EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 26

Transcription

AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
September 2, 2008
6:30 p.m. - Executive Session: Legal advice regarding pending or threatened litigation.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
Approval of Agenda
Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.
Roll Call
B.
AM-1760
Approval of City Council Special Workshop Minutes of August 18, 2008.
C.
AM-1764
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 26, 2008.
D.
AM-1761
Approval of claim checks #106461 through #106637 for August 28, 2008 in the amount of
$698,636.97.
E.
AM-1763
Snohomish County Regional Drug Task Force Agreement. Reviewed by the Public Safety Committee
1.
2.
on 08/12/08.
3.
AM-1759
(5 Minutes)
Introduction of Student Representative
AM-1756
(5 Minutes)
Proclamation in honor of Green Edmonds Week, September 8 - 13, 2008.
AM-1768
(30 Minutes)
Public Hearing for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2009-2014) and
proposed resolution adopting the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program and
directing the same to be filed with the Secretary of Transportation and the
Transportation Improvement Board.
4.
5.
6.
Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 7.
AM-1767
(20 Minutes)
Fiber Optic Network Recommendations - Update and Next Steps.
AM-1762
(10 Minutes)
Approval of Findings of Fact related to the 7/29/08 and 8/05/08 Closed Record Review:
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision to deny the request to subdivide Arbor Court,
a 1.27 acre parcel developed with 35 townhomes, into 35 fee-simple townhouse parcels.
The site is located at 23800 – 23824 Edmonds Way. (File Nos. P-08-16 and APL-08-4)
AM-1754
(30 Minutes)
General Fund Revenue Options.
8.
9.
Packet Page 1 of 267
10.
AM-1757
(45 Minutes)
Discussion on appraisal/environmental due diligence process for the Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center properties known as The Old Antique Mall and Skipper's
site.
(5 Minutes)
Mayor's Comments
(15 Minutes)
Council Comments
11.
12.
Adjourn
AM-1760
Approval of 08-18-08 City Council Workshop Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Sandy Chase
Department:
City Clerk's Office
Review Committee:
Action:
Time:
Type:
2.B.
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Special Workshop Minutes of August 18, 2008.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 08-18-08 Draft Council Workshop 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: 08/28/2008
Date
Status
08/28/2008 09:14 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 09:38 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 09:42 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/28/2008 09:12
AM
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL WORKSHOP
August 18, 2008
The Edmonds City Council Special Workshop was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Council President
Plunkett in the Brackett Meeting Room, Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave. North, Edmonds. The meeting
was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Kathleen Junglov, Finance Director
Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager
Cindi Cruz, Administrative Assistant
Linda Carl, Senior Executive Assistant
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved with no changes.
2.
FINANCIAL STATUS OF CITY: 2009-2010 BUDGET BRIEFING
Finance Director Kathleen Junglov distributed a Revenue and Expenses Executive Summary. She
advised the forecast was for a deficit of approximately in $1.4 million in 2009 and approximately $4.5
million in 2010. She reviewed three significant events that contributed to the deficit:
1)
2)
Property tax revenue – typically the assessed evaluation plays little role in the tax levy,
however, it was important in a year when a levy lid lift was done. Although Snohomish County
has not provided information by city, information by school district shows the Edmonds School
District will have an increase in assessed value of only 1%. When the EMS levy was anticipated,
she projected a 7% increase; therefore, the funds from the EMS would be lower than forecast.
She anticipated a loss of $450,000 over 2009 and 2010; the final numbers will be available from
Snohomish County in mid-September.
Sales tax revenue –a decrease in revenue of $2 million was forecast in 2008 - 2010. The current
model forecasts sales tax revenue $250,000 below estimates, primarily due to a decline in auto
sales. She noted forecasts anticipated the downturn in the economy, but did not foresee $4/gallon
fuel prices or the impact the subprime would have on auto sales. She explained recent
information from MRSC regarding the estimates they provided were based on 2002 data adjusted
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
Special Workshop
August 18, 2008
Page 1
3)
for inflation. This information was to be used as an estimate of the potential magnitude of the
impact and they do not recommend using it for budgeting. Sales tax sourcing was included in the
budget at the numbers the Department of Revenue (DOR) estimated; that amount has since been
reduced by half. Sales tax sourcing funds will begin to be received in September but the actual
amounts will be relatively unknown until the City has some experience. She anticipated further
information provided by DOR in late August would be used to update the forecast. She
commented sales tax year-to-date has fluctuated but the trend now appears to be declining.
Cost of labor – a savings of approximately $900,000 was realized by eliminating the
Administrative Services Director, Economic Development Director and Assistant City Engineer
positions but those savings were consumed by the cost of contracts that were negotiated this year.
As a result of the high CPI, COLA for 2009 will be 5.8% for contracts on CPIU, 6.2% CPIW,
5.8% for the Fire Department plus an additional 1% for implementing a mandatory fitness
program.
Ms. Junglov noted any one of the three events would have impacted the budget but together they created a
difficult and challenging situation. She recalled the forecast presented at the Council retreat estimated
underruns in expenditures of 2.5-3%. Underruns in 2008 are anticipated to be 1%; due to the tight
budgets in 2009 and 2010 any estimated underrun was removed from the forecast. She cautioned these
numbers were preliminary as some costs were unknown such as for SnoCom.
A brief discussion followed regarding lower than anticipated revenue from the EMS levy because it was
based on assessed valuations, anticipation that property tax on new construction would be down, and
anticipation that Edmonds’ assessed valuation would not decrease at the same level as the overall
Edmonds School District due to waterfront property in Edmonds whose value was still increasing.
Mayor Haakenson explained he asked Ms. Junglov to be very conservative in the forecasts, anticipating
the downturn in the economy would continue. He explained with a $1.4 million shortfall in 2009 and
$4.5 million in 2010, the City had reached the point where expense and revenue lines crossed. With such
large decreases in revenues the Council faced difficult choices; he planned to ask the Council to increase
Development Service permit fees across the board as they were currently below what other cities charged,
implement an ambulance fee for the Fire Department, and lift the ban on gambling in Edmonds. Without
those new revenue streams, the Council would need to identify budget cuts in order to balance the budget,
cuts of at least $2-3 million in the next two years. He noted the areas of the budget the Council could cut
were limited, difficult and painful. He recalled when the City faced a similar situation, he chose to
withdraw from the Sno-Isle Library and asked voters to annex to Sno-Isle which when approved by the
voters saved the General Fund over $1 million a year and allowed the City to maintain the service levels
residents expected.
Mayor Haakenson advised he has been in discussions with Fire District 1 and six other cities regarding
the formation of a Fire Authority, whereby the cost of fire service would be paid to a central Fire
Authority directly by the taxpayers, taking the City out of the fire service business and saving the General
Fund approximately $4 million/year. He advised discussions were ongoing and he offered to report to the
Council as further information became available. He explained the concept was created by the State
Legislature and several other Fire Authorities had been created. As the Council proceeded through
today’s agenda, he urged them to keep their eyes focused on the financial well being of the City.
Mayor Haakenson anticipated the ambulance fee would generate approximately $700,000, gambling
could generate approximately $500,000 (1/3 of Mountlake Terrace’s $1.5 million revenue), increasing the
utility tax and cable franchise fees generated approximately $100,000 for each 1% (currently 1%, could
be increased to 6%), full cost recovery of permit fees, and an undetermined amount from red light
Special Workshop
August 18, 2008
Page 2
cameras. He advised other potential revenue sources were implementing a B&O tax and/or a general
property tax increase. Councilmembers requested administration provide the handout from the budget
book regarding the revenue sources discussed previously and the amounts each generated.
Discussion followed regarding:
• Voter approval required to lift the ban on gambling.
• Past attempts to create a consolidated fire service.
• Creation of a Fire Authority potentially costing taxpayers more.
• The Legislature’s approval in 2004 of a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority model with
separate taxing authority.
• Opportunity to eliminate inefficiencies and implement efficiencies via a Fire Authority.
• Whether establishing a Fire Authority would result in savings for residents.
• Potential for better control over the rate of increase in fire service costs via regionalization.
• Consortium governance of the Fire Authority which provides for local representation.
• Increased costs to taxpayers via annexation to the Sno-Isle Library.
• Ensuring the creation of a Fire Authority did not simply shift the tax burden.
• A preference to simply ask citizens for a tax increase rather than lifting the ban on gambling
and/or shifting the cost of fire service to a Fire Authority.
Mayor Haakenson referred to a letter from Snohomish County Corrections that jail costs and booking and
daily maintenance fees were increasing. He advised a letter was also received from the Snohomish
County Executive asking for $150,000 for the Snohomish County Health District to avoid layoffs. City
Attorney Scott Snyder remarked labor costs constituted 60% or more of the City’s budget with the
majority being fire and police. Edmonds also has the lowest employee to citizen ratio and costs; no other
savings with regard to labor costs are possible other than laying off employees which impacts service.
Mayor Haakenson advised the six cities interested in discussing the creation of a Fire Authority plan to
meet again in early September to determine whether to continue discussions. It was agreed to schedule a
presentation to the Council in September regarding creation of a Fire Authority, next steps if the cities
agreed they wanted to pursue the concept, etc.
3.
CITY UNFUNDED PRIORITY PROJECTS
Public Works Director Noel Miller referred to a list of projects in the packet under Transportation Benefit
District (TBD) including building maintenance projects. He distributed a current list of 6-year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) projects, identifying projects with no funding available to complete. He
noted building maintenance projects were a high priority in order to maintain the buildings the City
currently owns and did not include any new capital projects.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh advised many of the unfunded projects were related to parks
and recreation. The list had not been prioritized as staff wanted the Council to identify priorities.
Discussion followed regarding methods used to identify and obtain outside governmental grants, extreme
competition for grants, and less federal funds available due to the federal government deferring funds to
homeland security and anti-terrorism.
4.
ACQUISITION OF THE OLD SAFEWAY AND SKIPPERS SITES
Councilmember Bernheim provided a slide presentation which he explained was an attempt to assist the
Council with envisioning different levels of development in the Antique Mall area. His presentation
Special Workshop
August 18, 2008
Page 3
included photos of the current site and what could be – business park, swimming pool, park, parking,
commercial building, hotel, historical/heritage, code-compliant development, urban village, facelift, open
space/public plaza, connections via overhead crossings, etc.
Council President Plunkett recalled the Council had asked for a scope of work for an appraiser,
environmental consultant and public consultants. Development Services Director Bowman explained Mr.
McIntosh contacted an appraiser to determine what was needed to do an appraisal and what information
they would need from a geotech. The response was they wanted a letter of transmittal from an
investigative firm with a summary of the general information/knowledge available regarding the property.
Although the appraiser did not want a lengthy technical report, only general information, Mr. Bowman
anticipated good, technical environmental data would be necessary to make a determination whether to
move forward, information that would require permission to go on site. He concluded it was difficult to
have an appraisal done without investigating what was on ground because of the impact that information
could have on the cost.
Mr. Snyder envisioned a two step process, first a variety of technical data was public information
including soil testing done for the treatment plant, flooding data, etc. The second step, if the Council
decided to proceed without the property owner’s permission, the City can via the discovery process gain
site access in a condemnation proceeding. He acknowledged a negotiated sale process was easier because
there would be greater site access. The City could also negotiate a discount for site conditions/clean up
costs. He concluded via Landau the City could get a site condition letter or assumptions for the appraiser
but actual public costs could vary considerably based on actual site conditions. He acknowledged an
approximate appraisal would be sufficient to begin discussion with property owners regarding a selling
price and could be a reality check.
Councilmembers discussed environmental constraints lowering the value of the property; using the
appraisal to begin discussion with the property owner; developing a vision regarding public ownership
including how much of the land to purchase, for what purpose and what type of project to take to the
voters; an appraisal as the first step in developing a vision; and other potential projects that could be
combined with this purchase in a bond measure.
Council President Plunkett recalled the Council’s direction that staff provide a scope of work for the
appraisal for the Antique Mall and the Skippers properties with environmental due diligence and to begin
finding consultants for the vision and public use. It was suggested staff contact Sound Transit regarding
opportunities to partner with them on the Skippers site. Mr. Snyder clarified it was not possible to
conduct environmental due diligence at this time; true environmental due diligence and site specific
environmental analysis would be done sometime in the future.
Councilmembers agreed to proceed as directed at the last Council meeting, including obtaining a letter of
site constraints based on readily available public information to aid the appraiser. Mr. Bowman advised
he would provide a report to the Council at the September 2 meeting.
5.
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICTS (TBD)
Mayor Haakenson recalled the concept of a TBD was presented at the Council retreat as a potential
revenue source; staff was seeking direction from the Council whether they were interested in proceeding
with the formation of a TDB either via Council action or via a public vote.
Public Works Director Noel Miller reviewed a graph that compared revenue in Fund 112, Consumer Price
Index and WSDOT Construction Cost Index. He advised forecasts were for no REET revenue for
Special Workshop
August 18, 2008
Page 4
transportation projects in 2009, thus the need for another significant revenue source for this fund to carry
out the Capital Improvement Program.
Ashley Probart, AWC, provided a PowerPoint presentation that described TBDs, TBD formation,
eligible TBD projects, TBD project criteria, accountability measures, revenue options (Councilmanic or
voter-approved), funding examples of a $20 vehicle license fee, and estimated annual revenue Edmonds
could expect.
• How funds from a vehicle license fee would be distributed to jurisdictions without Zip +4
information.
• Limited exemptions from vehicle license fees.
• The same vehicle license fee regardless of size of the vehicle.
• No opportunity for a discount in vehicle license fees for seniors/low income.
• Staff’s anticipation that a vehicle license fee of $20/vehicle would be sufficient to address the
City’s transportation needs over time.
• Availability of further information regarding the City’s transportation needs once the
Transportation Comprehensive Plan update was completed this fall.
• Use of the revenue from vehicle license fees to leverage grant funds.
• Ability for the City to identify a purpose for the program including percentages to be allocated to
project types and identify projects each year to avoid the sunset provision and comply with the
material change policy.
Discussion continued regarding TBD funds freeing up state fuel tax funds for operations/maintenance
which was currently subsidized by the General Fund. Mr. Probart clarified TBD funds could be used for
maintenance and operations. He advised many cities/counties were considering a $20 fee via
Councilmanic action to show citizens how the funds were being used with the intent of asking the voters
for a larger amount to fully fund programs once there was community confidence in how the funds were
being used.
Discussion continued regarding the need for a broad vision for funding city services and concern that
instituting this fee would dilute support for a larger amount. At the Council’s request Mr. Miller
described the two sidewalk projects whose bids had been rejected in hopes of receiving a lower bid in late
November. The Council requested a status update on these projects at a televised Council meeting. The
Council also requested the following:
• Further information regarding what projects could be funded via a TBD and what relief it would
provide to the General Fund.
• Identification of all sidewalk projects.
• A range of TBD options including what a $20 vehicle license fee would fund and what could be
funded with a higher fee.
• Research the commercial impact fee and how much revenue it could generate.
7.
PARKS PLAN
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh briefly reviewed the public process used in developing the
Parks Plan. With regard to the question whether levels of service were aggressive enough, he explained
level of service was tied to the availability of land and the will of Council. The Park Plan was a general
plan that established direction for the Parks & Recreation Department; the Plan placed no restrictions on
the Council.
Special Workshop
August 18, 2008
Page 5
• How ambitious the Plan was versus it being realistic.
• The Parks Plan should be a visioning document and therefore should be more ambitious even if it
required asking voters for funds to achieve it.
• Realistic projects that could be accomplished if money were not an issue.
• The voters’ historic support for parks and public safety bonds.
• Concern the Plan was not ambitious enough as levels of service were reduced.
• Concern many of Lora Petso’s criticisms had not been rebutted.
• How a realistic plan could also be ambitious.
• The ability to be visionary in the Parks Plan via other methods than level of service.
Mr. McIntosh explained level of service was a number; staff attempted to identify geographic areas of the
City that were not well served by parks where 2 acre parks could be purchased/developed. He
commented the size of those parks could be increased which would increase the level of service; however,
2 acres seemed realistic. Mr. Snyder pointed out the Council had a great deal of legislative discretion to
describe their vision in the Parks Plan.
Discussion continued regarding:
• Council not wanting to scale back the vision for parks.
• The Parks Plan providing a broad vision for the parks system.
• The number of citizens who participated in the process of updating the Plan.
• Concern that young families’ viewpoints were not represented in the Plan.
• The long term vision of the Council with regard to parks/
• Ensuring a more realistic Plan did not result in a less ambitious Plan.
The Council requested staff provide a comparison of where the Plan was scaled back from the previous
Plan and Council would decide whether to reinstate the language that had been removed.
6.
GENERAL PRIORITIES FOR THE CITY
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council offer prioritizations and/or opinions regarding what kind
of City they wanted Edmonds to be, services they wanted the City to provide, etc. Mayor Haakenson
agreed prioritization would be helpful to staff in preparing the budget. The Council offered input
regarding the following topics:
•
Whether to schedule an agenda item during this budget process regarding a vote to lift the
ban on gambling - The majority of the Council was not in favor of this as a potential revenue
source.
•
Creation of a Fire Authority - It was the consensus of the Council they wanted to learn more
about it to ensure everyone had a good understanding of the concept before making a decision.
Chief Tomberg cautioned the City was only a participant in a long process.
•
Senior Center - Council questions included whether the City should continue to fund
maintenance on a building that needed extensive renovation/replacement in the future, whether
funds for redevelopment could be included in a potential capital bond, whether to continue to
lease this prime real estate to a specific senior center operation or to consider alternatives, and
whether some of the services could be provided elsewhere and the current site integrated into a
plan for the waterfront. Discussion included the need for a stable situation at the Senior Center
Special Workshop
August 18, 2008
Page 6
before further capital investment were made, Senior Center’s ability to obtain grants, the danger
of losing grant funds for the kitchen remodel if they were not used soon, the burden on the City to
continue maintaining the Senior Center facility, and the estimated $4 million cost to renovate the
facility.
Mr. Snyder advised the Senior Center was developed/improved/maintained with CDBG grant
funds; under federal regulations the City was obligated to maintain the use as specified or return
the funds. He was uncertain of the procedures if the senior center were relocated to another site.
Staff was asked to investigate whether any of the grants the City had received for the Senior
Center were tied to the structure or property. Council agreed to defer further comment on the
Senior Center until tonight’s Council meeting when the Senior Center lease was scheduled as an
agenda item.
•
Antique Mall/Skippers properties - The Council discussed increases in taxes for an average
home of 29.1% since 2002, examples of costs to the public from a $12.1 and $24.2 million bond
measure, other priorities versus purchasing property that many view as a luxury, determining the
real cost of the property as a step in determining the priority, differences between long term
capital investments and operating, voter approval that would be required for capital investments
such as the Senior Center, aquatic center and Antique Mall/Skippers properties.
•
Sidewalk construction - staff was asked to provide a list of all sidewalk projects.
•
Transportation infrastructure - the Council was satisfied with the current $750,000 threshold
for dedicating REET funds to parks and funds over $750,000 to transportation. Council
acknowledged funds for transportation could be provided via a TBD.
•
Fiber Optic Cable - further information will be provided to the Council in the near future.
•
Business climate improvement - Mayor Haakenson advised there were no funds in the budget to
devote to economic development unless directed by the Council. He advised Jacobson Marine
had withdrawn their proposal to relocate in Edmonds due to increases in building material costs
and the downturn in boat sales. There was no support voiced by the Council for increasing the
priority of funding for economic development.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Council had any interest in pursuing a B&O tax which could be
structured as an employee tax, based on revenue, etc. He noted a B&O tax had been rejected by previous
Councils as being bad for business. He further asked the Council to identify suggested budget cuts since
they had rejected a large potential revenue stream (lifting the ban on gambling in Edmonds).
8.
ADJOURN
The Council workshop was adjourned at 1:07 p.m.
Special Workshop
August 18, 2008
Page 7
AM-1764
Approval of 08-26-08 City Council Minutes
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Sandy Chase
Department:
City Clerk's Office
Review Committee:
Action:
2.C.
Time:
Type:
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 26, 2008.
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 08-26-08 Draft City Council 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
08/28/2008 11:02 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 11:03 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 11:06 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/28/2008 10:50
AM
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 26, 2008
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding negotiation of purchase of
real estate, 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
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson requested the order of Agenda Items 4 and 5 be reversed.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Orvis requested Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, 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 18, 2008.
C.
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #106364 THROUGH #106460 FOR AUGUST 21, 2008
IN THE AMOUNT OF $232,560.86. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS
AND CHECKS #47065 THROUGH #47165 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2008
THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $754,327.58.
D.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ROSS S. ADAMS
($1,822.32), AND ALICE COLLEEN BROWN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
E.
APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD, AUGUST 2008.
August 26, 2008
Page 1
F.
ITEM G:
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH ARTIST FOR THE SR
99 INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT.
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO THE 7/29/08 AND 8/05/08 CLOSED
RECORD REVIEW: APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY
THE REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE ARBOR COURT, A 1.27 ACRE PARCEL DEVELOPED
WITH 35 TOWNHOMES, INTO 35 FEE-SIMPLE TOWNHOUSE PARCELS. THE SITE
IS LOCATED AT 23800 – 23824 EDMONDS WAY. (FILE NOS. P-08-16 AND APL-08-4)
Councilmember Orvis commented usually if he disagreed with a decision made by a majority of the
Council, he would simply pull the item and vote against it. In this instance, he encouraged the Council to
add to the Findings of Fact. He expressed concern with the potential for the City to be liable if an
accident occurred on one of the driveways. The City was typically protected from liability unless the
cause was deliberate. He cited examples where a city was held liable for a deliberate act such as the City
of Ocean Shores where the City was sued because a building did not meet the setback requirements and
since they had deliberately ignored the situation, the building was required to be moved. A similar case in
Seattle occurred when the fire codes for a building for the homeless were ignored and the City incurred a
great deal of liability following a subsequent fire.
In this case, there is a disagreement over what constituted a street and whether the driveways needed to
have sidewalks and curb cuts and if they met street width standards. His concern was there was evidence
that the driveways were streets, yet there were no sidewalks or curbs and they did not meet the street
width standards, yet there was almost nothing in the record regarding why that interpretation of the code
was correct. He concluded the record gave the impression that the City was “looking the other way.” He
anticipated in a future lawsuit a judge could find upon reviewing the record that the driveways were
clearly streets and should have been required to meet street standards, that it was deliberate and that the
City was liable for an accident. He urged the Council to direct the City Attorney to include reasons in the
Findings of Fact why the driveways were not streets and did not need to meet the street standards. This
would provide a record and absolve taxpayers of future liability.
Councilmember Wambolt asked Councilmember Orvis if he had consulted with City Attorney Scott
Snyder. Councilmember Orvis answered he had not. Development Services Director Duane Bowman
advised the Findings of Fact were drafted by Mr. Snyder.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed with Councilmember Orvis and would vote against the Findings of
Fact.
Council President Plunkett asked whether this item could be delayed a week to allow Councilmember
Orvis to confer with Mr. Snyder. Mr. Bowman answered the City was required to process a preliminary
plat within 90 days; this was likely over that time limit now due to the appeal. He did not anticipate the
applicant would raise a challenge if the item was continued to next week. Council President Plunkett
agreed with delaying this a week to allow Councilmember Orvis to confer with Mr. Snyder.
It was the consensus of the Council to delay action on this item until the September 2 Council meeting.
4.
SWEARING-IN CEREMONY FOR CORPORAL DAMIAN SMITH
Police Chief Al Compaan commented on the importance of publicly acknowledging and celebrating
promotional opportunities within the Police Department. He introduced the Department’s newest
Corporal of Police, Damian Smith. He described Corporal Smith’s background including enlisting in the
Air Force in 1995, spending six years on active duty and upon discharge in 2000, enlisted in the
Washington Air National Guard as a Reservist. He was hired as an entry level police office by the City in
August 26, 2008
Page 2
2002 and has spent his career on patrol. Corporal Smith broadened his experience by becoming a Field
Training Officer, Firearms Armer, Dive Team Member and start-up member of the Marine 6 Team
Marine Unit. He has received three commendations to date including Officer of the Year in 2005. In
February 2008 he participated in an all-day civil service assessment center for the position of Corporal.
Chief Compaan swore in Corporal Smith and his mother Joanne pinned on his badge.
Corporal Smith thanked the City for the opportunity to be sworn in at a formal setting, commenting it was
meaningful to the members of the Police Department to have the steps in their career recognized. He
introduced his parents Harold and Joanne, his wife Michelle and daughter Rilan, thanking them for their
support. He looked forward to leading by example and mentoring others.
3.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
George Everett, Edmonds, encouraged the City to adopt a resolution calling for an investigation into the
events of 9/11. He outlined reasons to doubt the official story. The public was told two highjacked
airplanes slammed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and burst into flames and the
resultant fires weakened the structures and caused their collapse. However, no other steel framed high
rise anywhere in the world has ever been brought down by fire, making it unbelievable that three would
come down in one place on one day. Even more improbable was that all three came down at freefall
speed, typical of a controlled demolition. He noted the top of the south tower, falling through tons of
steel and concrete in the center of the building, would not fall at freefall speed, yet it did - a physical
impossibility without extraordinary outside help. For these reasons, he and thousands of others including
a growing number of professionals doubted the official story and wanted to know the truth which could
only be revealed by an independent, objective and thorough investigation. He encouraged citizens to join
the list of well-known people who supported the quest for truth at PatriotsQuestion911.com and/or sign a
petition at AE911.org and Firefightersfor911truth.org. He advised further information regarding 9/11 was
available on Seattle’s Community Access Network, Comcast Channel 77 on Thursdays at 11:00 a.m.
B.B. McGinley, Edmonds, expressed concern with the construction of a 2,880 square foot, 25-foot tall
commercial garage and warehouse on their neighbor’s property that blocked the views of several nearby
homes and completely changed the character of the immediate neighborhood. She questioned why the
structure was not limited to the 15-foot height limit for an accessory structure, asserting that because its
use was subordinate and incidental to the use of the home, it fit the description of an accessory building
and was not an attached garage. She viewed the breezeway connecting the house and garage as an
attempt to remove the garage from the definition of an accessory building. She anticipated the seven
homes whose views were affected by the structure would likely experience property value losses. She
noted the City cites the case of Chelan Co. v. Nykreim as the reason a public hearing could not be held, a
case that is based entirely on a 21 days appeal window expiration. She relayed Development Service
Director Duane Bowman’s explanation that there was no appeal in the granting of the building permit
because the interpretation of the building code did not require neighbors be notified and also because the
21 days appeal window had long expired. She questioned how the 21 day appeal process applied when
they had no prior knowledge of the permit application and approval. As a result, they had been denied
due process and their rights had been violated. The City’s only consolation to them was that they would
use this as a “poster-child” to modify the building code. She encouraged citizens living next door to a
proposed building or land use change to do their own due diligence and not allow the City to violate the
building code by interpretation.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the concern he expressed last week regarding the PCC garbage
enclosure located 30 inches from the sidewalk on 9th Avenue, advising he now agreed with staff’s
interpretation that the wall around the garbage was a fence. However, if this was considered a fence, a
August 26, 2008
Page 3
permit was required in accordance to Chapter 17.30.010. He questioned whether a permit had been
issued for the fence, noting a fence located 10-feet from the right-of-way and over 3 feet in height
required review and must be based on the original grade. Next, he distributed a 1980 version of the
contour lines for Albertsons, which he asserted represented the original grade. He also distributed
elevations of the water tank, noting reference to grade in those drawings was to the existing grade, not the
original grade in the Albertsons drawings. He concluded there may be a problem with how the elevation
was determined, commenting it appeared PCC used the existing grade, yet the code required the original
grade be used. He questioned whether the additional salary provided to Mayor Haakenson was producing
results, asserting that staff decisions were getting worse.
Councilmember Wilson asked for staff to respond to Ms. McGinley’s comments. Mr. Bowman assured
the structure was not a commercial garage; Ms. McGinley believes the property owner will turn the
structure into a commercial garage. There was no business license application and the building was
reviewed as a residential garage, not a commercial garage
Councilmember Wilson asked if Ms. McGinley was correct that the height of an accessory building was
limited to 15 feet in height. Mr. Bowman answered a detached accessory building could only be 15 feet
in height; this structure was attached to the house. He relayed that the property owner eventually planned
to demolish the house and construct a new house.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the permit requirement for a fence. Mr. Bowman cautioned the
Council about getting into a debate about a permit, referring to a court case Mission Springs v. Spokane
which exposed the Council to potential liability when they went outside their purview. In general, he
advised a fence permit needed to be approved as part of a development when it was within 10 feet of the
right-of-way and over 3 feet to prevent sight distance problems. The fence was reviewed by the
Architectural Design Board and approved as part of the tenant improvements.
5.
PRESENTATION BY UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PROFESSOR DENNIS HARTMANN
ON GLOBAL WARMING AND HOW IT AFFECTS EDMONDS.
Professor Dennis Hartmann, University of Washington, provided recent results on global warming.
He described average temperatures and precipitation in Seattle, Washington and global averages, noting
the variability in temperatures and precipitation in the State. He displayed a graph of annual variations in
temperatures and precipitation, highlighting maximum and minimum temperatures during 1940 and 2000.
He displayed a graph illustrating the maximum and minimum temperatures for each 12 months of the year
which reveal the minima occurred in the 1950s and the maxima were closer to 2000. He displayed a
graph of the temporary mean temporal history of temperatures 1880 to 2000, recognizing recent
temperature increases.
Professor Hartmann explained much of the warming occurred in high latitudes. Seattle experienced a
8/10th of a degree anomaly in the last five year period (2001-2005) based on the period 1950-1980. These
increases were also reflected at sea level and a slight decline in the northern hemisphere snow cover. He
concluded the scientific statement was that global warming had been detected. He provided photographs
of ice retreat in Glacier Bay, Alaska, in 1940 and 2004, record melting of Artic sea ice in 2007, and
outbreaks of the Pine Beetle in Canada as anecdotal evidence of global warming. He relayed it was
known that surface temperatures around the world were increasing more rapidly during the past 30 years
which was thought to be related to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
He provided a graph of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere 1700 to present which revealed an
approximately 40% increase since the industrial revolution and current increase of approximately ½% per
year. He explained research using ice bubbles in ice cores from Antarctica to determine CO2 provides a
August 26, 2008
Page 4
650,000 year record of methane and CO2. He concluded it was known that CO2 had increased since the
industrial revolution as a result of fossil fuel burning.
Professor Hartmann noted the next question was attribution, whether the warming of the global surface
temperature associated with humans produced an increase in greenhouse gases. He displayed a physical
model that takes into account the energy budget of the earth that includes not only greenhouse gases but
also human induced aerosols. He provided images from space, identifying forest fires in Oregon, soot
from fires, areas of increased solar absorption, and areas of increased solar reflectivity from humaninduced aerosols. He displayed a graph illustrating the natural variability in the global mean temperature
versus what is produced by humans, evidence that allows scientists to conclude the warming observed in
the last 30 years is principally associated with the human effect. He relayed science’s virtual certainty
that warming during the past 30 years was not a natural variability but was caused by human alterations
particularly greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, primarily CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning.
The next step for science was to predict how the climate would change in the future, which was
complicated because, 1) it was difficult to predict what humans would do in terms of fossil fuels and how
much CO2 would be released and 2) the models were uncertain and incomplete. He provided various
scenarios showing the global mean temperature over the last 100 years and the next 100 years; worst case
was 3.5 °C (7 °F) warming by the end of the century. He concluded over the next 20 years warming and
sea level rise were significant and reasonably certain but not catastrophic. By the end of the century
warming was much larger and more uncertain if nothing was done to reduce the release of greenhouse
gases. Beyond the end of the century, temperatures would continue to increase, resulting in the
Greenland ice sheet beginning to melt and a dramatic rise in sea level rise.
Councilmember Wilson questioned at what point warming would become catastrophic. Professor
Hartmann replied CO2 released into the atmosphere remained a long time. By the time significant affects
were evident, it would be too late because the CO2 would continue to increase, the climate would
continue to warm and CO2 would remain in the atmosphere for centuries. He concluded corrective
measures were necessary in advance of catastrophic levels.
Professor Hartmann relayed projections for 2050 including a ½ °F per decade temperature increase, a
30% decline in winter snow pack, a 6 inch rise in the sea level, and the same average precipitation with
more rain in the winter and less in the summer, noting there were also affects on stream temperatures,
ocean acidity, and native versus invasive species. He relayed actions to combat include conserving
energy, increasing efficiency, and pursuing safe, renewable domestic energy sources.
He reviewed current electricity, oil and natural gas production and consumption; sources of U.S. oil,
fossil fuel and natural gas proven reserves and rate of use. He relayed that many scientists believe oil
production was at its maximum at the present time and that global oil production would decrease
gradually and more rapidly in the future while demand continued to increase.
He concluded climate change in Washington was relatively modest and manageable; by the time the most
serious impacts were apparent, it would be too late to stop them. He displayed a graph illustrating fossil
fuel emissions and atmospheric CO2. He displayed a graph of primary energy consumption per capita for
the US, China and the world, advising global demand was expected to grow 60% from 2006 - 2030, thus
the need for new sources of energy or conservation. He reviewed a graph of per capita CO2 emissions for
the US, Sweden, Taiwan, China, and India 1950-2000.
He urged the public to consider practicing resource conservation; support development of clean,
renewable and domestic energy sources; and make a personal decision about whether or not humans
August 26, 2008
Page 5
should drastically alter the global climate. He concluded this was a difficult, long term problem but there
were short term solutions that were in the nation’s interest to pursue.
Councilmember Bernheim thanked Professor Hartmann for his presentation of the factual details. He
asked him to comment on the importance of individuals making small decisions in their lives versus
larger entities that may contribute substantially more to global warming. Professor Hartmann cited the
importance of building codes, energy efficiency in homes, the efficiency of electrical appliances, etc. He
commented there was some corporate interest in energy conservation, advising he met recently with WalMart executives, an important way of bringing energy efficiency to the average citizen. He commented
on his own efforts including riding a bicycle to work and updating the windows in his home from metal to
vinyl, noting there were many personal choices individuals could make to save energy and money.
Councilmember Wambolt expressed his appreciation for the tone of Professor Hartmann’s presentation.
He anticipated this would be a doomsday presentation and although Professor Hartmann pointed out a
number of things to be concerned about, his presentation was at the right level.
For Councilmember Wilson, Professor Hartmann explained although it was anticipated precipitation
would remain approximately constant in this area, significant changes in precipitation were projected in
other parts of the world.
Councilmember Wilson asked where the most extreme climate changes were likely to occur. Professor
Hartman answered the Artic was warming faster than anywhere else. Councilmember Wilson relayed he
heard several years ago that the Artic, southeast Alaska and the Puget Sound area were experiencing the
greatest levels of climate change and asked if there was reason to believe that global warming in the
Seattle/Puget Sound region would be significantly more than other areas. Professor Hartmann stated
warming in Seattle would be slightly greater than the tropics but would be reasonably close to global
averages.
Councilmember Wilson commented his understanding was that the average change was less important
than the extremes. Professor Hartmann answered the things that would be noticed earliest were extremes
never observed before such as heavier rainfall during winter storms with more flooding. Councilmember
Wilson asked whether that volatility had been observed in the Puget Sound region. Professor Hartmann
answered it was difficult to assign statistical significance to extreme events because they were so rare.
For example it was unknown whether an event like Katrina was more probable due to global warming.
6.
REVIEW AND PROPOSED ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING ECDC CHAPTER 17.40
RELATED TO NON-CONFORMING REGULATIONS.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled the Council held a public hearing on August 18
on the Planning Board’s recommendation and directed the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
ordinance incorporating revisions requested during Council discussion. He noted the revisions to the
ordinance began in August 2006.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3696.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
AMEND PARAGRAPH C ON PAGE 4 OF THE ORDINANCE, BY REPLACING “CITYAPPROVED HISTORIC SURVEY” WITH “COUNCIL-APPROVED HISTORIC SURVEY.”
August 26, 2008
Page 6
Councilmember Wilson advised his intent was to ensure any Historic Survey was approved by the City
Council and was not left open to interpretation.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3696 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE REPEAL AND REENACTMENT OF
CHAPTER 17.40 NONCONFORMING USES, BUILDINGS, SIGNS AND LOTS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
7.
FUNDING REQUEST FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT.
Councilmember Orvis, Council representative on the Snohomish Health District (SHD) Board, relayed
the District’s $150,000 funding request from the City. He referred to the 1994 City budget which
illustrated the City used to directly fund the Health District in the amount of $232,000 per year in addition
to the City’s share of the bonds on the Rucker building, which is the Public Health building in Everett.
He explained the SHD was currently facing a $4.4 million deficit. In an effort to describe how this had
occurred, he explained pre 1995 the SHD’s discretionary funds were shared on a per-head basis between
the county and cities (with the exception of TB which was funded exclusively by the county). In 1995 the
State assumed the cities’ responsibility for funding SHD using revenues from motor vehicle excuse tax
(MVET). In 1999 the passage of I-695 eliminated MVET but the State continued to pay the cities’ share
of SHD with MVET backfill. In 2000 the SHD sought more funding from the county and were directed
to spend down their $5 million reserve. During 2000-2008 the SHD stretched out their reserve by
aggressively seeking grants while discretionary revenue increased at less than 1% annually. Now, the
situation in 2009 is that the reserve is gone and the SHD needs funding assistance. He reviewed a
comparison of how SHD discretionary funds have grown only an average of 0.9% annually.
He reviewed the result of applying the pre-1995 funding scenario (funded on a per head basis) to 2009:
SHD’s discretionary need
~ $10 million
Subtract TB control
- $1.5 million
Subtract LCDF (State funding)
- $ 794,686
Revenue to split
$7,678,849
Snohomish County population
686,300
2009 need
$11.19/person
1995 need
$ 7.48/person
Need for revenue only increased at 3% annual growth
Councilmember Orvis pointed out the county was currently providing $1,528,530 which for the 318,685
population equated to $4.80/person. The cities (via the State) were providing $2,258,207 which for the
367,615 population equated to $6.14/person; the SHD needs $11.19/person.
Councilmember Orvis provided an analogy of the Health District (HD) by comparing a firefighter to the
fire inspection. The firefighter put fires out, rescues people and save lives; the fire inspector stops fires
before they happen and saves lives (but less glamorously). The SHD is a lot like the fire inspector. For
example when someone has a heart attack they call the paramedics; the SHD wants citizens not to need
the paramedics by funding preventative programs such as smoking cessation, health education and
partners in child care, First Steps and clinical services. The SHD wants people never to have to see a
doctor (other than checkups) by providing restaurant inspections to keep food safe, septic inspections to
August 26, 2008
Page 7
keep water safe, immunizations, and communicable disease control. He explained the SHD was also like
the firefighter; SHD personnel risk exposure to harmful elements they are protecting the public from via
disease control including TB, Pandemic Influenza and West-Nile virus; toxic cleanup including improper
garbage disposal, meth lab cleanup and septic clean up/ and disaster programs. He emphasized the SHD
was serving Edmonds citizens, displaying an aerial map of the Lynnwood/Edmonds area and identifying
the location of the Lynnwood clinic.
Councilmember Orvis reviewed the following information:
Program
Services Provided
Environmental Health
Inspection of water, food, septic
tanks and monitors toxic waste
Communicable Disease
TB control, STD control, disease
outbreak monitoring (such as
Pandemic Influenza)
First Steps, vaccines, child health,
tobacco
cessation,
injury
prevention, health education
Community Health
Predominate
funding
Fees
Discretionary
funds
Grants matched
by discretionary
funds
Cuts?
Will escape most cuts
because can raise $900,000 in
fees
Vulnerable to cuts because of
little grant matching (except
PHEPR)
Requires cuts of $2-3 to save
one dollar
He listed numerous SHD environmental health, communicable disease and community health programs
that were venerable to cuts, emphasizing the importance of all the programs to the public health and that
cuts would have a negative impact on public health.
He reviewed cuts proposed by the SHD Health Officer that would save $1.6 million and minimize the
impact on public health, pointing out the elimination of some programs also would result in $800,000 in
lost grants:
• Environmental Health: increase fees, cut 1 FTE to support small public water systems and
eliminate West-Nile Virus program (1 FTE)
• Communicable Disease: Cut 3 FTE from TB control (from 14 FTE to 11 FTE) and eliminate the
STD Clinic (2 FTE)
• Community Health: Eliminate First Steps (11.8 FTE) and Parent Child Health (1 FTE), 40% cut
in vaccine preventable diseases (6 FTE), and tobacco prevention (0.6 FTE)
He referred to a recent newspaper article regarding a confirmed TB case at Alderwood Mall. He
displayed a graph of the death rate for infectious diseases from 1900-2000 that illustrated a decrease in
the rate, largely due to health districts which via prevention save lives. He emphasized the importance of
the immunization program.
He referred to a recent newspaper article regarding a Whooping Cough outbreak in Island County,
pointing out it was less expensive to immunize than to treat the disease. He pointed out the potential
economic impact of a major disease outbreak.
Councilmember Orvis reviewed three potential funding scenarios, expressing support for full funding
with fees:
•
•
Full funding: County and cities increase contribution to $11.19/person, county add $6.39/person
($2,036,397) and cities add $5.05/person ($1,856,456). Impact on Edmonds: $204,838
(population 40,760). Funding source: New cable TV taxes
Full funding (with fees): SHD increases fees raising $890,000 ($1.30/person), county adds
$5.09/person or $1,6,22,107, cities add $3.75/person or $1,378,556. Impact to Edmonds:
$152,850 (population 40,760). Funding source: New cable TV taxes
August 26, 2008
Page 8
•
Most Funding: SHD increases fees raising $890,000 and cuts $1 million ($2.75/person), county
adds $3.64 per head or $1,160,013, and cities add $2.30/person or $845,514. Impact on Edmonds:
$93,748. Funding source: New cable TV taxes
Councilmember Orvis concluded public health performance was measured by life expectancy and years
of life lost. He emphasized the need for everyone to be a part of funding public health.
Mayor Haakenson thanked Snohomish County Medical Director Dr. Gary Goldbaum for attending
tonight’s meeting. Mayor Haakenson relayed that after yesterday’s public hearing on the Snohomish
County Executive’s plan for cities to contribute $3.64/per resident, Snohomish County Councilmember
Cooper, who did not support cities paying this amount, was working on a plan for Snohomish County to
provide funding and develop a long term plan for funding. Next he referred to Councilmember Orvis’
proposal to use new cable TV taxes to fund the Health District, advising staff had already used cable TV
taxes to help balance the budget for 2009-2010. If those funds were used for the SHD, other cuts would
need to be made to the City’s budget.
Council President Plunkett questioned whether Edmonds would be subsidizing other cities if Edmonds
chose to provide the funding and other cities did not. Councilmember Orvis answered yes, advising he
was seeking leadership from the City on this issue. He acknowledged the funding proposal was voluntary
this year and he hoped to be able to legally obligate cities next year. He offered to continue to monitor
the situation with Snohomish County Councilmember Cooper.
For Council President Plunkett, Dr. Goldbaum advised the SHD was moving ahead with plans for a
budget reduction in the 2009 budget of $4.4 million by increasing fees as Councilmember Orvis described
which would generate approximately $800,000-$900,000, leaving a budget deficit of $3.6 million. The
SHD has instituted a hiring freeze; nine positions are currently vacant. Preliminary estimates are that up
to 90 of the existing 262 staff members would need to be laid off. They are moving ahead with plans to
begin the reductions in two phases: in September 2008 the first 35 positions to be cut will be announced
and take affect in November, and a second set of cuts will be announced in November and take affect in
January. He noted the budget was typically not built this early; they were beginning the process based on
what they know regarding the $4.4 million shortfall in 2009.
Councilmember Wambolt commented on his experience at the Lynnwood clinic obtaining immunizations
for trips, commenting those fees had increased significantly but may still be too low. He recalled when he
went to China, the cost for vaccinations was $500. He questioned whether the clinic was serving many
people who paid nothing. Dr. Goldbaum advised a fraction of the cost of travel immunizations was labor;
the bulk was the cost of the immunizations themselves. He advised the travel clinic was quite small, did
not generate a great deal of revenue and was fully self-supported. He advised sliding fees applied to
people seeking Whooping Cough, Measles, and polio vaccines; the cost of the vaccines were subsidized
by the State but the labor costs were not.
Councilmember Wambolt asked how much of a problem illegal immigrants were. Dr. Goldbaum
explained people were not screened on the basis of legal status in the US. Anyone in the US was
breathing the same air, drinking the same water, potentially sharing the same food; therefore, the public’s
health was protected by the SHD ensuring that everyone, legal or illegal, remained healthy.
Councilmember Wambolt clarified he was not inferring illegal immigrants should not be treated but that
they may be one of the reasons the SHD’s expenses were increasing. Mr. Goldbaum responded only a
fraction of their clients were foreign-born, the majority were US-born.
Councilmember Wambolt asked the rationale for the discretionary need of $10 million. Councilmember
Orvis responded the HD currently receives $6.4 million and has a $4.4 million deficit.
August 26, 2008
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson asked if State law mandates the county fund the HD. Dr. Goldbaum stated the
counties were responsible for public health funding. Councilmember Wilson noted if the cities provided
funding to the SHD, they would be subsidizing Snohomish County and their responsibility to fund the
HD. Dr. Goldbaum pointed out the State law that established that responsibility was based on a different
structure; counties’ financial bases were shrinking as unincorporated areas were annexed. The current
challenge was to identify an equitable statewide funding source which was the original intent of MVET.
He noted this was not happening in just Snohomish County but in all 39 counties across Washington
State. He concluded in a sense the cities would be subsidizing the county but the citizens in cities were
actually not contributing at the same rate as citizens in unincorporated areas. Councilmember Orvis asked
for a reference to a specific RCW, recalling the county was required to provide funding for TB.
Councilmember Wilson relayed that Snohomish County General Fund budget was $700 million and their
deficit was $9 million or 1.2%, significantly less than the City’s budget which is forecast to have an 8.5%
deficit. He suggested the percentage difference between the county and the city’s deficit be emphasized
to the Snohomish County Council. He was in favor of funding the HD if it fit within the City’s priorities.
Council President Plunkett asked Councilmember Orvis to research whether State law required the county
fund the HD or only TB. Dr. Goldbaum commented it was his understating TB was called out but that
public health was the county’s responsibility. He reminded that diseases did not respect cities’
boundaries; the challenge over the next year in view of this public health crisis was to identify a long
term, equitable statewide solution. To accomplish this, he anticipated action at the State legislature would
be required and recommended cities actively support that effort.
Mayor Haakenson observed the HD’s revenue shortfall was due to the loss of MVET and the backfill
revenue. Cities were in the same position as the loss of MVET and backfill had the same affect on their
finances.
8.
COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Council President Plunkett reported the Downtown Parking Committee was informed there was now a
full staff of parking enforcement officers. In June, before staffing was complete, 57 parking tickets were
issued; since an additional officer was added, 143 parking tickets were issued in July. He explained the
objective of parking tickets was to rotate vehicles so that visitors and shoppers could conveniently park
downtown. He relayed the Parking Committee’s thanks to the Council and Mayor for their support of
parking enforcement. Mayor Haakenson commented when parking enforcement increased, he received
numerous complaints.
Councilmember Wambolt reported at the August 11 Port meeting there was a presentation by the
Edmonds Seal Sitters who patrol the beach from Caspers to the dog beach to care for seals in distress. He
suggested they provide a presentation to the Council. In addition, the Port passed a resolution giving the
Executive Director authority to issue Public Works contracts without bids in emergencies and to spend up
to $1500 for sponsorship of the Governor’s Economic and Workforce Development conference. At the
August 25 meeting the Commission was provided a quarterly budget report that indicated their net
income was higher than budgeted. They were also informed Sound Transit was delaying renting a
parking area from the Port from September 1, 2008 to January 1, 2009. He anticipated this would also tie
up the Skippers property longer.
Councilmember Wambolt relayed a report from Commissioner Burkhart that the Woodway Town
Council was questioning the benefit of Woodway residents being part of the Port and why they were
paying property taxes to the Port. Councilmember Wambolt advised Woodway could not withdraw from
August 26, 2008
Page 10
the Port unless approved by the State. He anticipated if Woodway were able to withdraw, Edmonds
residents’ property taxes for the Port would increase.
Councilmember Olson reported she attended a Community Technology Advisory Committee meeting;
they plan to provide a report to the Council next week.
Councilmember Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum met today. A scope of work for a consultant
has been developed and a staff committee identified and recommended a consultant to move the five
cities and Snohomish County forward. Because Edmonds is the lead agency, Council approval of the
Interlocal Agreement is to be scheduled on the Consent Agenda on September 16.
9.
MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported last Saturday City Clerk Sandy Chase, her staff and the Police Department
hosted a very successful shredding event at Top Foods; participation between 9:00 - 12:00 p.m. increased
from 200 cars last year to 600 cars this year. He commended Ms. Chase for organizing the event.
Mayor Haakenson advised on August 18 the Council held a mini-retreat that included discussion
regarding the budget process. As promised at that meeting, staff will present new revenue sources and fee
increases at the September 2 meeting. Potential revenue sources to be discussed, that the Council could
enact themselves without a vote of the people, include the following: Increasing the utility tax on Cityoperated utilities to 7%, increasing the cable TV utility tax to 6%, increasing all Development Service
Department fees, an increase in the business license fee, parking enforcement revenue, Transportation
Benefit District, EMS transport user fees, and B&O tax. Staff will also present to the Council potential
revenue sources that would require a public vote including a utility tax increase on non-City operated
utilities, a general property tax levy lid lift, gambling and the Fire Authority.
10.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wambolt stated there appeared to be a great deal of graffiti downtown. He reminded that
citizens were responsible for removing graffiti in a timely manner. He suggested any questions be
directed to Public Works, Development Services or the Police Department. Mayor Haakenson reported
on Saturday night the police caught the graffiti artists responsible for much of the graffiti.
Councilmember Wilson encouraged citizens to support local events including the upcoming Running of
the Balls, a SnoKing Youth Club event, on September 6 & 7 and the first ever Edmonds Green Festival
on September 13 & 14. He commented a number of local businesses had changed ownership or closed in
the past six months and there had been talk among proprietors and at the Chamber about leaving
Edmonds. There have also been a number of great new retailers open in Edmonds. He urged Edmonds
citizens to support local businesses as dollars spent locally helped the community at large.
Mayor Haakenson also provided a reminder about the car show on September 6 & 7.
11.
ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
August 26, 2008
Page 11
AM-1761
Approval of Claim Checks
2.D.
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Debbie Karber
Department:
Administrative Services
Review Committee:
Action:
Approved for Consent Agenda
Time:
Type:
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #106461 through #106637 for August 28, 2008 in the amount of
$698,636.97.
Approval of claim 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: 2008
Revenue:
Expenditure: $698,636.97
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $698,636.97
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 8-28-08
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: Debbie
Karber
Date
Status
08/28/2008 10:19 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 10:25 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 11:02 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/28/2008 09:49
AM
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106461
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
1
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/22/2008 070523 G4 CONSULTING INC
Invoice
0283
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
TRAINING/LEIN
TRAINING/LEIN
411.000.656.538.800.490.71
210.00
210.00
Total :
106462
8/22/2008 069198 PNCWA WESTERN WA REGION
08212008
TRAINING/MOORS/SEBERS/CLAY/AMBURGEY
TRAINING/MOORS/SEBERS/CLAY/AMBURGEY
411.000.656.538.800.490.71
1,220.00
Total :
1,220.00
106463
8/28/2008 068201 ACTIVE NETWORK LTD
1000000967
Class receipt paper for DSD
Class receipt paper for DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
62.06
62.06
Total :
106464
8/28/2008 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES
08-413
08-414
106465
8/28/2008 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC
101255195
JANITORIAL SERVICE
JANITORIAL SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23
JANITORIAL/FLOORING MAINT.
JANITORIAL/FLOORING MAINT.
411.000.656.538.800.410.23
Total :
334.00
273.33
607.33
M5Z34
CARBON MONOXIDE
411.000.656.538.800.310.11
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.11
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11
386.53
17.50
36.36
440.39
Total :
106466
8/28/2008 068857 AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC
918549
FAC ASBESTOS PROF SVC THROUGH - 8/2/08
FAC ASBESTOS PROF SVC THROUGH - 8/2/08
116.000.651.519.920.410.00
157.94
Page:
1
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
068857 AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC(Continued)
8/28/2008 068857
106467
8/28/2008 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
161846-080601
180853-070603
8/28/2008 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE
ANDERSON0824
Amount
Total :
157.94
APA Membership - Machuga 2008-2009
APA Membership - Machuga 2008-2009
001.000.620.558.600.490.00
APA Membership Lien, K. 2008-2009
APA Membership Lien, K. 2008-2009
001.000.620.558.600.490.00
Total :
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00
106470
8/28/2008 069751 ARAMARK
8/28/2008 069751 ARAMARK
655-3828004
655-3828007
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
8/28/2008 069751 ARAMARK
655-3803268
34.04
3.03
37.07
8.57
104.90
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
FLEET UNIFORM SVC
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00
22.40
1.99
Page:
230.00
340.00
96.33
Total :
106471
110.00
210.00
210.00
Total :
106469
2
front
106466
106468
Page:
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
2
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106471
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
3
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 069751 ARAMARK
Invoice
(Continued)
655-3810262
655-3812150
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
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
40.44
3.60
19.50
1.74
Page:
3
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106471
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
4
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 069751 ARAMARK
Invoice
(Continued)
655-3812151
655-3812152
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
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00
STREET/STORM 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
1.75
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
0.16
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.60
3.24
3.24
0.29
0.29
Page:
4
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106471
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
5
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 069751 ARAMARK
Invoice
(Continued)
655-3819162
655-3821057
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
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
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
40.44
3.60
1.75
6.65
6.65
0.16
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.60
6.65
6.65
6.65
Page:
5
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106471
106472
106473
106474
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 069751 ARAMARK
8/28/2008 065553 ASCE
8/28/2008 064343 AT&T
8/28/2008 065950 ATS ELECTRO-LUBE INTL INC
Invoice
(Continued)
655-3821058
Shuster Registration
425-771-0152
54558
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
STREET STORM 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
Total :
3.24
3.24
0.29
0.29
224.07
Low Impact Dvlp Conf.Shuster
Low Impact Dvlp Conf.Shuster
001.000.620.532.200.490.00
Total :
395.00
395.00
Total :
35.13
35.13
STATION #16 FAX
STATION #16 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
1870
BATTERYPACK
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
432.00
30.00
462.00
Total :
106475
6
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
46622
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
Page:
6
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106475
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
UB Outsourcing area #100 printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
411.000.655.535.800.490.00
UB Outsourcing area #100 postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
UB Outsourcing area #100 postage
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 :
106476
106477
7
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST
8/28/2008 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC
September 2008
376424
90.87
90.87
91.13
282.82
282.82
8.18
8.18
8.20
863.07
SEPTEMBER 2008 AWC PREMIUMS
09/08 Fire Pension AWC Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00
09/08 Retirees AWC Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00
09/08 Gaydos AWC Premiums
001.000.510.526.100.230.00
09/08 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00
Total :
4,372.20
25,172.60
1,107.13
289,784.45
320,436.38
FAC MAINT - PRINTING AND BONDING
FAC MAINT - PRINTING AND BONDING
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Page:
287.70
25.61
7
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
8
Page:
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
106477
8/28/2008 066673
066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC
106478
8/28/2008 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
661349-01
Amount
Total :
313.31
INV #661349-01 - EDMONDS PD
UNIFORM PANTS/KAMKA
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00
Total :
217.00
19.53
236.53
106479
8/28/2008 068434 BRAUN NORTHWEST INC
9783
UNIT 484 - BUMPER CENTER, ALUM GRATING,
UNIT 484 - BUMPER CENTER, ALUM GRATING,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
401.84
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
30.94
Total :
432.78
106480
8/28/2008 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
BROCKMANN9522
YOGA CLASSES
YOGA #9522
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
YOGA #9523
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
YOGA #9524
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
168.00
282.10
477.40
927.50
Total :
106481
8/28/2008 071510 BUCK, ALICIA
BUCK9701
ART FOR KIDZ
MINI MARKERS #9701
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
MINI MARKERS #9843
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
280.00
280.00
560.00
Total :
106482
8/28/2008 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
285286
STREET/WATER/SEWER - CRUSHED ROCK
Page:
8
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106482
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
9
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
774.87
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
774.87
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
1,549.75
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
68.96
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
68.96
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
137.93
Total :
3,375.34
106483
8/28/2008 071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE
CAMPBELL9695
KAYAKING
INTRODUCTORY KAYAKING @ MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
202.05
Total :
202.05
106484
8/28/2008 068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS
9415722971
STORM - CONCRETE DUMPED
STORM - CONCRETE DUMPED
411.000.652.542.320.490.00
STREET - ASPHALT
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
STREET - ASPHALT
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
9415722974
9415732035
61.10
767.85
69.11
730.35
65.73
Page:
9
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106484
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 068484 CEMEX / RINKER MATERIALS
Invoice
(Continued)
9415741382
9415755948
9415763223
9415771189
9415796775
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
STREET - ASPHALT
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
STREET - ASPHALT
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
STREET - ASPHALT
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
STREET - ASPHALT
STREET - ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
STREET -ASPHALT
STREET -ASPHALT
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
712.50
64.13
487.50
43.88
455.70
39.19
375.00
33.75
494.23
44.49
4,444.51
Total :
106485
8/28/2008 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
LY 134412
WATER - CARBON DIOXIDE
WATER - CARBON DIOXIDE
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
41.18
3.67
44.85
Total :
106486
10
City of Edmonds
LY135062
ALS SUPPLIES
Page:
10
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106486
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Date
Vendor
Invoice
8/28/2008 072333 CGI TECHNOLOGIES & SOLUTIONS
8/28/2008 064690 CHAMPION BOLT & SUPPLY INC
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
LY135066
106488
11
front
LY135065
106487
Page:
City of Edmonds
Y06W0464
489946
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
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
67.28
17.50
7.55
98.52
17.50
10.32
33.64
17.50
Total :
4.55
274.36
Total :
1,890.00
1,890.00
Sharepoint Set Up Services
Sharepoint Set Up Services
001.000.310.518.880.410.00
9999
NUTS & BOLTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
33.12
2.84
Page:
11
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106488
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 064690 CHAMPION BOLT & SUPPLY INC
Invoice
(Continued)
490146
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
EDM00001
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
NUTS & BOLTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
11.52
133.90
181.38
Total :
106489
12
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
460219627
460224924
460224925
460226058
UNIFORMS
18" towels
001.000.510.522.410.310.00
volunteer uniforms
001.000.510.522.410.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00
UNIFORMS
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00
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
75.00
19.76
6.67
1.76
20.00
1.78
105.58
9.39
111.29
111.30
9.91
9.90
Page:
12
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106489
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
13
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
Invoice
(Continued)
460226079
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
OPS UNIFORMS
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00
134.69
11.98
629.01
Total :
106490
8/28/2008 063902 CITY OF EVERETT
I08001979
WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSIS
WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB ANALYSIS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
1,890.00
Total :
1,890.00
106491
8/28/2008 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
6360
INV#6360 - CUST#45 0 EDMONDS PD
JULY 2008/NEXTEL SERVICE
104.000.410.521.210.420.00
Total :
106492
8/28/2008 070231 CNR INC
54172
Service repair 8/19/08
Service repair 8/19/08
001.000.310.518.880.480.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00
165.00
14.69
179.69
Total :
106493
8/28/2008 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
W1963570
CLEANING SUPPLIES
BREAK UP CLEANER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
170.16
15.14
185.30
Total :
106494
W1960800
FAC MAINT - BLEACH, GLOVES, TT, TOWELS,
FAC MAINT - BLEACH, GLOVES, TT, TOWELS,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
589.75
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
52.49
Page:
53.01
53.01
13
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
106494
8/28/2008 004095
106495
004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
W1964934A
Amount
Total :
642.24
OPS SUPPLIES
stations' cleaning supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
159.75
14.22
173.97
Total :
106496
8/28/2008 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
31224
CODE REVISION
Code Supplements
001.000.250.514.300.410.00
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.410.00
1,149.30
102.29
1,251.59
Total :
106497
14
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
8/28/2008 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS
1033
GFOA - CAFR application
GFOA - CAFR application
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
415.00
Page:
14
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106497
106498
106499
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
15
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
1287
7403
3263
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
N1 Wireless - 12 Bluetooth sets N1 Wireless - 12 Bluetooth sets 001.000.620.532.200.420.00
Marquel.com - 4 Blackberry holsters - IT
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
N1 wireless.com - 4 Bluetooth - St Dept
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
Accessory Geek - Vehicle charger - IT
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
Accossory Geek - Vehicle charge - IT
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
HP - Duplexer Accessory for Station 16
001.000.310.518.880.310.00
iceweb - subscription & user fee
001.000.310.518.880.490.00
iceweb - Subcription package maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.480.00
State of WA - Registration C Nelson
001.000.310.518.880.490.00
Total :
TIMER/ANDERSON-BOLDS
TIMER/ANDERSON-BOLDS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
PIPE BENDER/HARBOR FREIGHT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
BLUETOOTH/VERIZON
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
SEALANT/BALLAR HARDWARE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
BLUETOOTH/VERIZON
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
Total :
82.80
276.96
30.09
9.99
83.85
64.85
29.95
15.00
1,840.37
93.51
161.81
209.21
63.15
98.10
625.78
ACCT #3263 S OBRIEN
Page:
831.88
15
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106499
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
16
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
8272
8298
9237
Glow bracelets - Prevention
001.000.410.521.300.310.00
Gloves, Cups, Labels, LabelWriter
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
ACCT #8272 - EDMONDS PD
Verizon Wireless - Cell Phone Holder
001.000.410.521.300.310.00
Office Max - Record Ledger
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
Nik's Transportation - RT Smith NASRO
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
Meal RT Smith NASPO Conf. Phoenix AZ
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
Lodging RT Smith NASPO Conf. Phoenix AZ
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
ACCT #8298 - M BARD
Registration - K Ploeger The Ultimate
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
Registration - R Ramseur The Ultimate
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
2 LED Flashlights w/sleeves & ehicle
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
Engraving - C&M Trophy
001.000.410.521.100.410.00
ACCT 9237 J LAWLESS
Keys & Locks for Radar Trailer
001.000.410.521.220.310.00
Page:
87.39
418.73
16.33
14.80
54.00
105.87
741.00
129.00
129.00
201.96
12.41
24.50
16
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106499
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
17
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
9821
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
ACCT #9821 EDMONDS PD
Camera Repair
001.000.410.521.100.480.00
Meal - LP Miller Adv Ace-V Application
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
Lodging - LP Miller Adv Ace-V
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
Meal - LP Miller Adv Ace-V Application
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
Fuel - LP Miller Adv Ace-V Application
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
Total :
274.43
123.24
695.45
11.45
38.41
3,077.97
106500
3527
OFFICE MAX - FS 16 - CHAIR MAT
OFFICE MAX - FS 16 - CHAIR MAT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
45.77
BLUEVOLT - ONLINE NEC CLASS
001.000.651.519.920.490.00
89.00
BLUEVOLT - ONLINE GROUNDING & BONDING
001.000.651.519.920.490.00
50.00
INDEPENDENT ELECTIRAL - ONLINE CLASS
001.000.651.519.920.490.00
200.00
Total :
384.77
106501
8/28/2008 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE
CRAM9407
IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+ #9407
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #9413
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #9414
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
Total :
106502
8/28/2008 005850 CRETIN, LAWRENCE
CRETIN0823
140.00
95.20
168.00
403.20
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
Page:
17
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106502
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
18
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 005850 CRETIN, LAWRENCE
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00
145.00
145.00
Total :
106503
106504
106505
106506
106507
8/28/2008 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS
8/28/2008 072189 DATA SITE BUSINESS ARCHIVES
8/28/2008 063064 DEZURIK WATER CONTROLS
8/28/2008 071836 DMI DRILLING CONSTRUCTION
0808 2989771
60036
RPI/54005844
2007 Storm Use Tax
8/28/2008 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 2008041
INV #0808 2989771 5374044 -EDMONDS PD
COOLER RENTAL/DRINKING WATER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00
Total :
Shred Cabinet June-08
001.000.250.514.300.410.00
001.000.310.514.230.410.00
10.00
Total :
10.00
20.00
Total :
292.04
292.04
982400
VALVE ACTUATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
E7FH.Use Tax (Paid by Contractor)
112.200.630.542.000.480.00
412.200.630.594.320.480.00
E7FI.Use Tax (Paid by Contractor)
412.200.630.594.320.480.00
E7FK.Use Tax (Paid by Contractor)
112.200.630.542.000.480.00
E7FK.Use Tax (Paid by Contractor)
412.200.630.594.320.480.00
Total :
1,555.03
1,555.02
134.48
2,860.38
2,860.38
8,965.29
Prof Serv - Bld Div
Page:
69.48
69.48
18
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106507
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
8/28/2008 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS (Continued)
Prof Serv - Bld Div
001.000.620.524.100.410.00
Total :
106508
106509
106510
8/28/2008 068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS
8/28/2008 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL
8/28/2008 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
3071473
08-09372
98802
14,455.69
14,455.69
SEWER INVENTORY - ~
SEWER INVENTORY - ~
411.000.655.535.800.340.00
LAMPHOLE FRAME & LIDS~
411.000.655.535.800.340.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.340.00
1,362.00
444.00
Total :
160.73
1,966.73
WATER QUALITY LAB SAMPLES
WATER QUALITY LAB SAMPLES
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
Total :
884.00
884.00
SUPPLIES
DRAIN PLUG
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
4.99
0.44
5.43
Total :
106511
19
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
97231
98487
UNIT EQ37PO - BLACK HAMMERED PAINT
UNIT EQ37PO - BLACK HAMMERED PAINT
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
SEWER SUPPLIES
SEWER SUPPLIES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
Page:
9.88
0.88
17.98
1.60
19
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
Page:
20
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
106511
8/28/2008 007675
007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
106512
8/28/2008 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
14918
Amount
Total :
30.34
UPS BROWN & CALDWELL
UPS BROWN & CALDWELL
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
8.34
0.74
9.08
Total :
106513
8/28/2008 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO
R21726
WATER - 1000 GREEN BACK FLOW CARDS
WATER - 1000 GREEN BACK FLOW CARDS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
159.00
1000 WHITE METER CARDS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
148.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
27.32
Total :
334.32
106514
8/28/2008 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL
167276
INV#167276 - CLIENT ID#308/EDMONDS
EXAM,VACCINE/K9 DASH
001.000.410.521.260.410.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.410.00
Total :
106515
8/28/2008 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
1-00575
1-00825
1-00875
1-02125
CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
SPRINKLER
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
8.24
157.86
326.82
839.36
30.37
55.89
Page:
149.62
20
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106515
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
21
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
1-03900
1-05125
1-05285
1-05340
1-05650
1-05675
1-05700
1-09650
1-09800
1-10780
1-16130
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
SPRINKLER
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
SPRINKLER
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
CORNER PARK
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
EDMONDS CITY PARK
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
EDMONDS CITY PARK
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
CORNER PARK
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
PLANTER
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
34.02
59.54
21.25
41.31
21.25
662.49
105.12
55.89
44.96
44.96
59.54
Page:
21
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106515
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
22
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
1-16450
1-16630
1-17475
1-19950
1-36255
2-25150
2-25175
2-28275
2-37180
8-40000
106516
Page:
City of Edmonds
1-00650
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
WATER
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
SPRINKLER
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
MINI PARK
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
WATER
23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
Total :
LIFT STATION #7
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
43.13
41.31
43.19
28.55
32.19
50.42
39.49
29.67
3,240.01
6,069.09
21.25
Page:
118.36
22
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106516
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
23
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
1-00925
1-01950
1-02675
1-03950
1-05350
1-05705
1-13975
1-14000
4-34080
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
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
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
LIFT STATION #14
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
Total :
21.25
21.25
21.25
330.09
91.61
43.27
360.65
90.86
21.25
1,022.73
106517
8/28/2008 072395 ETZLER, DONALD & CLAUDIA
PLN20070092
MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR $560 WAS NOT
MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR $560 WAS NOT
001.000.000.257.620.000.00
560.00
Total :
560.00
106518
8/28/2008 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C
7270
FS 16 - SERVICE AND REPAIR ON 7 HVAC
Page:
23
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106518
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C
Invoice
8/28/2008 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
WAMOU13998
WAMOU14014
WAMOU14125
FS 16 - SERVICE AND REPAIR ON 7 HVAC
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
955.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
85.00
FS 16 - SERVICE AND REPAIR EPA PUMP
FS 16 - SERVICE AND REPAIR EPA PUMP
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
1,568.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00
139.55
Total :
2,747.55
SUPPLIES
MISC. SHOP SUPPLIES
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
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
237.12
21.10
143.70
12.79
14.98
1.32
431.01
Total :
106520
24
front
7271
106519
Page:
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 065427 FCS GROUP
1407-2807027
WATER SEWER STORM RATE UPDATE
6/25-7/25/08 Water, Sewer & Stormwater
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
Page:
1,209.60
1,579.20
571.20
24
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106520
106521
106522
106523
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
25
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 065427 FCS GROUP
8/28/2008 072405 FESTA, ALIZA
8/28/2008 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200
8/28/2008 072406 GASPERS, PAMELA
Invoice
(Continued)
1407-2808003
FESTA0821
211593
GASPERS0821
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
WATER SEWER STORM RATE UPDATE
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
Total :
REFUND
REFUND/SWIMMING
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
806.40
1,052.80
380.80
5,600.00
Total :
5.50
5.50
TENANT #101706 / LEASE 00001918
Sept 08 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent
001.000.390.519.900.450.00
Total :
300.00
300.00
REFUND
REFUND/SWIMMING
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
5.50
5.50
Total :
106524
8/28/2008 072413 GILLIHAN, NICOLE
GILLIHAN0819
REFUND
REFUND - RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
340.00
Total :
340.00
106525
8/28/2008 072414 GIORDANO, JULIE
GIORDANO0818
REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
80.00
Total :
80.00
106526
8/28/2008 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA
GLEISNER9579
TAI CHI CLASSES
Page:
25
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106526
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
TAI CHI #9579
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
TAI CHI #9570
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
QIGONG #9582
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
TAI CHI #9577
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
1,188.00
141.75
330.75
425.25
2,085.75
Total :
106527
106528
26
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 012199 GRAINGER
8/28/2008 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC
9712513234
06713.00-21
SUPPLIES
SAFETY CANS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
286.74
Total :
25.52
312.26
Total :
17,378.72
17,378.72
E6DA.Services thru06/28/08
E6DA.Services thru06/28/08
125.000.640.594.750.410.00
106529
8/28/2008 067615 GTS INTERIOR SUPPLY
4270479-00
CITY HALL PROJECT - SANDER ATTATCHMENT,
CITY HALL PROJECT - SANDER ATTATCHMENT,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
496.88
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
42.74
Total :
539.62
106530
8/28/2008 012555 H & L SPORTING GOODS
8257
SOFTBALLS
SOFTBALLS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00
808.50
71.96
880.46
Total :
Page:
26
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106531
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
27
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE
Invoice
220675
222163
223462
223463
223466
223469
223471
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 100 - LOCK SETS
UNIT 100 - LOCK SETS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT EQ37PO- HEADLAMP
UNIT EQ37PO- HEADLAMP
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
UNIT EQ37PO - REPAIR SUPPLIES
UNIT EQ37PO - REPAIR SUPPLIES
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
UNIT EQ36PO - OIL AND FILTERS
UNIT EQ36PO - OIL AND FILTERS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
UNIT EQ37PO - TOUR PAK HARNESS
UNIT EQ37PO - TOUR PAK HARNESS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
EQ37PO - PEACE TOUCH-UP KIT
EQ37PO - PEACE TOUCH-UP KIT
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
UNIT EQ37PO - MIRRORS
UNIT EQ37PO - MIRRORS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Page:
44.78
3.99
71.19
6.33
72.76
6.45
255.00
22.70
74.48
6.63
18.39
1.64
55.98
4.98
27
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106531
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
28
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE
Invoice
PO #
(Continued)
223472
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT EQ37PO - HEADLAMPS
UNIT EQ37PO - HEADLAMPS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
UNIT EQ37PO - ASSEMBLY SUPPLIES
UNIT EQ37PO - ASSEMBLY SUPPLIES
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Total :
223473
75.99
6.76
483.81
43.04
1,254.90
106532
8/28/2008 012900 HARRIS FORD INC
FOCS242590
UNIT 128 - DIAG & REPAIR OF ALIGNMENT
UNIT 128 - DIAG & REPAIR OF ALIGNMENT
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
365.60
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00
32.54
Total :
398.14
106533
8/28/2008 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC
39634-H
E4GA.Services thru 08/02/08
E4GA.Services thru 08/02/08
412.300.630.594.320.650.00
E7AC.Services thru 08/02/08
E7AC.Services thru 08/02/08
112.200.630.595.440.410.00
40582-H
10,253.20
Total :
106534
8/28/2008 069164 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
44734389
310-00100
106535
8/28/2008 072407 HOLLINGBERY, JAMIE
HOLLINGBERY0821
6,232.33
16,485.53
ITEM KR890UABA WHICH REPLACES AK589US#AB
Item #KR890UA#ABA which replaces ~
001.000.410.521.100.350.00
1,289.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.350.00
114.72
Total :
1,403.72
REFUND
Page:
28
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106535
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 072407 HOLLINGBERY, JAMIE
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
REFUND/SWIMMING
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
27.50
27.50
Total :
106536
29
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
1081370
1580520
1580541
2034843
2041130
2047039
YOST POOL - PLASTIC BAGS
YOST POOL - PLASTIC BAGS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
STREET - GROMETS FOR SIGN SHOP
STREET - GROMETS FOR SIGN SHOP
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
CITY HALL - TANK LEVER
CITY HALL - TANK LEVER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
PLAZA- SUPPLIES
PLAZA- SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
YOST POOL - WOOD SUPPLIES
YOST POOL - WOOD SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
RANGER STATION - 10K PORT A/C
RANGER STATION - 10K PORT A/C
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.350.310.00
Page:
9.80
0.88
14.80
1.33
6.99
0.62
35.17
3.16
22.43
2.02
399.00
35.91
29
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106536
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
30
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
3046704
32784
4085954
5090086
580676
6085275
6193901
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
FS 16 - WALL REPAIR SUPPLIES
FS 16 - WALL REPAIR SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
37.16
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
3.34
FAC MAINT SHOP & UNIT 5 - PAINT SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT SHOP & UNIT 5 - PAINT SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
63.29
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
5.70
SEWER - RETRAC KNIVES(3)
SEWER - RETRAC KNIVES(3)
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
10.44
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
0.94
FAC MAINT SHOP - FLY CATCHER
FAC MAINT SHOP - FLY CATCHER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.29
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
0.11
FAC MAINT - TAPE, CORD
FAC MAINT - TAPE, CORD
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
24.44
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
2.20
PS - SUPPLIES
PS - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
14.81
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
1.33
WATER - GRASS SUPPLIES
WATER - GRASS SUPPLIES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
42.20
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
3.80
Page:
30
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106536
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
31
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
6586855
6594064
7042630
7586687
8030487
8565708
9030070
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
FAC - BATTERIES, SUPPLIES
FAC - BATTERIES, SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
FS 20 - LIQ NAIL
FS 20 - LIQ NAIL
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
PLAZA ROOM - REPAIR SUPPLIES
PLAZA ROOM - REPAIR SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
STREET - PAINT AND SUPPLIES
STREET - PAINT AND SUPPLIES
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
FLEET SHOP - TECH TORCH AND SUPPLIES
FLEET SHOP - TECH TORCH AND SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
PS - SUPPLIES
PS - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
STREET PROJECT C228CT960 - NUTS AND
STREET PROJECT C228CT960 - NUTS AND
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00
Page:
9.46
0.85
2.87
0.25
97.60
8.78
52.10
4.68
32.29
2.90
27.64
2.48
14.04
1.26
31
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106536
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
32
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
9041900
9041922
9044676
9044723
9102287
9264021
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
PS - KICKPLATES
PS - KICKPLATES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
STREET - EXPAN JT, FLOAT FOR OVD PROJ
STREET - EXPAN JT, FLOAT FOR OVD PROJ
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00
PLAZA - SINK STRAINER
PLAZA - SINK STRAINER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
FS 17 - SUPPLIES
FS 17 - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
PS - KICK PLATES FOR DOORS
PS - KICK PLATES FOR DOORS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
FAC MAINT UNIT 5 - CUTTER, SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Page:
29.94
2.69
8.34
0.75
13.96
1.25
5.95
0.53
12.45
1.12
29.94
24.95
4.94
32
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106536
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
33
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
(Continued)
FCH-002833096
Description/Account
Amount
PW - SVC FEE
PW - SVC FEE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
PW - SVC FEE
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
PW - SVC FEE
111.000.653.542.900.310.00
PW - SVC FEE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1,157.17
Total :
106537
8/28/2008 072415 HOWE, JULIE
HOWE0819
REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
2.00
Total :
2.00
106538
8/28/2008 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
19265
E5GA.L S 13 Material Testing thru
E5GA.L S 13 Material Testing thru
412.300.630.594.320.650.00
Total :
106539
8/28/2008 072041 IBS INCORPORATED
407659-1
408214-1
F
2,684.19
2,684.19
SHOP SUPPLIES - PROF DRILL BITS
SHOP SUPPLIES - PROF DRILL BITS
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
193.31
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
7.68
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
17.88
SHOP - RETURNED PROF DRILL BITS FOR CR
SHOP - RETURNED PROF DRILL BITS FOR CR
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
-193.31
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
-7.68
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
-17.88
Page:
33
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106539
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
106541
106542
34
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 072041 IBS INCORPORATED
Invoice
(Continued)
408215-1
410183-1
106540
Page:
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES
8/28/2008 067066 IMSA NW CONFERENCE
8/28/2008 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM
77203067
104310
010494746
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
FLEET SHOP - PROF DRILL BITS
FLEET SHOP - PROF DRILL BITS
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
FLEET SHOP - DRILL BITS
FLEET SHOP - DRILL BITS
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Total :
168.72
7.68
15.70
183.36
7.13
16.95
399.54
INV 77203067 EDMONDS PD
RENT BILLING 8/13/08 TO 9/12/08
001.000.410.521.100.450.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00
Total :
821.73
303.63
100.17
1,225.53
2008 CONF REG & CLASS - D BROWNING
2008 CONF REG & CLASS - D BROWNING
111.000.653.542.310.490.00
2008 CONF REG - GENE EVANS
111.000.653.542.310.490.00
Total :
C/A 010494746
PR1-1 City Phone Service 7/10-8/10/08
001.000.390.528.800.420.00
Page:
380.00
250.00
630.00
824.22
34
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
Date
Vendor
Invoice
8/28/2008 071634
106543
8/28/2008 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE 471614
071634 INTEGRA TELECOM
PO #
106546
106547
8/28/2008 067512 JACO ENVIRONMENTAL INC
8/28/2008 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC
8/28/2008 071273 JOHANNESSEN, LAURI
8/28/2008 072199 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC
Description/Account
(Continued)
472665
106545
35
front
106542
106544
Page:
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
17242
403604
JOHANNESSEN0814
0054893
Amount
Total :
824.22
SHOP SUPPLIES - NOID LITE SET, WASH
SHOP SUPPLIES - NOID LITE SET, WASH
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
SHOP SUPPLIES - LONG HOOKS, FUSE
SHOP SUPPLIES - LONG HOOKS, FUSE
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Total :
FAC MAINT - APPLIANCE RECYCLE
FAC MAINT - APPLIANCE RECYCLE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
STORM - APPLIANCE RECYCLE
411.000.652.542.320.490.00
Total :
4.34
724.19
64.45
841.77
25.00
50.00
75.00
54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53
3,377.19
Total :
297.19
3,674.38
Total :
224.00
224.00
REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
E7AD.Services thru 07/27/08
E7AD.Services thru 07/27/08
112.200.630.595.440.410.00
5,364.99
Page:
48.79
35
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
Page:
36
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
072199 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC (Continued)
Amount
106547
8/28/2008 072199
106548
8/28/2008 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRATION
22908
COURT TRAINING FOR ESPINOZA AND IVANJACK
COURT TRAINING FOR ESPINOZA AND IVANJACK
001.000.230.512.500.490.00
200.00
Total :
200.00
106549
8/28/2008 072416 JUND, SARAH
JUND0819
REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
Total :
106550
8/28/2008 072408 KEIFFER, EMILY
KEIFFER0821
Total :
5,364.99
110.00
110.00
REFUND
REFUND/SWIMMING
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
5.50
5.50
Total :
106551
8/28/2008 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER
KIDZ9427
KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASSES
Page:
36
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106551
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
CLASS #9427
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #9428
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #9429
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #9430
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #9431
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #9432
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #9433
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #9434
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #9435
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #9436
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
CLASS #10197
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
106552
106553
37
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 072417 KIM, SUSAN
KIM0813
8/28/2008 011050 KROGER FRED MEYER CUSTOMER CHR715131
773.50
910.00
1,365.00
1,365.00
500.50
910.00
1,365.00
1,274.00
637.00
364.00
Total :
318.50
9,782.50
Total :
42.00
42.00
REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
OPS SUPPLIES
stations' linen supplies
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00
371.80
33.09
Page:
37
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
011050 KROGER FRED MEYER CUSTOMER CHR
(Continued)
106553
8/28/2008 011050
106554
8/28/2008 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC
340226-001
Amount
Total :
404.89
Rolls Plotter Bond
Rolls Plotter Bond
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
385.00
34.27
419.27
Total :
106555
106556
106557
106558
38
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
8/28/2008 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
8/28/2008 072393 LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSC INC
8/28/2008 070669 LEVENHAGEN, KATHRYN
8/28/2008 072418 LUPO, GINA
080808-01
0801658-IN
LEVEHHAGEN0819
LUPO0819
INV#080808-01- EDMONDS PD
60 BASIC CAR WASHES/JULY 2008
001.000.410.521.220.480.00
2 VAN WASHES/JULY 2008
001.000.410.521.220.480.00
Total :
150.60
10.02
160.62
INV #0801658-IN EDMONDS PD
GRAFFITI CAM W/DVR~
001.000.410.521.210.350.00
HYPERDRIVE SPACE 40GB~
001.000.410.521.210.350.00
B/W CAMERA, LOW LIGHT W/LENS~
001.000.410.521.210.350.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.210.350.00
Total :
7,700.00
199.00
295.00
125.00
8,319.00
REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
Total :
4.00
4.00
REFUND
REFUND OF EPR DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
Total :
Page:
500.00
500.00
38
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106559
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
39
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC
Invoice
554719
554775
554911
554933
554957
554992
555014
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 124 - SPLIT POLY LOOM
UNIT 124 - SPLIT POLY LOOM
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT EQ46PO - HAL LAMP
UNIT EQ46PO - HAL LAMP
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
SWAT BUS 304 - MUFFLER
SWAT BUS 304 - MUFFLER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 129 - TRANS FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 129 - M C LAMP
UNIT 129 - M C LAMP
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 96 - M C LAMP
UNIT 96 - M C LAMP
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 304 - HANGER, HEAT ADHESIVE, TAIL
UNIT 304 - HANGER, HEAT ADHESIVE, TAIL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Page:
14.10
1.25
17.70
1.58
31.91
2.84
24.06
2.14
4.86
0.43
19.44
1.73
39.92
3.55
39
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106559
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
40
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
555173
555249
555301
555307
555311
555365
555371
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
SHOP SUPPLIES - THREADLOCKER
SHOP SUPPLIES - THREADLOCKER
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
UNIT 124 - BULB
UNIT 124 - BULB
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 10 - FLASHER
UNIT 10 - FLASHER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 304 - EXHAUST WRAP
UNIT 304 - EXHAUST WRAP
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 19 - BULB
UNIT 19 - BULB
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 10 - MECH FLASH
UNIT 10 - MECH FLASH
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 30 - BATTERY CLE, HANGER, U BOLT
UNIT 30 - BATTERY CLE, HANGER, U BOLT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Page:
14.69
1.31
13.17
1.17
15.46
1.38
34.59
3.08
24.34
2.17
15.46
1.38
11.34
1.01
40
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106559
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
41
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
555418
555449
555511
555881
556337
556381
556452
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 110 - VOLT REG
UNIT 110 - VOLT REG
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 19 - CM LGT
UNIT 19 - CM LGT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 122 - FULE FILTER
UNIT 122 - FULE FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 55 - WORK LAMP, EMBLEM
UNIT 55 - WORK LAMP, EMBLEM
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 477 - FUEL FILTER
UNIT 477 - FUEL FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT EQ36PO - BULB
UNIT EQ36PO - BULB
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
UNIT 474 - TGL/SW
UNIT 474 - TGL/SW
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
51.70
4.60
27.02
2.40
13.39
1.19
35.30
3.14
6.86
0.61
24.34
2.17
52.91
4.71
Page:
41
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106559
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
42
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
556472
556523
556828
556891
556950
556959
557061
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 474 - OIL FILTER
UNIT 474 - OIL FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
27.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
2.44
FLEET SUPPLIES - SIL GLYDE, THREADLOCKER
FLEET SUPPLIES - SIL GLYDE, THREADLOCKER
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
34.66
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
3.08
UNIT 486 - AIR FLITERS
UNIT 486 - AIR FLITERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
66.08
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
5.88
RETURN SUPPLIES
RETURN SUPPLIES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
-61.67
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
-5.49
UNIT 126 - THREADLOCKER, PTEX THRD SEAL
UNIT 126 - THREADLOCKER, PTEX THRD SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
22.48
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
2.00
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
16.81
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
1.50
UNIT EQ37PO - SPLIT POLY LOOM
UNIT EQ37PO - SPLIT POLY LOOM
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
12.00
Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
1.07
Page:
42
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106559
106560
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 018970 LYNNWOOD DODGE
Invoice
(Continued)
557085
263627-1
263854
106562
43
front
263812-1
106561
Page:
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA
8/28/2008 072403 MAACO COLLISION REPAIR AND
616663
16304
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 86 - WATER PUMP, AIR FILTER
UNIT 86 - WATER PUMP, AIR FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
59.88
5.33
729.85
UNIT 121 - CLAMPS
UNIT 121 - CLAMPS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 90 - BRAKE ROTOR, PAD KIT
UNIT 90 - BRAKE ROTOR, PAD KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 90 - GASKET
UNIT 90 - GASKET
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
20.52
1.82
543.76
48.39
4.42
0.39
619.30
UNIT 304 - OIL SEALS, HONDABOND
UNIT 304 - OIL SEALS, HONDABOND
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
31.06
2.76
33.82
INV #16304- EDMONDS PD
Page:
43
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106562
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 072403 MAACO COLLISION REPAIR AND
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
REPAIR HOLES IN SWAT VEHICLE
001.000.410.521.230.480.00
Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.230.480.00
Total :
106563
44
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
95903198
2,854.51
245.49
3,100.00
123106800
CALCULATOR/SCREWDRIVER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21
Total :
29.74
5.33
35.07
106564
8/28/2008 071392 MEDIA BAY PRODUCTIONS LLC
2007-424
OUTDOOR CINEMA PACKAGE
COMPLETE OUTDOOR CINEMA PACKAGE ~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
2,200.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
198.00
Total :
2,398.00
106565
8/28/2008 064290 MEL'S HAULING
81808
WATER - TOP SOIL
WATER - TOP SOIL
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
106566
106567
8/28/2008 063773 MICROFLEX
8/28/2008 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC
00018005
110150920
64.88
Total :
5.77
70.65
Total :
65.77
65.77
July-08 Tax Audit Program
July-08 Tax Audit Program
001.000.310.514.230.410.00
SHOP SUPPLIES - FREEZE&RELEASE
Page:
44
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106567
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
45
Page:
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
SHOP SUPPLIES - FREEZE&RELEASE
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Total :
106568
8/28/2008 066236 MURRAY, FRAN
MURRAY9593
ECO ON THE GO!
ECO - ON THE GO! #9593
001.000.640.574.350.410.00
8/28/2008 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
0230641-IN
0230913-IN
106570
8/28/2008 066511 NCNIES
CAMERON
WATER/SEWER - O2 SENDOR FOR GX2001
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
WATER/SEWER -LG & XLG HVY DTY NTRLE
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
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 :
6.54
258.10
REG FOR CAMERON 9/22/08
REGISTRATION CAMERON 9/22/08
001.000.410.521.400.490.00
169.00
Page:
0.94
11.87
441.00
441.00
Total :
106569
10.93
45.00
45.00
4.01
4.00
73.50
73.50
6.55
45
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106570
106571
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
106573
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 066511 NCNIES
8/28/2008 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
Invoice
(Continued)
RICHARDSON
0378807-IN
8/28/2008 072032 NORR, JULIE
8/28/2008 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
NORR9449
S2358126.001
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
REG FOR RICHARDSON 9/22/08
REGISTRATION FOR RICHARDSON~
001.000.410.521.400.430.00
Total :
FLEET - FILTER INVENTORY
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40
8/28/2008 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC
0093593
1.43
70.91
Total :
6.31
95.40
Total :
224.00
224.00
WIGGLES & GIGGLES
WIGGLES & GIGGLES #9449
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
2091
LAMP
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
207.60
18.48
226.08
SODIUM BISULFITE
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54
592.50
52.73
645.23
Total :
Page:
169.00
338.00
16.75
Total :
106574
46
front
0378808-IN
106572
Page:
City of Edmonds
46
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106575
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
Invoice
0788646
0796019
106577
8/28/2008 025690 NOYES, KARIN
8/28/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
000 00 573
036226
730664
818986
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
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
92.20
98.02
Total :
98.02
288.24
Total :
384.00
384.00
PB Minutetaker 8-13-08
PB Minutetaker 8-13-08
001.000.620.558.600.410.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES
9 X 12 ENVELOPES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES
TONER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES
PENS, TONER, ETC.
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00
22.07
1.96
168.42
15.16
114.77
10.22
332.60
Total :
106578
47
front
0788647
106576
Page:
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
168544
Paper
Page:
47
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106578
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
Paper
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
2009 Calendar UB Dept
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00
211.32
43.29
22.66
277.27
Total :
106579
8/28/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
105464
130829
131039
106580
48
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
099046
131417
520437
INKJET CARTRIDGES/LOG BOOK
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
520437
LOG BOOK
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
520437
LOG BOOK
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41
Total :
169.94
15.13
-78.04
-6.94
81.11
7.21
188.41
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00
129.38
11.52
-42.64
-3.79
Page:
48
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
Date
Vendor
Invoice
8/28/2008 063511
106581
8/28/2008 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
063511 OFFICE MAX INC
8/28/2008 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE
PO #
106584
8/28/2008 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE
8/28/2008 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
Description/Account
(Continued)
150977
668946
668949
106583
668949
035450
Amount
Total :
94.47
Total :
280.33
280.33
Office Supplies - DSD
Office Supplies - DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00
JULY 08 LEGAL FEES
July -08 Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00
JULY-08 RETAINER FEES
July-08 retainer fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00
30,707.46
Total :
15,691.10
46,398.56
Legislative legal fees - July 2008
Legislative legal fees - July 2008
001.000.110.511.100.410.00
Total :
9,003.70
9,003.70
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
252.40
22.47
274.87
Total :
106585
49
front
106580
106582
Page:
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
8/28/2008 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
00050241
UNIT 55 - FC 90 DEG NOZ
UNIT 55 - FC 90 DEG NOZ
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
216.30
11.51
20.28
Page:
49
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106585
106586
106587
106588
106589
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
8/28/2008 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP
8/28/2008 070003 PAXTON, LAUREL
8/28/2008 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH
8/28/2008 072409 PETOSA, EMILY
Invoice
(Continued)
00050242
072008
PAXTON9356
PECK9562
PETOSA0821
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 55 - SUCTION HOSE
UNIT 55 - SUCTION HOSE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
1,003.72
37.29
Total :
92.65
1,381.75
DC LOBBYIST FOR JULY 2008
DC Lobbyist charges for July 2008
001.000.610.519.700.410.00
Total :
4,000.00
4,000.00
SUMMER THEATER CAMP
SUMMER THEATER CAMP #9356
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
Total :
3,601.50
3,601.50
PILATES
PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT #9562
001.000.640.575.540.410.00
Total :
280.00
280.00
REFUND
REFUND/SWIMMING
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
5.50
5.50
Total :
106590
50
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
7/7-8/26/08
FAC MAINT - MAY-JULY08 MILEAGE ~
Page:
50
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106590
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
51
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
FAC MAINT - MAY-JULY08 MILEAGE ~
001.000.651.519.920.430.00
22.69
FAC MAINT - TRUCK SHARPENER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
19.61
STREET - CDL PHY FEES - B SANDERS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00
55.00
SIGN SHOP - CELL PHONE CASE
111.000.653.542.900.310.00
16.33
WATER QUALITY - VINEGAR
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
21.54
WATER - CROSS CONNECTION CERTIFICATION
411.000.654.534.800.490.00
86.00
WATER - OIL FOR TRUCK
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
4.85
WATER/SEWER OFFICE - FAN
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
17.29
SEWER PUMP ST 2 - PUD INSPECTION FEES
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
66.00
UNITS EQ04,05,07,45PO - LIC FEES
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
131.00
Total :
440.31
106591
8/28/2008 072410 POBLE, EMEYLN
POBLE0821
REFUND
REFUND/SWIMMING
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
5.50
5.50
Total :
106592
106593
8/28/2008 065105 PORT SUPPLY
8/28/2008 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
006796
084-904-700-6
UNIT M16 - SALT AWAY COMBO KIT
UNIT M16 - SALT AWAY COMBO KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
28.19
2.51
30.70
WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Page:
51
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106593
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.656.538.800.472.63
Total :
106594
106595
106596
106597
52
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 031600 RELIABLE FLOOR COVERINGS
8/28/2008 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC
8/28/2008 072419 SCHOBER, MELISSA
8/28/2008 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
110802
48075
SCHOBER0819
03-852737
03-853071
24.79
24.79
PLAZA ROOM - 4" ROPPE (100 LF)
PLAZA ROOM - 4" ROPPE (100 LF)
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00
Total :
114.00
10.15
124.15
E3JC.Services thru 07/27/08
E3JC.Services thru 07/27/08
412.100.630.594.320.650.00
Total :
2,208.05
2,208.05
REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
Total :
10.27
10.27
FLEET SHOP - BRAKE PAD
FLEET SHOP - BRAKE PAD
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
FLEET - BRAKE PAD KITS
FLEET - BRAKE PAD KITS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
34.88
3.10
67.27
5.99
Page:
52
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106597
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
53
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
03-854686
03-855943
03-857442
03-935531
03-935945
03-935950
03-937460
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 116 - FUEL FILTERS
UNIT 116 - FUEL FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 127 - SHOE KIT, OIL SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 70 - HOSE, PUMP KIT, THERMOSTAT
UNIT 70 - HOSE, PUMP KIT, THERMOSTAT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 70 - BRAKE ROTOR ASSEMBLY, PAD
UNIT 70 - BRAKE ROTOR ASSEMBLY, PAD
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 129 - ELEMENT, SCREEN ASSEMBLY
UNIT 129 - ELEMENT, SCREEN ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 129 - ELEMENT ASSEMBLY
UNIT 129 - ELEMENT ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 117 - FILTER
UNIT 117 - FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Page:
38.64
3.44
116.76
10.39
106.59
9.49
252.02
22.43
46.76
4.16
18.88
1.68
18.88
1.68
53
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106597
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
54
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
03-939343
03-939552
03-939724
03-939961
03-940079
03-940274
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 277 - HUB ASSEMBLY
UNIT 277 - HUB ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 88 - SHOE SET, GAS FILTER, KIA
UNIT 88 - SHOE SET, GAS FILTER, KIA
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 89 - FILTERS
UNIT 89 - FILTERS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 128 - S END KITS, SPARK PLUGS
UNIT 128 - S END KITS, SPARK PLUGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 486 - ALTERNATOR ASSEMBLY
UNIT 486 - ALTERNATOR ASSEMBLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
CORE FEE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Page:
73.88
6.58
104.30
9.28
42.86
3.81
214.17
19.06
96.88
8.62
165.88
60.00
20.10
54
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106597
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
55
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
03-940659
03-941484
03-941545
03-941710
03-942652
03-942762
03-942815
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 126 - BRAKE PAD, TRANS FILTER
UNIT 126 - BRAKE PAD, TRANS FILTER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
69.87
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
6.22
UNIT 115 - SHOE KIT
UNIT 115 - SHOE KIT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
108.89
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
9.69
UNIT 115 - MANIFOLD SET, VALVE COVER SET
UNIT 115 - MANIFOLD SET, VALVE COVER SET
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
76.86
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
6.84
UNIT 114 - SPARK PLUGS, ROTOR, CAP,
UNIT 114 - SPARK PLUGS, ROTOR, CAP,
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
193.54
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
17.23
UNIT 102 - PAD KIT, OIL SEAL
UNIT 102 - PAD KIT, OIL SEAL
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
62.39
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
5.55
UNIT 102 - F ROTOR
UNIT 102 - F ROTOR
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
169.76
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
15.11
UNIT 120 - BELT
UNIT 120 - BELT
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
35.88
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
3.19
Page:
55
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106597
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
(Continued)
05-205421
05-205428
05-222825
05-277347
G
Description/Account
Amount
REFUND FROM 5/7/06
REFUND FROM 5/7/06
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
REFUND OF 9/7/06
REFUND OF 9/7/06
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
REFUND OF 2/20/07
REFUND OF 2/20/07
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
CORE CHARGE REFUND
CORE CHARGE REFUND
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
-226.88
-20.19
-14.88
-1.32
-125.42
-11.16
-60.00
-5.34
1,904.29
Total :
106598
56
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET
245647
245690
UNIT 96 - HOSE, CONNECTORS
UNIT 96 - HOSE, CONNECTORS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 79 - SPRINGS
UNIT 79 - SPRINGS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
152.38
13.56
1.90
0.17
Page:
56
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106598
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 061135 SEAVIEW CHEVROLET
Invoice
(Continued)
245693
245851
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
UNIT 492 - APPLIQUE
UNIT 492 - APPLIQUE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 492 - EMBLEM
UNIT 492 - EMBLEM
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
59.30
5.28
29.11
2.59
264.29
Total :
106599
106600
57
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 036509 SIGNATURE FORMS INC
8/28/2008 068489 SIRENNET.COM
026326
0083840-IN
UB- #10 WINDOW ENVELOPES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
UB- #9 COURTESY RETURN ENVELOPES
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
UB- #9 COURTESY RETURN ENVELOPES
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 :
217.50
149.25
149.25
39.38
39.38
36.15
36.14
884.55
UNIT EQ45PO - LED DOME LIGHT
Page:
217.50
57
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106600
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
106602
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 068489 SIRENNET.COM
Invoice
8/28/2008 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
8/28/2008 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
106604
8/28/2008 037225 SNO CO CLERKS & FINANCE ASSOC
8/28/2008 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
19-022361
238822731
238823119
106603
58
front
0084500-IN
106601
Page:
City of Edmonds
Cress/Karber
I000 205248
UNIT EQ45PO - LED DOME LIGHT
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
Freight
511.100.657.594.480.640.00
UNIT 651 - MOUNT DEVICE
UNIT 651 - MOUNT DEVICE
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
40.00
13.75
188.10
15.95
257.80
UNIT 474 - SERVICE CHAMBER
UNIT 474 - SERVICE CHAMBER
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Total :
68.96
5.93
74.89
SPORTS CAMPS
SOCCER 9383~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
SPORTS CAMPS
FLAG FOOTBALL #9384~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00
1,386.00
Total :
2,450.00
3,836.00
Total :
30.00
30.00
CUST ID# HSALC008
Q1-08 Liquor Board Profits & Taxes
001.000.390.567.000.510.00
Total :
2,301.24
2,301.24
8/28/08 Meeting Cress/Karber
8/28/08 Meeting Cress/Karber
001.000.310.514.230.490.00
Page:
58
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106605
106606
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
8/28/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Invoice
5680012803
243015919
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION
BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00
Total :
29.74
29.74
958-001-000-8
WWTP POWER
411.000.656.538.800.471.61
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.61
19,899.37
1,193.96
21,093.33
Total :
106607
59
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
112-000-511-9
2060014392
2060015456
2470018124
2540794324
2790012476
2880012519
2960019335
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
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
fire station # 16
fire station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
LIFT STATION #9
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
LIFT STATION #3
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
Page:
61.72
29.26
29.26
33.26
1,850.71
119.91
36.37
103.01
59
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106607
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
60
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Invoice
(Continued)
3380016422
3460019262
3630573867
3720012057
3970013599
4010023721
4320010194
4430018418
4640017416
4680011956
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
28.77
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK
FIVE CORNERS WATER TANK
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
207.08
NEW TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT AT 215TH &
NEW TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT AT 215TH &
111.000.653.542.630.470.00
72.52
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
2,092.29
BLINKING LIGHT
BLINKING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
28.77
LIFT STATION #13
LIFT STATION #13
411.000.655.535.800.470.00
144.23
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
33.11
STREET LIGHT
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
38.77
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
411.000.654.534.800.470.00
28.06
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
77.49
Page:
60
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106607
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
61
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Invoice
(Continued)
4840011953
4860014960
5380011832
5390028164
5410010689
5450016042
5470012336
5510015661
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
STREET LIGHT
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
CITY HALL
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00
72.66
276.09
276.09
276.09
276.09
276.08
37.13
28.77
4,462.90
2,440.96
129.25
28.77
29.74
Page:
61
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106607
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Invoice
(Continued)
6000013000
6100013009
6100013306
6200013008
7060000275
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
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
Fire station #16
Fire station #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00
8,469.06
7,937.44
170.07
1,814.76
Total :
106608
8/28/2008 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1
106609
8/28/2008 038700 SO SNO CO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 21706
106610
62
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC
080604A & 080714B
88134
28.28
32,044.82
INSTALLATION OF HEAD ON STREET LIGHT
INSTALLATION OF HEAD ON STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.480.00
100.00
Total :
100.00
9/1/08 - 9/01/09 MEMBERSHIP
9/1/08 - 9/1/09 Membership
001.000.390.519.900.490.00
Total :
600.00
600.00
E3JB/E3GB.Roberts thru 08/15/08
412.100.630.594.320.650.00
412.300.630.594.320.650.00
E5GA.Roberts thru 08/15/08
412.300.630.594.320.650.00
Total :
1,023.75
1,023.75
97.50
2,145.00
Page:
62
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
63
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
106611
8/28/2008 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO
September 2008
SEPTEMBER 2008 STANDARD INSURANCE
September 2008 Standard Insurance
811.000.000.231.550.000.00
19,031.05
Total :
19,031.05
106612
8/28/2008 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
L72259
JULY-08 AUDIT FEES
July-08 Audit Fees
001.000.390.519.900.510.00
July-08 Audit Fees
411.000.652.542.900.510.00
July-08 Audit Fees
411.000.654.534.800.510.00
July-08 Audit Fees
411.000.655.535.800.510.00
July-08 Audit Fees
411.000.656.538.800.510.00
July-08 Audit Fees
111.000.653.543.300.510.00
July-08 Audit Fees
511.000.657.548.680.510.00
528.88
22.04
88.15
88.15
88.15
22.04
44.05
881.46
Total :
106613
8/28/2008 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
2724249
WATER/SEWER - POST HOLE DIGGERS
Page:
63
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106613
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
Invoice
8/28/2008 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
1574807
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
49.99
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
49.99
PIC MATTOCK HEADS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
14.99
PIC MATTOCK HEADS
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
14.98
PICK CLAY HANDLE RAILROAD 36
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
14.99
PICK CLAY HANDLE RAILROAD 36
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
14.98
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
7.12
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
7.12
WATER/SEWER - HEAVY DUTY ROAD RAKE
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
95.00
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
95.00
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
8.46
Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
8.45
Total :
381.07
15644
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22
67.16
5.98
73.14
Total :
106615
64
front
2724250
106614
Page:
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 072404 TELEDYNE ISCO INC
865942
423201
Page:
64
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106615
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 072404 TELEDYNE ISCO INC
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
SAMPLER/PUMP TUBE ASSEMBLY
411.000.656.538.800.310.31
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31
Total :
106616
8/28/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
1607023
1,539.81
21.00
138.91
1,699.72
NEWSPAPER AD
9/2 Public Hearing
001.000.250.514.300.440.00
51.48
51.48
Total :
106617
106618
106619
106620
65
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
8/28/2008 027269 THE PART WORKS INC
8/28/2008 072411 TIDEMAN, NANCY
8/28/2008 070040 TOTAL RECLAIM INC
1604503
239821
TIDEMAN0821
71985
SR CENTER KITCHEN BID REQUEST
SR CENTER KITCHEN BID REQUEST
116.000.651.519.920.410.00
Total :
SUPPLIES
CLAMP
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00
37.58
7.88
Total :
4.04
49.50
Total :
11.00
11.00
REFUND
REFUND/SWIMMING
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
Recycling of Computer monitors &
Recycling of Computer monitors &
001.000.310.518.880.490.00
425.75
Page:
159.84
159.84
65
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
106620
8/28/2008 070040
106621
8/28/2008 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
070040 TOTAL RECLAIM INC
PO #
7973849
7981044
7982799
106623
106624
8/28/2008 072098 UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES LLC
8/28/2008 043935 UPS
8/28/2008 064423 USA BLUE BOOK
Description/Account
(Continued)
7977811
106622
66
Page:
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
34121
14885057
657188
Amount
Total :
425.75
WATER METER INVENTORY - ~
411.000.654.534.800.342.00
3,554.25
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00
316.33
411.000.654.534.800.342.00
2,130.20
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00
189.58
WATER - RUBBER METER GASKETS
WATER - RUBBER METER GASKETS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
33.28
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
2.96
WATER - SUPPLIES - RUBBER METER GASKETS
WATER - SUPPLIES - RUBBER METER GASKETS
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
486.72
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00
43.32
Total :
6,756.64
E6DA.Services thru July 2008
E6DA.Services thru July 2008
125.000.640.594.750.410.00
Total :
412.51
412.51
INV #14885057 EDMONDS PD
006500 REDELIVERY CHARGE ~
001.000.410.521.210.350.00
Total :
65.00
65.00
SEWER - MANHOLE NET W/POLE CONNECTOR
Page:
66
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106624
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
67
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
8/28/2008 064423 USA BLUE BOOK
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
SEWER - MANHOLE NET W/POLE CONNECTOR
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
167.60
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00
15.09
Total :
182.69
106625
106626
8/28/2008 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS
8/28/2008 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR
R0298897H
8070164
INV #R0298897H - EDMONDS PD
CELL PHONE SERVICE
001.000.410.521.100.420.00
Total :
84.03
84.03
utility locates for July 2008
411.000.654.534.800.410.00
411.000.655.535.800.410.00
411.000.652.542.900.410.00
105.99
105.99
106.02
318.00
Total :
106627
8/28/2008 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
425-AB8-1176
425-AB8-2844
425-NW2-0887
106628
425 712-0423
CITY PARK T1 LINE
City Park T1 Line 8/16-9/16/08
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
POLICE T1 LINE
Police T1 Line 8/10-9/10/08
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet
Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00
Total :
408.85
375.18
280.00
1,064.03
03 0260 1032797592 07
AFTER HOURS PHONES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00
55.92
55.92
Total :
Page:
67
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106629
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Page:
68
City of Edmonds
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
425-206-7147
425-206-8379
425-672-7132
425-712-0417
425-712-8251
425-775-1534
425-775-2455
425-775-7865
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
LIBRARY SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
14.93
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
14.93
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE
511.000.657.548.680.420.00
79.17
TELEMETRY STATIONS
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
28.28
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
28.28
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00
14.10
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
70.52
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
57.83
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
57.83
511.000.657.548.680.420.00
81.80
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
160.64
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
298.33
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
49.53
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
52.44
Page:
68
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106629
Voucher List
9:30:50AM
Date
Vendor
Invoice
(Continued)
425-776-1281
425-RT0-9133
425-774-0944
425-NW4-3726
106631
69
front
425-AB9-0530
106630
Page:
City of Edmonds
8/28/2008 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
35481953
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00
1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO 911
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00
111.000.653.542.900.420.00
411.000.654.534.800.420.00
411.000.655.535.800.420.00
511.000.657.548.680.420.00
411.000.652.542.900.420.00
Total :
FS #20-FAX LINE
FS #20-FAX LINE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00
FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
001.000.510.528.600.420.00
Total :
1066294
BOTTLE/W/TUBE
411.000.656.538.800.310.31
Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31
45.53
5.48
20.81
20.81
20.81
20.81
20.78
1,212.94
51.21
247.00
298.21
71.00
6.32
Page:
49.30
69
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
Voucher List
Date
Vendor
Invoice
8/28/2008 069816
106632
8/28/2008 072000 WCI
069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
8/28/2008 072420 WEBB, JIM
PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
082132155
WEBB0819
Amount
Total :
77.32
C/A 00100362301
Fiber Optic Internet Connection Aug-08
001.000.390.528.800.420.00
Total :
2,844.67
2,844.67
REFUND
CLASS REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00
70.00
70.00
Total :
106634
8/28/2008 049208 WESTERN EQUIP DIST INC
566811
567456
106635
8/28/2008 061752 WILDER CONSTRUCTION CO
E7CA.Rtng Release
UNIT 109 - WIPER BLADES
UNIT 109 - WIPER BLADES
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00
UNIT 109 - ELEMENT, O-RINGS
UNIT 109 - ELEMENT, O-RINGS
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 :
E7CA.Retainage Release
112.200.000.223.400.000.00
125.100.000.223.400.000.00
8/28/2008 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC
AMUNDSON9364
143.76
12.43
13.90
208.50
9.93
19.44
407.96
22,209.37
Total :
106636
70
front
106631
106633
Page:
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
22,117.94
44,327.31
RIVER FLOAT TRIP
Page:
70
vchlist
08/28/2008
Bank code :
Voucher
106636
Voucher List
Page:
front
Date
Vendor
Invoice
8/28/2008 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
(Continued)
NISQUALLY RIVER FLOAT #9364
001.000.640.574.200.410.00
Total :
106637
71
City of Edmonds
9:30:50AM
8/28/2008 051280 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY
177 Vouchers for bank code :
177 Vouchers in this report
front
63953531
565.62
565.62
SHOP SUPPLIES- STRIKE THREE
SHOP SUPPLIES- STRIKE THREE
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00
Total :
238.00
36.00
24.39
298.39
Bank total :
698,636.97
Total vouchers :
698,636.97
Page:
71
AM-1763
Snohomish County Regional Drug Task Force Agreement
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Gerry Gannon
Submitted For:
Al Compaan
Department:
Police Department
Review Committee: Public Safety
Action:
Approved for Consent Agenda
Time:
Type:
2.E.
Consent
Action
Information
Subject Title
Snohomish County Regional Drug Task Force Agreement. Reviewed by the Public Safety Committee on
08/12/08.
Recommend Council approve the agreement by consent.
This topic was discussed at the August 12, 2008, Public Safety Committee Meeting. During the
Public Safety Committee Meeting it was agreed that the contract agreement between the City of
Edmonds and Snohomish County Regional Drug Task Force should go to the consent agenda
without a recommendation.
Narrative
Since January 1988, the City of Edmonds and other Snohomish County cities have been
participants in the Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force (SRDTF) with offices in Everett.
Edmonds was one of the original participants, contributing a detective and equipment to the unit.
In more recent years, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace established the South
Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). Since the creation of the SSCNTF,
Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace have chosen to continue their support of the
SRDTF through financial contribution alone. Edmonds presently has a detective assigned to the
SSCNTF.
The SRDTF receives the majority of its funding through a U.S. Department of Justice grant. The
grant amount is based on the number and population of municipalities that participate in the
SRDTF. The required matching funds for the federal grant come from Snohomish County and the
participating municipalities. For fiscal year 2008-2009, nineteen municipalities, plus Snohomish
County, are pledging matching funds to the SRDTF.
Edmonds’ share for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 is $9,127.76, a $151.24 decrease over last
year’s share. Funding for this item will be included in the 2009 Edmonds Police budget. The
interlocal agreement and the funding received from participating entities, sets forth the operational
framework for the SRDTF, and has done so since 1988.
The SRDTF and SSCNTF work very closely and assist each other with staffing and equipment, as
needed. For example, should we encounter a drug lab locally the SRDTF can be called out to
dismantle the lab. This assistance can save us literally thousands of dollars in overtime, training,
and equipment expense. A more frequent area of cooperation and assistance occurs with
investigations where the two task forces may assist each other with investigations involving
mutual suspects.
We request that the Council approve this matter authorizing the Mayor to sign the FY 2008-2009
interlocal agreement with SRDTF.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2008-2009
Revenue:
Expenditure: $9127.76
Fiscal Impact:
Attachments
Link: Interlocal Agreement
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: Gerry
Gannon
Date
Status
08/28/2008 11:02 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 11:03 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 11:06 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/28/2008 10:34
AM
AM-1759
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Jana Spellman
Submitted For:
Council President Plunkett
Department:
City Council
Review Committee:
Action:
3.
Time:
Type:
5 Minutes
Information
Information
Subject Title
N/A
N/A
Narrative
Introduction of new Student Representative Leif Warren from Meadowdale High School.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
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: Jana
Spellman
Date
Status
08/28/2008 10:19 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 10:25 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 11:02 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/27/2008 12:20
PM
AM-1756
Green Week Proclamation
4.
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Linda Carl
Submitted For:
Gary Haakenson
Department:
Mayor's Office
Review Committee:
Action:
Time:
Type:
5 Minutes
Information
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Green Edmonds Week, September 8 - 13, 2008.
Narrative
Edmonds merchants are participating in a week of "green" activities that include distribution of
reusable shopping bags to encourage citizens to "go green." On September 11 there will be a
Greener Living program sponsored by Sustainable Edmonds, and the week will conclude with the
city's first Green Edmonds Festival on Saturday, September 13. The festival is sponsored by
Sustainable Edmonds and Green For Good, two local organizations, and will be held at the
Frances Anderson Center playfield from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. It will include a children's craft area
featuring recycled materials, a solar-powered stage with live music, informative speakers,
and plenty of eco-friendly vendors. Walk, bike, take a bus, or carpool to downtown Edmonds and
take advantage of this free event to learn about more sustainable, environmentally friendly living.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox
Approved By
1
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
2
Mayor
Gary Haakenson
3
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Date
Status
08/26/2008 11:46 AM
APRV
08/26/2008 12:23 PM
APRV
08/28/2008 09:42 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/26/2008 08:57
AM
AM-1768
Public Hearing on the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Conni Curtis
Submitted For:
Robert English
Department:
Engineering
Review Committee:
Action:
Time:
Type:
5.
30 Minutes
Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing for the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2009-2014) and
proposed resolution adopting the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program and
directing the same to be filed with the Secretary of Transportation and the Transportation
Improvement Board.
Council approve the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program and adopt the resolution.
None
Narrative
The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document
that identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the
next six calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably
expected revenues for each of the projects included in the TIP.
RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption
of the budget. A copy of the adopted TIP must be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council
and state transportation agencies (Washington State Department of Transportation and
Transportation Improvement Board).
The 2009-2014 TIP has been impacted by the loss of projected REET revenue for transportation
improvements. Several projects and annual transportation improvements have been delayed based
on the funding shortfall. Below are some examples of projects that have been rescheduled to a
later time with the assumption that adequate funding will become available:
• Shell Valley Construction Project (from 2009 to 2012)
• Main Street @ Third Avenue Signal Upgrades (from 2009 to 2014)
• 76th Avenue West @ 212th Street SW Capacity Improvements (new significant project that
isn’t scheduled until 2012)
• 238th Street SW @ 100th Avenue West Signal Upgrades (from 2009 to 2010)
• 80th Avenue West Pedestrian Improvements (from 2010 to 2012)
• Main Street Pedestrian Lighting (from 2009 to 2013)
• Five Corners Intersection Improvements (from 2011 to 2012)
• SR99 @ 220th, 216th and 212th Streets SW Intersection Improvements (from 2012 to 2014)
The transportation plan update that is currently underway will provide a more comprehensive
assessment of the City’s transportation needs and funding options, including possible revenue
from a Transportation Benefit District. The draft transportation plan update and financial analysis
will be presented to the City Council for consideration in spring 2009.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2008 TIP Resolution
Link: Six Year TIP (2009-2014)
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox
Approved By
1
Public Works
Noel Miller
2
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
3
Mayor
Gary Haakenson
4
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Date
Status
08/28/2008 03:15 PM
APRV
08/28/2008 03:15 PM
APRV
08/28/2008 03:48 PM
APRV
08/28/2008 04:04 PM
APRV
Started On: 08/28/2008 01:34
PM
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON,
APPROVING
A
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TIP), AND
DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH
THE
WASHINGTON
STATE
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city and town is
required to adopt a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and update it annually, prior to
adoption of the budget, and file a copy of such adopted program with the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the TIP on September 2, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt such a program stating its desire
and intent that the staff pursue additional forms of funding in order to accelerate street overlay/
improvements and walkway, sidewalk and bike way improvements in the City if such funds can
be obtained; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A Transportation Improvement Plan is hereby adopted pursuant to the
requirements of RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 to be effective on September 2, 2008 and to
continue in full force and effect until amended. A copy of such Transportation Improvement
Plan for the years 2009 to 2014 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference
as fully as if herein set forth.
-1Packet Page 121 of 267
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby requested and directed to file a certified copy
of the Transportation Improvement Plan with the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2008.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
-2Packet Page 122 of 267
AM-1767
Edmonds Fiber Network Recommendations - Update and Next Steps
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Carl Nelson
Submitted For:
Rick Jenness
Time:
Department:
Type:
Review Committee: Finance
Action:
Recommend Review by Full Council
7.
20 Minutes
Information
Information
Subject Title
Fiber Optic Network Recommendations - Update and Next Steps.
Recommendation Summary
From a broad overview perspective, our recommendation is to continue aggressively moving
ahead in the development of the Edmond’s Fiber Network (EFN) for internal and
intergovernmental uses. The internal cost savings and productivity increases appear to have
significant potential benefit to the City and other governmental entities have been quick to
recognize the benefits the EFN can provide them, and have expressed an eagerness to partner with
the City. Their willingness to invest in the network is allowing the EFN to grow in both geographic
reach and overall capacity and at the same time cover the incremental capital costs associated with
their connections and reduce the City’s on-going cost of network operations.
The business case for providing a citywide fiber to the premise (FTTP) service for city residential
and commercial users is not so clear-cut. Our economic analysis concludes that, at present, a full
fiber to the premise deployment would be difficult to justify on its own given existing economic
conditions. However, as discussed in the attachments, it does seem to make financial sense to offer
surplus broadband capacities to content providers as well as commercial and residential users on a
selected basis, thus growing the network (and revenues) incrementally.
As an example, if the plan being presented is adopted, two of the four City locations identified in
the FTTP plan for fiber optic “hub” locations will be enabled as a part of wireless meter reading
project. If and when finances and policy justify a full fiber to the premise deployment, the fiber
optic “backbone” needed to serve nearly half the city will already be in place and paid for.
The specific recommendations being proposed in this plan are:
1.) Continue to support through the budgeting process, those capital investments that that are
directly attributable to projects that result in direct cost offsets to the City’s telecommunications
budget.
2.) Approve the issuance of one or more Water/Sewer Revenue Bonds, not to exceed $4.2
million for the acquisition of replacement water meters for all city water customers along with an
“Electronics Package” that contains radio transmitters for each of the meters and provides funds
for radio receiving towers, associated fiber optic cable runs, and related system expenses;
3.) Continue pursuing municipal, governmental and educational institutions that would benefit,
both financially and operationally, from having access to the EFN’s ultra high speed broadband
capacity.
4.) Request that the City Engineer review the City’s engineering and design guidelines in light
of new technology that allows fiber to be placed underground with minimal impact to streets or
earthen right-of-ways at a substantially reduced cost to the City.
5.) Move to adopt a policy requiring installation of fiber optic conduit when streets are either
reconstructed, dug-up for water/sewer/storm replacement or other major infrastructure
improvements.
6.) Move to adopt a policy requiring all development projects that install new, or move existing
utility services, to install a communications conduit into the structure or structures and that it be
dedicated for City use.
7.) Direct Staff to seek grant funding for a demonstration project that would create a technology
display at the library, Francis Anderson Center or other public facility that would mimic the
Edmonds “Living room of the Future”. The display would be a hands on working display
demonstrating ultra high speed internet, broadcast TV and video on demand, two-way video
conferencing. Additionally, information based energy conservation programs can be showcased
that demonstrate how real-time gas and electric meter reading can be utilized by the customer to
trim their energy usage and reduce their carbon footprint. In addition to the public display, the
grant funds should be used to connect several homes and businesses to the network to gain real
world perspective on the network.
Narrative
For several years the City of Edmonds has been working on establishing a fiber optic network
whose primary use to date has been to reduce municipal telecommunications costs while
increasing functionality.
The City has also examined two other uses for this network: providing high speed broadband
access to other local governmental and educational entities, and eventually expanding the network
to provide ultra high speed communications capabilities to businesses and residents.
See attached "Fiber Optic Recommendations" and the above Summary of Recommendations for
moving ahead in the development of the Edmond’s fiber optic network. Outlined are the steps for
internal and intergovernmental uses so as to thoughtfully invest in such a way that incremental
expansion of the network can be achieved economically and in the best interest of the City.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:
Revenue:
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
The attached recommendations includes investments to replace water meters that are currently
past their useful service life, and to couple that necessary investment with a technology package
that will enable the meters to be read remotely via a wireless connection. The technology
investment will provide direct payback in labor and equipment costs within 10 years, and if other
public/private uses of the technology can be found and quantified, the payback period could be
significantly shorter and may provide an on-going source of general fund revenue.
Attachments
Link: Fiber Optic Recommendations
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox
Approved By
1
City Clerk
Sandy Chase
2
Mayor
Gary Haakenson
3
Form Started By: Carl
Nelson
Date
Status
08/29/2008 08:25 AM
APRV
08/29/2008 09:17 AM
APRV
08/29/2008 09:20 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/28/2008 11:47
AM
Edmonds Fiber Network Staff Recommendations Prepared By: Dan Clements (Original) Rick Jenness 0017_1767_Fiber Optic Network Recommendations-FINAL.Doc
Edmonds Fiber Network (EFN)
Acknowledgements
These recommendations are the product of hundreds of hours of work by the Mayor, members of
the City Council, City Staff, and members of the Citizens Technology Advisory Committee
(CTAC). The committee would like to acknowledge the following people for their leadership
and extraordinary level of civic service these past several years.
Mayor Gary Haakenson – For shepherding the early work of this group starting back in
February 2002 and his continued support ever since.
Former Councilmember Mauri Moore – Who in 2004 sponsored the resolution that
created the CTAC and whose enthusiasm and drive helped move the committee’s early
work forward.
Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson – Who in 2004 co-sponsored the CTAC resolution and has attended virtually every meeting since the committee formed sharing her
wisdom, grace and humor.
Councilmember Ron Wambolt – Whose deep business and practical experience in
technology has been enormously valuable to the committee since his election in 2006.
Administrative Services Director (Retired) Dan Clements – Who is the primary author of these recommendations and the steady guiding hand that has lead the work of the
committee from the beginning. Credit for much of the success the group has achieved
belongs to him. Enjoy retirement Dan, but know that you will be missed.
City Staff
CTAC Members
Stephan Clifton
Cindi Cruz
Carl Nelson
Chief Tomberg
Noel Miller
Duane Bowman
Asst Chief Gerry Gannon
Officer Mike Bard
Bart Preecs (CTAC Chairman since 2004)
John Gates
Paul Harris
Darrell Haug
John Heinz
Rick Jenness
Ryan Maloney
Michael Mestre
Mario Rossi
Page 2
Introduction
For several years the City of Edmonds has been working on establishing a fiber optic network
whose primary use to date has been to reduce municipal telecommunications costs while increasing telecommunications functionality.
The City has also examined two other uses for this network: providing high speed broadband
access to other local governmental and not-for-profit entities, and expanding the network to provide fiber to the premise (FTTP) services for residents and businesses.
This background paper will present staff recommendations supporting future usage in the following three areas:
• Internal City usage
• Public sector and intergovernmental usage
• Citizen, business and commercial usage.
A summary of these recommendations can be found on page 14.
Page 3
Internal City Usage
Background
Using cutting edge telecommunications capability has the potential to enhance the quality of services provided by the city while at the same time lowering the costs of delivering those services.
Current Usage
When the City acquired the rights from WSDOT to the 24 strands of fiber running from the ferry
terminal up Main Street to Hwy 99, the City has been searching for ways to utilize that asset to
improve service and lower costs. To-date, the City has used the fiber to:
•
Replace a commercial T-1 circuit that connected the Public Works Phone System to the
City’s PBX system in the Public Safety Building. Saving the City approximately
$500/month since January of 2006, this initiative has saved the City nearly $18,000.
•
Replace a commercial T-1 circuit that provided the City with Internet access. This circuit
has been in place since June of 2007 and has saved the City nearly $6,500 while at the
same time increasing internet access from under 1 Mbps to 100Mbps.
Future Uses – More T-1 replacements
The City should continue the pattern of displacing recurring monthly payments for T-1 circuits
in favor of one time capital investments in the fiber optic infrastructure that will have paybacks
in the 2-4 year range. Future locations under consideration include:
•
Francis Anderson Center
•
Yost Pool
•
Fire Station # 16
•
Fire Station #20
•
City Park
•
Water Storage & Sewer pumping locations (where feasible)
Future Uses – Smart Metering, Video Arraignment & Municipal Wi-Fi)
By extending the EFN northward to the Seaview area, and southward towards Esperance area,
the City can provide a wireless communications infrastructure capable of remotely reading every
water meter in the City without the need for employees of the Water Department to drive to each
location and manually capture the meter value. Currently 37% of the City’s meters are over 20
years old, and a full 66% are over ten years old. As meters get older, their accuracy degrades
causing lost revenue to the City.
To read meters centrally, several radio reception points are needed to be located in various parts
of the City. These reception points would be connected to the central office via an expansion of
the City’s fiber optic backbone. The base cost of meter replacement (necessary in any event) is
estimated at just under $2.0 million. Moving to smart meters adds just over $2.0 million. Table 1
below summarizes these costs.
Page 4
FIGURE 2: SMART METERING COSTS
ITEM
BASE METER
REPLACEMENT
Replacement Water Meters
SMART
METER COSTS
$ 1,776,299
Meter Radios
TOTAL COST
$ 1,776,299
1,254,875
1,254,875
180,700
180,700
Tower and Base
50,000
50,000
Fiber Extensions
100,000
100,000
Switching Equipment
75,000
75,000
WiFi Communications
300,000
300,000
135,887
149,984
285,857
$1,912,186
$2,110,559
$4,022,731
Base Station
Sales Tax
Grand Total
This cost summary assumes that all City water meters are replaced as part of this proposal. The
rational is that crews can visit a neighborhood, replace all meters, and “touch” an installation only one time. For some newer meters, it may make sense to simply install meter reading radios, as
opposed to replacing the entire meter. This would reduce the above costs.
In addition to deploying the “Smart Meter” radios, the proposal calls for enabling video arraignment capability from the Municipal Court and for deploying a WI-FI mesh network dedicated to
municipal and governmental uses. These other uses would utilize the same fiber network extensions required for the smart meters. The added costs for this “Electronics Package” are off-set
by three utility and one public safety factor in a eight to nine year amortization period. These offsets are described below.
1.) Annual reductions in personnel, vehicle, and equipment costs of approximately $92,600
per year in current dollars if all meters are replaced;
2.) Increased water system revenue due to more accurate meters. This recovery is estimated
at 3% of metered revenue, or $112,000 in 2007 dollars on metered sales of $3,735,600;
3.) By moving to video arraignment for our Court, police prisoner transport time, vehicle
costs, and fuel expenses are reduced by $47,700 annually the first year of operation.
4.) By allowing public works crews to remain in the field longer by using the municipal WiFi system to log into central City servers for information on “as-built” drawings, utility
locations, storm and sewer video, and building permit information, additional personnel,
vehicle, and fuel reductions would occur. At this juncture no value has been assigned
these productivity increases.
5.) The wireless network connections used by the Public Works crews can also be used by
Law Enforcement and Fire Department personnel. Seattle Police Department conducted
a study that identified three key facts:
Page 5
a. It costs just over $200/hour to put a police officer on the streets in Seattle (2004
dollars). This cost included salary & benefits, equipment, training and support
costs
b. The average Seattle PD officer spent 53% of his/her time on patrol, and 47% of
their time at the precinct performing administrative, record keeping and nonpatrol related tasks.
c. By having computers in their patrol cars with wireless network access, patrol time
could increase to 70% by having the officers spend some time parked in conspicuous areas of their patrol area performing some of their administrative duties.
It was estimated that the added police visibility was equivalent to a 15% increase
in patrol officers. (Referred to as “Force Multiplier Effect”)
At this time, no monetary value has been assigned this added capability with regards to
Edmonds PD, but it seems reasonable that the City’s savings might be proportional to Seattle’s based on the number of officers.
These figures are summarized in Table 1 below. Note that the added costs of Smart Metering are
paid back over a relatively short 8 year span. Increasing fuel and personnel costs will accelerate
this payback.
FIGURE 1: SMART METERING SAVINGS AMORTIZATION
Water Costs1
Water Revenue2
1
92,600
112,000
47,700
0
0
252,300
2
97,230
113,120
50,085
0
0
512,735
3
102,092
114,251
52,589
0
0
781,667
4
107,196
115,394
55,219
0
0
1,059,475
5
112,556
116,548
57,980
0
0
1,346,559
6
118,184
117,713
60,879
0
0
1,643,334
7
124,093
118,890
63,923
0
0
1,950,240
8
130,297
120,079
67,119
0
0
2,267,735
9
136,812
121,280
70,475
0
0
2,596,302
10
143,653
122,493
73,998
0
0
2,936,446
Year
Notes:
PD transport
Savings1
Public Works
Productivity
1.)
Assumes 5% annual cost escalator
2.)
Assumes 3% lost revenue recovered and 1% annual cost of water escalator.
3.) Approximate Break-even point for Electronics Package
Page 6
Cumulative
Savings
Police / Fire
Productivity
Environmental Benefits
Other reasons for expanding the City’s fiber network are environmentally related. By using electronic systems for such tasks as reading water meters, and conducting in custody hearings via
video conferencing, the City is able to reduce vehicle use, fuel consumption and the resulting
carbon emissions.
The two uses that have been examined for cost reductions, smart metering and video arraignments, would result in annual mileage savings of approximately 17,000 miles, and result in a
carbon footprint reduction of 8.34 tons (see Appendix 5).
As we are able to further quantify the advantages of Police, public works and utility crews being
able to utilize governmental Wi-Fi networks to remain in the field, rather than return to central
offices for information, these transportation cost savings and carbon reductions will grow considerably.
Recommendations
Staff is recommending that the Mayor and the City Council take the following actions:
•
Continue to support through the budgeting process, those capital investments that that are
directly attributable to projects that result in direct cost offsets to the City’s telecommunications budget.
•
Approve a bond resolution that finances the Wireless Meter reading project along with
the supporting fiber optic links and wireless mesh network
• Request that the City Engineer review the City’s engineering and design guidelines in
light of new technology that allows fiber to be placed underground with minimal impact
to streets or earthen right-of-ways at a substantially reduced cost to the City.
Page 7
Public Sector and Intergovernmental usage
Background
The nature of fiber optic technology and the ongoing investments being made by technology providers to further enhance its abilities, virtually guarantees that Edmonds will have ultra high
speed telecommunications capacity far exceeding its current and future needs. Sharing this excess capacity with other governmental, educational and not-for profit institutions seems clearly
to be in the mutual best interest of the City and these potential partners.
Current Usage
This notion of excess capacity was recognized in the earliest stages of the EFN’s development,
and conversations have ensued with the Edmonds School District, Edmonds Community College, Snohomish County, Everett Community College, Stevens Hospital, SNOCOM, Port of
Edmonds and many others. To date Edmonds Community College and Stevens Hospital have
signed partner agreements to utilize the EFN as a way to lower their costs and enhance the capacity and reliability of their internet access.
Each of these partners is connecting to the network at their own expense, and paying Edmonds a
fee for the internet traffic they generate. The City is buying internet bandwidth in bulk so every
partnership helps to reduce the cost for everyone.
Future Usage
We have identified over 100 entities in the North King and South Snohomish Counties that are
potential EFN partners and we expect interest to continue to grow as we are able to point to our
early successes. Currently, plans are underway to make Edmonds a regional hub for the State of
Washington’s Intergovernmental Network (IGN) which is used by virtually every State and Local agency office around the State. By aggregating traffic through the EFN, partners reduce their
connection costs to the IGN, while at the same time enhancing the capacity and reliability of
their service. Partnering with even 30-40 of these entities over the next several years could generate $750,000 to $1,000,000 in recurring revenue to the City.
Because these potential partners are public entities, the inter-local agreement statutes provide
clear authority for the City’s involvement in an enterprise such as this. Since the partnering
agencies are funding their own connection costs (or paying us to build it for them) we judge
there to be little risk and substantial upside potential in pursuing partnerships of this kind.
Recommendations
1.)
Continue pursuing municipal, governmental and educational institutions that
would benefit, both financially and operationally, from having access to the
EFN’s ultra high speed broadband capacity.
2.)
Move to adopt a policy requiring installation of fiber optic conduit when streets
are either reconstructed, dug-up for water/sewer/storm replacement or other major
infrastructure improvements.
Page 8
Citizen, Business and Commercial usage
Background
In 2007 the City contracted with a UT based consulting firm to advise City about the economic
feasibility of building a citywide “Fiber to the Home” (FTTH) or more commonly referred to as
“Fiber to the Premise” (FTTP) network. The design scope was to include every home and business location in the City (20,022) and was designed to provided a minimum 100Mbps to every
location, but the backbone infrastructure and electronics were sized in anticipation of providing
1000Mbps (Gigabit) capacity to the majority of the City.
The price tag for this network came to approximately $28,000,000 in 2007 dollars. The economic model indicated that approximately 40% of the potential customers would need to subscribe to services carried over this network in order for the City’s investment to breakeven. If
customers were required to pay a modest one time fiber connection fee ($400-$600), the breakeven would drop to 30%. Notably, the financial analysis mentioned above did not consider the
revenue that would be generated from Governmental and Educational partners, many of whom
are not within the City limits of Edmonds. The consultant’s report is found in Appendix 4 of this
document for your reference.
Current Usage
At the present time, no residents or commercial businesses in Edmonds are using the network,
though there has been significant interest expressed to the CTAC from Edmonds residents, business and property owners.
Future Usage
It is not difficult to see where the interest in this network would come from. In cities where municipal network are built, telecommunications services drop in price anywhere from 20-40%.
Incumbent carriers are forced to compete with content providers who are delivered over a shared
network and are not saddled with the debt and overhead required to maintain a redundant proprietary network.
In Europe, some content providers allow customers to make their own package of TV channels.
For example, the first 20 channels might be a flat $15.00/month and $.25 - $.50 per channel after
that. The customer chooses which channels they want rather than being handed (and pay for)
hundreds of channels that are of no value to them. Internet speeds in Utah reach 50Mbps for
less than $40/month, and homes in Korea and Japan are all now getting 100Mbps - 1Gbps fiber
connections and are paying far less than Edmonds residents do. These economic incentives represent the reasons Edmonds citizens and businesses will be drawn to the EFN. Staff has identified other compelling benefits to the City outlined below.
Page 9
Economic Development
Different than the financial justification above which focuses on direct costs reductions to City
operations, Economic Development justifications come from added revenue to the City either
directly from user fees, subscriptions and utility taxes on those services , or indirectly from additional tax revenue generated from activity attributed to the presence of the network. Sales Tax
revenue in the City is an important part of the City’s revenue stream, but compared to access
charges, user fees, subscriptions and other direct revenue sources, sales tax is difficult to forecast
and incrementally attribute as a network benefit.
Areas where sales tax is easily attributable would come from new business’s locating within the
city because of the availability of its ultra high speed network. Some if not many of the employees of this business will choose to live in Edmonds and some fraction of the company and employee spending will add to the retail sales of the City. Additionally, individuals who currently
commute to work in Seattle or elsewhere can effectively “telecommute” if they had access to a
network that could support the bandwidth requirements of 2-way video conferencing. This
would reduce transportation costs and pollution and would make Edmonds very attractive to the
upscale high tech work force currently locating on the Eastside of King County.
The more direct revenue streams will occur when users connect to the network and utilize its services. Currently, The City has three Public, Educational and Government (PEG) users contracted to use the network, and these three entities will bring the City nearly $54,000 per year in
direct revenue. It is not unrealistic to believe that 100 similar entities or more exist in South
County that could benefit from the ultra high capacity of the network.
Policy
The final justification for expanding the City’s broadband network relates to a policy on open
infrastructure. The vision is that, in an ideal world, there should be a single municipal fiber network open to all qualified information and content providers. This is supported by the work
Packetfront prepared for the City.
“One of the core competencies of a city is building infrastructure for common use—such
as roads, water lines, wastewater treatment, and in some cases electric utilities. In many
cities, telecommunications is now considered the “fifth utility,” because cities can implement such infrastructure ubiquitously, often better than any private entity. The benefits of a municipal network; include better connections for utility monitoring, mobile government services, education, healthcare, library services, and social networking and
communication.”
“Cities are equipped to understand and accept long-term financing scenarios, because
the primary motivator for cities is to serve the public good rather than to appease stockholders. These facts place municipalities in an ideal position to deploy fiber projects and
makes municipal ownership of these networks easier to support. Conversely, it would be
inadvisable for any city to hand over ownership of its network to any private firm, because it would then lose the ability to make decisions regarding the deployment, use, or
operation of that network.”
Page 10
Judging future needs by today’s municipal and business imperatives is a good starting point in
establishing an open network that is technology agnostic and provider neutral. Policy should
further encourage participation and competition by as many players as possible and allow for
growth of capacity to meet future demand. The policy acknowledges the trend to make digital
forms of communication easily available over a single high speed fiber pipe by lowering the
capital requirement to provide this capability and capacity to all of Edmonds.
Ease of information delivery facilitated by City provided fiber would allow anticipated uses described above to arise easily over time such as real time delivery of water, gas, and electric usage
information to consumers, educational learning materials, classes, and healthcare. A fiber connection that is open and not limited to a single purpose or provider opens possibilities for new
information and content while lowering the capital and operational costs of delivering digital information.
The shared infrastructure model has several compelling advantages:
1. The cost of providing services over a shared network will be substantially less than providing the same services over a privately owned network. Assuming for example that
Verizon builds its fiber network for 28 million (Edmonds cost estimate) and Comcast
builds theirs for 28 million, and each earns 50% of the Edmonds market share, or 10,000
connections. Debt service and operations costs will exceed $35/month/customer. On a
shared network, where they pay access charges based on the number of customers they
have, their network costs would be only half as much, with the savings being passed on
to the citizens of Edmonds. Additionally, the service providers are not subject to the financial risks associated with not achieving their target market share and the contingency
costs of those risks are not passed on to the consumers.
2. The shared network model will allow more than 2 competitors to provide service on the
network. This added competition will allow market forces to shape the price, variety and
quality of the service offerings that will better serve the Edmonds market. In Europe,
service providers allow customers to choose which TV stations they receive on an a la
carte basis. Fifteen dollars ($15) per month gets you your local programming plus 10
“cable” channels with additional channels available for $0.25 - $0.50 / month apiece.
The more you buy the less they cost on a per channel basis. Every citizen member of the
CTAC committee has stated they would sign up for a service like that if it were available
in Edmonds.
Creating and promoting the use of a shared network also avoids the cost, inconvenience
and aggravation associated with the City roads and family front yards being dug up for
every content providers who wants to install their network. In the absence of a City
owned shared network, this is the only approach available to those providing digital television, internet, and phone services, so it will likely continue unless action is taken.
The City has spoken with both Verizon and Comcast about the possibility of their firms providing services over an open network, and neither local provider has expressed an interest thus far.
Verizon is in the process of completing its FIOS fiber to the premise program in southwest Snohomish County, and have chosen the proprietary network approach. While the Verizon approach
will provide greater bandwidth and speed than they currently provide in our area, it is not at all
comparable to the bandwidth and speed being proposed for the Edmonds network and is substanPage 11
tially less than what is already available in a growing number of regions in the US and many
parts of Europe and Asia.
At some point Comcast will need to up-grade their network connections to fiber speeds in order
to remain competitive. It seems prudent policy to try and avoid a duplication of dug up streets
and impaired views resulting from the recent overhead stringing of fiber cable and splice boxes
on overhead lines a second or third time. Staff will continue to reach out to Comcast in hopes of
encouraging them to consider the more progressive shared network model, and will continue our
discussions with other service providers who have expressed interest in using the Edmonds
shared network.
Recommendations
Despite all of the positive reasons to move forward with a Citywide FTTP network; City Staff
feels that the legal and financial risks to the City and its taxpayers are not sufficiently understood
to recommend moving forward at this time. At the same time, as the economics of this proposal
continue to evolve in favor of building the network, the CTAC and City Staff will continue to
evaluate the City’s options and keep the Mayor and City council informed.
The following are specific actions that staff requests the Mayor and Council to consider:
1.)
Direct Staff to prepare a plan that builds EFN components incrementally, as opposed all at once (Big Bang). An incremental construction plan that achieves full
city-wide coverage will cost more and take longer than a “Big Bang” all-city project; it has the benefit of eliminating the risk associated with subscriber acceptance.
2.)
Direct Staff to revise the consultant’s business model factoring in revenue received from a growing number of PEG partners.
3.)
Move to adopt a policy requiring all development projects that install new, or
move existing utility services, to provide for a communications conduit into the
structure or structures and that it be dedicated for future City use.
4.)
Direct Staff to seek grant funding for a demonstration project that would create a
technology display at the library, Francis Anderson Center or other public facility
that would mimic the Edmonds “Living room of the Future”. The display would
be a “hands-on” working display demonstrating ultra high speed internet, broadcast TV and video on demand, two-way video conferencing. Additionally, information based energy conservation programs can be showcased that demonstrate
how real-time gas and electric meter reading can be utilized by the customer to
trim their energy usage and reduce their carbon footprint. In addition to the public display, the grant funds should be used to connect several homes and businesses to the network to gain real world perspective on the network.
Page 12
Recommendation Summary
From a broad overview perspective, our recommendation is to continue aggressively moving
ahead in the development of the Edmond’s Fiber Network (EFN) for internal and intergovernmental uses. The internal cost savings and productivity increases appear to have significant potential benefit to the City and other governmental entities have been quick to recognize the benefits the EFN can provide them, and have expressed an eagerness to partner with the City. Their
willingness to invest in the network is allowing the EFN to grow in both geographic reach and
overall capacity and at the same time cover the incremental capital costs associated with their
connections and reduce the City’s on-going cost of network operations.
The business case for providing a citywide fiber to the premise (FTTP) service for city residential and commercial users is not so clear-cut. Our economic analysis concludes that, at present, a
full fiber to the premise deployment would be difficult to justify on its own given existing economic conditions. However, as will be discussed shortly, it does seem to make financial sense to
offer surplus broadband capacities to content providers as well as commercial and residential
users on a selected basis, thus growing the network (and revenues) incrementally.
As an example, if the plan being presented is adopted, two of the four City locations identified in the FTTP plan for fiber optic “hub” locations will be enabled as a part of wireless meter reading project. If and when finances and policy justify a full fiber to the premise deployment, the fiber optic “backbone” needed to serve nearly half the city will already be in place and paid for.
The specific recommendations being proposed in this plan are:
1.)
Continue to support through the budgeting process, those capital investments that
that are directly attributable to projects that result in direct cost offsets to the
City’s telecommunications budget.
2.)
Approve the issuance of one or more Water/Sewer Revenue Bonds, not to exceed
$4.2 million for the acquisition of replacement water meters for all city water
customers along with an “Electronics Package” that contains radio transmitters
for each of the meters and provides funds for radio receiving towers, associated
fiber optic cable runs, and related system expenses;
3.)
Continue pursuing municipal, governmental and educational institutions that
would benefit, both financially and operationally, from having access to the
EFN’s ultra high speed broadband capacity.
4.)
Request that the City Engineer review the City’s engineering and design guidelines in light of new technology that allows fiber to be placed underground with
minimal impact to streets or earthen right-of-ways at a substantially reduced cost
to the City.
5.)
Move to adopt a policy requiring installation of fiber optic conduit when streets
are either reconstructed, dug-up for water/sewer/storm replacement or other major
infrastructure improvements.
Page 13
6.)
Move to adopt a policy requiring all development projects that install new, or
move existing utility services, to install a communications conduit into the structure or structures and that it be dedicated for City use.
7.)
Direct Staff to seek grant funding for a demonstration project that would create a
technology display at the library, Francis Anderson Center or other public facility
that would mimic the Edmonds “Living room of the Future”. The display would
be a hands on working display demonstrating ultra high speed internet, broadcast
TV and video on demand, two-way video conferencing. Additionally, information based energy conservation programs can be showcased that demonstrate how
real-time gas and electric meter reading can be utilized by the customer to trim
their energy usage and reduce their carbon footprint. In addition to the public display, the grant funds should be used to connect several homes and businesses to
the network to gain real world perspective on the network.
Attachments & References
Attached are five appendices that were used as the foundation for the recommendations contained in this paper. These attachments will provide much in depth background relating to the
recommendations discussed earlier. These appendices are:
Appendix 1: Flexnet Meter and Radio Cost Estimate
Appendix 2: Underground Fiber Specifications
Appendix 3: Water Meter Radio Propagation Study
Appendix 4: Fiber to the Premise Business Plan
Appendix 5: Cost and Carbon Off-Set Calculations
Appendix 6: Citizen and Business Testimonials
In addition to these six appendices, Edmonds used a great deal of methodology and information
contained in an “Automatic Water Meter Reading Study” prepared by Grant and Osborne Engineering for the City of Marysville. This study has not been included in this report, but is available from the City of Edmonds or Marysville.
Questions or Comments
We hope the information and material contained in this report will be of assistance in understanding what we feel are the next steps for expansion of the City’s broadband network. Staff
look forward to responding to any questions, comments, or concerns you may have.
Page 14
APPENDIX 1: FLEXNET METER & RADIO ESTIMATE
Page 15
APPENDIX 2: UNDERGROUND FIBER SPECIFICATIONS
Recommend installation of (4) conduit in 1.25” or 2” diameter (4 x 1.25” or 4 x 2”). Conduit
shall be SDR-11 HDPE , schedule 80 PVC or equivalent, meeting ASTM-3035 specifications.
Conduit shall be connected using compression couplers or heat fusion. Recommend installation
of 10-12AWG solid trace or locate wire in trench. At no time shall the pipe be deformed to
make any bend. The minimum radius for any bend or sweep in the conduit shall be thirty-six
inches (36").
Page 16
APPENDIX 3: WATER METER PROPAGATION STUDY RESULTS
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
APPENDIX 4: FIBER TO PREMISES BUSINESS PLAN
Broadband Business Plan for
City of Edmonds
Feburary 2008
Page 21
1805 Shea Center Dr Suite 240
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129-2251
603.888.5100
fax 603.888.5101
www.packetfront.com
Page 22
City of Edmonds Broadband Business Plan
Table of Contents
Introduction and Scope .................................................................................................. 25
Benefits of Municipal Broadband—Looking Beyond the Triple Play .......................... 25
Scope of this Document................................................................................................. 27
Network Options ............................................................................................................. 29
Designing the Network.................................................................................................. 29
Building the Network .................................................................................................... 32
Operating the Network.................................................................................................. 33
Operational Plan ............................................................................................................. 37
Who should run the network? City? Partners? Vendors? ............................................ 37
How should the services be marketed?......................................................................... 39
How will customer service be provided?...................................................................... 40
How should billing be done? ........................................................................................ 41
What types of service level agreements need to be developed?.................................... 41
Organizational Plan ........................................................................................................ 42
What type of organization or "entity" should build/own/operate the network? ........... 42
What does the staffing model of the entity look like at the City level, regional level and
who is responsible for recruiting, training and supervision of the staff?..................... 42
How would the staff levels be expected to grow? ......................................................... 43
Financing ......................................................................................................................... 44
Who owns the assets once constructed? ....................................................................... 44
What are the costs of financing and associated risks of the various financing options?
....................................................................................................................................... 44
What are various cash flow alternatives in a best case, worst case, as well as a
thoughtful likely case scenario? ................................................................................... 44
Services ............................................................................................................................ 46
UTOPIA ........................................................................................................................ 46
Västerås, Sweden .......................................................................................................... 46
Nuenen, the Netherlands............................................................................................... 47
Network Finances............................................................................................................ 48
Capital Expenses........................................................................................................... 48
Operating Expenses ...................................................................................................... 58
Page 23
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 69
Page 24
Introduction and Scope
• Benefits of Municipal Broadband—Looking Beyond the Triple Play
The core competency of communities is in building infrastructure for common use—such as
roads, water lines, and in some cases electric utilities. In many states and cities, telecommunications is now considered the “fifth utility,” because cities can implement such infrastructure ubiquitously, often better than any private entity. In addition, there are many community-wide benefits of a municipal network, including better connections for utility monitoring, government services, education, healthcare, library services, and social networking and communication.
Cities are also much better equipped to understand and accept long-term financing scenarios, because the primary motivator for cities is to serve the public good rather than to appease stockholders. These facts place municipalities in an ideal position to deploy fiber-to-the-premise projects, and makes municipal ownership of these networks easier to support. Conversely, it would
be inadvisable for any community to hand over ownership of its network to any private firm, because it would then lose the ability to make decisions regarding the deployment, use, or operation
of that network.
While a community can and should own its FTTH network, not many cities are experts in broadband telecommunications or in operating networks. That’s where a third party operator can be
employed to provide critical expertise. The success of the network in terms of subscriber take
rates, service provider management, and construction management is reliant upon the experience
of the project management team. A third party team that is experienced in the deployment of
FTTH networks can help ensure the network’s success.
There are other management decisions to be made when building a municipally-owned fiber network. One of the most important is whether the network will be open or closed in terms of how
services are offered. An open network is open for more than one service provider to use to offer
service. A closed network is contractually exclusive to just one service provider.
In order to meet community goals of competition and to preclude it from competing directly with
the private sector, our recommendation would be that the City of Edmonds build an open access
network. Building an open network doesn’t happen as a simple coincidence of an overall build
plan, but should be used as one of the core principles of the design, ownership, build and ongoing operations of the network.
Characteristics of a truly open fiber network include:
•
•
•
•
•
Offers multiple services from multiple service providers—and can also be available
for new advanced services to run on the City-owned network, including community developed services, healthcare and educational services.
Operates without prejudice—so that any qualified service provider can serve users on
the network without financial or operational barriers
Provides carrier-class reliability—demonstrable 99.99% uptime
Built on widespread industry standards—Ethernet is a standard that has been widely
adopted by both network applications and network devices, worldwide
Uses easily scalable technology—so that an end user can easily make the jump from 100
Mbps to 1 Gbps bandwidth without affecting the other users on the network; open net-
Page 25
•
works will often use specialized hardware and software to make self-provisioning of services possible, while supporting the service needs of service providers as well
Provides an environment of bandwidth abundance—network electronics should never
be in the business of managing scarcity, but rather in providing optimum capacity to all
end users
When a city or municipality deploys an open access broadband network built on these principles,
the following benefits can be achieved:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Supports economic growth—the vast capacity of an active fiber network will enable
businesses, educational facilities and health care facilities to improve their own service
offerings and internal operations. The availability of a world-class network will also be
very inviting for new businesses to locate to your community.
Supports government applications—the ubiquitous deployment of an open network
provides a ready means to provide automated meter reading and automated meter intelligence, as well as traffic monitoring, emergency response and law enforcement applications.
Reduces the city’s carbon emissions—the availability of an advanced broadband network has the potential to greatly encourage less driving through more innovative network
services, including—
o More telecommuting. Employers and their staff have a greater incentive to work
from home when they can rely on a network infrastructure with enough capacity
to meet their needs. Individuals and entities that transmit large amounts of data
will benefit even more.
o More teleconferencing. Instead of driving or flying to attend a meeting, one
could start a teleconferencing session. An active Ethernet fiber network provides
enough bandwidth to support very high quality visual communications applications by enabling high capacity and symmetrical upload and download speeds.
o More innovation leading to better services. Superior bandwidth will encourage
the growth, proliferation and better consumer use of e-services, including ecommerce, entertainment, automated meter reading, e-government, etc. This
would lead to less driving and therefore fewer carbon emissions.
Supports improved quality of life—high resolution visual communications, lower cost
true broadband connectivity, distance education, telemedicine, telecommuting (which is
made more viable with better-than-T1 capacity to each home), local community video
channels, home security, smart home technology and other services are direct results of
the availability of a true broadband open fiber network.
Encourages innovation—large businesses, small businesses, educational entities, health
care institutions and residents alike benefit from the minimum 100 Mbps dedicated symmetrical capacity offered by an active fiber network. Businesses and “power users” can
subscribe to a 1 Gbps service, increasing the size of the ‘pipe’ they can access 24x7,
without affecting other users on the network. No longer limited by bandwidth scarcity,
this high bandwidth capacity can unleash creative forces to provide new and exciting services and applications on the network. Consumers continue to increase the amount of
bandwidth they need and use, and will immediately see the benefits of the truly ‘fat pipe’.
Encourages competition—the ability for multiple service providers to offer services on
the network encourages competition on price, service availability, and support. This is
good for residents and businesses, as it provides them with more choices and the ability
to change providers if they wish.
Page 26
• Scope of this Document
As part of its due diligence in regard to its conceived municipal broadband project, the City of
Edmonds contracted with DynamicCity (now PacketFront) to develop a Business Plan which
would cover several key areas of the project.
The Network Finances section of this document represents a financial framework with multiple
options that can be used by the City and the network stakeholders to understand the effects that
different choices will have on the financial outcome of the network. Once these choices are made
by the City (for example, the funding level contributed by the other stakeholders) PacketFront
can help Edmonds progress the business model and create a financing structure.
This Business Plan is designed to provide the following information:
•
•
•
•
•
A review of the different options for the design, build and operation (DBO) of a municipal network
A recommended plan of operations
o Who should run the network? City? Partners? Vendors?
o How should the services be marketed?
o How will customer service be provided?
o How should billing be done?
o What types of service level agreements need to be developed?
Organization Plan
o What type of organization or "entity" should build/own/operate the network?
Public Corporation; City Utility; Public Private Partnership; Private Industry?
o What does the staffing model of the entity look like at the City level, regional
level and who is responsible for recruiting, training and supervision of the staff?
o How would the staff levels be expected to grow?
Financing
o How should the network be financed?
o Who owns the assets once constructed?
o What are the costs of financing and associated risks of the various financing options?
o What are various cash flow alternatives in a best case (rapid construction, enthusiastic consumer conversion rate), worst case (delayed construction, tepid conversion rate), as well as a thoughtful likely case scenario?
Services
o What services should be provided on the network?
o POTS, Internet access, video entertainment (broadcast & on-demand), mobile Internet service (Wi-Fi), two-way interactive video (distance learning, remote
healthcare).
o What assumptions are built into the financial model regarding customer demand
and conversion rates for these services?
o What are the one-time costs to set-up and deliver the service?
o How much bandwidth does the service consume? As the technology continues to
evolve, what impact would the likely changes have on available bandwidth?
o What are the assumed gross margins of the possible services?
o What can the service provider expect to charge for the service?
o What would the network entity need to charge the service providers to cover the
costs of providing the particular service?
Page 27
o
Based on the above, what are the various ROI assumptions for each service based
on various conversion rates?
Page 28
Network Options
• Designing the Network
As provided in the technological analysis submitted to the City previously, we believe that the
best solution for Edmonds’ purposes would lie in an open access, active Ethernet fiber network.
Any discussion of technological choices in networking needs to be anchored in the stated goals of
the network:
1. Generate replacement revenues for municipal government.
2. Create cost savings for residents, businesses, and municipal government.
3. Create a framework for competitive communications service providers to provide more
relevant service offerings and better customer service than is currently available today, or
will be available in five years.
4. Create a communications infrastructure that will attract for revenue-enhancing economic
development.
5. Create an open access platform capable of accommodating significant growth and innovative communication services that will enhance the Edmonds civic experience.
To support these goals, the following decision factors should be used to help determine the correct network topology for Edmonds:
•
Capital and Operational Expenses
The upfront cost to build, and the long-term cost to operate will influence the financial
outcome of the network and its ability to generate replacement revenue for the city.
•
Global Standards
Open access platforms require compliance with common standards to support multiple
service providers.
•
Bandwidth Capacity
The current and future need for bandwidth and advanced services for an increasing number of subscribers must be anticipated in the original design of the network.
•
Scalability
The network should be easily expandable with little to no downtime and for the lowest
possible cost.
•
Carrier Class Reliability
A network built for advanced services and multiple service providers must adhere to the
highest standards of reliability.
To summarize our main findings in regards to the Active Ethernet vs. GPON analysis:
Capital and Operational Expenses
Page 29
•
•
•
The cost of the fiber plant is relatively comparable between active and passive designs.
The cost of construction management and contractors are far more significant in the total
cost of the plant than the active/passive decision.
The active electronics are less expensive than passive electronics by about $100 per subscriber.
The engineering of an active network is less complex than a GPON.
Global Standards
•
•
•
•
The Active Ethernet solution is based on a standard that has been stable for decades with
multiple deployments and enjoys a global market to support future cost reduction.
Global and multi-vendor interoperability is immediate and continual for native Ethernet
solution.
The current GPON standard has only been in use for a short period of time and there have
been multiple standards within that time period.
It is likely that the current GPON standard will also be improved, making the current solutions out of date and potentially unavailable.
Bandwidth Capacity
•
•
•
The active solution delivers almost three times the bandwidth capacity to a given area for
a lower cost than a PON.
The active solution allows the network to provide Gbps services to individual subscribers, increasing the ability to service high-end businesses and key end-users without impacting the surrounding users.
The ability to attract service providers is dependent on the network’s ability to offer the
provider access to a high bandwidth and a lower cost. An active network provides more
bandwidth at a lower cost that is more scalable.
Scalability
•
•
Scaling bandwidth for all users is less complicated and dramatically less expensive in the
active environment than the PON. For example, reducing the split count on the PON requires the purchase of additional expensive electronics.
GPON networks require downtime to upgrade.
Carrier Class Reliability
•
•
Because the distribution layer is closer to the subscriber, an active network is more reliable than a passive network with respect to cable cuts by approximately 10 times.
In a PON design, the failure group size in the event of a cable cut is typically several
times larger than an active network.
We have completed some preliminary design work for the Edmonds network for the purposes of
estimating the construction costs for building. As the network plans proceed, more detailed engineering work will be necessary in order to design the exact construction specifications for the
fiber plant, location of the cabinets, etc. We anticipate that Edmonds would use its prescribed
procurement process to issue an RFP for network engineering services for this purpose. It may be
possible to use a local firm for this work, if a qualified local firm exists; this would keep the revenue from the project in the city or surrounding area.
Page 30
The City of Edmonds network as designed by the PacketFront GIS team.
Page 31
• Building the Network
Many contractors are experienced with building FTTH networks. A private firm may be contracted to assist in this procurement process to help assess the proposals and the vendors’ suitability in regards to the overall project.
Selecting the right construction firm can have an enormous impact on the overall project—both in
the quality of the work completed and the reliability of that work, as well as the financial outcome of the network.
Bids solicited from construction firms should include reference sites as well as anticipated building timelines for sample footprints as well as for the network as a whole.
There are many elements in managing a network construction project; here are a few of the tasks
that should be completed by your construction manager. Your construction manager can be a
qualified local staff member or a contracted third party.
Construction Tasks – Implementation
1. Deliver project data to local ‘one call’ service (Blue Stakes, USA, etc.)
2. Oversee the procurement of the field engineering contractors. Identify experienced candidates and initiate and manage bidding processes.
3. Field Engineering Management—contract with outside plant engineering subcontractors to
take the GIS line work done by PacketFront and engineer the construction plan in detail.
a. Identify and secure rights of way
b. Identify infrastructure running lines
c. Design fiber optic splice matrices
d. Design aerial pole attachment details
e. Generate and submit pole attachment requests (pole permits)
f. Provide to the owner and to the construction company/contractor the actual construction prints for building
4. Procurement of, and contract negotiations with, outside plant contractors
a. Excavation crews
b. Buried/underground crews
c. Aerial/overhead crews
d. Electrical crews
e. Structural crews
5. Provide construction standards to outside construction contractors
6. Host pre-construction meetings with the network owner, governing agencies
(city/state/federal), all construction crews
7. Obtain necessary permits for construction.
8. Construction Inspection
a. Ensure job site safety
b. Build community support and management
Page 32
c. Act as public interface regarding construction process
d. Provide as-built documentation to network operator to update the infrastructure database daily
e. Use inspection reports (as-built data) to reconcile invoicing from contractors
9. Fiber splicing and testing
a. Supervise the testing of each fiber and span to ensure that it complies with network
standards
b. Review and accept/reject fiber optic testing data as provided by contractors
10. Quality assurance and control
a. Production tracking—document the progress of each construction crew on a daily basis
b. Incident management—manage and resolve issues such as foreign utility damage,
property damage, etc. that may arise during the course of construction
11. Billing support
a. Validate contractor invoices on behalf of network owner, based on as-built data from
field inspectors
12. Final project inspection
a. Examine the entire network holistically by involved field governing agencies, the network owner and the construction management team
b. Verify that all installations are complete, documented accurately and all work areas
have been cleaned and restored
Construction Management – Operations
1. Change control and management
a. Manage and monitor installed infrastructure
b. Identify and manage network elements as needed due to ongoing changes in the field
(road widening, pole changes, moving aerial to buried, etc.)
2. Network Expansion
a. Follow all the above steps for additional communities or footprints added to the original network.
3. Manage engineering and construction of large scale residential, commercial and business installations.
• Operating the Network
While Edmonds can and should own its network, we recommend that a third party network operations firm be contracted to manage the operations of the network. A third party network operations firm will lend crucial expertise to the day to day operation of Edmonds network, helping to
ensure its success.
Some of the tasks required for network operations include:
Service provider integration, interconnection, and management
1. Service Provider Recruitment
Page 33
a. Target, recruit and develop prospective service providers, and enhance or increase retail services of existing service providers.
b. Enter into discussions with and negotiate service provider contracts on behalf of the
network owner.
2. Service Provider Management
a. Work collaboratively with the network owner to develop and implement a service provider strategy that creates value for the network owner.
b. Provide day-to-day management of service provider relationships and agreements and
for supporting the network owner’s service providers.
c. Monitor and report on the performance of the service providers against their contract
deliverables.
3. Service Provider Integration
a. Facilitate and monitor the physical and logical network interconnection of service providers to the network owner. Design, implement and monitor such interconnect
point(s) and provision virtual connections within the network in response to order fulfillment requests.
b. Provide necessary services to connect new service providers on the network.
4. Wholesale Services Pricing
a. Develop, recommend adoption of, and maintain pricing schema for wholesale services.
5. Service Provider Billing
a. Calculate applicable charges for each service provider and generate and send invoices
of such charges to service providers on behalf of the network owner.
b. Respond to and resolve billing and payment inquiries from service providers.
Select and manage sub-contractors
1. Administer contracts and manage relationships with network subcontractors on behalf of, and
in conjunction with, the network owner.
2. Monitor and report on subcontractor performance against the performance metrics found in
their contracts.
Work order fulfillment
1. Receive and validate works orders from service providers for retail services for adding, modifying, or changing services for existing subscribers.
2. Receive and validate work orders for the report and maintenance of the network.
3. Allocate the work generated by work orders to the contractors for fulfillment.
4. Oversee work performed by subcontractors.
5. Ensure and verify billing to service providers.
6. Review and approve billing from contractors to network owner.
Page 34
Fault & performance monitoring
1. Maintain EMS (element management system) to isolate, identify and resolve network alarms.
2. Provide support desk for service providers for tier 2 & 3 issues.
3. Monitor and report on SLA performance.
4. Monitor network utilization.
Network element repair & maintenance
1. Manage equipment warranties and current maintenance contracts.
2. Repair / replace core distribution switches.
3. Repair damaged outside plant as necessary (accidental fiber cuts, damaged cabinets or hubs).
4. Provide mobile generator support in the case of power outages.
3. Install necessary firmware and software updates/upgrades.
4. Manage contractors for other repairs.
5. Verify contractor billing.
6. Maintain documentation on network configurations.
7. Act in the capacity of technology advisor.
8. Utilize lab to test and validate new firmware/software.
Capacity planning and network engineering
1. Continuously monitor performance, utilization and capacity of the network’s physical and
logical network inventory.
2. Maintain a testing facility.
3. Test and certify the compatibility of firmware and software maintenance updates prior to deploying them to the network.
4. Create and maintain documentation of the physical and logical topology and configuration of
the network.
5. Act as a technology advisor; provide background and insight into changing technologies that
could affect or benefit the network owner.
6. Analyze and recommend upgrades and changes to the network where reasonable, including
recommendations for additional physical and logical network inventory and capacity.
Page 35
Procurement & inventory management
1. Track physical and logical inventory of network elements and resources.
Policy development and administration
1. Administer network technology and business policies for the network:
a. Network security
b. New service introduction
c. Addition of service providers
d. Escalation procedures
e. Wholesale pricing
2. Assist network owner is reviewing and revising such policies to reflect changes based on industry and economic trends, technology evolution, the acquisition of new products, services
and the like.
3. Define and recommend operational policies applicable to the network, including
a. Network addressing
b. Schema
c. Quality of service parameters
d. Network resource allocation schema
e. Network resource naming conventions
f. Approved product and services models
Page 36
Operational Plan
• Who should run the network? City? Partners? Vendors?
We can answer this question in part by defining what sorts of firms should not be enlisted to run
the City’s network.
Once the characteristics and principles of an open network are understood, issues regarding ownership and operations of that network become clear. A service provider or a construction firm
cannot build and provide network services on its own, if the network is to meet the criteria for
openness:
•
•
•
•
•
Carrier-class reliability
Uses widespread industry standards
Uses easily scalable technology
Provides an environment of bandwidth abundance
Operates without prejudice
A service provider is in the business of providing services on a network. If such a firm builds and
operates a network, the service provider can and will build the network in such a way that makes
it very difficult—if not impossible—for other service providers to compete with them on the network they built and operate—regardless of the city’s wishes. The network owner/operator is empowered to make operational decisions on the network, as it is their own bottom line that the service provider needs to manage. On a network it owns, a service provider can and will set up technological or procedural road blocks for other service providers in order to protect their source of
revenue—the service retail fees.
A construction firm can be contracted to build the network, but a construction firm’s expertise
isn’t in designing, operating, or supporting a world-class fiber network. A bid from such firms
should be considered when the time is right to hire contractors to build the network, but such a
firm is not typically qualified to operate the network if the City wishes to implement a worldclass network infrastructure.
While service providers are necessary for network services, revenue and healthy competition, and
construction firms are needed to build the network, neither should be in a position to own or operate the City’s network, if the City truly wishes the network to adhere to the principles of openness on its network.
In order to help foster healthy competition and to ensure that the network is operated efficiently
and expertly, we highly recommend that the City utilize an experienced network operations firm
that is not in a position to collect direct revenue from the network. The City may also choose to
operate this network itself using qualified staff.
Some of the major facets of network operations include:
• Network design and planning
• Service provider recruitment, selection, ongoing management and billing
• Customer acquisition and marketing
• Network monitoring
• Policy development and management
• Construction management
• Finance
Page 37
Network Operations
Firm
Tier 2 and 3 Tech Support
Marketing
Support Billing
Service Provider
Telemedicine
Service Provider Management
Education
Network Automation
and Operations
Teleconferencing
Systems (BSS/OSS)
TV & HDTV
Subscribers
Phone
In this operational model:
•
•
•
Wholesale
Leasing
Multiple Services
and Providers
City Owned Network
Infrastructure
The City/Community finances and owns the physical network infrastructure – and offers wholesale transport services to the retail service
provider(s)
Service providers bring content / applications and develop relationships with the retail subscribers (residential and business)
The Network Operations Firm manages the design, deployment and ongoing operation of the wholesale infrastructure for the network
owner, and manages relationships with service providers and construction contractors
Page 38
• How should the services be marketed?
The success of the network is reliant upon sufficient take rates to make the network self- sustaining over time. It has been our experience that service providers typically do not market their services to their best advantage; they are not as motivated to do so as the network owner, because
they don’t undertake the same financial risks as the network owner.
This is a good reason for the network owner—Edmonds—to market and brand its network separately from the service providers, to create a brand awareness for the network itself. There are
several good examples of this currently, including the municipal network in Vasteras, Sweden.
The MalarNet City network in Vasteras has a distinct identity, including a user self-service portal
that links the user to community resources, service providers, local medical resources, gaming,
and social networking applications.
Users on the MalarNet City network can click a link that takes them directly to a listing of all the
available services and providers on the network, including user ratings for those services, price
structures, etc.
Page 39
This approach to community network marketing makes it easier for consumers to immediately
understand the benefits of an open access network, because the competition between service providers is healthy and extremely evident.
In short, we recommend a combined approach to marketing; service providers can and should
market their own services to network customers, but the network itself should also be marketed
separately. It is for this reason that marketing expenses have been included in the operational
costs of the network, as shown in the Services and Network Finances sections of this document.
• How will customer service be provided?
Tier 1 customer service—that is, customer service to the end users—should be performed by the
service provider(s) on the network. This can also be one of the competitive and differentiating
factors among service providers on the network; good service will reduce churn on the network;
bad service will increase it. Customer service metrics should also be included as part of the service level agreement (SLA) with the network’s service providers in order to ensure that only
qualified, functioning service providers operate on the network. Consumers don’t always make
the distinction between the service provider and the network, and when a service provider underperforms, it can reflect poorly on the network in the minds of the users.
Tiers 2 and 3 customer service should be performed through the network operations firm. This
would primarily be a resource for the service providers as they troubleshoot consumer issues.
The network operations firm ultimately chosen by Edmonds should be able to demonstrate experience and expertise in providing Tier 2 and 3 network support.
Page 40
• How should billing be done?
Typically, billing of the consumers should be responsibility of the service provider(s) on the network; this allows the service providers to maintain a direct link to its own customers and to allow
them to create and manage their own business practices. Inserting the network owner into the end
user billing process would be cumbersome and would create an unnecessary filter between the
service provider and their customers.
Billing the service providers would be the responsibility of Edmonds through its network operations firm. Part of the responsibility of the network operations firm would be to track service provider usage and bill accordingly on behalf of the City.
• What types of service level agreements need to be developed?
Essentially, there are two categories of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that need to be developed. One outlines the responsibilities of the Network Owner/Operator to the Service Provider,
and the other outlines the responsibilities of the Service Provider to the Network Owner/Operator.
The intent is to structure and implement the SLAs in such a way that creates a well defined
framework for the two parties to operator under, and not necessarily a penalty book for collecting
fines when problems arise. In Appendix A, we have included sample SLAs which map out the
specific terms of these agreements.
Page 41
Organizational Plan
• What type of organization or "entity" should build/own/operate the
network?
This is based primarily on the goals, resources, and risk level the City is comfortable with – and
the additional resources and skills that may be available through the private sector. Simply put,
there is not one size that fits all. However, one core principle that we do believe strongly in is the
creation of a Public/Private Partnership (PPP). The overall success of a community broadband
effort will improve by including the various skills and resources from the private sector, and by
incorporating a model that shares risk across multiple parties. We advise against a business model
where the City is the sole party responsible for – and at risk for – all of the aspects of building,
operating, and maintaining the network.
That being said, a PPP can be created through two basic structures. In one model, the public and
private sector entities share overall ownership of the network, and together comprise the decision
making body for all business issues, policy creation, day-to-day operations, network construction,
writing of commercial contracts, and so on. The other PPP model is one that is structured purely
through commercial contracts and there is no shared ownership. This creates clear separation of
power for all decisions that impact network ownership, writing policies, and other various business decisions.
Based on our discussions with the City of Edmonds, we feel that the most appropriate model is
one where the network ownership is held solely by the City, through the creation of a special use
entity or enterprise fund, and private sector partners are engaged through commercial contracts to
provide services to, or purchase services from the network. In this model, an efficient board level
structure is created, comprised of municipal representatives who make the final decisions on the
overall community broadband plan, business model, messaging, implementation plan, and finance
structure.
Private sector partners are engaged through commercial contracts for such arrangements as providing services on the network, network operations and maintenance agreements, marketing/advertising efforts, and providing an additional capital source and revenue stream for the city.
However, the private sector would not fill any seats on the municipal telecom board of directors.
This keeps a clear separation of power between the public and private sector, while still benefiting from a public/private partnership model that leverages the strengths of both entities – and
shares risk across multiple parties.
PacketFront, in partnership with our municipal telecom counsel, is qualified to provide the legal
expertise to help guide our clients through the organization and governance processes, make specific recommendations on what the most appropriate structure would be, and draft the legal documents to create the operating entities and commercial agreements.
• What does the staffing model of the entity look like at the City level,
regional level and who is responsible for recruiting, training and supervision of the staff?
With the aforementioned model in mind, the broadband entity at the City level would be staffed
primarily by a board of directors, of approximately 4 to 8 members. This staff would have exper-
Page 42
tise in areas such as City Administration and Planning, Finance, Legal, Infrastructure and Communications, and Economic Development. Furthermore, this staff would serve as a technical
steering committee for decisions that impact infrastructure design and implementation – and
manage the private sector partners through commercial agreements for such services as network
operations and maintenance, triple-play applications, and finance/lending.
If there are additional municipal bodies that would benefit the community broadband initiative,
they can be organized on a regional level through Inter-Governmental Agreements (IGAs).
• How would the staff levels be expected to grow?
Whether the City chooses to operate and maintain the network themselves, or contract with a private sector partner to operate it on their behalf, we see moderate to no growth of the staff levels.
This reasoning is based on one of the unique aspects of the PacketFront FTTH solution, which is
a set of advanced software applications that automate the business processes for managing the
network and delivering services. Therefore, if the City chooses to operate the network themselves, there would be little to no staff level changes as the network grows in scale. If the City
decides to outsource the operational responsibilities to a private sector partner, then there would
be no staff changes over time, as this would be the responsibility of the party operating the network on behalf of the City.
Page 43
Financing
• Who owns the assets once constructed?
In the organization model recommended previously, the assets would be owned by the City.
• What are the costs of financing and associated risks of the various
financing options?
The two main municipal financing options are bonding and leasing. Both rates are primarily set
by market conditions, transaction size, and credit rating. Municipal bonds traditionally have a
slightly lower cost of capital, higher legal fees, and a higher level of risk as the bonds are typically backed by the full faith and credit of the municipality, and in some cases, require a tax
pledge. Municipal leasing has a slightly higher cost of capital, lower fees, less complexity and
time intensive, and a lower level of risk, as these programs typically include a non-appropriation
clause in the event that monies are not allocated for the lease payments. In both financing options,
the City owns the assets. The recommendation on which financing approach is a better fit (bonding vs. leasing) will be determined by understanding the City’s credit rating, lending requirements, and risk appetite.
In support of the City’s financing activities, PacketFront works with a broad array of financial
partners who provide these types of lending programs, and can offer its services to conduct a capital raise.
• What are various cash flow alternatives in a best case, worst case, as
well as a thoughtful likely case scenario?
As part of the financial planning steps, PacketFront will work with the City on determining what
the various cash flow projections would look like, under best case, worst case, and likely case
scenarios – and collectively make a decision on which model the City is comfortable planning
for. All of those variables were not forecasted in this document, only the likely cash flow case.
We would propose to hold that exercise in a workshop environment. In the event that there is a
financing need to cover operational losses or debt services, these funds can be capitalized in both
financing structures mentioned above. What follows are some of the risk categories for a municipal network, including increased capital costs and lower than anticipated revenue.
Risk: Higher than anticipated capital costs
Possible reasons for higher capital costs include difficult construction conditions, less-thananticipated aerial plant, and higher overall footage than estimated.
Possible Mitigation Strategies:
•
•
•
Increase bond size
Issue additional bond(s)
Identify source of contingency funds
Risk: Lower than anticipated take rate
Page 44
Possible reasons for lower than anticipated take rates include incumbent competition and service
provider issues (poor marketing, poor customer support, etc.).
•
•
•
Increase marketing expenditures
Identify additional provider(s)
Increase bond size
Risk: Lower than anticipated Average Revenue Per User (ARPU)
Possible reasons for lower than anticipated ARPU includes price competition, provider-related
circumstances, substitution and innovation (such as Skype and Vonage being used in place of a
voice product on the network).
•
•
•
•
Improve bundling incentives and cross-selling
Identify new products, services, and revenue streams
Increase/change prices
Increase business marketing & sales
Page 45
Services
An open access, active Ethernet fiber network is capable of bandwidth capacity that is superior to
any other network infrastructure currently available. As such, it will accommodate all of the services mentioned by Edmonds: telephone service, Internet access, video entertainment (broadcast
& on-demand), mobile Internet service (Wi-Fi), two way interactive video (distance learning, remote healthcare).
Wi-Fi service has not been modeled into these design-build-operate scenarios, but could be done
upon request. However, a fiber backbone installed by Edmonds would support the addition of
Wi-Fi services.
We believe it is somewhat preliminary to engage in discussions with specific service providers at
this juncture, before the network has been approved or funded, but there are several qualified service providers who may be interested in providing services on an Edmonds network. Edmonds’
projected subscriber counts would likely draw at least one triple-play provider to its network, and
1 or 2 smaller providers. An Edmonds network also has the potential to draw the interest of locally-created or managed niche providers, such as gaming services, social network services, colocation services, etc.
In order to demonstrate the possibilities regarding services on a municipally-owned open access
network, following are a few examples of services available on similar networks.
• UTOPIA
The Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) is a consortium of Utah
cities engaged in deploying and operating a fiber optic network to every business and household
in its member communities. Recognizing the need to provide their residents with superior communications technology infrastructure—and the reality that current service providers in the marketplace were not delivering first-tier services—the communities banded together to create a
world-class, 100% fiber optic network for member communities. The ultra-broadband UTOPIA
Community MetroNet is open to multiple service providers to offer innovative and exciting services to citizens in the UTOPIA cities.
Four service providers currently serve subscribers on the UTOPIA network
•
1 Triple Play provider
•
2 Voice and Internet providers
•
1 Internet provider (soon also to be adding voice services)
Three of the service providers also provide business-class services.
• Västerås, Sweden
Mälarenergi Stadsnät's business model is based on a system whereby the network owner and the
service providers share the revenue generated by the network, with the service providers offering
their services direct to the users instead of running their own broadband connections to the cus-
Page 46
tomers they want. The service providers pay for gaining access to customers who are already
connected to the network.
The users connect to the system via a normal data socket, then buy the services they want directly
from the relevant providers, thus gaining access to Internet, email, music, films, etc. The model
has been well received by many service providers, including major firms such as Tele2 and Tiscali.
Västerås' community network has 29 service providers offering more than 100 unique services.
These services are suited to different categories of user, such as landlords, companies or households, and include voice, video, data, alarms, surveillance, support and operation, training, gaming etc. As an open network, all those who so desire can also offer a service on the network, in
which case they sign a contract with Mälarenergi to become a service provider.
Because of the popularity of the network in the community, approximately 70% of all network
communication is local and does not go out via the Internet. It is much faster to transfer a file between two connections in the community network than to send it over the Internet, and the capacity thus saved can be used for much more bandwidth hungry traffic, such as video-on-demand, IP
telephony, TV or radio, which are transmitted with much poorer quality on the Internet.
Users who wish to use the Internet also benefit from being connected to the community network
since the network is connected to the Internet via the Internet service providers that offer their
services on it. The Västerås community network offers connections at speeds no less than 10
Mbps, and has the capacity to offer 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps.
• Nuenen, the Netherlands
The city of Nuenen in the Netherlands has become the epicentre of some very exciting innovation
in the telecommunications industry, and PacketFront’s technology is making it all possible.
A Dutch cooperative, Ons Net (Our Network) has organized Nuenen’s roughly 8,000 households,
offices, schools, and shops into a purchasing cooperative with enough power to demand state-ofthe-art communications services. A very high level of consumer commitment has guaranteed a
critical mass of customers and project financing.
Volker Stevin Telecom recognized this opportunity and stepped in to build and operate a network
providing access to triple-play services: TV/video, telephony, and Internet. As a method for
quick growth, this network offered free voice service for one year and reached 90% penetration,
and largely kept that penetration rate once the promotion period was over.
Volker Stevin Telecom has chosen to remain strictly an access provider, hosting the conduit in
Nuenen for a variety of service providers to compete for customers. Via the start-up user interface
on the network a variety of service providers are presented to Nuenen residents. Volker Stevin
Telecom and Ons Net believe that more flexibility in the business model leads to more choice,
higher quality services, and lower prices to consumers.
Page 47
Network Finances
This section seeks to provide information regarding capital expenses, operating expenses, and the
take rates necessary to produce a cash positive network over time.
• Capital Expenses
1-Unit Detached
Census
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
10,765
73
74
80
91
121
99
72
46
Total
1-Unit Attached
626
2 units
350
6
6
6
6
12
2
2
390
3 or 4 units
778
0
9
3
15
10
0
10
4
829
5 to 9 units
1,186
90
77
69
68
153
69
92
104
1,908
10 to 19 units
1,407
1,407
20+ units
2,317
2,317
Mobile home
Total
626
90
17,519
Modeled
11,421
12,450
6,550
Single
Family
MDU
90
169
166
158
180
296
170
174
156
18,988
19,000
Avg of 168 new homes/year
Figure 1 — Residential unit counts were estimated using 2000 Census data combined with new housing building permit data.
In order to estimate capital expenses, one needs to determine how many total units are planned to
be connected to the network. For the purposes of this business plan and based on feedback from
Edmonds, we have designed this business plan as a complete city build out.
In order to determine how many units there were to be connected, we started with the 2000 census data, which projected 17,500 units broken down by unit size. To that number we added new
home construction permitting data up through mid-summer in 2007. Combining the census data
with the additional new home permitting data since that time, we arrived at roughly 19,000 units.
We further broke that number down into two sub-categories: single family units, of which there
were 12,450 homes; and multi-dwelling units (MDUs), of which there were 6,550.
Typically, ARPU in MDUs is lower by 25-30%. However, we modeled the same amount on capital costs to get to the MDUs because there is often a need to bore underneath asphalt, so the fiber
drop will be more expensive than a single family residence. However, the same fiber drop would
be able to connect multiple units, so we modeled it relatively consistently with the single family
unit. There could also be some savings regarding the electronics in the MDUs.
Page 48
Side and hobby businesses that would
never contract for services independently
from the home.
# of
Employees
Count
1
1,072
Ignored
2 to 4
1,083
Residential
5 to 9
298
10 to 24
174
Small businesses that possibly are home
based but could have commercial
presence. Take residential products
Businesses with commercial presence
likely to take different class of service
from residential products.
560
25 to 49
55
50 to 99
33
100 to 250
5
Ignored
250+
2
Ignored
Total
2,722
560
Large businesses with enterprise needs.
Assumed to remain with current
incumbent provider.
Figure 2 — Business unit counts are derived from Dunn & Bradstreet data, but
only the medium-sized businesses have been counted as business units.
This figure represents a summary of the range of businesses in Edmonds. According to Dunn &
Bradstreet, there are approximately 1,000 businesses registered in Edmonds that have only one
employee. We have ignored those businesses for the purposes of this business plan; we assumed
that those single-employee businesses by and large consist of residents who have a business license for convenience and/or those who run a business out of their home. For the most part, these
types of business have no commercial presence (office space, etc.) separate from their homes.
These types of businesses would mostly be taking residential services, not business services.
As we examined the group of businesses with between 2 and 4 employees, we understood that
some of these businesses may actually have an office or place of business outside of the residence—but again, most of these are more likely home-based. For the purposes of this business
plan, we included these into the residential numbers under the assumption that they would also
take the residential suite of products. There is also a chance that their place of work will be the
same as their place of residence, and so will not be taking services separately from their residence.
For the purposes of the Edmonds broadband network, the most vital part of he business community are those businesses with between 5 and 99 employees, of which there are approximately
560. These businesses generally have an actual commercial presence. These businesses will also
subscribe to various levels of services, including Internet, and depending on the nature of the
business they may subscribe to a voice and video product as well.
For the businesses between 100 and 250 employees, and 250+; we assumed that they are already
well served by the incumbents, and they would not be likely to initially take service from providers on the Edmonds network. If any of these businesses do switch to the Edmonds network, it
would most likely be in 2-3 years, when their current contracts with the incumbents come up for
renewal. Some of these businesses could also take service on the Edmonds network as a backup
to their current communications services.
Page 49
Total Capital
Capital Expenses
CAPEX/Unit
% of Total CAPEX
Units Passed
Plant
19,560
$ 17,726,208
Electronics
373,970
Total Fixed
$ 18,100,178
$
906.25
19.12
$
Variable capital
37%
925.37
CPE
8%
Subscribers (47% penetration)
Electronics
$
2,579,825
Set tops
7%
9,239
$
279.23
Drops
3,497,250
378.53
CPE
2,253,670
243.82
IP Set tops
2,028,070
219.51
Total Variable
$ 10,357,215
$ 1,121.10
Total CAPEX
$ 28,457,993
$3,080.20
Drops
12%
Plant
62%
Electronics
11%
Fixed capital
63%
Source: PacketFront
Figure 3 — Total capital required for the project is ~$28M, of which 64% is fixed
plant regardless of the number of subscribers. The plant can be built in phases
according to demand to allow for some variability.
The approximately 19,000 residential units, plus the 1,000 very small businesses counted in the
residential numbers, in addition to the 560 mid-size businesses equals 19,560 potentially servable
units in Edmonds.
With this number in mind, we estimate that the total capital expenditure required for the project is
$28.4 million, or approximately $3080 per unit at 47% penetration This includes $925.37 per
home passed (that is, the cost to get the fiber to the ‘curb’), plus $1,121 to connect each home that
subscribes to service on the network. The 47% estimated penetration rate equals approximately
9,239 subscribers. If you divide $28.4 million by 9,239, this equals approximately $3,080 per
user to build the network. A large percentage of that capital expense is in the outside plant. .
We believe that while this 47% penetration rate will not be gained passively by the network, it
can be reached through a tightly integrated implementation, operations and aggressive marketing,
as described later in this document.
Page 50

196 miles access plant
39 miles underground
157 miles aerial
23 miles of distribution
0.7 miles underground
4.3 miles aerial
17.9 miles of potential Blackrock
Fiber
Source: PacketFront
Figure 4 — In order to estimate capital costs, PacketFront modeled the running
line routes past every address in the city using GIS software (see the larger map
on page 6).
When we modeled the Edmonds network using available data, it appeared that more than 80% of
the network could be deployed aerially. This provides a large cost advantage over some networks;
it is much less expensive to deploy the network aerially than underground.
We acknowledge Edmonds’ preference for underground deployment; however, note that doing so
would increase the $18M fiber plant costs seen on Figure 3 to more than $35M. Deploying the
network entirely underground would make the financial success of the network extremely challenging. However, as the electric utility buries lines throughout the city, the fiber cables could be
buried at the same time to take advantage of shared costs.
PacketFront did investigate possibly using some of the existing fiber routes owned by private parties to deploy part of the Edmonds’ plant; however, the fee for using their fiber plant is more costly than Edmonds deploying its own fiber. Should those fees drop substantially, this option may be
worth revisiting.
Page 51
Outside Plant Cable Placement
Density
Aerial vs. Underground
HHP / Mile
19,560 HHP
196 miles of running line
160
100%
90%
20%
135
140
80%
48%
70%
64%
117
120
65%
100
Underground
100
60%
87
80
50%
80%
60
30%
52%
20%
36%
35% Aerial
10%
HHP / Mile
40%
40
20
0
0%
Edmonds City
Washington
Community 2
Washington
Community 1
Edmonds City
UTOPIA
Washington
Community 2
Washington
Community 1
UTOPIA
Source: PacketFront
Figure 5 — The large portion of aerial plant placement significantly reduces the
cost of the project. Edmonds’ density is also favorable.
Edmonds has some significant cost advantages when compared to other similar projects and areas. As shown on Figure 4, the Edmonds network can be constructed 80% aerially, which is a
great cost savings. Edmonds also has approximately 100 homes per square mile; this is also favorable, although is less dense relative to other cities in surrounding area. These, however, are
good metrics that will result in lower overall capital expenses.
Page 52
Outside Plant Cable Placement
Aerial vs. Underground
196 miles of running line
120%
113%
101%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
12%
15%
15%
6%
0%
Pneumatic
Drilling
Directional
Drilling
Pull Fiber
Place Strand Lash Fiber
-20%
Splice <12
Splice 13 to Splice 73 to Splice 216+
-5%
-6%
72
215
-16%
Sources: UTOPIA, Local Edmonds Construction Firm
Figure 6 — The price of underground construction in Edmonds is double that experienced in Utah, perhaps due to less favorable ground conditions and the effect
of Prevailing Wage laws. Aerial Construction seems to reflect the impact of Prevailing Wage laws alone.
As part of this process, we asked a construction firm local to Edmonds to provide quotes on labor
rates for network installation. We found that the cost relative to UTOPIA construction on some of
the main underground units were 100% more in Edmonds. In other words, the labor costs are
roughly double than what we’ve historically seen in our experience with the UTOPIA network
project in Utah. We attribute a portion of that to prevailing wage laws in Washington State, and
also a portion to unfavorable construction conditions for buried cable; combined, these factors
result in higher construction expenses.
Prevailing Wage laws do also impact the aerial portions of the network, which is consistent with
research that says that prevailing wage laws increase costs by 15%-20%. We believe that at least
a 15% increase in costs over those witnessed on the UTOPIA project would be proven no matter
which construction firm is selected.
It should be noted that the splicing costs were more comparable to average rates found for the
UTOPIA project.
While our research did not include soliciting bids from multiple construction firms, this should be
the next step for Edmonds.
Page 53
Underground Construction Costs
Aerial Construction Costs
39 miles
157 miles
$30
$30
$28.00
$25
$/foot
$/foot
$25
$20
$18.17
$18.10
$17.61
$20
$15.15
$15
$15
$10
$10
$7.25
$6.91
$5.96
$6.06
$5
$5
$3.21
$0
$0
Edmonds
City
UTOPIA
Phase I
UTOPIA
Phase II
TCS
Edmonds
Beltw ay
UTOPIA
Phase 1
UTOPIA
Phase II
Beltway
Cable
Sources: UTOPIA, Local Edmonds Construction Firm, Dean & Company
Figure 7 — Although the underground construction costs could be significantly
higher in Edmonds, the large amount of aerial construction can minimize the impact on the total capital cost of the project.
When examining the costs-per-foot for construction in Edmonds, the underground costs are significantly more expensive than what has been experienced with other projects. The aerial costs
are less expensive but still higher than what have been experienced on a per-foot basis in other
areas of the country.
Page 54
Construction Costs
% of Total Plant
Construction
Cost
Cost / HHP
Inspection
8%
Distribution
Rings
5%
Cabinets
5%
Construction
Labor
39%
Engineering
9%
Management
8%
Construction
Materials
26%
Construction
Labor
$ 6,865,888
$351.02
Construction
Materials
4,632,903
236.86
Management
1,500,000
76.69
Engineering
1,518,251
77.62
Cabinets
850,000
43.46
Distribution Rings
950,915
48.62
1,408,251
72.00
$17,726,208
$906.25
Inspection
Total
Source: PacketFront
Figure 8 — The total cost of the outside plant is projected to be $17.7M, which
breaks down into Construction Labor, Construction Materials, Management, Engineering, Cabinets, Distribution Rings, and Inspection costs.
In summary, when the $17.7M outside plant costs are broken down into its components, $6.8 million of that is the labor portion. As discussed in previous figures, while there is not a significant
amount of underground construction, what exists is very costly.
Construction materials comprise another major portion of the total. Other categories to account
for include overall project management, engineering of the network, placing of the cabinets, distribution rings, and inspection costs.
It’s possible that, using the open trenches for the planned water project, approximately $3-4 million of the construction costs could be offset. This would include lower labor costs (which would
be lowered but not altogether eliminated), but not lower material costs.
Questions still remain around whether the management, engineering, distribution rings or inspection costs could be offset if the network is built as part of the water project. How much or how
little Edmonds wishes to share these expenses with other stakeholders becomes a matter for Edmonds and the stakeholders to decide. In general, however, the more that is offset by other stakeholders, the better the financial outcome is for the network. This will be shown in upcoming figures.
Page 55
Set top box
Cabinets
~1500 HHP
Set tops
• $2,028,070 of electronics
• $219 / sub
~900 HHP
Distribution
• 23 miles of plant
• $373,970 of electronics
• $ 19 / sub
5% of electronics capital
$373,970
Access
Customer Equipment (CPE)
• 191 miles of plant
• $ 279 / sub
• $ 244 / sub
95% of electronics capital
$6,860,565
Source: PacketFront
Figure 9 — The electronics will cost approximately $7.2M, of which 95% is the link
to the customer’s premise plus set top boxes for video.
This figure shows a breakdown of how the electronics are configured for the network. As seen on
the bottom left of the figure, there are $373,970 in core electronics. On the right side there is $6.8
million in access electronics, with the majority of the cost providing the link from the cabinet to
the home.
Therefore, the access electronics portion is by far the most significant portion of the costs of deploying this network. We also included $2 million for set top boxes, which is about $219 per subscriber, but in later figures we show that the set top boxes end up being a nice revenue maker for
the network. These numbers account for an average of 2.5 set tops per video subscriber.
Page 56
Cost per Premise Passed
Cost to Connect a Subscriber
19,560 HHP
$1,500
9,239 subscribers – 47%
$1,200
Set top
Boxes
$1,500
$1,200
$1,163
$220
$1,021
$925
$880
$900
$873
$900
$600
$600
$902
$300
$300
$0
$0
Edmonds City
Verizon FIOS 2005
Verizon FIOS 2006
Edmonds City
Verizon FIOS 2005
Verizon FIOS 2006
Note: Edmond’s connection costs include set top boxes which are
not included by Verizon
Sources: PacketFront, Verizon
Figure 10 — Cost per premise passed in Edmonds is in line with the Verizon FiOS
project.
To ensure that our projected costs were in line with comparable projects, we compared these projections with Verizon FiOS capital expenditures. Where the Edmonds network is projected to cost
$925 per home passed for the fiber plant, Verizon reported approximately $1000 per home passed
in 2005, and $873 in 2006. This change shows that Verizon has been able to drive down its own
costs over this period.
The cost to connect a subscriber on the Edmonds network is actually less than what Verizon has
reported, and a little bit more if you include the set top box. Verizon’s number does not include
the set top box.
This review indicates that our estimates are in a reasonable range of what the Edmonds network
will cost to deploy. The City would still need to solicit bids to finalize pricing.
Page 57
• Operating Expenses
Network Operating Expenses
Per subscriber
$25
$23.76
$20.12
$20
$19.18
$19.66
$17.27
$13.97
Field Operations
$9.35
$9.79
Network Operations
Verizon
AT&T
$9.25
$15
$10.28
$9.63
$7.74
$11.35
$10
$ / Sub / Month
$5.01
$10.87
$5
$9.53
$9.55
ILEC
Qwest
$6.34
$0
Edmonds City
BellSouth
Sources: PacketFront, FCC
Figure 11 — Edmonds community fiber network is expected to be less expensive
to maintain in the field than the ILEC’s copper plant.
Operational costs for Edmonds are approximately $11 per subscriber per month, which is far
lower than the operational costs for the ILECs. The operational costs for a typical ILEC reflect
aging copper plants and old legacy systems that require more upkeep and repair. A typical ILEC
also maintains a much larger overhead cost due to their large corporate structures. The Edmonds
network will have a much leaner overhead and slimmer operational costs due to the newer and
more adaptable fiber infrastructure.
Page 58
Total Network Operating Expenses
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
Marketing
$1,400,000
Agency Operations
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
Network Operations
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Source: PacketFront
Figure 12 — Annual operating expenses are approximately $1.5M annually. Significant marketing dollars will be required early in the project to generate awareness and subscribers.
The total network operations expenditure is thought to increase very gradually over time due to
the increased number of subscribers. This operational model allows for agency costs, including
staff. There will likely also be other similar overhead.
Initial marketing costs are estimated relatively high in order to help drive demand for services
initially—to get the word out and kick start the project. Over time marketing costs begins to taper
off into maintenance mode over a period of some years.
Network Operations and Agency costs assumed in this model include:
Network Operations:
•
•
•
•
Asset Management – to operate the network
Field Maintenance – to maintain the infrastructure in the field
Collocation Fees – to locate core electronics
Interconnects – to connect the Edmonds network to the rest of the world
Agency:
•
•
Advertising – marketing cost for the network assumed at $200/sub
Salaries & Benefits – $12,000/month is allocated, but not designated for specific staffing
Page 59
•
•
•
•
Professional Fees – to cover legal and other professional fees
Rent – no money allocated for rent. Assumed to share city space
Insurance
Other expenses
Total Operating Expenses
Per subscriber per month
$70
$63.91
$60
$50
$40
$31.95
$ / Sub / Month
$30
$21.30
$20
$15.98
$12.78
$10.65
$10
$9.13
$7.99
$7.10
$0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Take Rate
Source: PacketFront
Figure 13 — The operating overhead of the project will require take rates above
40% to bring the unit economics to a reasonable cost.
There are some variable costs on the operations side; however, most are fixed so as the take rate
goes up, those costs can be spread across a greater portion.
This figure also shows that at the 28-38% penetration range, even so high as 42% penetration, the
network will be in a range similar to what is currently being paid by the ILECs in terms of operational costs (which run typically $15-20 per user per month). The assumption is that the Edmonds
network would be closer to the 45-50% range for network penetration, and therefore have lower
operational costs than the ILECs.
PacketFront anticipates that the 45%-50% take rate would be eventually reached after approximately 6-8 years.
Page 60
Present Value of Net Operating Income
By take rate and ARPU
$90,000,000
60% Take Rate
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
50% Take Rate
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
40% Take Rate
Present Value*
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
30% Take Rate
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
$15
($10,000,000)
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
ARPU (Average revenue per user)
*Assumes discount rate of 5.5% for 25 years
Figure 14 — The present value of the project—or the amount of capital that can be
raised—depends on the average revenue per user (ARPU) at a given take rate.
The ARPU for a user is derived by the service(s) subscribed to by each user. For example, a triple-play subscriber would have a higher APRU than an Internet-only subscriber. This figure
looks at one way to estimate the net value of the project for purposes of financing and private
capital. The value can be calculated by taking the ARPU combined with the take rate.
In other words, if we assume that the network can achieve a $34 ARPU and a 30% take rate, this
project would be worth about $10 million. If we believe that the network can get a $50 ARPU
and a 50% take rate, the project’s worth $55 million. This is one way to value the network for the
purposes of obtaining private equity.
Page 61
Minimal
All Plant
Plant + Drop
Lit transport
$ 6,865,888
$ 6,865,888
$ 6,865,888
$ 6,865,888
4,632,903
4,632,903
4,632,903
4,632,903
Management
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
Engineering
1,518,251
1,518,251
1,518,251
850,000
850,000
850,000
950,915
950,915
950,915
1,408,251
1,408,251
1,408,251
$17,726,208
$17,726,208
$17,726,208
3,497,250
3,497,250
Construction Labor
Construction Materials
Cabinets
Distribution Rings
950,915
Inspection
Total Plant
$12,449,706
Drops
373,970
Core electronics
Cabinet electronics
2,579,825
Customer electronics
2,262,670
Total
$12,449,706
$17,726,208
$21,223,458
$26,429,923
Round to $100k
$12,400,000
$17,700,000
$21,200,000
$26,400,000
Only direct labor and
Direct labor and
materials to install fiber. materials but
associated project
overhead such as
engineering,
management, &
inspection.
Includes all plant cost
as well as the premise
drop to connect the
meter to the
electronics.
All costs required to
light the network and
make it fully capable
of carrying meter
traffic.
Figure 15 — A number of cases can be made for the amount of network capital
that could be carried by the other network stakeholders.
The chart above illustrates four scenarios by which the water utility may value the existence of
the fiber network for their own purposes. As is shown above, there is great variation in the value,
from a minimal amount to nearly the cost of the full buildout.
Page 62
Capital
$ 28,457,993
Start up Operations
1,200,000
Capitalized Interest
2 years
3,505,587
Debt Service Reserve
1 year
2,210,984
Cost of Issuance
2.5%
Total
884,364
$ 36,258,929
Note: Assumed financing structure is 25 year revenue bonds at 5.5%
Figure 16 — An additional $8M of financing and operating overhead will likely be
required to fully fund the project.
This table categorizes the total project costs. $28.4 million in capital expenses will be required to
build the network. In addition, we estimate that the network will need $1.2 to initially support
operations until the network generates enough revenue to cover it. This business plan also assumes the capitalization of two years of interest.
In addition, the plan should account for one year of reserve funds out of bond proceeds. Lastly,
with the inclusions of the cost of bond issuance at a little under $1M, the total project is anticipated to require slightly over $36 million.
Page 63
Required Take Rate & ARPU
By water utility contribution
$70
$60
$50
$40
ARPU
$30
$0.0M
$6.0M
$12.4M
$17.7M
$21.2M
$26.4M
$20
$10
$0
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Take Rate
Figure 17 — Depending on the amount of capital carried by the other network
stakeholders, the required combination of take rate and ARPU can be determined.
Factoring in the required debt service on a bond issue, the capital costs and the operational expenses of the network, this graph shows what would be required, in terms of take rate and ARPU,
in order to have the network’s total revenue cover all of the debt service and operations—at various levels of funding from the other network stakeholders.
If you expect a 30% take rate and a $31 ARPU, the water utility would need to contribute $26.4M
to the project in order to make the network viable. Likewise, if the network stakeholders put forward $6M, then the network would need to sustain a $38 ARPU and a 45% take rate.
Page 64
Service
Retail Rate*
(Estimated)
Wholesale
Rate
Data
A
B
C
D
100%
100%
100%
100%
Speed 1
$30
$ 15.00
25%
75%
0%
0%
Speed 2
$40
25.00
75%
25%
100%
100%
$5
5.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
30%
30%
30%
50%
CPE Rental
Video
Base Transport
$30
$
6.00
100%
100%
100%
100%
HD
$10
$
6.00
30%
30%
30%
30%
$5
$
5.00
2
2
2
1.5
.5
.5
.5
1
Set Top
PVR
$10
$ 10.00
Phone
$20
$
5.00
50%
50%
0%
50%
Gaming/Other
$15
$
5.00
10%
10%
10%
20%
$37.34
$32.34
$37.34
$46.15
ARPU
*Note: Retail Rates will be set by the service provider(s). These are listed for
review purposes only.
Figure 18 — Residential ARPU can be approximated by multiplying the wholesale
rate of a service by the % of subscribers taking that service.
This table describes various wholesale rates, service combinations and ARPU scenarios to be
considered by Edmonds.
Historically, of the subscribers who take UTOPIA services for broadband, 50% also take phone
service, and 30% take video. The table represents scenarios of service mixes that are largely
based on the performance of UTOPIA.
Set top boxes have been included in the above scenarios for two reasons.—there’s a high likelihood that the service provider(s) who are contracted to provide service on the network won’t be
able to fund the set top boxes required. The network will therefore be required to provide the
capital. Secondly, set top boxes are a profitable source of revenue, and so it’s more advantageous
for the network to provide them.
The above scenarios assume that everyone subscribing to the network takes data service. There
are two levels of wholesale rates: $15 and $25 (per subscriber per month) for data, to account for
two different levels of data service. In addition, Scenario D charges the equivalent of a cable
Page 65
modem fee—both Comcast and Verizon typically charge such fees, so there is some precedent for
it.
For video, the scenarios assume a base transport fee of $6, as well as an option for a $6 upgrade
to HD. The scenarios charge $5 for a regular set top and $10 for a PVR set top. Based on experience, the scenarios assume an average of 2 set tops per home and .5 of a PVR. (Scenario D is
a little more optimistic and assumed more people would take the PVR.)
The scenarios also assume that in most cases about half the people would take phone at a wholesale rate of $5. Charging for phone service can be tricky; you can charge something, but charging
too much will encourage people to run the voice through their data pipe (i.e. with Skype or Vonage), and then the network will receive no additional revenue. $5 seems to be about the maximum you could charge without pushing people to run their voice through their high speed data
line—which is a temptation if the network offers a 20Mbps or 50 Mbps product.
Scenarios A and B examine what happens when consumers are more or less price sensitive to the
data speed price. At speed 1, at $15 wholesale, the data service would retail for around $30, and
speed 2 (at $25 wholesale), data service would retail for around $40. Scenario A assumes a better
penetration of the $40 higher end speed. Scenario B assumes that people are a little more price
sensitive and more subscribe to the $30 speed. The impact of consumer’s price sensitivity is reflected in the ARPU for each scenario.
Scenario C offers only the higher data speed and then adds on for video, but assumes that the users go elsewhere (Skype, Vonage, etc.) for their phone services. This scenario would produce an
ARPU of $37.34.
Scenario D is the most aggressive of the 4 scenarios by offering only the high-end data speed.
This scenario also shows more consumers subscribing to HD, and more people taking a PVR as
opposed to a regular set-top box, better penetration of video overall, and the same phone penetration as the other scenarios. This scenario could be supported by very aggressive joint marketing
efforts between the network and the service providers. Scenario D would result in a $46 ARPU.
Page 66
Required Take Rate & ARPU
By water utility contribution
$70
$60
$50
D
$40
A+C
B
ARPU
$30
$0.0M
$6.0M
$12.4M
$20
$17.7M
$21.2M
$26.4M
$10
$0
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Take Rate
Figure 19 — There are a number of reasonable combinations of stakeholder capital contributions and required take rate & ARPU to make the network viable.
Based upon the service mixes seen in the previous figure, assuming that the network achieves a
$37 ARPU as seen in Scenario A, and that with a stakeholder contribution of $12.4 million, the
network will require a 38% take rate to cover its operations and debt service requirements.
Page 67
Telecom Projects
Subscriber take-rate by year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
FIOS Projection
% of
Units
Passed
50%
Alameda, CA
Edmonds
40%
Orem, UT
30%
20%
Tacoma, WA
Verizon
FIOS
10%
0%
Year 0
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Year 8
Figure 20 — A take rate forecast growing to 45% is reasonable compared to the
performance of other networks.
This is a look at the performance of some other projects, including FiOS and Orem, Utah (part of
UTOPIA). Orem has many elements similar to an Edmonds, although it’s generally a younger
city demographically. There are also cities that represent a range of experiences. We excluded
those cities providing retail services.
Page 68
Conclusion and Recommendations
As we examine this data, we can conclude that there is a reasonable business case for building out
fiber to the premise in Edmonds, and to serve residents and businesses with triple-play services.
However, we do recommend that this business plan be combined with the separate work that the
City has undertaken regarding government and city facilities, in order to discern the full financial
and business outcomes of an Edmonds network. Overall, this plan should recognize that the
chances of success for this network will increase greatly when there is an integrated approach that
incorporates the city telecom services, public utilities, education, health care, residential and business involvement.
In addition, we wish to acknowledge the risk that the Verizon FiOS project poses to the Edmonds
network. Verizon is a solid service provider and they are delivering a good product with FiOS.
We do not yet know what impact the FiOS project will have on the competitive landscape in Edmonds. However, we believe that an open access fiber network has much to offer over the FiOS
project, specifically:
•
•
•
•
The Edmonds network is envisioned to cover the entire city; it is highly unlikely that
FiOS will be deployed throughout the entire city.
The Edmonds active Ethernet network will have greater capacity, and be quicker and less
expensive to upgrade in the future, than Verizon’s FiOS, which is built using a GPON topology.
The Edmonds network will be an open access network offering the freedom of choice to
its users; Verizon’s users will be locked into only Verizon services.
The Edmonds network will have the capability to offer far more advanced services to its
users due to its superior capacity.
With aggressive marketing and the right message to the community, it is possible to mitigate the
threat that the FiOS project poses to the Edmonds network.
Specific recommendations for Edmonds include the following:
1. Involve other governmental entities and community stakeholders and create an integrated
business plan. Edmonds should also explore the possibilities that other governmental and
nonprofit entities may be willing to join in the business model by putting forth funds to finance the network; these entities would directly benefit from the existence of the network,
and therefore may be willing to participate in the financial risk and potential outcome of the
network.
For example, if one of the specific uses of the network is to serve the water utility, then the
water utility may be willing to allocate more funds to a network that allows it to attain its
goals. Likewise, other entities that have a direct need for the network, and will benefit from
it, may be willing to place funds into the network to help guarantee its existence and success.
These public or private funds could be used as part of the capital outlay for the network build.
Some or all of these invested funds could also be held in reserve to serve as a guarantee in
case the network does not perform as expected. This reserve fund could be used to financially secure the network, but would not otherwise be touched unless certain performance
thresholds were reached. The more funding the City is able to secure from public and private
entities, the better the financial outlook for the network.
Page 69
Edmonds should complete an integrated business plan that includes all targeted network
stakeholders, including the government and utility aspects. All the work done separately by
Edmonds needs to be integrated to provide a fuller picture of the network strengths, benefits,
costs and risks.
2. Conduct a governance and legal review to ensure an entity is created that can properly and
legally share the contributions of the joint public and private organizations. An organizational and governance structure needs to be created for the legal broadband entity. This process involves drafting all required legal papers and agreements, formation of an appropriate
operating entity incorporated under state law, and preparing the broadband entity to accept
cash and asset contributions
3. Develop a financing plan that:
•
•
•
meets the project’s goals
fits within the constraints set by local and/or federal regulations
fits within the business plan created during the planning phase
Ultimately, the financing plan will present options to pay for the community network. The
end result of the financing plan will be a customized financing solution for the community
that maximizes the ability to finance the network while minimizing risk to the stakeholders.
4. Develop a marketing plan and market the network aggressively. Gather grassroots support
and local champions for the initiative. The financial success of Edmonds’ network is reliant
upon a solid take rate and ARPU performance. History has shown that many municipal networks have not been as successful as planned, in part because they have not allocated the
marketing dollars necessary to build community awareness of the benefits of the community
network.
Appropriate marketing will create a much better response in terms of take rates, and must be
used as part of the overall strategy for network success.
5. Construct and implement the network. Hire experienced engineering, construction, and inspection firms to be sure that that the network is deployed within scope and budget. Use an
experienced project manager to guide the project to successful completion.
6. Make use of an experienced third-party firm to take on the daily operations of the network;
such a firm should be deeply experienced in open access networks, governance and organizational issues, network planning, service provider management, network monitoring and troubleshooting, and general operations.
Page 70
Appendix A—Sample Service Level Agreements
Page 71
EXHIBIT D
Service Level Agreements
1
OVERVIEW
1.1
This Exhibit D provides detailed descriptions of the Performance Metrics for the
[PROJECT] network, and is the basis for certain service level agreements between Service Provider and [PROJECT]. All Performance Metrics will apply to [PROJECT]’s
Network. For the purpose of these Performance Metrics, [PROJECT]’s Network can be
viewed as a carrier network to which Service Provider hands off/accepts traffic (1) for
voice services; (2) for data services; and (3) for video services; collectively (“Services”).
1.2
In addition to any other rights under this Agreement, if any given Retail Subscriber (1) experiences an Outage that continues for a period of more than five (5) Business Days after delivery of written notice thereof by Service Provider to [PROJECT], or
(2) experiences three (3) or more Outages of the same Service, whether or not for the
same reason, in any thirty (30) calendar day period, then Service Provider may terminate
the Service(s) for the Retail Subscriber without liability for cancellation or termination
charges.
1.3
Each Metric as defined in Section 3 of this Exhibit, measurement, report, reporting tool, or other datum is Service Provider’s “Protected” information subject to the requirements set forth in Sections 8.2 and 8.3 in the body of this Agreement and
[PROJECT]’s Confidential Information subject to the requirements set forth in Section
8.4 in the body of this Agreement.
1.4
[PROJECT] will:
1.4.1 Use commercially reasonable efforts to remedy any delays, interruptions,
omissions, mistakes, accidents or errors (“Defect” or “Defects”) and restore the
Services as soon as possible after any Defect is reported to [PROJECT] using receipted electronic mail, fax or other documentation.
1.4.2 Collect, measure, and report data to Service Provider for service, network
and operational Performance Metrics described in Section 3. [PROJECT] will
provide Metrics upon written request, using a Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet or
other format mutually agreed to by [PROJECT] and Service Provider.
Page 72
[PROJECT] is responsible (at its expense) for providing any equipment, systems,
and software necessary to collect and report such Metrics.
1.4.3 Analyze and improve processes, as necessary, to achieve Performance
Metric Objectives set forth in Section 3.
1.4.4
Establish, maintain, and use quality improvement teams (“QITs”) that
meet at least quarterly, and which consist of [PROJECT] process representatives,
subject matter experts, and Service Provider, as well as potentially other of
[PROJECT]’s service providers, suppliers and subcontractors, to conduct root cause
analysis on data indicating inferior performance, act on results and implement improvement plans for those Metrics that fail to meet or exceed the Objectives set forth
in Section 3.
1.5
Service Provider will:
1.5.1 Measure Quality Metrics by means of Service Provider’s regularly scheduled Retail Subscriber satisfaction surveys which randomly sample Retail Subscribers for their opinions of Service Provider service quality.
1.5.2
Collect Retail Subscriber complaint information on Services through its
customer care center(s). Based on the first twelve (12) months’ of operations, a baseline number of Retail Subscriber complaints will be established. Following that,
Service Provider will establish a performance metric for measurement during the
term of the Agreement.
1.5.3
Measure performance metrics and work with [PROJECT] to resolve
discrepancies, if any, between the parties’ results.
1.5.4 Use commercially reasonable efforts to meet Service Provider SLAs as specified in Exhibit E.
2
DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1
“Metric” or “Service Metric” means the performance measures for specific
[PROJECT] functions and includes the Description, Measurement Method, Objective and
Service Credit, if any, that define the capitalized term that is used throughout this Exhibit
D.
Page 73
2.2
“Description” means the specific [PROJECT] function to be measured.
2.3
“Measurement Method” means the tools, process and algorithms for determining
[PROJECT]’s performance and the frequency of the measurement.
2.4
“Objective” means the level of performance that Service Provider expects
[PROJECT] to achieve.
2.5
“Service Credit” means the amount [PROJECT] owes to Service Provider, where
applicable, if the Objective is not met for that month. The amount of any Service Credit
shall be calculated as set forth in Section 3.
2.5.1 Service Provider will not receive Service Credits for any Service interruption or other transmission problem (including, without limitation, any inability of
[PROJECT] to maintain Performance Metrics commitments contained herein) that
is in whole or in part caused by or attributed to Service Provider or its Retail Subscriber, or other event defined under Article XI – Force Majeure in the body of
this Agreement. [PROJECT] will nevertheless use its reasonable efforts to seek a
prompt resumption of Service and/or resolution of transmission problems in those
circumstances where such efforts have a reasonable likelihood of promptly
achieving the cited results.
2.5.2 In the event that Service Credits are issued for missing Network Availability Objectives, Service Credits shall not be issued for Packet Loss or Roundtrip
Delay/Latency for the same incidents. In the event that Service Credits are issued
for missing Network Core Average Availability Objectives, Service Credits shall
not be issued for missing Network Edge Average Availability Objectives for the
same reporting month.
2.5.3 Service Credits expressed as a percent of “Services affected”, “recurring
charges”, etc. refer to amounts charged to Service Provider by [PROJECT] unless
otherwise explicitly stated.
2.6
“[PROJECT]’s Network” or “Network” means the “Network” as defined in Article I of the body of this Agreement.
2.6.1 “Network Core” means that portion of the Network for which a higher degree of redundancy and reliability is provided (see diagram 4.1), including Re-
Page 74
gional Core Switch (RCS) and Distribution Core Switches (DCS) and Provider
Access Switches (PAS)
2.6.2 “Network Edge” means that portion of the Network for which a lesser degree or no redundancy is provided (see diagram 4.1), including Access Distribution Switches (ADS) and Access Portals (AP)
2.6.3 ”Network Connection Point (NCP)” means the point(s) of Service Provider connectivity ingress and egress deployed at multiple Points of Presence
providing access to the [PROJECT] Network for service providers.
2.6.4 “Access Portal (AP)” means the switches deployed at the subscriber premises where the fiber network terminates into service ports.
2.6.5 “On Premises Back-Up Battery” means the sealed lead acid component of
the uninterruptible power supply deployed on the Retail Subscriber’s premise.
2.6.6 “Quality of Service (QoS)” means the direct measure of quality for the services delivered over [PROJECT]’s Network.
2.6.7 “Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)” means the equipment, such as, but
not limited to, Access Portals and video gateways, that will be installed at the Retail Subscriber’s premise.
2.7
“Business hours” means 8:00 am to 5:00 PM Pacific Time on a Business Day. “Business Day”
means Monday through Friday, excluding public holidays recognized in Utah.
2.8
“Outage” means Service(s) is/are interrupted such that there is a loss of continuity (unable to
transmit or receive traffic to the Retail Subscriber Access Portal), or when [PROJECT] and Service Provider agree that Service is unfit or unavailable for use. Each Service affected is counted separately (e.g. if
the Access Portal of a Retail Subscriber who has video and data Services fails then it is counted as two (2)
Outages.)
2.8.1
The following are excluded from Outages:
•
failure of components for which Service Provider and/or its Retail Subscriber(s) are responsible and are therefore not part of [PROJECT]’s Network (e.g., to the network side
of the interconnecting Service Provider router).
•
time that corrections cannot be made because the Service Provider, Retail Subscriber, or
access to the facilities necessary for making the repair, are inaccessible
Page 75
•
problems caused by Retail Subscribers’ negligence or misconduct, or by the negligence
or misconduct of others authorized by the Retail Subscribers
•
problems resolved as “No Trouble Found”
•
scheduled network upgrades and maintenance periods. The upgrades and maintenance
will be scheduled when customer services are impacted minimally, typically between 12
AM to 6 AM local time. Furthermore, [PROJECT] will notify the Service Provider of
such scheduled upgrades or maintenance periods as per 3.9.7.
•
Circumstances defined in Section 2.5 above.
2.9
“Outage Duration” is the time in minutes that an Outage has occurred. An Outage begins when
Service Provider notifies [PROJECT] and [PROJECT] opens a trouble ticket and ends when service has
been restored.
2.10 “Availability” means percentage of time [PROJECT]’s Network is available for
service. Network Average Availability is measured performance of [PROJECT]’s Network. Even though [PROJECT]’s Network Core Switches deliver 99.99% Network Average Availability, a Service Provider is not be assured 99.99% availability unless its
equipment is appropriately configured and connected over redundant paths to
[PROJECT]’s Network (see Diagram 4.1) Availability for the Network Core and Network Edge are computed separately.
Network Average Availability is:
⎡ ∑ Network _ outage _ durations ⎤
1− ⎢
⎥ × 100
Total _ Available _ Time
⎣
⎦
Sum of Network_outage_durations = the total of the outage time, in minutes, of all Retail
Subscribers’ Services in service affected by network outages during the reporting calendar month.
Total_Available_Time = (number of Services in service on the last day of the calendar month preceding the reporting month) * ((days in the reporting calendar
month) * (minutes per day)).
2.11
“Delay / Latency” means the time it takes a packet to traverse the distance between two points on
the Network (note: every 50 miles (one-way) increases the allowable roundtrip delay by 1 millisecond).
Specifically, roundtrip delay/latency means the interval of time, in milliseconds, it takes a sixty-four byte
(64-byte) test packet of data to travel from the Regional Core Switch (RCS) which the service provider
uses to aggregate and distribute their services to a QoS specific AP connected to each ADS via
[PROJECT]’s Network and back. Any unsuccessful ping will be counted at 20 milliseconds.
Page 76
Delay/Latency will be monitored and tested as follows: [PROJECT] will make at least 20 roundtrip delay
measurements each hour.
Measurements will be taken from RCS elements that distribute and aggregate subscriber services through
all ADSs to dedicated, management-specific APs for each QoS. Delay will be measured to the nearest microsecond. The “Average Monthly Round Trip Delay” is calculated as the average of all measurements
taken during a given calendar month. Objectives for round trip delay are given in Section 3.2.1, 3.3.1,
3.4.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1.
In the event of Delay/Latency problems. [PROJECT] will respond to the specific Delay/Latency problem
when notified and documented by Service Provider on behalf of any individual Retail Subscriber.
[PROJECT] will perform end-to-end performance measurements and other tests and take necessary corrective action to restore Retail Subscribers Service to levels specified for Delay/Latency in Section 3.
2.12
“Packet loss” means a maximum percentage of data packets that [PROJECT]’s Network may drop
(sent and not received) through the [PROJECT] Network.
[PROJECT] will track the number of dropped packets by QoS level on the egress of all [PROJECT] switch
ports that are connected to other [PROJECT] switch ports. On the ingress of [PROJECT] switch ports,
dropped packets are not categorized by QoS. [PROJECT] will count all ingress port dropped packets and
prorate dropped packets across QoS levels based on bandwidth of each QoS level. [PROJECT] will only
monitor dropped packets which will not be part of the SLA calculation on service provider NCP ports.
Packet loss is calculated as a percent as follows:
⎡
⎢
⎣⎢
∑ Lost packets for a given QoS on all specified ports ⎤⎥ × 100
∑ All packets for a given QoS on all specified ports ⎦⎥
[PROJECT] fails to meet the service level agreement when the percent packet loss for any Service
exceeds the Objective.
2.13
“Installation” means [PROJECT] will provide Committed Due Dates for installation of Service in
less than or equal to the intervals from order date as shown below.
For pre-configured Services (voice, video, ISP data) to Residential Subscribers
• Access Portal has been previously installed, no truck roll required:
two (2) business days
• Access Portal has been previously installed, truck roll required:
seven (7) business days
• Full install fiber and Access Portal installation is required:
twelve (12) business days
For pre-configured Services (e.g., voice, video, ISP data) to Business or MDU Subscribers
• Access Portal has been previously installed, no truck roll required:
• Access Portal has been previously installed, truck roll required:
Page 77
• Access Portal installation is required, premise construction has been
previously Installed, no inside wiring required:
• Building entry not complete or Access Portal, conduit and/or inside wiring installation are required:
case-by-case basis
For custom services
case-by-case
2.13.1
A delayed installation credit will not be applied under the following circumstances:
2.14
•
Installation is delayed at Service Provider’s request
•
Due to events described under 2.5
•
Installation is delayed with the approval of Retail Subscriber
•
[PROJECT] has not been given necessary access to facilities required for
installation or Retail Subscriber is not ready or not available to accept the
Service until after the committed due date
•
Retail Subscriber facilities are unsuitable or unfit for installation
•
[PROJECT] has:
•
made reasonable efforts to consult with the appropriate Service
Provider work center (or such other contact specified by Service
Provider) by telephone; and
•
taken such further reasonable and prudent actions in an attempt to
make installation as Service Provider may direct in the course of
such consultation.
•
If [PROJECT]’s reasonable efforts to consult with Service Provider as required above are unsuccessful, [PROJECT] shall notify
Service Provider of the reason for the delay as soon as reasonably
possible.
For installations, [PROJECT] will:
•
Maintain sufficient CPE to fill Retail Subscriber order
•
Attempt to contact Retail Subscriber prior to the scheduled appointment
•
twenty-four (24) hours prior (up to 2 attempts)
•
30 minutes prior to the schedule appointment
•
Arrive on site at Retail Subscriber premises within the appointment window
•
Install Service(s) as ordered, including CPE.
•
Update Retail Subscriber’s order status within 1 business day after the installation
Page 78
2.15
[PROJECT] will collect and meet following inventory Performance Metrics:
•
Notify Service Provider to replenish fulfillment materials (if applicable) within thirty (30) calendar days of anticipated depletion of its inventory
•
Maintain its Homes Passed / Marketable database with a minimum of ninetynine percent (99%) accuracy. (The inaccuracy is measured by the number of
installations that are cancelled by [PROJECT] due to service not being available to a particular address after providing a Committed Installation Date to
Service Provider.)
2.16 “Repair and/or Maintenance at the Retail Subscriber Premises” means that a
[PROJECT] technician or [PROJECT] sub-contractor visits the Retail Subscriber Premises to perform needed, requested and scheduled work on Services and associated
[PROJECT]-provided equipment.
For Repair and Maintenance visits, [PROJECT] will:
•
Maintain sufficient CPE to complete necessary repairs
•
Attempt to contact Retail Subscriber prior to the scheduled appointment
•
•
•
•
Repair Service(s) as ordered
•
Any Repair and/or Maintenance at the Retail Subscriber Premises that do not take place
in accordance with the foregoing requirements will be performed in a reasonable timeframe and in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration the relevant circumstances.
2.17 [PROJECT] will provide a sufficient number of qualified staff to answer and respond to all technical support calls and direct trouble ticket system inputs from Service
Provider to meet the Objectives. The Performance Metrics specify Objectives that include: (1) the target time for answering/responding to calls, and (2) the percentage of
calls that shall meet the target
[PROJECT]’s telephone support and trouble ticket system shall be available twenty-four (24) hours a day,
three hundred and sixty-five (365) days a year. During normal Business Hours, [PROJECT] shall accept
Page 79
calls from Service Provider on all valid topics. Outside of normal Business Hours, [PROJECT] shall respond to calls relating to Network and Service defects.
The target time or duration is measured from the time Service Provider’s telephone call
enters the [PROJECT]’s help desk routing queue until the time Service Provider speaks
to a technician who is capable of resolving the trouble or answering the question.
2.18 “Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)” means the average time of the actual repair
needed to restore Services. MTTR is measured in each reporting calendar month.
Number of Outages = Count of Outages (Defined in Section 2.8) less Outage Exclusions (Defined in Section 2.8.1)
SLA Response Window = time allowed under the specific SLA to begin repair service (e.g. Next Business Day, Same Day, 4 Hour, etc). The SLA Response
Window is subtracted from each Outage Duration. Unless otherwise specified in a separate service agreement, SLA response window is by the end
of the next business day.
MTTR is calculated as follows:
⎛ ∑ Outage Durations ⎞
⎟⎟
⎜⎜
⎝ Number of Outages ⎠
A separate MTTR is calculated for each committed SLA Response Window. The
MTTR is measured in the same units as the SLA Response units (i.e. days or hours).
2.19 [PROJECT] will strive to resolve trouble tickets as quickly as possible. The
Direct Measures of Quality (DMOQs) addressing this are the percentage of service outage trouble tickets that are resolved within either one or two days – the
concern being those that remain open for longer periods. This metric has two
measures: (1) the total number of occurrences, and (2) the corresponding percentage that the total number reflects. SLA Response Window and Repair
Time are defined in Section 2.18.
DMOQ Period = 24 hours or 48 hours, depending on the metric
Page 80
The percentage is calculated as follows:
⎛ (∑ trouble tickets resolved in a calendar month within (1) 24 hrs, or (2) 48 hrs ) ⎞
⎜
⎟ × 100
⎜
⎟
Total
number
of
trouble
tickets
in
the
calendar
month
⎝
⎠
Page 81
3
[PROJECT] PERFORMANCE METRICS
Performance Metrics
Objective
Description
Measurement Method
Service Credit
3.1
Network Availability
3.1.1
Network Core - Average Availability (See Diagram 4.1)
99.99% available
See Section 2.10
See Section 2.10
For each reporting month in which
the Network fails to achieve the
Network Average Availability Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a
Service Credit to Service Provider
for an amount equal to 5% of the
total monthly recurring charges for
Services impacted by outages.
3.1.2
Network Edge - Average Availability (See Diagram 4.1)
99.9% available
See Section 2.10
See Section 2.10
the Network fails to achieve the
Network Average Availability Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a
Service Credit to Service Provider
for an amount equal to 5% of the
total monthly recurring charges for
Services impacted by outages.
3.2
Committed Information Rate (CIR)
– QoS 6
3.2.1
Round-trip Delay / Latency
< 3 milliseconds RT delay + 1
ms for each 50 miles (one way).
See Section 2.11
See Section 2.11
For each reporting month in
which the Network fails to achieve
this Objective, [PROJECT] will
issue a 2% credit on the Service
Provider monthly recurring
charges for all applicable Services.
3.2.2
Packet loss
<0.02%
See Section 2.12
See Section 2.12
For each reporting month in
which the Network fails to achieve
Page 82
Performance Metrics
Objective
Description
Measurement Method
Service Credit
this Objective, [PROJECT] will
issue a 2% credit on the Service
Provider monthly recurring
charges for all applicable Services.
3.2
Voice – Residential / Business –
QoS 5
3.2.1
< 3 milliseconds RT delay + 1
ms for each 50 miles (one way).
See Section 2.11
3.2.2
Packet loss
<0.02%
See Section 2.12
3.3
Video – QoS 4
3.3.1
<3 milliseconds RT delay + 1
ms for each 50 miles (one way)
See Section 2.11
See Section 2.11
the Network fails to achieve this
Objective, [PROJECT] will issue a
2% credit on the Service Provider
monthly recurring charges for all
applicable Services.
3.3.2
Packet loss
<0.1%
See Section 2.12
See Section 2.12
3.4
Data – QoS 3
Page 83
See Section 2.11
See Section 2.12
Performance Metrics
Objective
Description
Measurement Method
Service Credit
3.4.1
See Section 2.11
See Section 2.11
3.4.2
Packet loss
0.3%
See Section 2.12
See Section 2.12
3.5
Data – QoS 2
3.5.1
See Section 2.11
See Section 2.11
3.5.2
Packet loss
0.5%
See Section 2.12
See Section 2.12
3.6
Data – QoS 1
3.6.1
See Section 2.11
See Section 2.11
Page 84
Performance Metrics
Objective
Description
Measurement Method
Service Credit
3.6.2
Packet loss
<1%
See Section 2.12
See Section 2.12
3.7
Data – QoS 0
3.7.1
< 20 milliseconds
See Section 2.11
See Section 2.11
Not applicable
3.7.2
Packet loss
< 2%
See Section 2.12
See Section 2.12
Not applicable
3.8
Installation
3.8.1
On-time installation
97% of all installations shall
meet Committed Installation
Due-dates
See Section 2.13
See Section 2.13
Each month that [PROJECT] fails to
meet the Objective by the amount
indicated below, [PROJECT] will
issue the following Service Credit to
the Service Provider: (1) Below 98%
but not below 95% then $45 per
incident which missed the Committed Due-date; (2) Below 95% then
$90 per incident which miss the
Committed Due-date.
Page 85
Performance Metrics
Objective
Description
Measurement Method
Service Credit
3.9
Service Metric
3.9.1
Technical Support Response
Time
85% of Service Provider’s telephone calls (for installation
and/or maintenance) connected
to [PROJECT]’s Network Operations Center within 5 minutes.
See Section 2.17
See Section 2.17
Not applicable
3.9.2
Technical Support Resolution Notification to Service Provider
100% of Service Provider’s
trouble ticket resolution (i.e.,
ticket closed) will be notified to
SP within 30 minutes of a ticket
being closed via an agreed upon
notification method.
See Section 2.19
See Section 2.19
Not applicable
3.9.3
Mean Time to Repair Service Outage
Mean Time to Repair shall not
exceed the times specified in
the SLAs.
See Section 2.18
See Section 2.18
Not applicable
3.9.4
% Trouble Tickets Resolved > 24
Hours
Less than five percent (< 5%)
See Section 2.19
See Section 2.19
% Trouble Tickets Resolved > 48
Hours
Less than three percent (< 3%)
3.9.5
See Section 2.19
See Section 2.19
DMOQ Period – 48 hours
Page 86
Not applicable
DMOQ Period – 24 hours
Not applicable
3.9.6
Performance Metrics
Objective
Description
Measurement Method
Service Credit
Missed Appointments
Zero (0)
Total number of times and reasons for
[PROJECT]’s technician failing to
keep a scheduled appointment with
any Retail Subscriber within the appointment window.
On an individual Subscriber per
Service basis, the total number of
times and reasons for [PROJECT]
failing to keep scheduled appointments for professional installation or technician dispatch
appointments with any Retail
Subscriber, within a calendar
month counted each reporting
calendar month.
In the event [PROJECT] fails to
appear at a Retail Subscriber’s Premises for a scheduled installation or
repair/maintenance appointment
within the appointment window ,
[PROJECT] will, upon Service Provider’s request, either (a) issue Service Provider $60 Service Credit, or
(b) cancel the affected order without
any cancellation charges.
Number of times scheduled network upgrades or maintenance
impacting Retail Subscribers’
Services occur during a calendar
month. This number includes any
and all of [PROJECT]’s Network
or network services.
Not applicable
Number of minutes from
[PROJECT]’s notification to Service Provider to after the beginning of an unscheduled network
upgrade, maintenance event, or
Major Network Incident. This
number includes any and all of
[PROJECT]’s Network.or network services
Not applicable
See Section 2.13
3.9.7
Notification of Scheduled Network
Upgrade or Maintenance
100% Notification to Service
Provider contacts via electronic
mail or other agreed upon method five (5) days in advance
the scheduled event
Number of times [PROJECT] performs scheduled network upgrades or
maintenance in a calendar month
definition or nature of Outage
planned outage time
definition of affected service area
trouble ticket number
3.9.8
Notification of Unscheduled Upgrade, Maintenance event
100% Notification to Service
Provider contacts via electronic
mail or other agreed upon method within ten (10) minutes of
the start of an unscheduled
event
Number of minutes between
[PROJECT]’s notification to Service
Provider and an unscheduled network
upgrade or maintenance event and the
respective incident
definition of nature of Outage
planned outage time
number of Service Provider
Retail Subscribers impacted
trouble ticket number
Page 87
Page 88
4
Network Diagrams
4.1 Network Core and Edge
s
bp
M
0
10
Page 89
EXHIBIT E
Service Provider Service Level Agreements
1
OVERVIEW
1.1
This Exhibit E provides detailed descriptions of the Performance Metrics for Service
Provider performance, and is the basis for certain service level agreements between Service Provider and [PROJECT]. All Performance Metrics are expectations of Service Provider’s performance and quality of customer services directly related to and in consideration of the use of
[PROJECT]’s Network. For the purpose of these Performance Metrics, [PROJECT]’s Network
can be viewed as a private carrier network to which Service Provider hands off/accepts traffic (1)
for voice services; (2) for data services; and (3) for video services; collectively (“Services”).
1.2
In addition to any other rights under this Agreement, if any given Retail Subscriber (1)
experiences an Outage that continues for a period of more than five (5) Business Days after
[PROJECT] delivers written notice to Service Provider of such Outage, or (2) experiences multiple Outages of the same Service, whether or not for the same reason, in any thirty (30) calendar
day period, then upon written request from the Retail Subscriber, [PROJECT], in its sole discretion, may transfer the service connections to an alternate provider without the Retail Subscriber
or [PROJECT] having any liability of any kind whatsoever for cancellation, termination or any
other charges.
1.3
Service Provider will:
1.3.1 Use commercially reasonable efforts to remedy any delays, interruptions,
omissions, mistakes, accidents or errors (“Defect” or “Defects”) and restore the Services
as soon as possible after any Defect is reported to Service Provider.
1.3.2 Collect, measure, and report data to [PROJECT] for service, and operational Performance Metrics described in Section 3. Service Provider will provide Metrics
upon written request, using a Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet or other format mutually
agreed to by [PROJECT] and Service Provider. Service Provider is responsible (at its expense) for providing any equipment, systems, and software necessary to collect and report such Metrics.
1.3.3 Analyze and improve processes, as necessary, to achieve Performance
Metrics set forth in Section 3.
Page 90
1.3.4 Measure Quality Metrics by means of Service Provider’s regularly scheduled Retail Subscriber satisfaction surveys which randomly sample Retail Subscribers for
their opinions of Service Provider service quality.
1.3.5
Collect Retail Subscriber complaint information on Services through its
customer care center(s). Based on the first twelve (12) months’ of operations, a baseline number of Retail Subscriber complaints will be established. Following that, [PROJECT] will establish a performance metric for measurement during the Term of the Agreement.
1.3.6
Provide [PROJECT] with necessary customer information to allow
[PROJECT] the opportunity to perform a similar survey of customer opinion as a comparative
benchmark to evaluate Service Provider’s performance on the Network.
2
DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1
“Metric” or “Service Metric” means the performance measures for specific Service Provider functions and includes the Description, Measurement Method, and Objective that define
the capitalized term that is used throughout this Exhibit E.
2.2
“Description” means the specific Service Provider function to be measured.
2.3
“Measurement Method” means the tools, process and algorithms for determining Service
Provider’s performance and the frequency of the measurement.
2.4
“Objective” means the level of performance that [PROJECT] expects Service Provider to
achieve.
2.5
Repetitive non-compliance with any provision of this Exhibit E is a material breach of
this Agreement and, in [PROJECT]’s sole discretion, may result in the termination or nonrenewal of thereof.
2.7
“Retail Quality of Service (RQoS)” means the direct measure of quality for the Retail Services delivered over [PROJECT]’s Network.
Page 91
2.8
“Retail Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)” means the equipment, such as, but not limited to, premise wiring performed by Service Provider, Service Provider routers, hubs or
switches or other Service Provider equipment that will be installed by the Service Provider at the Retail Subscriber’s premise.
2.8
“Business hours” means 8:00 am to 5:00 PM Mountain Time on a Business Day. “Business
Day” means Monday through Friday, excluding public holidays recognized in Utah.
2.9
“Outage” means Service(s) is/are interrupted such that there is a loss of performance (unable
to properly utilize the Retail Services), or when [PROJECT] and Service Provider agree that
Service is unfit or unavailable for use.
2.9.1
The following are excluded from Outages:
•
failure of components for which [PROJECT] and/or the Retail Subscriber(s) are responsible and
are therefore not part of Service Provider’s Platform.
•
time that corrections cannot be made because Retail Subscriber, or access to those facilities are
necessary for making the repair, are inaccessible
•
problems caused by Retail Subscribers’ negligence or misconduct, or by the negligence or misconduct of others authorized by the Retail Subscribers
•
problems resolved as “No Trouble Found”
•
scheduled Service Provider network upgrades and maintenance periods. The upgrades and maintenance will be scheduled when Retail Subscriber Services are impacted minimally, typically from
12 AM to 6 AM local time. Furthermore, Retail Service Provider will notify [PROJECT] of such
scheduled upgrades or maintenance periods as per 3.7.4 and 3.7.5
•
any Service interruption or other transmission problem that is in whole or in part caused by or attributed to [PROJECT] or Service Provider’s Retail Subscriber unless Service Provider could
have reasonably been able to avoid such Service interruption
•
other event defined under Article XI – Force Majeure in the body of this Agreement. Following a
Force Majeure Event, Service Provider will use commercially reasonable efforts to promptly resume Services.
2.10
“Outage Duration” is the time in minutes that an Outage has occurred. An Outage begins when Service
Provider opens a trouble ticket and ends when Service Provider notifies [PROJECT] that the problem has been resolved and Retail Services are available to Retail Subscribers.
2.11 “Availability” means percentage of time RQoS meets defined performance metrics. Retail Services Average Availability is measured performance of Service Providers Retail Services.
Availability for each of the Retail Services are computed separately.
Page 92
Retail Services Average Availability is:
⎡ ∑ Re tail _ Service _ outage _ durations ⎤
1− ⎢
⎥ × 100
Total _ Available _ Time
⎣
⎦
Sum of Retail_Service_outage_durations = the total of the outage time, in minutes, of
the Retail Subscribers’ Services during the reporting calendar month.
Total_Available_Time = (days in the reporting calendar month) * (minutes per day).
2.12
Service Provider shall have an oversubscription rate at a level to provide Retail Subscribers with off-net throughput
commensurate with Services purchased. Throughput demand on Service Provider connection shall not exceed
available throughput except during infrequent moments of unusually high demand. It is anticipated Service Provider will offer a 100 to 1 oversubscription, however this ratio will be adjusted to ensure throughput is commensurate with Services purchased.
To monitor Throughput, the Service Provider will make at least 24 throughput measurements each day from
[PROJECT]’s test access portals (“Access Portals”) to Speakeasy, MegaPath or other mutually agreed speed test
site.
2.13
“Installation” means Service Provider will provide Committed Due Dates for scheduling of Service in less
than or equal to the intervals from order date as shown below. {The following could be modified in conjunction with
definitions contained within Service Provider install commitments}
For pre-configured Services (voice, video, ISP data) to Residential Subscribers
•
Access Portal has been previously installed, no truck roll required:
•
Access Portal has been previously installed, truck roll required:
•
Full install fiber and Access Portal installation is required:
For pre-configured Services (e.g., voice, video, ISP data) to Business or MDU Subscribers
•
Access Portal has been previously installed, no truck roll required:
•
Access Portal has been previously installed, truck roll required:
Page 93
•
Access portal installation is required, premise construction has been
previously installed, no inside wiring required:
(12) business days
•
twelve
Building entry not complete or Access Portal, conduit and/or inside
wiring installation required:
case-by-case basis
For custom services:
case-by-case
2.13.1 A delayed installation will not counted under the following circumstances:
•
Installation is delayed at [PROJECT]’s request; or
•
Installation is delayed at the request of Retail Subscriber.
•
Retail Subscriber has not given [PROJECT] necessary access to the premises
where installation is to be made or Retail Subscriber is not ready or not available
to accept the Service until after the committed due date.
•
Service Provider has:
•
made reasonable efforts to consult with Retail Subscriber by telephone
from the premises where installation is scheduled to be made (or from a
location near such premises); and
•
taken such further reasonable and prudent actions in an attempt to make
installation as Service Provider may direct in the course of such consultation.
•
If Service Provider’s reasonable efforts to consult with Retail Subscriber as required above are unsuccessful, Service Provider shall notify [PROJECT] of the
reason for the delay as soon as reasonably possible.
•
During a Force Majeure Event.
2.13.2 Voice installations requiring Local Number Port (“LNP”) should be coordinated closely
with [PROJECT] and the prior voice provider to avoid telephone service disruption to the Retail
Subscriber. Service Provider must have a backup plan in place in case of LNP failure. Backup
plan must provide Retail Subscriber with telephone service until number can be ported.
Page 94
2.14
For installations, Service Provider will:
2.15
•
Maintain sufficient CPE to fill Retail Subscriber order
•
If the Service Provider is managing and installing their own inside wiring, contact Retail Subscriber
prior to the scheduled appointment
•
•
•
•
Install Service(s) as ordered
•
Service Provider will collect and meet the following inventory Performance Metrics:
•
Notify [PROJECT] to provide additional [PROJECT] provided CPE materials within
thirty (30) calendar days of anticipated depletion of its inventory.
2.16 “Repair and/or Maintenance at the Retail Subscriber Premises” means that a Service Provider technician visits the Retail Subscriber Premises to perform needed, requested and scheduled work on Services and associated Service Provider equipment.
For at least ninety-five percent (95%) of all Repair and/or Maintenance appointments at the Retail Subscriber Premises, Service Provider will:
•
Maintain sufficient CPE and supplies, as applicable, to complete necessary repairs
•
Contact Retail Subscriber prior to the scheduled appointment twenty-four (24) hours
prior (up to 2 attempts)
•
Arrive on site at Retail Subscriber Premises within the appointment window
•
Repair/maintain Service(s) as ordered
Any Repair and/or Maintenance at the Retail Subscriber Premises that do not take place in accordance with the foregoing requirements will be performed in a reasonable timeframe and in a
reasonable manner, taking into consideration the relevant circumstances.
2.17
Service Provider should provide quality support and technical assistance as follows:
2.17.1 Service Provider will provide a sufficient number of qualified staff to answer and respond
to all technical support calls and direct trouble ticket system inputs from Retail Subscribers to
meet the Objectives. The Performance Metrics specify Objectives that include: (1) the target
Page 95
time for answering/responding to calls, (2) the percentage of calls that shall meet the target and
(3) the trouble resolution notification time to Service Provider.
Service Provider’s telephone support and trouble ticket system shall be available twenty-four
(24) hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five (365) days a year.
During normal Business Hours, Service Provider shall accept calls from Retail Subscribers on
all Service-related topics. Outside of normal Business Hours, Service Provider shall respond
to calls relating to Service Provider Network and Service defects.
The target time or duration is measured from the time Retail Subscriber’s telephone call enters
the Service Provider’s help desk routing queue until the time Retail Subscriber speaks to a technician who is capable of resolving the trouble or answering the question.
2.17.2 All employees of Service Provider are expected to be courteous, knowledgeable and helpful and to provide effective and satisfactory service in all contacts with Retail Subscribers.
2.17.3 Service Provider shall provide telephone coverage adequate to meet metrics outlined in
3.6.6, 3.6.7 and 3.6.8.
2.17.4 The Service Provider’s customer service representatives (“CSR”) shall have the authority
to provide credit for interrupted service, for any violation of these Standards, to waive fees, to
schedule service appointments and to change billing cycles, where appropriate. Any difficulties
that cannot be resolved by the CSR shall be referred to the appropriate supervisor who shall contact the Retail Subscriber by the end of the next business day and shall attempt to resolve the
problem within forty eight (48) hours or within such other time frame as is acceptable to the Retail Subscriber and Service Provider.
2.17.5 Bills will be clear, concise and understandable. Bills must be fully itemized, with itemizations including, but not limited to, basic and premium service charges and equipment charges.
Bills will also clearly delineate all activity during the billing period, including optional charges,
rebates and credits. In case of a billing dispute, Service Provider shall respond to a written complaint from a Retail Subscriber within thirty (30) days.
2.17.6 Credits for Services will be issued no later than the Retail Subscriber’s next billing cycle
following the determination that a credit is warranted. Refund checks (if applicable) will be issued promptly, but no later than either the Retail Subscriber’s next billing cycle following resolution of the request or thirty (30) days, whichever is earlier, or the return of the equipment supplied by the Service Provider (if applicable) if Service is terminated.
Page 96
2.17.7 Service Provider shall provide clear instructions in written form (other forms are possible
in addition to written) regarding use of the Retail Services. Service Provider must provide such
written instructions to [PROJECT] prior to use in the field and work with [PROJECT] to create
and accurate and mutually agreed upon Retail Subscriber documents.
2.17.8 Retail Subscribers will be notified of any changes in rates, Services, support hours or contact information, charges or channel positions (as applicable) as soon as possible in writing. Notice must be given to Retail Subscribers a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of such
changes if the change is within the control of the Service Provider.
2.17.9 Service Provider shall establish written procedures for receiving, acting upon, and resolving Retail Subscriber complaints, and crediting Retail Subscriber accounts and shall publicize
such procedures through printed documents at Service Provider’s sole expense. Said written procedures shall prescribe a simple manner in which any Retail Subscriber may submit a complaint
by telephone or in writing to Service Provider that it has violated any provision of this Exhibit E,
any terms or conditions of the Retail Subscriber's contract, or reasonable business practices.
2.18 “Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)” means the average time of the actual repair needed to
restore Services. MTTR is measured in each reporting calendar month.
Number of Retail Outages = Count of Retail Outages (Defined in Section 2.9) less Retail
Outage Exclusions (Defined in Section 2.9.1)
Retail SLA Response Window = time allowed under the specific RSLA to begin repair
service (e.g. Next Business Day, Same Day, 4 Hour, etc). Unless otherwise specified in a written RSLA, the response window is Next Business Day. The RSLA
Response Window is subtracted from each Outage Duration.
MTTR is calculated as follows:
⎛ ∑ Retail Outage Durations ⎞
⎟
⎜
⎜ Number of Retail Outages ⎟
⎠
⎝
A separate MTTR is calculated for each committed RSLA Response Window. The MTTR is
measured in the same units as the RSLA Response units (i.e. days or hours).
Page 97
2.19 Retail Service Provider will strive to resolve trouble tickets as quickly as possible.
The Retail Direct Measures of Quality (RDMOQs) addressing this are the percentage of
trouble tickets that are resolved within either one or two days – the concern being those
that remain open for longer periods. This metric has two measures: (1) the total number of occurrences, and (2) the corresponding percentage that the total number reflects.
RSLA Response Window and Repair Time are defined in Section 2.18.
RDMOQ Period = 24 hours or 48 hours, depending on the metric
The percentage is calculated as follows:
⎛ (∑ trouble tickets resolved in a calendar month within (1) 24 hrs, or (2) 48 hrs ) ⎞
⎜
⎟ × 100
⎜
⎟
Total
number
of
trouble
tickets
in
the
calendar
month
⎝
⎠
2.20 Retail Service Provider will endeavor to provide quality services achieving Retail
Subscriber retention rates below the industry average at an annual average of no more
than 12%. This will be measured monthly, as described in 3.6.1 as follows:
⎛ Number _ of _ Subscriber _ Cancellations _ in _ calendar _ month ⎞
⎜⎜
⎟⎟ = < 1%
⎝ Total number of subscribers on the last day of the calendar month ⎠
Page 98
3 SERVICE PROVIDER PERFORMANCE METRICS
Performance Metrics
3.1
3.1.1
3.2
99% available
See Section 2.11
See Section 2.11
Throughput comparable to advertised
products
See Section 2.12
See Section 2.12
97% of all installations shall meet
Committed Installation Due-dates
See Section 2.13
See Section 2.13
Internet
Transit
Data QoSx
Upload and Download
3.3
3.3.1
Description
Servic
e
Availability
Retail Service - Average Availability
3.2.1
Retail
Service
Installation
On-time provisioning
Page 99
Measurement
Meth
od
Objective
Performance Metrics
Objective
3.4
Retail Marketing Metric
3.4.1
Retail Marketing Response
Time
Within 2 weeks of
market ready notification Service Provider will launch
marketing efforts.
3.4.2
Retail Marketing Frequency
At least every 6
months Service Provider shall contact all
non-subscribing
marketable addresses
to offer Services
3.5
Retail Subscriber Retention
Metric
3.5.1
Retail Subscriber Retention
Metric
3.6
Repair Metrics
3.6.1
Mean Time to Repair Service
Outage
Service Providers
will retain Retail
Subscribers at or
below industry average churn rates.
See section 2.20
See section 2.20
Mean Time to Repair
shall not exceed the
times specified in the
RSLAs.
See Section 2.18
See Section 2.18
Page 100
Measurement
Meth
od
Description
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.6.5
Performance Metrics
Objective
Description
% Retail Trouble Tickets Resolved > 24 Hours
Less than five percent (< 5%)
See Section 2.19
% Retail Trouble Tickets Resolved > 48 Hours
Less than three percent (< 3%)
See Section 2.19
Notification of Scheduled Service Upgrade or Maintenance
100% Notification to
[PROJECT] via electronic mail or other
agreed upon method
five (5) days in advance the scheduled
event
Whenever Service Provider performs
scheduled service upgrades or maintenance
notices shall include
Notification of Unscheduled
Upgrade, Maintenance event
100% Notification to
[PROJECT] contacts
via electronic mail or
other agreed upon
method within ten
(10) minutes of the
start of an unscheduled event
Page 101
Measurement
Meth
od
See Section 2.19
RDMOQ Period – 24 hours
See Section 2.19
RDMOQ Period – 48 hours
•
•
planned outage time
•
number of Service Provider Retail
Subscribers impacted
•
trouble ticket number or event reference
Whenever Service Provider performs an
unscheduled network upgrade or maintenance event the notice shall include:
•
•
planned outage time
•
number of Service Provider Retail
Subscribers impacted
•
trouble ticket number or event reference
Number of times scheduled
service upgrades or maintenance impacting Retail Subscribers’ Services occur during
a calendar month. This number includes any and all services on [PROJECT]’s Network.
Number of minutes from Service Provider’s notification to
[PROJECT]’s to after the beginning of an unscheduled
service upgrade, maintenance
event, or Major Service Incident. This number includes
any and all services on
[PROJECT]’s Network.
Measurement
Meth
od
Performance Metrics
Objective
Description
3.6.6
Technical Support Response
Time
85% of Retail Subscriber’s telephone
calls (for installation
and/or maintenance)
connected to Service
Provider within 5
(five) minutes
See Section 2.17
See Section 2.17
3.6.7
Sales Response Time
85% of potential
Retail Subscribers
should wait no more
than 3 (three) minutes on hold before
speaking to a sales
representative.
See Section 2.17
See Section 2.17
3.6.8
Busy Signal
Under normal operating conditions, the
Retail Subscriber
will receive a busy
signal less than 3
(three) percent of the
time.
See Section 2.17
See Section 2.17
Page 102
APPENDIX 5: COST & CARBON OFF-SET COMPUTATION
In-Custody Hearings
Court
1) In reviewing the in-custody calendar, there were two vehicles per week from January 1st
through September 30th.
2) There were three Friday hearings from January 1st through September 30th. Each hearing
required two vehicles.
3) The City borrows a van from the City of Lynnwood which holds 10 inmates. The size of
the vehicle used for the second set of inmates depends on the size of the transport.
4) 9 week sample (August and September) - estimates calculated based on the number of
inmates transported
a. 10 hearing days
b. Average hearing day data
i. Two vehicles
1. One way trip from the City of Edmonds police department to the
City of Lynnwood police department to the Snohomish County jail
is 18 ½ miles. Round trip is 37 miles.
2. IRS mileage rate is $.485
3. Estimated cost for two round trips = $36
ii. 3.6 Officers
1. Transport officer average hourly wage = $ 50.38
2. An average of 4.5 hours per hearing day
iii. Estimated average cost per hearing day: $852
1. $36 vehicle cost
2. $816 officer cost
5) Estimated annual transport savings per year: $47,710
a. Average number of hearings per year: 56
i. 4.67 hearings per month
ii. 12 months
b. Average transport cost per hearing $852
6) Estimated annual mileage savings – 4,144 miles
a. Average number of hearings per year: 56
Page 103
b. Round trip mileage for two cars per hearing: 74 miles
7) Estimated annual CO2 (tonnes) savings: 2.67
Page 104
Smart Metering
Labor Cost
1) Meter Reader
a. 62% time spent reading meters
b. 21% time spent on maintenance
c. 17% overhead time
d. Hourly wage - $18.68, plus 30% for benefits - $24.28
e. Estimated salary savings $4,210 per month
f. Estimated annual savings $50,521
2) Water Maintenance Worker II
a. According to the current water maintenance technician, he spends approximately
30 to 50 % of his time on utility dispatches. In the calculation, 30% was used for
the current processes.
b. Hourly wage - $25.45, plus 30% for benefits - $33.09
c. Estimated current salary based on 30% equals $20,646
3) Utility Billing Technician
a. According to the utility billing technician, she spends approximately 10% of her
time on utility dispatch items that are associated with the actual reading of the
meter. The following items are considered utility dispatches.
i. Closing Bills
ii. Re-reads
iii. Leak Adjustments
b. Hourly wage - $25.23, plus 30% for benefits - $32.80
c. Estimated current salary based on 10% equals $6,822
Equipment Rental
1) Vehicle cost per year based on July 2006-June 2007 vehicle expenditure data
a. #128 WTR 2002 FORD F-250 PICK-UP (water maintenance worker II (#77) –
30% of actual vehicle usage)
i. 381 average miles per month (10/19/2007)
ii. Annual operation and replacement costs - $2,935
1. Operating costs - $2,161
Page 105
2. Replacement costs - $774
b. #56 WTR 2000 GO-4 (meter reader scooter)
2. Replacement costs - $3,600
c. #38 WTR 1995 FORD PICKUP (meter reader)
2. Replacement costs - $1,800
Installation Costs
1) Cost Factors
a. Radio read meter costs were obtained by Jim Waite, the Water/Sewer Manager.
He obtained the cost from vendors the City currently uses.
b. Labor costs are based on the number of unit installations per hour based on the
size of the meter. Installation would be performed by a Water Maintenance
Worker.
i. Actual 2007 salary and benefits - $33.09 per hour
ii. An overhead rate of $42.00 was used to calculate the labor costs. This
figure was calculated based on a methodology used by the water department in figuring out the amount of actual time worked during the period.
c. The number of meters and the age of the meters were pulled from the Eden Utility
Billing System.
2) Meters
a. 29% of the City’s water meters are between 10 and 20 years old. The table below
describes the estimated cost to replace these meters.
Page 106
Meter
Size
5/8"
1"
1 1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
Number of meters Installation
Number of between 10 and 20 Time (number
Meters
years old
per hour)
9,026
2,598
3.00
449
127
2.00
201
94
1.00
202
74
1.00
22
6
0.25
55
16
0.25
32
15
0.25
51
30
0.10
10,038
2,960
Material Cost
Cost to Replace
Labor Cost (10 to 20 Radio Read (10 to 20 Year (10 to 20 Year Old
Year Old Meters)
Meter Cost
Old Meters)
Meters)
36,372.00
240
623,520
659,892
2,667.00
300
38,100
40,767
3,948.00
500
47,000
50,948
3,108.00
1600
118,400
121,508
1,008.00
2000
12,000
13,008
2,688.00
3100
49,600
52,288
2,520.00
5500
82,500
85,020
12,600.00
9400
282,000
294,600
$
64,911.00
$ 1,253,120.00 $
1,318,031.00
Per Unit
Cost
14.00
21.00
42.00
42.00
168.00
168.00
168.00
420.00
b. 37% of the City’s water meters are greater than 20 years old. The table below describes the estimated cost to replace these meters.
Meter
Size
5/8"
1"
1 1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
Number of
Meters
9,026
449
201
202
22
55
32
51
10,038
Number of meters Installation
greater than 20 Time (number
years old
per hour)
3,403
3.00
181
2.00
50
1.00
32
1.00
9
0.25
3
0.25
4
0.25
10
0.10
3,692
Per Unit
Cost
14.00
21.00
42.00
42.00
168.00
168.00
168.00
420.00
Labor Cost
Material Cost
Cost to Replace
(Greater than 20 Radio Read (Greater than 20 (Greater than 20
Year Old Meters) Meter Cost Year Old Meters) Year Old Meters)
47,642.00
240
816,720
864,362
3,801.00
300
54,300
58,101
2,100.00
500
25,000
27,100
1,344.00
1600
51,200
52,544
1,512.00
2000
18,000
19,512
504.00
3100
9,300
9,804
672.00
5500
22,000
22,672
4,200.00
9400
94,000
98,200
$
61,775.00
$ 1,090,520.00 $
1,152,295.00
c. 34% of the meters are not part of the replacement calculation
Cost Comparison
1) Baseline and descriptions for meter reading at a central location
a. The top portion of the baseline table exhibits meters that need to be replaced due
to the fact they have exceeded their useful life, 20 years.
b. The bottom portion of the baseline table exhibits meters that would benefit from
replacement, 10 to 20 year old meters.
Existing Baseline System
Expense Description
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Initial Meter Replacement Program
Bi-Monthly Meter Reading Costs
Administrative Meter Reads
Vehicle Replacement Costs
Vehicle Maintenance Costs
$ 1,152,295.00
50,520.60
27,467.33
6,174.00
8,402.20
$ 1,244,859.13
51,783.615
28,154.009
6,328.350
8,612.255
$ 94,878.23
53,078.205
28,857.859
6,486.559
8,827.561
$ 97,250.18
54,405.161
29,579.305
6,648.723
9,048.250
$ 99,681.44
55,765.290
30,318.788
6,814.941
9,274.457
$ 102,173.48
57,159.422
31,076.758
6,985.314
9,506.318
$ 104,727.81
58,588.407
31,853.677
7,159.947
9,743.976
$ 107,346.01
60,053.117
32,650.019
7,338.946
9,987.575
$ 110,029.66
Expense Description
Total AMR Capital Costs
Total AMR System O&M Costs
Water Cost Savings from Meter Accuracy
Sewer Cost Savings from Meter Accurancy
2007
$ 1,318,031.00
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
(10,520.50)
28,532.52
13,634.63
1,315.80
3,674.04
$ 1,354,667.49
(10,520.50)
29,245.84
13,975.49
1,348.70
3,765.89
$ 37,815.42
(10,520.50)
29,976.98
14,324.88
1,382.41
3,860.04
$ 39,023.82
(10,520.50)
30,726.41
14,683.00
1,416.97
3,956.54
$ 40,262.42
Page 107
(10,520.50)
31,494.57
15,050.08
1,452.40
4,055.45
$ 41,532.00
(10,520.50)
32,281.93
15,426.33
1,488.71
4,156.84
$ 42,833.31
(10,520.50)
33,088.98
15,811.99
1,525.92
4,260.76
$ 44,167.15
(10,520.50)
33,916.20
16,207.29
1,564.07
4,367.28
$ 45,534.35
c. Current labor costs - $77,989
i. Meter Reader salary and benefits for a total of $50,521
ii. 30% of the Water Maintenance Worker II salary and benefits for a total of
$20,646
iii. 10% of the Utility Billing Technician salary and benefits for a total of
$6,822
d. Current annual vehicle costs – $14,576
i.
Vehicle used by the water maintenance technician - $2,935
ii.
Two vehicles used by the meter reader - $11,641
e. Smart metering labor costs - $42,167
i.
Largest cost savings is in salaries and benefits
ii.
33% of the meters would not be replaced and need manual reads. Based
on the current time spent reading meters, which is 62%, the time needed
to read these meters is 20% of the maintenance worker’s time ($14,080).
iii.
Maintenance would need to be continued at the same rate as the current
meters – 21% of the maintenance worker’s time ($14,452).
iv.
Some administrative reads would be needed due to resident requests as
well as reads for closing bills, misreads, and leak adjustments on the remaining 33% of the manual read meters. Based on the current time
spent on administrative reads, which is 30%, the time needed to read
these meters is 10% of the maintenance worker’s time ($6,813).
v.
The change in the utility billing technician’s time is zero. Administrative tasks currently performed will decrease with the offset being new
administrative tasks. 10% of the utility billing technician’s time is spent
on utility dispatch issues ($6,822).
f. Smart metering annual vehicle costs - one vehicle used by the water maintenance
technician (51%) - $4,990
2) Baseline and descriptions for meter reading via automobile
a. The top portion of the baseline table exhibits meters that need to be replaced due
to the fact they have exceeded their useful life, 20 years.
b. The bottom portion of the baseline table exhibits meters that would benefit from
replacement, 10 to 20 year old meters.
Page 108
Existing Baseline System
Expense Description
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Initial Meter Replacement Program
$ 1,152,295.00
50,520.60
27,467.33
6,174.00
8,402.20
$ 1,244,859.13
51,783.615
28,154.009
6,328.350
8,612.255
$ 94,878.23
53,078.205
28,857.859
6,486.559
8,827.561
$ 97,250.18
54,405.161
29,579.305
6,648.723
9,048.250
$ 99,681.44
55,765.290
30,318.788
6,814.941
9,274.457
$ 102,173.48
57,159.422
31,076.758
6,985.314
9,506.318
$ 104,727.81
58,588.407
31,853.677
7,159.947
9,743.976
$ 107,346.01
60,053.117
32,650.019
7,338.946
9,987.575
$ 110,029.66
Expense Description
Total AMR Capital Costs
Total AMR System O&M Costs
Water Cost Savings from Meter Accuracy
Sewer Cost Savings from Meter Accurancy
2007
$ 1,318,031.00
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
(10,520.50)
37,708.44
13,634.63
1,651.20
4,610.56
$ 1,365,115.33
(10,520.50)
38,651.15
13,975.49
1,692.48
4,725.82
$ 48,524.45
(10,520.50)
39,617.43
14,324.88
1,734.79
4,843.97
$ 50,000.58
(10,520.50)
40,607.87
14,683.00
1,778.16
4,965.07
$ 51,513.60
(10,520.50)
41,623.07
15,050.08
1,822.62
5,089.20
$ 53,064.46
(10,520.50)
42,663.64
15,426.33
1,868.18
5,216.43
$ 54,654.08
(10,520.50)
43,730.23
15,811.99
1,914.89
5,346.84
$ 56,283.45
(10,520.50)
44,823.49
16,207.29
1,962.76
5,480.51
$ 57,953.54
c. Current labor costs - $77,989
i.
Meter Reader salary and benefits for a total of $50,521
ii.
30% of the Water Maintenance Worker II salary and benefits for a total
of $20,646
iii.
10% of the Utility Billing Technician salary and benefits for a total of
$6,822
d. Current annual vehicle costs – $14,576
i.
Vehicle used by the water maintenance technician - $2,935
ii.
Two vehicles used by the meter reader - $11,641
e. Smart metering labor costs - $51,343
i.
Largest cost savings is in salaries and benefits
ii.
33% of the meters would not be replaced and need manual reads. Based
on the current time spent reading meters, which is 62%, the time needed
to read these meters is 20% of the maintenance worker’s time ($14,080).
iii.
One employee would spend one to two days driving around the city
scanning the meters. It would take approximately 13% of the maintenance worker’s time ($9,176)
iv.
Maintenance would need to be continued at the same rate as the current
meters – 21% of the maintenance worker’s time ($14,452).
v.
Some administrative reads would be needed due to resident requests as
well as reads for closing bills, misreads, and leak adjustments on the remaining 33% of the manual read meters. Based on the current time
spent on administrative reads, which is 30%, the time needed to read
these meters is 10% of the maintenance worker’s time ($6,813).
vi.
The change in the utility billing technician’s time is zero. Administrative tasks currently performed will decrease with the offset being new
Page 109
administrative tasks. 10% of the utility billing technician’s time is spent
on utility dispatch issues ($6,822).
f. Smart metering annual vehicle costs - one vehicle used by the water maintenance
technician (64%) - $6,262
3) Carbon reduction - the following estimates are based on #56WTR and #38WTR not being used for meter reading and maintenance.
a. Estimated annual mileage savings 12,492
b. Estimated annual CO2 (tonnes) savings: 5.67
c. Estimated annual vehicle cost savings $11,640
Page 110
AM-1762
Arbor Court Findings
8.
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Duane Bowman
Department:
Development Services
Review Committee:
Action:
Time:
Type:
10 Minutes
Information
Subject Title
Approval of Findings of Fact related to the 7/29/08 and 8/05/08 Closed Record Review:
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision to deny the request to subdivide Arbor Court, a
1.27 acre parcel developed with 35 townhomes, into 35 fee-simple townhouse parcels. The
site is located at 23800 – 23824 Edmonds Way. (File Nos. P-08-16 and APL-08-4)
Approve the findings of fact (Exhibit 1).
City Council held a closed record review of the appeal on July 29, 2008, and August 5, 2008. At
the August 26, 2008, Councilmember Orvis pulled the findings and asked for clarification and
additional findings. The Council requested the matter be brought back for consideration on the
September 2, 2008 meeting.
Narrative
After holding a closed record review of the appeal by the applicant of the Hearing Examiner's
decision to deny the request to subdivide the Arbor Court townhomes into individual fee-simple
townhouse parcels, the City Council voted to uphold the appeal and approve the proposed
subdivision. The findings drafted by the City Attorney to implement the Council's action are
attached as Exhibit 1.
Since the August 26, 2008 meeting, the City Attorney has revised the findings, specifically
paragraph 3, to address the issue raised by Councilmember Orvis regarding street standards.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Revised Findings (Arbor Court)
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq
Inbox
1
City Clerk
2
Mayor
3
Final Approval
Form Started By: Duane
Approved By
Sandy Chase
Gary Haakenson
Sandy Chase
Date
Status
08/28/2008 10:19 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 10:25 AM
APRV
08/28/2008 11:02 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/28/2008 09:56
Bowman
Started On: 08/28/2008 09:56
AM
BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Regarding:
Edmonds Arbor Court
Townhouses
)
)
)
)
)
File No: P-2008-16
THIS MATTER came on for hearing before the Edmonds City Council on July
29, 2008. The City Council heard the matter as a closed record appeal. The matter was
continued to August 5, 2008 in order to provide the City Council additional materials
representing the complete record. At the continued hearing with the consent of the
appellant/applicant, a party of record not present at the initial closed record review
hearing was permitted to speak.
FINDINGS OF FACT
For its findings of fact and conclusions, the City Council adopts the Planning
Division Advisory report and recommendations of June 6, 2007 as set forth on pages 12
through 17 of the initial Council transcript, except to the limited extent modified herein.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
1.
The City Council finds that the staff interpretation has been consistently
applied both at the staff level and by the Hearing Examiner. See materials submitted in
conjunction with Motion for Reconsideration and admitted pursuant to the Hearing
Examiner’s decision on reconsideration beginning at page 195 of the transcript.
2.
Based thereon, the City Council concludes that the townhouse subdivision
approvals and staff interpretations are decisions of the zoning official interpreting an
ambiguous provision of the City code and are not an attempt to legislate or address
{WSS703669.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
1
matters not covered by previous legislation. As such they are entitled to deference in this
proceeding.
3.
Based upon the additional submittals in the reconsideration, the City
Council adopts the Hearing Examiner’s conclusion set forth at pages 202 - 203 of the
transcript and finds that minimum lot size requirements have been met. The staff report
Findings 3(a) and 5(a) are supplemented to reflect that the subdivision will be served by
private access easements. Therefore, adequate provision has been made for access and
other engineering requirements.
CONCLUSION
The City Council acknowledges the closeness of the issue but finds that on
balance, the staff’s interpretation should be adopted. The Hearing Examiner’s decision is
accordingly overturned.
The provisions of the subdivision ordinance applied to
townhouses contain some ambiguity.
The City Council finds that the staff’s
interpretation is reasonable and should be given deference as an interpretation of the
zoning official. The staff’s interpretation has been consistently applied and adopted in
prior decisions of the Hearing Examiner. The conditions set forth in the staff report are
adopted along with engineering requirements set forth therein and adopted in the Hearing
Examiner’s response to the Motion for Reconsideration
DONE this _____ day of _______________, 2008.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Mayor Gary Haakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
By:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
{WSS703669.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
2
AM-1754
General Fund Revenue Options
9.
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Kathleen Junglov
Time:
Department:
Type:
Review Committee:
Action:
Recommend Review by Full Council
30 Minutes
Action
Information
Subject Title
General Fund Revenue Options.
Consider items in conjunction with balancing the 2009-2010 Biennial Budget.
Council Summer Retreat August 18, 2008.
Narrative
At the summer retreat, staff presented General Fund revenue options, however not all of the
options were discussed. This agenda item transmits the current list of revenue options along with
a brief narrative on each item. At Council request, more detailed information will be presented.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: General Fund Revenue Options
Link: Business License Fees Memo
Link: Business License Fee Survey
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq
Inbox
1
City Clerk
2
Mayor
3
Final Approval
Form Started By: Kathleen
Junglov
Approved By
Sandy Chase
Gary Haakenson
Sandy Chase
Date
Status
08/25/2008 11:41 AM
APRV
08/25/2008 11:50 AM
APRV
08/26/2008 11:46 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/25/2008 11:31
AM
City of Edmonds
121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0239
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Gary Haakenson
Mayor
Kathleen Junglov
Director
August 21, 2008
To:
City Councilmembers
From: Kathleen Junglov, Finance Director
Re:
Potential Revenue Options for the General Fund
In response to a request by Council President Plunkett, city staff is providing the
following information detailing potential revenue options for the General Fund.
As discussed the Council retreat on Monday August 18th, the City’s General Fund is
facing deficits of $1.5 million and $4.5 million in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Council
President Plunkett requested a list of revenue options discussed at the retreat as well as
any other potential General Fund revenue sources. Those with the impact as “unknown”
are still being researched.
Following the table limited information has been provided on each option. At council
request more detailed information will be provided.
Option
Council Action
Utility tax increase to 7% on city operated utilities
Increase CATV utility tax to 6%
Development Services Department Fees
Business License Fees
Parking Enforcement Revenue
Transportation Benefit District
EMS Transport User Fees
B & O Tax
Vote of the People
Utility Tax increase non-city operated utilities
General Property Tax Levy Lid Lift
Gambling
Fire Authority
Annual Impact
$100,000
450,000
67,000
unknown
unknown
700,000
700,000
1,500,000
650,000
2,000,000
500,000
4,000,000
Utility tax increase to 7% on city operated Utilities (Water, Sewer, Storm)
There are no restrictions on the tax rates for water sewer and storm water utilities –
Council could increase without a vote of the people. An average bill is approximately
$100. A 1% increase to 7% would cost the average customer an additional $6 per year,
providing the General Fund an additional $100,000 in revenue.
● Incorporated August 11, 1890 ●
Sister City – Hekinan, Japan
General Fund Revenue Options, Page 2
Increase CATV utility tax to 6%
City can impose the Franchise fee at 5% and a utility tax up to 6%. Presently utility tax
is at 1%. Each additional percent would add $90,000 per year ($12/per year average
impact to customer).
Development Services Department Fees - $67,000
By raising the Development Services Department fees by 16% and requiring permit
applicant’s to pay for all consultant review costs, the City will recoup a minimum of
$67,000 per year.
Transportation Benefit District
Following the prescribed process, which includes public input, Council may form a TBD.
Without a vote of the people council can approve up to a $20 annual vehicle fee, or a
Commercial & Industrial Impact fee.
With voter approval up to .2% sales and use tax (10 year limit), Property tax – an excess
levy for capital purposes or a 1 year excess levy, up to $100 annual vehicle fee, or vehicle
tolls.
In 2009 the general fund will transfer approximately $700,000 to the Street fund to
support operations, preservation, and maintenance which it is now clear are allowable
expenditures of TBD funds.
EMS Transport User Fees
Being assessed by Fire District #1 ($1.2M), and Everett ($1.6M).
During 2007 the City of Edmonds provided 1663 BLS transports and 578 ALS transports.
It appears the City could collect approximately $700,000 per year based on the City of
Everett’s billings vs rate of collection experience.
B & O Tax - $1,500,000
Maximum rate that can be charged is two tenths of a percent (.2%) unless a higher rate
was levied prior to 1982 or voter approved. Rate is applied to GROSS receipts, at a
minimum the first $20,000 of gross receipts are exempted.
Should Edmonds impose a B&O tax it would impact all companies doing business in
Edmonds, not just local businesses.
It is difficult to estimate the revenue that could be generated from a B&O tax with out
knowing the rate that would be assessed and the minimum amount exempted.
Several Washington Cities impose a B & O Tax. Following is a table detailing the Cities
and a history of their collections.
City
Aberdeen
Algona
Bainbridge Isl.
Bellevue
Bellingham
Black Diamond
Bremerton
Buckley
Burien
Cosmopolis
Darrington
Dupont
Everett
Everson
Hoquiam
Issaquah
Kelso
Kirkland
Lacey
Lake Forest Park
Long Beach
Longview
Mercer Island
North Bend
Ocean Shores
Olympia
Pacific
Port Townsend
Rainier
Raymond
Redmond
Roy
Ruston
Seattle
Shelton
Snoqualmie
Tacoma
Tumwater
Vancouver
Westport
Yelm
2004
2,441,701
117,489
291,258
20,420,775
9,168,199
80,894
2,887,320
45,639
445,157
183,115
-N/F
11,774,281
-602,603
1,694,767
612,314
899,709
1,278,338
140,412
67,309
-361,177
424,050
178,046
3,744,687
313,997
414,013
41,223
252,696
3,432,104
9,030
7,189
127,360,514
668,987
532,751
23,187,599
1,414,551
3,403
622,132
344,596
2005
2,508,785
170,228
305,952
22,256,898
10,470,180
90,231
3,392,365
34,244
517,392
223,719
29,382
143,310
12,906,327
--1,914,509
592,805
929,498
1,470,165
162,651
85,330
1,939,597
503,372
449,956
296,910
4,241,189
378,648
536,150
60,158
252,590
3,612,038
11,527
7,057
142,804,814
676,496
606,274
24,544,290
1,593,516
-725,464
416,529
2006
2,545,086
200,836
347,729
27,058,265
11,299,028
106,033
3,190,631
31,196
499,997
250,130
41,846
173,537
14,179,240
210,420
824,284
2,201,895
621,077
978,003
1,876,138
181,817
78,202
2,062,161
191,902
490,299
251,017
3,989,392
483,574
622,874
45,906
255,656
3,799,649
12,445
7,678
160,201,698
642,954
652,293
24,578,841
1,473,325
-577,497
394,480
Utility Tax increase non-city operated utilities (Electric, Natural Gas, Telephone,
Solid Waste) - $650,000
Estimate the annual impact to average customer would be about $35 per year, providing
the General Fund an additional $650,000 in revenue. Would require a vote of the people.
Point about utility tax increases is they are assessed on a larger group than property taxes
as many entities are exempt from property taxes.
General Property Tax Levy Lid Lift - $2,000,000
One way to raise additional revenue would be to do a Levy lid lift. Levy lid lifts can
either be temporary - for a period of time or a specific purpose, or permanent. Levy lid
lifts require a vote of the people.
For example, a levy lid lift in the amount of $2,000,000 would cost the owner of a home
valued at $500,000 approximately $131 per year.
Gambling - $500,000
As a point of reference, the City of MLT budget includes $1.6M in gambling tax revenue
in 2009. They currently have 3 casinos operating in the City. Would require a vote of
the people.
Fire Authority - $4,000,000
A Fire Authority is a separate taxing district which in essence is stand alone provider of
Fire and EMS services. The City could form one on it’s own or partner with neighboring
jurisdictions. Establishing a Fire Authority would require a vote of the people.
EMS Levy
Fire District #1
Woodway Contract
Total Revenues
Total Expenditures for Fire/EMS
Net Resources Available
$3,865,944
300,000
360,496
$4,526,440
(8,817,962)
$4,291,522
Traffic Light Cameras
I-985 has been certified to be put to the voters on the November 4, 2008 ballot. This
initiative would divert revenue from traffic cameras from local government to “traffic
flow purposes”.
Per August 12, 2008 Public Safety Committee Agenda Memo:
Based on the analysis by our traffic engineer the following intersections recommended
for ATS's survey are 220th St SW and SR99 four directions, 238th St SW and SR 99
north and south bound, and 100th Ave W and SR104 east and west bound. Public Safety
committee requested a presentation to full council before authorizing the ATS survey.
Potential revenue from this source has yet to be determined and at this time may in fact
be unlikely.
Business License Fees
2,023 Business Licenses (in city)
Approximately 325 new licenses are received each year. 325 x $65 =
$21,125.00
Approximately 1800 renewals are received each year. 1800 x $25 =
$45,000.00
Increase commercial business license fee to $125:
225 x $125 = $28,125.00
Increase home occupation business fee to $100:
100 x $100 = $10,000.00
Increase renewal fee to $50.00:
1800 x $50 = $90,000.00
1,004 Non-resident Business Licenses (out of city)
1004 x $25.00 = $25,100.00
Increase non-resident business license fee to $50:
Current total of all fees:
$ 91,225
Increases total:
$178,325
Increase to General Fund:
$ 87,100
1004 x $50 = $50,200.00
BUSINESS LICENSE FEES
City
Commercial
Home
Apartment
$65
Edmonds
$65
$65
Lynnwood
$109 +$14.50
per employee
$109
Mountlake
Terrace
$100 0-10
$170 11-20
$335 21-50
$675 51-over
FTE Based on 40
Hour week
$113.50
FTE Fee .0228
Hours per year x
Employees
$60
$113.50
Mukilteo
Mill Creek
$25 1x only
Review Fee
$25 0-3
$50 4-8
$75 9-13
$100 14-19
$150 20-25
$200 26-32
$300 33 +
$25 1x
only
Review
Fee
$25 plus
$50 for
Permit
or $100
for Permit
if 1
outside
employee
Shoreline
Washington
State License
Only
1x Fee
$137
Other
Nonresident
Annual
Renewal
B&O
Tax
$25
$25
No
$148
Home- $27
Comm- $92
plus $14.50
per
employee
NR- $148
No
$35 plus $1 per
Unit Fee
$100
Quarterly
$40
Same
No
$113.50
Temp
Contractor’s
License
$15 30 days
$15 2nd 30
days
Based on
how many
employees
working
within the
city limits
Same
No
Same minus
1x Review
Fee
No
No
AM-1757
Waterfront Antique Mall and Skipper's Property
Date:
09/02/2008
Submitted By:
Duane Bowman
Department:
Development Services
Review Committee:
Action:
10.
Time:
Type:
45 Minutes
Information
Subject Title
Discussion on appraisal/environmental due diligence process for the Downtown Waterfront
Activity Center properties known as The Old Antique Mall and Skipper's site.
Recommendation of the Council President
Council needs to discuss and determine if the attached scope of work for RFP is sufficient and, if
so, does Council wish to continue on with RFP based upon attached or amended scope of work to
do an environmental assessment of subject properties?
Council needs to determine funding source(s).
Per Council direction of August 5, 2008, "direct staff to bring back ideas regarding potential
consultants for the Council to consider in regard to developing a vision.” Staff is seeking
additional Council direction with respect to public use consultants. Therefore, should Council
develop a scope of work for a RFP for a public use consultant?
On August 5, 2008, the City Council directed staff to put together a scope of work for an
environmental assessment to accompany an appraisal of the Antique Mall and former Skipper's
properties, along with a public use consultant.
Narrative
The City Council, at the August 5, 2008 meeting, asked staff to look into developing a scope of
work to accomplish an appraisal of the Antique Mall/Skipper’s properties. At the meeting, I
expressed concerns regarding cost and the limited environmental assessment that would be done
as part of the appraisal.
Since the meeting, staff has received input from two geotechnical firms and Brian McIntosh was
able to speak with an appraiser. Attached is a draft Request for Proposal for an environmental
assessment. This is the first step if the City Council wants to pursue an appraisal of the subject
properties. Once the environmental assessment is completed an appraisal can take into account the
environmental assessment in conjunction with an appraisal. Then the appraiser can complete the
market appraisal. It appears that the total estimated cost for the environmental assessment would
be in the range of $5,000 - $8,000 and the appraisal would cost approximately $11,500 for the two
properties. Council will need to determine how to fund the cost for the appraisal.
Regarding the public use consultant, the Council will need to give more specifics for exactly what
it wants the consultant to do and how much it wants to spend on such a consultant. The Council
may want to wait for the appraisal before proceeding with a public use consultant.
Included, for the Council's information, is an article from the Washington State Department of
Ecology regarding hazardous waste considerations in real estate transactions.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - CC Minutes 080508
Link: Exhibit 2 - Scope of Work Environmental Assessment
Link: Exhibit 3 - DOE Real Estate Hazardous Materials Brochure
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq
Inbox
1
City Clerk
2
Mayor
3
Final Approval
Bowman
Approved By
Sandy Chase
Gary Haakenson
Sandy Chase
Date
Status
08/27/2008 02:13 PM
APRV
08/27/2008 02:39 PM
APRV
08/28/2008 09:42 AM
APRV
Started On: 08/26/2008 09:50
AM
DRAFT
Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation / Focused Environmental Site Assessment
The City of Edmonds (City) desires to obtain a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and
focused environmental site assessment (ESA) in order to evaluate the site conditions, potential
environmental liabilities, and site development constraints that could be imposed by the site’s
existing geotechnical and environmental conditions. The information gathered in the assessment
will be used in the consideration of the potential appraised value of the property. In the event
that the City elects at a later date to purchase the property, the City expects to conduct more
detailed due diligence and site evaluations to further assess potential site purchase liabilities.
Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation
The Consultant shall conduct a geotechnical feasibility evaluation to assess the site’s soil
and groundwater conditions and their impact on site development. The Consultant shall collect
and compile geotechnical information to the extent that it is available from existing sources.
Potential sources could include City Building Division or Public Works files, published geologic
or geotechnical information, or information that may be available in the Consultant’s files. Onsite drilling, sampling, or testing is not included in this scope of services.
The Consultant shall review the existing data on soil and groundwater conditions,
consider the impact of the soil conditions on likely foundation and site development alternatives,
and summarize the geotechnical feasibility evaluation in a letter report.
The report shall include:
• A summary of soil and groundwater conditions, based on the available information.
•
Likely alternatives for foundation support for various types of structures that could be
constructed on the site.
•
Other site development constraints or constructability issues related to the soil and
groundwater conditions that could potentially impact site development costs and
property value.
Focused Environmental Site Assessment
The Consultant shall conduct a focused ESA in general accordance with the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, E 1527-05 (as currently applied
in the State of Washington). However, the scope of services for this focused assessment has
been modified to meet the specific needs of this project and does not constitute a Phase I ESA
per the ASTM standard. Property owner interviews, detailed site reconnaissance, inspection of
building interiors, or on-site sampling and testing will not be included in the focused ESA.
Based on the findings of the focused ESA, the need for further evaluation (i.e. data/document
review, physical inspection or testing), as appropriate, shall be recommended, and can be
outlined in a separate scope of work for consideration by the City.
The purpose of the focused ESA is to develop historical and regulatory information
regarding the project area to assess the potential for contamination to exist at the subject
property. The information developed during the focused ESA process is intended to provide
initial information to assess potential liabilities associated with the subject property and
environmental conditions that could impact property value or site development costs.
The focused ESA shall include:
• Reviewing available aerial photographs, historical fire insurance maps, and topographic
maps to assess past uses of the subject project from the present back to their first
developed use, or back to 1940, whichever is earlier.
• Reviewing listings from a subcontracted database service of confirmed and suspected
contaminated sites abstracted from EPA, tribal, and Ecology environmental databases, as
prescribed by ASTM. ASTM requires that these databases be searched for confirmed and
suspected contaminated sites within various distances up to a 1-mile radius of the project
right-of-way.
• Preparing a draft written letter report presenting the results of the focused ESA for City
review. The letter report will identify data gaps in the assessment, the efforts to fill them,
and comments on whether the data gaps are significant and affect the overall findings.
• Preparing a final letter report incorporating City comments, as appropriate.
A D e p a r t m e n t o f E c o l o g y R e p o r t
Hazardous Waste Considerations
In Real Estate Transactions
Public awareness of
hazardous waste problems
and environmental laws has
created both obvious and
unexpected liabilities in real
estate transactions. To
minimize risk, purchasers are
advised to conduct an appropriate investigation into the
history of activities and
business practices associated
with a piece of property
before buying or leasing it.
Otherwise, you could be
accepting responsibility for
hazardous waste contamination caused by someone
else and you could be
required to pay for cleaning
it up.
Although commercial
and industrial properties are
more likely to be contaminated than residential or rural
properties, many rural and
agricultural properties can
also have significant
contamination problems.
You could be potentially
liable for the cleanup of
hazardous substances
regardless of the type of
property you buy or lease.
This report is directed
toward anyone involved in
real estate transactions;
individual citizens, real
estate brokers and agents,
appraisers, lenders,
attorneys, consultants, and
developers. It identifies some
common concerns regarding
hazardous waste liability as it
relates to property
transactions and outlines
investigative techniques
commonly used to assess the
potential for hazardous
substance contamination at a
site.
Caution!
This report does not, and is not intended, to state the
circumstances under which liability will be imposed
under state or federal law, nor does it establish a
standard of due diligence or define appropriate
inquiry for environmental site assessments.
“Due Diligence” and “Appropriate Inquiry” are
terms used to designate the nature and extent of an
environmental property assessment for a given site.
To establish that a purchaser or lessee should not be
liable for cleanup costs, that person must be able to
show that they investigated the property fully before
its purchase or lease and in doing so did not find any
contamination. If the property inspection was not
conducted with “due diligence” or if the purchaser
did not conduct an “appropriate inquiry”, he or she
may be held liable for cleaning up the property.
Ecology Report
R-TC-92-115
Packet Page
262 of 267
Hazardous Waste Laws:
You Could Become Liable
In the 1980s, laws were
passed requiring identification, investigation, and
cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous
substances. These laws
impose potential liability on
property owners, lessors,
lessees, and others involved
in the management or
purchase of properties that
are contaminated and require
cleanup.
Most hazardous waste
cleanups in Washington are
governed by two laws:
Federal: Comprehensive
Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA), commonly
known as Superfund.
Washington State: Model
Toxics Control Act
(MTCA), Ch.70.105D
RCW, passed by voters in
1988 as Initiative 97.
Revised September 1999
Liability Under the
Laws Is Far-Reaching
❖ You do not have to be
responsible for all the
contamination on your
property to be required to
pay all or part of the cost of
cleaning it up.
❖ If you buy or lease a
piece of property knowing it
is contaminated, or do not
conduct an adequate
environmental site assessment before buying or
leasing the property, you
may be found liable for
cleanup.
Environmental liability can
be costly. Before entering
into a purchase or lease
agreement on property that
could be contaminated,
Ecology recommends that
you seek the advice of
professionals experienced in
conducting environmental
site assessments. The
information contained in
this report should not be
used to replace the advice
and expertise of legal or
technical specialists who
have proven experience
with environmental
site assessments.
Page 1
Why An Environmental Site Assessment Is Needed: LIABILITY
An environmental site
assessment of real property
prior to transfer of title is not
required by Washington state
or federal law. In Washington state, environmental site
assessments are being
conducted by private
individuals and companies in
response to the strict liability
imposed by hazardous waste
laws.
The buyer of a piece of
property assumes the rights
and responsibilities of
property ownership. Failure
to look into the environmental status of property
prior to its purchase will be
interpreted to mean that the
buyer is willing to accept the
property “as is”. For the
unwary buyer this could
include the cost of cleaning
up contamination from
hazardous substances.
Definition of
Hazardous
Substance and
Hazardous Waste
Under the Model Toxics
Control Act definition,
“hazardous substances”
could be almost any
chemical or waste that
could threaten human
health or the
environment.
“Hazardous substances”
include those substances
that are “hazardous
wstes.”
However, for the
purpose of this document
these terms are used
interchangeably.
Page 2 Packet Page 263 of 267
Who Is Responsible ?
❖ Current owners or
operators of facilities
❖ Any person who owned
or operated the facility at the
time of disposal or release of
a hazardous substance
❖ Any person who brought
or caused a hazardous
substance to be located at the
facility
Liability Is Strict, Joint
and Several
According to state and
federal laws, persons liable
for sites where a release of
hazardous substances has
occurred or threatens to
occur are strictly, jointly, and
severally liable for the
cleanup of those sites.
Strict liability means that
liability may be assigned
regardless of who is at fault
for the release. This means
that if your property is
contaminated you may be
held legally responsible for
cleaning it up even if you did
not cause the contamination.
Joint and several
liability means that each and
every potentially liable
person can be required to pay
all or part of the cleanup
costs and environmental
damages resulting from any
release. If 100 people
brought drums of chemicals
to a dump, and hazardous
substances leaking from
those drums were later found
to be a threat to human
health or the environment, all
100 of them or any subgroup
of them could be required to
pay for cleanup.
Hazardous Waste
Liability Affects
Financing
Banks may be less willing to
lend money on property
contaminated with hazardous
substances. The property
could have diminished resale
value or the entire value of
the property could be lost. In
extreme cases,
contamination might make
the property unsaleable or
could result in a financial
liability greater than the
original cost of the property.
The potential causes of
reduced market value for
contaminated properties
include:
❖ Cleanup costs
❖ Damage to natural
resources (such as wildlife)
❖ Liability to surrounding
properties and affected
individuals
❖ The stigma attached to
property that was once
“dirty”
❖ Difficulty in acquiring
mortgage loans or insurance
Defenses to Liability?
Although not easy to
establish, some defenses to
liability are provided in the
Model Toxics Control Act.
Among the persons who are
not liable for a release is any
person who can establish
that, at the time the facility
was acquired, the person had
no knowledge or reason to
know that any hazardous
substance had been released
at the site. The burden of
proof lies with the purchaser.
To meet the standard of
proof required to qualify for
this “innocent purchaser’s”
defense, the person must be
able to show that before
buying the property they
made “. . .all appropriate
inquiry into the previous
ownership and uses of the
property, consistent with
good commercial or
customary practice in an
effort to minimize liability.”
No person can escape
liability by knowingly selling
contaminated property
without first disclosing
knowledge of the
contamination to the buyer.
Nor can anyone escape
liability who caused or
contributed to a release of a
hazardous substance.
To determine if a person
is an “innocent purchaser”
the courts will consider:
❖ The specialized
knowledge or experience of
the buyer
❖ The relationship of the
actual price paid to the value
of uncontaminated property
❖ Whether the buyer used
commonly known or
reasonably determined
information consistent with
good commercial or
customary practices
❖ The obviousness of the
presence or likely presence
of contamination at the
property
❖ The buyer’s ability to
detect the contamination by
appropriate inspection
The courts may hold the
buyers of industrial or
commercial property to
higher standards of review
than persons buying
residential property.
Ecology Report R-TC-92-115
Environmental Site Assessments
A thorough environmental
site assessment can minimize
potential liability under the
Model Toxics Control Act.
Since one of the primary
defenses to liability is the
“innocent purchaser”
defense, you must be able to
show that you looked into
the previous ownership and
uses of the property
“consistent with good
commercial or customary
practice . . .”
The courts have yet to
determine what constitutes
“appropriate inquiry” or
“good commercial or
customary practice”, and
there is no universally
accepted industry standard to
clarify how indepth an
investigation must be to
satisfy this requirement. As a
result, there is no way to be
completely sure you will be
free of potential liability for a
hazardous waste cleanup
when you acquire commercial or industrial property.
However, one way to
minimize your chances of
being liable for cleanup of
contamination caused by a
prior owner is to do an
environmental site
assessment.
What Is An
Environmental Site
Assessment?
An environmental site
assessment evaluates the
historical uses and
succession of owners or
occupants of a site. It helps
to identify the possibility that
past practices at and around
the property have left it
contaminated with hazardous
substances that will have to
be cleaned up.
The scope of the
environmental site
assessment is determined by
the nature of the property
and any unique circumstances surrounding it.
Properties near existing
hazardous waste sites and
properties on or near heavy
industrial land are the most
likely to be contaminated.
The greater the chance that a
site is contaminated, the
more detailed the analysis of
site conditions should be.
Commercial sites that
are or have neighbors known
to be on federal or state
hazardous sites lists should
be carefully evaluated. Also,
existing or past businesses
known to store or use chemicals should be carefully
evaluated.
Small commercial
properties typically require a
less extensive environmental
investigation, and residential
properties usually even less.
But don’t be deceived by the
size of the property, its
location or use. A few 55gallon drums of chemicals
can be stored anywhere, and
they can contaminate thousands of gallons of ground
water and/or hundreds of
cubic yards of soil.
Due to the unique
history and circumstances
surrounding every piece of
property, the scope of an
environmental site assessment should be determined
on a site-by-site basis. This is
why it has been so difficult
to establish a standard of due
diligence for environmental
site assessments. It’s hard to
say how much investigation
will be adequate when every
site is different. If you do an
environmental site
assessment and don’t find
contamination until after you
buy the property, you may
still be required to pay for its
cleanup.
There are a variety of
guidance materials and
publications available on
conducting property assessments. Although these
publications may provide
some of the basics of a
property assessment, there is
no replacement for the
experience of a thorough and
reputable professional who is
competent in conducting
environmental site
assessments.
You Must Be Thorough!
Environmental site assessments contain several
common elements, including
a site history, comprehensive
review of records, interviews, and a physical site
inspection. Soil and water
sampling will be needed if
any of the other investigative
methods identify a
possibility that contamination could exist.
Although valuable
information may be obtained
from federal, state, and local
regulatory agencies, you or
your hired consultant will be
responsible for acquiring,
analyzing, and compiling the
information as well as
justifying the results.
Remember, you have the
burden of proving that you
did everything possible to
discover potential
contamination.
Always keep in mind:
The more likely a site is
contaminated, the more
detailed the environmental
site assessment should be.
Remember to keep the
results of your environmental
site assessment. The
information may be useful in
the future (i.e. future property transfers, liability
issues).
What Makes Up An Environmental Site Assessment?
Check Site Lists
Ecology’s Toxics Cleanup
Program maintains a data
base of all currently known
hazardous waste sites. A
report entitled The
Confirmed or Suspected
Contaminated Sites Report
lists potential and
confirmed hazardous waste
sites in Washington and is
available to the public.
In addition, Ecology
publishes the Hazardous
Sites List twice each year.
This list contains sites that
have been assessed by the
Washington Ranking
Method (WARM), in which
a rank of “1" is used for
sites with the highest
potential for risk to human
health and the environment
and ”5" is the lowest. The
WARM ranking is a
comparison between all
sites on the list and is used
Do not assume that there
are no hazardous waste
problems at a site just
because the property is
not on one of Ecology’s
lists. It is possible that
contamination has gone
undiscovered or hasn’t
been reported.
by Ecology to help prioritize
sites for cleanup. It does not
determine the actual risk at a
site. A state-wide list of sites
with leaking underground
storage tanks is also
available from Ecology.
All of the sites on the
Hazardous Sites List will
also be on the Confirmed or
Suspected Contaminated
Sites Report , but the reverse
is not true. A site doesn’t go
on the Hazardous Sites List
until it has gone through a
preliminary study in the state
cleanup process (called a Site
Hazard Assessment) and has
been ranked.
In addition to the state’s
Hazardous Sites List, the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
has a list of all known federal
sites being cleaned up under
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA - also
known as “Superfund”), as
well as sites that could be
contaminated due to the
handling of hazardous
substances that are Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) facilities. You
can write the Region 10 EPA
office and request
information about known or
likely contamination at the
property you are considering.
Information
Call (360) 407-7170 (voice), (360) 407-6006 (TDD) or
toll-free 1-800-826-7716 to receive:
The Confirmed or Suspected Contaminated Sites Report - A list of all known sites
where hazardous substances have been released or a release is suspected and further
testing is needed.
Hazardous Sites List - (A subset of the Affected Media and Contaminants report) A
list of ranked sites where some kind of cleanup action is likely to be required.
Site Register - An update on cleanup activities at hazardous waste sites in Washington
state (published every two weeks).
Leaking Underground Storage Tank List - A list of all known sites with leaking
underground storage tanks.
Call (425) 553-1200 (voice), (425) 553-1698 (TDD) to receive:
Site Information from EPA on actions related to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the master database of facilities being investigated
by all EPA programs and many state programs (Facility Index Data System - FINDS).
Or write: EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
Personal Interviews
Interviews can provide
useful information about a
site. As appropriate under
the circumstances, the
following individuals could
be interviewed:
❖ Present and former
owners, operators and
employees of a facility
❖ Regulatory agency
personnel
❖ Neighboring residents
or businesses
Review of Regulatory
Records
Regulatory agencies such
as EPA, the Department of
Ecology, county health
departments, and local
planning offices can
provide useful information
regarding potential liability
at a site. The following
types of information is
often available in the files
at federal, state, and local
regulatory agencies. It can
be viewed, or copies
obtained for a fee, by
contacting the regulatory
agency.
❖ Environmental permits
(air, water, discharge,
septic, etc.)
❖ Hazardous waste
manifests, storage notices,
and waste generator reports
❖ Inspection reports
❖ Spill reports
❖ Violation notices,
administrative orders,
compliance schedules, or
other enforcement actions
regarding the site
❖ Correspondence related
to the site
❖ Zoning, comprehensive
plans, and business licenses
Questions A Prudent
Purchaser Should Ask
Review of Other Public
Records
A variety of other public
records can provide useful
information about a site.
This information can be
found in local newspapers,
the county auditor’s office,
and the superior and district
courts. The following types
of information may be
obtained:
❖ Title records
❖ Existing environmental
liens
❖ Surrounding property
owners and zoning of
properties
❖ Aerial photographs
❖ Sanborn Fire Insurance
Maps, Polk Directories
❖ Historical records and
photos, including: Archival
records, business records,
manuscripts (personal
papers)
❖ Books on local history
❖ Local newspapers and
clipping files
❖ Periodicals/Journals on
local history
❖ Historical society
records
❖ Historical museum
records
❖ Litigation regarding the
property or owner
Site Inspection
All environmental site
assessments should include
an on-site inspection of the
property. No defense to
liability will be possible
without a physical inspection of the property in
question. Many indications
of environmental problems
can be easily identified by
walking around and
visually inspecting the
property. Any of the
following may signal the
presence of hazardous
substance contamination:
❖ Lack of vegetation, sick
or dead vegetation
❖ Unusual or noxious
odors
❖ Stained soil
❖ Settling ponds or
unnaturally colored surface
water
❖ Indication of current or
past storage of fuel,
chemicals, or hazardous
substances
❖ The presence of fill
consisting of waste
materials
❖ Containers or drums
with unknown contents
❖ Proximity of property
to known or suspected
hazardous waste sites or
sources
to industrial or commercial
areas
to a major highway or
railroad line
The following questions may
help identify site activities or
materials that could contribute to environmental
liability at a site. This is not
an all-inclusive list, but will
give you a good start:
❖ What are the past uses of
the property?
❖ What hazardous substances has the owner/
operator generated,
manufactured, managed,
treated, stored, disposed of,
released, or sent off-site?
❖ Have chemicals,
pesticides, or fertilizers been
used, treated, stored, or
disposed of at the site?
❖ Are there any underground storage tanks, dry
wells, or other buried structures where chemicals have
been stored or disposed of?
❖ Is the site served by city
sewer or septic tank? (Note:
chemicals dumped in a septic
tank could be a source of
pollution).
❖ Is the site on fill land
and what type of fill was
used?
❖ Are there any materials
or structures containing
asbestos?
❖ Is there electrical
equipment with PCBs?
❖ Does the facility have
the required environmental
permits to operate in its
current capacity?
❖ Have any discharges
surpassed permit requirements? What is the result of
any state or federal Class 2
inspections of the facility in
regard to National Pollution
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits?
What are the results of any
Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs)?
❖ What is the compliance
record with environmental
laws for the current and past
facilities at the site?
❖ What is the condition of
existing pollution control
equipment?
❖ Are there any currently
known environmental
liabilities?
❖ Is the site on or near any
sensitive environments
or habitats, wetlands,
streams, archeological sites?
What To Do If
Contamination Is
Discovered
If an environmental site
assessment indicates
contamination may be
present that could threaten
human health or the
environment, this must be
reported to Ecology. Further
testing of surface and
subsurface soil and water
should be conducted to
determine the extent of the
contamination and potential
scope of cleanup needed.
If you wish to purchase
the property in spite of
finding contamination, you
may want to work jointly
with the current owner to
arrange for appropriate soil
and/or water testing.
Property Contracts:
Written Protections
For More Information
When industrial or commercial real estate is being
acquired, potential liability can
be lessened by including
specific disclosures and written
protections in the purchase
contract. Such a contract could
include:
❖ Disclosure of all
hazardous substances or
materials associated with the
property
❖ Disclosure of hazardous
substance release/spill
reports to local, state, or
federal agencies
❖ Disclosure of the
facility’s environmental
compliance record
❖ Disclosure of all
environmentally-related
investigations, studies or
reports prepared about the
facility
❖ Warranty that the seller
has used due diligence to
discover the existence of all
information requested
❖ An agreement on who
will assume any environmental liability should
problems be discovered in
the future. (Caution! This
may not provide much
protection if the person
assuming liability has
insufficient assets to
complete a cleanup.)
Contact Ecology’s Toxics
Cleanup Program Headquarters Office at (360)
407-7170 (voice), 407-6006
(TDD only) or 1-800-8267716, or contact the regional
office nearest you.
Northwest Region:
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue WA 98008-5452
(425) 649-7000 (voice) or
(425) 649-4259 (TDD only)
Southwest Region:
5751 6th Ave SE Olympia
WA 98504-7775
(360)407-6300 (voice) or
(360) 407-6306 (TDD only)
Central Region:
15 W Yakima Avenue
Yakima WA 98902-3452
(509) 575-2490 (voice) or
(509) 454-7673 (TDD only)
Eastern Region:
N 4601 Monroe Suite 100
Spokane WA 99205-1295
(509) 456-2926 (voice) or
(509) 458-2055 (TDD only)
Program Headquarters
Office, 1-800-826-7716 or
(360) 407-7170, for copies
of the Hazardous Sites List,
Site Register, Confirmed or
Suspected Contaminated
Sites Report, or the MTCA
law and/or regulations.
Program, Underground
Storage Tank Unit, 1-800826-7716 for information
about the registration of
Contact the regional office
for information about sites
contaminated by leaking
Ecology’s Hazardous
Waste and Toxics
Reduction Program,
(360) 407-6700 (voice) or
(360) 407-6006 (TDD only)
for information on the
historical record of
Any agreement or property
contract that assigns liability
for contamination that
occurred at a site before its
purchase exists between the
contracting parties only.
Once you accept control of
property you become
potentially liable under state
law.
Page 6
companies filing notifications of dangerous waste
activities.
Ecology’s Hazardous
Substance Information
Office, 1-800-633-7585, for
information on land, air, and
water emissions reported
under Community Right-to
Know; hazardous substances
present at a site subject to
Community Right-to Know
laws; and information on
pesticide use.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region
10, (425) 553-1200 (voice)
or (425) 553-1698 (TDD
only), for further site specific
information about federally
managed hazardous waste
(RCRA) sites in Washington, or a CERCLA (Superfund) sites list. Through
EPA’s Freedom of Information Act officer, you may
request all the information
EPA has on the property
you’re considering, and
surrounding properties if you
specifically request it. They
prefer that you submit your
request in writing. Within
ten days, EPA will respond
to your request for information. Using zip code they can
search each EPA data base
(RCRIS, CERCLIS, FINDS)
and will ask each of their
programs to identify all the
information they have about
a piece of property.
Local Fire Districts or
Emergency Response
Agencies, check your local
directory, for information
on sites of chemical or toxic
substance fires, explosions,
or spills.
Local Health Department,
check your local directory,
for information about solid
waste, moderate risk waste
facilities, or contaminated
drinking water systems in
your area.
Local City and County
Planning Departments,
for information regarding
local land use plans and
zoning.
Local City and County
Building Departments,
for information about site
use information.
Local library and Historical Societies for information on historic land uses,
industries, and individuals.
Ecology is an Equal Opportunity employer. If you have
special accommodation needs,
please contact the Toxics
Cleanup Program at (360) 4077170 (voice or (360) 407-6006
(TDD only).

EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 26

Transcription

Similar documents

EDMONDS

616 Elizabeth Street

Summer Work for Students Entering AP Calculus AB

COVER SHEET FOR THE CEMALA FOUNDATION GRANT PACKET

Potty Break Rack Card-version2

portofedmonds.org email: [email protected] August 2013