring the possibility of a variance. He referred to Conclusion #2 of the Hearing Examiner’s
findings as the basis for his decision, agreeing the property owner was not denied the opportunity to build
a new, more modern structure or move the structure closer to the water. He was confident a structure
would be proposed in the future that would accomplish those objectives.
Councilmember Moore expressed support for the motion, agreeing with the Hearing Examiner’s
conclusions. She noted the appellant’s most compelling argument was the nonconforming lot; however,
September 4, 2007
Page 9
the nonconforming lot did not restrict them from building a house on the lot within the allowable
footprint. She advised citizens’ emotional arguments about removing trees did not affect her decision as
residents did not have a right to retain trees unless they owned them nor did they have a right to staggered
development as part of the character of the community. She supported the appellant’s right to build their
house as close to the water as regulations allowed, an action that denying the variance would not prohibit.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lell advised he would return with draft findings and conclusions for consideration at a future Council
meeting. He asked whether the Council preferred to adopt the findings and conclusions by the Hearing
Examiner rather than drafting additional findings and conclusions of the Council. Councilmember
Dawson answered the Council’s conclusions were consistent with the Hearing Examiner’s decision.
4.
PRESENTATION REGARDING THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYER
PROGRAM, AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY
FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY
FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER.
Councilmember Dawson advised Caldie Rogers, President, Greater Marysville Tulalip Chamber of
Commerce, was unable to attend last week’s meeting and apparently was not able to attend tonight. She
anticipated Ms. Rogers would prefer the Council take action rather than delaying action for two weeks.
Councilmember Dawson explained the Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce developed this
program to support military families. She explained in many regions, dependants of military families
found themselves discriminated against in employment. Although Snohomish County has a positive
relationship with military families, through the development of this program, the Chamber learned
dependants of military families would apply for jobs and not get callbacks due to the base address on their
resume. When they changed their address to a PO Box, they received a much greater response. She
explained employers may be hesitant to hire a person who would only be stationed at a base for three
years; however, three years was the average length of employment in today’s workforce. The intent of
this program was to educate the community and employers about the untapped resource in military family
members who tend to be better educated, hardworking, understand concepts such as a drug free
workplace, etc.
Councilmember Dawson explained the program developed by Marysville Tulalip Chamber of Commerce
encouraged area businesses to become a military family friendly employment partner. Cities would be
asked to provide businesses information about the Military Family Friendly program when they apply for
a business license and decals would be distributed to businesses that identified them as a military Family
Friendly Employer. She read the proposed resolution expressing the City’s support for the Military
Family Friendly concept:
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hosts a vast number of military families who are either
permanently or temporarily stationed in the area; and
WHEREAS, military spouses and family members are often faced with employer bias because of
stereotypes such as availability and potential length of employment; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds has and wishes to continue to experience economic
development and the creation of family wage jobs; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports strongly a diverse and inclusive qualified workforce;
and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds supports fully our troops and their families; and
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds is an equal opportunity employer; and
September 4, 2007
Page 10
WHEREAS, the city of Edmonds hereby makes the following finding of fact:
A. Today's employers are faced with an unprecedented challenge of meeting their staffing needs in
today's high-technology, service-oriented economy. The demand for motivated, qualified
personnel has outstripped supply in many industries. Without new sources of talent, growth,
productivity and profits will be constrained by shortages in the labor market.
B. Military family members provide an advantage to employers searching for high levels of talent,
training, and unique skills cultivated by the rigors of military family life.
C. Military family members are highly educated and trained in a variety of disciplines. More than
one-fifth of spouses have earned a baccalaureate degree and one in twenty holds one or more
graduate or professional degrees. Many more are licensed or certified in skilled trades or
professional fields.
D. The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average job tenure of
employees has been on a steady decline over the past decade. Across all industries, the average
tenure is between three and four years. The median tour of duty for military personnel is 3 years,
suggesting that their accompanying spouses are likely to be employed for an "average" period, if
they find employment shortly upon arrival.
E Approximately 6500 sailors and civil service persons are assigned to Naval Station Everett with
an estimated 10,000 family members. Of this number there are about 5% per month that rotates in
and out. This means about 825 sailors plus family members, per month, are coming into and out
of Naval Station Everett.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
THE CITY OF EDMONDS IS A MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY PARTNER AND
ENCOURAGES AREA BUSINESSES TO JOIN THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY
PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her appreciation to City Clerk Sandy Chase for her support of this
concept. She noted this idea had already received recognition and awards although the official rollout had
not yet occurred.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1152 DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY FAMILY
FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY FAMILY
FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER.
Councilmember Moore declared this a brilliant idea, noting this may be a resource for Snohomish County
PUD who was desperately searching for linemen, a job that paid $50,000/year. She asked if this was
modeled after another program or was a new idea. Councilmember Dawson stated the Marysville Tulalip
Chamber of Commerce created this program with the hope it would be replicated across the country.
Councilmember Marin planned to attend the kickoff event. Raised as a military dependant and serving in
the Navy Reserves, he was keenly aware of this problem. He expressed his thanks to the Marysville
Tulalip Chamber of Commerce for taking the lead on addressing this issue.
7.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested having a representative from Snohomish County Council speak to the
City Council about smaller homes that were being permitted in Snohomish County. Next, he reported the
Taste of Edmonds was a great event with assistance provided by a lot of volunteers. He recalled 20 years
ago the Council met twice a month and staff was seated at a table on one side of the room. He suggested
September 4, 2007
Page 11
the Council consider having configuration again rather than having staff sit in the audience. He also
suggested everyone attending Council meetings sign in to provide a record of who attends meetings and
for safety reasons.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated he has been an attender at several hearings lately and attended one
recently that he needed to relay a problem that he found with the actions and demeanor of the person in
charge of that meeting.
Responding to questions of City Attorney Lell, Mr. Hertrich stated the hearing he attended had nothing to
do with a Council Meeting; it has to do with a different action that the City Council has nothing to do
with.
Mr. Hertrich stated that he objected to testimony made by the person that was in charge of the meeting,
the Hearing Examiner. The hearing was regarding a remand which goes to Superior Court on appeal (if
appealed). The person in charge indicated by their demeanor that they were a bit opposed to some of the
people that were there and some of the things that they were saying. Mr. Hertrich stated he specifically
objected at the meeting to the Hearing Examiner giving personal testimony. Mr. Hertrich stated the
Hearing Examiner needs to be adjusted in their behavior. The previous Hearing Examiner would sit
quietly, let everyone say what they wanted, take notes and maintain order but did not create an
antagonistic atmosphere. Mr. Hertrich further explained that the hearing was regarding buffering and the
wildlife area, it was separate from what the Council is dealing with and had to do with the PRD and
SEPA. He added that the Hearing Examiner’s attitude makes it difficult for a person who is not used to
giving testimony. He suggested this issue be discussed when the Hearing Examiner makes a report to the
City Council.
Next, Mr. Hertrich pointed out the previous minutes did not capture all his remarks. With regard to comp
time, he requested an accounting of the time the Mayor spends away from the City on vacation or comp
time.
8.
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Olson announced Don Kreiman passed away over the weekend. She commented he
would be greatly missed for his comments to the Council and involvement in various City committees
including the Transportation and Parking Committee and because he was an all-around great guy.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson encouraged the public to attend the Hot Autumn Nites car show on Saturday,
September 8.
9.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Pro Tem Wambolt reported on the exit conference held with the State Auditor. The
results of the audit were that the City complied with State laws and regulations and its own policies and
procedures in the areas they examined and internal controls were adequate to safeguard public assets.
Councilmember Dawson reported a number of cities were partnering for the October 6 Paint-Out event
sponsored by the Snohomish County Executive. Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace plan to paint a wall on
the trail behind Funtasia that is continually painted with graffiti. She explained the event would include
instruction on how to clean graffiti and information on paint products for various surfaces as well as
opportunities to paint out graffiti in the community. She urged anyone interested in participating to signup in advance on Snohomish County’s website. She noted the Realtors Association was also one of the
partners/sponsors.
September 4, 2007
Page 12
Councilmember Plunkett welcomed City Attorney Zach Lell and new Student Representative Scheibert.
Councilmember Orvis commented although he and Mr. Kreiman often disagreed on issues, he was a
sincere person who was true to his beliefs and he would miss him.
Councilmember Moore expressed her condolences to Don Kreiman’s family. She noted Mr. Kreiman
gave a lot to the community as a member of the Edmonds Daybreakers Rotary and an active member of
the Chamber. He was a good friend and she would miss him terribly.
Councilmember Moore complimented staff on the graffiti brochure distributed to the Council,
commenting the brochure provided more information than she was aware the City provided. Next, she
pointed out the Mayor’s salary had nearly doubled from $60,000 over the past eight years, yet the
Mayor’s job description was only two paragraphs long and there were few details regarding time required
to be spent on the job, vacation time, requirements to provide an annual report to the Council or set
annual goals, etc. She suggested in 2008 the Council consider expanding the job description, noting the
Directors’ job descriptions were pages long and there were specifics with regard to the amount of
vacation time earned, etc. She concluded a better description and requirements would assist in making
the Mayor’s job more transparent to the citizens.
Councilmember Marin commented four years ago he ran against Don Kreiman for the Council and they
became good friends through that process. They worked together on several committees since then and
discovered they had many beliefs in common. He commented he was a great guy who would be missed.
Student Representative Scheibert thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as Student
Representative.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson thanked Mr. Lell for his assistance during the meeting.
10.
ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
September 4, 2007
Page 13
AM-1169
Approval of Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks
Date:
09/18/2007
Submitted By:
Debbie Karber
Submitted For:
Dan Clements
Department:
Administrative Services
Review Committee:
Action:
Approved for Consent Agenda
Time:
Type:
2.C.
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #98783 through #98891 for September 6, 2007 in the amount of
$319,217.90 and #98892 through #99093 for September 13, 2007 in the amount of $318,362.23.
Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #45490 through #45583 for the period of August 16
through August 31, 2007 in the amount of $819,048.67.
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposits and checks.
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council.
Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends
either approval or non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2007
Revenue:
Expenditure: $1,456,628.80
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $637,580.13
Payroll: $819,048.67
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 09-06-07
Link: Claim cks 09-13-07
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq
1
2
Inbox
Admin Services
City Clerk
Approved By
Date
Kathleen Junglov 09/13/2007 10:14 AM
Sandy Chase
09/13/2007 10:19 AM
Status
APRV
APRV
2
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
3
Mayor
Gary Haakenson
4
Final Approval
Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
09/13/2007 10:19 AM
APRV
09/13/2007 10:56 AM
APRV
09/13/2007 11:01 AM
APRV
Started On: 09/13/2007 09:31
AM
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
1
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98783
9/6/2007 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX
0807540
SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS
SPRING AND SUMMER SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00
999.32
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00
88.94
Total :
1,088.26
98784
9/6/2007 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC
101503431
M5Z34
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
98785
98786
9/6/2007 071867 ALLEN, AUTUMN
9/6/2007 070254 ALLIED ELECTRONICS INC
ALLEN0827
46414C-00
320.94
17.50
Total :
30.12
368.56
REFUND
REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
Total :
13.00
13.00
05-09452
ELECTRICAL PARTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
66.83
6.75
6.54
80.12
Total :
98787
9/6/2007 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
7234
PLAQUE
Page:
1
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98787
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
2
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
BRONZE PLAQUE FOR EDMONDS SKATE PARK
125.000.640.594.750.310.00
190.00
Freight
125.000.640.594.750.310.00
5.57
Sales Tax
125.000.640.594.750.310.00
17.41
Total :
212.98
98788
98789
98790
9/6/2007 001430 AMERICAN RED CROSS
9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK
9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK
2515
512-3949709
512-3949711
LIFEGUARDING SUPPLIES
LIFEGUARDING MANUAL AND CPR MASKS
001.000.640.575.510.310.00
Total :
UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
Total :
18386001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK
512-3938991
3.00
36.76
8.58
105.02
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
17.40
1.55
Page:
33.76
96.44
Total :
98791
91.00
91.00
2
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98791
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
3
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK
Invoice
(Continued)
512-3938993
512-3940365
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
STORM/STREET UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
3.24
3.24
0.29
0.29
33.69
3.00
Page:
3
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98791
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
4
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK
Invoice
(Continued)
512-3943638
512-3943639
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
PW MATS
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
STORM/STREET - UNIFORM SVC
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
5.24
1.38
5.24
5.24
5.24
5.26
0.12
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.46
3.24
3.24
0.29
0.29
Page:
4
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98791
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
5
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK
Invoice
(Continued)
512-3944957
512-3948324
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
PW MATS
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
33.69
3.00
1.38
5.24
5.24
5.24
5.24
5.26
0.12
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.46
Page:
5
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98791
98792
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 069751 ARAMARK
9/6/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
Invoice
(Continued)
512-3948325
562589
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
Total :
3.24
3.24
0.29
0.29
173.63
75179
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00
3,707.84
296.63
4,004.47
Total :
98793
9/6/2007 064343 AT&T
425-771-1124
425-771-4741
98794
98795
6
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY
9/6/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
233X09052007
41787
PARKS MAINT. BLDG
PARKS MAINT. BLDG
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
CEMETERY
CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.200.420.00
34.67
Total :
67.75
102.42
Total :
95.61
95.61
OPS COMMS
Vehicles' wireless
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
Page:
6
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98795
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
7
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
41801
UB Outsourcing PRINTING area #100
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
UB Outsourcing POSTAGE area #100
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
90.08
90.08
90.34
270.18
270.17
8.02
8.02
8.03
113.23
113.23
113.56
339.31
339.30
10.08
10.08
10.10
Page:
7
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98795
98796
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
8
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING
Invoice
(Continued)
41850
9836882
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
Total :
122.85
122.85
123.23
368.73
368.72
10.93
10.93
10.97
3,023.02
Canon 5870 Copier Lease - 10/1
Page:
8
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98796
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
001.000.610.519.700.450.00
001.000.210.513.100.450.00
001.000.220.516.100.450.00
Supply charge
001.000.610.519.700.450.00
Supply charge
001.000.210.513.100.450.00
Supply charge
001.000.220.516.100.450.00
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00
Total :
98797
98798
98799
9
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC
9/6/2007 071868 BECKER, SABRINA
9/6/2007 060502 BERG, COLIN
5285
BECKER0829
BERG8260
101.35
101.32
101.33
25.01
25.00
24.99
11.25
11.25
11.25
412.75
Gymnastics Coach, #07-30
Gymnastics Coach, #07-30
001.000.640.574.200.440.00
Total :
23.94
23.94
REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
Total :
250.00
250.00
TAIJIQUAN CLASSES
TAIJIQUAN #8260
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
432.00
432.00
Total :
Page:
9
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98800
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
10
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 069116 BJY NW LOCKBOX CPA SERVICES
Invoice
E-010
E-044
98801
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 068032 BLANCH, ANN
BLANCH8258
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
Plan Review 2007-0439 8710 Main St
Plan Review 2007-0439 8710 Main St
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
Plan Review 2006-0783 18902 94th Ave W
Plan Review 2006-0783 18902 94th Ave W
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
Total :
TAIJIQUAN CLASSES
TAIJIQUAN # 8258
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
1,471.55
340.00
1,811.55
54.00
54.00
Total :
98802
9/6/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
611253-01
INV# 611253-01 EDMONDS PD - LONG JIMS
CAR DOOR OPENERS - LONG JIMS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
59.75
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
5.32
Total :
65.07
98803
9/6/2007 060141 BRANOM INSTRUMENT
352444
3083
PRESSURE SWITCH
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
746.16
18.10
68.02
832.28
Total :
98804
9/6/2007 071865 BROOKSRAND ENVIRONMENTAL
11483
EDM001
MERCURY TESTING
411.000.656.538.800.410.11
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.11
315.00
1.34
316.34
Total :
98805
9/6/2007 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL
BRUNETTE8364
PRENATAL FITNESS
Page:
10
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98805
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
11
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
PRENATAL FITNESS #8364
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
140.00
140.00
Total :
98806
9/6/2007 065309 CAMPBELL PET COMPANY
0213588-IN
INV# 0213588-IN CUST#0098020 EDMONDS AC
PET WAGGINS (CAT CARRIERS)
001.000.410.521.700.310.00
97.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00
12.35
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00
8.00
Total :
117.85
98807
9/6/2007 071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE
CAMPBELL8738
INTRODUCTORY KAYAKING
INTRODUCTORY KAYAKING @ MARINA BEACH~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
330.60
Total :
330.60
98808
9/6/2007 069458 CASCADE CONTROLS CORP.
0138244-01
242560
BUCKET/FEEDER CIRCUIT BREAKER
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Total :
98809
9/6/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
LY110926
ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
270.38
3,308.38
51.92
13.50
5.82
Page:
3,038.00
11
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98809
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
98811
12
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
LY110927
LY110928
98810
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 071870 CHEW, SALINAH
9/6/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
CHEW0831
460682008
460707856
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
20.77
13.50
3.05
10.38
13.50
Total :
2.12
134.56
REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
Total :
50.00
50.00
UNIFORMS
Stn 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Stn 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00
ALS UNIFORMS CREDIT
Stn. 17 ALS uniform credit (Timm)
001.000.510.526.100.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00
92.40
1,298.40
8.19
115.59
-1,004.76
-107.32
Page:
12
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98811
98812
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
13
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL
Invoice
(Continued)
460707878
9459824
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
OPS UNIFORMS
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
132.66
Total :
11.80
546.96
COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease INSURANCE for PW
001.000.650.519.910.450.00
Total :
14.82
14.82
98813
9/6/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
5546
INV# 5546 CUST#45 EDMONDS PD - AFIS TERM
1/3 ANNUAL MAINT - AFIS TERMINAL
001.000.410.521.910.410.00
1,724.98
Total :
1,724.98
98814
9/6/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
W1825720
FAC MAINT - FINISH, COACHVAC W/TOOL
FAC MAINT - FINISH, COACHVAC W/TOOL
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
662.56
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
59.19
Total :
724.25
98815
W1830664
OPS SUPPLIES
Stations' supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
185.08
2.50
16.69
204.27
Total :
98816
9/6/2007 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC
3-8674
UNIT EQ27PO - NEW 2008 FORD CROWN
Page:
13
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98816
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
14
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
UNIT EQ27PO - NEW 2008 FORD CROWN
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
22,492.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
1,799.36
Total :
24,291.36
98817
9/6/2007 069482 COMPRESSORS NORTHWEST
66681
STORM - REGULATOR(125 PSI) AND SUPPLIES
STORM - REGULATOR(125 PSI) AND SUPPLIES
411.000.652.542.900.350.00
151.34
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.350.00
13.47
Total :
164.81
98818
9/6/2007 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING
510-0418
OPS UNIFORMS
Batt Chiefs
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
PREVENTION UNIFORMS
Fire Marshal
001.000.510.522.300.240.00
PREVENTION UNIFORMS
Fire Inspector
001.000.510.522.300.240.00
OPS UNIFORMS
Admin BC
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
ADMIN UNIFORMS
Fire Chief
001.000.510.522.100.240.00
OPS UNIFORMS
Asst Chief
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
510-0995
510-1524
510-1539
510-1884
510-2341
55.91
73.88
17.67
35.32
41.21
20.00
243.99
Total :
98819
JULY-AUG 2007
INV FOR JULY-AUG 2007, EDMONDS PD
Page:
14
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98819
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
DRY CLEANING JULY/AUG 2007
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
Total :
98820
15
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE
CRAM8446
799.76
799.76
IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
44.80
44.80
Total :
98821
9/6/2007 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
08/2007 DRS
DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
08/2007 DRS Contributions
811.000.000.231.540.000.00
190,321.04
Total :
190,321.04
98822
9/6/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
07-2786
MINUTE TAKING
8/28 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00
366.80
366.80
Total :
98823
98824
9/6/2007 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL
9/6/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL
August 2007
11672
11748
Lobbyist General Government &
Lobbyist General Government &
001.000.610.519.700.410.00
Lobbyist Edmonds Crossing
001.000.610.519.700.410.00
Total :
1,265.00
1,320.00
2,585.00
UPS BROWN & CALDWELL
UPS BROWN & CALDWELL
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL
UPS/BROWN & CALDWELL
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
15.45
1.38
15.45
1.38
Page:
15
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
16
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL
PO #
98824
9/6/2007 070683
98825
9/6/2007 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP JAMERSON0904
Description/Account
(Continued)
Amount
Total :
33.66
Total :
122.00
122.00
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:~
122.000.640.574.100.490.00
98826
9/6/2007 066987 EDMONDS POLICE FOUNDATION
2007
2007 EDMONDS NIGHT OUT BUDGET FEES
2007 EDMONDS NIGHT OUT~
001.000.410.521.300.410.00
2,000.00
Total :
2,000.00
98827
9/6/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
1-00650
LIFT STATION #7
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
LIFT STATION #8
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
LIFT STATION #1
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
LIFT STATION #2
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
Public Works Meter Shop
Public Works Meter Shop
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
LIFT STATION #6
LIFT STATION #6
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
1-00925
1-01950
1-02675
1-03950
1-05350
1-05705
1-13975
Page:
20.64
22.41
22.41
33.03
375.70
163.08
42.01
456.50
16
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98827
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Invoice
(Continued)
1-14000
2-26950
4-34080
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
LIFT STATION #3
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
LIFT STATION #14
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
83.93
42.01
22.41
1,284.13
Total :
98828
98829
9/6/2007 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 102903
9/6/2007 071853 ERIE LANDMARK CO
23848
INV#102903 CLIENT #5118 EDMONDS PD
SPAY FELINE IMP# 6941
001.000.410.521.700.490.01
FELINE VACCINE - FVRCP - IMP #6941
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
NEUTER DOG (30-59 LB) IMP#6990
001.000.410.521.700.490.01
Total :
HPC Plaque - Planning Div
HPC Plaque - Planning Div
001.000.620.558.600.490.00
9/6/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
0925416
17983
REPAIR KIT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
9/6/2007 071869 FUNAKOSHI, KYLE
FUNAKOSHI0829
97.50
188.50
7.65
9.56
116.97
REFUND
Page:
5.00
99.76
Total :
98831
86.00
214.00
214.00
Total :
98830
17
City of Edmonds
17
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98831
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 071869 FUNAKOSHI, KYLE
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
Total :
98832
9/6/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY
2074260-01
2074260-02
500.00
500.00
OIL SEAL
OIL SEAL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
OIL SEAL
OIL SEAL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
9.48
0.84
21.00
5.65
2.37
39.34
Total :
98833
18
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA
GLEISNER8254
GLEISNER8849
TAIJIQUAN CLASSES
TAIJIQUAN CLASS #8254
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
QIGONG & TAIJIQUAN CLASSES
QIGONG # 8849
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
QIGONG #8288
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
QIGONG #8289
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
TAIJIQUAN #8256
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
TAIJIQUAN #8269
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
TAIJUQUAN #8261
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
47.25
135.00
40.50
67.50
141.75
668.25
47.25
Page:
18
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
19
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
98833
9/6/2007 068617
98834
9/6/2007 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN
98835
Page:
City of Edmonds
068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA
9/6/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
75
1041776
1571547
2032779
2206577
2207063
Amount
Total :
1,147.50
Total :
198.00
198.00
LEOFF 1 reimbursement
LEOFF 1 reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
BATTERIES, GASSER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
60335 3225 0267 0205
BOLT, FILLER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
GARDEN SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
GRASS, HERBS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
93.23
8.30
36.18
3.22
35.97
3.20
129.22
11.50
34.42
3.06
Page:
19
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98835
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
20
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
3035555
5036753
5042635
6043944
6196566
6569705
8043586
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
6035 3225 0267 0205
WASHERS, BOLTS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
PRIMER, SOLVENT, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
SPADEFORKS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
PARTS KIT, SPRAYER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
PAINT, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
123.75
11.01
27.08
2.41
87.88
7.82
82.23
7.32
59.94
5.33
24.95
2.22
69.61
6.20
Page:
20
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98835
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
9033130
5092769
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
6035 3225 0267 0205
BOSCH BLADE, NOZZLES, GASSER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
6035 3225 0267 0205
TUBE, FELT, SQUARE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Total :
50.75
4.52
18.42
1.64
951.38
6035322501434934
stations' supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
64.93
5.78
70.71
Total :
98837
98838
98839
21
front
9042140
98836
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC
9/6/2007 071863 JOHNSON, GEORGE
9/6/2007 015270 JONES CHEMICALS INC
107840
3-19525
361933
INV#107840 EDMONDS PD
PRE-OFFER PHQ - MEHL, SACKVILLE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
Total :
RE: #A-0707-023 UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund # A-0707-023
411.000.000.233.000.000.00
Total :
1.72
25.72
44.59
44.59
HYPOCHLORITE
Page:
24.00
21
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98839
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 015270 JONES CHEMICALS INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
HYPOCHLORITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.53
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53
2,979.27
262.18
3,241.45
Total :
98840
98841
98842
22
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 062477 KEEP POSTED
9/6/2007 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER
11262
KIDZ8085
9/6/2007 068493 LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIP DISTRIBU 08270703
WRITER'S CONFERENCE
POSTING FOR WRITERS CONFERENCE
123.000.640.573.100.440.00
Total :
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER PROGRAMS
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER #8085
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
Total :
939.40
1,067.50
1,622.60
1,409.10
256.20
5,294.80
FLIGHT GLOVES
001.000.410.521.230.310.00
KNEE PADS
001.000.410.521.230.310.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.230.310.00
37.95
22.95
7.95
001.000.410.521.230.310.00
6.06
74.91
Total :
Page:
102.00
102.00
22
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98843
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 061900 MARC
Invoice
0338224-IN
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
00-0902224
KLEAR KRETE SEALER
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
1,974.50
175.73
2,150.23
Total :
98844
23
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
70847059
70973241
123106800
STAINLESS STEEL ROD/CASTER/HOLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
673.65
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
64.53
123106800
BATTERIES/SPRAY NOZZLE/HOSE COUPLING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
256.76
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
9.00
Total :
1,003.94
98845
9/6/2007 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC
P7081932
REPAIR SERVICE
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE FOR ANDERSON
001.000.640.575.520.480.00
155.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.480.00
13.80
Total :
168.80
98846
9/6/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
323912314-069
323912314 IT CELL PHONE SERVICE
Page:
23
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98846
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
IT Cell Phone Service 7/25-8/24/07
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
Corr misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nextel
001.000.510.522.100.420.00
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
001.000.510.522.300.420.00
001.000.510.526.100.420.00
Total :
98847
98848
24
City of Edmonds
411191318-069
976032312-069
155.52
21.22
20.19
79.00
54.85
330.78
Nextel - Bldg 7/25 to 8/24/2007 Bldg
Nextel - Bldg 7/25 to 8/24/2007 Bldg
001.000.620.524.100.420.00
Corr of misapplied 8/06 pmt by Nextel
001.000.510.522.100.420.00
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
001.000.510.522.300.420.00
001.000.510.526.100.420.00
Total :
82.05
6.85
78.06
18.31
15.44
200.71
COMMUNICATIONS
Operations
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
Prevention
001.000.510.522.300.420.00
ALS
001.000.510.526.100.420.00
Admin
001.000.510.522.100.420.00
341.89
69.80
54.84
26.72
Page:
24
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
98848
9/6/2007 067098
98849
9/6/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
S1632433.001
S1673026.001
S1674329.001
Amount
Total :
493.25
2091
C-275 SWITCHGEAR PARTS
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
2091
VFD RACEWAY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
2091
VFD RACEWAY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
2,708.08
232.90
145.80
12.98
122.52
10.54
3,232.82
Total :
98850
25
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
487794
Office Supplies - L. Carl.
Office Supplies - L. Carl.
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
145.07
12.91
Page:
25
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98850
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
611558
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
Paper - MY, HR, CS
Paper - MY, HR, CS
001.000.610.519.700.310.00
Paper - MY, HR, CS
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
Paper - MY, HR, CS
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
28.82
28.81
28.82
70.07
2.57
8.80
2.56
328.43
Total :
98851
519347
520129
Keyboard & floor mat
Keyboard & floor mat
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
Keyboard
Keyboard
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
127.59
11.35
62.25
5.55
206.74
Total :
98852
26
City of Edmonds
392481
520437
BINDER/FRAME/MARKERS/DIVIDERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
Page:
52.35
4.66
26
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
98852
9/6/2007 063511
98853
063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC
200879
393954
492322
98854
599680
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
Amount
Total :
57.01
PW EXEC ADMIN - FOLDERS
PW EXEC ADMIN - FOLDERS
001.000.650.519.910.310.00
42.71
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00
3.80
WATER - LEAD OFFICE UPDATE, INVENTORY
WATER - LEAD OFFICE UPDATE, INVENTORY
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
670.88
SEWER - ORGINIZER
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
25.49
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
59.71
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
2.27
SEWER - TELEMETRY PAPER AND RIBBON
SEWER - TELEMETRY PAPER AND RIBBON
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
77.27
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
6.88
Total :
889.01
OPS SUPPLIES
stations' office supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
65.92
5.86
71.78
Total :
98855
27
Page:
City of Edmonds
487854
INV# 487854 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS
Page:
27
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98855
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
28
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
TONER FOR CAROLINE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
TONER FOR PATROL REPORT RM
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
RADIO CONTROLLED CLOCK
001.000.410.521.400.310.00
STAPLER & STAPLES - CRYSTAL
104.000.410.521.210.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00
Sales Tax
104.000.410.521.210.310.00
Total :
98856
9/6/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9836879
84.21
180.07
35.69
6.05
7.49
16.02
3.18
0.54
333.25
COPIER CONTRACT
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41
145.22
12.60
157.82
Total :
98857
9/6/2007 027148 PARAMOUNT SUPPLY CO
668566
315400
SWITCH
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
454.55
6.75
41.05
502.35
Total :
98858
9/6/2007 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP
CAMPCASH0905
DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
Page:
28
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98858
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
Reimb to Daycamp Petty Cash-Supplies
001.000.640.575.530.310.00
Reimb to Daycamp Petty Cash-Misc
001.000.640.575.530.490.00
Reimb to Daycamp Petty Cash-Travel
001.000.640.575.530.430.00
Total :
98859
98860
98861
98862
29
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP
9/6/2007 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
9/6/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
July-07
158830
084-904-700-6
0101874006
0230757007
1916766007
2753166004
DC LOBBYIST FOR JULY 2007
DC Lobbyist for July 2007
001.000.610.519.700.410.00
Total :
99.95
144.00
339.88
4,000.00
4,000.00
INV# 158830 CUST#2772 EDMONDS PD
MAIL RADIO FOR REPAIR
001.000.410.521.100.420.00
Total :
WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.656.538.800.472.63
Total :
24.45
24.45
295.54
295.54
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
31.90
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
31.90
LIFT STATION #7
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
57.66
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
279.73
Page:
95.93
29
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98862
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
30
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
2776365005
2986629000
3689976003
5254926008
5322323139
5672895009
5903085008
6439566008
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
Public Works
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00
LIFT STATION #13
LIFT STATION #13
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
Fire Station # 16
Fire Station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
FLEET
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
4.28
16.26
16.26
16.26
16.26
16.24
89.14
18.62
89.04
151.89
26.58
46.73
158.13
Page:
30
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98862
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
6490327001
8851908007
9919661109
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
ANDERSON CENTER
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
LIFT STATION #8
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
584.54
54.79
47.48
1,753.69
Total :
98863
9/6/2007 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC
227908
227954
98864
31
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS
9413400934
9413414171
9413457705
MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN CROSSING RENT
MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN CROSSING RENT
411.000.652.542.400.450.00
75.00
EDMONDS STORM DRAIN CROSSING RENT FEES
EDMONDS STORM DRAIN CROSSING RENT FEES
411.000.652.542.400.450.00
75.00
Total :
150.00
WATER - ASPHALT
WATER - ASPHALT
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
WATER - ASPHALT COLD MIX
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
60.00
5.34
65.00
5.79
252.20
22.44
Page:
31
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
32
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
98864
9/6/2007 068484
068484 RINKER MATERIALS
98865
9/6/2007 070290 ROSE CITY LABEL
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
7-1441E
Amount
Total :
410.77
PREVENTION SUPPLIES
kids' badges
001.000.510.522.300.310.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.300.310.00
165.00
5.76
170.76
Total :
98866
9/6/2007 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY
08/30/07
INVOICE 8/30/07 EDMONDS ANIMAL CONTROL
7/30/07 - 5 ANIMAL CARCASSES
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
48.75
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
58.50
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
48.75
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
48.75
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
39.00
Total :
243.75
98867
9/6/2007 071864 SAFE APPROACH INC
156976
SAFETY NET
SAFETY NET
411.000.656.538.800.310.12
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.12
485.63
13.51
499.14
Total :
98868
9/6/2007 069879 SALTER JOYCE ZIKER PLLC
17939
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Prof Services 8th & Walnut
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
Prof Services 5th & Dayton
001.000.610.519.700.410.00
14.55
396.00
410.55
Total :
98869
9/6/2007 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC
1071690
UTILITY BILLING - PINK NOTICE PAPER
Page:
32
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98869
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
UTILITY BILLING - PINK NOTICE PAPER
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
King County Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Total :
98870
9/6/2007 036955 SKY NURSERY
264994
WATER- 3WAY SOIL
WATER- 3WAY SOIL
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
9/6/2007 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
238722633
238723423
238724099
98872
9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2340031869
3010022725
5100017325
53.19
24.98
305.65
3.55
43.49
SPORTS CAMP
MULTI SPORT CAMP #8047
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
SKYHAWKS CAMP
SKYHAWKS MULTI-SPORT #8059
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMPS
SKYHAWKS SPORTS CAMPS:~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
Total :
952.00
1,064.00
4,066.00
6,082.00
MINI PARK RESTROOMS
MINI PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
BRACKETT'S LANDING BATH HOUSE
BRACKETT'S LANDING BATH HOUSE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
Page:
227.48
39.94
Total :
98871
33
City of Edmonds
139.05
93.83
31.62
33
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
34
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
98872
9/6/2007 037375
98873
9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
98874
Page:
City of Edmonds
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
PO #
(Continued)
730015261
112-000-511-9
2060014392
2060015456
2060018765
2180017895
2340018510
2540794324
2710014826
2790012476
Description/Account
Amount
Total :
264.50
463-001-705-3
23219 74TH AVE W/ BALLINGER
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
Total :
26.22
1.57
27.79
22000 84TH AVE W
Traffic Signal 220th St SW & 84th Ave W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
STREET LIGHT
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
LIFT STATION #8
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK
BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
fire station # 16
fire station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
LIFT STATION #9
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
Page:
54.37
30.72
28.77
67.50
32.12
71.30
1,450.60
51.70
153.89
34
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98874
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
35
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Invoice
(Continued)
2900012432
2960019335
3180012308
3260494996
3380016422
3380016430
3460019262
3630019994
3720012057
3900430020
3980029445
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
LIFT STATION #3
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
DECORATIVE LIGHTS 115 2ND AVE S
deocrative lighting
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
LIFT STATION #14
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
Page:
29.74
107.95
30.43
31.91
29.74
29.74
185.57
81.03
2,052.03
29.26
29.26
35
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98874
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
36
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Invoice
(Continued)
4220016176
4320010194
4430018418
4650022645
4680011956
4840011953
4860014960
5240017631
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
STREET LIGHT
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
STREET LIGHT
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
Public Works
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00
STREET LIGHT
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
50.64
33.71
43.32
685.41
72.47
68.65
260.85
260.85
260.85
260.85
260.85
47.95
32.98
Page:
36
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98874
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
37
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Invoice
(Continued)
5370016262
5390028164
5410010689
5450010938
5450011118
5510015661
5720013258
7060000275
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
STREET LIGHT
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
LIFT STATION #1
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
Fire station #16
Fire station #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
29.26
4,604.98
2,295.14
108.14
108.83
28.77
756.53
Total :
29.74
14,878.40
98875
9/6/2007 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC
Sept-07
09/07 RECREATION SERVIES CONTRACT FEE
09/07 Recreation Servies Contract Fee
001.000.390.519.900.410.00
4,791.67
Total :
4,791.67
98876
9/6/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
140209
FAC MAINT - ELECTRIC SUPPLIES
Page:
37
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98876
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Date
Vendor
Invoice
9/6/2007 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
147506
8455
FAC MAINT - ELECTRIC SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
PW FIBER PROJECT - SUPPLIES
PW FIBER PROJECT - SUPPLIES
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
PS - ELECT SUPPLIES
PS - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Total :
41.22
3.67
481.38
42.84
86.26
7.68
663.05
LS 1 - ALARM SERVICE
LS 1 - ALARM SERVICE
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
390.26
390.26
Total :
98878
9/6/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
10576835
SUPPLIES
RIVETS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
15.99
4.18
1.80
21.97
Total :
98879
38
front
147505
98877
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
824688
PUBLIC SAFETY
Sept 07 elevator maint-PS
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
35.15
Page:
38
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98879
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
39
front
Date
Vendor
9/6/2007 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
Invoice
(Continued)
834823
834824
98880
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
7554709
7554711
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
Sept 07 Sr Cnt Elevator Monitoring
Sept 07 Sr Cnt Elevator Monitoring
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
104.00
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
Aug 07 Sr Cnt Elevator Monitoring
Aug 07 Sr Cnt Elevator Monitoring
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
Total :
9.26
10.57
158.98
WATER METER INVENTORY -~
411.000.000.141.170.310.00
M-METER-01.5-010
411.000.000.141.170.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.000.141.170.310.00
411.000.000.141.170.310.00
M-METER-01.5-010
411.000.000.141.170.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.000.141.170.310.00
Total :
2,090.00
1,415.00
311.95
2,090.00
1,415.00
311.95
7,633.90
98881
9/6/2007 043935 UPS
00002T4T13347
SHIPPING CHARGES
SHIPPING CHARGES FOR PARK MAINTENANCE
001.000.640.576.800.490.00
61.90
Total :
61.90
98882
9/6/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
425-DHO-0667
DEDICATED LINE FS #17 TO SNOCOM
Dedicated Line FS #17 to Snocom 8/19001.000.310.518.880.420.00
Page:
356.18
39
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98882
98883
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
40
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
425-NW2-0887
425-206-1108
425-206-1137
425-206-1141
425-206-4810
425-206-7147
425-206-8379
425-673-5978
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet
Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
Total :
280.00
636.18
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
145.03
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
269.35
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
26.50
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
18.43
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
34.22
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
42.17
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
78.32
LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
14.88
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
14.88
LIFT STATION #1
Lift Station #1
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
49.37
Page:
40
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98883
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
41
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
425-712-0417
425-712-8251
425-712-8347
425-771-0158
425-775-1534
425-775-2455
425-775-7865
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
TELEMETRY STATIONS
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
28.89
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
28.89
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00
13.78
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
68.90
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
56.49
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
56.49
511.000.657.548.680.420.00
79.92
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
59.15
FS # 16
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
236.63
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
160.63
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
298.32
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
49.37
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
52.25
Page:
41
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98883
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
425-776-3896
425-RT0-9133
425-771-0152
425-778-2153
425-FLO-0017
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
118.96
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
18.51
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
34.37
PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO 911
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00
5.48
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
20.81
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
20.81
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
20.81
511.000.657.548.680.420.00
20.81
411.000.652.542.900.420.00
20.78
Total :
2,164.20
FS #16-FAX LINE
FS #16-FAX LINE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
FS #20 PHONE SERVICE
FS #20 PHONE SERVICE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
FS #16 FRAME RELAY
FS #16 FRAME RELAY
001.000.510.528.600.420.00
52.25
48.96
360.26
461.47
Total :
98885
42
front
425-778-3297
98884
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/6/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
0578888414
965420720-00001
Page:
42
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98885
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
PRETREATMENT CELL
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
36.29
36.29
Total :
98886
470091643-00001
470103273-00001
670091643-00001
425-238-8846
cell phone-Tod Moles
411.000.652.542.900.420.00
425-238-5456
cell phone-Mike Johnson
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
425-327-5379
cell phone-unit #77
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
56.01
29.71
54.80
140.52
Total :
98887
43
City of Edmonds
0582036851
INV# 0582036851 ACCT 470497482-00001
CELL PHONE SERVICE 8/24-9/23/07
104.000.410.521.210.420.00
Total :
125.42
125.42
98888
9/6/2007 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
31604296
INV#31604296 ACCT#1188339 EDMONDS PD
CASE OF CULTURE TUBES
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
93.12
Freight
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
6.74
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00
8.88
Total :
108.74
98889
9/6/2007 071359 WASSER CORPORATION
109182
PAINT
PAINT
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
318.52
28.03
346.55
Total :
Page:
43
vchlist
09/05/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
4:43:55PM
Page:
44
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
98890
9/6/2007 063074 WESTERN POWER AND EQUIPMENT
794840
WATER/SEWER - BACKHOE* BUCKETS AND
411.000.654.534.800.350.00
1,298.09
411.000.655.535.800.350.00
1,298.09
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.350.00
110.34
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.350.00
110.33
Total :
2,816.85
98891
9/6/2007 064213 WSSUA TREASURER
239
LEAGUE UMPIRING
MEN'S AND CO-ED LEAGUE UMPIRING
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
Total :
109 Vouchers for bank code :
109 Vouchers in this report
front
3,276.00
3,276.00
Bank total :
319,217.90
Total vouchers :
319,217.90
Page:
44
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98892
98893
98894
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
1
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 041695 3M XAM3522
9/13/2007 069634 ACCURINT - ACCT 1201641
9/13/2007 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC
Invoice
SS45214
1201641-20070831
101512453
101524748
98895
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 014940 ALL BATTERY SALES & SERVICE
110426731
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
STREET - WHITE SCOTCHLITE REFL
STREET - WHITE SCOTCHLITE REFL
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
Total :
INV#1201641-20070831 EDMONDS PD
SEARCHES AND REPORTS
001.000.410.521.210.410.00
Total :
M5Z34
ADJUSTMENT/CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
M5Z34
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
Total :
22.03
269.53
52.60
52.60
25.00
2.23
46.97
4.18
78.38
FLEET BATTERY INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
123.90
11.03
Page:
247.50
1
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98895
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
2
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
110426935
493042
714570
714619
715242
892701
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
202.10
UNIT EQ10FI - BATTERY
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
52.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
17.99
Sales Tax
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
4.71
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
52.95
Sales Tax
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
4.71
SHOP SUPPLIES - LAMPS, FUSE, HEADLAMPS,
SHOP SUPPLIES - LAMPS, FUSE, HEADLAMPS,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
81.10
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
7.22
UNIT G12 - CHARGER
UNIT G12 - CHARGER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
31.47
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
2.80
UNIT 6 - LITEBOX
UNIT 6 - LITEBOX
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
106.77
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
9.50
SHOP - CORDLESS PACKS
SHOP - CORDLESS PACKS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
54.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
4.81
Page:
2
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98895
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
892836
894006
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
SHOP - BATTERY LIFTER
SHOP - BATTERY LIFTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
7.95
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
0.71
SHOP - EXCHANGED CORDLESS PK FROM
SHOP - EXCHANGED CORDLESS PK FROM
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
-14.05
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
-1.25
Total :
761.37
OPS SUPPLIES
cordless drill batteries
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
318.00
28.30
346.30
Total :
98897
3
front
892870
98896
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
0197-000877086
197-000876921
FS 16
garbage for F/S #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
101.51
84.34
Page:
3
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98897
98898
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
4
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
9/13/2007 001600 ANDERSON, WILLARD
Invoice
(Continued)
197-000877015
76
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
Public Works Facility
001.000.650.519.910.470.00
111.000.653.542.900.470.00
411.000.652.542.900.470.00
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
511.000.657.548.680.470.00
20.76
78.88
78.88
78.88
78.88
Total :
78.87
601.00
Total :
140.00
140.00
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
98899
9/13/2007 066148 APWA
276
APWA 2007 FALL CONFERENCE -~ N MILLER
APWA 2007 FALL CONFERENCE -~ N MILLER
001.000.650.519.910.490.00
400.00
Total :
400.00
98900
9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK
512-3954323
UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00
Total :
98901
9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK
512-3954325
3.00
36.76
18386001
Page:
33.76
4
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98901
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00
96.29
8.57
104.86
Total :
98902
5
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK
512-3943637
512-3948323
512-3949710
512-3952984
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
17.40
1.55
20.10
1.79
33.69
3.00
20.10
1.79
Page:
5
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98902
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
6
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK
Invoice
(Continued)
512-3952985
512-3952986
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
PW MATS
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00
411.000.652.542.900.240.00
1.38
5.24
5.24
5.24
5.24
5.26
0.12
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.47
3.24
0.29
0.29
3.24
Page:
6
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98902
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 069751 ARAMARK
Invoice
(Continued)
512-3954324
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
001.000.651.519.920.240.00
3.00
33.69
173.23
Total :
98903
7
City of Edmonds
562381
FLEET - PREMIUM GAS 6106 GAL
WA ST SVC FEE
511.000.657.548.680.340.11
ST EXCISE TAX DIESEL, WA OIL SPILL
511.000.657.548.680.340.12
UNLEADED REGULAR - 4400 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.11
511.000.657.548.680.340.11
WA ST SVC FEE
511.000.657.548.680.340.12
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.11
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.12
FLEET - PREMIUM GAS 6106 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.12
20.00
2,309.30
9,021.76
1,659.68
20.00
1.60
1.60
13,088.20
Page:
7
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98903
98904
98905
98906
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 064343 AT&T
9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY
9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY
Invoice
(Continued)
562382
425-776-5316
X09072007
871964442x09052007
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
FLEET- DIESEL 3120 GAL
FLEET- DIESEL 3120 GAL
511.000.657.548.680.340.10
511.000.657.548.680.340.10
511.000.657.548.680.340.13
WA ST SVC FEE
511.000.657.548.680.340.10
WA ST SVC FEE
511.000.657.548.680.340.13
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.10
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.13
BIO-DIESEL
511.000.657.548.680.340.13
Total :
6,890.21
1,183.10
298.50
20.00
20.00
1.60
1.60
2,110.26
36,647.41
PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
Total :
44.18
44.18
C/A 828698926
Cell Service 7/28-8/27/07 Admin Serv
001.000.310.514.100.420.00
Total :
117.57
117.57
87196442
PLANT CELL PHONES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
18.26
18.26
Total :
98907
8
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY
871747052X09052007
Duane Bowman wireless charges from
Page:
8
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98907
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY
Invoice
9/13/2007 064341 AT&T MOBILITY
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
3X09062007
Duane Bowman wireless charges from
001.000.620.558.800.420.00
9.13
WIRELESS SERVICE FOR PLANNING DEPT.
WIRELESS SERVICE FOR PLANNING DEPT.
001.000.620.558.600.420.00
18.26
Total :
27.39
OPS COMMS
vehicles' wireless
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
22.42
22.42
Total :
98909
9
front
871860970X09052007
98908
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
74634
MOVIE BANNER
MOVIE BANNER
001.000.640.574.200.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.310.00
220.00
19.58
239.58
Total :
98910
9/13/2007 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
74640
UNIT 492 - FIRE GRAPHICS, MANUFACTURE
UNIT 492 - FIRE GRAPHICS, MANUFACTURE
511.200.657.594.480.640.00
757.00
Sales Tax
511.200.657.594.480.640.00
67.37
Total :
824.37
98911
9/13/2007 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC
68020
SENIOR SOFTBALL
SR. SOFTBALL PLAQUE
001.000.640.575.520.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00
19.35
1.73
21.08
Total :
98912
9/13/2007 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC
COE0807
Background check services
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00
60.00
Page:
9
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Date
Vendor
Invoice
9/13/2007 069076
98913
9/13/2007 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH
98915
98916
98917
98918
10
front
98912
98914
Page:
City of Edmonds
PO #
Description/Account
069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC(Continued)
9/13/2007 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS
9/13/2007 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC
9/13/2007 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC
2007-355
9836881
1036
355185
209
E-012
E-013
Amount
Total :
60.00
INV# 2007-355 EDMONDS PD
PRE-EMPLOY POLYGRAPH SACKVILLE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
Total :
COPIER RENTAL OCT
COPIER RENTAL OCT
001.000.230.512.501.450.00
7.00
182.00
Total :
188.55
188.55
Total :
2,911.69
2,911.69
E5GA.Services thru 08/24/07
412.300.630.594.320.650.00
FLEET INVENTORY - BRAKE KIT, ROTOR
FLEET INVENTORY - BRAKE KIT, ROTOR
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
Total :
Implement Bld History for data entry.
Implement Bld History for data entry.
001.000.620.558.800.410.00
Total :
252.98
22.52
275.50
47.50
47.50
2007-0517 UBC VALUATION.
2007-0517 UBC VALUATION.
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
2007-0557 UBC VALUATION
2007-0557 UBC VALUATION
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
1,145.67
1,418.83
Page:
175.00
10
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98918
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
E-014
E-015
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
SUNDQUIST/2007-0551 ~
SUNDQUIST/2007-0551 ~
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
PINSONEAULT/2007-0594 ~
PINSONEAULT/2007-0594 ~
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
1,484.93
1,143.63
5,193.06
Total :
98919
11
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
612783
INV#612783 EDMONDS PD - DREYER
ATAC 8" BOOTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
Total :
99.99
8.90
108.89
98920
9/13/2007 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL
1462044
C-161
C-161 SCREENING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
414.000.656.594.320.650.00
2,751.94
Total :
2,751.94
98921
9/13/2007 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
280422
STREET - ROCK
STREET - ROCK
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
2,669.91
202.91
2,872.82
Total :
98922
RN08071031
HELIUM
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTY
001.000.640.575.550.450.00
7.75
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.450.00
0.69
Total :
8.44
98923
RN08071033
2954000
Page:
11
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98923
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
ARGON/NITROGEN/OXYGEN
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21
Total :
98924
RN08071029
31.00
2.76
33.76
SHOP - OXYGEN SUPPLY
SHOP - OXYGEN SUPPLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
7.75
0.69
8.44
Total :
98925
12
City of Edmonds
LY111116
LY111207
LY111208
ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
30.04
2.67
20.77
13.50
3.05
20.77
13.50
3.05
Page:
12
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98925
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
LY111209
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
ALS SUPPLIES
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
41.53
13.50
4.90
167.28
Total :
98926
98927
13
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 003710 CHEVRON USA
7898305185709
460711973
460711974
460713016
FUEL
104.000.410.521.210.320.00
CAR WASH
104.000.410.521.210.480.00
Total :
272.97
5.50
278.47
UNIFORMS
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
OPS UNIFORMS
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
UNIFORMS
Stn 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00
Stn 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
46.36
4.12
189.31
16.85
92.40
92.40
8.22
8.22
Page:
13
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98927
98928
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
14
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL
Invoice
(Continued)
460713035
9491142
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
OPS UNIFORMS
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
132.66
Total :
11.80
602.34
Total :
538.27
538.27
COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease for PW
001.000.650.519.910.450.00
98929
9/13/2007 069947 CITRIX ONLINE
90526953
CUSTOMER # 605063
GoToMyPC Serv 12 users 5/12/07- 5/11/08
001.000.310.518.880.480.00
2,728.80
Total :
2,728.80
98930
5564
MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS
EDMONDS PORTION OF JOINT MAINTENANCE &
001.000.640.576.800.510.00
24,686.20
Total :
24,686.20
98931
5557
MAINT./OPERATIONS SANITARY SEWER COSTS
MAINT./OPERATIONS SANITARY SEWER COSTS
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
13,800.83
Total :
13,800.83
98932
9/13/2007 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE
2-533584-460571
WATER USEAGE FOR JULY 07
WATER USEAGE FOR JULY 07
411.000.654.534.800.340.00
Total :
98933
9/13/2007 070231 CNR INC
51501
510.00
510.00
Labor charges for 9/10/07 service call
Page:
14
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98933
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 070231 CNR INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
Labor charges for 9/10/07 service call
001.000.640.574.100.480.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.480.00
Total :
98934
98935
98936
15
City of Edmonds
W1830447
W1830930
W1811865
55.00
4.90
59.90
SUPPLIES
PAPER TOWELS, CLEANER, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Total :
1,254.14
111.62
1,365.76
005302
PAPER TOWELS/TRASH LINERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.23
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.23
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23
Total :
113.02
2.50
10.28
125.80
FAC MAINT - CLEANERS, SANITIZERS
FAC MAINT - CLEANERS, SANITIZERS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Page:
190.08
2.50
17.14
15
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98936
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
16
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
W1828189
W1830024
98937
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
29042
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
FAC MAINT - LINERS
FAC MAINT - LINERS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
353.40
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
31.68
FAC MAINT - TT, TOWELS, SEAT COVERS,
FAC MAINT - TT, TOWELS, SEAT COVERS,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1,107.58
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.50
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
98.80
Total :
1,806.18
Edmonds City Code books
Edmonds City Code books
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00
140.00
12.46
152.46
Total :
98938
9/13/2007 068077 CODES KNOWLEDGE COMPANY
477
MAGIC TOYOTA/2007-0789 PLAN REVIEW.
MAGIC TOYOTA/2007-0789 PLAN REVIEW.
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
5,033.00
Total :
5,033.00
98939
9/13/2007 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC
8250
UNIT 413 - MIRROR REPAIR
UNIT 413 - MIRROR REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
110.00
9.79
119.79
Total :
Page:
16
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98940
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
17
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 065364 CONTRACT HARDWARE INC
Invoice
0033687-IN
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
PS - LOCK BODY
PS - LOCK BODY
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
121.72
10.83
132.55
Total :
98941
9/13/2007 066551 COYOTE CLEANING SYSTEMS
5208
INV#5208 CUST# EDMONDS - ANIMAL CONTROL
24X33 2 MIL BLACK PLASTIC BAGS
001.000.410.521.700.310.00
216.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00
19.22
Total :
235.22
98942
9/13/2007 005810 CRAIN, DOUGLAS
78
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
1,009.85
1,009.85
Total :
98943
98944
9/13/2007 005965 CUES INC
9/13/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16
273666
273718
SEWER - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES - CABLE
SEWER - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES - CABLE
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
731.30
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
5.30
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
65.03
SEWER - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES - PIGTAIL
SEWER - TV TRUCK SUPPLIES - PIGTAIL
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
320.47
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
6.15
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
28.81
Total :
1,157.06
136397
INV# 136397 CUST#267 EDMONDS PD
Page:
17
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98944
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
REPAIR/CALIBRATE GHD-03890
001.000.410.521.220.480.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00
Total :
98945
9/13/2007 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES
2007080137
Bill No I139874
310-00076
310-00076
Bill No I140018
98946
98947
18
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 047610 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
9/13/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
Util Fran Ext Fee
07-2788
135.00
11.62
146.62
CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for August, 2007
001.000.390.528.800.420.00
CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
VMWare Workstation latest version
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
VISTA Business part # 66J-00654
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
Office Pro Plus part #79P-00031
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
Adobe Photoshop part #23102427
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
Freight
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
Windows SVR ENT parts #P72-01780
Windows SVR ENT parts #P72-01780
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
Total :
361.15
368.10
0.50
0.50
19.14
10.00
0.50
759.89
E5GA.Utility Franchise Extension Fee
E5GA.Utility Franchise Extension Fee
412.300.630.594.320.650.00
Total :
300.00
300.00
MINUTE TAKING
9/4/07 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00
193.20
193.20
Total :
Page:
18
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98948
98949
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
19
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 070842 DUNHAM, YVONNE
9/13/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER
Invoice
DUNHAM
207002
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
SIDE SEWER PERMIT VOIDED - SHE IS IN
SIDE SEWER PERMIT VOIDED - SHE IS IN
001.000.000.257.620.000.00
Total :
INTERPERTER FEES
INTERPERTER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
145.00
145.00
114.55
114.55
Total :
98950
9/13/2007 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2007226
PLAN REVIEW, LOVELL,VALHALLA & STEVENS
PLAN REVIEW, LOVELL,VALHALLA & STEVENS
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
9,753.01
Total :
9,753.01
98951
9/13/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
SUPPLIES
OIL FILTER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
SUPPLIES
THREADLOCKS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
85297
85677
85735
6.65
0.59
8.56
0.76
10.30
0.92
27.78
Total :
98952
85326
FAC MAINT - PB BLASTER SUPPLIES
Page:
19
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98952
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
FAC MAINT - PB BLASTER SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Total :
98953
85603
OPS SUPPLIES
red tape
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
9/13/2007 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL
155879
156575
98955
9/13/2007 066759 EMER NORTHWEST
1414
9/13/2007 069686 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CO
72927
INV#155879 CLIENT#3713 EDMONDS AC
EUTHANIZE LAB MIX #7060
001.000.410.521.700.410.00
20.80
INV#156575 CLIENT #308 EDMONDS PD - DASH
MEDICATION FOR DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00
94.50
WELLNESS EXAM - DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00
39.20
SHOTS FOR DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00
28.80
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.410.00
8.41
Total :
191.71
ALS REPAIR/MAINT
new straps
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00
45.00
4.01
49.01
SOFTWARE SUPPORT
Page:
0.61
7.46
0.62
7.61
Total :
98956
6.85
6.99
Total :
98954
20
City of Edmonds
20
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98956
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 069686 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING CO
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
SOFTWARE SUPPORT
411.000.656.538.800.410.11
895.00
895.00
Total :
98957
21
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 071634 ESCHELON TELCOM INC
010495174
C/A 010495174
PR1-2 City Phone Service 8/25-9/25/07
001.000.390.528.800.420.00
Total :
869.25
869.25
98958
9/13/2007 009410 EVERETT STEEL COMPANIES
369770
SUPPLIES
STAINLESS STEEL SHEETS, TUBES, STRIPS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
842.88
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
72.49
Total :
915.37
98959
9/13/2007 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
WAMOU11113
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
98960
98961
9/13/2007 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A
08302007
0104548-2
39.24
Total :
2.55
41.79
Total :
9,190.00
9,190.00
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00
WATER INVENTORY-~
Page:
21
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98961
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
22
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
0116778
WATER INVENTORY-~
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
WATER - SUPPLIES~
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
SEWER INVENTORY~
SEWER INVENTORY~
411.000.000.141.150.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.000.141.150.310.00
190.26
96.78
16.93
8.61
209.07
18.61
540.26
Total :
98962
98963
9/13/2007 069940 FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SVC 900JJM0708
0884632
PS - CHECKSTOP STRNR COMPLETE ASSEMBLY
PS - CHECKSTOP STRNR COMPLETE ASSEMBLY
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
132.06
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
9.47
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
12.59
Total :
154.12
INV# JJM0708 EDMONDS PD
CREDIT CHECKS
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
39.18
39.18
Total :
98964
9/13/2007 063181 FITTINGS INC
00011267
SHOP SUPPLIES - BOSFLEX 3/8" RED 70FT
Page:
22
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98964
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
23
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 063181 FITTINGS INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
SHOP SUPPLIES - BOSFLEX 3/8" RED 70FT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
49.67
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
11.12
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
4.42
Total :
65.21
98965
98966
98967
9/13/2007 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC
9/13/2007 062400 GENERAL FIRE APPARATUS
9/13/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY
99103
1118686
2074288-01
August 2007 Section 125 plan charges
001.000.220.516.100.410.00
811.000.000.231.590.000.00
Total :
50.90
30.90
81.80
OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
lite force plus helmets
001.000.510.522.200.250.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.250.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.250.00
Total :
330.00
8.00
29.07
367.07
GEAR REDUCER
GEAR REDUCER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
1,448.92
100.43
137.89
1,687.24
Total :
98968
9/13/2007 070013 GLASS DOCTOR
52953
UNIT 1 - MIRROR
Page:
23
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98968
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 070013 GLASS DOCTOR
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
UNIT 1 - MIRROR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
30.00
2.67
32.67
Total :
98969
9/13/2007 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
080547
080636
98970
9/13/2007 012199 GRAINGER
9439553356
FLEET INVENTORY - ~
FLEET INVENTORY - ~
511.000.657.548.680.340.30
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.30
FLEET INVENTORY - 4 TIRES
FLEET INVENTORY - 4 TIRES
511.000.657.548.680.340.30
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.30
Total :
1,285.74
114.43
572.00
50.91
2,023.08
SEWER - MEGOHMMETER
SEWER - MEGOHMMETER
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
109.08
9.38
118.46
Total :
98971
9/13/2007 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC
06713.00-10
07523.00-4
E6DA.Services thru 08/25/07
E6DA.Services thru 08/25/07
125.000.640.594.750.650.00
E7AB.Services thru 08/25/07
E7AB.Services thru 08/25/07
112.200.630.595.330.650.00
3,463.72
330.68
3,794.40
Total :
98972
24
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 071446 GREAT FLOORS COMMERCIAL SALES 31887-202
SR CENTER - REPLACE FLOORS
Page:
24
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98972
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
25
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
9/13/2007 071446 GREAT FLOORS COMMERCIAL SALES (Continued)
31888-R-202
98973
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 012900 HARRIS FORD INC
76767
76937
77040
77186
77223
SR CENTER - REPLACE FLOORS
116.000.651.519.920.480.00
Sales Tax
116.000.651.519.920.480.00
SR CENTER - RETENTION FOR WORK
SR CENTER - RETENTION FOR WORK
116.000.651.519.920.480.00
Total :
462.89
260.05
5,663.86
UNIT 489 - FLOOR CO KIT
UNIT 489 - FLOOR CO KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
48.13
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
4.28
UNIT 43 - BRAKE SHOE KITS, SEALS,
UNIT 43 - BRAKE SHOE KITS, SEALS,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
280.88
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
25.00
UNIT 43 - BRAKE SHOE KIT
UNIT 43 - BRAKE SHOE KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
92.46
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
8.23
UNIT 482F - REAR AXEL OIL, OIL ADDITIVE
UNIT 482F - REAR AXEL OIL, OIL ADDITIVE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
55.85
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
4.97
UNIT 129 - FUEL CAP ASSEMBLY
UNIT 129 - FUEL CAP ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
11.54
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
1.03
Page:
4,940.92
25
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98973
98974
98975
98976
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 070074 HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO
9/13/2007 071872 HARTZELL, DIANE
Invoice
(Continued)
CM76937
FOCS224987
87021764372006
HARTZELL0904
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 43 - RETURNED BRAKE SHOE KIT
UNIT 43 - RETURNED BRAKE SHOE KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
UNIT 718 - WARRENTY REPAIRS
UNIT 718 - WARRENTY REPAIRS
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
Total :
9/13/2007 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
I2150424
7038128
POLICE # 87021764372006
Sr Ctr Flood Ins 11/1/07-11/1/08
001.000.390.519.900.460.00
Total :
1,801.00
1,801.00
REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
16.00
16.00
WATER INVENTORY -~
WATER INVENTORY -~
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
W-MTRLIDDI-02-010
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.000.141.140.310.00
698.28
935.64
145.41
1,779.33
6035322500959949
Page:
-8.88
423.67
4.74
57.97
Total :
98978
-99.82
53.23
Total :
98977
26
City of Edmonds
26
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98978
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
27
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
7068210
8072006
POLY SHEET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
6035322500959949
PAINT SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
6035322500959949
PAINT SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
114.81
10.22
49.11
4.37
9.70
0.86
189.07
Total :
98979
9/13/2007 071642 HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC
7223
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR COMPREHENSIVE
125.000.640.594.750.650.00
3,798.10
Total :
3,798.10
98980
9/13/2007 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
18046
E7FA.Services thru 08/25/07
412.200.630.594.320.650.00
E1DB.Services thru 08/25/07
125.000.640.594.750.650.00
E7FB.Services thru 08/25/07
E7FB.Services thru 08/25/07
412.200.630.594.320.650.00
E5JA.Services thru 08/25/07
E5JA.Services thru 08/25/07
412.100.630.594.320.650.00
18094
18097
18102
2,490.00
287.91
162.28
1,248.25
4,188.44
Total :
Page:
27
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98981
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 071876 IDEKER, JOE
Invoice
PO #
IDEKER0727
Description/Account
Amount
REFUND
REFUND/TRANSFER
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
109.00
109.00
Total :
98982
98983
98984
9/13/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES
74152760
COPIER LEASE
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00
Total :
74152758
FINANCE COPIER RENTAL
Finance Copier Rental 8/22-9/21/07
001.000.310.514.230.450.00
Meter charge 7/3-8/3/07
001.000.310.514.230.450.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.450.00
Total :
74152752
74152756
74226332
250-00166
98986
9/13/2007 068952 INFINITY INTERNET
2632460
202.80
58.47
715.34
CANON IMAGE RUNNER 9070 LEASE
Canon Image Runner 9070 Lease~
001.000.250.514.300.450.00
Total :
115.26
1,099.35
738.08
1,952.69
886.25
886.25
Meadowdale Pre-School Internet 9/1-
Page:
27.54
27.54
454.07
RENT ON D.S. RECEPTION COPIER.
RENT ON D.S. RECEPTION COPIER.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00
RENT ON D.S. LARGE COPIER
RENT ON D.S. LARGE COPIER
001.000.620.558.800.450.00
RENT ON D.S. ENG COLOR COPIER.
RENT ON D.S. ENG COLOR COPIER.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00
Total :
74152755
98985
28
City of Edmonds
28
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98986
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 068952 INFINITY INTERNET
Invoice
9/13/2007 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE 448445
98989
98990
9/13/2007 069894 ITT SHARED SERVICES
9/13/2007 065056 JOHNSON, TROY
9/13/2007 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
448446
98988
29
front
2643102
98987
Page:
City of Edmonds
03032780
TJOHNSON0909
971084
Meadowdale Pre-School Internet 9/1001.000.640.575.560.420.00
15.00
INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00
15.00
Total :
30.00
UNIT 238 - COIL
UNIT 238 - COIL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
SHOP - WASH BRUSH, GLASS CLEANER
SHOP - WASH BRUSH, GLASS CLEANER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
088364
DIFFUSER/GUIDE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
9.36
67.02
5.96
187.50
1,000.00
185.00
Total :
105.47
1,290.47
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 9/9/07
001.000.640.574.100.410.00
Total :
165.00
165.00
STREET - STAINLESS HANGERS AND FASTENERS
Page:
105.16
29
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98990
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
30
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 067877 KINGSTON LUMBER
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
STREET - STAINLESS HANGERS AND FASTENERS
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
1,324.51
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
113.91
Total :
1,438.42
98991
9/13/2007 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Addendum 4.1
E2DB.22
125.000.640.594.750.650.00
125.000.640.594.750.650.00
2,419.79
1,388.46
3,808.25
Total :
98992
9/13/2007 016600 KROESENS INC
79819
80333
80391
OPS UNIFORMS
KM nametag, etc.
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
OPS UNIFORMS
Boots (DW,CK)
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
OPS UNIFORMS
Ford boots
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
11.90
1.50
1.19
295.40
26.29
121.00
10.77
468.05
Total :
98993
9/13/2007 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC
324843-001
Survey Vest for JoAnne Zulauf
Page:
30
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98993
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
Survey Vest for JoAnne Zulauf
001.000.620.532.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.240.00
98994
98995
9/13/2007 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
9/13/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
0021659
095533
250-00163
250-00163
250-00163
250-00163
250-00163
250-00163
98996
31
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 071877 MAIN MEDIA
26741
108.00
Total :
9.61
117.61
Antonyuk Retaining Wall Review
Antonyuk Retaining Wall Review
001.000.000.245.900.621.00
Total :
1,885.05
1,885.05
BUSINESS CARDS PD DS P&R
Business Cards:~
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
Duane V. Bowman
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
Jennifer Collins
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
JoAnne Zulauf
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
Jeanie McConnell
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
Cliff Edwards
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
Total :
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
1.42
5.69
1.43
104.54
PARK SIGNS
Page:
31
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
98996
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
32
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 071877 MAIN MEDIA
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
ADDITIONAL TOBACCO FREE PARK SIGNS
125.000.640.575.500.310.00
1,097.60
Sales Tax
125.000.640.575.500.310.00
94.39
Total :
1,191.99
98997
98998
98999
99000
9/13/2007 069362 MARSHALL, CITA
9/13/2007 066397 MCCONNELL, JEANIE
9/13/2007 063773 MICROFLEX
9/13/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
3146
Overtime Pay
00017254
54255
54372
99001
9/13/2007 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC
110120595
INTERPERTER FEES
INTERPERTER FEES
001.000.230.512.500.410.01
Total :
135.00
135.00
Total :
372.57
372.57
Overtime Pay-8/15 thru 8/31
Overtime Pay-8/15 thru 8/31
001.000.620.532.200.120.00
Annual support fee 9/1/07-8/31/08
Annual support fee 9/1/07-8/31/08
001.000.310.514.230.410.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.410.00
Total :
930.90
82.85
1,013.75
UNIT 110 - PROPANE
UNIT 110 - PROPANE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
LIBRARY - SEWER SNAKE RENTAL
LIBRARY - SEWER SNAKE RENTAL
001.000.651.519.920.450.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.450.00
Total :
2.89
0.26
55.00
4.90
63.05
UNIT 11 - ANTENNA, MIRROR BRACKET
Page:
32
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99001
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
UNIT 11 - ANTENNA, MIRROR BRACKET
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
99002
9/13/2007 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
0203207-IN
0207776-IN
99003
33
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
0322006-IN
WATER - YELLOW POLY BIB PANT
WATER - YELLOW POLY BIB PANT
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
WATER/SEWER - COOLER, SUPPLIES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
Total :
FLEET FILTER
FLEET FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
3.93
49.65
52.20
11.10
5.62
26.40
26.40
10.50
10.50
3.29
3.28
149.29
-39.66
-3.41
Page:
45.72
33
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99003
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
Invoice
(Continued)
0344276-IN
0344989-IN
9/13/2007 063034 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES
223171
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
PS-1 - FILTERS FOR LIFT STATIONS
PS-1 - FILTERS FOR LIFT STATIONS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
PS-1 - FILTER
PS-1 - FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
Total :
13465
DO MODULE
411.000.656.538.800.310.31
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31
9/13/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
S1710526.001
4.48
151.46
13.02
89.55
104.74
7.70
9.01
389.00
6.51
161.51
2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
113.74
9.67
123.41
Total :
Page:
52.11
155.00
Total :
99005
34
front
0344280-IN
99004
Page:
City of Edmonds
34
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99006
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC
Invoice
0082419
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
SODIUM BISULFITE
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54
841.50
74.89
916.39
Total :
99007
9/13/2007 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
0553905
0554270
0565692
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
001.000.640.576.800.450.00
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
001.000.640.576.800.450.00
398.38
180.29
360.58
939.25
Total :
99008
99009
99010
35
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO
9/13/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN
9/13/2007 071873 O'NEIL, LACEY
030092
000 00 497
ONEIL0905
UNIT 237 - AQUAPEL
UNIT 237 - AQUAPEL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
240.00
3.33
Total :
20.40
263.73
V-06-102 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
V-06-102 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
Total :
330.00
330.00
REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
46.00
46.00
Total :
Page:
35
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99011
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
557066
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
Service charge
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
49.84
3.95
4.44
58.23
Total :
99012
99013
633175
513243
517709
675625
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - D.S. DEPT.
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES - D.S. DEPT.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
Total :
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00
9/13/2007 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
0000130
0001520
0001530
28.85
353.04
47.06
622.97
965.33
WATER
220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
WATER
820 15TH ST SW
130.000.640.536.500.470.00
WATER
820 15TH ST SW
130.000.640.536.500.470.00
84.01
27.18
136.80
Page:
324.19
295.30
Total :
99014
36
City of Edmonds
36
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99014
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
0002930
0005060
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
WATER
5TH & ST RTE 104
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
WATER
9803 EDMONDS WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
29.69
20.73
298.41
Total :
99015
000292 0
002140 0
WATER FOR L/S #13
WATER FOR L/S #13
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
28.97
100.91
129.88
Total :
99016
9/13/2007 063750 ORCA PACIFIC
030447
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
175.51
15.62
191.13
Total :
99017
37
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
00046745
UNIT 55 - ROCKER SWITCH
UNIT 55 - ROCKER SWITCH
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
32.80
9.18
3.74
Page:
37
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99017
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
Invoice
(Continued)
00046798
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 31 - POLY BUSHINGS
UNIT 31 - POLY BUSHINGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
280.00
59.83
30.25
415.80
Total :
99018
38
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
608560
PAINT SUPPLIES
PAINT AND SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
17.95
1.60
19.55
Total :
99019
9/13/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
609203
FAC MAINT - PARTICLE MASK W/EXH VALVE,
FAC MAINT - PARTICLE MASK W/EXH VALVE,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
33.53
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.99
Total :
36.52
99020
9/13/2007 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH
PECK8161
PILATES
PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT #8161
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT #8162
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
Total :
99021
9/13/2007 062770 PENTEC ENVIRONMENTAL INC
709107
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MISC. SMALL PROJECTS
125.000.640.594.750.650.00
9/13/2007 063890 PERFORMANCE SIGN PRODUCTS INC 44134
STREET - SIERRA PARK SIGNS SUPPLIES
Page:
490.00
854.00
687.50
687.50
Total :
99022
364.00
38
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99022
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
39
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
9/13/2007 063890 PERFORMANCE SIGN PRODUCTS INC (Continued)
STREET - SIERRA PARK SIGNS SUPPLIES
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
141.66
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
5.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
12.61
Total :
159.27
99023
99024
9/13/2007 028400 PITNEY BOWES
9/13/2007 070431 PITNEY BOWES PURCHASE POWER
907498
Mail Opener Maint Contract 10/1/07Mail Opener Maint Contract 10/1/07001.000.310.514.230.480.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.480.00
Total :
8000-9000-1058-7875
250-00165
99025
99026
9/13/2007 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
9/13/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY
159116
3558
3662
245.00
21.81
266.81
PURCHASE POWER ACCT ANNUAL ACCESS FEE
Purchase Power Account~
001.000.250.514.300.420.00
39.99
Total :
39.99
INV#159116 CUST#2772 EDMONDS PD
SEND RADIO FOR REPAIR
001.000.410.521.100.420.00
Total :
UNIT 98 - NYLON CLEATS
UNIT 98 - NYLON CLEATS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 98 - FASTENERS
UNIT 98 - FASTENERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
11.37
1.02
7.90
0.70
Page:
49.95
49.95
39
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99026
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
40
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY
Invoice
(Continued)
4418
5184
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT EQ10FI- FUSES, AT FLUID
UNIT EQ10FI- FUSES, AT FLUID
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
FUSE BLOCK
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 95 - 30W FLRSCNT INT LITE
UNIT 95 - 30W FLRSCNT INT LITE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
122.19
67.00
10.88
50.49
4.49
276.04
99027
9/13/2007 070257 POSTINI INC
348762
INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
10/07 Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00
489.15
Total :
489.15
99028
9/13/2007 064088 PROTECTION ONE
31146525
24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL
24 hour alarm monitoring-CH~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
Total :
99029
9/13/2007 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
07-572
COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00
2,100.00
2,100.00
Total :
99030
9/13/2007 065579 QUIKSIGN
55952
S-07-57,58 SIGN INSTALLATION.
S-07-57,58 SIGN INSTALLATION.
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
156.00
13.88
Page:
35.00
35.00
40
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99030
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
41
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 065579 QUIKSIGN
Invoice
(Continued)
55956
55957
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
ADB-07-61 SIGN INSTALLATION.
ADB-07-61 SIGN INSTALLATION.
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
S-07-33 SIGN INSTALLATION.
S-07-33 SIGN INSTALLATION.
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.600.410.11
Total :
156.00
13.88
156.00
13.88
509.64
99031
9/13/2007 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC
228902
CUSTOMER ID 502531
MEADOWDALE STORM DRAIN CROSSING~
411.000.652.542.400.450.00
75.00
Total :
75.00
99032
9/13/2007 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC
0708104
E5MC.Services thru 08/17/07
E5MC.Services thru 08/17/07
125.000.640.594.750.650.00
112.200.630.595.330.650.00
412.200.630.594.320.650.00
412.300.630.594.320.650.00
0708113
0708133
4,339.90
3,291.71
430.00
865.00
8,926.61
Total :
99033
9/13/2007 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC
0706018
BURNSTEAD CONST. PLAT - CONSULTANT
BURNSTEAD CONST. PLAT - CONSULTANT
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
6,900.00
Total :
6,900.00
Page:
41
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99034
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.
Invoice
77
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
96.00
96.00
Total :
99035
9/13/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS
9413603694
9413656672
9413677055
99036
9/13/2007 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC
7-137628
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
WATER- ASPHALT PC C
WATER- ASPHALT PC C
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
STREET - WASHED SAND
STREET - WASHED SAND
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
STORM - DUMPED ASPHALT
411.000.652.542.320.490.00
SERVICE FEES
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Total :
146.25
13.03
60.00
5.34
96.81
48.02
5.10
8.77
383.32
UNIT 55 - LIFT MOTOR CCW
UNIT 55 - LIFT MOTOR CCW
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
150.83
10.91
161.74
Total :
99037
42
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC
10809
BULK MAIL PREP
Page:
42
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99037
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC
Invoice
99039
99040
99041
99042
9/13/2007 070839 SCHIFFLER, KENNETH A
9/13/2007 071874 SCHONBERG, LANI
9/13/2007 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
9/13/2007 069665 SEATTLE MACK SALES & SERVICE
9/13/2007 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
10814
99038
43
Page:
City of Edmonds
07252007
SCHONBERG0904
03-886772
R036714
CTCS190911
CITY OF EDMONDS PORTION OF~
001.000.640.574.200.490.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.490.00
FALL CRAZE
EDMONDS PORTION OF FALL CRAZE
001.000.640.574.200.490.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.490.00
Total :
8.31
7,659.05
681.66
8,442.35
PRO TEM JUDGE FEES
PRO TEM JUDGE FEES
001.000.230.512.510.410.00
Total :
520.00
520.00
Total :
50.00
50.00
REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
UNIT 332 - PAD AND SEAL ASSEMBLY OIL
UNIT 332 - PAD AND SEAL ASSEMBLY OIL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
UNIT 55 - ABS LIGHT REPAIR FEES
UNIT 55 - ABS LIGHT REPAIR FEES
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
Total :
73.96
6.58
80.54
1,114.48
99.19
1,213.67
UNIT 102 - AIR BAG LIGHT CIRCUIT REPAIR
Page:
93.33
43
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99042
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
44
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
UNIT 102 - AIR BAG LIGHT CIRCUIT REPAIR
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
511.22
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
45.50
Total :
556.72
99043
235822
235823
235844
236241
236536
UNIT 114 - FILTER KITS
UNIT 114 - FILTER KITS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 16 - PUMP
UNIT 16 - PUMP
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 16 - STRAINER
UNIT 16 - STRAINER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 413 - PAD KIT, ROTOR
UNIT 413 - PAD KIT, ROTOR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 413 - MIRROR
UNIT 413 - MIRROR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
56.22
5.00
60.16
5.35
7.68
0.68
202.77
18.05
100.80
8.97
Page:
44
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99043
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
236678
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 117 - SWITCH
UNIT 117 - SWITCH
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
239.72
21.34
726.74
Total :
99044
9/13/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM
0065793-IN
0066808-IN
0067116-IN
63689A-IN
99045
45
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 036955 SKY NURSERY
265184
265191
UNIT EQ10FI- POLE SUPPORT, SIDE BRACE,
UNIT EQ10FI- POLE SUPPORT, SIDE BRACE,
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
92.80
Freight
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
19.33
UNIT EQ10FI - MIRROR BEAMS R/R
UNIT EQ10FI - MIRROR BEAMS R/R
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
295.80
UNIT EQ10FI - RED 6 LAMP DOMINATOR
UNIT EQ10FI - RED 6 LAMP DOMINATOR
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
270.00
Freight
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
27.00
UNIT EQ10FI - RETURNED LIGHTS MINUS
UNIT EQ10FI - RETURNED LIGHTS MINUS
511.200.657.548.680.310.00
-183.30
Total :
521.63
GARDENING SUPPLIES
MUMS & PANSYS
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
GARDENING SUPPLIES
MUMS, PANSIES
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00
57.11
5.08
81.84
7.28
Page:
45
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
46
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
99045
9/13/2007 036955
036955 SKY NURSERY
99046
9/13/2007 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
238724723
Amount
Total :
151.31
Total :
1,584.00
1,584.00
SPORTS CAMPS
BASEBALL #8040~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
99047
9/13/2007 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT
I000 177855
02/07 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & TAXES
2nd Q 07 Liquor Board Profits & Taxes
001.000.390.567.000.510.00
2,880.40
Total :
2,880.40
99048
9/13/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2460018753
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
35.52
PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP
PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
519.33
PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS
PLAYFIELD BLEACHERS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
64.12
PARK GAZEBO
PARK GAZEBO
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
29.74
PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
107.74
CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS & COVERED
CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS & COVERED
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
204.65
Total :
961.10
2470011830
3280017173
3660016779
3690017839
5030011778
99049
9/13/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
382011276
620-001-500-3
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.62
7.10
0.97
Page:
46
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
99049
9/13/2007 037375
99050
9/13/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
6000013000
6100013009
6100013306
6200013008
Amount
Total :
STREET LIGHTING
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
STREET LIGHTING
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
STREET LIGHTING
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
STREET LIGHTING
STREET LIGHTING
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
9/13/2007 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
49254
8.07
8,448.65
7,944.24
170.07
Total :
99051
1,814.76
18,377.72
DUMP FEES
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
1,081.04
38.96
1,120.00
Total :
99052
9/13/2007 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
49486
DUMP FEES
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
17.38
0.62
18.00
Total :
99053
47
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
2007122
60.50 BOOKINGS - AUGUST
001.000.410.523.600.510.00
850.50 HOUSING DAYS - AUGUST
001.000.410.523.600.510.00
Total :
5,367.56
49,711.73
55,079.29
Page:
47
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99054
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
Invoice
03583
03586
03588
99056
9/13/2007 070677 SPRINT
9/13/2007 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC
Eng.Aug 2007
77802
78003
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
garbage & recycle for PS
garbage & recycle for PS
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
garbage & recycle for FAC
garbage & recycle for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
garbage & recycle for Library
garbage & recycle for Library
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
garbage & recycle-City Hall
garbage & recycle-City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
487.49
556.90
599.41
Total :
379.46
2,023.26
Engineering Nextel thru 08/24/07
Engineering Nextel thru 08/24/07
001.000.620.532.200.420.00
Total :
689.17
689.17
E7CA.Roberts thru 08/25/07
125.100.620.595.300.650.00
125.100.620.595.300.650.00
520.00
747.50
1,267.50
Total :
99057
99058
48
front
03585
99055
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 031060 STEARNS FINANCIAL SERVICES
9/13/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
7109034-IN
2596408
RADIX MONTHLY MAINT OCT 07
RADIX MONTHLY MAINT OCT 07
411.000.654.534.800.480.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00
Total :
166.28
14.81
181.09
WATER- SUPPLIES - QUICK ACTING
Page:
48
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99058
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
165952
WATER- SUPPLIES - QUICK ACTING
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
200.50
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
17.24
WATER - KRYLO BLUE UPSIDE DOWN PAINT
WATER - KRYLO BLUE UPSIDE DOWN PAINT
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
193.68
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
16.66
Total :
428.08
15644
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
327.45
6.52
29.72
363.69
Total :
99060
99061
49
front
2596409
99059
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC
154877
8368
CITY HALL - ELECT SUPPLIES
CITY HALL - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
FS 20 - ELECT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Total :
16.45
129.92
1.46
11.57
159.40
SEWER - TELEMETRY - PHONE LINE FAILURE
SEWER - TELEMETRY - PHONE LINE FAILURE
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
237.50
Page:
49
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
50
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
99061
9/13/2007 065578
065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC
99062
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
10576123
Amount
Total :
237.50
SUPPLIES
PUSHNUTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
55.49
4.94
60.43
Total :
99063
10568741
10578541
18808871
99064
99065
9/13/2007 071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN
9/13/2007 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
1012
40884
STREET - WASHERS, SCREWS, BADAGES,
STREET - WASHERS, SCREWS, BADAGES,
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
FLEET SHOP - SCREWS, NUTS, WASHERS,
FLEET SHOP - SCREWS, NUTS, WASHERS,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
WADE JAMES - MACH SCREWS
WADE JAMES - MACH SCREWS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Total :
CONSULTING SVCS - PLANNING DEPT.
CONSULTING SVCS - PLANNING DEPT.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
Total :
FLEET - 5 T SHIRTS
FLEET - 5 T SHIRTS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
4.93
326.21
29.03
36.16
3.22
454.97
1,560.00
1,560.00
55.00
4.90
Page:
55.42
50
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Date
Vendor
Invoice
9/13/2007 040916
99066
9/13/2007 065710 THE CHAMBERS MULTIMEDIA
99068
51
front
99065
99067
Page:
City of Edmonds
040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
9/13/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
000397
148134-8/31/07
1531746
1532130
1532131
1532132
Amount
Total :
59.90
INTERNET ACCESS
CEMETERY INTERNET ACCESS
130.000.640.536.200.420.00
Total :
17.95
17.95
Water/Sewer Maint. Laborer, #07-31 ad
Water/Sewer Maint. Laborer, #07-31 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
Vehicle & Equipment Mech., #07-32 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
DST 1, 2 or 3, #07-34 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
Computer Support Tech, #07-34
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
Gymnastics Coach, #07-30 ad
001.000.640.574.200.440.00
WWTP Lab Tech, #07-38 ad
411.000.656.538.800.440.00
Lab Tech, #07-38 ad
411.000.656.538.800.440.00
Total :
NEWSPAPER AD
Council & Plan. Bd. Agendas
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3661
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3660
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3659
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
38.30
45.96
34.47
34.47
33.88
27.72
253.10
1,269.47
28.80
141.12
23.04
Page:
38.30
51
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99068
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
1532133
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3658
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
23.04
1,485.47
Total :
99069
1527523
1530502
1531183
99070
9/13/2007 027269 THE PART WORKS INC
215304
JORDAN/S-07-29 LEGAL NOTICES.
JORDAN/S-07-29 LEGAL NOTICES.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00
MICHEL/P-07-50 LEGAL NOTICES.
MICHEL/P-07-50 LEGAL NOTICES.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00
SHAPIRO/ADB-07-59 LEGAL NOTICES.
SHAPIRO/ADB-07-59 LEGAL NOTICES.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00
Total :
SUPPLIES
CONTROLLER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
99072
9/13/2007 027269 THE PART WORKS INC
9/13/2007 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES
214217
C/A 042483000
23.04
25.92
64.08
6.34
2.17
26.51
FLEET - EMERGENCY EYEWASH
FLEET - EMERGENCY EYEWASH
511.000.657.548.680.490.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.490.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.490.00
Total :
947.91
48.22
88.66
1,084.79
Page:
15.12
18.00
Total :
99071
52
City of Edmonds
52
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99072
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
53
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
9/13/2007 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
411.000.656.538.800.440.00
Lab Tech, #07-38
411.000.656.538.800.440.00
Water/Sewer Maint. Laborer, #07-31
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
Vehicle & Equipment Mechanic, #07-32
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
DST 1, 2 or 3
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
Computer Support Tech, #07-34
001.000.220.516.100.440.00
Total :
355.00
355.00
353.08
353.08
353.08
327.64
2,096.88
99073
9/13/2007 069357 THIES, MIKE
Mike Thies
CODE ENFORCEMENT 2007 FALL CONFERENCE
CODE ENFORCEMENT 2007 FALL CONFERENCE
001.000.620.558.800.490.00
225.00
Total :
225.00
99074
9/13/2007 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC
2524
FENCING SUPPLIES
TUBING, FENCING SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Total :
212.11
18.88
230.99
99075
9/13/2007 071590 TRT LCC
6
HEARING EX. SERVICES FOR JULY 2007.
HEARING EX. SERVICES FOR JULY 2007.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
3,561.58
Total :
3,561.58
99076
7635284
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
Page:
53
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99076
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
NOZZLES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
7.00
0.62
7.62
Total :
99077
99078
7542150
425-712-0647
425-745-5055
425-771-4741
99079
54
City of Edmonds
425 771-5553
425 NW1-0060
425 NW1-0155
WATER- SUPPLIES - 8" FLEX CPLG
WATER- SUPPLIES - 8" FLEX CPLG
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Total :
35.35
3.15
38.50
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00
EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY
EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.200.420.00
Total :
44.92
56.87
50.33
152.12
03 0210 1014522641 07
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
03 0210 1079569413 10
BPS TELEMENTRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
03 0210 1099569419 02
TELEMENTRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
56.15
41.12
216.25
313.52
Total :
Page:
54
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
55
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
99080
425-640-8169
PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STATION MONITOR
Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at Pt
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
40.79
Total :
40.79
99081
9/13/2007 068265 VERIZON ONLINE
75992338
ACCT #8372119
City of Edmonds Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
99082
99083
0582705255
269992985-1
371017793-00001
769986915-01
770096328-00001
99084
99085
9/13/2007 046100 WA ST ASSOC OF FIRE CHIEFS INC
9/13/2007 069922 WA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV
329
ROB CHAVE
Total :
667.00
667.00
Total :
2.97
2.97
CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION
CENTRALIZED IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.420.00
425-308-9867
cell phone-water watch
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
INVOICE # 0579474578
FAC MAINT - GENE EVANS CELL
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
425-231-2668
cell phone-water lead
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
425-238-8252
cell phone-Dave Sittauer
511.000.657.548.680.420.00
Total :
4.34
170.05
FIRE MECHANIC'S WORKSHOP - ~
FIRE MECHANIC'S WORKSHOP - ~
511.000.657.548.680.490.00
Total :
475.00
475.00
36.04
90.31
39.36
2007 YEARLY MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL.
2007 YEARLY MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL.
001.000.620.558.600.490.00
Page:
75.00
55
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Date
Vendor
Invoice
9/13/2007 069922
99086
9/13/2007 045517 WACA
99089
99090
PO #
Description/Account
069922 WA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV(Continued)
A. DAVIS
D.DAWSON
99088
9/13/2007 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC
9/13/2007 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW
9/13/2007 071875 WESTBROOK, ROBIN
9/13/2007 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC
37660
0773916-2677-5
WESTBROOK0905
526566
Amount
Total :
75.00
PNW CONFERENCE - A.DAVIS/EDMONDS PD
REGISTRATION/D.DAVIS~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
175.00
PNW CONFERENCE/D.DAWSON-EDMONDS PD
REGISTRATION/D.DAWSON~
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
175.00
Total :
350.00
UNIT 679 - TOWING
UNIT 679 - TOWING
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
136.00
Total :
12.10
148.10
Total :
2,412.43
2,412.43
Total :
66.00
66.00
202-0001256-2677-0
ASH DISPOSAL
411.000.656.538.800.474.65
REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
UNIT 109 - 3 BLADES 25.18"
UNIT 109 - 3 BLADES 25.18"
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
71.16
9.50
7.18
87.84
Total :
99091
56
front
99085
99087
Page:
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 071866 WESTERN STATES FIRE PROTECTION WESTERN STATES
2007-0850 OVERPAID.
Page:
56
vchlist
09/13/2007
Bank code :
Voucher
99091
Voucher List
9:23:49AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
9/13/2007 071866 WESTERN STATES FIRE PROTECTION (Continued)
2007-0850 OVERPAID.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00
99092
99093
57
City of Edmonds
9/13/2007 066634 WINDOWS IT PRO MAGAZINE
9/13/2007 051280 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY
202 Vouchers for bank code :
202 Vouchers in this report
front
283509
63909255
Total :
62.00
62.00
Total :
99.95
99.95
CUSTOMER # 283509
2 yr Subscription M Waters
001.000.310.518.880.490.00
FLEET SHOP - ZEP CHERRY BOMB
FLEET SHOP - ZEP CHERRY BOMB
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
40.20
10.70
4.53
55.43
Bank total :
318,362.23
Total vouchers :
318,362.23
Page:
57
AM-1170
Council Findings (Appeal V-2006-102 Bogaert)
Date:
09/18/2007
Submitted By:
Diane Cunningham
Submitted For:
Rob Chave
Department:
Planning
Review Committee:
Action:
Time:
Type:
2.D.
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Findings of Fact regarding the September 4, 2007 Closed Record Appeal of the Hearing
Examiner's denial of a side yard setback variance at 18600 Sound View Pl. (Appellant and
Applicant: Dr. Raymond Bogaert / File Nos. V-2006-102 and AP-2007-4).
Approve the proposed Findings of Fact (Exhibit 1).
On September 4, 2007 the City Council held a closed record appeal of the Hearing Examiner's
underlying decision to deny the variance request.
Narrative
On September 4, 2007 the City Council held a closed record appeal of the Hearing Examiner's
decision to deny the subject variance request. The City Attorney has prepared Findings to
implement the Council action (see Exhibit 1).
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Bogaert Finding of Fact
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox
1
Development Services
2
City Clerk
3
Mayor
4
Final Approval
Form Started By: Diane
Cunningham
Approved By
Duane Bowman
Sandy Chase
Gary Haakenson
Sandy Chase
Date
Status
09/13/2007 12:18 PM
APRV
09/13/2007 01:44 PM
APRV
09/13/2007 01:55 PM
APRV
09/13/2007 04:02 PM
APRV
Started On: 09/13/2007 10:31
AM
BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
In RE the Application of:
File Nos: V-2006-102
AP-2007-4
Dr. Raymond Bogaert
This matter came before the Edmonds City Council on September 4, 2007 as a closedrecord appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s underlying decision.
For its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council hereby adopts by
reference the decision of the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner dated August 2, 2007 as fully
as if set forth herein. A copy of the Hearing Examiner’s decision was designated as Exhibit 3 in
the record of the proceeding before the City Council.
DECISION
The appellant has not demonstrated satisfaction of the variance criteria enumerated at
ECDC 20.85.010 with respect to the application at issue. The relevant standards include ECDC
20.85.010(F), which predicates variance approval upon the applicant’s demonstration that “the. .
. variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning.” The record clearly indicates that current zoning regulations
would not prohibit the appellant from constructing a new, legally compliant residence upon the
subject property. A variance is not warranted under these circumstances. For the reasons set
forth in the Hearing Examiner’s August 2, 2007 decision, the City Council denies the appellant’s
appeal and AFFIRMS the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
DONE this _______ day of _____________, 2007.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Mayor Gary Haakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
By:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
{JZL672967.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
By:
W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney
{JZL672967.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
AM-1168
2.E.
SRI Technologies, Inc. Contract for Temporary Capital Projects Manager
Date:
09/18/2007
Submitted By:
Debi Humann
Department:
Human Resources
Review Committee:
Action:
Time:
Type:
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of SRI Technologies, Inc. Contract for Temporary Capital Projects Manager.
Council approve contract with SRI Technologies, Inc. for a temporary Capital Projects Manager.
None.
Narrative
The Engineering Division has experienced extended position vacancies in 2007 due to the
retirement of two long time City employees and the resignation of a third employee to pursue an
opportunity in the private sector.
In May 2007, to help accomplish the Engineering Division workload while recruiting to fill the
vacancies, a retired City employee was hired through a temporary employment agency (SRI
Technologies, Inc.) as a temporary Capital Projects Manager. The contract with SRI Technologies
for the temporary Capital Projects Manager was limited to an amount of less than $30,000.
The temporary Capital Projects Manager has managed the 2007 Street Overlay contract and
assisted with several other critical capital projects including the 164th Street SW Walkway project,
the Old Woodway Elementary School Demolition project, the Watermain Replacement project, and
the 100th Avenue W Right-of-Way Stabilization project. He has been essential to the successful
execution of these projects. Without this temporary Capital Projects Manager, the City would not
have had the resources to accomplish the 2007 Street Overlay project.
The total cost to date (May 1, 2007 through August 31, 2007) of the temporary Capital Projects
Manager is $22,912.50. It is estimated that he will be required for an additional four to six weeks
on a part-time basis to complete the street overlay project.
Although all vacant positions in the Engineering Division have now been filled, it took several
months longer than anticipated, and it is expected to take another six to eight months to train the
new employees, all of whom have limited experience. The Engineering Division needs additional
assistance to manage its project workload during this time while the new employees are getting up
to speed, and proposes to retain the temporary Capital Projects Manager on a part-time, as needed
basis to assist with this workload. The cost of the temporary Capital Projects Manager will be
basis to assist with this workload. The cost of the temporary Capital Projects Manager will be
charged to the capital projects he manages and paid from funds budgeted for these projects.
Due to the longer than originally anticipated need for the temporary Capital Projects Manager, it is
estimated that the total cost of the SRI Technologies contract will exceed $30,000 and therefore
requires Council approval.
A copy of the proposed SRI Technologies contract is attached.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: SRI Technologies, Inc. Temporary Contract
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq
1
2
3
4
5
Inbox
Approved By
Engineering
Dave Gebert
Development Services Duane Bowman
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
Mayor
Gary Haakenson
Final Approval
Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Debi Humann
Date
Status
09/13/2007 07:11 AM
APRV
09/13/2007 09:24 AM
APRV
09/13/2007 09:45 AM
APRV
09/13/2007 10:56 AM
APRV
09/13/2007 11:01 AM
APRV
Started On: 09/12/2007 05:51
PM
1607 116th Ave NE, Ste 101 – Bellevue, WA 98004
425-455-3883
Standard Contractual Terms and Conditions For CITY OF EDMONDS
1. It is understood and agreed that assigned employees will be offered The City of
Edmonds standard work week (number of hours) to perform their duties.
2. Should there be any overtime, we will invoice you at the overtime rate for all hours
worked in excess of forty (40) hours in any one-week; or thirty-two (32) hours in a
holiday week.
3. When applicable, a per diem allowance will apply for any assigned employee
residing beyond fifty (50) miles from City of Edmonds's facility.
4. All billings will be issued weekly and terms of payment are net on receipt of invoice.
5. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. provides the required insurance coverage of our
employees while working on your premises. When requested, a Certificate of
Insurance will be submitted to you indicating the full extent of our coverage.
6. The overhead, profit, and labor rate factors that comprise the proposed hourly
billing rates (other than item 3 above) cover the entire cost of SRI TECHNOLOGIES
INC'S services to you, including expense of maintaining proper payroll and
accounting records, worker's compensation insurance, federal and state
unemployment insurance, all statutory taxes and any other overhead expense
incurred by The City of Edmonds.
7. No billing shall be issued for time lost by our employees because of illness or any
other personal reason.
8. All reproductions and materials other than those quoted, necessary to complete all
tasks will be billed at cost.
9. In furtherance of the particular requirements of The City of Edmonds, it is
acknowledged and agreed by the parties that any and all personnel assigned to The
City of Edmonds by SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. are subject to the direct control and
supervision of The City of Edmonds. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'s obligations
hereunder relate solely to the assignment of personnel and the payments provided
for herein are based solely on the value thereof. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. shall
have no responsibility of liability for the acts or omissions committed by the
personnel in the performance of their assignment for The City of Edmonds or for
their work product. The City of Edmonds shall indemnify, defend and hold SRI
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. harmless against any claims, losses, liabilities, or damages
(and reasonable expenses related thereto, including reasonable attorney's fees and
expenses of defense, and investigation) arising from or in connection with any acts
or omissions or alleged acts or alleged omissions of the work product of the
personnel assigned hereunder.
Corporate Office: 1250 Bank Drive – Schaumburg, IL 60173 - 847-330-1222
1607 116th Ave NE, Ste 101 – Bellevue, WA 98004
425-455-3883
10. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S responsibility under any agreement to provide services
is to exert the best effort possible to carry out the scope as defined. In doing so,
SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. shall in all respects be guided by such instructions as
may from time to time, be given by The City of Edmonds. All work performed by
the personnel assigned to The City of Edmonds is subject to The City of Edmonds
direction and responsibility.
11. SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. currently has an Affirmative Action Program in the
corporation and SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. will comply with all of the Rules and
Regulations of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.
12. If, subsequent to execution of this contract, and legislation enacted by a
government entity increases the taxes or costs imposed on SRI TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. in the performance of the contract, City of Edmonds agrees to be responsible
for such increase.
13. EMPLOYEE shall not accept employment directly or indirectly or enter into any other
business relationships as an individual or other entity with CITY OF EDMONDS for a
period of one (1) year following the termination of employment with SRI
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., without the written consent of SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
14. City of Edmonds directed travel from the assigned job site will be billed to the City
of Edmonds on an expense report with receipts attached.
We agree to the Terms and Conditions set forth in the SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Contractual Terms and Conditions.
________________________________________
CITY OF EDMONDS
______________________
Date
________________________________________
SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
_______________________
Date
Corporate Office: 1250 Bank Drive – Schaumburg, IL 60173 - 847-330-1222
AM-1165
ECDC 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls & ECDC 20.110.30, Nuisance
Section
Date:
09/18/2007
Submitted By:
Dave Gebert
Time:
Department:
Engineering
Type:
Review Committee: Community/Development Services
Action:
2.F.
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section, to
add a new paragraph to specify the City’s regulation of rockeries, and fixing a time when the same
shall become effective.
Council adopt the proposed ordinance.
On June 19, 2007, Council adopted Ordinance No. 3651, revising Title 19 of the Edmonds
Community Development Code, including adoption of the 2006 International Building and
Supplemental Codes.
On September 11, 2007, the Community Services/Development Services Committee reviewed the
proposed ordinance and forwarded it to the full Council for adoption on consent agenda.
Narrative
On June 19, 2007, Council adopted revisions to Title 19, Building Codes, of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC), effective July 1, 2007. The revised Title 19 includes
revisions pertaining to regulation of grading, retaining walls, and rockeries, including exempting
the construction of rockeries from the requirement for a building permit.
ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements, also addresses grading, retaining walls and rockeries
in Chapter 18.40, primarily to address situations not covered by the building codes, such as site
improvements for subdivisions and short plats. Now Chapter 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls,
also requires revisions to avoid duplication and ensure consistency with the revised Title 19.
The rationale for exempting rockeries from the requirement for a building permit was that rockeries
are primarily utilized for erosion protection of free-standing cut slopes in firm, stable, undisturbed
and competent native soil, or as landscaping features. As such, the City of Edmonds does not
consider rockeries to be retaining walls or to raise issues of critical public interest or safety, if
properly located and less than a certain height.
However, in recent years, the City has prohibited construction of rockeries in certain situations
where, if erected, they could pose a threat to the public interest and/or safety. These situations
where construction of rockeries has been prohibited have been enforced through the process of
requiring permits for rockery construction. With the revised Title 19 now exempting rockeries
from the requirement for a permit, Staff recommends that these situations where construction of
rockeries has been prohibited within the City of Edmonds in recent years should be formally
adopted in code. The situations/conditions under which it is proposed that construction of rockeries
be prohibited in Edmonds are as follows:
1. Rockeries that encroach or are located in, on, or over (developed or undeveloped) City
right-of-way. Rockeries on private property adjacent to City right-of-way must be set back
from the City right-of-way a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height of the rockery.
2. Rockeries constructed over public utility easements.
3. Rockeries constructed in a manner that will adversely affect drainage, or create a sight
distance hazard.
4. Rockeries that support a surcharge.
5. Rockeries that impound flammable materials.
6. Rockeries exceeding three feet in Setback Area Height within a setback. (Setback Area
Height is defined as the height measured vertically from the original grade to the highest
point of the uppermost rock.)
7. Rockeries placed against fill, when rockery exceeds three (3) feet in height. (Rockery height
is defined as the height measured vertically from the finished grade at the toe of the rockery
to the highest point of the uppermost rock.) 8. Rockeries constructed in designated geologically hazardous areas other than erosion hazard
areas, pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80.
9. Rockeries constructed within the designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area of
North Edmonds.
10. Rockeries exceeding twelve (12) feet in height. (Rockery height is defined as the height
measured vertically from the finished grade at the toe of the rockery to the highest point of
the uppermost rock.) All of the above situations except #8 and #9 are situations where construction of rockeries has
previously been prohibited by the City of Edmonds. Although not prohibited in the past,
construction of rockeries in situations #8 and #9 has been very tightly controlled and limited
through our permit process. Staff recommends that construction of rockeries should also be
prohibited in these situations.
Compliance with the City’s prohibitions for rockeries will be enforced on an exception or
complaint basis.
Attached is a proposed ordinance revising ECDC Chapter 18.40, Grading and Retaining Walls, and
ECDC 20.110.030, Nuisance Section, to ensure consistency with the revised Title 19 and to codify
the above prohibited rockeries.
On September 11, 2007, the Community Services/Development Services Committee reviewed the
proposed ordinance and forwarded it to the full Council for adoption on consent agenda.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proposed Ordinance
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq
1
2
3
4
Inbox
Approved By
Development Services Duane Bowman
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
Mayor
Gary Haakenson
Final Approval
Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Dave Gebert
Date
Status
09/12/2007 11:17 AM
APRV
09/12/2007 03:09 PM
APRV
09/12/2007 04:03 PM
APRV
09/12/2007 04:30 PM
APRV
Started On: 09/12/2007 10:40
AM
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
3/14/07
R.8/24/07gjz
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER
18.40 GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS, AND ECDC
20.110.030 NUISANCE SECTION, TO ADD A NEW
PARAGRAPH TO SPECIFY THE CITY’S REGULATION OF
ROCKERIES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 3651, the City Council adopted revisions to Title
19 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, including adoption of the International
Building Code; and
WHEREAS, the revised Title 19 adopted by Ordinance No. 3651 included
revisions pertaining to regulation of grading, retaining walls, and rockeries, and
WHEREAS, in practice, the erection of rockeries is a craft and is primarily
utilized for erosion protection of cut slopes and as landscaping features, and as such, the City
does not consider rockeries to be retaining walls; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in adopting Ordinance No. 3651, amended Title 19
to deregulate the construction of rockeries in order to recognize the utility of rockeries as erosion
protection measures and as landscaping features which, if properly located and less than a certain
height, do not raise issues of critical public interest and therefore, should not be subject to
regulations, and
{WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
-1-
WHEREAS, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.40, Grading
and Retaining Walls, now also requires revisions to avoid duplication and ensure consistency
with the revised Title 19, and
WHEREAS, there are certain conditions where rockeries, if erected, could pose a
threat to the public interest and/or safety and should, therefore, be prohibited within the City of
Edmonds; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.40 Grading
and Retaining Walls is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Sections:
18.40.000 Grading
18.40.010 Retaining walls
18.40.020 Prohibited rockeries
18.40.000
Grading
A.
Grading defined. Grading shall be as defined in the
International Building Code.
B.
Permit required. Except as provided in ECDC 19.00.010
and below, no person shall do any grading without first obtaining a
permit from the building official. For grading proposed in
conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, a separate
grading permit is not required; however, grading plans and details
shall be included on the subdivision/short plat civil plans, and plan
approval by the City Engineer will constitute approval of the
grading.
C. Application. The building official shall establish submittal
requirements for application, review and approval of grading
permits. For grading proposed in conjunction with an approved
subdivision or short plat, as a minimum, all submittal requirements
established by the building official for grading permits shall be
included on or submitted with the subdivision or short plat civil
plans; and grading plans and calculations shall be prepared,
{WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
-2-
stamped and signed by a Washington State licensed professional
engineer.
18.40.010
Retaining walls.
A. Retaining walls defined. Retaining walls, including shoring
structures, are structural systems that provide lateral support for
vertical or near-vertical slopes in soil, including fill. The term
“retaining wall” shall not include a rockery, and the City of
Edmonds does not consider rockeries to be retaining walls. A
rockery is a combination of rocks intended for erosion control or
protection of a free-standing cut slope in firm, stable, undisturbed
and competent native soil, or as a landscaping feature.
B. Permit Required. Except as provided in ECDC 19.00.010 and
herein below, no person shall erect a retaining wall without first
obtaining a permit from the building official. For retaining walls
proposed for construction in conjunction with an approved
subdivision or short plat, a separate retaining wall permit is not
required; however, retaining wall details shall be included on the
subdivision/short plat civil plans, and plan approval by the City
Engineer will constitute retaining wall approval.
C. Application. The building official shall establish submittal
requirements for application, review and approval of retaining wall
permits.
For retaining walls proposed for construction in
conjunction with an approved subdivision or short plat, as a
minimum, all submittal requirements established by the building
official for retaining wall permits shall be included on or submitted
with the subdivision or short plat civil plans.
18.40.020
Prohibited rockeries.
A.
The following types of rockeries are prohibited. No person
shall construct a rockery within the City of Edmonds under the
following circumstances or in the following situations:
1.
No rockery may encroach into or be located in, over or on
any City right of way. The term “right of way” shall include
developed or undeveloped rights of way. Rockeries on private
property adjacent to city right of way must be set back from the
city right of way a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height
of the rockery.
2.
No rockery shall be constructed over a public utility
easement (recorded or prescribed).
{WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
-3-
3.
No rockery shall be constructed in a manner which
adversely affects drainage or creates a sight distance hazard as
determined by the City Engineer.
4.
No rockery shall support a surcharge.
The term
“surcharge” shall have that meaning assigned in the State adopted
Building Code.
5.
No rockery shall impound flammable materials. Flammable
materials are materials as regulated by the State adopted Fire Code.
6
No rockery may exceed three feet in setback area height
within a setback. The term “setback area height” is defined as the
height measured vertically from the original grade of the soil to the
highest point of the upper most rock. It is the property owner’s
responsibility to verify original grade and compliance with setback
area height by submitting a professional land surveyor letter and
section view when an enforcement action is initiated due to a
violation of this section.
7.
No rockery shall be placed against fill where the rockery
exceeds three feet in height. The height of a rockery shall be
determined as the height measured vertically from the finished
grade of the soil at the exposed toe of the rockery to the highest
point of the upper most rock. It is the property owner’s
responsibility to establish a defense to any enforcement action
initiated due to a violation of this section by verifying the finished
grade and compliance with maximum allowable height by
submittal of a professional land surveyor letter and section view.
8.
Rockeries are prohibited in designated geologically
hazardous areas other than erosion hazard areas as defined in
Chapter 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) and within the designated Earth Subsidence Landslide
Hazard Area of North Edmonds unless as provided by ECDC
19.10.070E.
9.
No rockery shall exceed twelve feet in height. The height
of a rockery shall be determined as the height measured vertically
from the finished grade of the soil at the exposed toe of the rockery
to the highest point of the upper most rock. It is the property
owner’s responsibility to verify finished grade and compliance
with maximum allowable height by submitting a professional land
surveyor letter and section view when an enforcement action is
initiated due to a violation of this section.
{WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
-4-
B.
No person shall construct a prohibited rockery in the City
of Edmonds. The violation of any provisions of this section shall
be punishable as a misdemeanor in accordance with the provisions
of the Edmonds City Code. It shall be a separate offense for each
and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any
provision of this section is committed or allowed to continue.
Construction of a rockery prior to October 1, 2007 shall be an
affirmative defense to an enforcement action for violation of this
section.
C.
In addition to the preceding criminal remedy, the
construction of a prohibited rockery after October 1, 2007 shall be
considered a nuisance and shall be subject to abatement in
accordance with the civil enforcement procedures of Chapter
20.110 ECDC.
Section 2. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 20.110.030
Nuisance Section is hereby amended by the addition of a new paragraph (J) relating to rockeries
to read as follows:
20.110.030
Nuisance section.
...
J.
Violations of the provisions of ECDC 18.40.020 Prohibited
rockeries.
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
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
-5-
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
10/01/2007
-6-
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2007, 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, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER
18.40 GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS, AND ECDC 20.110.030 NUISANCE
SECTION, TO ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH TO SPECIFY THE CITY’S REGULATION OF
ROCKERIES, 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 ________________, 2007.
{WSS671432.DOC;1/00006.900000/}-
7-
AM-1167
Ordinance Amending ECC 10.25.030 (Civil Service)
Date:
09/18/2007
Submitted By:
Debi Humann
Department:
Human Resources
Review Committee:
Action:
Time:
Type:
2.G.
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code 10.25.030 relating to the scope of the Civil
Service system.
Council approval of the attached Ordinance allowing for updates to the Edmonds City Code in
regards to Civil Service Rules and Regulations and allows for recent court decisions to be applied in
accordance with State law.
None.
Narrative
The attached Ordinance, as explained in the memorandum from Scott Snyder, allows:
1. The inclusion of non-commissioned police personnel in civil service in accordance with State
law;
2. Permits a Police Chief, appointed from within the department, to return to his or her vested civil
service rank if removed without cause from the at-will position of Chief of Police; and,
3. Updates the ECC to include new statutory provisions which authorize the Chief of Police to
designate certain positions as outside of the "classified" civil service.
The Ordinance was recommended by Scott Snyder, City Attorney, and has been reviewed and
agreed to by Police Management as well as the Civil Service Commission.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Memo from the City Attorney
Link: Proposed Ordinance
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq
1
2
Inbox
City Clerk
Mayor
Approved By Date
Sandy Chase
09/13/2007 08:43 AM
Gary Haakenson 09/13/2007 08:58 AM
Status
APRV
APRV
3
Form Started By: Debi
Humann
09/13/2007 08:59 AM
APRV
Started On: 09/12/2007 05:38
PM
DRAFT
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
August 16, 2007
TO:
City of Edmonds
FROM:
W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE:
Proposed Ordinance Amending ECC 10.25.030
This memo addresses three changes in current ordinance ECC 10.25.030. This ordinance
governs the coverage of the Police Department in civil service. The Amendments address three
different issues:
1.
The inclusion of non-commissioned police personnel in civil service in accordance with
State law;
2.
Permitting a Police Chief, appointed from within the department, to return to his or her
vested civil service rank if removed without cause from the at-will position of Chief of Police;
and
3.
Updating this section to include new statutory provisions which authorizes the Chief of
Police to designate certain positions as outside of the “classified” civil service.
NON-COMMISSIONED PERSONNEL.
In 1993, Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals held that the then-existing language of
Chapter 41.12 RCW required all full-time members of the police department to be included
within the scope of civil service. Teamsters v. Moses Lake, 70 Wash. App. 404 (1993). This
ruling came as a surprise. City Civil Service Commissions, whether functioning under State law
or having enacted their own systems, uniformly included only full-time, commissioned law
enforcement officers within their civil service structures. Many west-side cities, Edmonds
among them, elected to wait for a challenge so that they could raise legal issues not briefed in the
Moses Lake case before Division II or III of the Court of Appeals.
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS670810.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
August 16, 2007
Page 2
In the intervening years, the State legislature made changes in the civil service statute intended to
address other issues. One of these changes eliminated any statutory construction argument that
the State legislature did not intend to cover non-commissioned personnel. Revisions to RCW
41.12.050, discussed in depth later in this memo, authorized the Police Chief to remove certain
positions from civil service, among them an executive secretary or assistant. If the noncommissioned position of executive secretary or executive assistant were not in civil service to
start with, why would the State legislature need to authorize the removal of the position from
civil service?
The City has been attempting to negotiate a resolution with the Edmonds Police Officers
Association. To date, this effort has not been successful. However, the City should bring its
civil service ordinance into compliance with the requirements of State law. A city may either
use the State system as contained in the State statute or may adopt its own system. By adopting
its own system, Edmonds has obtained the authorization to make deviations from the express
letter of State law so long as the changes “substantially accomplish” the purposes of civil service
law. An example is the use of the “Rule of Three” or other variations permitting flexibility in
hiring from eligibility lists. The City has adopted its own system and in order for that system to
comply with statutory requirements, it needs to make this amendment.
AUTHORIZATION OF A RIGHT TO RETURN FOR THE CHIEF.
This ordinance was originally drafted to incorporate the provision contained in paragraph 4 of
the draft ordinance. This request from the Mayor is designed to encourage persons in the
Edmonds civil service system to apply for the job of Police Chief. The position of Chief of
Police is outside of civil service, and the Chief holds the position “at will.” An at-will employee
may be removed at any time for any reason. Such a provision can serve as a disincentive to
apply for the position to an officer who is vested in the civil service system and nearing
retirement. The Mayor or Police Chief can speak to this issue.
CLASSIFIED VERSUS UNCLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE.
In 2002, the legislature enacted changes which authorize the Chief of Police to remove a certain
number of positions such as an executive secretary or assistant, a deputy or assistant chief,
commanders and other high-ranking officers from the “classified” civil service and place the
position in the “unclassified” service. In practical terms, a person in the “classified” civil service
has the right to be selected, promoted, transferred, suspended and discharged in accordance with
civil service requirements. A person in the “unclassified” civil service has the same job
protections regarding suspension, demotion or removal as an individual in the “classified”
service, but may be selected and promoted at the discretion of the Police Chief. Therefore, the
only significant difference between the “classified” and “unclassified” civil service is the ability
of the Police Chief to designate his or her command staff. Once appointed, however, persons in
these positions may be removed only for cause.
{WSS670810.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
August 16, 2007
Page 3
The language from the 1930s era civil service statute can be arcane. The last sentence of Section
5 is taken directly from the statute and contains the statutory requirement that persons in the
unclassified civil service be disciplined or removed only in accordance with the Civil Service
Chapter.
WSS:gjz
{WSS670810.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
0006.9000
WSS/gjz
7/09/07
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
10.25.030 RELATING TO THE SCOPE OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE SYSTEM, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Code establishes provisions regarding civil
service coverage for its police department, which have not been amended for some years; and
WHEREAS, RCW 41.12.050 relating to scope of civil service coverage and the
process for exclusion has been amended; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to incorporate
the provisions of RCW 41.12.050; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide for a right to return to vested
civil service status where a chief was promoted from within the classified service; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, Section 10.25.030 Scope is hereby amended
to read as follows:
10.25.030
Scope.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all full-time police
personnel of the City except as provided herein.
1.
The position of police chief shall be exempt from civil
service coverage. The police chief shall have the authority to
{WSS667575.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
-1-
exclude an additional number of positions, to be designated the
unclassified service. The number of such persons who may be
designated shall be determined in accordance with the provisions
of RCW 41.12.050.
2.
The selection of specific provisions to be in the unclassified
service and exempt from civil service shall be made by the police
chief, who shall notify the Civil Service Commission of his or her
selection. Subsequent changes in the designation of which
positions are in the unclassified service may be made only with the
concurrence of the police chief, the Mayor, and the Civil Service
Commission, and then only after the Civil Service Commission has
heard the issue in an open hearing.
3.
If a position initially selected by the police chief to be in
the unclassified service is in the classified civil service at the time
of selection, and if the position is occupied, the employee
occupying the position has the right to return to the next highest
position or like position in the classified Civil Service.
4.
When the Police Chief has been appointed from within the
department and has previously established tenure within the
classified service, he or she shall retain the civil service rank to
which he or she has vested. The Chief serves at will and may be
removed with or without cause at any time. In the event that the
Chief is removed without cause, the Chief may, at his or her
option, return to the last tenured position in the classified service.
Civil service tenure may be terminated only for cause in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
5.
All appointments to and promotions in the classified
service of the department shall be made solely on merit, efficiency
and fitness except as specifically provided in RCW 35.13.360
through 35.13.400, which shall be ascertained by open,
competitive examination and impartial investigation. No person in
the unclassified service shall be reinstated in or transferred,
suspended or discharged from any such place, position, or
employment, contrary to the provisions of this chapter.
{WSS667575.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
-2-
Section 2. 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
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{WSS667575.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
-3-
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2007, 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, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF ECC 10.25.030 RELATING TO THE SCOPE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
SYSTEM, 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 ________________, 2007.
{WSS667575.DOC;1/00006.900000/}-
4-
AM-1171
Continued Closed Record Review Appeal of Burnstead Preliminary
Subdivision
Date:
09/18/2007
Submitted By:
Duane Bowman
Department:
Review Committee:
Action:
Time:
Type:
3.
60 Minutes
Action
Information
Subject Title
Continued City Council deliberation on the Closed Record Review held on 08/28/07
regarding an appeal of the Hearing Examiner’s approval of a 27-lot Preliminary Plat
(Woodway Plat) located at 23700 104th Avenue West. (Appellant: Lora Petso / Applicant:
Burnstead Construction / File No. P-07-17 and PRD-07-18)
Uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision and direct the City Attorney to prepare necessary findings
of fact.
This matter was continued from the August 28, 2007 City Council meeting.
Narrative
The City Council concluded oral arguments and continued the matter to September 18, 2007 to
allow the City Council to review the record. In addition, the appellant, applicant and parties of
record were given until 5:00 p.m. on September 13, 2007 to submit any written objections to oral
argument at the August 28th meeting.
Attached are the minutes from the August 28, 2007 meeting along the written objections
submitted. Please bring your packet from the August 28th meeting. Should you need another copy
of the packet, please contact Sandy Chase, City Clerk.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - City Council minutes 82807
Link: Exhibit 2 - Petso Objections
Link: Exhibit 3- Marks Statement
Link: Exhibit 4 -Burnstead Objections
Link: Exhibit 5 - Lutz (Burnstead) Citation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq
Inbox
1
City Clerk
2
Mayor
3
Final Approval
Form Started By: Duane
Bowman
Approved By
Sandy Chase
Gary Haakenson
Sandy Chase
Date
Status
09/14/2007 09:17 AM
APRV
09/14/2007 09:58 AM
APRV
09/14/2007 09:58 AM
APRV
Started On: 09/14/2007 08:18
AM
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
August 28, 2007
Following a Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding pending litigation, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Al Compaan, Acting Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Bio Park, Ogden Murphy Wallace
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1.
Change to
Agenda
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson advised Agenda Item 3 (Presentation regarding the Military Family Friendly Employer
Program, and Proposed Resolution Declaring Edmonds to be Military Family Friendly and Encouraging
Area Businesses to Become a Military Family Friendly Employment Partner) and Consent Agenda Item E
(Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Vehicle
Maintenance Services between the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway, Decreasing the Vehicle
Shop Rate) would be removed from tonight’s agenda and rescheduled for a future meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
Roll Call
Approve
8/20/07
Minutes
Approve Claim
Checks
A.
ROLL CALL
B.
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2007.
C.
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #98471 THROUGH #98629 FOR AUGUST 23, 2007 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $500,868.04. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
CHECKS #45390 THROUGH #45489 FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 1 THROUGH
AUGUST 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $828,834.25.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2007
Page 1
Claims for
Damages
Military Family
Friendly
Employer
Program
D.
3.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM PATRICIA TULLER
(AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED)
AND
PATRICIA
DZEIMA
(AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED).
PRESENTATION REGARDING THE MILITARY FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYER
PROGRAM, AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION DECLARING EDMONDS TO BE MILITARY
FAMILY FRIENDLY AND ENCOURAGING AREA BUSINESSES TO BECOME A MILITARY
FAMILY FRIENDLY EMPLOYMENT PARTNER
This item was removed from the agenda and will be rescheduled for a later date.
Puget Sound
Regional
Council Update
4.
PRESENTATION BY PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (PSRC) ON THE UPDATED
GROWTH STRATEGY AND POLICIES.
Norman Abbott, PSRC Director of Growth Management Planning, recalled approximately one year
ago four growth alternatives were presented; a preferred alternative has been selected and the Draft
Vision 2040 document prepared. He enumerated the documents provided to the Council including the
draft Vision 2040, EIS and Supplemental EIS, and the Regional View that serves as an Executive
Summary.
He provided a video narrated by Mike Lonergan, Chair of the PSRC Growth Management Policy Board
(GMPB), describing Vision 2040 which updates the long range vision for the Central Puget Sound area.
Mr. Lonergan described the membership of PSRC including King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap
Counties, 71 cities and towns, and four port districts, transit agencies and tribes. He explained the PSRC
worked on issues related to transportation, land use and economic development. PSRC distributes
approximately $160 million per year in federal funds throughout the region for transportation
improvements.
He explained Vision 2040 was the over-arching, long range growth management, economic and
transportation strategy for the region. Vision 2040 is supported by PSRC’s functional plans including
Destination 2030 for transportation and the Regional Economic Strategy. The primary purpose of Vision
2040 is to help local jurisdictions identify and accomplish regional objectives by providing broad
direction for the future. Vision 2040 consists of four parts, an environmental framework, a regional
growth strategy, multi-county planning policies, and actions and measures to implement the vision.
He explained the primary reason for updating the vision was anticipated population and employment
growth, estimated to be 1.7 million more people and 1.2 million more jobs in the region by 2040, bringing
the population in the region to nearly 5 million by 2020. He reviewed the update process including the
development of several possible growth scenarios which were reduced to four alternative growth patterns
that were analyzed in a draft EIS. Following an extensive public comment period, the GMPB selected a
preferred growth alternative which was analyzed in a supplement to the draft EIS. Both the supplement
and Vision 2040 will now undergo another widespread review process and written public comment
period.
He described elements of the current vision carried forward in Vision 2040 including urban growth
boundaries, rural areas remain and natural resource lands. Vision 2040 focuses growth in urban areas,
particularly compact centers, where services exist and calls for designated industrial and manufacturing
centers where intensive land uses accommodate present and future employment growth. The current
vision also includes an efficient transportation system that connects the centers. He described the
environmental framework of Vision 2040 and displayed a chart illustrating how the regional growth
strategy distributed each county’s share of the population growth by regional geography, noting the goal
August 28, 2007
Page 2
was to concentrate much of the growth into metropolitan and core cities. He summarized on analysis, the
regional growth strategy performed better than current local plans.
He explained the multi-county planning policies provided direction for implementing the regional growth
strategy, embody the policy framework for Destination 2030 and Regional Economic Strategy and
establish a common framework for all levels of government. The policies cover five topics environment, development patterns, economy, transportation and public services. He commented on the
new environmental section that addresses the possible impacts of climate change and calls for coordinated
regional environmental planning. He explained Vision 2040 benefited local government by providing
decision-makers with a regional context for making local decisions, helps local government work together
to bend growth trends, addresses issues that are difficult to resolve at the individual jurisdiction level.
He described the outreach effort regarding Vision 2040 to solicit public comment. He provided PSRC’s
website, psrc.org that contained links to the document. He reviewed the timeline for review of Vision
2040: PSRC Boards review public comments and make final edits and PSRC prepare final draft Vision
2040 and final EIS this fall, GMPB conducts a public hearing and recommend the final Vision 2040 to the
Executive Board this winter, and in April 2008 the Executive Board will take the recommended Vision
2040 to the general assembly for action. He encouraged jurisdictions and the public to provide comment
through September 7, 2007 via letter, a comment form is available on the PSRC website or via email.
Councilmember Moore asked what PSRC was seeking from local jurisdictions to add to Vision 2040.
Mr. Abbott answered they were seeking in a comment letter about the vision in the draft Vision 2040 and
how it fits with the city’s vision.
Proposed
Ordinance re:
Graffiti
5.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER
5.60, GRAFFITI; DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE; PROHIBITING
DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY WITH GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI
IMPLEMENTS; IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES; REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF
GRAFFITI; AND ESTABLISHING AN APPEALS PROCESS.
Bio Park, Ogden Murphy Wallace, was present to advise the Council during this item.
Councilmember Dawson explained the Public Safety Committee has discussed graffiti numerous times
and agreed to present a very broad ordinance to provide the public a range of what other jurisdictions
have done to combat graffiti. She noted studies have shown the most effective way to combat graffiti in a
community is prompt removal and if it was removed within 24 hours three times, the chances of it
reoccurring were virtually nil. Therefore, one of the objectives of the ordinance was to assist with the
prompt removal of graffiti. She acknowledged it could be difficult and expensive to remove graffiti. She
pointed out the Committee did not support the requirement in the ordinance for businesses to keep graffiti
implements behind the counter, check identification and not sell graffiti implements to minors. She noted
the current code contained a provision declaring graffiti a nuisance; however, an improved definition of
graffiti was necessary to assist with abatement.
Councilmember Plunkett explained another goal of the ordinance was to prevent graffiti. The code
currently required that an officer observe a person in the act of graffiti; the proposed ordinance would
allow an officer to stop a person possessing graffiti implements with the intent to commit graffiti.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the ordinance was only part of the battle against graffiti but would
not be enough to combat graffiti; community involvement and vigilance was also required.
August 28, 2007
Page 3
Acting Police Chief Al Compaan explained Seattle was one of the first cities in the Puget Sound area to
adopt a graffiti ordinance in 1996. He recalled a high level of tagging/graffiti was experienced in the
Puget Sound area during that era; graffiti had waned for awhile and was now reoccurring. He noted the
ordinance was intended to provide options for a multi-pronged approach - education to inform the public
regarding the importance of removing graffiti on their property, criminal enforcement, and civil sanctions
imposed via an abatement process for property owners unwilling to remove graffiti. He referred to the
provision in the ordinance regarding possession of graffiti implements with intent to commit a crime,
citing possession of burglary tools or drug paraphernalia as similar possession with intent to commit a
crime offense. He acknowledged vandalism was difficult for the Police Department to address; the
proposed multi-prong approach would provide some assistance.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about statistics regarding increase in graffiti. Chief Compaan answered
to date this year there had been 120 reported incidents of graffiti, although he noted many other incidents
were unreported. As graffiti was reported under vandalism and malicious mischief, it was difficult to
extract statistics for prior years. Anecdotally he acknowledged there was an increase in graffiti on
buildings, parks and signs.
Councilmember Marin asked how the trust fund in the ordinance would be funded. Chief Compaan
responded it would be funded via civil penalties assessed through the abatement process. He clarified the
Police Department would address criminal enforcement; Development Services would address abatement
and any civil penalties.
Councilmember Marin observed each department’s budget was currently used to address the cost of
graffiti removal; the trust fund proposed in the ordinance would provide a mechanism for funding
removal. Chief Compaan advised the ordinance allowed Council discretion regarding the use of those
funds.
Councilmember Dawson acknowledged it was very expensive to remove graffiti. She asked Chief
Compaan to comment on graffiti related to gang activity. Chief Compaan answered the majority of
graffiti/tagging in the City was non-gang related. He acknowledged some may view graffiti as art, others
view it as defacement. Councilmember Dawson commented the difference between art and graffiti was
permission.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Police Department had seen an increase in gang activity in
Edmonds in the past year. Chief Compaan acknowledged there had been some gang activity; the Police
Department worked closely with the schools and other Police Departments. Councilmember Dawson
noted her discussions with Edmonds School District indicated they are also concerned with graffiti on
district property.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained Development Services currently reacted to
graffiti by complaint or Police report and Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies began an enforcement
action. He explained this typically begins with a letter to the property owner informing them of the
situation and requesting a schedule for removing graffiti. If the property owner ignores the letter, an
Order to Correct is issued. If the Order to Correct is ignored, a Notice of Violation is issued which
includes fines of $100/day, each day a separate offense. He could not recall an incident that reached that
level. The ordinance as currently structured followed that same process although the timeframes were
much shorter - five business days. He suggested that timeframe may be too short.
Mr. Bowman suggested language from the Seattle ordinance be incorporated that allowed for no
monetary penalties to be assessed and listed factors that could be considered such as whether the
responsible party cooperated with efforts to abate the graffiti nuisance, whether the responsible party
August 28, 2007
Page 4
failed to appear at the hearing, whether the responsible party made substantial progress in abating the
graffiti nuisance and any other relative factors. Councilmember Dawson agreed with Mr. Bowman’s
suggestion. She suggested including language to address the time period such as unless waived by the
Director for good cause. Mr. Bowman agreed language that allowed staff to work with the property
owner would be appropriate.
Councilmember Dawson noted Snohomish County had a Voluntary Correction Agreement that allowed
property owners to enter into an agreement to avoid delays in removing graffiti. She asked whether the
code currently contained language regarding a Voluntary Correction Agreement language. Mr. Bowman
advised it did not, explaining once staff sent a letter and the property owner responded with a proposal for
removal, staff considered whether it was reasonable and if so, that became an informal agreement. If the
property owner failed to act, staff proceeded with an Order to Correct and Notice of Violation.
Councilmember Dawson noted there currently were two levels of civil violation for nuisances in the code,
$100/day and $250/day; the ordinance proposes $250/day. She asked whether the $100/day fine would be
more appropriate. Mr. Bowman acknowledged the $100/day fine was sufficient to get people’s attention.
Councilmember Moore asked for a copy of the Seattle code. She sympathized with businesses that were
victimized by graffiti and then must undergo a process of being fined. She asked whether there had been
businesses/property owners who did not react promptly. Mr. Bowman answered no, there had been
relatively good response to graffiti removal. He noted the most common issue was the timeframe for
removal. He agreed with Councilmember Dawson’s statement that prompt removal was key.
Councilmember Moore asked whether five days for removal was too restrictive. Mr. Bowman answered
that timeline could be reflected in the ordinance along with language allowing development of a schedule
as approved by the Director.
Councilmember Marin commented on graffiti experienced by the church he attends and the difficulty they
had removing it. He noted one of the messages the second time the church was hit with graffiti was more
graffiti if it was removed. He supported Mr. Bowman’s suggestion to provide staff some leeway to work
with the property owner on the timeline for removal rather than further victimizing the property owner via
the timetable for removal.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Swan Seaburg, Edmonds, expressed concern with placing the responsibility for graffiti removal on the
property owner victimized by graffiti. He suggested working with the schools to change youths’ attitude
regarding graffiti. Remarking Edmonds was a retirement community, he questioned how seniors could be
expected to remove graffiti. He was offended by the approach proposed in the ordinance that penalized
the property owner, preferring the focus be on prevention and/or apprehending the offenders.
Mike Mestres, Edmonds, posed several questions including who did the graffiti/tagging, what they were
hoping to accomplish, why did they did it, when they did it, and where they did it. He recalled living in a
higher crime neighborhood in St. Louis where generally the offenders lived in the neighborhood. He
anticipated the youth doing graffiti lived in Edmonds.
Steve Waite, Edmonds, suggested providing information to graffiti victims regarding methods
removal such as via a handout at Development Services. He explained repairs generally were made
covering the graffiti or removing it, although covering the graffiti was often unsightly such as on
SR104 overpass. He noted it was possible to remove graffiti particularly if done within three days.
for
via
the
He
August 28, 2007
Page 5
commented on the importance of analysis prior to removal on historic structures or buildings with delicate
surfaces. He asked whether a citizen could apprehend a person in the act of graffiti.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett read a letter from Karen Wiggins, the owner of a commercial building in
downtown Edmonds, expressing her objection to punishing the victim with fines for failure to removing
graffiti in a timely manner. Although she had been able to remove graffiti on her building quickly, she
noted circumstances could prevent a property owner from prompt removal.
Chief Compaan emphasized the ordinance contained a range of options and was intended as a plan of
action and to provide tools to address graffiti the most important of which were public education and the
ability for an officer to apprehend someone in possession of graffiti implements with the intent to commit
a crime. With regard to who was doing graffiti, he anticipated the majority were juveniles from the age of
13- 16 years of age. With regard to when, he anticipated most of it occurred in the evening hours when
businesses were closed and parks were empty. He agreed most of the offenders lived in the area. With
regard to why, he envisioned it was “just because,” noting graffiti was gaining popularity again. He
agreed neither an ordinance or police enforcement would solve the problem, it required parental and
school involvement.
With regard to Mr. Waite’s question about apprehending some in the act of graffiti, Chief Compaan
cautioned against apprehending someone committing a misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor crime. He
noted there were specific statutes that allowed a retailer to retain a shoplifter and citizens could make a
citizen’s arrest of a person committing a felony. He preferred a citizen to be a witness and allow the
Police Department to make the arrest.
Councilmember Moore asked whether anyone painting graffiti had been apprehended. Chief Compaan
answered a few had been apprehended. If it was a first offense, it would be referred to Juvenile Court and
the offender would be entitled to diversion, probationary type adjudication versus jail time.
Councilmember Moore asked whether he had the opportunity to talk to an offender or their parents. Chief
Compaan answered in nuisance and problematic juvenile crime in general, the youth was usually unable
to give a logical reason why they committed the offense, not understanding the impact of their crime to
the community. The parental reaction differed, sometimes very supportive of the Police Department and
other times not supportive.
Councilmember Moore expressed concern with a property owner who was victimized by graffiti
receiving a notice that they would be required to pay fines if it was not removed, essentially victimizing
them again. She used an analogy of a property owner cleaning up after a fire. Mr. Bowman answered in
that instance, staff worked with the property owner who was typically also working with their insurance
company. The situation was usually resolved quickly; however, if it was not and became an unsafe
situation, an abatement process would begin. He could not recall an instance that reached the level where
fines were imposed.
Councilmember Moore asked whether there was vandalism insurance. Mr. Bowman was uncertain,
noting the City repaired the vandalism they experienced themselves. He explained under the current
process, fines were not immediately imposed. Staff requested a schedule of when the graffiti would be
addressed; it was only if the property owner ignored staff’s contact that the process proceeded. He noted
the Notice to Correct did not assess fines; it notified the property owner of the situation. If the Notice to
Correct was ignored, the Notice of Violation imposed a $100/day fine.
August 28, 2007
Page 6
Councilmember Moore asked whether there was a specific timetable now. Mr. Bowman answered staff
worked with the property owner who provided an estimate of when they planned to remove the graffiti.
Staff typically agreed if their proposed timeline was reasonable. He summarized that process was
currently workable.
With regard to the timetable, Bio Park, Ogden Murphy Wallace, advised the Public Safety Committee
asked for a timeline that would be acceptable to the court for abating the nuisance; the minimum time was
five days, the Council had the option to extend that time period. He referred to the provision in the
ordinance for parental liability for fines, noting parents could not be held liable for criminal activity, but
could be held liable for fines.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated the ordinance was very broad and the Council could narrow the focus.
Council President Olson inquired about the incidents on public versus public property. Mr. Bowman
answered graffiti on public property was addressed by the appropriate City department; Development
Services only responded to private property complaints. Council President Olson asked whether most
incidents were on residential property or commercial property. Mr. Bowman answered both although the
majority occurred on businesses. Mayor Haakenson advised most occurred on City park property, then
commercial and residential property such as fences, mailboxes, etc. Mr. Bowman offered to provide the
Council a copy of the graffiti handout Mr. Thies developed that he provides to victims of graffiti.
Councilmember Dawson commented the initial contact proposed by the ordinance was not a letter
imposing fines, but a letter describing why it was important to remove graffiti promptly and provided
information and resources regarding removal. Mr. Bowman answered it was similar to what staff did now
although staff currently asked for a schedule for removal. Councilmember Dawson referred to an effort at
the Snohomish County level to coordinate a team of experts to develop best practices for graffiti removal
as well as a brochure and graffiti removal kits. She advised there was a countywide planning meeting on
graffiti removal tomorrow. Councilmember Dawson asked on what other issues the City pursued code
enforcement. Mr. Bowman answered junk vehicles, trash/debris in a yard, etc.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to citizens expressing concern with penalizing property owners who
had been victimized, questioning who else could be accountable for cleanup. Mr. Bowman
acknowledged unfortunately the property owner was responsible for removal. He pointed out the
suggestions to allow a property owner to work with staff on a schedule for removal and giving
consideration to the property owner’s effort in the assessment of fines. Councilmember Wambolt noted
the five days began after the property owner received a letter, not five days after the graffiti occurred.
Councilmember Moore referred to the process staff currently followed and asked if the only difference in
the proposed ordinance was the imposition of a fine. Councilmember Dawson answered the code
currently identified graffiti as a nuisance and assessed a $100/day fine; the difference was the ordinance
defined graffiti and suggested a minimum timeline for removal due to the importance of prompt removal.
She agreed with the suggestion to allow the Director the ability to work with a property owner on the
timeline for removal. She noted the proposed ordinance also contained criminal penalties for the
possession of graffiti implements with intent to commit graffiti as well as a provision for parental
responsibility for restitution. She noted a homeowner’s policy would typically cover graffiti removal
depending on the cost of removal.
August 28, 2007
Page 7
Councilmember Dawson suggested seeking feedback from local businesses and the Chamber of
Commerce and returning the ordinance with the suggestions that have been made for further discussion
by the Council. Although he was not opposed to seeking further input, Councilmember Plunkett assured
the merchants had been notified repeatedly of tonight’s presentation.
Councilmember Marin expressed support for the concept of removing graffiti. He suggested the trust
fund identified in the ordinance be allowed to be used to provide money to a property owner that was
financially unable to remove the graffiti. He also agreed with allowing the Director the ability to work
with a property owner on a schedule for removal.
Councilmember Moore agreed with the suggestion to provide the property owner recommendations on
graffiti removal and allowing the flexibility to negotiate a reasonable schedule for removal.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Councilmember Marin’s suggestion regarding providing funds to
assist with removal would be a gift of public funds. Mr. Park answered the only method would be to loan
the funds with a recovery of the funds.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested removing Section 5.60.040, Display and Storage of Graffiti
Implements, that required a merchant not display graffiti implements, prohibited the sale of graffiti
implements to minors, and required the display of signage regarding these prohibitions.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
REMOVE PARAGRAPHS A, B AND C FROM SECTION 5.60.040.
Councilmember Dawson advised the Public Safety Committee and staff recommended eliminating
Section 5.60.040 and 5.60.030(C), Furnishing to Minors, recognizing those provisions were not necessary
in Edmonds at this time.
Councilmember Plunkett recommended a property owner who was tagged receive a strong letter from the
City that provided information and encouraged them to remove the graffiti within 5-10 days. He
recommended removing the fines from the ordinance, recognizing the current process Mr. Bowman
described had been sufficient and fines had not been required. He agreed the fines appeared to victimize
the victim.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
REMOVE THE FINES AND REPLACE THEM WITH A STRONG LETTER OF
ENCOURAGEMENT
Councilmember Dawson commented the reason no one had been fined was staff worked with property
owners but there was the threat of a fine if they did not comply. She pointed out the City’s code currently
provided for a fine for all nuisances if not abated after action was sought including graffiti. She did not
support the motion, finding it important for staff to retain the existing tools to ensure abatement including
the existing fine. She envisioned the removal of fines would weaken the effort against graffiti.
Recognizing the trust fund identified in the ordinance would contain revenue from the payment of fines,
Councilmember Marin asked whether the funds could be used to assist with removal. He also asked
whether the trust fund could include contributions from community or service organizations. He noted
without fines, there would be no revenue for the fund to assist with removal. Mr. Park answered fines
were a revenue source for the City which constituted public funds and by constitutional prohibition could
August 28, 2007
Page 8
not be used to improve private property without something in return. A separate fund could be
established for contributions managed by another organization. Councilmember Dawson commented if
graffiti was a public nuisance, abatement of the public nuisance was in the public’s interest and using the
funds for cleanup of a public nuisance was a public interest and may not be a gift of public funds. She
suggested further analysis be done on that issue, explaining the intent of declaring graffiti a public
nuisance was to allow the trust fund to be used to assist in cleanup efforts. She noted Snohomish County
allowed leftover paint to be used by the public for cleanup.
Mayor Haakenson noted the trust fund language allowed the Council to direct the expenditure of the
funds for removal of graffiti as well as payment of rewards for information leading to the conviction of
violation, cost of administering the ordinance, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out even if the fines were removed the ordinance allowed criminal
enforcement based on intent which provided the Police Department the ability to prevent graffiti.
MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MOORE AND ORVIS IN FAVOR;
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN AND
DAWSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Dawson advised tomorrow there would be a continuation of the Snohomish County
graffiti summit that would include discussion regarding the graffiti paint-out event planned for October 6
as well as efforts to combat graffiti countywide.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
INCLUDE IN SECTION 5.60.060, NOTICE OF GRAFFITI, THAT WHEN THE CITY NOTIFIES
THE PARTIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY AND SENDS THE PARTIES AN
INFORMATIONAL LETTER DESCRIBING THE NATURE AND LOCATION OF GRAFFITI
AND REQUESTING THE GRAFFITI BE REMOVED PROMPTLY, INFORMATION BE
INCLUDED REGARDING THE PROPER WAYS TO REMOVE GRAFFITI FROM SURFACES.
Councilmember Dawson explained the intent was to include a brochure regarding methods for proper
removal, referring to language in the section that the letter would describe resources available to aid in
graffiti removal, identify any graffiti removal assistance programs available through the City or any
private graffiti removal contractors.
Mayor Haakenson advised the ordinance would be returned to the Council in a revised draft form. He
declared a brief recess.
Closed Record
Review re:
Woodway Plat
(Petso Appeal)
6.
CLOSED RECORD REVIEW ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER’S APPROVAL
OF A 27-LOT PRELIMINARY PLAT (WOODWAY PLAT) LOCATED AT 23700 104TH
AVENUE WEST. (APPELLANT: LORA PETSO / APPLICANT: BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION
/ FILE NO. P-07-17 AND PRD-07-18)
Mayor Haakenson relayed staff and his recommendation to take oral argument from the appellant and the
applicant and continue the matter to a date certain to allow the City Council to fully review the extensive
record. Council President Olson advised the matter would be continued to September 18. City Attorney
Scott Snyder asked whether the date was within the statutory period. Mr. Bowman answered it was
outside the statutory period but the applicant was agreeable to continuing the matter to September 18.
Mayor Haakenson confirmed with the applicant and the appellant that September 18 was acceptable.
August 28, 2007
Page 9
Mayor Haakenson explained on June 21, 2007, the Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing
on the application of Burnstead Construction for a 27 lot Planned Residential Development
(PRD)/Preliminary Subdivision, along with hearings on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
appeals of Lora Petso and Heather Marks/Cliff Sanderlin. The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on the
PRD/Preliminary Plat and SEPA appeals on July 20, 2007. Requests for reconsideration were filed by
Lora Petso and Heather Marks on August 2, 2007 and August 3, 2007. The Hearing Examiner issued
decisions on August 8, 2007 reaffirming the July 20, 2007 decision and denying the reconsideration
request.
The Mayor explained the record on this matter was extensive. The City Council was only able to
consider the Hearing Examiner's decision on the preliminary plat and had no authority to review the
matters relating to the SEPA appeals or the PRD decision. Those matters were subject to appeal to
superior court.
As this was a quasi judicial matter, under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson asked
whether any Councilmember had any conflicts of ex parte communications to disclose.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he had worked closely with Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks on political
matters in the past and had also worked with Ms. Petso in the past. Mayor Haakenson asked whether he
could make a fair decision in this matter. Councilmember Plunkett advised he could.
Councilmember Orvis reported Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks have contributed to his current campaign
and assisted with a recent fundraiser and he had worked with Ms. Petso in the past. Mayor Haakenson
asked whether he could make a fair decision in this matter. Councilmember Orvis answered he could.
Councilmember Moore advised she had spoke with Mr. Sanderlin and Ms. Marks in regard to political
matters and the Burnstead property development. Mayor Haakenson asked whether she could make a fair
decision in this matter. Councilmember Moore answered she could.
Councilmember Dawson advised one of the parties of record, Finis Tupper, had contributed to her
political campaign as had Ms. Petso. She advised their contributions would not affect her ability to make
a fair decision in this matter.
Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any objections to any Councilmembers’ participation. There were
no objections voiced and he advised all Councilmembers were approved for participation.
Mayor Haakenson advised the applicant raised the issue of who may participate in the closed record
review. The City Attorney recommends the Council consider his objection, the response of the appellant
and at least one party of record and enter a ruling prior to arguments. City Attorney Scott Snyder
explained the applicant’s representative, Mr. Lutz, provided a brief that cites the City’s appeal procedures
which refer to participation at this review proceeding of parties to the appeal, a term that is not defined.
He referred to the memo he provided to the parties and the Council which indicates there are logical
arguments for that position in the RCW 36.70.B and 36.70C.
The memo also explains that while not defined, that provision has been uniformly applied by the City to
permit parties of record to participate. Parties of record under RCW 36.70B.130, is a person who may
participate is someone who presents at the open record hearing in oral or written testimony or requests in
writing notice of further proceedings. He advised the sign-in sheet at the Hearing Examiner indicates the
person wishes to speak or request further notice. As a result anyone who presented testimony or
requested notice of the proceeding was a party of record under the definition the City has uniformly
applied in these proceedings. He noted a logical conundrum was if only the appellant can speak and the
August 28, 2007
Page 10
applicant was the appellant, only the applicant could speak at a review proceeding before the Council. He
suggested the Council address this procedural issue before proceeding.
Councilmember Orvis advised Mr. Hertrich, a party of record, had also contributed to his current
campaign. Councilmember Dawson advised Mr. Hertrich had also contributed to her campaign.
Councilmember Wambolt advised Mr. Hertrich also contributed to his campaign. Mayor Haakenson
asked whether there were any objections to Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt, or Dawson’s participation.
There were no objections voiced.
Jerry Lutz, representing applicant Burnstead Construction, advised the procedural issue they raised
was an attempt to bring as much structure as possible to this process. The City’s appeal process for the
Burnstead application which includes a preliminary plat applicant and a preliminary PRD and SEPA
review with different appeal procedures that applied to each process was complex enough that it would be
helpful to the process if the code language were fairly construed that the parties to the appeal meant Ms.
Petso, the applicant and the City and limit discussion to those parties. He was sympathetic to the
arguments against this position articulated by Mr. Snyder, primarily past precedent, as well as the concept
of allowing parties an opportunity to speak, however, the parties who spoke at the hearing primarily
addressed PRD and SEPA issues. The preliminary plat issues were very minor and although there was
extensive discussion before the Hearing Examiner hearing regarding preexisting neighborhood drainage
issues, that was a SEPA and PRD issue, not a subdivision issue. He summarized for the protection of this
process and from a practical perspective because most of the issues parties of record would address were
irrelevant, it was preferable to limit discussion before the Council to Ms. Petso, the applicant and the City.
Appellant Lora Petso, Edmonds, recommended the City continue with its past practice of allowing all
parties to speak which allows for better decision-making. She noted the ordinance language was
permissive, not exclusive, and did not state only parties to the appeal were allowed to participate. The
language states the parties to the appeal may submit timely written statements or arguments. She noted
when she submitted her original appeal on a quick deadline, she was grateful for that language as it
allowed her to submit additional written information later. She agreed with Mr. Snyder’s logical
conundrum if the language were construed too strictly, she would not be allowed to speak.
With regard to the statement that this proceeding was limited to issues that were SEPA or otherwise
unrelated, she pointed out the subdivision law required compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance, public interest, etc. She expressed concern with the potential for interruptions when
those issues were raised in her presentation. Mayor Haakenson assured there would be a process for
parties to voice objections. Ms. Petso concluded the Council had a great deal of discretion in balancing
the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and other issues.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, advised he was a party of record and a number of the comments made by
Ms. Petso reflected his comments/ideas. Thus eliminating him as a party of record would eliminate a
portion of the record. He recommended the Council continue to follow its tradition of allowing parties of
record to participate. He agreed many of the plat issues were intertwined with the PRD.
Heather Marks, Edmonds, recommended parties of record be allowed to participate. She pointed out
the notice the City issued stated the public was invited to attend although it was not a public hearing. The
notice stated it was a closed record review and State law required that no public testimony be permitted
except from parties of record. She had postponed her vacation to be able to attend tonight. She suggested
if parties of record were not allowed to participate, the closed record review be postponed and a new
notice provided. She noted both the SEPA and preliminary plat were considered by the Hearing
Examiner.
August 28, 2007
Page 11
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN,
THAT ALL PARTIES OF RECORD BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder explained information provided to the Council tonight was argument based on the record and
no new testimony was allowed. Mayor Haakenson would describe a process whereby parties could voice
objections to information at the conclusion of presentations and provide an opportunity to provide
citations of the record. With regard to the evidentiary issue Ms. Petso raised, he concurred that to the
extent that evidence in the record applied to subdivision criteria, it could be provided.
Mr. Snyder explained Regulatory Reform was intended to eliminate multiple appeals of the same issue.
RCW 36.70B.160 requires cities to utilize consolidated permit application processes. He noted due to
procedural reasons contained in the record, a remand and a re-notice, issues related to the PRD were out
of sync with these issues. He recommended to the Council that to the extent evidence in the record
related to subdivision criteria it was appropriate and relevant. To the extent argument was made that the
Council lacked authority to rule on a subdivision plat because an issue related to another decision-making
process remained, that should be rejected and considered not relevant to tonight’s decision. Otherwise the
Council risked being seen in a review process as having held multiple hearings on the same subject. For
example, the Council did not have jurisdiction over the PRD or SEPA issues and denying a plat based on
concerns over which the Council did not have jurisdiction would be problematic.
Mayor Haakenson established a 15 minute time limit for the appellant and applicant, advising the
applicant, Ms. Petso, may wish to reserve time for rebuttal. A 3-minute time limit was established for
comments by parties of record.
Due to the extensive record, Mayor Haakenson explained it was impossible for the Council to determine
whether argument provided was contained in the record. Therefore if either party had objections to the
argument of the other based on the argument being outside the record or any other reason, objections
would be voiced at the close of the other party’s presentation. The party whose argument was objected to
would be given an opportunity to cite where that information appeared in the record and the Council
would determine whether the information should be excluded from consideration as outside the record.
Mr. Lutz questioned the order of presentation, requesting he be allowed to speak after the parties of
record. Mayor Haakenson advised typically the order of presentation was the appellant, applicant and
parties of record but the order could be modified if the Council wished. Mr. Lutz asked if that order was
retained he be allowed to briefly address issues raised by parties of record. Mr. Snyder explained the
rationale for the order of presentation was issues were limited to the record and issues raised by Ms. Petso
in her appeal; no other issues were relevant. Therefore, he should not be surprised by any comments and
because the appellant had the burden of persuasion, she was given an opportunity for rebuttal. He noted
the applicant and/or appellant could also object to argument outside the record provided by parties of
record.
Appellant
Ms. Petso reserved two minutes for rebuttal. Ms. Petso advised she purchased a copy of the tapes of the
Hearing Examiner hearing and would submit corrections to the transcript. She displayed an aerial map
identifying the existing ballfields where the subdivision would be located, an existing drainage ditch, and
a fish and wildlife conservation habitat conservation area. She advised only two of the lots were close to
the size of the existing lots; the small lot size combined with the reduced side setbacks produced a gutterto-gutter or continuous wall effect that she asserted would be more appropriate in the BC zone than this
south Edmonds neighborhood. She pointed out the large backyards of the existing subdivision to the west
August 28, 2007
Page 12
which contrast sharply with the proposal. She noted all citizens would be direct neighbors to this project
as it was adjacent to City park land.
Ms. Petso explained under subdivision laws, the proposal must be consistent with purposes of the
subdivision chapter, all subdivision requirements, the Comprehensive Plan, be in the public interest and
meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Under the court cases where the plat contains clear zoning
violations, the subdivision could not be approved. In this instance the plat did not comply with the 35%
lot coverage requirement; therefore, it could not be approved. The drainage report shows the roof area
alone equates to 35% of the lot area; after subtracting required driveways and walkways, the subdivision
would not comply with the 35% requirement.
Ms. Petso pointed out the plat was based on four home designs and the project narrative states an intent to
avoid rows of identical homes; however, there was only one lot that could accommodate the largest home
under the 35% requirement and only if buffers, walkways and driveways were ignored. The Hearing
Examiner has indicated the applicant would not be permitted to ignore walkways, buffers and driveways.
Nineteen of the lots could only accommodate the smallest of the four home designs, assuming required
buffers, walkways and driveways are ignored. She summarized 19 of the 27 homes would be identical
under this proposal.
Ms. Petso reiterated the subdivision law states if there were clear zoning violations, the subdivision could
not be approved. In this instance, the plat is required to have 8,000 square foot lots, but did not. She
assumed there would be argument made that the 8,000 square foot requirement was waived due to the
PRD. Because the Hearing Examiner found the plat did not comply with the PRD ordinance, Ms. Petso
argued the subdivision could not be approved because the lots were not 8,000 square feet and did have an
approved PRD. She displayed a plat map, pointing out the Hearing Examiner found no perimeter buffer
had been provided. The Hearing Examiner is requesting a buffer along the west and south sides of the
proposal; if such buffer is provided, it would not buffer the park property. The city’s ordinance requires a
greater buffer along a public way and the Comprehensive Plan identifies a park as a public way. She
acknowledged the Council could not decide the buffer issue; however, it was important information
because if the plat as conditioned could not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the
subdivision could not be approved.
Ms. Petso explained adequate storm drainage was required under subdivision law. She identified the
wetland/drainage ditch that presently holds, infiltrates and naturally disposes of a portion of the
stormwater on the site and from an offsite tributary north of the site. The applicant proposes to fill this
facility although there is already flooding of the homes to the west at whose request the ditch was
installed approximately 25 years ago and to the south as drainage runs in that direction.
Ms. Petso referred to comments by ADB Member Schaefer who identified other drainage issues related to
the subdivision and urged the Councilmembers to read the ADB minutes. She noted Mr. Schaefer
appeared to have personal knowledge of the drainage system, observed that infiltration capacity would be
reduced over time, suggested heightened maintenance to prevent the reduction, and expressed concern
when informed the homeowners association would be charged with maintenance. He was also concerned
that Tract C in the plat was too small for the necessary drainage facility and wanted to avoid a situation
where it was later determined a larger facility was needed.
Ms. Petso concluded the burden was on the applicant to illustrate that the drainage would work which he
had not done. Of the six drainage test pits dug, none were on Tract C where the drainage facility was
proposed to be located; vault testing occurred offsite and produced a recommended infiltration rate of
only 3 inches per hour. It was subsequently stated that rate could be increased with point drains but there
August 28, 2007
Page 13
was no onsite testing done. She pointed out nothing in the record identified the infiltration testing results
from test site EP2, the site closest to Tract C.
Ms. Petso referred to the subdivision law that states where environmental resources exist, the proposal
must minimize impacts. She noted this proposal fills the drainage ditch and cuts 46% of the trees in the
wooded portion of the site which did not represent minimizing the impacts.
She referred to the aerial view, pointing out the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area extended
beyond the wildlife corridor and provided an ideal perch for birds of prey adjacent to the park. She noted
bald eagles had recently been observed perched in the trees. She explained habitat in the trees including
downed logs and a varied understory made it an exceptionally valuable habitat. She displayed a
photograph of the area where the applicant planned to cut trees and construct the retaining wall to
accommodate Lot 17. She displayed a photograph from the vantage of the City’s park property,
commenting even if only the four trees on the end were cut to accommodate Lot 18, the backdrop to the
City’s park was reduced considerably.
Ms. Petso pointed out the subdivision ordinance also required minimizing grading. The site is already
95% level and the only grading that would be required would be to fill the drainage ditch or grade the
wooded area. She concluded neither filling the drainage ditch nor cutting the trees and building a
retaining wall minimized grading.
Ms. Petso explained the Comprehensive Plan provides that subdivision layouts, buildings and roads
should be designed so that the existing trees were preserved as well as contains other stronger language.
She urged the Council to refer to the Comprehensive Plan references in the written materials. She
explained Comprehensive Plans were generally policy documents; however, the courts have held that
where development regulations require compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as the City’s does, then
both the regulations and the Comprehensive Plan must be complied with. She pointed out the City’s
Comprehensive Plan covered drainage; critical area; parks, open space, and playfields; natural vegetation
and topography and compatibility of subdivisions; this proposal fails to meet any of the established levels
of service for drainage or playfields and makes no effort to protect critical areas, eliminating one and
seriously damaging another.
The Hearing Examiner noted Edmonds had chosen a policy of infill in preference to rezone, but Ms. Petso
found this proposal was more rezone than infill. She commented isolated problems in a subdivision could
generally be addressed via conditions, such as eliminating Lot 17 or 18 to protecting the trees and
requiring the undergrounding of utilities. She requested the Council reject the subdivision as there were
massive compliance failures that could not be conditioned - houses would not fit on lots, existing
neighborhoods would be flooded, and the lots must be 8,000 square feet or comply with the PRD
ordinance and this proposal does neither.
Mr. Lutz raised no objection to Ms. Petso’s presentation.
Applicant
Mr. Lutz explained there was a proceeding for the SEPA review for the preliminary plat application and
PRD. The purpose of the PRD was to modify for public benefit development terms that might otherwise
apply because of a strict application of the subdivision code in a manner that would make the
development more attractive. He explained there were aspects of Burnstead’s proposal that differed in
modest ways from the strict application of the code with the intent and Burnstead believes has met the
intent, of providing a better overall product. He acknowledged it was difficult in that context to have a
discussion of the closed record subdivision appeal when the majority of issues pertained to the PRD.
August 28, 2007
Page 14
With regard to drainage, he explained drainage engineering for the plat was not complete as preliminary
engineering that supports the concept of the plat was done as part of preliminary plat approval. If the
preliminary plat and PRD were approved, final engineering would be done and staff would impose
conditions and approve the final engineering. He concluded what Ms. Petso was contesting was a failure
to have a final drainage design for the plat and PRD when it was not expected by the code.
Mr. Lutz explained the PRD would address drainage, open space and recreation, and the incorrectly
identified fish and wildlife habitat on a corner of the property. He noted the record reflected that issue
was considered and rejected by staff. He recalled the City had a map indicating there was a fish and
wildlife habitat area on the property that was later determined to be incorrect. He noted that was an issue
on remand from the Hearing Examiner as she wanted to ensure that issue was properly documented in the
file. He noted there was a hearing on Friday where there would be limited testimony on two remand
issues before the final PRD decision was issued. He summarized these were PRD, not subdivision issues.
He noted the Council could only consider subdivision issues and could not make a ruling based on issues
that were to be determined by the Hearing Examiner and appealed to Superior Court. He urged the
Council to respect the distinction between the processes.
Mr. Lutz referred to assertions made by Ms. Petso that were not supported by facts such as that there was
a wetland on the site. The report and testimony in the record states there was a drainage ditch on the site
and that there was no wetland that would be disturbed or destroyed by this development. There was also
testimony in the record that there was no fish and wildlife habitat corridor on the property although that
was an issue on remand. With regard to drainage, it has been addressed professionally at a preliminary
stage and further engineering would occur before the plat was built. He assured the drainage had been
professionally designed and the record reflected that the drainage designed for the site specific conditions
would be adequate to protect the surrounding area from any impacts from this development. He
acknowledged Burnstead was not designing a system that would fix preexisting offsite drainage issues.
As the engineers testified in the record, the proposed system would provide better drainage control than
currently exists. The proposed system would fully control and meet City requirements to prevent offsite
drainage impacts from the development. Mr. Lutz advised traffic impacts would not be a problem.
Mr. Lutz provided supplemental information which was distributed to the Council. Mr. Snyder advised
Ms. Petso could review the materials and raise any objections to material that was outside the record. Mr.
Lutz indicated he had tried to explain in the materials and the Hearing Examiner had also made a point of
it in her response to the request for reconsideration, that Ms. Petso’s argument regarding lot coverage was
a misunderstanding of how lot coverage was calculated. He explained lot coverage was determined via
the amount of roof area on a lot; the buffer area and setbacks were not subtracted. He referred to page 7
of 9 of the Hearing Examiner’s order on reconsideration, advising the Hearing Examiner conditioned lot
coverage to be met at building permit approval as lot coverage was determined in the building permit
application process. Burnstead would know the size of each lot after final plat approval as it was
conceivable that the lot sizes could be altered between now and final approval. He noted Ms. Petso’s
argument was based on subdivision requirements of an 8,000 square foot lot rather than the proposed
PRD. He concluded compliance with lot coverage was determined at the time of building permit
application and approval; therefore, arguing about lot coverage at this point was premature.
Mr. Lutz explained they presented the housing types to the ADB; however, those were schematic street
view representations of the houses Burnstead typically builds, not proposed buildings for each lot.
Specific designs would be proposed during the building permit process and approved as part of the
building permit application. He encouraged the Council to read the Hearing Examiner’s decision, finding
it incredibly thorough and addressing the issues Ms. Petso raised. Mr. Lutz pointed out Ms. Petso had
arguments in her conclusions but were not arguments based on the facts, but a characterization of facts in
August 28, 2007
Page 15
a manner that she believed supported an argument but the Hearing Examiner’s response indicated her
arguments mischaracterized facts and reached to suggest there was a legal problem that did not exist.
With regard to a procedural issue Ms. Petso raised, her assertion that the Hearing Examiner not viewing
the property before she held the hearing and viewing the property after the hearing was a fatal flaw that
justified the Council rejecting the plat. He explained the Hearing Examiner made the point that she
believed she better understood the arguments and issues having heard the testimony first and then viewing
the property before writing her report. He acknowledged it could be argued that was not what City code
required - City code requires the Hearing Examiner view the property prior to the hearing. He noted City
code also states any issue that was a procedural defect that did not prejudice anyone should not penalize
the parties. He asserted the Hearing Examiner looked at the property, listened to testimony and any error
in the order was harmless error that did not justify rejection of the plat. He encouraged the Council to
study the record, particularly the Hearing Examiner’s report which outlined why the plat should be
approved.
Mayor Haakenson asked for objections to Mr. Lutz’s presentation. Ms. Petso commented that while she
felt she was prohibited to arguing PRD issues such as whether the monument sign area was usable open
space, Mr. Lutz identified several issues that were addressed in the PRD; if she was unable to address
PRD issues that did not meet the requirements, Mr. Lutz also should not be able to address PRD issues he
felt met the requirements. Mr. Snyder suggested this could be addressed by the Council in its decisionmaking process. Ms. Petso argues that the PRD plat does not comply due to several factors; Mr. Lutz
correctly notes those factors were development regulation alterations made via the PRD process.
With regard to Mr. Lutz’s argument, Mr. Snyder noted there was nothing in the record about a hearing on
Friday. Although the remand was referenced in the Hearing Examiner’s decision, the date was not
relevant to the Council’s decision.
Parties of Record
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, identified the factors to be considered, character, compliance and
compatibility, which address how the project and the neighborhood relate. With regard to compatibility,
he pointed out the lots were close together and the ADB had reduced the front yard setback from 25 feet
to 15 feet which he asserted was not compatible with the neighborhood. He concluded the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan were not satisfied. With regard to whether there was a fish and
wildlife habitat area on the site, he noted if there was, it was a critical area and was not allowed to be used
as open space. This would require additional open space areas, changing the configuration of the project
and reducing the buildable area. He referred to testimony by a biologist Mr. Enenhisa (page 60 and 61 of
the transcript) who associated fish and wildlife habitat with streams and disputed there was a habitat area
on the site. The applicant later had a biologist visit the site who found some habitat and some wildlife
and there was testimony by local citizens regarding wildlife in the wildlife habitat area. He noted the
biologist only spent 40 minutes looking at the area and Mr. Enenhisa did not take any soil samples. He
also asserted the City’s critical area reconnaissance report was deficient.
Heather Marks, Edmonds, urged the Council to read her earlier testimony regarding traffic, drainage
and that the plat that indicates there would be an offsite pond/vault, yet at the hearing the applicant denied
that was planned, acknowledging it could happen if worked out with the City. She pointed out there were
no credentials listed for any of the consultants. With regard to the fish and wildlife habitat she advised it
met the fish and wildlife definition in the Edmonds Municipal Code Section 23.90.010.A.1.10. She
recalled two years ago mentioning at a Council meeting the presence of pileated woodpeckers on the site,
commenting there were a pair of pileated woodpeckers on the site now. She commented the Hearing
Examiner was wrong about Tract E where the trees and open space were located. She noted under
Section 21.75.090, the City could require the applicant during the plat process to provide park land or pay
August 28, 2007
Page 16
a fee. She questioned why that had not been required and whether it could be required as part of this
hearing. She pointed out open space on Tract E would only be available to residents of the plat.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, found it appropriate for the Council to hold this hearing as plats and
subdivisions were a legislative rather than an administrative decision. He envisioned when the plat was
built, the average person would find it more appropriate in the RS-6 zone than the RS-8 zone. He referred
to turnover in the Planning Department, commenting the proposed plat was an example of a ministerial
mistake. He objected to the applicant’s representative’s reference to the Friday meeting and the revised
plat which was not a part of this record. He displayed the plat map, pointing out the absence of a 15-foot
perimeter buffer. He referred to the variance granted at the ADB, questioning whether the ADB had that
legislative power and whether the Council was willing to give up that power. He urged the Council to
consider the development on the adjacent lots constructed in the 1980s, pointing out the importance of
considering the character and compatibility of neighborhoods. He pointed out the fish and wildlife habitat
area exists on the City’s critical area map; however, the applicant indicated it was in error. He questioned
how and when that was determined to be in error. He recommended the Council review the map and
consider why that critical area was included as usable open space when the code prohibited it.
Colin Southcote-Want, Edmonds, recommended the Council deny the proposed subdivision, requesting
the Council apply the City’s rules and regulations. He displayed the plat map, advising a 15-foot buffer
was required around the development. A bigger issue was the 25-foot buffer adjacent to the park land
which was not reflected on the plat map. He concluded there were only two ways the Council could
approve the subdivision, 1) if all the lots sizes were 8,000 square feet or greater, or 2) it met the PRD
requirements. Because the plat did not include the 15-foot perimeter buffer, nor the 25-foot buffer
adjacent to the park, it failed the PRD test.
Mayor Haakenson asked for objections to the comments by parties of record. Ms. Petso had no
objections. Tiffany Brown, Burnstead Construction, acknowledged it was difficult to keep the issues
separate. With regard to Mr. Hertrich’s comments about wildlife, drainage, wetland and lot coverage, she
noted this was a preliminary plat for which preliminary engineering was done; full engineering was not
required nor was a code citation made where it was required for the preliminary plat. Mr. Snyder advised
the applicant was not permitted rebuttal, only objection to information provided that was outside the
record.
Ms. Brown objected to Mr. Hertrich’s comment about the 40 minutes their wildlife biologist was on site.
She advised that occurred at the Hearing Examiner’s request for the PRD hearing that was not part of this
proceeding. If the PRD hearing could not be mentioned, she did not believe the extensive wildlife study
done after the Hearing Examiner’s decision should be cited as it was not part of the record. She also did
not find in the record Ms. Marks’ comments regarding pileated woodpeckers on the site. She also
objected to issues raised that were not part of Ms. Petso’s appeal such as the argument regarding payment
of park fees in lieu of park land dedicated in the plat. She did not find any reference in the record to the
25-foot buffer adjacent to park land.
With regard to the reference regarding the Friday meeting, Mr. Snyder suggested the Council not consider
that comment in their deliberations. Mayor Haakenson asked how Ms. Brown’s objections would be
addressed. Mr. Snyder suggested establishing a period of time the parties could provide written citation
to the portion of the record where these items appear.
Rebuttal
Ms. Petso advised lot coverage was not an issue to be addressed later; the subdivision ordinance stated
lots should contain a usable building area, if the building area would be difficult to develop, the lot should
be redesigned or eliminated. She urged the Council not to approve a subdivision that could not be built or
August 28, 2007
Page 17
the result would be tiny lots rather than ADB approved glorious houses. She pointed out drainage was
also not an issue to be addressed later. As Mr. Schaefer pointed out at the ADB meeting, if Tract C were
available for a drainage facility and it was not large enough and the overflow was channeled into the
Woodway Meadows system that floods Mr. Park’s house regularly and likely others with the overflow,
that was not an issue to be decided later. She argued there would be no room if it was determined later
the drainage was not engineered well enough now.
Ms. Petso explained the site visit was prejudicial because, 1) the demolition fencing was installed the day
of the hearing so the Hearing Examiner could not access the property after she missed the pre-hearing site
visit, and 2) the Hearing Examiner stated the reason for missing the pre-hearing site visit was she had
decided, based on information she told Ms. Petso she would not use to prejudice the proceeding, not to do
the visit before the hearing. She had knowledge from the Growth Management Hearings Board that
convinced her not to do the site visit when she was supposed to. Ms. Petso argued she was prejudiced by
this in two ways, 1) the Hearing Examiner was unable to access the site and 2) the reason she did not
attend the pre-hearing site visit was she was improperly using information she was not supposed to have
and that she told Ms. Petso would not bias her decision.
With regard to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, Ms. Petso pointed out the critical areas map
was Exhibit 2 and the area was defined in the Critical Areas Ordinance as urban open space. With regard
to wetlands, she noted because the biologist did not find a stream did not mean it was not a wetland. The
Critical Areas Ordinance defined a wetland as an area with wetland vegetation and was frequently
saturated which the drainage ditch was. She referred to photographs she and others provided of wetland
vegetation. Ms. Petso pointed out the Hearing Examiner found the PRD did not have a buffer and
therefore she did not approve it. Ms. Petso concluded without a PRD approval, there could not be a
subdivision approval.
Mayor Haakenson asked for objections to Ms. Petso’s rebuttal. Mr. Lutz objected to Ms. Petso alleging
the Hearing Examiner spoke to her outside the record and did something inappropriate due to work she
had done with the Growth Management Hearings Board. He observed there was discussion on the record
where the Hearing Examiner acknowledged she had worked for the Growth Management Hearings Board
and heard an appeal brought by Ms. Petso but felt she could be objective. He concluded there was
nothing in the record to suggest the Hearing Examiner acted improperly.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 40 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder suggested parties be allowed until the close of business on September 13 to provide written
citations for items that were objected to. He identified the objections to be 1) the 40 minute remark, 2)
pileated woodpeckers, 3) appeals items outside the record, 4) paying park fees or dedicating park land, 5)
25-foot buffer, and 6) Ms. Petso’s allegations regarding the Hearing Examiner’s comments. Ms. Petso
requested the list be provided in writing. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council include that requirement in
the motion to continue the proceeding.
CONTINUE THE CLOSED RECORD PROCEEDING TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2007, AND ALLOW
PARTIES UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 13 TO PROVIDE WRITTEN CITATIONS FOR
ITEMS THAT WERE OBJECTED TO.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
August 28, 2007
Page 18
Councilmember Plunkett asked how the Council would consider whether or not the Hearing Examiner
was prejudice as that issue was not one of the tests under the review of subdivisions. Mr. Snyder
suggested consulting Ms. Petso’s appeal to determine whether that was an issue raised on appeal. He
recalled it was not, therefore, an issue outside the appeal was not relevant to this proceeding. Assuming
that it was not outside the appeal, Councilmember Plunkett pointed out a prejudice Hearing Examiner was
not one of the tests of the subdivision code. Mr. Snyder requested an opportunity to research that issue
and respond to the Council and parties by September 13.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Snyder explained the appellant had the burden of persuasion and must
persuade the Council by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. Councilmember Plunkett
commented the Council could take into account a layperson’s testimony regarding what they observed
and determine whether it was persuasive. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting the testimony would also need to be
balanced against other evidence in the record.
Mr. Snyder encouraged Councilmembers to ask any questions now; once the Council entered its
deliberative phase, there would not be opportunity to ask questions. He cautioned the Council not to ask
for new testimony and only to ask for clarification of a point in the argument.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the record contains questions Ms. Petso asked of the Hearing
Examiner and reference was made to an additional conversation Ms. Petso had with the Hearing
Examiner. He asked Ms. Petso whether that was contained in the record. Ms. Petso advised the second
comment was in the Hearing Examiner’s decision. She read in the Hearing Examiner’s decision
information that caused her to believe it was offered as an explanation for not making the site visit.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if a point was addressed in the record but not addressed by the parties was
he free to consider it in his decision. Mr. Snyder answered yes as far as evidence. He cautioned the
statements of decision-makers were not evidence. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether comments by
the Hearing Examiner that did not pertain to either party was something he could rely upon and draw a
conclusion. Mr. Snyder answered typically not unless the Hearing Examiner was taking official notice of
a City document. A hearing body could take official notice of documents but could not add or inject
evidence into a proceeding.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what would happen if Mr. Snyder concluded the Hearing Examiner being
prejudice could be considered and if the Council questioned whether comments of the Hearing Examiner
were prejudice. Mr. Snyder reiterated that was not an issue he had encountered before and requested an
opportunity to research it and provide the parties an opinion. Councilmember Plunkett clarified he
wanted to know whether he could rely on the Hearing Examiner’s comments with regard to whether she
was prejudice.
Clarifying that she was asking for details of why the project did/did not comply with the PRD ordinance
or how that would ultimately be resolved, Councilmember Dawson stated her understanding was Mr.
Lutz’s argument was it need not strictly comply with the subdivision ordinance because it was either PRD
or subdivision. She asked Mr. Lutz’s opinion regarding the ramifications of the Council upholding the
approval of the subdivision of the plat if the PRD were not approved. Mr. Lutz clarified the question was
if the applicant had an approved plat supported by a PRD application and the PRD application was
denied. He answered if the PRD application was denied they would be unable to develop the subdivision
without the PRD approval because without the PRD approval some of the things they asked for would not
be consistent with the code.
Councilmember Moore asked for a copy of Ms. Petso’s PowerPoint. Councilmember Dawson pointed
out all the information was contained in the record.
August 28, 2007
Page 19
CONTINUE THE CLOSED RECORD PROCEEDING TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2007, AND MR.
SNYDER TO PROVIDE FROM THE MINUTES A COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS NOTED AND
THE PARTIES WOULD BE ALLOWED UNTIL 5:00 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 13 TO PROVIDE
WRITTEN CITATIONS FOR ITEMS THAT WERE OBJECTED TO.
Ms. Petso pointed out the record provided to the Council was not the entire record. Mayor Haakenson
advised the remainder of the records were available for review in the City Council office. The volume of
records was the reason two additional weeks were provided for the Council to conduct their review.
A requirement for parties to provide the materials they presented tonight including Ms. Petso’s
PowerPoint was added to the motion.
Mr. Snyder advised the Council could not discuss this matter nor could it be discussed at the podium
pending the Council’s decision. When the Council again considered this matter, they would be asked to
disclose any ex parte comments.
7.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
National
Financial
System
Stephen Andrews, LaRouche Political Campaign, referred to the current collapse of the financial system
nationally as well as on a worldwide level. He explained this took the form of foreclosure rates doubling
from 2006 to 2007 and the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market. This led to inflation and was a
systemic problem; the real estate market was a symptom of the functioning policies. He noted this began
with the deregulation in the 1970s and Greenspan’s decision and policies. He provided legislation based
on a solution President Franklin Roosevelt passed when he was in office.
Waterfront
Redevelopment
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked whether Mayor Haakenson was still bound by the non-disclosure
agreement with regard to the Waterfront Redevelopment. Mayor Haakenson answered there was no
longer a non-disclosure agreement. Mr. Hertrich questioned how the City tracked staff’s comp time and
learned no list was maintained, each Department Head was on the honor system including the Mayor. He
recommended the City establish a system for tracking comp time.
Department
Head Comp
Time
Shirley Wambolt, Edmonds, commented her husband, Councilmember Wambolt, spent every day
except Sunday as a Councilmember, reading, and reading. She announced she would become a U.S.
Citizen on September 6, 2007.
8.
SeaShore
Transportation
Forum
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SEASHORE TRANSPORTATION FORUM AGREEMENT
Council President Olson advised Councilmember Marin and she were members of the SeaShore Forum.
Over the past year they had been working on a new agreement. Cities in King County wanted Snohomish
County cities to participate in the Forum but because they voted on projects in Snohomish County, they
did not feel they should not vote on projects at the SeaShore forum. She read language Councilmember
Marin developed that states no jurisdiction shall cast a vote for funding recommendations of federal
funding allocated by the Puget Sound Regional Council in more than one forum or recommending body.
Snohomish County cities shall not have voting rights at SeaShore for voting rights for allocations in King
County.
August 28, 2007
Page 20
Councilmember Marin agreed funding recommendations had been a thorny issue for some time; there was
a great opportunity for many cities to participate in the SeaShore Forum and provide input on
transportation issues.
The proposed language would address the conflict regarding funding
recommendations.
SNOTRAC
Councilmember Dawson advised she was in Washington DC last week with a team from Snohomish
County on coordinated transportation planning, SNOTRAC, Snohomish County Special Needs
Transportation Coalition, who serves a purpose similar to SeaShore by voting on projects that receive
federal funding. One of the things they worked on in Washington DC was how to make SNOTRAC more
relevant as well as updating the statement of executive sponsorship that had not been updated since 2003.
She noted Edmonds as well as other Snohomish County cities could benefit from participating in
SNOTRAC as the group has been underutilized and under-recognized in Snohomish County. She offered
to provide further information on coordinated transportation planning in Snohomish County. She noted
one of the focuses of the Washington DC trip was unmet transportation needs for veterans.
Council President Olson commented she was excited to learn about SNOTRAC as it had appeared
Snohomish County did not have an organization comparable to SeaShore that provided education to
cities.
Councilmember Moore was also excited about SNOTRAC as a way to increase Snohomish County’s
advocacy with regard to transportation.
The proposed agreement was acceptable to the Council.
9.
SnoCom
CTAC
Port
Commission
Sound Transit
Edmonds
Community
College
COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Mayor Haakenson reported he attended the SnoCom Board meeting in Councilmember Dawson’s absence
and voted in favor of the annual budget which included a 4% increase.
Council President Olson reported she attended two Community Technology Advisory Committee
meetings; they were making a lot of great progress and were working with Edmonds and Everett
Community Colleges. She emphasized this was a potential revenue source for the City.
Councilmember Wambolt advised most of the items discussed at the August 13 Port meeting had been
reported in the press. At the August 27 Port meeting, Commissioners received a report by Bob Drewel
from PSRC regarding accomplishment of 16 of the 18 objectives for 2006. Another interesting statistic
Mr. Drewel provided was the four-county area used the most engineers per capita of any place in the
United States but was 34th in producing engineers, revealing the need for more educational institutions in
this area. The Port also reviewed their second quarter performance and gross profits which were up 19%
from 2006.
Councilmember Marin reported he MC'd the groundbreaking of the Mukilteo Sounder station today.
Edmonds has been fortunate to have a stop in Edmonds since 2003 and it was unfortunate it had taken this
long for Mukilteo to have a stop. He noted once the interim Mukilteo station was completed next spring,
the Edmonds project could proceed.
Councilmember Moore reported the Edmonds Community College annual Board retreat included
discussion regarding the importance of recruitment and retention of students, issues they would be
focusing on over the coming year.
August 28, 2007
Page 21
SnoCom and
SnoPak
SnoCom
Councilmember Dawson commented SnoCom had been seeking funding for an interconnect between
SnoCom and SnoPak. Although it was originally believed funding they applied for would not be realized,
they had received $300,000 for the interconnect.
Mayor Haakenson advised the concept of forming a Public Safety Technology Committee was also
discussed at the SnoCom meeting. Councilmember Dawson explained the intent of the committee was to
form a group of technical people throughout the cities and agencies in Snohomish County. Discussion
has been ongoing regarding the role of the committee such as who they would answer to, who the
members would be and whether they would be appointed by the cities or communication centers, what the
technology needs of public safety personnel are, etc. and ensuring decision-makers are able to participate
in decisions regarding technology before projects are underway. Mayor Haakenson commented although
the idea of that committee was good, he suggested consideration be given to consolidating some of the
committees rather than creating more committees. Councilmember Dawson summarized the cities could
not work in isolation with regard to public safety issues and a great deal of work was occurring at SERS,
SnoPac, SnoCom, etc.
10.
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
11.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
City’s Financial
Situation
Councilmember Wambolt read a guest column that would appear in this week’s Edmonds Beacon
regarding misleading and incomplete campaign rhetoric during the past several weeks about the City’s
financial situation. Councilmember Moore objected; Mr. Snyder advised the column did not name names
and addressed the City’s financial situation. Councilmember Wambolt continued that as a member of the
City Council’s Finance Committee, he felt obligated to communicate the real financial outlook for the
City. He highlighted initiatives that have eliminated significant amounts of the City’s revenue, pointing
out that because the City did not have a mall or gambling, it was critical to identify new sources of
revenue. He described several revenue sources being pursued including, 1) the Hwy. 99 Task Force’s
report that in 1-2 years a $90 million Walgreens development will begin at 220th and Hwy. 99, 2) the
Harbor Square and Antique Mall redevelopment effort, 3) the Community Technology Advisory
Committee was optimistic about the revenue broadband would provide, 4) progress will soon resume on
neighborhood commercial centers, and 5) as a result of sales tax sourcing sales tax would be paid at the
point of destination versus the current point of sale which will benefit Edmonds. He summarized it was
too soon to estimate how much revenue would be realized from these sources. His point was that
Councilmembers, the Mayor, City staff and volunteer citizens continued to work on these initiatives to
increase revenue so that City services could be retained.
Harbor Square
Redevelopment
Councilmember Marin advised last week each Councilmember received a 3-ring binder containing
information about the work being done on the Harbor Square/Antique Mall redevelopment. He
commented it was exciting that the group had not given up and was still pursuing redevelopment that
would be an amenity for the community. He expressed his appreciation for the deliberative process that
was occurring.
164th St.
Walkway
Project
Councilmember Marin recognized the wonderful job that was done on the 164th Street walkway project.
Mayor Haakenson explained the contractor did a great job and was very conscientious, even sleeping in
his truck on site to ensure his work was not disturbed. Neighbors brought the contractor food and a
birthday cake on his birthday.
August 28, 2007
Page 22
Sno-King
Youth Club
Event
Councilmember Moore announced the Running of the Balls on Saturday, September 8, a non-profit event
that supported the Sno-King Youth Club. She encouraged the public to attend the event that would move
5,000 balls down Main Street and include activities, celebrities, and entertainment.
Harbor Square
As it appeared a contract rezone would be requested for Harbor Square, Councilmember Plunkett asked
when the Council should discontinue talking about it. Mr. Snyder answered when the application was
submitted. He cited the difference between the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine regarding things outside
the record and pre-judgmental bias. He cautioned a Councilmembers could lose their right to vote by
statements indicating their mind was so firmly made up it could not be changed.
12.
ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
August 28, 2007
Page 23
AM-1166
Closed Record Review R-07-35
4.
Date:
09/18/2007
Submitted By:
Diane Cunningham
Submitted For:
Rob Chave
Time:
Department:
Planning
Type:
Review Committee:
Action:
Recommend Review by Full Council
45 Minutes
Action
Information
Subject Title
Closed Record Review regarding the Planning Board approval to rezone property located at
9521 and 9531 Edmonds Way from Multi-Family Residential (RM-1.5) and Single Family
Residential (RS-8) to Community Business - Edmonds Way (BC-EW). Applicants: A.D.
Shapiro Architects/Valhalla Properties / File No. R-07-35.
Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance approving the changes in zoning, as
recommended by the Planning Board.
The City Council approved an amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) in February, 2007 which created the zones that the applicants are now seeking to apply to
the subject properties (see Ordinance #3627, Attachment 4 of Exhibit 2).
Narrative
The applicants are requesting a change in zoning for properties they own within the Edmonds Way
Corridor (SR-104). The Planning Board held a public hearing on the request July 25, 2007 and
after deliberations, recommended that the City Council approve the changes in zoning.
The Planning Board action and their reasoning is contained in the verbatim transcript (Exhibit 1).
The staff report and additional comment letters are contained in Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively.
Parties of record for the City Council closed record review are listed in Exhibit 4.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Planning Board hearing transcript
Link: Planning Board Staff Report
Link: Additional Comment Letters
Link: Parties of Record
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox
1
2
City Clerk
3
Mayor
4
Final Approval
Form Started By: Diane
Cunningham
Approved By
Duane Bowman
Sandy Chase
Gary Haakenson
Sandy Chase
Date
Status
09/13/2007 12:16 PM
APRV
09/13/2007 01:44 PM
APRV
09/13/2007 01:55 PM
APRV
09/13/2007 04:02 PM
APRV
Started On: 09/12/2007 04:23
PM
CITY OF EDMONDS
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF PLANNING BOARD HEARING
File Number R-07-35
July 25, 2007
Chair Guenther: Public hearing on the rezone by A.D. Shapiro Architects and Valhalla Properties at 9521 and 9531
Edmonds Way. The application is to rezone the subject property from RM-1.5 and RS-6 to BC-EW. File Number R-07-35.
All right. Rob.
Mr. Chave: The application is to rezone properties, which basically lie just east of the carwash property in the Westgate
Center Commercial Area. These properties lie below the bluff that was recently developed with a single-family subdivision,
and also includes two properties that run perpendicular to Edmonds Way and actually go as far as 228th Street Southwest.
Mr. Chave: When the application was reviewed, we looked were required to make an environmental determination under
the State Environmental Policy Act. When we did that, we actually included two mitigating conditions, one of which was to
say that there would be no access from this future development to 228th, so the access would have to be on Edmonds Way.
Secondly, that any access onto Edmonds Way would require that there be consolidated exists, entries, driveways, and so
forth.
Mr. Chave: We did, just a couple of days ago, received a comment note from Washington State Department of
Transportation saying they really had no issues with the application except that they did want to review and approve any
conditions that the City was imposing at the time of development. So in other words, they wanted to look at the
configuration of the access to make sure that it met their approval, as well.
Mr. Chave: The application, as we indicated, is basically to change the zoning to the new Edmonds Way mixed use, which
is BC-EW. That zone is, generally, considered to be consistent with the Edmonds Way Corridor designation. So we look
site by site to make a determination of whether the rezone is appropriate, and that’s partially the reason why we did the
conditions in the SEPA determination. We felt that, generally, the application was in order, but we wanted to make sure and
make clear that there was no chance for adverse traffic impacts going forward.
Mr. Chave: The applicant and staff report outline sort of the reasoning, I guess, of running through the criteria. I think the
applicant has a presentation, so I won’t repeat what he’s probably going to state in his presentation. Basically, the staff
recommendation is for the Planning Board to recommend approval to the City Council. We thought it was consistent with
the criteria or met the criteria for a rezone. Also, it was consistent with the direction in the Comprehensive Plan, which
generally is to encourage mixed-use, multi-family, and so forth along arterials, especially major arterials such as 104 in this
particular case. I think at this point, if you have questions, I would be happy to answer. Otherwise, I think the applicant’s
got a presentation.
Vice Chair Dewhirst: Rob, on both the Comp Plan, the vicinity map, and the zoning vicinity map, this rezoning was leaving
a slight sliver of land between, I don’t quite understand the map. Is it leaving a sliver, or are they not rezoning their whole
parcel?
Mr. Chave: The property ownership has changed a bit in this particular location in recent years, so parcels have been bought
and sold, and portions of parcels have been bought and sold, but the Comprehensive Plan and zoning have not been updated
accordingly. So what’s you’ve got is, basically, there’s a little portion of the property, actually, if you look at the site plan, or
the ownership plan they submitted, which is the 11” by 17” map that is before Attachment 3. Actually, notice that their
western property line has some jigs and jogs on it, whereas the property information we have from the County just has pretty
much a squared off line. I suspect the County map is just slightly out of date, so that’s something we’re going to have to
verify and check on. It was advertised, the various parcels; it’s just a question of what is the actual recorded boundary of the
parcel. Otherwise, you’re right. I believe part of the property, and the applicants can correct me, was actually sold to the
single-family development up the hill. Again, the zoning wasn’t changed to reflect that sale. So this is something, depending
on what happens with this action, the Planning Board may want to come back and review the boundaries and make an
appropriate correction at a later time.
Vice Chair Dewhirst: But the legal description they submitted covers the land that they own?
Mr. Chave: I mean, that’s our understanding. They are not asking for any more, because they don’t own it.
Vice Chair Dewhirst: Okay, because it just didn’t make sense. I mean, there are a number of answers that were possible,
but okay, never mind.
Board Member Works: Rob, I just had a question about the letter that you received. The way I read it, the part about
drainage, that is not . . . He’s not talking about the property we’re considering, but it’s the lots next to it. Is that . . . I wasn’t
sure where he lived exactly.
Mr. Chave: You know, I’m not even sure it’s the lot next to it. I think it’s the two lots that are right adjacent to 95th. So it’s
another lot removed.
Board Member Works: Okay, all right.
Mr. Chave: But yeah, there is a low depression area there, and nobody has done an evaluation to say that the wetland isn’t
just a drainage depression.
Board Member Works: But it’s not related to this piece of property?
Mr. Chave: No.
Board Member Works: Okay, that’s what I thought, but it wasn’t clear to me where he was talking about.
Board Member Reed: I have a question on that same subject because I saw that note in the letter. I think you even refer to
it somewhere in the staff report as a mentioned letter and a possible drainage issue. What I don’t understand is, is that
something that should have been addressed in the SEPA determination in addition to those access issues on 228th.
Mr. Chave: Only if the drainage issue was on the properties or directly effected by their properties. You know, there’s no
evidence of wetlands, drainage problems, etc. on their properties. What they would have to do during development is have a
stormwater plan that controls and takes care of drainage issues. So there’s nothing to indicate at this point in time that there’s
a problem with their property.
Board Member Reed: So the development could maybe improve that situation, is that sort of what you’re saying?
Mr. Chave: No necessarily.
Board Member Reed: It doesn’t have to, but could it?
Mr. Chave: Unknown. I would be surprised because if the properties that the letter writer is mentioning are truly lower,
controlling runoff on this property, you know I am not going to speculate. It could have some marginal effect, but it’s
probably not much unless it was actually contributing directly to the water on the property. But if it’s low, probably not.
Board Member Reed: Okay. Thank you.
Verbatim Planning Board Transcripts
File Number R-07-35
July 25, 2007 Page 2
Board Member Young: Just to follow that up and really close the loop on it. Actually, this wouldn’t be, and I’m
paraphrasing here, so check me if I am misinterpreting this. This wouldn’t be the point in time to deal with that as a wetland
anyway because we don’t know where the drainage is going to go because there’s no site plan or anything submitted, which
is totally appropriate. But the impact, if there is going to be any, would be considered during what, the application for a
building permit?
Mr. Chave: Yeah.
Board Member Young: Okay. That’s what I thought.
Mr. Chave: At that point they have to show that they have a feasible stormwater control system, and it’s regulated an
approved by the engineers.
Board Member Young: Okay, so if it’s off site here, it doesn’t effect what we’re considering.
Chair Guenther: Before I call Mr. Shapiro up, just to remind everybody, this is a public hearing and as part of the
appearance of fairness, I need to ask if anybody’s had ex parte communications or anything. All right no problems with that,
just a little housekeeping. Mr. Shapiro, please.
Mr. Shapiro: Could we shut the blinds so it will improve the contrast?
Mr. Chave: I don’t think it’s an issue.
Mr. Shapiro: All right. My name is Tony Shapiro with A.D. Shapiro Architects, representing Valhalla Properties, and SGA
Corporation. Thank you for this opportunity to present this project. We are excited about the prospects of turning this old
gravel pit into something that is of value to the City and community. I know we’re all familiar with Edmonds Way, and this
just a brief aerial showing the location of our site, which is more in the Westgate Commons area. It’s just outside of the
Westgate zone, but it’s right in this end, so it’s at the tail west end of the Edmonds Corridor Comp Plan area, so back down in
here. This site, historically, has been a gravel pit. I believe it was mined in the 30’s and 40’s and maybe into the 50’s. It was
recently bought by Rob Michel, who as Rob said, cut off the upper portion and made single-family houses and sold them
separately, and then sold the lower lot to my client. Prior to that, my client had owned the two lots, which we’re calling Lots
2 and 3, the narrow lots that go to 228th, separately. So now we are proposing to rezone these three parcels in unison into a
single zone.
Mr. Shapiro: Currently, the zoning, well here’s just a map of the Comp Plan, showing kind of the tail end of the Edmonds
Way Corridor, which ends with this site. Another more detailed map with some of the multi-family across the street. I
believe the properties that the letter from Mr. Martin was talking about are these; there are either two or three properties in
here. Mr. Martin’s parcel is right here, and then our subject properties. Here’s a little closer aerial of it.
Mr. Shapiro: The grade change is significant, even from 228th down to Edmonds Way; I think we’re talking of probably a
35-foot grade change. It gets very steep up in this zone. It graduals out down in here, and then it gets very steep over at this
part of the site again, which is probably about a 40-foot, 45-foot grade change. The site also slopes pretty significantly from
what we’re calling the western end up into this zone. We probably have I believe about a 6 to 8-foot grade change, maybe
not quite that much, but approaching six foot across Edmonds Way, which is a significant impact upon a retail building or a
commercial building, and how it responds to the floor levels. This is a speculative building, and to try to determine where a
grade change will occur or be picked up into the finished floor is a challenge foreseeing during the design phase of the
project. It looks like some of our slides got, I’m not sure what this was. That was my lettering probably.
Board Member Young: I couldn’t agree more.
Mr. Shapiro: We’ll move on here. Here are some surrounding properties, Westgate Chapel. I hope some of the verbiage
did not do that, as well. Here is a shot down the street with the gas station. It’s hard to discern some of the grade change that
we’re talking about, but it is significant across here and this hillside, which is a very stable hillside. We’ve had extensive soil
exploration done by Golder Associations. It is a very stable hillside, yet at the same time, ultimately, we would like to
File Number R-07-35
propose carving this out and utilizing a lot of that ground and stabilizing that slope even further. Here, you might be able to
see a little bit of this grade change that we’re talking about going up Edmonds Way, so there is a significant vertical drop
across this site.
Mr. Shapiro: We also have a utility easement coming down adjacent to the two narrow parcels that crosses the front site,
which we cannot build anything under. So there are some significant determinants to the project that will limit how the site
gets laid out. There’s really no way that we could avoid those power lines, even though that substation may be modified in
the future. Another more comprehensive shot.
Mr. Shapiro: I would just like to touch upon all the points of the Comp Plan criteria that we have to comply with to warrant
changing this. So, if we could just run through that quickly. Sufficient number of sites suited for commercial uses.
Essentially, the City is saying that we want to have enough sites being commercial in our town that will not essentially
remove commercial activity from our City. We feel that, obviously, this site we want to keep it commercial. We are actually
changing it back to commercial from single-family and multi-family. So we feel that this move strengthens that criteria, B.1
criteria, by adding more to the inventory of commercial properties in the City. Again, we’re asking for a mixed-use
designation, yet we still have a significant component that is going to be commercial activity on this site. We feel that the
site is well-suited for multi-family, as well, because of the adjacent multi-family up and down the street. The majority of the
commercial property on Edmonds Way is located at what we’re calling the west end of Edmonds Way down to the Westgate
Area, so we will be in that part of town on Edmonds Way than further up the road. We feel that the grade change enables
these proposed sites to fit into the use pattern between the commercial and residential areas in this part of Edmonds Way
because of the significant grade change and what we feel will be a minimal impact upon the adjacent single-families.
Mr. Shapiro: Again, I think this slide got misplaced. This is a zoning map. We have a little diagram showing some of the
proposed change that we would like to implement and try to illustrate the significant grade change that we have on this site.
This line here, if you can discern it, is the existing grade. We would hope to be able to terrace the hillside to the point that we
would do soil nailing and shore it and recoup some of this lost land, expanding the usefulness of the site, which would enable
this property to house both commercial, parking, residential and office space potentially. We are not stipulating which uses
are going to be included in the ultimate development, but this zone would permit those types of uses.
Mr. Shapiro: The subject parcels fall into the Edmonds Way Corridor designation. Again, because of the grade change, has
minimal impact on adjacent single-family, with the southwest corner of the property being more than 40 feet below the
single-family above.
Mr. Shapiro: One of the other criteria by the Comp Plan stipulates that parcels of land previously planned or zoned for
commercial use but which are now or will be identified as unnecessary or inappropriate for such use by additional analysis
should be reclassified for other uses. Again, we don’t really fall into that criteria at all, but I just wanted to include that in our
submission to the City.
Mr. Shapiro: The third point is a proliferation of strip retail areas along Edmonds Way and other Edmonds streets and
highways and the development of commercial uses should discourage that type of land use. We are also proposing that we
would move away from that notion with this mixed-use development we would like to see here, which we hope would put
commercial against Edmonds Way, with perhaps commercial right above it and housing above that. That is the objective of
this new zone, and we feel that this site is well suited for incorporating that zone here. We have additional mixed-use
functions that could occur above Edmonds Way and could mix nicely with this project and property.
Mr. Shapiro: The fourth stipulation by the Comp Plan is that design and location of all commercial sites should provide for
convenient and safe access for customers, employees and suppliers. Again, Edmonds Way is a very busy street, carrying
more than 20,000 cars a day. Right now, there are two curb cuts onto the site, and we would hope to retain those two curb
cuts as we develop it. We are also proposing and working with the Planning Department to provide access for the property to
what we are saying the east of us. The staff has stipulated in the SEPA that we would provide that access, and we see no
problem in incorporating that either through perhaps a little loop back, we might put a building right up against the street
edge, or we may put a double loaded parking up against street edge. So that has yet to be determined, but the ultimate goal of
providing cross parking easements to adjacent properties, we will more than happily work to incorporate.
File Number R-07-35
Mr. Shapiro: We would also agree with the requirement in the SEPA determination not to access 228th. At one point, we
were considering that, and we will remove any future plans of accessing 228th with say residential access to the upper levels.
Mr. Shapiro: So now, touching upon the zoning criteria and seeing if we comply with the zoning objectives for a possible
rezone is whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and whether the proposal is consistent
with the purposes of the proposed zone district. The BC-EW zone, one of its objectives is to provide for areas of commercial
uses offering various goods and services according to the different geographical areas and various categories of customers
they serve. We feel that the BC-EW designation will permit flexible planning in the ultimate development of the property
and enable us to do both smaller retail type facilities on this site. We also see office space as being a potential on this site. A
restaurant would also be a nice use, but we may have challenges meeting the parking criteria to get a restaurant suited on
here. So we feel any of those uses would be an appropriate ultimate function on this property.
Mr. Shapiro: The second criteria in the rezone is to provide for areas where commercial uses may concentrate for the
convenience of the public and in mutually beneficial relationships to each other. We feel that this site does have these
potentials. The sketch, which can’t really be discerned very easily, stipulates that the building could lay in this fashion, with
parking in front for retail access and then housing or office above. So this is just a conceptual sketch showing how the site
might ultimately be utilized. We have also discussed other proposals of bringing the building up to street edge. So we feel
that the site is large enough to encounter multiple different solutions that would achieve the objective of this second point of
the zoning requirements.
Mr. Shapiro: The third point is to provide for residential uses, community facilities and institutions that may appropriately
locate in commercial areas. Again, touching upon the same aspects that we would have a broad flexibility in applying these
different types of functions into this property, with the BC-EW designation.
Mr. Shapiro: The fourth point, to require adequate landscaping, off-street parking, and loading facilities. We would work
to incorporate that. We would put street front landscaping. We would strive to bring the commercial as close to the street as
possible and try to enliven Edmonds Way as much as that would. Delivery and garbage pickup, we would strive to put
towards the back of the site. The site is deep enough to accommodate that. We would want to maximize store front exposure
onto Edmonds Way. We would also separate the multi-family housing and office space from the ground floor activity and
the business of Edmonds Way through grade changes. Actually, the sloping of the site lends itself quite naturally to that.
This graphic here is trying to depict the notion of driving back up and on top of the retail area with parking. The slope, if we
say the finished floor of the retail is more down in this area, and we pick up say five or six feet here, and then we ramp up
another five, six, eight feet, we will be able to get on top of the retail with our parking area, and therefore, try to diminish as
much as possible the parking that would occur at street edge.
Mr. Shapiro: The other concept we are considering is bringing the building all out to street edge and driving around behind
the building and beginning to ramp. We could get enough height through this ramp, and then you would park on top of the
building here. So the notion that we have to have parking up against Edmonds Way, which we find undesirable, the
developer, our client, is a little concerned about exposure, the traditional retail being that people like to see a parking stall and
not have to walk up and down stairs to get into their store, is not as keen on this notion. But again, we aren’t here showing
any solutions; we are just talking about different possibilities and the flexibleness that this site does present. So we feel this
site does adequately and appropriately pose potentials for this new zone.
Mr. Shapiro: So going to the third criteria about, well this talks about some of the existing land use, the surrounding land
use, and how we feel that we do have some natural separation, yet we are also still part of the Westgate Area with this,
hopefully, major retail component here and would still blend with the rest of the surrounding City.
Mr. Shapiro: One of the last points or questions is whether there have been enough or sufficient changes in the character of
the immediate or surrounding area or in the City policy to justify this rezone. I think we’ll all have to agree that Edmonds is
getting more dense, as well is our whole region. Edmonds Way, we believe, is a natural place for higher densities to occur
because of the traffic. It does pose problems from a privacy standpoint and the willingness of housing tenants to live adjacent
to such a busy street. The architectural solution would ultimately have to address that challenge, but we feel that this site
does have big enough mass to enable us to work to diminish that natural conflict between housing and a busy road like
Edmonds Way. We can also see other multi-family developments up and down Edmonds Way that are more the garden style
File Number R-07-35
apartments. We don’t feel that housing is so foreign to Edmonds Way to say this is not an appropriate site for a housing
complex to be sited. We feel that this would also continue with the trend that Edmonds is encountering of higher density
living as we move into this century.
Mr. Shapiro: One of the last points is suitability, whether the property’s economically and physically suitable for uses
allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. We feel that single-family zones on Edmonds Way is an
inappropriate zone designation for such a busy street. These properties, as they approach 228th, have such a significant grade
change that we feel the BC-EW designation backing up to 228th would not be a major mishap. I believe that the zone
requires a 15-foot setback against that street edge, so we would still have separation from that with the ultimate housing that
would be facing 228th, even thought 228th is single-family up above and this would be a multi-family complex at that level.
Also, as we’ve talked about earlier, the site is large enough to enable us to separate these different functions and the traffic
and services that need to service these type of buildings.
Mr. Shapiro: And value. The last point is value of the property. Are we adding to the value of the property by this change
and enhancing the surrounding property values, as well? We do believe that this is an appropriate use for property off of
Edmonds Way. The existing zoning of a straight multi-family zone, say a town house solution or a condo solution on that
large parcel adjacent to a car wash and bank, is not the most appropriate use for this site. We feel the increased density
permitted by this change would help Edmonds maintain its compliance with the Growth Management Act.
Mr. Shapiro: With that, that ends our formal presentation. I’m open for any questions or however, you want to proceed.
Chair Guenther: I have a question. I know your designs you showed us are purely conceptual at this point, but I was just
curious. Part of the code is to include low-impact and sustainable development in the site design. I was just curious about
what kind of elements you have considered at this conceptual stage.
Mr. Shapiro: Well, there’s no trees per say. There are trees on the two sites we would strive to maintain or retain. We have
not really, to be quite honest, thought through sustainable aspects on this site to any great detail. We feel that carving into
this hillside and making the cut more steep would stabilize the site. Our soils engineering has said that if we come back in
and carve into that bank and soil nail it, it would stabilize that, even though it is actually a very stable structure now, thereby
enabling us to utilize the property to a higher level. So we have not really thought through how we would enhance the
environmental aspects at this point.
Chair Guenther: Any other questions?
Board Member Reed: I want to resolve what I think is a conflict, and that is, you were going through points that you had in
your April 18th letter on the different things that you intended to do. Attachment 4 is the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Shapiro: Yes.
Board Member Reed: and the purposes are listed on Page 1. And although the first three are somewhat similar, they are
totally different than what’s in the April 18th. Unless I’m reading the wrong. . . Maybe I’m comparing apples and oranges,
but. . .
Mr. Shapiro: I actually paraphrased. I copied from our April 18th submission and then tried to avoid reading all that
verbiage, so I made bullet points as best I could.
Board Member Reed: I think maybe. . . I don’t know if the ordinance was still proposed when you did this letter?
Mr. Shapiro: No, it was in effect. It was in effect.
Board Member Reed: Then, I guess I’m not looking at the right document.
Mr. Shapiro: What points have I deviated from?
File Number R-07-35
Board Member Reed: Well in the 16.50 BC Community Business, which now incorporates the BC-EW zone, it starts with
five purposes, A, B, C, D, and E. That’s on the first page of Attachment 4. Then there maybe another document somewhere
that I’m not referencing and I’m misunderstanding. I just want to clear it up, that’s all.
Mr. Shapiro: Okay, so there’s A, B, C, D and E. Right?
Board Member Reed: Correct. That’s on Attachment 4, and I was trying to compare that to the bottom of your Page 2,
which are the five points you just went through.
Mr. Shapiro: That’s correct.
Board Member Reed: And they’re different. That’s my question.
Mr. Shapiro: Well, let’s go back to point. . . The verbiage is essentially whether the proposal is consistent with the
purposes, so that verbiage is there now. So this Point A, the criteria is to provide for areas of commercial uses offering
various goods and services. We talk about in the April 18th submission, established pattern of small businesses located along
residential parcels. We say here in the presentation, our proposal would continue the trend of small businesses along the
Edmonds Way Corridor and add multi-family housing and office space along with this commercial component. Again, our
proposal would continue this trend and added multi-family housing and office space along with this commercial component.
I would think that point is fairly consistent.
Board Member Reed: I think that there are consistencies, and I don’t want you to go back through them and try to address
anything differently. I was just curious as to why they were different.
Mr. Shapiro: Well, and I didn’t use the exact same verbiage. I was trying to break it up a little bit and add some interest, at
the same time abbreviate yet I incorporated pretty much the points that were . . .
Chair Guenther: Excuse me. I was just curious. Is John trying to compare the purposes of the section as opposed to the
criteria that we judge the rezone? Is that the point you are making?
Board Member Reed: It says purposes of the proposed zone district, and I’m just asking . . .
Chair Guenther: Right, there’s purposes and then we also have a different set of criteria to judge the rezone.
Board Member Henderson: There’s a set of criteria that you have to take into account before you grant a rezone, and then
this is the purposes of that particular zone, which is different.
Board Member Reed: Well, let’s move on because I understand what he has in his letter, and I understand what he’s saying
with respect to how the plans they have comply with the items in the letter. I just thought that the two were supposed to be
the same, but I guess I’m looking in the wrong spot. That’s okay, let’s move on past it.
Chair Guenther: All right. Are there any questions of the applicant?
Board Member Freeman: Yeah, I have one, if I can find it now because I’ve been flipping back and forth.
Ms. Noyes: I can’t hear you very well.
Board Member Freeman: I’m sorry; I just have to find it now. It’s on Page 4 of the 18th submission. I just want to clarify
here; you have traffic to and from the project will be off Edmonds Way, with a possibility of a private entrance on 228th.
Now, you said you changed your mind about that.
Mr. Shapiro: Well yes, and that is a difference between the two. When we submitted on April 18th, we were hoping we
could access off of 228th, but the Planning Staff has determined that it would be undesirable and worded the SEPA
accordingly. This presentation addresses that. It says that we will not.
File Number R-07-35
Board Member Freeman: That’s what I thought I heard you say. I say this in here, and that’s just because it was done
before this determination of non-significance. So we can forget about that?
Mr. Shapiro: That’s right, we would not propose to access from 228th.
Board Member Freeman: Okay.
Chair Guenther: This is the section for the public testimony. If there’s anybody from the audience who would like to come
up and make testimony on this application, please come forward. All right, seeing none, we will close that part. There’s no
rebuttal from the applicant on that, I would imagine. Any comments from the staff?
Mr. Chave: The only thing that didn’t come up is in terms of landscaping along Edmonds Way. In the City’s Street Tree
Plan there is a requirement for street trees along there. So that will actually be something they’ll have to reflect in the future
development. That’s something that will help soften the effect on Edmonds Way.
Board Member Freeman: These are street trees on the actual street, are they?
Mr. Chave: Yeah. And there are other landscaping requirements within the site perimeter, and so forth. But on Edmonds
Way, it’s also required to have certain street trees.
Vice Chair Dewhirst: What about landscaping along 228th in the back?
Mr. Chave: That’s something they are going to have to deal with when they deal with a specific development proposal. The
main thing, I think, is there is a topography change there, so that’s probably going to dictate whether they step back or set
back from 228th a little bit.
Vice Chair Dewhirst: There’s a hell of a drop off there.
Mr. Chave: Yeah.
Board Member Young: This is just kind of a clarification thing from staff. I’m inclined to support this because it meets all
of the criteria, but I just, for the record and everybody’s protection including the applicant’s, could you run once again how
this Edmonds Way BC zone is going to get implemented if it goes any further than these three parcels that we’re looking at
right now?
Mr. Chave: Again, it was adopted into the City’s Development Code specifically to provide an option for development
within the Edmonds Way Corridor. Historically, all kinds of different zones have occurred within the corridor. Some of that
is because of what the prior zoning was when those areas were annexed; that’s probably the principle determinant. But
otherwise, you find sort of a combination of commercial, mixed-use and multi-family. What we’ve been seeing in recent
years is a desire to intensify some of the development along Edmonds Way. That’s partially why the Edmonds Way Corridor
designation was created and applied there because it was felt that trying to have everyone conform to a single zone was not
going to work very well with the history of how development had occurred, but we wanted to provide options for people to
choose. No matter which option you chose, it would ultimately support the corridor designation. So it’s going to depend
upon the particular site, whether you think it’s appropriate for commercial, for mixed-use, multi-family, whatever. In this
particularly case, because of its big change in topography and proximity to commercial uses and so forth, it seems like an
appropriate designation. But again, it’s going to vary depending on where you are in the corridor whether any particular zone
that’s proposed create problems that can’t be mitigated or dealt with.
Board Member Young: Well old gravel pits aside, would the BC-EW zone just hypothetically be available to somebody
who chose to develop the old Albertson’s site.
Mr. Chave: Actually, no because technically, it’s not within the Edmonds Way Corridor.
File Number R-07-35
Board Member Young: Okay.
Mr. Chave: You may recall that Firdale, Five Corners are neighborhood commercial areas that the Board has dealt with to
some degree. Westgate is another one of those. It’s actually designated as a different kind of commercial area. It’s a
community commercial area, but most of the zoning there, the vast majority, is actually neighborhood commercial, which
really doesn’t reflect the intensity of development that occurs right around that intersection. That’s another key area that
demands a neighborhood commercial plan and some zoning that actually makes sense for it. Right now, there’s I think a bit
of a disconnect. I think your notion is right. There’s more intense zoning that’s appropriate for Westgate, but right now, it’s
not specifically called out that way.
Board Member Young: Okay, any place else in the Corridor this could go then?
Mr. Chave: No, the BC zoning is really geared towards the Edmonds Way Corridor.
Board Member Young: No, any place else in the Edmonds Way Corridor that somebody can apply for an Edmonds Way
Zone.
Mr. Chave: Yeah, that’s quite possible. In fact, Mr. Shapiro has applied for another location.
Board Member Young: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we’re not, for the applicant’s protection as well as ours, is I
want to put this spot zoning thing to bed once and for all.
Mr. Chave: That’s a good point. Again, you’re going to have evaluate each site as to whether its appropriate or not
appropriate for the zone.
Board Member Young: Okay.
Vice Chair Dewhirst: If we’re ready, I’ll make a motion.
Chair Guenther: I need to close the hearing first. I’ll close the public hearing, so now we can deliberate, if we so choose to
deliberate.
Board Member Henderson: I think Mr. Shapiro has adequately addressed all of the issues with the zone change. I think
he did a good job on the scores, so I’m supporting the zone change.
Board Member Works: I would agree with that. It appears that all of the criteria have been met, and I think the
Architectural Design Board will be looking at it very closely, obviously. I certainly would support it because it seems to, as I
said, meet all of the criteria. Both the City’s addressed them and Mr. Shapiro has addressed them to my satisfaction.
Mr. Chave: Just for my clarification. Is that also based on the analysis and details in the staff report.
Board Member Works: Yeah, that’s what I said; the City has addressed them, so definitely the staff report.
Chair Guenther: John.
Board Member Reed: Just a couple of comments. I am going to support this application, but I do have a couple of
concerns I want to make sure are at least noted. When we forwarded this BC Edmonds Way zone, I voted against it. The
reason I did was because it had a 35-foot height limit stated and then two additional 5-foot increases. But it did end up with a
45-foot restriction along the frontage of Edmonds, and I personally thought that was a little bit too much. I supported the
other change for the RM-EW. This property has a 434 foot frontage, according to the staff memo, along Edmonds Way. I
think some of the things Tony mentioned in his presentation, if they happen, are going to be helpful because you are talking
about moving it off of the street a bit, in other words, setting it back. And then there are also some step back requirements in
here for heights. I get confused on how the heights work when I hear about a 40-foot elevation change and a 45-foot
maximum elevation of the building, and when you start taking averages, I just don’t understand exactly how that’s all going
File Number R-07-35
to work. I agree with what you said, Judith, that when the design people get a hold of that, that’s extremely important. I just
want that noted. I will support the application.
Board Member Reed: The other comment I need to make was changing ?? (the tape switches sides here) into residential
properties. I’m not talking about the properties toward Highway 99, whichever direction that is, because I think those are
ultimately going to end up in maybe a similar zoning situation. But the property up on the top of the hill, this property goes
immediately adjacent to and behind those houses, and then right across the street, 228th, is all residential, so this needs to be
sensitive to that when the actual design takes place.
Chair Guenther: Thank you.
Vice Chair Dewhirst: I also will support this, but I would like to suggest two conditions of the rezone. One is that it be
mixed-use of residential plus other uses. If you read the zoning district, it can be a strictly all commercial, which I think
would be a mistake going up that hill. Secondly, I would propose a minimum of a 25-foot landscape buffer along the 228th
Street frontage, which would be equal to the front setback of an RS-8 zone.
Mr. Chave: Because it’s a rezone, the motion can’t include conditions, unless it were a contract rezone and the applicant . . .
Vice Chair Dewhirst: Can’t we condition it? I thought we could.
Mr. Chave: No. Not rezones. Contact rezones, if the applicant were offering conditions to mitigate or deal with concerns in
the development. But in this case, it’s just a simple change in zoning.
Board Member Freeman: Well, I will support this, too, because I believe it meets all the conditions that have been laid out,
and I agree with the Staff Report. However, I think there’s another benefit that hasn’t been specified here, and that’s under
the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare. I want to emphasis welfare. At the Council Meeting last night,
Council Member Marin talked about his concern about having enough housing for elderly people who can no longer drive.
He gave the figures, and I think he said the average male lives six years beyond when they are capable of driving. I’m not
sure whether that’s national statistics or state, I’m not sure. For the female, it was 12 years. This is very, very close, within
easy walking distance to a lot of the services that people who can’t drive need. That’s the grocery store, maybe two if we are
lucky, the drugstore, dry cleaners, and everything else like that. I don’t know whether there’s a bank there. Is there a bank
there?
Vice Chair Dewhirst: Uh huh.
Board Member Freeman: Okay, so this is an excellent place for people who can no longer drive to live and still be able to
function and stay in their own homes, and I think that that hasn’t been brought out here. So I would certainly support this.
Chair Guenther: Okay. I’m going to support this, also. It will just be repeating everybody else’s comments, but it’s mostly
as it’s laid out in the application and in the staff findings and analysis. Do we have a motion?
Board Member Henderson: I move for approval.
Board Member Freeman: I’ll second it.
Chair Guenther: All in favor, say aye.
Chair Guenther: Aye.
Vice Chair Dewhirst: Aye.
Board Member Freeman: Aye.
Board Member Young: Aye.
File Number R-07-35
July 25, 2007 Page 10
Board Member Henderson: Aye.
Board Member Works: Aye.
Board Member Reed: Aye.
Chair Guenther: Opposed? Hearing none, motion carries.
I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS.
__________________________________________________________
Karin Noyes, Transcriber
____________________________________
Date
File Number R-07-35
July 25, 2007 Page 11
Parties of Record
R-2007-35 – Shapiro / Valhalla Properties
Applicants:
Shapiro, Tony
Valhalla Properties
SGA Corporation
Public (from letters received:
Martin, James
Vogler, Celine Y. (WSDOT)
Liias, Marko
AM-1164
Report on City Council Committee Meetings
Date:
09/18/2007
Submitted By:
Sandy Chase
Department:
City Clerk's Office
Review Committee:
Action:
Time:
Type:
6.
15 Minutes
Information
Information
Subject Title
Report on City Council Committee Meetings.
N/A
N/A
Narrative
Attached are copies of the following City Council Committee Meeting Minutes:
1. Community Services/Development Services Committee - 9/11/07
2. Finance Committee - 9/11/07
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: CS/DS Committee Minutes
Link: Finance Committee Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox
Approved By
1
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
2
Mayor
Gary Haakenson
3
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Date
Status
09/13/2007 09:02 AM
APRV
09/13/2007 10:56 AM
APRV
09/13/2007 11:01 AM
APRV
Started On: 09/12/2007 09:41
AM
MINUTES
Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting
September 11, 2007
Elected Officials Present:
Mauri Moore, Council member
Richard Marin, Committee Chair
Peggy Pritchard-Olson, Council President
Staff Present:
Duane Bowman, Dev. Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Dave Sittauer, Fleet Maintenance Manager
Committee Chair Marin convened the meeting at 6:00 P.M. and introduced Hilary Schiebert, Student
representative.
A.
Continued Discussion regarding plug-in hybrid cars and charging stations.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director, introduced the topic and reviewed the proposal outlining how a
recharging station could be constructed in the Public Safety Building parking lot near the south
entrance into the parking lot off 5th Avenue. The site was chosen for its location to existing electrical
conduit and junction box. The estimated cost for constructing the charging station was 80 hours of
staff time and $5,000 worth of materials. Chair Marin asked about how people would pay for the
usage of the station. Mr. Miller responded that had not been finalized. Dave Gebert suggested that
the City might want to look into the same sort of payment method that tennis courts use to turn on
power to lights. There was consensus from the committee members that staff should explore this
possibility.
Dave Sittauer, Fleet Manager, discussed hybrid and electric vehicles in the fleet. Right now there
are no hybrid or electric vehicles scheduled in the current budget. Technology has not caught up
with producing them and their cost is higher than a normal vehicle replacement. The Public Works
Department will continue to monitor the technology and at the appropriate time in the budget
process will present options for consideration. The Committee concurred with his assessment.
ACTION: CS/DS Committee directed the Public Works Director to prepare the necessary ordinance
and payment method and bring it forward to the full City Council for approval.
B.
Follow-up discussion from the July 26 special meeting regarding legislative issues
concerning building permit application timelines.
Duane Bowman introduced the topic. He noted that all the comments really boiled down to two
main topics; timely, thorough permit reviews and the code re-write. He reviewed the experiment
where the Development Services Department closed the permit counter for two consecutive
Wednesdays in August and successfully reduced 79 overdue reviews down to 7. This demonstrated
that if the plan reviewers were given substantial quiet time to focus on permit reviews, they could
accomplish a lot of work.
Mr. Bowman outlined four recommendations in response to the issues raised at the July 26, 2007
CS/DS meeting. They were:
CS/DS Committee Minutes
September 11 2007
Page 2
•
Establish a process to share code sections on-line to allow feedback on code re-write
chapters.
•
Do a code change to eliminate the 28 day planning application completeness process.
•
Open the Development Services Department to match City Hall hours 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, with no permit applications accepted
after 4 p.m. On Wednesdays, the counter would be closed all day but phone calls
would be taken and directed to voice mail. Building inspections would take place. This
day would be devoted to plan review with emphasis on overdue reviews to be
completed first.
•
Develop a process for meeting with a permit applicant if more than two reviews occur, if
necessary.
Mr. Bowman said he could do an administrative decision to implement completeness at the counter
process for planning land use permit applications that had all the required submittals and would
pursue a code amendment through the rewrite process. Ms. Moore asked why the City had not
done this before. Mr. Bowman responded that the code establishes the 28 day completeness
requirement, hence the recommendation to amend the code. Because we will be moving forward
with a code amendment in the near future, we could do administrative policy in advance of the
amendment to start the process sooner.
Ms. Moore inquired about “subject to field inspection” type permits. Mr. Bowman explained that type
of permit approval could pose significant problems for the field inspector if agreement couldn’t be
reached in the field and the applicant challenges that he has a permit. Ms. Moore requested staff to
investigate how/or if other cities utilize “subject to Field inspection” permits.
ACTION: No action taken. The CS/DS committee supported the administrative actions outlined in
Director Bowman’s report
C.
Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls, and ECDC 20.110.030
Nuisance Section, to add a new paragraph to specify the City’s regulation of rockeries,
and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
David Gebert, City Engineer introduced the topic and explained the purpose for the proposed
ordinance was to bring the issue of rockery regulation into compliance with the building code. He
reviewed the ordinance and the Committee concurred with the recommended ordinance changes.
ACTION: The CS/DS committee directed staff to bring the ordinance to the full City Council on the
consent agenda.
The Committee meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.
2
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
September 11, 2007
6:00 PM
Present:
Councilmember Ron Wambolt
Councilmember Dave Orvis
Staff:
Kathleen Junglov
Debra Sharp
Noel Miller
Dan Clements
Public:
Martha Orvis
Committee Chair Orvis called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
Item A: Broadband Up-Date
Dan Clements discussed last week’s meetings with PacketFront/DynamicCity, and bond
counsel from Foster Pepper. Of particular interest were technical discussions relating to the
two main types of fiber networks: active and passive. Jeff Fishburn, Vice President for
Engineering/Americas is scheduled to attend the next CTAC meeting to further review this
topic.
It was also reported that discussions with PacketFront/DynamicCity and bond counsel
about financing a possible network also proceeded quite well. Bond counsel is researching
requirements for issuing tax exempt debt for the three business cases under consideration.
Item B: Grinding Equipment Purchase
The Committee next reviewed a request from Public Works to purchase a “zipper” grinder
for use on streets. After reviewing safety and other rationale the Committee voted to
forward this item to the full Council for their consideration. This equipment was not
budgeted in the 2007-08 budget.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 PM.
V:\WORDATA\FINANCE COMM MINUTES\2007 FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES\FINANCE - 070911.DOC

AGENDA Edmonds City Council September 18, 2007 7:00 p.m.

Transcription

Similar documents

EDMONDS

Viewing Banner Finance Documents in VCU eServices

OL396 Gunwharf Quay

portofedmonds.org email: [email protected] August 2013

word from the director of business development

Get a 15% off voucher for Elverys Sports

Meaningful work for everyone

- Hollywood Black Film Festival

Untitled - City of Fife

Family Summer News June 15th.pub