VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 173 POSTED ON: 9/7/2012
CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890 116 UNION AVENUE λ SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON 98290 λ TEL (360) 568-3115 FAX (360) 568-1375 NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING SNOHOMISH CITY COUNCIL in the George Gilbertson Boardroom 1601 Avenue D TUESDAY February 19, 2008 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 7:00 1. CALL TO ORDER a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call 7:05 2. APPROVE AGENDA contents and order 7:10 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS on items not on the Agenda 4. PRESENTATIONS 7:20 a. Appreciation of Ray Ogden Service on Civil Service 7:25 b. Proclamation of National Entrepreneurship Week (P. 1) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 a. Street Vacation for a Portion of Union Avenue Right-of-Way (Continued) (P. 3) 1) Staff presentation 2) Council’s questions of staff 3) Citizens’ comments 4) Close citizens’ comments 5) Council deliberation and action – ADOPT Ordinance 2146 7:45 b. Jacobs Annexation (P. 35) 1) Staff presentation 2) Council’s questions of staff 3) Citizens’ comments 4) Close citizens’ comments 5) Council deliberation and action – PASS Resolution 1197 Continued on Back 8:00 c. Solid Waste and Recycling Rates (P. 63) 1) Staff presentation 2) Council’s questions of staff 3) Citizens’ comments 4) Close citizens’ comments 5) Council deliberation and action – PASS Resolution 1193 6. ACTION ITEMS 8:15 a. AUTHORIZE City Manager to Sign Contract Extension for Solid Waste Services (P. 71) 8:30 b. DIRECT Staff on Next Steps Carnegie Annex (P. 95) 8:45 7. DISCUSSION ITEM – Revise Utility Tax (P. 111) 9:00 8. CONSENT ITEMS a. AUTHORIZE payment of claim warrants #38548 through #38670 in the amount of $441,175.32 issued since the last regular meeting (P. 115) b. APPROVE the minutes of the workshop and regular meeting of February 5, 2008 (P. 127) c. CONFIRM Mayor’s reappointment to the Planning Commission (P. 149) d. AUTHORIZE City Manager to Sign Contract for Lagoon Cleanup Design Support (P. 151) e. APPROVE use of Small Works Roster – PASS Resolution 1196 (P. 167) 9:05 9. OTHER BUSINESS/INFORMATION ITEMS 9:10 10. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 9:20 11. MANAGER’S COMMENTS 9:25 12. MAYOR’S COMMENTS 9:30 13. ADJOURN NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, March 4, 2008, workshop at 6 p.m., regular meeting at 7 p.m., in the George Gilbertson Boardroom, Snohomish School District Resource Center, 1601 Avenue D. PRESENTATION 4b CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890 116 UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON 98290 TEL (360) 568-3115 FAX (360) 568-1375 PROCLAMATION A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH WHEREAS, entrepreneurship is vital to the City of Snohomish’s growth and prosperity; and WHEREAS, most of the new jobs created throughout the United States in the past decade have come from the creative efforts of entrepreneurs and small businesses; and WHEREAS, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills identified entrepreneurial literacy skills as one of the 21st century content areas critical to success in communities and workplaces; and WHEREAS, more than 70% of young Americans envision starting a business or doing something entrepreneurial as adults; and WHEREAS, a broad coalition of partner organizations in the City of Snohomish are actively engaged in enhancing entrepreneurial opportunities through collaboration; and WHEREAS, working to expand the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of our youth and adults to be SUCCESSFUL entrepreneurs are crucial to the long-term growth of the City of Snohomish; and WHEREAS, Entrepreneurship Week provides an opportunity to focus on the innovative ways in which entrepreneurship education can bring together the core academic, technical, and problem-solving skills essential for future entrepreneurs and successful workers in future workplaces: NOW THEREFORE, I, Randy Hamlin, Mayor of the City of Snohomish, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim February 23 to March 1, 2008 as Entrepreneurship Week in Snohomish SIGNED by the Mayor of Snohomish this 19th day of February, 2008 _________________________________ Randy Hamlin, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Torchie Corey, City Clerk City Council Meeting 1 February 19, 2008 PRESENTATION 4b 2 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a Date: February 19, 2008 To: City Council From: Tim Heydon, Public Works Director Subject: Union Avenue Street Vacation Public Hearing Continuation – Ordinance 2146 ______________________________________________________________________________ On January 2, 2008, the City Council passed Resolution 1188 setting a date of February 5, 2008 for a public hearing on vacating a portion of Union Avenue south of First Street. Mosaic Architecture, on behalf of Mr. Zouhair Mardini, submitted the request to the City for the vacation of this section of Union Avenue. The request is for an area 7.0 feet wide on the west side of Union Avenue, south of First Street next to the building at 901 First Street. The public hearing was continued to February 19, 2008 as a result of public testimony and the need for additional research concerning the issues raised. Staff recommends that the Council grant a right-of-way vacation for the west 7.0 feet of the Union Avenue right-of-way, as it meets the granting criteria outlined in SMC 12.48.080. The existing building, access decks, and stairways encroach onto the right-of-way. If the vacation is granted, all of the building’s features on the east side will then be within property controlled by the applicant. There is sufficient room to provide emergency access into areas of the building, which is a concern within this area. This will also leave as much room as practicable for a future garage or other options when the exact use of the rest of this right-of-way is determined. The amount of right-of-way to be vacated is approximately 840 sq. ft. The value of this land is $20,529.74, as established by the appraiser utilizing his recommended value of $24.44 per sq. ft. SMC 12.48.040.A requires that the City shall be compensated for the full appraised value of the area vacated. The right-of-way in question falls into this category since it has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more. However, the property also falls into the category listed in SMC 12.48.040.B since the right-of-way was not acquired at public expense. Union Avenue was originally part of the 1871 Plat of Snohomish City, Western Part. SMC 12.48.040.B calls for compensation in an amount not to exceed one-half of the appraised value, or $10,264.87. There is an existing storm drain system in the Union Avenue right-of-way. The exact location of storm drain pipe has not been established by a licensed land surveyor, and the exact impact on any right-of-way to be vacated is not known. It appears from field inspection that planned construction would have a minimal impact, as this line crosses under the southern portion of the right-of-way to be vacated. Staff recommends that as a condition of the vacation, the applicant be required to locate this storm drain by a licensed land surveyor, that a 20 foot wide easement be established for the utility (10 feet on each side of its existing location) subject to approval of the City Engineer, and that it be recorded with Snohomish County at the same time the vacation is recorded. City Council Meeting 3 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a SMC 12.48.040.B requires that the City shall be compensated for one-half appraised value of the area vacated. As a result of the testimony given at the February 5, 2008 Council Meeting, and given the general direction given to staff at that time, the recommended compensation in Ordinance 2146 has been adjusted to $10,264.87. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 2146 and REQUIRE compensation in an amount not more than $10,264.87, which is half the appraised value for the vacated area of the west 7.0 feet of Union Avenue, as described in said Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance 2146 B. Vicinity Map C. Copy of Land Use Application D. Copy of Petition for Vacation of Right-of-way E. Copy of Legal Description of right-of-way to be vacated F. Copy of Right-of-way Vacation Exhibit G. Copy of Letter from Applicant, dated December 12, 2007 H. Appraisal I. Snohomish Municipal Code, Chapter 12.48, Street Vacation 4 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SNOHOMISH Snohomish, Washington ORDINANCE 2146 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON, VACATING A PORTION OF UNION AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY, RESERVING AN EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES, AND REQUIRING COMPENSATION WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 12.48.010 of the City of Snohomish Municipal Code, the owners of not less than two-thirds of the property abutting the right-of-way to be vacated signed a street vacation petition; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 1188, the City Council did call for a public hearing on the vacation of the unimproved right-of-way on February 5, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk did give notice of the public hearing as required by law; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the February 5, 2008 and continued to the February 19, 2008 Council Meeting to consider the vacation of the right-of-way, and as a result of all evidence provided at the hearing, the City Council makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The subject west 7.0 feet of the right-of-way is not needed for public purposes; and 2. It is in the public interest to require compensation for the vacation of the right-of- way; and 3. Vacation of the subject west 7.0 feet of the right-of-way will not adversely affect the street pattern or circulation of the immediate area of the community; and 4. The public need is not adversely affected; and 5. No abutting property owner will become landlocked and access will not be substantially impaired; and WHEREAS, the property to be vacated was not acquired at public expense; and WHEREAS, based upon the appraised value, the property petitioned for vacation is valued at $20,529.74; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: City Council Meeting 5 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a Section 1. The property, vacated by this ordinance, is legally described as: That portion of Union Avenue established by the Plat of Snohomish, Western Part, according to the plat thereof in Volume 1 of Plats, Page 3, Records of Snohomish County, Washington described as follows: The westernmost 7.0 feet of Union Avenue lying between the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 8 and the easterly prolongation southerly line of Lot 7, Block 4 of said plat. Situate in the City of Snohomish, County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Contains 840 square feet more or less. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Section 2. In consideration for the vacation, and as a condition of vacation of the subject property, pursuant to SMC 12.48.040(B), the City shall be compensated 50% of the appraised value of the property to be vacated. Section 3. This ordinance shall not be published or recorded until payment of compensation in the amount of $10,264.87 is received by the City. Payment may be made by any or all of the owners of property abutting the vacated right-of-way and only upon payment in full to the City of Snohomish in the amount of $10,264.87 shall the west 7.0 feet of the subject right-of-way be vacated. This ordinance and the vacation referred to herein shall become effective five days after the publication of this ordinance and the recording of a certified copy of the same in the records of the Snohomish County Auditor and Snohomish County Assessor. Section 4. Sunset Clause. This ordinance shall not be effective and recorded until compensation in the sum of $10,264.87 is paid. If said compensation is not paid in full within one year of adoption, this ordinance shall be null and void, and the portion of the street to be vacated shall not be vacated. Section 5. As an express condition of approval of the subject right-of-way vacation, the City reserves an easement for City owned utilities within the vacated area of the right-of-way. The easement shall be 20 feet wide, 10 feet on each side of the existing catch basin and pipe as it crosses the right-of-way vacated. The abutting property owner shall determine the location of the utilities and provide the legal description of the easement subject to approval of the City Engineer. The easement shall be recorded in the records of the Snohomish County Auditor and Snohomish County Assessor on forms acceptable to the City at the same time as the recording of the ordinance. ADOPTED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 19th day of February 2008. CITY OF SNOHOMISH By Randy Hamlin, Mayor 6 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTEST: By Torchie Corey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Grant Weed, City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date (5 days after recording and publication): City Council Meeting 7 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTACHMENT B 8 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTACHMENT C City Council Meeting 9 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTACHMENT D 10 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTACHMENT E City Council Meeting 11 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTACHMENT F 12 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTACHMENT G City Council Meeting 13 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTACHMENT H 14 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a City Council Meeting 15 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a 16 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a City Council Meeting 17 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a 18 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a City Council Meeting 19 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a 20 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a City Council Meeting 21 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a 22 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a City Council Meeting 23 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a 24 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a City Council Meeting 25 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a 26 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a ATTACHMENT I Chapter 12.48 STREET VACATION Sections: 12.48.010 Petition-Fee-Subdivision Vacation 12.48.015 Preapplication Procedure 12.48.020 Petition-Procedure-Investigation-Survey 12.48.030 Resolution Setting Public Hearing 12.48.040 Compensation 12.48.050 Nonuser Statute 12.48.060 Public Hearing Notice-Fifty Percent Objection 12.48.070 Appraisal-Fees 12.48.080 Granting Criteria 12.48.090 Vacation Ordinance 12.48.100 Notice of Action to Auditor and Appraiser 12.48.110 Use of Proceeds of Vacation 12.48.120 Title to Vacated Street or Alley 12.48.010 Petition-Fee-Subdivision Vacation. A. The owner of an interest in any real estate abutting on any street or alley who may desire to vacate any street or alley, or any part thereof, shall petition the City Council for the vacation of such street or alley or any part thereof in the manner hereinafter provided in this chapter and pursuant to Chapter 35.79 RCW. Such petition shall be on such form as may be prescribed by the City, shall contain a full and correct legal description and map of the property sought to be vacated, and shall be signed by the owners of more than two-thirds of the property abutting upon the part of such street or alley sought to be vacated. (Ord. 2123, 2007) B. Fees to be paid on the filing of a petition shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Fees shall include a potentially refundable deposit for the cost of appraisals, surveys, engineering and legal costs, and other costs incurred by the City in the street vacation process. Until all fees have been paid in full, no action shall be taken on the petition. (Ord. 2123, 2007) C. If a proposed street vacation is part of a proposed vacation of a subdivision or short subdivision, then the procedure for vacation of subdivisions under RCW 58.17.212 shall be used and complied with, and the street vacation procedure under this chapter shall not be used. (Ord. 1634, 1988; Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.015 Preapplication Procedure. A. Prior to submitting a petition for the vacation of any street or alley, any abutting property owner may submit a written request to the City Clerk for a preapplication meeting with the City Council to discuss the proposal. The request shall include a description of the right-of- way for which vacation is intended to be sought, a statement of the applicant’s reasons for City Council Meeting 27 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a requesting vacation, and a statement as to how the requested vacation meets the criteria for granting a vacation as set forth in SMC 12.48.080. No fee shall be required in connection with the preapplication meeting request. (Ord. 2123, 2007) B. Upon receipt of a request for a preapplication meeting, the City Clerk shall schedule the meeting. At the meeting, the City Council may hear from the applicant, other interested parties, and City staff concerning the proposal. The Council may preliminarily determine if there are any of the granting criteria that the proposal appears incapable of complying with. This preliminary determination shall not be final or binding in any respect. If the applicant thereafter decides to proceed with a street vacation petition, all provisions of this chapter shall apply. (Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.020 Petition-Procedure-Investigation-Survey. A. Upon receiving a petition, payment of fees, and deposit for the vacation of a City street or alley, and upon completion of the report referenced in Subsection C below, from the Public Works Director or designee (hereafter “Public Works Director”), the City Clerk will place the matter upon the agenda of a meeting of the City Council. The City Clerk shall notify the petitioners in writing of the date the matter shall come before the City Council. (Ord. 2123, 2007) B. The City Clerk shall notify the Public Works Director of all proposed vacations. It shall be the duty of the Public Works Director to investigate and report on the matters set forth in SMC 12.48.020C. (Ord. 2123, 2007) C. Prior to the presentation of the petition to the City Council, the Public Works Director shall investigate and report on the following: (Ord. 2123, 2007) 1. Ownership of the property abutting on the street or portion sought to be vacated. Proof of ownership of abutting property by the title insurance or certificates may be required, such proof to be furnished by, and at the expense of, the petitioners; 2. Whether and in what respect the public may be benefited or harmed by the vacation; 3. Whether the public benefit of the area’s use is insufficient to justify the cost of maintenance; 4. Which property or properties will be directly benefited or adversely affected by the vacation, and in what way; 5. What effect the vacation will or may have upon property served or which might be served by said vacated street, and whether said street has been opened or constructed, and if so, to what standard; 6. How said street relates to other streets and highways, and whether other portions of the subject street or alley have already been vacated; 28 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a 7. Whether the substitution of an alternate way would be more useful to the public; 8. Whether future changes in conditions may increase public use or need; 9. How and when the street or alley sought to be vacated became a public right-of-way; 10. Whether any utilities now exist in said street, or whether such street may be reasonably necessary for future utility uses; 11. The necessity or desirability of the City retaining an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements for emergency vehicle access and construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and services over the land sought to be vacated; 12. Whether any abutting owner would become landlocked or its access substantially impaired; i.e., whether there is an alternative motive ingress and egress, even if less convenient; 13. If the right-of-way abuts a body of water, how the proposed vacation would or would not comply with the requirements set forth in RCW 35.79.035; and 14. Any other matters relevant to the vacation of the street or alley. D. The Public Works Director shall determine whether or not the location and legal description of the street or alley proposed for vacation are sufficiently known to the City so that an accurate legal description of the proposed vacation may be made and so that the location of the property proposed for vacation can be known with certainty. If the Public Works Director determines that these matters are not known or are not accurately known, then the City shall notify the petitioners of the necessity of having an accurate professional survey of the property proposed for vacation with the boundaries of the proposed vacation marked upon the ground and an accurate legal description by a licensed surveyor of the proposed vacation to be furnished to the City at the applicants’ expense. The City shall not proceed further upon the vacation petition and a public hearing shall not be set until such a survey has been done and legal description received. (Ord. 1364, 1977, Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.030 Resolution Setting Public Hearing. A. The City Council shall consider the report of the Public Works Director, shall consider whether the Council will require that the City be compensated as a condition of the vacation, and shall determine whether to adopt a resolution setting a public hearing on the proposed vacation. The Council will generally make its determination regarding compensation before it adopts the resolution, but the Council shall retain the discretion to review its determination following the public hearing. (Ord. 2123, 2007) B. For both petition and Council-initiated vacations proposed for public hearing, the City Council shall adopt a resolution setting a time for the hearing, which is not less than 20 nor more than 60 days from the date of passage of the resolution. (Ord. 2123, 2007) City Council Meeting 29 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a 12.48.040 Compensation. The City Council shall require the petitioners to compensate the City of Snohomish in accordance with the following criteria (Ord. 2123, 2007): A. When the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more, or when the street or alley or portions thereof were acquired at public expense, an amount that does not exceed the full appraised value of the area vacated (Ord. 2123, 2007); B. When the street or alley has not been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or less, or when the street or alley or portions thereof were not acquired at public expense, an amount which does not exceed one-half of the appraised value of the area vacated (Ord. 2123, 2007); C. Compensation may be waived or reduced either when the vacation is initiated by the City of Snohomish or when the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City in accordance with the following criteria: (Ord. 2123, 2007) 1. When the abutting property is owned by a governmental entity or by a non profit corporation whose purpose is for the necessary support of the poor or infirm; (Ord. 2123, 2007) or 2. When the street or alley was vacated by the provisions of Section 32, Chapter 19, Laws of 1889-90 (as described in SMC 12.48.050). (Ord. 1364, 1977; Ord. 1996, 2001; Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.050 Nonuser Statute. A. Section 32, Chapter 19, Laws 1889-90, is known as the “nonuser” statute and reads as follows: “Any county road, or part thereof, which remains unopen for public use for a period of five years after the order is made or authority granted for opening it, shall be thereby vacated, and the authority for building it barred by lapse of time.” (Ord. 2123, 2007) B. The nonuser statute was amended in 1909 by adding a significant proviso, which is set forth in the current, codified version of the statute, which reads as follows: (Ord. 2123, 2007) RCW 36.87.090 Vacation of road unopened for five years -- Exceptions. Any county road, or part thereof, which remains unopen for public use for a period of five years after the order is made or authority granted for opening it, shall be thereby vacated, and the authority for building it barred by lapse of time: PROVIDED, That this section shall not apply to any highway, road, street, alley, or other public place dedicated as such in any plat, whether the land included in such plat is within or without the limits of an incorporated city or town, or to any land conveyed by deed to the state or to any county, city or town for highways, roads, streets, alleys, or other public places. C. The proviso in RCW 36.87.090 exempts streets dedicated in a plat from the nonuser statute. In applying this proviso, the statute cannot have a retroactive effect, if it would interfere with vested rights. Thus, where a county road was dedicated and unopened for five years prior to 30 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a the 1909 proviso and was not annexed into a city during said five year period, the right of abutting property owners to the vacated road vested and is unaffected by the proviso. On the other hand, where the five-year period had not run by the time of the 1909 proviso, the abutting property owner did not have a vested right and the proviso “saved” the unopened road from automatic vacation. (Ord. 2123, 2007) D. Although the nonuser statute applies without regard to the City’s street vacation process under Ch. 35.79 RCW, property owners who abut a street vacated under the nonuser statute may nonetheless apply to the City to “formally” vacate the street by ordinance. Abutting property owners may use this method to clear title to right-of-way vacated under the nonuser statute rather than filing a quiet title action in Superior Court, which can be more costly and cumbersome than the street vacation ordinance process. Accordingly, the City will consider petitions to formally vacate streets or alleys that have been vacated by operation of the nonuser statute, if said streets or alleys were dedicated and unopened as county roads for five years prior to the 1909 proviso and if the City has not acquired said streets or alleys by prescription /adverse possession, purchase, eminent domain, or other means. The burden shall be on the property owner requesting vacation to provide all necessary title and historical information to the City to demonstrate that the nonuser statute operates to vacate the subject property. (Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.060 Public Hearing Notice-Fifty Percent Objection. A. Upon the passage of the resolution referenced in SMC 12.48.030, the City Clerk shall give twenty days notice of the pendency of the petition by a written notice posted in three of the most public places in the City and a like notice in a conspicuous place on the street or alley sought to be vacated. The said notice shall contain a statement that a petition has been filed to vacate the street or alley described in the notice, together with a statement of the time and place fixed for the hearing of the petition. In all cases where the proceeding is initiated by resolution of the City without a petition having been signed by the owners of more than two- thirds of the property abutting upon the part of the street or alley sought to be vacated, in addition to notice hereinabove required, there shall be given by mail at least fifteen days before the date fixed for the hearing, a similar notice to the owners or reputed owners of all lots, tracts, or parcels of land or other property abutting upon any street or alley or any part thereof sought to be vacated, or within 300 feet thereof, as shown on the rolls of the County Treasurer, directed to the addresses thereon shown. Failure to send notice by mail to any such property owner where the current address of such property owner is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with the proposed street vacation. (Ord. 1364, 1977) The costs of the notice shall be borne by the applicant. (Ord. 2123, 2007) B. In all cases, the City shall be prohibited from proceeding further with the street vacation process, if fifty percent or more of the abutting property owners file written objection to the proposed vacation with the City Clerk prior to the time of hearing. (Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.070 Appraisal-Fees. A. In all cases where the City Council requires compensation for the vacated right-of-way, an appraisal of the right-of-way proposed for vacation shall be made. Said appraisal shall be by City Council Meeting 31 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a a professional appraiser selected by the City unless otherwise determined by the Public Works Director. The cost of the appraisal shall be borne by the applicant. (Ord. 2123, 2007) B. When the cost of appraisal exceeds the deposit, the petitioners, upon being given notice of that fact, shall forthwith remit the balance of the appraisal cost to the City Treasurer. In the event the cost of appraisal is less than the deposit, the balance shall be refunded to the petitioners or may be applied to the compensation for the area to be vacated at the election of the petitioners. (Ord. 1364, 1977) In the typical situation when compensation is determined prior to Council adoption of the resolution setting a public hearing, no public hearing shall be set until the appraisal is received by the City. (Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.080 Granting Criteria. A. The City Council shall not vacate any street, alley, or any parts thereof, if any portion thereof abuts any body of saltwater or freshwater, unless such vacation is sought to enable the City or State to acquire the property for port purposes, boat moorage or launching sites, park, viewpoint, recreational, or educational purposes, or other public uses and unless the requirements of RCW 35.79.030 and this chapter are complied with. (Ord. 2123, 2007) B. The City Council shall use the following criteria for deciding upon all street vacation petitions: (Ord. 2123, 2007) 1. That the vacation will provide a public benefit, and/or will be for a public purpose, which public benefit may consist of economic and business support derived by the community from the petitioners; 2. That the right-of-way vacation shall not adversely affect the street pattern or circulation of the immediate area or the community as a whole; 3. That the public need shall not be adversely affected; 4. That the right-of-way is not contemplated or needed for future public use; 5. That no abutting owner becomes landlocked or its access will not be substantially impaired; i.e., there must be an alternative motive ingress and egress, even if less convenient; and 6. That provision has been made for utility easements, when needed for the right to construct, repair, and maintain public utility facilities. C. The City Council may, at the time of its public hearing, determine that the City may retain an easement or right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land for the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and services. (Ord. 1364, 1977; Ord. 1996, 2001; Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.090 Vacation Ordinance. If the City Council determines to grant such petition, or any part thereof, the Council shall authorize by ordinance the vacation of such street or alley, or any 32 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a part thereof. Such ordinance may provide for the retention by the City of all easements or rights in respect to the vacated land for the construction or repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. If the City Council determines that compensation shall be paid as a condition of the vacation, then the ordinance shall not be published or become effective until all compensation and fees and costs have been paid in full by the petitioners and all conditions imposed by the City Council have been complied with. When there are multiple properties which are adjacent to right-of-way which is petitioned for vacation, any one or more of the applicants may pay the total compensation, fees and costs in order to complete the vacation and to cause the ordinance to be published and become effective. Such payment shall not affect the vacated right-of-way vesting to the adjacent property owner. If the compensation is not paid and the conditions are not complied with within one year from adoption of the ordinance, then the ordinance shall be void unless the one year period is extended by ordinance of the City Council. (Ord. 1364, 1977; Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.100 Notice of Action to Auditor and Appraiser. A certified copy of the ordinance vacating any such street or alley, or part thereof, shall be filed by the City Clerk with the Snohomish County Auditor's Office. Following the recording of the ordinance, a certified copy shall be sent to the Snohomish County Treasurer’s Office. (Ord. 1364, 1977; Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.110 Use of Proceeds of Vacation. One-half of the revenue received by the City as compensation for area vacated under this chapter shall be dedicated to the acquisition, improvement, development, and related maintenance of public open space or transportation capital projects within the City. (Ord. 1996, 2001; Ord. 2123, 2007) 12.48.120 Title to Vacated Street or Alley. A. Pursuant to RCW 35.79.040, and regardless of who pays the compensation, fees and expenses of vacation, vacated streets, or alleys shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each, provided that: (Ord. 2123, 2007) 1. When only part of the street or alley is requested to be vacated, only that portion of the adjacent right-of-way up to the center line shall belong to the abutting owner; or 2. When the street or alley requested to be vacated is wholly contained within a subdivision and is part of the boundary of the subdivision, the entire street shall belong to the owner or owners of the property within the vacated subdivision, in compliance with RCW 58.17.212; or 3. When dictated by the particular circumstances of the situation, ownership of the underlying fee of a street or alley may be allocated by the City as equally and fairly as possible. B. The ownership of the vacated street or alley shall be set forth in the street vacation ordinance in accordance with SMC 12.48.120A. (Ord. 2123, 2007) City Council Meeting 33 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5a 34 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b Date: February 19, 2008 To: City Council From: Owen Dennison, Senior Planner Subject: Jacobs Annexation – Resolution 1197 Authorizing Submittal of the Notice of Intent to Annex to the Boundary Review Board ______________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of this agenda item is to allow for a public hearing and a City Council decision regarding the proposed Jacobs Annexation, west of the City limits, and north of 60th Street SE, if extended, and east of 85th Street, if extended, and south of Fobes Road. Approval of the attached resolution is appropriate if the City Council determines to accept the annexation petition and approve the annexation as proposed. If directed by the City Council, the resolution and Notice of Intent will be sent to the Boundary Review Board. After the annexation is deemed approved by the Boundary Review Board, Council will formally annex the area through enactment of an ordinance. That ordinance will set the effective date of the annexation. The substantive decision is acceptance of the petition and approval of the annexation resolution. The final ordinance is a somewhat more perfunctory step that completes the legislative process and formally establishes the corporate boundary. The Jacobs Annexation is being processed under the 60 percent direct petition method. Council authorized circulation of the petition on October 2, 2007, with the proviso that zoning will be single family residential and with no assumption of indebtedness. A completed petition was submitted by the proponent on November 15, 2007. On December 11, 2007, a Certificate of Sufficiency was received from the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office. With certification of a sufficient petition, it is time for the Council to determine whether to proceed with the annexation. The proposed annexation is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of both the City and the County. An analysis of the proposed annexation with respect to the Comprehensive Plan Annexation Policies is included as Attachment B. All of the proposed area is contained within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. Public service and governance issues are summarized in the Notice of Intent. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ACCEPT the Petition to Annex and PASS Resolution 1197 authorizing submittal of the Notice of Intent for the Jacobs Annexation to the Boundary Review Board of Snohomish County for processing. ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 1197 B. Analysis of consistency with Comprehensive Plan Annexation Policies C. Notice of Intention to Annex D. Certificate of Petition Sufficiency E. Meeting Minutes F. Map and list of property owners mailed notice of the Public Hearing City Council Meeting 35 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SNOHOMISH Snohomish, Washington RESOLUTION 1197 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON STATING ITS INTENTION TO ANNEX A CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED AREA, KNOWN AS THE JACOBS ANNEXATION, INTO THE CITY, AND TRANSMITTING THE MATTER TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR APPROVAL WHEREAS, the City of Snohomish has received a petition for annexation pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120 of certain property located north of 60th Street SE, if extended, east of 85th Avenue SE, if extended, and south of Fobes Road, said property being contiguous to the City limits and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor has certified the sufficiency of the petition for annexation; and WHEREAS, during a duly-advertised public hearing held on February 19, 2008, the City Council considered information from City Administration and the general public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The property legally described in Exhibit A and the boundaries depicted on the map attached as Exhibit B are hereby approved for annexation into the City of Snohomish and shall be so annexed by ordinance of the City of Snohomish upon receipt of a favorable decision/report from the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board. Section 2. Upon annexation of the property described in Exhibit A, the City of Snohomish Land Use and Comprehensive Plan designations shall apply. Section 3. Upon annexation of the property described in Exhibit A, it shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as other property within the City of Snohomish, except assessments or taxes for the payment of its pro rata share of indebtedness the City contracted or incurred prior to and existing on the effective date of the annexation. Section 4. The City Planner is hereby authorized to transmit a County Assessor’s map or other appropriate map and all files on this annexation proceeding to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board for consideration and review. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 19th day of February, 2008. 36 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b CITY OF SNOHOMISH By________________________________ Randy Hamlin, Mayor Attest: By____________________________ Torchie Corey, City Clerk Approved as to form: By____________________________ Grant K. Weed, City Attorney City Council Meeting 37 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b EXHIBIT A Jacobs Annexation LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Beginning at a point where the existing limits of the City of Snohomish intersect the south west right of way of Fobes Avenue (AKA Fobes Road) along the west line of the E ½ of the NW ¼ of Section 1, Township 28 N, Range 5 E , W.M., then south along said west line of the E ½ of said NW ¼ of Section 1 to the point where it intersects the south line of the NW ¼ of said Section 1, then west along the south line of the NW ¼ of said Section 1 to the southwest corner of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of said Section 1, then north along the west line of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of said Section 1 to the northwest corner of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of said Section 1, then easterly along the north line of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of said Section 1 to its intersection with a line parallel to and 30 feet west of the west line of the E ½ of the NW ¼ of said Section 1, then north on said line parallel to and 30 feet west of the west line of the E ½ of the NW ¼ of said Section 1 to a point where said line intersects the southwesterly right of way line of Fobes Avenue, then southeasterly along the southwesterly right of way line of Fobes Avenue to the point of beginning. Situate in the NW ¼ of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 5 East, W.M., Snohomish County Washington. 38 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b EXHIBIT B City Council Meeting 39 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b ATTACHMENT B Analysis of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Annexation Policies. GOAL LU 11: Maintain a standard for annexation review that supports logical expansions of the City boundaries, conserves City resources, and results in no reductions in levels of service provision to the existing community. Policies: AN 1.1: Maintain a practice that review of annexations should balance policy criteria and other City objectives. Review criteria are intended as guidance rather than standards. Annexations should be evaluated in terms of the overall affect on the community. AN 1.2: Maintain a practice that larger annexations should generally be favored over smaller annexations to preserve City resources. Response: At about ten acres, the annexation is considered a smaller annexation. Potential expansion properties to the north are designated Urban Horticulture. These properties are at or above the development intensities allowed under the City’s development regulations and there is no development incentive to join the current annexation. Properties to the west and south are outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Therefore, there appears to be support for allowing a smaller annexation in this instance. AN 1.3: Maintain a practice that annexation boundaries should be regular, as defined by: a. The use of physical boundaries, such as streets and natural features; b. Avoiding creation of islands or peninsulas of unincorporated lands; c. Consideration of the relationship to hydrological systems, topography, and utility basins where appropriate; and d. Administrative boundaries, such as special service districts. Response: The annexation would not create islands or peninsulas of unincorporated lands. The annexation is bounded on the east, west and south by the administrative boundaries of the existing city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary. On the north and to the west of the pipe stem, there are no physical boundaries that define the proposal. AN 1.4: Maintain a practice that annexation may be considered untimely if insufficient property owner support for annexation would result in less than optimal boundaries, unless other policy goals would be furthered. Response: Inclusion of the properties between the proposed annexation and Fobes Road would result in a boundary more consistent with the intent of Policy AN 1.3. However, the essentially rural Urban Horticulture designation offers limited incentive for these adjacent property owners to annex now or ever. AN 1.5: Maintain a practice that annexations should be supported where City utility services can be provided in a logical and efficient manner. Existing points of utility access, 40 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b schedules for planned capital improvements, potential cost to existing ratepayers, and long term utility system improvements plans should be considered. Response: Points of utility service to the site have not yet been established. Water and sewer infrastructure with adequate capacity to serve the area is available in Bickford Avenue. No impediments to efficient service delivery have been identified. AN 1.6: Maintain a practice that annexations should have access from a City street or state highway, and should represent a logical and timely expansion of the City’s street network. Future street grid system plans should be considered. Response: The site access currently has limited potential access from Fobes Avenue. However, the pipe stem access is 30 feet wide, which is inadequate to serve full development of the site. Further, construction of a public roadway from the current site frontage with Fobes may be problematic, as a length of Cemetery Creek is immediately adjacent to the pipe stem access. The future 26th Street east-west link from Bickford Avenue identified in the Bickford Subarea Plan Transportation Element, part of the City’s future street grid system, was determined by the City Council to be unnecessary following receipt of the petition for annexation. Therefore, access to the site will likely occur from Fobes Road/Fobes Avenue to the north or from 83rd Avenue SE to the west. With future annexation, the Fobes Avenue option would be consistent with the policy. Future access from the west would occur from a County street. AN 1.7: Maintain a practice that evaluation of annexation proposals should consider the conformance of existing land uses with City codes and policies, and should consider the effects of historic land use, e.g., contaminated soils and the presence of historic or cultural resources, to the extent information is available. Response. The policy is not applicable, as the subject property is undeveloped. AN 1.8: Maintain a practice that annexations should not be supported when the action would facilitate vested development proposals that are inconsistent with City standards, regulations, and policies. Response. The City is aware of no vested development proposals for the subject property. AN 1.9: Maintain a practice that annexation proposals should generally include adjacent county rights-of-way. The cost of improvements and maintenance should be considered in the determination. Response. The adjacent Fobes Avenue right-of-way is currently within the city limits. AN 1.10: Maintain a practice that certain unincorporated areas should be considered priority areas for annexation. Priority areas include: City Council Meeting 41 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b a. Areas where recurring revenues from taxes and fees will exceed the cost of providing municipal services to the area; b. Areas where municipal services have already been extended; c. Areas where urban services are required to correct degradation of natural resources or to address public health concerns; d. Areas where the City has concerns about land use controls, i.e., future development occurring under other policies and standards; e. Areas that represent peninsulas of unincorporated area partially surrounded by the City; f. Areas where future development is necessary to help resolve existing urban service deficits; g. Areas where existing residents are impacting City services and infrastructure; h. Areas with existing urban character; i. Areas with a logical and historical identification and affiliation with the City. Response. The proposed annexation does not qualify as a priority area. AN 1.11: Maintain a practice that the fiscal impacts should be considered in evaluating annexation proposals. Response. As the site is currently undeveloped, service costs will be minimal and no known infrastructure deficiencies will be assumed with annexation of the property. The site is designated for future residential development, which typically returns less in property tax revenues than it requires in service costs over the long term. AN 1.12: Maintain a practice that service level impacts to existing residents and property owners should be considered in evaluating annexation proposals. Impacts to other service providers should also be considered. Response. Since there is no existing demand for public services, the annexation will have no immediate impact on levels of service. With development, service impacts will be evaluated to ensure that such impacts are consistent with the City’s adopted level of service standards. AN 1.13: Maintain a practice that annexations should be required to assume a proportionate share of any existing City bonded indebtedness, unless waiving the requirement would achieve other City goals. Response. With authorization to circulate the 60 percent petition, the City Council determined that the proposed annexation area will not assume a proportionate share of existing bonded indebtedness. AN 1.14: Maintain a practice that the City’s Shoreline Master Program should be amended, as necessary, to incorporate annexing properties at the time of annexation. Response. Not applicable. 42 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b AN 1.15: Maintain a practice that the City will ensure consistency and quality of development within the City’s future city limits by requiring annexation as a condition of connection to the City’s utility systems. Exceptions can be made where connection is required due to public health emergencies or where contractual obligations limit the City’s ability to require annexation. The City does not commit to provision of utility service to any area outside the City’s corporate boundary. This policy is necessitated by case law that prohibits the City from conditioning utility service to UGA development on conformance to City development standards. Upon completion of an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County ensuring that development within the UGA conforms to City land use standards, this policy should be removed or amended. Response. Not applicable. City Council Meeting 43 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b ATTACHMENT C NOTICE OF INTENTION COVER SHEET Washington State 3000 Rockefeller, M/S #409 Boundary Review Board Everett, WA 98201 for Snohomish County 425-388-3445 As required by RCW 36.93, a Notice of Intention is hereby submitted for proposed annexation. Name of jurisdiction: City of Snohomish Name of proposal: Jacobs Annexation Proceedings were initiated under authority of RCW 35A.14.420. By: ( X ) Petition Method: 60% of Assessed Value ( ) Election Method: __________ number of qualified electors in area to be annexed or formed __________% of above figure represented by signers. Is assumption of existing indebtedness to be required? No Will simultaneous adoption of comprehensive plans be required? Yes Name each governmental unit having jurisdiction: The following other persons (attorneys, etc.) within the boundaries of the proposal: shall receive communication regarding proposal. Snohomish County; Fire District #4; PUD;______ Laurel Jacobs_(Petitioner)_____________________________ Snohomish School District___________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Special purpose district means any sewer district, water district, fire protection district, drainage improvement district, drainage and diking improvement district, flood control zone district, irrigation district, metropolitan park district, drainage district, or public utility district engaged in water distribution. Signatures on petition ____4_____ Assessed valuation ________$290,600________________ Residences in area ____0_____ Topography Low, rolling hills Population of area ____0_____ Current district boundaries and adjacent roads: Acreage ____10.40__ North of 60th Street SE, if extended, east of 85th Avenue SE, if extended, south of Fobes Avenue, east to city limits. Square miles ____0.016___ Proximity to other districts, cities, etc. City of Lake Stevens: 3.6 miles; City of Everett: 2.6 miles_____ Present Proposed Sewers N/A___ City of Snohomish Water N/A__ City of Snohomish Roads Snohomish County City of Snohomish Fire Dist. Fire District #4 Fire District #4 Police Snohomish County Sheriff City of Snohomish Growth Potential Primarily residential Primarily residential (SF) Attachments: $50 Filing Fee Assessor and Vicinity Maps Notice of Intention (with attachments) Petition Perimeter legal (follow outside boundary) Resolution of Intent Petitioner (Spokesperson): Laurel Jacobs Initiator (District or Proponent): City of Snohomish Address: 17531 Dunbar Road__________________ Representative Signature: _______________________________ Mount Vernon, WA 98273 City Contact: Owen Dennison, Senior Planner____________ Phone: _(425) 210-9197 Address/Phone: 116 Union Avenue, Snohomish, WA 98290__ (360)282-3173 File No. _______ Filed effectively this ____ day of ____________, _____ by ______________________________ Chief Clerk 44 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890 116 UNION AVENUE • SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON 98290 • TEL (360) 568-3115 FAX (360) 568-1375 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX: February 8, 2008 PROPOSAL SUMMARY: 1. PROPOSAL: Annex an unincorporated area within Snohomish County’s designated Urban Growth Area for the City of Snohomish known as the “Jacobs Annexation.” 2. PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION: The purpose of this annexation is to annex property from the City’s designated Urban Growth Area (UGA) so utility service can be extended and the property can be developed according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and corresponding Municipal Code. 3. TYPE OF PETITION: The subject annexation was processed according to the direct petition (assessed value) annexation method under RCW 35A.14.120 et seq. 4. SUBJECT PARCELS: 28050100202500 28050100202800 28050100203300 5. PETITIONER: Laurel Jacobs 17531 Dunbar Road Mount Vernon, WA 98273 (425) 210-9197 6. PROPONENT: City of Snohomish City Contact: Owen Dennison Senior Planner 116 Union Avenue Snohomish, WA 98290 (360) 282-3173 City Council Meeting 45 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b I. PETITION/CERTIFICATION: 1. PETITION: The petition form is attached as Attachment A. 2. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: The certification statement from the County Assessor attesting to the sufficiency of property owner signatures is attached as Attachment B. II. BACKGROUND/MAPS: 1. PURPOSE: The purpose of this annexation is to annex property from the City’s designated Urban Growth Area (UGA) so utility service can be extended and the property can be developed according to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and corresponding Municipal Code. 2. RESOLUTION: A resolution attesting to the City’s intent to annex the lands described in this Notice of Intention is attached as Attachment C. [To be added] 3. NOTICE OF INTENTION FORM: A signed copy of the Notice of Intention Cover Sheet is attached as Attachment D. 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A legal description of the boundaries of the area involved in the proposed action is attached as Attachment E. 5. MAPS: The following maps are attached as noted. A. A Snohomish County Assessor’s map on which the following has been clearly indicated (Attachment F): 1. The boundary of the area involved in the proposal. 2. The size in acres. 3. The entity corporate limits in relationship to the proposal. 4. The location of the nearest service point(s) for the required utility services to the area. B. Vicinity maps no larger than 8-1/2 x 11 inches displaying (Attachment G): 1. Items #1, #2, and #3 above. 2. Major physical features such as bodies of water, major streets, and highways. 3. The boundaries of all cities or special purpose districts having jurisdiction in or near the proposal. 4. Boundary service agreement (not applicable). 5. The location of the nearest service point(s) for the required utility services to the area. 46 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b C. A map of the current corporate limits upon which the proposal has been delineated (Attachment H). III. FACTORS THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER: 1. OVERVIEW: A. Population: The subject area is undeveloped and has no current population. The City of Snohomish population is 9,018 according to the latest figures from the Washington State Office of Financial Management. B. Territory: The area proposed for annexation is approximately 10.4 acres. C. Population density: There is currently no population within the proposed annexation. D. Assessed valuation: $290,600 (2008 valuation) 2. LAND USE: A. EXISTING: Vacant B. PROPOSED: No development is currently proposed as part of this annexation request. The City of Snohomish Future Land Use Map designates the subject area as Single family. 3. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS: A. Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan 1. What comprehensive plan or policies specifically support this proposal? Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan policies do not directly address this proposal. County Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to annexations in general address the maintenance of minimum planned densities (Policies LU-2.A.1 and LU-2.A.2) and the transition of urban services (Policies IC-1.B.1 and IC-1.B.2). 2. Which community plan (adopted or proposed) governs this proposal? The Snohomish County sub-area plan for the City of Snohomish UGA was supplanted by the updates to the Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2005. No adopted Snohomish County community plan currently governs this proposal. 3. What is the adopted plan classification/zoning? City Council Meeting 47 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b The subject properties are designated Urban Low Density Residential (4-6 DU/Acre) on the Snohomish County Future Land Use Map effective December 29, 2007. Adopted zoning is R-7,200. 4. Please review county ordinances or policies as they relate to your proposal and respond, if applicable. a. Snohomish County Agricultural Plan: Not applicable b. Snohomish County Surface Water Management Plan: The Snohomish UGA Drainage Needs Report issued by Snohomish County Surface Water Management Division identifies existing and future problems associated with flooding, habitat and future land use conditions and recommends capital improvement projects to mitigate or resolve the problems. No problems or capital projects are identified in the Report as occurring within or immediately adjacent to the proposed annexation boundaries. B. Proponent’s Comprehensive Plan 1. Is this proposal in your adopted comprehensive plan or will a plan amendment be required? If so, when will that amendment be completed? The proposed annexation is within the area identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as the City’s UGA. 2. When was your comprehensive plan approved? The current general Comprehensive Plan update was adopted February 15, 2005, with amendments last adopted November 20, 2007. 3. Has this area been the subject of a pre-annexation zoning agreement? If so, please enclose a signed copy of the agreement. The City of Snohomish enforces zoning regulations as represented by land use designations on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Land use designations for areas within the City and the UGA are currently adopted. No separate pre-annexation zoning agreement has been adopted. 4. What is the proposed land use designation in your adopted comprehensive plan? When were your zoning regulations adopted? 48 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b The subject properties are designated Single Family in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Zoning regulations were last amended February 2008. 4. PLANNING DATA: A. Revenue/Estimates 1. Estimate expenditures affected by the proposal. At current development, City expenditures will be negligible. 2. Estimate revenues to be gained by the proposal. $267.25 per year at current development (City property tax levy) 3. Estimate county revenue lost. $360.17 per year at current development (County Road Levy). There are currently no commercial businesses that would generate retail tax revenues for the County, within the proposed annexation boundaries. 4. Estimate county expenditure reduction. Assumed to be comparable to Road Levy revenues lost. 5. Estimate fire district revenue lost. Not applicable. No change in fire service provision. 6. Estimate fire district expenditure reduction. Not applicable. No change in fire service provision. 7. Estimate other special district revenue/loss. The action will result in no loss revenues for other special districts. 8. Estimate other special district(s) expenditure reduction. The action will result in reduction in expenditures for other special districts. B. Services 1. Law Enforcement City Council Meeting 49 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b a. Describe current policy coverage and services provided The subject area is currently served by the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Department for patrol and investigations. b. Current emergency and normal response time being experienced According to the Sheriff’s Office 2002 Annual Report, average response times in 2001 ranged from six minutes for emergencies to 20 minutes for priority 3 calls. c. Initial police protection plan contemplated The Snohomish Police Department currently patrols adjacent areas within the city. At current development levels within the proposed annexation area, existing patrols can be expanded to serve the area without an impact to the level of service within the current city limits. d. Back-up plan (mutual aid and/or reserve) The City’s Police Department has mutual aid agreements with surrounding Law Enforcement agencies, including the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Department and the Cities of Monroe and Lake Stevens, which are the most likely agencies to be called should additional assistance be required. e. Projected police growth plan contemplated The City of Snohomish’s Police Department’s Strategic Long-Range Plan anticipates the growth and development required to service this area and subsequent annexations. Likewise, the City’s Comprehensive Plan shows this and other areas within UGA that will be annexed, and provides for servicing this area. While this particular annexation is not expected to significantly increase the call load to the City’s Police Department, the Police Department is anticipating service enhancement to address increasing demands due to future growth from subsequent annexations and future development. f. Source of dispatch The City’s Police Department is radio dispatched through the E-911 PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point) in Everett at the consolidated SNOPAC PSCC (Public Safety Communications Center). Administrative functions are handled locally at the Police Headquarters, 230 Maple Avenue in Snohomish. 50 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b 2. Fire Service: Fire suppression and protection services will remain with Fire District 4 following annexation. a. Nearest station(s) Fire Station No. 43 for Fire District 4 is located at 1525 Avenue D, approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the proposed annexation. b. Response time The Fire District’s response time goal is three to five minutes. c. Are they fully staffed? How many part-time and full time personnel? Fire Station 43 has a daytime staff of eight, including three chief officers, and a nighttime staff of one chief officer and six volunteers d. Major equipment at station location (including type and number of emergency vehicles) Major equipment at Fire Station 43 includes 2 fire engines, 1 aid car, 1 rescue vehicle and 1 squad. e. How many fully certified EMT personnel do you have? All volunteer and regular staff are EMT certified. f. What fire rating applies? Fire District 43 has a fire rating of 5 within the city limits and 6 outside the city. g. Source of dispatch Dispatch is through SnoPac. 3. Water a. Directly or by contract There is currently no development and therefore no water service to the subject properties. The City will directly serve new water customers on the site. b. Storage location(s) and capacity City Council Meeting 51 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b This area is and will be served via a connection to the City of Everett transmission main. No local storage is necessary. c. Mains to serve the area (diameter and location) The closest City of Snohomish water main to the subject area is a 16” main in Bickford Avenue. The route of main extensions to serve the area has not been determined. Potential routes include an extension along Fobes Avenue or west from Bickford Avenue across interceding parcels. d. Pressure station location and measured flow None required for City water service. e. Capacity available Yes f. Water source (wells, Everett, etc.) Everett g. Financing of proposed service (LID, ULID, Developer Extension) Extensions to provide service for new development will occur by developer extension. 4. Sewer a. Directly or by contract Sanitary sewer service will be provided directly by the City of Snohomish. b. Mains to service the area (diameter and location) An existing 16” trunk line is located in Bickford Avenue to the east of the proposed annexation. c. Gravity or lift station required It is possible that the area may be served by gravity, although engineering studies of sanitary sewer service to this area have not been conducted. 52 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b d. Disposal (city or district treatment plant) Future sewage flows from the subject area will be processed at the City’s treatment facility. e. Capacity available The City is currently experiencing flows of 1.2 MGPD. The City recently constructed a major upgrade of its sewer treatment plant, with a design capacity of 2.8 MGPD. This is planned to service a population of 11,000 - 15,000, which is sufficient to accommodate build-out of the proposed annexation. IV. GENERAL: 1. In case of extensions of services, has an annexation agreement been required? If so, please attach a recorded copy of this requirement. No annexation agreement has been executed with subject properties. 2. Describe the topography and natural boundaries of the proposal. The proposed annexation area is characterized by low, rolling hills. The subject area is bounded on the east by the City of Snohomish corporate boundary and on the north, south and west by property lines. The south and west boundaries of the southern half of the area follow the Urban Growth Boundary. 3. How much growth has been projected for this area during the next 10-year period? What source is the basis for this projection? Based on the City’s development standards, the proposed annexation has maximum capacity of roughly 50 additional single family units. This equates to a maximum population increase of about 144 additional people. Capacity calculations include an estimate for future roadways, but do not account for critical areas. Therefore, the actual development capacity may be less than the estimate. 4. Describe any other municipal or community services relevant to this proposal. Apart from fire service, all municipal urban services, including police, utility, land use, legislative, and administrative, will be provided to the subject area by the City of Snohomish. 5. Describe briefly any delay in implementing service delivery to the area. City Council Meeting 53 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b Provision of most municipal services will occur immediately upon finalization of the annexation. Extension of water and sewer infrastructure to serve new development will occur as developer extensions. The timing of such improvements will depend on the choices of the property owner and the timing of other development in the area. 6. Briefly state your evaluation of the present adequacy, cost or rates of service to the area, and how you see future needs and costs increasing. Is there any other alternative source available for such services? The subject area is currently vacant and therefore has minimal demand for urban services. Demand for services will increase when the area develops, consistent with the type and extent of such development. Per RCW 36.70A.110(4), cities are the units of government generally most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. The City is prepared to assume provision of urban governmental services to this portion of the City’s UGA. No sewer service is currently available to the area. The Cross Valley Water District provides water service to properties in the vicinity of the site, but is not currently a sewer service provider. The area will not develop to the urban densities envisioned in the County or City Comprehensive Plans until sewer is available. 7. Comparative property and utility tax cost to homeowner before and after annexation. The current levy rate for properties within the proposed annexation area is about $9.67 per thousand of assessed valuation. With annexation to the City of Snohomish, the levy rate will drop to $9.35 per thousand of valuation. The City currently assesses a six percent tax on water, wastewater, solid waste, electric, natural gas, and telephone service not currently paid by the residents. Utility taxes will not apply until development and utility consumption occurs on the site. 8. Filing fee of $50.00 is enclosed. V. OBJECTIVES: 1. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities: The subject area is currently vacant. Surrounding properties area generally vacant or contain very low density residential uses. An industrial building is east of the site, within the city limits. Further, the urban growth boundary follows the east and south extensions of the subject parcels. Therefore, there are no natural neighborhoods to be preserved. The determination that this area is appropriate for 54 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b annexation and urban level development was made by Snohomish County, under Growth Management Act planning processes. 2. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to, bodies of water, highways, and land contours: The western and southern extents of the proposed annexation follow the urban growth boundary and the eastern annexation boundary is contiguous with the City’s current corporate boundary. No physical boundaries are necessary for these portions of the annexation border. A short length of the annexation boundary follows the Fobes Avenue right-of-way. Parcel lines rather than physical features define the remainder of the site boundaries. 3. Creation and preservation of logical service areas: This area is all within the City's UGA as recognized by both the City and the County in their land use plans. Annexation of this area represents a logical extension of City services. There are no known circumstances associated with this site that would impede City services to the site or make another service provider a more logical option. The location of a logical access point for future development on the property has not been established. 4. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries: The proposal would not create islands or peninsulas of unincorporated area surrounded by the City. The location of the Urban Growth Boundary, as adopted by Snohomish County, establishes a portion of the annexation boundary. As envisioned in County and City planning efforts, the area north of the current annexation to Fobes Avenue/Fobes Road will ultimately be within the Snohomish city limits as additional annexation occurs. 5. Discouragement of multiple incorporation of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated areas: Not applicable. 6. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts: Not applicable. 7. Adjustment of impractical boundaries: Existing City boundaries in the vicinity are not impractical. The proposal would make the city limits more contiguous with the Urban Growth Boundary, which is one of the intents of the Growth Management Act City Council Meeting 55 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b 8. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character: The area is presently vacant and therefore not urban in character. This is likely due to the City’s policy of requiring annexation prior to connection to the City’s sewer system. The expectation under the County’s Growth Management Act planning is that it should develop to urban densities to accommodate a portion of the forecast regional growth. It cannot become urban in character until City services are extended. 9. Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resources use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority: This area is planned for urban uses under both the City and County's land use plans. It is not identified on the County plan as an area of long term agricultural significance. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT: 1. RCW 35.70A.020 Planning Goals: The proposal would allow extensions of utilities and provision of other urban services in an efficient manner. Sewer provision will allow development at urban densities. 2. RCW 36.70A.110 Comprehensive Plans – Urban Growth Areas: The annexation proposal is within the City’s UGA, as designated by the City and County. The City has planned for urban densities within the area, consistent with the County’s land use plans. 3. RCW 36.70A.210 County-wide Planning Policies: The annexation is proposed for a UGA established under the criteria of Policy UG-1. The City has planned for urban densities and supporting infrastructure and services to meet its projected population growth, consistent with Policy UG-8. The annexation would promote development within an urban growth area, furthering the multiple aims of Policy OD-1. 56 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b ATTACHMENT D City Council Meeting 57 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b ATTACHMENT E Snohomish City Council Meeting Minutes – October 2, 2007 d. Proposed Jacobs Annexation – 10% Stage This was one of two annexation proposals this evening. Both proposals were using the 60% petition method and both were at the initial 10% stage where there were signatures representing at least 10% of the assessed value. The proponents were seeking Council authorization to circulate petitions to gain the 60% assessed value representation. The Council had broad discretion at this point to approve or not approve the annexation. This one involved a couple parcels owned by the Jacobs family. The primary parcel was ten acres, accompanied by a second long narrow parcel. Staff had concerns about this annexation since it lacked adequate access to a public road. It was unclear how vehicular access or utility access would be routed to the large parcel. Staff would like to work with the owners and surrounding property owners to see what options existed. There were a large number of wetlands and Cemetery Creek in the area so access opportunities were limited. Some would be expensive and some would be through properties outside the City’s urban growth area. Mrs. Jacobs knew that an approved annexation did not mean approval on development options, especially on the narrow parcel. There still needed to be additional study to understand how the property could be developed as a single family sub-division. Laurel Jacobs, 17531 Dunbar Road, Mt Vernon, said the property was owned by two parties, she with her husband and their son with his wife. They were aware of the access issue and nearby wetlands. This was in the City’s UGA. Developers had found that the county did not look as favorably on it for development as the City might. The property would be up for sale and they had talked with developers who were trying to determine a viable utility and road access. This was the first step in properly marketing the property because the City would ultimately have the final say. It was zoned for 45 lots. It did not have wetlands or utilities on it. Properties were for sale on the west side and there were vacant lands adjacent on the south so it was not completely isolated. Councilmember Johnson asked if the property was landlocked. Ms. Jacobs said it had a 30-foot panhandle of property reaching from Fobes Road on the north to the northeast corner of the property. In the early 1920’s the panhandle was a trail or roadway to the City and was hard walkable land. The only time it was soft was in the middle of winter when it rained. There were wetlands and a blueberry field on peat soil which absorbed water on abutting properties. Mayor Hamlin confirmed the biggest concern was access and there were no other staff concerns. The 30-foot strip did not meet the criteria for a street in the City. Ms. Jacobs said it did provide an area to extend utilities to the property. This was a developer’s job since they had the engineering and legal staff to work the problem. Councilmember Thorndike noted this would not be the only time there were problematic properties within the UGA or City limits. It was the purpose of the investor’s upfront costs to find ways to solve those problems. Because it was within the City’s UGA, it seemed 58 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b appropriate to send it through the annexation process. Nothing would be achieved by deferring it at this time. Mayor Hamlin agreed. The one concern was annexing in something that could not be developed until additional annexations occurred. That would be a dual process for staff. Councilmember Clemans said further opportunities for annexations would resolve the land- lock issue. Mr. Loch said northern properties were within the UGA and could provide street access. MOTION by Thorndike, second by Hamlin, that the City Council authorize the circulation of petitions for the Jacobs Annexation, with the proviso that zoning will be single family residential and with no assumption of indebtedness. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). City Council Meeting 59 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b ATTACHMENT F 60 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b City Council Meeting 61 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5b 62 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5c Date: February 19, 2008 To: City Council From: Danny Weinberg, Support Services Director Subject: Resolution 1193 – Establishing Solid Waste and Recycling Rates for 2008 ______________________________________________________________________________ The City Council directed staff to negotiate the extension of the existing City solid waste contract with Rabanco Ltd. (dba Lynnwood Disposal). Also on the February 19 Council agenda is Council action on the proposed contract extension for a three year term from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2011. The contract extension incorporates rate increases as a result of Contractor operating cost increases as well as the provision for CPI rate adjustments. The Contractor rate increases for the period April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009 consisted of 15.5% due to operating costs and 4.99% CPI adjustment. As the contractor rates increase, the City’s rates have been adjusted accordingly. The increment of the City’s customer rates over the Contractor rates has historically been a factor of approximately 1.065. This differential covers the City’s costs for staffing and excise tax expenditures incurred by the Solid Waste Fund (Fund 403). Staff has included Attachment B detailing the Contractor’s 2007 and 2008 rates and the City’s 2007 and proposed 2008 rates. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council PASS Resolution 1193. ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 1193 B. Rate Comparison City Council Meeting 63 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5c ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SNOHOMISH Snohomish, Washington RESOLUTION 1193 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1153 WHEREAS, the City of Snohomish provides solid waste and recycling services; and WHEREAS, the five year contract for solid waste and recycling is for the period March 1, 2003 through March 31, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City of Snohomish has entered into a contract amendment extending the five year contract for three years from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2011; and WHEREAS, the contract for solid waste and recycling allows for rate increases due to operational costs increases; and WHEREAS, the contract for Solid Waste and Recycling allows for rate increases based on the (CPI) and an increase for significant increases in fuel prices; and WHEREAS, the City of Snohomish has requested additional services including two annual City-wide clean-ups, the addition of food waste/yard waste recycling service, and an extensive public education effort; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed the contract extension and rate increases on May 1, 2007 and February 19, 2008; and WHEREAS, the public was given notice of the proposed rate increase for solid waste and recycling services as required by RCW 35A.21.152; and WHEREAS, the City Council last adopted Resolution 1153 on November 21, 2006; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON: The rates set forth below for solid waste and recycling services for all City of Snohomish customers shall be in effect in accordance with Section 2 below, until modified or amended by action of the City Council. Section 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this resolution, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Senior Citizen" means a person 62 years of age or older. 64 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5c b. "Disabled Person" means a person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, performing manual tasks, caring for oneself, et cetera. c. “Single Family Residence” means a structure where a unique family unit resides for the calculation of solid waste and recycling rates. d. “Multifamily Residence” means a property where a structure provides living space for five or more unique family units reside for the calculation of solid waste and recycling rates. e. “Mixed Use Commercial Residential” means a property in a commercial business land use designation that includes both commercial business and residential use within the same structure. Section 2. Effective Dates. All rates in this resolution shall be effective April 1, 2008. Section 3. Solid Waste and Recycling Rates. RESIDENTIAL Service Type Frequency Monthly Rate 1 Mini Can Monthly 8.03 1 Mini Can - Senior Citizen Monthly 4.02 Mini Can Weekly 8.96 Mini Can - Senior Citizen Weekly 4.47 1 Can Weekly 10.95 1 Can - Senior Citizen Weekly 5.47 2 Cans Weekly 15.78 2 Cans - Senior Citizen Weekly 7.89 3 Cans Weekly 20.57 4 Cans Weekly 23.88 5 Cans Weekly 28.33 6 Cans Weekly 33.55 Each Additional Can Weekly 4.86 1 - 64 gallon Toter Weekly 19.37 2 - 64 gallon Toters Weekly 27.72 Bags, Cans, Boxes Per Occurrence 4.84 Return Trip Per Occurrence 8.89 Oversize Can Per Occurrence 18.57 City Council Meeting 65 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5c MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL Service Type Frequency Monthly Rate 1 Can Weekly 13.66 2 Cans Weekly 27.97 3 Cans Weekly 42.24 4 Cans Weekly 56.49 5 Cans Weekly 70.76 1 64 Gal Toter Weekly 26.38 1 90 Gal Toter Weekly 43.52 Extra Bag Weekly 2.09 1.00 Yard Weekly 66.99 1.25 Yard Weekly 75.78 1.50 Yard Weekly 91.60 2.00 Yard Weekly 111.91 3.00 Yard Weekly 149.42 4.00 Yard Weekly 179.52 6.00 Yard Weekly 235.30 8.00 Yard Weekly 291.09 4.00 Yard Compactor Weekly 562.65 Distance Per Occurrence No Charge Gate Per Occurrence No Charge Bags Per Occurrence 2.10 Boxes Per Occurrence 2.10 Cans Per Occurrence 2.10 RECYCLING Service Type Frequency Monthly Rate Residential Co-Mingled Weekly 5.01 Spring Summer -Weekly Yard waste Winter – Bi-Weekly 7.63 Spring Summer -Weekly Yard waste - Extra Cart Winter – Bi-Weekly 5.24 Multifamily Weekly 4.89 Commercial and multifamily customers requiring increased frequency of collections beyond those provided in the above rates shall be charged under the following formula: 66 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5c Formula: The Service’s Weekly Rate x the Frequency of Collection x .94 Example: A One-Yard container picked up three (3) times per week: $66.99 x 3 x .94 = $188.91 Section 4. Rates for Service Levels Not Defined. The City Manager shall have the authority to charge rates for service levels not otherwise defined in this resolution under the following methodologies: Solid Waste and Recycling Charges – For any new account requiring a service level, defined by container size, collection frequency, or waste products, not provided in this resolution, the method for determining the customer’s service rate shall be the amount charged by the contract service provider to the City times 1.065. Section 5. Unbilled Services. The City Treasurer shall be authorized to make retroactive adjustments, either billings for services or refunds for charges, for accounts in which the billing for services did not match the services provided for a period not to exceed three years. Customers of the utility have a duty to provide the City with written requests for changes in service and to review their bi-monthly billing and notify the utility of any errors or corrections. Section 6. Final Utility Billings. Customers who sell real property, to which the City provides solid waste and recycling service, may request in writing, prior to the property’s sale closing date, a Final Utility Bill. Solid waste and recycling services shall be prorated by the number of days during the Final Bill period. Solid waste extras shall be billed when the City receives notice from the contract service provider. Nothing within Section 5 shall prohibit the City from collecting any outstanding balances from the property to which services have been provided as authorized by Snohomish Municipal Code 15.02.020 and RCW 60.80.020. A Final Utility Bill request shall not be considered the request for final or estimated utility bill as provided by RCW 60.80.020. Requests for a Final Utility Bill shall be made in writing, on a form provided by the City, prior to the sale date of the property. The new property owner shall be billed on a prorated basis, based on the number of days and extra collections for solid waste and recycling services. Section 7. Mixed Use Commercial/Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Customers. Mixed use commercial/residential customers may select either a residential or commercial/multifamily level of solid waste and recycling services for all the residential units within the commercial structure. Commercial business must use commercial solid waste services. Residential solid waste and recycling service shall include solid waste, co-mingled recycling, and yard waste recycling per separate residential unit. Multifamily solid waste and recycling service shall include solid waste and multifamily recycling service per separate residential unit. Residential service shall be collected curbside or at a site approved by the service provider. Commercial/Multifamily shall be collected either curbside or at a common collection area. City Council Meeting 67 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5c Section 8. Repeal of Previous Resolutions. Resolution 1153 is hereby repealed, consistent with the effective dates of this resolution as set forth in Section 2 above. Section 9. Publication. This resolution shall be published in the official newspaper designated by the City following passage of this resolution. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 19th day of February, 2008. CITY OF SNOHOMISH By________________________________ Randy Hamlin, Mayor Attest: By_______________________________ Torchie Corey, City Clerk Approved as to form: By_______________________________ Grant K. Weed, City Attorney 68 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5c ATTACHMENT B City of Snohomish 2008 Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Changes Contractor Rates-MONTHLY Customer Rates-MONTHLY Service Type Current Proposed Increase Current Proposed Increase Residential 2007 2008 2007 2008 1 Can - Monthly 6.27 7.54 1.27 6.60 8.03 1.43 1 Can - Mthly Sen. 3.14 3.77 0.64 3.30 4.02 0.72 1 Mini Can 7.04 8.41 1.37 7.40 8.96 1.56 1 Mini Can - Senior 3.52 4.20 0.68 3.70 4.47 0.77 1 Can 8.69 10.28 1.59 9.20 10.95 1.75 1 Can - Senior 4.35 5.14 0.80 4.60 5.47 0.87 2 Cans 12.53 14.82 2.29 13.30 15.78 2.48 2 Cans - Senior 6.27 7.41 1.15 6.60 7.89 1.29 3 Cans 16.33 19.31 2.98 17.25 20.57 3.32 4 Cans 18.99 22.42 3.43 21.35 23.88 2.53 5 Cans 22.53 26.60 4.07 25.30 28.33 3.03 6 Cans 26.66 31.50 4.84 29.20 33.55 4.35 Each Additional Can 3.80 4.56 0.76 4.00 4.86 0.86 1 64 gal Toter 15.33 18.19 2.86 16.30 19.37 3.07 2 64 gal Toter 22.03 26.03 4.00 23.65 27.72 4.07 Bags, Cans, Boxes 3.75 4.54 0.79 4.35 4.84 0.49 Return Trip 6.90 8.35 1.45 7.20 8.89 1.69 Oversize 14.38 17.44 3.06 15.00 18.57 3.57 Multifamily & Commercial 1 Can 10.80 12.83 2.03 11.60 13.66 2.06 2 Cans 21.97 26.26 4.29 23.35 27.97 4.62 3 Cans 33.11 39.66 6.55 35.00 42.24 7.24 4 Cans 44.24 53.04 8.80 46.50 56.49 9.99 5 Cans 55.38 66.44 11.06 58.25 70.76 12.51 1 64 Gal Toter 20.76 24.77 4.01 22.15 26.38 4.23 1 90 Gal Toter 34.26 40.86 6.60 36.65 43.52 6.87 Extra Bag 1.63 1.96 0.33 1.75 2.10 0.35 1.00 Yard 53.23 62.90 9.67 58.25 66.99 8.74 1.25 Yard 60.37 71.15 10.78 66.25 75.78 9.53 1.50 Yard 72.96 86.00 13.04 80.65 91.60 10.95 City Council Meeting 69 February 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING 5c 2.00 Yard 89.36 105.07 15.71 99.30 111.91 12.61 3.00 Yard 119.76 140.29 20.53 134.65 149.42 14.77 4.00 Yard 144.43 168.55 24.12 164.30 179.52 15.22 6.00 Yard 189.77 220.92 31.15 216.75 235.30 18.55 8.00 Yard 235.12 273.30 38.18 270.00 291.09 21.09 4.00 Compactor 454.65 528.27 73.62 492.15 562.65 70.50 Distance No Charge No Charge - N/A Gate No Charge No Charge - N/A Recycling Residential Co-Mingled 3.93 4.70 0.77 4.50 5.01 0.51 Yard waste 6.04 7.16 1.12 6.35 7.63 1.28 Yard waste - Extra Cart 4.19 4.92 0.73 4.45 5.24 0.79 Multifamily 3.83 4.59 0.76 4.00 4.89 0.89 70 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a Date: February 19, 2008 To: City Council From: Danny Weinberg, Support Services Director Subject: Solid Waste Contract Extension with Rabanco Ltd. (dba Lynnwood Disposal) ______________________________________________________________________________ The City’s existing solid waste contract with Rabanco Ltd. (dba Lynnwood Disposal) was approved by the City Council in 2003 and expires on March 31, 2008. This contract provides for the negotiation of a three-year extension if both parties mutually agree. In May 2007, the City Council discussed options presented by the Contractor and staff for future solid waste services. The agenda item and minutes for this meeting are included for reference as Attachments B and C. The Council gave the following directions to staff: i) There was no compelling reason to go out for bid as the rate increase proposals were reasonable and comparable with other cities and staff should negotiate the extension of the contract; ii) Continue with the same basic service but add two citywide clean-ups per year; iii) Continue with the yard waste pickup on a weekly basis; iv) Rate increases to be phased in 2008 and 2009; v) Addition of food waste/yard waste recycling service. The Contractor’s costs over the term of the current contract had greatly outpaced the adjustments. Fuel was up 115%, total operating costs were up 47%, and labor was up 13% since the beginning of the contract. In comparison, over the same time, CPI adjustments had risen only 12%. Labor and vehicle expenses alone accounted for 81% of the total increase over the past years. In the proposed contract, the CPI increase takes effect on April 1, 2008 and not January 1, 2008. The annual CPI of 3.74% which is based on a twelve month period is recalculated to 4.99% for the nine months through December 31, 2008. In addition, the rate increase to be phased in 2008 and in 2009 will be 15.5% per year. Current residential one-can (32-gal.) service, co-mingle recycling, and yard waste is charged at a rate of $18.66 per month. This service will cost $22.14 in 2008 and $26.42 in 2009. Attachment D compares 2007 Contractor rates with the proposed 2008 and 2009 rates. If the City Council approves the contract extension and the new rates, it will be asked to consider for action tonight, a resolution adjusting the rates the City charges to customers. The cost adjustment is required to cover the City’s costs for staffing and excise taxes. Representatives from Lynwood Disposal will be present to discuss the proposed contract amendment and respond to Council questions. City Council Meeting 71 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council APPROVE the contract amendment and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to sign the amendment to the contract for the provision of solid waste services and recycling with Lynnwood Disposal, extending the term from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2011. ATTACHMENTS: A. Contract Amendment with Lynnwood Disposal B. Council Agenda Item May 1, 2007 C. Council Minutes Excerpt May 1, 2007 D. Rate Comparison 72 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a ATTACHMENT A AMENDMENT 1 CONTRACT FOR GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND DISPOSAL THEREOF FOR THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF SNOHOMISH, hereinafter called “City”, and RABANCO, LTD., INC. d/b/a LYNNWOOD DISPOSAL COMPANY, hereinafter called “Contractor.” WHEREAS, it is necessary and deemed advisable in the public interest to enter into a contract for the collection and disposal of garbage and refuse; and WHEREAS, the City has entered into an agreement with the Contractor for the period of March 1, 2003 through March 31, 2008 for the collection and disposal of garbage and refuse; and WHEREAS, Section 43.0 of the agreement states: “Extension of Contract. Contractor agrees and covenants to continue the collection and disposal of all garbage, and refuse beyond the termination date of the contract, at the option of the City, for any increment up to three years, upon the same terms and conditions as contained in the contract. The Contractor and the City may mutually agree to extend this contract;” and WHEREAS, the City and the Contractor mutually agree to extend the Contract; NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed and covenanted by and between the parties that the contract be amended only as to Section 1.0 and referenced Exhibits A and B. All other sections of the contract as originally agreed and covenanted remain in effect. 1.0 Scope of Work. This contract amendment shall commence on April 1, 2008, and end on March 31, 2011. The contract service area for City garbage collection shall be the entire incorporated area of the City. The work to be performed consists of the complete collection and disposal of the garbage, refuse and certain other wastes accumulated in the City of Snohomish in accordance with the specific terms as set forth in the original contract, and, in addition, Contractor will conduct two annual community-wide clean-up events at dates and times to be mutually agreed by City and Contractor. Contractor will also provide for the addition of food waste/yard waste recycling service and an extensive public education effort by Contractor to educate customers as to what materials can be recycled, what food waste can be placed in yard waste carts and how customers can save money on rates through recycling efforts. Contractor will perform these services for the considerations included in Exhibit A City Council Meeting 73 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a for 2008 and Exhibit B for 2009. The Contractor’s portion of customer charges will comprise the entire compensation due to the Contractor. LYNNWOOD DISPOSAL CITY OF SNOHOMISH By By Mike Huycke, Vice President Larry Bauman, City Manager Date Date ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By By Torchie Corey, City Clerk Grant K. Weed, City Attorney 74 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a City of Snohomish 2008 Rate Schedule - Lynnwood Disposal Company Exhibit A Rate Effective 4/1/2008 Residential Service 20 gal can 8.41 1 can 10.28 2 cans 14.82 3 cans 19.31 4 cans 22.42 5 cans 26.60 6 cans 31.50 Additional cans over 6 4.56 1 can once a month 7.54 1 64 gal toter (including rent) 18.19 2 64 gal toter (including rent) 26.03 Extras - Bag, boxes 4.54 Oversize Can 17.44 Return trips 8.35 Residential Service - Senior Rates 20 gal can 4.20 1 can 5.14 2 cans 7.41 1 can once a month 3.77 Extras - Bag, boxes Recycling - See Note 1 Single-Family 4.70 Multi-Family 4.59 Yard waste 7.16 Yard waste - extra can 4.92 Commercial Service 1 can 12.83 2 cans 26.26 3 cans 39.66 4 cans 53.04 5 cans 66.44 City Council Meeting 75 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a 64 gal toter 24.77 96 gal toter 40.86 Extras - Bag, boxes 1.96 1.00 Yard (1 pickup per week) 62.90 1.25 Yard (1 pickup per week) 71.15 1.50 Yard (1 pickup per week) 86.00 2 Yard (1 pickup per week) 105.07 3 Yard (1 pickup per week) 140.29 4 Yard (1 pickup per week) 168.55 6 Yard (1 pickup per week) 220.92 8 Yard (1 pickup per week) 273.30 4 Yd Comp (1 pickup per week) 528.27 *If container is picked up multiple times per week, add 94% of rate to 1x Week* 76 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a City of Snohomish 2009 Rate Schedule - Lynnwood Disposal Company Exhibit B Rate Effective 4/1/2009 Residential Service 20 gal can 10.07 1 can 12.21 2 cans 17.59 3 cans 22.93 4 cans 26.57 5 cans 31.54 6 cans 37.36 Additional cans over 6 5.49 1 can once a month 9.08 1 64 gal toter (including rent) 21.66 2 64 gal toter (including rent) 30.89 Extras - Bag, boxes 5.50 Oversize Can 21.15 Return trips 10.03 Residential Service - Senior Rates 20 gal can 5.03 1 can 6.10 2 cans 8.79 1 can once a month 4.54 Extras - Bag, boxes Recycling - See Note 1 Single-Family 5.66 Multi-Family 5.52 Yard waste 8.55 Yard waste - extra can 5.83 Commercial Service 1 can 15.29 2 cans 31.47 3 cans 47.61 4 cans 63.71 5 cans 79.84 64 gal toter 29.64 96 gal toter 48.87 Extras - Bag, boxes 2.37 1.00 Yard (1 pickup per week) 74.63 City Council Meeting 77 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a 1.25 Yard (1 pickup per week) 84.22 1.50 Yard (1 pickup per week) 101.81 2 Yard (1 pickup per week) 124.12 3 Yard (1 pickup per week) 165.17 4 Yard (1 pickup per week) 197.80 6 Yard (1 pickup per week) 258.69 8 Yard (1 pickup per week) 319.60 4 Yd Comp (1 pickup per week) 617.55 *If container is picked up multiple times per week, add 94% of rate to 1x Week* 78 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a ATTACHMENT B Date: May 1, 2007 To: City Council From: A J Housler, Interim Support Services Director Subject: Solid Waste Contract Options with Rabanco Ltd. The existing City solid waste contract with Rabanco Ltd. (a division of Allied Waste Services Inc. and formerly known under its local company name as Lynnwood Disposal) was approved by the City Council in 2003, and expires on March 31, 2008. This contract provides for the negotiation of a three-year extension if both parties mutually agree. Staff asked Rabanco for a proposal that would provide Council with options to extend the contract for three years. The City Manager and Interim Support Services Director met several times with Rabanco’s representatives and provided suggestions for formulating the options that are included in the attached proposal. Current residential one-can (32-gal.) service, co-mingle recycling, and yard waste provided by Rabanco is charged at a rate of $18.60 per month. This rate is lower than the rates currently charged for similar levels of residential services in Lynnwood/Edmonds, Maple Valley, Sammamish, Lake Forest Park, and Edmonds, all of which are currently served by Rabanco (see Exhibit III of the Rabanco proposal). Without assuming any changes in services or extension of timing for the rate increases, a three- year extension would cost 25.9% more than current rates in 2009 for the same service. This rate would not include any city cleanup activities as a requirement of the contract. The City’s Strategic Plan calls for increased effort regarding community cleanup activities (see Goal 2-B. Promote Community Pride by Facilitating Citywide Clean-up Activities). If two Citywide cleanups per year were to be included, the increase would be 27.6%. Based on previous Council discussion, these are the two primary proposals as options for Council consideration. One additional proposal as a means to explore lower cost rate alternatives would be to change the collection of yard waste from current service of every week to every other week. This change would reduce the overall rate increase from 25.9% to 20.9%, assuming no additional community cleanup services are added. Other proposals included simply addressing structuring and timing for implementation of the rate increases over the three-year period. All contract options assume a 2 percent annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase for 2008 and 2009. Timing of the rate increase would also have impacts, for both annual costs during the three years, as well for the total cost of a three-year contract extension. These cost differences are shown in Exhibit II of the Rabanco proposal. Three options explored here are: implementing rates in two steps beginning in 2007; implementing in one step in 2008; and implementing in two steps in 2008 and 2009. These rate alternatives are shown with and without every other week recycling City Council Meeting 79 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a service as well as with or without two cleanup events annually. Generally, the lowest rate alternatives for the life of the agreement would be either a single increase in 2008 or a two-step increase for 2007 and 2008. The percentage increase appears high. However, when actual cost increases in fuel prices over the past five years and comparable rates for other jurisdictions are considered, this proposal appears consistent with the contractor’s rates for other cities in the region. The impact of increases in fuel cost on these proposals is compounded by the fact that the existing contract restricts increases for fuel cost. The contract reads: “The vendor or City shall be allowed to request in writing a rate adjustment limited to the following changes in the operating environment . . . Twice during the life of the contract, an adjustment to fuel prices should an increase or decrease of 35% during any 12-month period”. Rabanco has not applied for a fuel- cost-based rate adjustment during the life of the current contract. The effect of this restriction is that there has been one increase in rates due to increases in fuel cost. This occurred in January 2006 and resulted in an increase of 10 cents on the base residential rate. Increases in labor cost have also contributed to the rate increases included in the Rabanco proposal. The current agreement limits by formula the annual rate increase to approximately half of the annual percentage increase in the CPI for our region. Another option chosen by some cities to reduce impacts of rate increases for residential customers is to tip the rate formulas so that commercial customers pay a slightly higher proportion of actual costs. Currently, the rates for Snohomish residential and commercial customers reflect an equal sharing of actual costs, and neither of these customer groups subsidizes the rates of the other. As an alternative to renegotiating the agreement with Rabanco, the other major option to pursue as a path regarding solid waste services would be to consider re-issuing a Request for Proposals. This would presumably involve a similar process as that initiated in 2002, with the development of an advisory committee of business and residential customers who would help develop the RFP and then review the proposals. This is, however, a time-intensive process that is not guaranteed to result in lower rates for customers. If Council prefers to consider this path, staff would return with a specific proposal for process and schedule. Representatives from Rabanco will present their proposal. They, as well as City staff, will be available to address questions from Council. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council DISCUSS the options presented and DIRECT staff regarding additional information required or next steps for either negotiating an extended agreement or pursuing other means for continuing solid waste services after March 31, 2008, when the existing contract expires. ATTACHMENT: Rabanco Ltd. (Allied Waste Services) Options Packet REFERENCE: Imagine Snohomish: Promoting Vitality and Preserving Character 80 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a April 23, 2007 Mr. Larry Bauman City Manager City of Snohomish 116 Union Ave. Snohomish, WA. 98290 RE: Contract Extension and Rate Adjustment Dear Mr. Bauman: I am pleased to propose for your review an extension of our current contract for an additional three years, the extension to be effective April 1, 2008. As we discussed earlier, Allied Waste’s increase in costs over the last 5 years have out-paced increases in revenue and the rate of CPI, as shown in the summary table below and exhibit I attached: Cost vs CPI Index (2002 = $1) Cost Area 2006 Index Value Labor $1.13 Total Operations Cost $1.47 Fuel $2.15 CPI $1.12 In order for Allied Waste to cover these increased costs and to make viable a three-year contract extension, the base rate under the current terms and conditions would need to increase 23% -- 25% if the two proposed annual cleanup events are included. Allied Waste has developed a number of scenarios to help the City choose the level of services that best fits its resident’s needs. Scenario A would hold service levels at their current level with or without city cleanup events, and Scenario B would change yard waste to every other week (EOW) service with or without city cleanup events. Then under each of those scenarios, the timing of the applicable rate increase has an additional 3 scenarios: 1) 50% of the increase in 2007 and 50% in 2008; 2) All the increase coming in 2008; 3) 50% of the increase in 2008 and 50% in 2009. A summary of these scenarios and their associated rate impacts are detailed in exhibit II and summarized below: City Council Meeting 81 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a Scenario Timing 2009 Rate1 Rate Increase from 20062 Current service level, 2007/2008 $23.42 25.9% w/o city cleanup Current service level, 2008 $23.80 28.0% w/o city cleanup Current service level, 2008/2009 $25.28 35.9% w/o city cleanup Current service level, 2007/2008 $23.74 27.6% w/ city cleanup Current service level, 2008 $24.19 30.1% w/ city cleanup Current service level, 2008/2009 $25.82 38.8% w/ city cleanup EOW yard waste, w/o 2007/2008 $22.48 20.9% city cleanup EOW yard waste, w/o 2008 $22.64 21.7% city cleanup EOW yard waste, w/o 2008/2009 $23.74 27.6% city cleanup EOW yard waste, w/ 2007/2008 $22.64 21.7% city cleanup EOW yard waste, w/ 2008 $23.03 23.8% city cleanup EOW yard waste, w/ 2008/2009 $24.18 30.0% city cleanup The resulting rates compare favorably with Allied Waste - Rate Comparison (Residential) Based on a 1 can customer rates for comparable services in other Snohomish and King County cities as $30.00 $25.00 depicted in the attached graph and exhibit 1 can price $20.00 III3. $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 Historically many cities have transferred $- en M I Fo P a W W W La st P AW Va A W AW AW St rk W A W )A )A more of the rate increase impacts to h rk m le y s TC ed Ly (Pr en t Fo mi s a l w pos U r ev k e ma ur st commercial customers so as to minimize om h (C o re le re d ap oo ke Sa is M h Sn om ke is nn La the effects on its residential customers – La oh oh Sn Monroe is an example. I would be more than happy to sit down with you to discuss these different options. In the case of Snohomish, the transfer rate is approximately 1 for 1: for every 1% reduction in the residential rate the commercial rate will increase 1%. 1 Rate is based on a 1 can customer and an estimated 2% annual CPI 2 2006 rate = $18.60 = 1 can customer 3 Lake Stevens is up for renegotiations this year with an expect price base increase 82 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a I look forward to discussing this proposal with you at your convenience. Sincerely; Doug Cassidy Doug Cassidy General Manger City Council Meeting 83 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a EXHIBIT I Allied Waste - Cost vs CPI Index $2.40 $2.20 $2.15 $2.00 $1.80 $1.60 $1.47 $1.40 $1.20 $1.13 $1.12 $1.00 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Labor Fuel CPI Ttl Ops Cost 84 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a EXHIBIT II Scenario I -- Current Service Level No City Clean Ups With (2) City Clean Ups Impact Timing Year Rate Impact* Price Rate Impact* Price 2007/2008 2007 10.00% $20.46 10.75% $20.60 2008 CPI + 10.00% $22.96 CPI + 10.75% $23.27 2009 CPI $23.42 CPI $23.74 2008 2007 $18.60 $18.60 2008 CPI + 23% $23.34 CPI + 25% $23.72 2009 CPI $23.80 CPI $24.19 2008/2009 2007 $18.60 $18.60 2008 CPI + 14.30% $21.68 CPI + 15.5% $21.91 2009 CPI + 14.30% $25.28 CPI + 15.5% $25.82 * Assumes 2% annual CPI Scenario II -- Every Other Week (EOW) Yard Waste No City Clean Ups With (2) City Clean Ups Impact Timing Year Rate Impact* Price Rate Impact* Price 2007/2008 2007 7.79% $20.05 8.17% $20.12 2008 CPI + 7.79% $22.04 CPI + 8.17% $22.20 2009 CPI $22.48 CPI $22.64 2008 2007 $18.60 $18.60 2008 CPI + 17% $22.20 CPI + 19% $22.58 2009 CPI $22.64 CPI $23.03 2008/2009 2007 $18.60 $18.60 2008 CPI + 10.75% $21.01 CPI + 11.78% $21.21 2009 CPI + 10.75% $23.74 CPI + 11.78% $24.18 * Assumes 2% annual CPI City Council Meeting 85 February 19, 2008 86 Rate Comparison File Customer Current With PI RESIDENTIAL RATES Count Allied Allied Allied Allied Allied Allied WMI Allied Snohomish (Current) Snohomish Lake Forest Park Lake Forest Park EXHIBIT III Snohomish AW (Proposed) AW Lynnwood WUTC AW Maple Valley AW Sammamish AW AW WMI Lake Stevens AW SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING & YW Base RFP Bid 20 Gal Can 73 $ 17.29 $ 21.61 $ 20.88 $ 24.28 $ 22.31 $ 11.25 $ 16.10 $ 17.33 1 Can 1574 $ 18.97 $ 23.34 $ 25.06 $ 29.05 $ 25.88 $ 19.05 $ 26.83 $ 22.81 ACTION ITEM 6a 2 Cans 341 $ 22.89 $ 28.61 $ 32.05 $ 38.60 $ 32.92 $ 28.46 $ 40.23 $ 28.99 60 Gal Cart 136 $ 25.74 $ 32.18 $ 31.69 $ 38.72 $ 33.07 $ 28.46 $ 40.23 $ 28.51 90 Gal Cart 0 N/A N/A $ 41.69 $ 45.82 $ 39.85 $ 39.05 $ 50.96 $ 35.27 Weekly Recycling Weekly Recycling EOW Recycling EOW Recycling EOW Recycling EOW Recycling EOW Recycling Weekly Recycling Weekly YW Weekly YW EOW YW EOW YW EOW YW EOW YW EOW YW Weekly YW Note: Weekly Recycling in Snohomish - Areas with EOW recycling/yardwaste would have higher rates if converted to weekly service Note: Disposal Fees in Snohomish County are $89.00 per ton vs $82.50 in King County Allied Waste - Rate Comparison (Residential) Allied Waste -- Rate Comparison (Commercial) Based on a 1 can customer Based on a 6 yard container $400.00 $30.00 $350.00 $25.00 $300.00 $20.00 $250.00 $15.00 $200.00 $150.00 $10.00 1 can price 6 yard price $100.00 $5.00 $50.00 $- $- W W I W AW AW AW WM AW I nt ) A d) A C A y h rk ns AW AW AW A W AW W AW WM AW se T rk re U Va lle mis a Pa Pa ve ish ish TC lle y ey sh A rk a k ns ur opo W m st st S te ll mi ar ve d le m e h (C Pr ( oo ap or re e om om WU Va Va a t P P te is h w M Sa e F Fo Lak oh noh od ple ple mm res rest S om mis nn k e e Sn S wo Ma Ma Sa Fo Fo ak oh o Ly La Lak ke e L Sn oh nn Sn Ly La Lak Current With 25% PI COMMERCIAL RATES Allied Allied Allied Allied Allied Allied WMI Allied Snohomish Lake Forest Park Lake Forest Park AW Snohomish AW Lynnwood WUTC AW Maple Valley AW Sammamish AW AW WMI Lake Stevens AW SERVICE (Monthly rate including rent) Current Bid 1 Yard $ 53.23 $ 66.54 $ 42.90 $ 48.53 $ 52.00 $ 83.46 $ 52.73 2 Yard $ 89.36 $ 111.70 $ 80.38 $ 88.83 $ 93.16 $ 128.61 $ 94.44 3 Yard $ 119.76 $ 149.70 $ 114.39 $ 133.46 $ 136.49 $ 182.85 $ 123.98 4 Yard $ 144.43 $ 180.54 $ 152.74 $ 175.05 $ 173.32 $ 229.43 $ 150.96 6 Yard $ 189.77 $ 237.21 $ 225.75 $ 279.48 $ 259.98 $ 292.89 $ 211.36 8 Yard $ 235.12 $ 293.90 $ 296.81 $ 368.74 $ 337.97 $ 369.73 $ 263.61 Includes Rent Includes Rent Does not Inc Rent Does not Inc Rent Does not Inc Rent Includes Rent Includes Rent Does not Inc Rent Note: Disposal Fees in Snohomish County are $89.00 per ton vs $82.50 in King County February 19, 2008 City Council Meeting ACTION ITEM 6a EXHIBIT IV Allied Waste - Cost Growth Contributors 2002 - 2006 Other 19% Labor 40% Vehicle 41% City Council Meeting 87 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a ATTACHMENT C 6. DISCUSSION ITEM – Solid Waste Contract Options Under an existing contract, Allied Waste Services had been providing solid waste service to the City since March 1, 2003. The contract would expire on March 31, 2008. The City had two alternatives to consider in preparation for that expiration date: (1) advertise for a Request for Proposals; or (2) extend the contract. The existing contract allowed for a three year extension provided both parties mutually agreed. The proposal tonight was for an extension of the contract and included three primary options: (1) continue with the same service; (2) continue with the same basic service but add two citywide clean-ups per year; and (3) continue with the same basic service but change the yard waste pickup from weekly to every other week. Two Allied representatives, Doug Cassidy and Nels Johnson, were here this evening to explain the options and necessary rate increases. Doug Cassidy, Allied Waste General Manager, came to present a proposal for a three year contract extension between Allied Waste and the City. Allied Waste and its predecessor had a long partnering relationship with the City. Under the current rate structure City residents had some of the lowest rates in the area. The current contract provided for an annual CPI adjustment equal to 45% of the percentage increase of the annual CPI. For example, if the current CPI was 3%, Allied Waste would get 45% of that 3%, 1.35% in this case. However Allied’s costs over the term of the contract had greatly outpaced those adjustments. Fuel was up 115%, total operating costs were up 47%, and labor was up 13% since the beginning of the contract. In comparison, over the same time, CPI adjustments had risen only 12%. Labor and vehicle expenses alone accounted for 81% of the total increase over the past years. Allied Waste was proposing a rate hike to offset the impact of those increases and to adjust the go-forward base rates for the next three years. To help the City choose the best rate and service package for its residents, there were a number of options. The first related to yard waste. Currently citizens had weekly service but it was possible to go to every other week pickup. Right now clean-up events were not included but could be, if the City chose that option. Also, different timing of the rate increases was being offered. The split could be between 2007 and 2008, both taking effect May 1st. The entire increase could be done in 2008, or split between 2008 and 2009. Finally the impact distribution between residential and commercial customers could be altered. A number of cities had chosen to put more of the increase burden on the commercial accounts to lessen the impact on residents. Representative numbers of the 2008 rate comparison were shown. The weekly yard waste including clean-up events would be a new rate of $23.72; excluding clean-ups the rate would be $23.34. If yard waste went to every other week pickup, the rate would be $22.58 with events and $22.20 without clean-up events. This was based on one 32-gallon can service and an annual CPI assumption of 2%. Even with proposed rate increases, City residents would continue to benefit from some of the lowest rates around. The City could lessen the impact of the increase by distributing more of the increase to the commercial accounts. An example was Lake Forest Park who chose to put more of the rate hike on the commercial accounts to lessen the impact on residents. This resulted in the lowest residential rates in the area but the second highest commercial rates. Tonight’s proposal was fair and equitable. It would allow Allied Waste and the City to continue their long-standing partnership and provide the City’s residents with the level and quality of service they had enjoyed for many years. 88 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a Mayor Hamlin asked how many years Allied had provided service to the City. Mr. Cassidy had found indication that it went back to 1991. Prior to then it was under the Utilities and Transportation Commission. Mayor Hamlin confirmed the CPI adjustment was a consistent pattern. Councilmember Badgley verified every other week yard waste service would be throughout the year in that proposal. Councilmember Randall asked how many other cities served by Allied had every other week yard waste pickup. Mr. Cassidy named Sammamish and Mercer Island. Councilmember Thorndike was also interested in that question. Looking at the rate matrix it appeared continuing the current level of service compared to the every other week yard waste service option amounted to about one dollar difference per customer per month. Mr. Cassidy used 2009 as a base because that was the first year all the rates would be fully implemented. Mayor Hamlin had asked his neighbors about every other week service and most of them filled the yard waste container every week. He had also asked about timing for the increase and most preferred to see a linear progression year to year. In looking at the differences in the options, the dollar per month for weekly pickup was worth the extra dollar in his opinion. Councilmember Badgley said that was fine for those with big yards. There were a lot of consumers who did not necessarily have the same needs. Mr. Cassidy said Sammamish had gone to every other week pickup but their council was now considering reverting back to weekly service due to expressed residential concerns. Councilmember Thorndike asked about the twice yearly clean-up for an extra thirty or forty cents per month. Including that improved community service at the same time with an appropriate overall rate adjustment would be good. It was consistent with their vision and community plan. The citizen annual clean-up events were appreciated, such as occurred recently. It would be good value for the money to have that coincide with a contracted Citywide clean-up. Councilmember Badgley asked for clarification on how the clean-up would operate. Would a dumpster be provided twice a year for people to put their useless items in? It would not be individual pickup. Mr. Cassidy said they shied away from going to the residences for pickup. They would work with the City to determine need and stage boxes in logistically central locations such as schools for the residents to come to. The only issue usually has been from residents of nearby cities coming in so Allied asked that City staff be there to help them make sure the customer actually lived within the City. Mayor Hamlin said the other issue was whether to continue with Allied Waste or go to bid City Council Meeting 89 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a for other options. Given that the increases were reasonable and comparative with other cities, and the options to choose from, he did not see a compelling reason to go for bid. Councilmember Randall would be more interested in going out for bid if the rates were really high. Obviously they were not so he agreed to consider an extension. Councilmember Clemans agreed with an extension. The rate change should be done incre- mentally to avoid a sharp increase. There were a fair number of people with large yards and this time of year the weekly yard waste service was needed so they should keep it. Councilmember Randall had a large yard and actually used two bins every week but did not know how many people in town only put them out a couple times a month. He was willing to pay the extra dollar for weekly pickup. Mr. Cassidy said another thing to consider was the counties were pushing had to allow food in yard waste bins. The program was being promoted in both King and Snohomish Counties. County health departments had differing opinions of what food should be allowed in the containers if pickup was every other week. Some said nothing protein-based should be included because of the smell and rodents that could get in. To get the most benefit out of food waste in the yard waste service would require weekly service. Councilmember Badgley wanted to know when the composting would begin. Mr. Cassidy said that actually it could start now with anything that was biodegradable. If a person used a shredder, it was preferred the shredding went into the yard waste bin also. It made a mess at the sorting station when it blew around. Councilmember Clemans wanted to get that information advertised. Mr. Cassidy said Allied would put out a communication to residents on new services when the Council made a decision. Councilmember Badgley would prefer to stay with Allied for the composting feature alone. They were doing their part in earth friendly techniques with regard to waste disposal and she was happy to support that. Mayor Hamlin confirmed the Council supported asking staff to begin negotiations to extend the contract with Allied. It would be for weekly yard waste pickup. Implementation could be in 2007-2008, blending the rate increase over a two year period, and include clean-ups. Mr. Bauman asked if there was a preference for the incremental increase to be 2007-2008 or 2008-2009, or should options showing both be brought back? Mr. Cassidy said the difference shown in the rates was the time value of money. It was a 20% increase if done in 2007-2008, 23% if all done in 2008, 28.6% if done later. Mayor Hamlin asked if the new contract would start in March 2008. Mr. Johnson said the contract would start then, but the price could be negotiated any time. Councilmember Countryman asked how the business community related to the yard waste issue. There were properties on Second Street that were required to have yard waste. 90 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a Mr. Johnson said it was not mandatory. Mr. Bauman asked if it related to multi-family. Councilmember Countryman felt multi-family would be all right. He was referring to Morris Printing which was required to have yard waste. Mr. Bauman said there were apartments above that location. The ordinance at this time did not provide a means to differentiate whether someone had a yard. Councilmember Countryman felt it should be covered in an ordinance. Councilmember Clemans raised the point that while they may not have a yard, they could have trees or shrubs they were trimming. That material went into the yard waste bin also. Mr. Cassidy said food waste would also be included now. Allied was promoting the food waste option and that would be the vehicle to support the need for yard waste service. Mayor Hamlin confirmed the Council did not want to differentiate between commercial and residential rates at this time. The rates would go into effect for the 2008-2009 time frame. Tom Hamilton, 607 B Pearl Street, said some interesting alternatives had been suggested. He previously lived in Seattle where recyclables were picked up every other week. Yard waste was picked up infrequently in the winter and every other week in the summer. There were some additional issues to consider. It would be interesting to know what the load factors were for the cans. When moving to Seattle in 1993, he had seen an article about the weight of Seattle cans so residents did not have to pay for an extra bag. The contractor might be able to review the load factor and set every other week pickup for recyclables also. On the yard waste issue, he lived in a complex that had commercial yard work service. In the fall utility rate hearings he would like the Council to address the issue of those people who were not using the yard waste to not be charged the fees. There were probably a fair number of customers in the City who were subsidizing the service. He would not mind subsidizing yard waste if his Garden Club friends could get a break on their summer water rates for water going into the ground to make the City beautiful, instead of going into the sewer. He loved the idea of the twice yearly community clean-up, having seen it done in other communities. Mayor Hamlin asked about Councilmember Countryman’s topic to reconsider how those without yards were billed. Councilmember Thorndike agreed with Mr. Hamilton’s suggestion that those would be appropriate issues to cover as part of the utility rate discussion in the fall. Councilmember Countryman agreed. City Council Meeting 91 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a ATTACHMENT D City of Snohomish Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Comparison Contractor Rates Service Type Current Proposed Proposed 2007 2008 2009 Residential 1 Can - Monthly 6.27 7.54 9.08 1 Can - Mthly Sen. 3.14 3.77 4.54 1 Mini Can 7.04 8.41 10.07 1 Mini Can - Senior 3.52 4.20 5.03 1 Can 8.69 10.28 12.21 1 Can - Senior 4.35 5.14 6.10 2 Cans 12.53 14.82 17.59 2 Cans - Senior 6.27 7.41 8.79 3 Cans 16.33 19.31 22.93 4 Cans 18.99 22.42 26.57 5 Cans 22.53 26.60 31.54 6 Cans 26.66 31.50 37.36 Each Additional Can 3.80 4.56 5.49 1 64 gal Toter 15.33 18.19 21.66 2 64 gal Toter 22.03 26.03 30.89 Bags, Cans, Boxes 3.75 4.54 5.50 Return Trip 6.90 8.35 10.03 Oversize 14.38 17.44 21.15 Multi-Family & Commercial 1 Can 10.80 12.83 15.29 2 Cans 21.97 26.26 31.47 3 Cans 33.11 39.66 47.61 4 Cans 44.24 53.04 63.71 5 Cans 55.38 66.44 79.84 1 64 Gal Toter 20.76 24.77 29.64 1 90 Gal Toter 34.26 40.86 48.87 Extra Bag 1.63 1.96 2.37 1.00 Yard 53.23 62.90 74.63 1.25 Yard 60.37 71.15 84.22 92 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a 1.50 Yard 72.96 86.00 101.81 2.00 Yard 89.36 105.07 124.12 3.00 Yard 119.76 140.29 165.17 4.00 Yard 144.43 168.55 197.80 6.00 Yard 189.77 220.92 258.69 8.00 Yard 235.12 273.30 319.60 4.00 Compactor 454.65 528.27 617.55 Distance No Charge No Charge Gate No Charge No Charge Recycling Residential Co-Mingled 3.93 4.70 5.66 Yard waste 6.04 7.16 8.55 Yard waste - Extra Cart 4.19 4.92 5.83 Multifamily 3.83 4.59 5.52 City Council Meeting 93 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6a 94 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b Date: February 19, 2008 To: City Council From: Larry Bauman, City Manager Subject: Review of Carnegie Foundation Recommendation for the Library Annex ______________________________________________________________________________ At its August 7, 2007 meeting, the City Council directed staff to work with the Snohomish Carnegie Foundation to estimate construction costs for upgrading the Annex structure, and to determine whether the costs and potential revenues for this project would support the concept of market rate leasing of the building for a commercial tenant. The purpose of this agenda item is to review that work and the recommendation of the Foundation (see Attachment A) regarding the future of this structure in relationship to the broader project envisioned for the Carnegie Library building and its property at Cedar Avenue and First Street. Cathy Reines, a member of the Foundation Board, will present its recommendation. The Council directed at its August 2007 meeting (an excerpt of the meeting minutes is provided in Attachment E) that the Foundation estimate costs and potential revenues associated with the concept of rehabilitating the Annex structure. As proposed by the Foundation, City staff contracted with a construction cost estimator to assess these costs. Staff contracted with Sandra Matson of Matson Carlson & Associates, Inc. to conduct the construction cost estimation for the option of upgrading the Annex building to make it ready for a commercial tenant. This estimate (see Attachment D) determined that the cost would be approximately $455,000 including an allowance of approximately $151,000 for tenant improvements, which was determined to be a minimal level needed for interior improvements that would make the space suitable for commercial use. The overall scope of this cost estimate was to determine if a minimal amount of work to upgrade the facility to a marketable quality would result in an investment that could be recouped by the City in leasing the Annex to a commercial tenant. This estimate was then reviewed by Patrick Sisneros, Dean of the School of Business Design at Everett Community College. His analysis (see Attachment C) of the building’s marketability determined that such an investment would be a risk for the City in that there may not be a high demand for the Annex that would present a reasonably secure rate of return for the investment in construction improvements. Based on this review, the Foundation recommends that the Annex not be upgraded for leasing by the City for commercial use. The Foundation’s recommendation further suggests that demolition of the Annex and restoration of the underlying property be used for increasing parking capacity for the downtown and providing community park space that could support a variety of uses in the area (see alternate conceptual design drawings, Attachment B). The Foundation recommends that the Annex remain in place until funds are raised by the Foundation for the rehabilitation of the historic Carnegie Library building and that demolition of the Annex, as well as parking City Council Meeting 95 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b improvements and landscaping for the community park space be conducted as part of the Foundation’s project and that funding for these elements of the project come from the grants and fundraising program proposed by the Foundation. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council either APPROVE the Carnegie Foundation’s recommendation regarding the Carnegie Library Annex structure or DIRECT staff to pursue other options for the Annex. ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter from the Snohomish Carnegie Foundation B. Conceptual Design Drawings for Foundation Recommendation C. Market Rent Study by Everett Community College D. Construction Cost Estimate for Annex Upgrades E. Excerpt of the August 7, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes 96 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b ATTACHMENT A City Council Meeting 97 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b 98 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b ATTACHMENT B City Council Meeting 99 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b 100 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b ATTACHMENT C Market Rent Study by Everett Community College The following three documents comprise the Carnegie Annex Market Rent Study by Patrick Sisneros, Everett Community College Dean of the School of Business Design. These documents are: 1. Cost of bonding for improvements ($500,000) at a 5 percent bond rate 2. Cost of bonding for improvements ($500,000) at a 6 percent bond rate 3. Spreadsheet showing revenue projection for lease based on a $25 per square foot initial lease cost with 3% annual increase Cost of Municipal Bond - 5% Principal borrowed: $500,000.00 Annual Payments: 2 Total Payments: 20 Annual interest rate: 5.00% Periodic interest rate: 2.5000% Regular Payment amount: $32,073.56 Final Balloon Payment: $0.00 The following results are estimates which do not account for values being rounded to the nearest cent. See the amortization schedule for more accurate values. Total Repaid: $641,471.20 Total Interest Paid: $141,471.20 Interest as percentage of Principal: 28.294% Pmt Principal Interest Cum Prin Cum Int Prin Bal 1 19,573.56 12,500.00 19,573.56 12,500.00 480,426.44 2 20,062.90 12,010.66 39,636.46 24,510.66 460,363.54 3 20,564.47 11,509.09 60,200.93 36,019.75 439,799.07 4 21,078.58 10,994.98 81,279.51 47,014.73 418,720.49 5 21,605.55 10,468.01 102,885.06 57,482.74 397,114.94 6 22,145.69 9,927.87 125,030.75 67,410.61 374,969.25 7 22,699.33 9,374.23 147,730.08 76,784.84 352,269.92 8 23,266.81 8,806.75 170,996.89 85,591.59 329,003.11 9 23,848.48 8,225.08 194,845.37 9,3816.67 305,154.63 10 24,444.69 7,628.87 219,290.06 101,445.54 280,709.94 City Council Meeting 101 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b 11 25,055.81 7,017.75 244,345.87 108,463.29 255,654.13 12 25,682.21 6,391.35 270,028.08 114,854.64 229,971.92 13 26,324.26 5,749.30 296,352.34 120,603.94 203,647.66 14 26,982.37 5,091.19 323,334.71 125,695.13 176,665.29 15 27,656.93 4,416.63 350,991.64 130,111.76 149,008.36 16 28,348.35 3,725.21 379,339.99 133,836.97 120,660.01 17 29,057.06 3,016.50 408,397.05 136,853.47 91,602.95 18 29,783.49 2,290.07 438,180.54 139,143.54 61,819.46 19 30,528.07 1,545.49 468,708.61 140,689.03 31,291.39 20 *31,291.39 782.28 500,000.00 141,471.31 0.00 *The final payment has been adjusted to account for payments having been rounded to the nearest cent. Cost of Municipal Bond - 6% Principal borrowed: $500,000.00 Annual Payments: 2 Total Payments: 20 Annual interest rate: 6.00% Periodic interest rate: 3.0000% Regular Payment amount: $33,607.85 Final Balloon Payment: $0.00 The following results are estimates which do not account for values being rounded to the nearest cent. See the amortization schedule for more accurate values. Total Repaid: $672,157.00 Total Interest Paid: $172,157.00 Interest as percentage of Principal: 34.431% Pmt Principal Interest Cum Prin Cum Int Prin Bal 1 18,607.85 15,000.00 18,607.85 15,000.00 481,392.15 2 19,166.09 14,441.76 37,773.94 29,441.76 462,226.06 3 19,741.07 13,866.78 57,515.01 43,308.54 442,484.99 4 20,333.30 13,274.55 77,848.31 56,583.09 422,151.69 5 20,943.30 12,664.55 9,8791.61 69,247.64 401,208.39 6 21,571.60 12,036.25 12,0363.21 81,283.89 379,636.79 7 22,218.75 11,389.10 142,581.96 92,672.99 357,418.04 8 22,885.31 10,722.54 165,467.27 103,395.53 334,532.73 102 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b 9 23,571.87 10,035.98 189,039.14 113,431.51 310,960.86 10 24,279.02 9,328.83 213,318.16 122,760.34 286,681.84 11 25,007.39 8,600.46 238,325.55 131,360.80 261,674.45 12 25,757.62 7,850.23 264,083.17 139,211.03 235,916.83 13 26,530.35 7,077.50 290,613.52 146,288.53 209,386.48 14 27,326.26 6,281.59 317,939.78 152,570.12 182,060.22 15 28,146.04 5,461.81 346,085.82 158,031.93 153,914.18 16 28,990.42 4,617.43 375,076.24 162,649.36 124,923.76 17 29,860.14 3,747.71 404,936.38 166,397.07 95,063.62 18 30,755.94 2,851.91 435,692.32 169,248.98 64,307.68 19 31,678.62 1,929.23 467,370.94 17,1178.21 32,629.06 20 *32,629.06 978.87 500,000.00 17,2157.08 0.00 *The final payment has been adjusted to account for payments having been rounded to the nearest cent. City Council Meeting 103 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b 104 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b ATTACHMENT D Carnegie Annex Reduction/Remodel City of Snohomish Matson Carlson Cost Preliminary Budget Cost Estimate Estimating 09/25/07 Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Sub-Total TOTAL COST SUMMARY Division 2 - Demolition & Sitework $50,085 Division 3 - Concrete $10,640 Division 4 - Masonry $10,800 Division 5 - Metal $6,185 Division 6 - Wood & Plastics $3,881 Division 7 - Moisture & Thermal Protection $36,450 Division 8 - Doors & Windows $27,550 Division 9 - Finishes $14,684 Division 10 - Specialties $0 Division 11 & 12 - Equipment & Furnishings $0 Division 15 - Mechanical $13,668 Division 16 - Electrical $17,360 Sub-Total all sub-bids $191,303 General Contractor Mark-Ups $47,826 Design Contingency $64,565 TOTAL GC's COST AT BID TODAY 3,744 GSF 81.11 $303,694 Add Tenant Improvements (see separate estimate) $150,877 TOTAL GC's COST AT BID TODAY $454,571 SCOPE OF WORK: Work includes demolishing the North portion of the Carnegie Library Annex Addition - making the Annex a separate building from the original Library. The cut off will occur at the North Hall adjacent to the existing restrooms, removing everything North of that line. There will be no work taking place with in the remaining Annex. There will be no work at the existing Main Library building - which is under a separate contract. These costs do not include any sitework, no utility work - such as water, sewer, storm drain, telephone or elec service. There will be a new exterior wall along the new north end of the Annex. The existing/remaining roofing will be replaced and rigid insulation will be added to correct drainage problems. The new exterior wall includes re-using demo'd brick in order to match the existing walls. The new entry will include hollow metal storefront windows and a pair of doors. City Council Meeting 105 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b The existing east entry will get its door replaced with a new hollow metal pair of doors. See the estimate detail for further scope items. NOTES: This estimate does not include Change Orders, Escalation, Bidding climate contingencies, WS Sales Tax nor any HazMat Abatement. Estimate assumes a public bidding process receiving at least 4 qualified general contractor bids. Estimate assumes building is vacant during construction time. To add escalation please use 4% to 6% per year to actual bid date. ESTIMATE DETAIL Division 2 - Demolition & Sitework 50,085 Demolition Saw cut/demo slab on grade 1,248 SF 1.50 1,872 Demo exist foundation 80 LF 39.00 3,120 Demo spot footings 2 EA 250.00 500 Shore roof structure - temp 44 LF 25.00 1,100 Demo exterior walls 1274 SF 2.5 3,185 Demo roof structure, saw cut beams 1,380 SF 4.50 6,210 Demo roofing 3,744 SF 1.10 4,118 Demo doors 10 Leaves 60.00 600 Demo interior partitions 1,500 SF 1.50 2,250 Demo relite 96 SF 5.00 480 Demo (e) stairs 2 loc 500.00 1,000 Demo casework 74 LF 25.00 1,850 Load, haul-off & dump debris 280 CY 85.00 23,800 Sitework all sitework in separate contract including utilities Division 3 - Concrete 10,640 New perimeter foundation 44 LF 185.00 8,140 New spot footing for new column 4 EA 350.00 1,400 Patch (e) slab on grade 44 LF 25.00 1,100 Division 4 - Masonry 10,800 Salvage & re-use existing brick for new wall 360 SF 30.00 10,800 Division 5 - Metal 6,185 New Tube Steel column on base plate w/AB's 4 EA 450.00 1,800 New roof support beam - allowance 42 LF 92.50 3,885 Misc metal - allow 1 LS 500.00 500 Division 6 - Wood & Plastics 3,881 Roof Framing Patch (e) cut off at overhanding roof 1 LS 500.00 500 Exterior Walls 106 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b 2x6 wood studs 588 SF 3.50 2,058 3/4" plywd @ perimeter wall 588 SF 2.25 1,323 Division 7 - Moisture & Thermal Protection 36,450 Re-roof existing roof area - add rigid insulation 3,744 SF 8.00 29,952 single ply price includes all flashings, caulkings, blockings & incidentals 0 R-30 Batt in attic 3,744 SF 1.50 5,616 Insulation to new exterior walls 588 SF 1.50 882 Division 8 - Doors & Windows 27,550 Entry Doors HM door, frame & hardware - full lite glass 2 PR 4,000.00 8,000 Windows New hollow metal framed double pane windows 220 SF 85.00 18,700 Rework (e) entry window to attach to new exterior wall 1 LS 850.00 850 Division 9 - Finishes 14,684 Flooring Replace restroom flooring w/SV 90 SF 5.00 450 Walls 5/8" GWB to new perimeter wall - paint 588 SF 3.00 1,764 Patch & paint adjacent walls 1 LS 500.00 500 Repaint all existing walls 3,600 SF 1.00 3,600 Ceiling Patch & paint adjacent ceiling 252 SF 2.00 504 Patch & paint (e) soffit 1 LS 250.00 250 Rework ceiling - allowance 3,744 SF 1.50 5,616 Exteriors Clean & apply sealer to new & existing walls 1 LS 2,000.00 2,000 Division 15 - Mechanical 13,668 HVAC demo allowance 1 LS 1,500.00 1,500 Fire protection - add all new 3744 SF 2.50 9,360 Plumbing no work 0 HVAC re-balance 3744 SF 0.75 2,808 Division 16 - Electrical 17,360 Cut off & abandon (e) service & distribution 1 LS 3,000.00 3,000 New service panel & meter 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000 New light fixtures - demo existing fxt's (2x4 fluorescent) 3,744 SF 2.50 9,360 Sub-Total all sub-bids 191,303 $191,303 City Council Meeting 107 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b ATTACHMENT E 6. ACTION ITEMS a. APPROVE Carnegie Annex Proposal The Carnegie Foundation was charged by the Council to develop a plan for the reuse and restoration of the annex added to the Carnegie Library in 1968. A number of options were considered. The least costly and most effective was to get an estimate of potential cost and market feasibility for the rehabilitation project. The investment of $3,500 was fairly modest compared to a full-blown architectural and engineering study in the range of $25-30,000. The Council could then determine the next logical and prudent steps. Mayor Hamlin said the letter from the Foundation indicated an October timeframe for a report back to the Council on this mini study. He confirmed the Foundation would then make a recommendation on next steps based on the estimates. Councilmember Johnson had concerns about the estimated cost and fruition of the project when the proposal was first discussed by the Council. The Foundation now proposed that the City hire an experienced construction cost estimator. It was his understanding the Council had directed the Foundation to proceed with the project and get back to the Council with an idea of what to do with the 1968 addition as part of the whole package. Normally architects worked with their own engineering firms or had consultants on staff. Why were they going from architectural services to the City hiring an estimator? It seemed fragmented and he opposed spending any City money to have an estimator propose the linkage between the two facilities. It was all one structure under one legal description. It would be the architect’s responsibility, not the City’s taxpayers. Councilmember Thorndike felt the Foundation had volleyed the issue back to Council. The Foundation was thought to have the resources and skill to assess potential uses for inclusion in a plan for the annex and then their answer was to have the City hire someone to evaluate the proposal. That was not responsive to his intention. The other point was the facilities were structurally conjoined and depended on one another. An evaluation of the annex independent of the historic structure could be problematic. The south wall of the historic Carnegie was dependent for its integrity on the way the addition was built into it. The analysis would be best performed by the people who had the vision for the historic building itself. Mr. Bauman said when the original study of the historic building was done by BOLA Architecture, they determined the 1968 addition north wall structurally leaned on the historic building. The historic building was structurally intact and had integrity on its own, if the addition was demolished. There was a relationship between the two buildings and the cost estimator would be aware of it. He may have misunderstood the Council’s intent for the funding of the next step at the June meeting. A City fund was established for the project site restoration with money coming from the Arts of Snohomish rental fees. There was sufficient money in that fund to cover the cost of the estimator. Councilmember Clemans said the resolution passed in June gave the Foundation approval to go forward with the fundraising plan for the rehabilitation of the Carnegie building exclusive of the annex. The annex was to be discussed at a later date. Her understanding from that June meeting was the approval of the plan to rehabilitate the Carnegie building and separate the annex. Then the Foundation was to go forward and see what should be 108 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b done with the annex, whether it should be separated and rebuilt into a complementary use, or demolished. The Foundation realized that with the cost of the study, it would be prudent and cost effective to first have a cost estimator do a study regarding bringing the building up to public safety standards and ADA compliance. Then a business consultant could talk about the feasibility of occupying the building at market rate. The Board wanted to come back in October with that information at a low cost for the Council to make its decision. The cost was modest and it was a prudent expenditure. Councilmember Johnson said Councilmember Clemans and Mr. Bauman answered a lot of his questions. The scope of work was expected to cost $3,500. Everett Community College did the feasibility study for the Carnegie at no cost. Why was there a cost now for a market rental analysis on the annex? The Foundation continued to raise money and their hired architect will do the design and engineering. Who will oversee restoration construction? Will that be City staff or Foundation? Where was the liability, since the City would be hiring the cost estimator to conduct the initial work? Who will utilize the estimate and be liable for the recommendation when it went to another architectural firm? Councilmember Clemans said the business consultant cost was only for the Carnegie building which was what the Foundation was responsible for and chartered with. This $3,500 broke down to $3,000 for the professional cost estimator and $500 to EvCC for the market rental analysis. The cost would be greater if they went straight to the next step. They wanted to know the building and project were viable before asking Council to take that step. Mr. Bauman said the project was for a City owned building and he would not recommend anyone other than City staff manage the capital project. Councilmember Johnson asked who would the cost estimator give the recommendation to – the Foundation’s architect? The City’s architect? Who would be liable? Mr. Bauman did not know if there was a liability link. This was the first opportunity to understand the magnitude of costs for rehabilitating the shell of the annex. Then once completed, would the building be rentable at the market rate in the downtown area that made business sense? EvCC was being asked to review that question. Either this was a project that was going to be excessively expensive to become a marketable viable rental space or it may not be. If not, other options would be considered such as free use for nonprofits or even demolition. Mayor Hamlin compared the process to risk retirement decision-making, spending as little as possible on a portion of the issue to see if it was a dead end. There were only a few choices for the annex. They included fix it up and rent it, fix it up to be used as a City entity, or knock it down. This data would be important to understand the relative magnitude of enhancement needed to bring it up to standard, what rent it could get, and whether it made or lost money. It could determine the energy and direction the Founda- tion would pursue to ultimately make a recommendation to the Council. It could be a nonstarter for the Foundation. MOTION by Hamlin, second by Badgley, that the City Council approve the Carnegie Foundation’s plan to conduct an estimate and market feasibility review of rehabilitation costs at an approximate cost of $3,500. City Council Meeting 109 February 19, 2008 ACTION ITEM 6b Councilmember Randall considered this reasonable. It would yield a lot of good data to help make the decision of what to do with the building. Councilmember Badgley said it indicated the Foundation’s professional approach, fueled by business rather than emotion, regarding the Carnegie. It was a wise decision. Councilmember Johnson said Mayor Hamlin provided the most insight to his questions. This moved the Carnegie plan ahead a little further. Looking at it as the next little step was acceptable. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 110 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 DISCUSSION ITEM 7 Date: February 19, 2008 To: City Council From: Danny Weinberg, Support Services Director Subject: Utility Tax Rates ______________________________________________________________________________ On January 15, 2008, the City Council directed staff to present data showing various utility tax rate levels and the related revenues. This direction was provided within the context of the utility rate increases adopted by Council on that date. The rate increases were driven by the capital project expenditures, most notably, but not exclusively, the improvements to the wastewater system pursuant to a federal consent decree. The City’s contracted solid waste rates have also increased in 2008. The City currently imposes a 6% tax on its water, wastewater, and solid waste revenues. The City does not tax recycling or stormwater activities. The utility tax revenues are revenues of the General Fund, and are available for expenditure for all general governmental purposes. The 2008 budget projected utility tax revenues of $280,000. This projection was based on the 2007 utility rates and the current 6% tax rate. As the utility rate increases are phased in during the 2008 fiscal year, the utility tax revenue projections would be adjusted to approximately $315,000. This is an increase of $35,000. Council asked for tax revenue projections at a 3% tax rate on the increased utility revenues. This rate would generate approximately $157,500 in tax revenues based on the increased utility rates. Council also requested the calculation of a tax rate which would result in the same amount of 2008 budgeted tax revenue, $280,000. This tax rate calculation is based on the projected revenue generated by the utility rate increase. This rate was calculated at 5.33%. Staff has included a table detailing the utility rate revenues, tax revenues at various tax rates, and examples of the impact on an “average” utility customer (see Attachment A). The average customer for this example utilizes 14 units of water and has residential solid waste and recycling services of one can weekly and co-mingled recycling and yard waste service. Staff has also included data on the assumption that the utility tax is also imposed on the stormwater utility. The City’s authority to impose such a tax derives from the same source upon which it imposes the current utility tax (RCW 35.23.440(8), RCW 35.27.370(9), RCW 35A.82.020). The table shows the various revenue amounts at the various tax rates, including the rate of 4.76% calculated to generate the tax revenues as currently budgeted for 2008, $280,000. It should be noted that the rate of 4.76% results in approximately the same bill for customers as that of the 5.33% tax rate discussed above. The higher rate is taxing a smaller revenue pool (no stormwater tax). City Council Meeting 111 February 19, 2008 DISCUSSION ITEM 7 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council DIRECT staff regarding the utility tax rate level for 2008. ATTACHMENTS: A. Utility Tax Rates B. Excerpt – RCW 35.23.440(8), RCW 35.27.370(9), RCW 35A.82.020 112 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 DISCUSSION ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT A City Council Meeting 113 February 19, 2008 DISCUSSION ITEM 7 ATTACHMENT B RCW Excerpt RCW 35.22.280(32) authorizes any city of the first class: “To grant licenses for any lawful purpose, to fix by ordinance the amount to be paid therefor, and to provide for revoking the same . . ." This language has been construed by the Washington Supreme Court as authorizing licenses for revenue purposes as well as regulation. The court has in at least three decisions upheld a business and occupation tax under the above language: Fleetwood v. Read, 21 Wash. 547, 552- 553 (1899); Seattle v. King, 74 Wash. 277, 279 (1913); and Pacific Telephone and Telegraph v. Seattle, 172 Wash. 649, 653 (1933). For second class cities, the authority is found in RCW 35.23.440(8): “License generally: To fix and collect a license tax for the purposes of revenue and regulation, upon all occupations and trades, and all and every kind of business authorized by law . . .” RCW 35.27.370(9) provides the authority for towns: “To license, for the purposes of regulation and revenue, all and every kind of business, authorized by law and transacted and carried on in such town” Under RCW 35A.82.020, a code city may “exercise the authority authorized by general law for any class of city to license and revoke the same for cause, to regulate, make inspections and to impose excises for regulation or revenue in regard to all places and kinds of business, production, commerce, entertainment, exhibition, and upon all occupations, trades and professions and any other lawful activity . . .” 114 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount 38548 2/14/2008 A.I.R. Emissions $292.32 2007 emissions testing $292.32 38549 2/14/2008 Ali Saghari $2,300.00 Katlin Bldg lease-March 2008 $2,300.00 38550 2/14/2008 All Seasons Storage $400.00 Feb 08 seized vehicle storage $400.00 38551 2/14/2008 Alpha Courier Service $137.61 Courier Service Dec 07 WWTP $137.61 38552 2/14/2008 American Messaging $102.01 January 08 paging service $66.40 January 08 paging service $23.74 January 08 paging service $11.87 38553 2/14/2008 Aramark $732.18 Uniform C Erickson $732.18 38554 2/14/2008 Bankcard Center-Bauman $63.80 printing-city funding priorities flyers $63.80 38555 2/14/2008 Barnett Implement Co. Inc. $63.48 Blade EP25 $21.16 Blade EP25 $42.32 38556 2/14/2008 BHC Consultants $36,659.31 consultant svcs biosolids/waste soil $813.70 CSO PE Svcs 12/22/07 to 1/18/08 $35,845.61 38557 2/14/2008 Bickford Motors $385.54 Processor S4 $361.58 TBA supply S6 $23.96 38558 2/14/2008 Bio Clean, Inc. $298.38 Decontamination of haz mat in PD vehicle $298.38 38559 2/14/2008 BIT $2,528.68 envelope stock - sewer $175.85 envelope stock - water $175.85 Postage for Dec utillity bill - sewer $261.54 Postage for Dec utillity bill - water $261.54 Postage for Utility Rate Letter $481.17 Postage for Utility Rate Letter $127.65 Postage for Utility Rate Letter $373.14 Print of Dec Utility bill - sewer $93.42 Print of Dec Utility bill - water $93.42 Printing of Utility Rate Letter $63.06 Printing of Utility Rate Letter $184.34 Printing of Utility Rate Letter $237.70 38560 2/14/2008 Blumenthal Uniform Co. $1,301.18 Boyer Uniform Pants $85.48 City Council Meeting 115 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount Boyer Uniform shirts $213.96 Bryant L/S shirts sew on emblem & chevrons $72.41 Bryant uniform shirt $72.41 Cook Holster G 20/21 $168.20 Erbe Credit for returned uniform shirt ($67.51) Erbe pants/S/S shirts & L/S shirts sew emblem $291.26 Frati Nyl/Lthr Boots $261.31 Kostelecky Nylon Belt liner w/velcro $28.31 Kostelecky Polo shirts & Dept Logo $157.87 Whalen Credit for Tie Bar return ($4.30) Whalen Embroider name on shirt $21.78 38561 2/14/2008 Bratwear $528.22 Rutherford Jumpsuit $528.22 38562 2/14/2008 Central Welding Supply Inc. $16.83 Welding tank rental $16.83 38563 2/14/2008 Chase Properties $48,127.35 Ludwig rd H20main upsizing reim (Kendall plat) $48,127.35 38564 2/14/2008 Chinook Lumber $30.13 Repair Lift station radio system $30.13 38565 2/14/2008 City of Everett $3,469.50 Animal Impounds Oct/Dec 07 $1,843.00 Lab Analysis $1,426.50 W/S CJCT In Service Trng $200.00 38566 2/14/2008 Comserv $2,054.99 30 sets Comprehensive Plan printed $1,555.89 4 Copies Carnegie Site Plan $8.68 Copies of WWTP plant plan $490.42 38567 2/14/2008 Consolidated Electrical Dist. $496.66 Facilities lights/restock $496.66 38568 2/14/2008 Copiers Northwest $460.04 Main. Contract on copier $460.04 38569 2/14/2008 Corey Cook $190.63 Reimbursement for MC supplies $190.63 38570 2/14/2008 Corporate Office Supplies $715.49 Desk chairs for City hall front desk $477.38 Office Supplies $182.64 xerox paper $55.47 38571 2/14/2008 DataQuest $15.00 Preemployment Screening $15.00 38572 2/14/2008 David J Baerman $300.00 Plan Review Medical Supply TI $75.00 Plan Review Peoples Bank $75.00 116 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount Plan Review Sno Bus Cntr Lot 5 $150.00 38573 2/14/2008 Debbie Emge $75.00 Book Prkg Mgmt Best Practices $75.00 38574 2/14/2008 East Jordon Iron Works, Inc. $143.22 Monument risers/covers/rings $143.22 38575 2/14/2008 Eli Journals $118.00 Inside AutoCAD annual subscrip. $118.00 38576 2/14/2008 Everett Stamp Works $92.04 Appreciation plaque-Ray Ogden CSC $92.04 38577 2/14/2008 Evergreen District Court $8,417.82 Court Filing Fees Dec 07 $8,071.26 EDC Interpreter Fees $346.56 38578 2/14/2008 Evergreen Rural Water of Wa $500.00 CCS exam review class K Utt $250.00 WD exam review Tim Reedy $250.00 38579 2/14/2008 Evergreen Security Systems Inc $162.75 Fixed short in wire run Clear trbl & panel $162.75 38580 2/14/2008 Express Personnel Services $4,936.00 Temp Admin Asst PD we 1/13/08 $987.20 Temp Admin Asst PD we 1/20/08 $987.20 Temp Admin Asst PD we 1/27/08 $987.20 Temp Admin Asst PD we 1/6/08 $987.20 Temp Admin Asst PD we 12/30/07 $987.20 38581 2/14/2008 Federal Express Corp. $112.52 Ship boards to Polaris $19.59 Ship boards to Polaris $30.97 Shipping chg to WSP Re 07013273 $25.00 Shipping chg to WSP Re 07014709 $36.96 38582 2/14/2008 Gall Inc. $2,611.79 CE/CW/RB/PM/MG Badges/Holders/Wallet $631.07 Gandee Holster w/Mag Hldr/Hndcf cs comb $331.06 Hndcfs/Wdg kits MG shirts CW/CE chgrs $696.93 PD Mag pouches $55.20 PD Mg Cases Shoulder holsters Badge Hld $897.53 38583 2/14/2008 GlobalStar USA, LLC $219.59 Set up fees and monthly charges $219.59 38584 2/14/2008 Grainger Inc. $768.54 Operating supplies Collections $603.14 Radio control kit $165.40 38585 2/14/2008 Gray & Osborne, Inc. $472.52 Engineering services WTP filter to waste $472.52 City Council Meeting 117 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount 38586 2/14/2008 Greenline Data Inc $2,585.95 SecureIt Mk4 Weapons Rack PD $2,585.95 38587 2/14/2008 H. D. Fowler Company $971.08 1 1/2 water meters $971.08 38588 2/14/2008 H.B. Jaeger $441.16 Storm manhole base $441.16 38589 2/14/2008 Hach Chemical $692.74 Lab supplies WWTP $692.74 38590 2/14/2008 HD Supply Waterworks LTD $5,377.20 Stock parts repair $4,115.86 Water parts stock $1,261.34 38591 2/14/2008 Hertz Equipment Rental $10.85 Carbide bit $10.85 38592 2/14/2008 IACP $120.00 2008 Membership Dues Turner $120.00 38593 2/14/2008 Integra Telecom $740.58 PD phones Jan 08 $261.72 Public Works Mgr Phone Jan 08 $81.11 Shop phone/email modem Jan 08 $252.03 Telephone services (1st bill) $145.72 38594 2/14/2008 Intnl Economic Dev Council $345.00 Dues for Debbie Emge $345.00 38595 2/14/2008 James Mills $231.98 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement Sep/Oct 07 $231.98 38596 2/14/2008 Jaret Joe Palmer $169.41 Steel toe boots $169.41 38597 2/14/2008 Johnson and Son Tires $410.35 Tires for S2 $410.35 38598 2/14/2008 Journal of Commerce $76.05 Advertising for RFP $76.05 38599 2/14/2008 Julie Kostelecky $251.57 Reimb for uniform pants and shoes $238.81 Syringe Boxes for Prop Rm PD $12.76 38600 2/14/2008 Kendall B Utt $202.15 Reimburse for CLS exam review $86.00 Reimburse for mileage CCS review $95.95 Reimburse for mileage pesticide class $20.20 38601 2/14/2008 Law Enforcement Info & Records $40.00 2008 Membership Dues Kostelecky $40.00 38602 2/14/2008 Legend Data Systems Inc $327.50 Thermal printed photo ID cards & set up chg $327.50 118 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount 38603 2/14/2008 Loren R. Waxler $1,673.34 Jan 08 Public Defender Fee $1,673.34 38604 2/14/2008 Matrix Telecom Inc $121.40 Long distance 12/26/07-1/30/08 $1.63 Long distance 12/26/07-1/30/08 $13.53 Long distance 12/26/07-1/30/08 $1.51 Long distance 12/26/07-1/30/08 $1.34 Long distance 12/26/07-1/30/08 $66.89 Long distance 12/26/07-1/30/08 $21.11 Long distance 12/26/07-1/30/08 $13.98 Long distance 12/26/07-1/30/08 $1.41 38605 2/14/2008 Melody Clemans $112.61 Reimburse CLAC lodging 1/31/08 $112.61 38606 2/14/2008 Microflex, Inc. $300.00 Sales tax data conversions for 2008 $300.00 38607 2/14/2008 Motorola Inc. $285.14 Remote Speaker Microphone $285.14 38608 2/14/2008 Murray Smith & Assoc Inc $12,191.69 Water treatment plant study info eval. $12,191.69 38609 2/14/2008 MWW Group Inc $2,000.00 Govt Relation serv - Feb. retainer $2,000.00 38610 2/14/2008 Nelson Petroleum $490.02 Dura lith grease $490.02 38611 2/14/2008 Nextel Communications $1,460.19 Cell Phone service/new phones $275.46 Cell Phone service/new phones $77.62 Cell Phone service/new phones $281.32 Cell Phone service/new phones $95.38 Cell Phone service/new phones $51.47 Cell Phone service/new phones $187.85 Cell Phones Parks/Facilities $119.05 eng cell phone use 12/5/07 to 1/4/08 $113.67 Finance cell phone 12/5/07 - 1/4/08 $16.41 meter reader cell phone 12/5/07 - 1/4/08 $16.41 Nextel phone bill 12/5/07-1/4/08 Plan/Devel $158.41 reception cell phone 12/5/07 - 1/4/08 $14.11 Rob Root cell phone 12/5/07 - 1/4/08 $14.11 sam belcher cell phone 12/5/07 - 1/4/08 $38.92 38612 2/14/2008 Northern Safety Equip Co $249.48 Operating supplies Collections $249.48 38613 2/14/2008 Nw Cascade Inc $192.80 Monthly rent Water Res $85.20 City Council Meeting 119 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount Skate Pk Portalet $107.60 38614 2/14/2008 OTAK $33,129.57 1st St & AveD Prelim. Work $5,379.94 Maple ave emer wall-survey drafting, printing $526.82 Park Ave culvert $1,505.00 Progress pmt #9 - work done thru 1/11/08 $25,717.81 38615 2/14/2008 Owen Equipment Company $365.23 Quick couplers EP100 $365.23 38616 2/14/2008 Parsons Brinkerhoff $13,926.98 2nd St improvements final design $13,926.98 38617 2/14/2008 Paul Morse $84.00 Reimburse Annual DOH certification fee $42.00 Reimburse for annual DOH cert fee $42.00 38618 2/14/2008 Petty Cash $405.66 Petty Cash Reimbursement $33.00 Petty Cash Reimbursement $33.31 Petty Cash Reimbursement $18.37 Petty Cash Reimbursement $20.00 Petty Cash Reimbursement $25.35 Petty Cash Reimbursement $18.00 Petty Cash Reimbursement $33.00 Petty Cash Reimbursement $8.91 Petty Cash Reimbursement $15.19 Petty Cash Reimbursement $16.26 Petty Cash Reimbursement $12.00 Petty Cash Reimbursement $10.84 Petty Cash Reimbursement $50.00 Petty Cash Reimbursement $60.00 Petty Cash Reimbursement $8.68 Petty Cash Reimbursement $10.00 Petty Cash Reimbursement $32.75 38619 2/14/2008 Pilchuck Veterinary Hospital $172.14 Dixie/ Exam/Boosters & Medication $172.14 38620 2/14/2008 Pitney Bowes $733.44 Ink for postage meter $256.59 Ink for postage meter $86.25 Quarterly lease for postage meter $390.60 38621 2/14/2008 Precision Collision $3,123.76 Damage repair to S6 $3,123.76 38622 2/14/2008 Public Safety Selection PC $250.00 SAR Early Macdonald $250.00 120 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount 38623 2/14/2008 PublicSafety Testing Inc $1,453.50 Bkgrnd Inv & reports - Davis/Loomis $1,453.50 38624 2/14/2008 Puget Sound Energy $848.31 Gas billing for 122 Ave A #5 $167.05 Natural Gas billing from 12/06/07 - 01/04/08 $681.26 38625 2/14/2008 Rain for Rent $1,674.49 Generator rental at Champagne/Hill Park $1,649.74 Late Fee Generator rental $24.75 38626 2/14/2008 Riverside Topsoil Inc $90.90 1 1/2 drain rock $90.90 38627 2/14/2008 Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC $2,980.92 Urban Growth Area Expansion $2,980.92 38628 2/14/2008 Shred-It of Western Washington $49.50 Jan 08 Shredding Svc Fee PD $49.50 38629 2/14/2008 Sno Cnty Fin. Dept/Solid Waste $74,118.00 2008 800 MHZ O&M Assessment $21,024.00 2008 800 MHZ P2 Capital Costs $53,094.00 38630 2/14/2008 Sno. Cty. Pud #1 $16,634.77 Electric billing 11/6/07-1/11/08 $1,854.19 Electric Billing for 11/06/07 - 01/07/08 $271.46 Electric Billing for 11/13/07 - 01/18/08 $309.12 Electric Billing for 11/19/07 - 01/25/08 $886.39 Electric Billing for 11/19/07 - 01/25/08 $32.67 Electric Billing for 11/20/07 - 01/23/08 $261.69 Utility Billing 11/06/07 - 01/11/08 $6,637.23 Utility Billing 11/06/07 - 01/11/08 $47.55 Utility Billing 11/06/07 - 01/11/08 $4,712.04 Utility Billing 11/06/07 - 01/15/08 $1,622.43 38631 2/14/2008 Snohomish Auto Parts $1,500.10 battery core deposit $392.66 blade, cleaner $25.37 fitting,telescoping magnet $11.05 lubricant $3.02 retainer,pins,bushings EP-10 $31.72 shock,sensa Tr $84.37 software-Genysis $892.96 spark plugs, mower $8.64 stock oil filters $50.31 38632 2/14/2008 Snohomish County Auditor $10,863.33 2007 Voter Registration File Maintenance $10,863.33 38633 2/14/2008 Snohomish County Clerks And $25.00 2008 Dues - City Clerk Corey $25.00 City Council Meeting 121 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount 38634 2/14/2008 Snohomish County Fire Dist.#4 $45.00 Facility Use Fee $45.00 38635 2/14/2008 Snohomish County Sheriff Off $2,051.00 Sno Reg Drug Task Force cont 6/07-7/08 $2,051.00 38636 2/14/2008 Snohomish Cty Dept Public Wks $4,499.49 Bickford Ave signals @ 30th SE RR7992 $66.89 Forensic Invest of Vehicle 07-002736 $567.31 Street Sweeping services $1,932.65 Street Sweeping services $1,932.64 38637 2/14/2008 Snohomish Historical Society $75.00 Waltz Bldg Rental for PD Staff Mtg $75.00 38638 2/14/2008 Snohomish Senior Center $1,000.00 Monthly Contract Fee $1,000.00 38639 2/14/2008 Snopac $23,816.65 ACCESS Assessment 1st Qtr 08 $331.69 Feb 08 Dispatch Services $10,697.98 Jan 08 Dispatch Services $10,697.98 RMS Assessment Jan1 - Dec 31 $2,089.00 38640 2/14/2008 Sound Safety Products Co. $3,481.28 Partial uniform for Palmer $49.36 Steel toe boots Ann Ray $165.07 Steel toe boots K Allen $165.07 Steel toe boots T Mann $155.46 Uniform order Debardi $395.36 Uniform order Leach $389.66 Uniform order Reedy $666.64 Uniform order Waltz $384.06 Uniform P Morse $104.15 Uniforms Ann Ray $246.74 Uniforms Larry Seaunier $43.71 Uniforms Paul Morse $49.36 Uniforms Tim Reedy $666.64 38641 2/14/2008 Sound Telecom $91.00 Answering service $30.00 Answering service $30.00 Answering service $31.00 38642 2/14/2008 Steuber Dist. Co. $358.05 Facilities/herbeside $119.35 Facilities/herbeside $238.70 38643 2/14/2008 Terminix $79.21 Pesticide service at WTP $79.21 122 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount 38644 2/14/2008 The Everett Herald $2,409.34 Employment Ad Asst PW Ops Mgr $604.06 Employment Ad Police Cadet $658.00 Employment Ad Police Sergeant $635.00 Employment Ad PW Maint Wrkr $512.28 38645 2/14/2008 The Herald $816.72 Advertising for RFP $43.00 Jan. publ of Council mtg agendas $481.40 legal ad - PH for Union ave st vacation $32.16 legal ad-Ord 2142 summary $35.12 legal ad-PH for low income hous incentives $29.20 legal ad-Res 1153 summary $35.12 Legal notice DNS 20751 $120.96 PH publ-utility rate increase $39.76 38646 2/14/2008 The Offset Corner $69.79 frame/mat for 2008 Council photo $69.79 38647 2/14/2008 Tim Reedy $521.61 Reimburse for power bill per contract $299.62 Reimburse for WDM exam fees $122.00 Reimburse mileage for WDM review $99.99 38648 2/14/2008 Traffic Safety Supply Co $1,019.58 Instant road repair mix 1 pallet $1,019.58 38649 2/14/2008 Tyler Enterprises $1,112.50 Bldg Inspection Svcs $1,112.50 38650 2/14/2008 United Pipe & Supply $1,695.42 1 1/2 inch water meters 4 total $1,695.42 38651 2/14/2008 Unum Life Insurance $118.10 Retiree life insurance for Feb 08 $118.10 38652 2/14/2008 Usa Bluebook Inc $831.60 Supplies for Lab $780.53 Supplies for Lab $51.07 38653 2/14/2008 Vance Odell $1,673.33 Jan 08 Public Defender Fee $1,673.33 38654 2/14/2008 Verizon Northwest $1,395.49 BAC test line $122.77 BAC test line $57.02 Carnegie phone charges 1/7-2/7/08 $116.32 Carnegie phone charges 1/7-2/7/08 $99.08 CH IS modem line $58.24 CH IS modem line $58.24 CS modem/email $58.24 Engineering 1/19-2/19/08 $436.59 City Council Meeting 123 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount Fax CS 1/19-2/19/08 $6.20 PD Everett line 1/19-2/19/08 $106.16 Pooled lines DSL shop/CH 1/22-2/22/08 $222.74 Water Tele auto dialer $53.89 38655 2/14/2008 Verizon Online $94.85 CH DSL $37.45 CS DSL $37.45 Dial up $19.95 38656 2/14/2008 Voyager $14,087.42 Dec.07 fleet fuel $7,331.13 Fleet Fuel 12/24/07 to 1/23/08 $6,756.29 38657 2/14/2008 W/S Auditor $4,514.62 2006 Audit Costs $4,514.62 38658 2/14/2008 W/S Dept of Printing $124.66 Envelopes with windows $124.66 38659 2/14/2008 W/S Dept of Transportation $1,235.02 Signal maintenance $1,235.02 38660 2/14/2008 W/S Dept. of Revenue $15,127.52 Combined Excise Tax January 08 $20.62 Combined Excise Tax January 08 $1,022.47 Combined Excise Tax January 08 $2,678.10 Combined Excise Tax January 08 $6,453.24 Combined Excise Tax January 08 $36.13 Combined Excise Tax January 08 $15.22 Combined Excise Tax January 08 $4,901.74 38661 2/14/2008 W/S Employment Security Dept. $19,352.59 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement Sep/Oct 07 $19,352.59 38662 2/14/2008 Wa Assoc of Sher and Police $245.00 2008 Dues Chief Turner $245.00 38663 2/14/2008 Wa Assoc. of Bldg. Official $509.75 2006 Code Books & Commentaries $509.75 38664 2/14/2008 WA Dept of Corrections $35.04 Business Cards Perillo $35.04 38665 2/14/2008 Wa Municipal Treasurers Assoc $40.00 2008 Membership dues $40.00 38666 2/14/2008 Wa State Dept. of Ecology $967.25 Stormwater permit $967.25 38667 2/14/2008 Walter C Wagner $1,673.33 Jan 08 Public Defender Fee $1,673.33 38668 2/14/2008 WCI $827.83 December 07 Long distance $94.09 December 07 Long distance $1.32 124 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount December 07 Long distance $76.37 December 07 Long distance $78.36 December 07 Long distance $5.08 December 07 Long distance $4.55 December 07 Long distance $422.15 December 07 Long distance $85.87 December 07 Long distance $19.52 December 07 Long distance $38.97 December 07 Long distance $1.55 38669 2/14/2008 Weed, Graafstra & Benson, Inc $18,876.32 City attorney fee - Jan. litigation $59.50 City attorney fee - Jan. Manager $11,456.82 Jan 08 Prosecution Fees $7,360.00 38670 2/14/2008 WETRC $1,505.00 Basic Electrical class D DeBardi $295.00 Basic Electrical class D Leach $295.00 Basic Electrical class F Schorsch $295.00 Collection system O&M class S Waltz $325.00 Wtr Dist Exam review J Palmer $295.00 Total 2008 Claims $441,175.32 $441,175.32 Total Claims $441,175.32 $441,175.32 I hereby certify that the goods and services charged on the vouchers listed below have been furnished to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that the claims below to be valid and correct. _____________________ City Treasurer WE, the undersigned council members of the City of Snohomish, Washington, do hereby certify that the claims checks 38548 through 38670 in the total of $441,175.32 dated February 14, 2008 are approved for payment on February 19, 2008. _____________________ ____________________ Mayor Councilmember _____________________ ____________________ Councilmember Councilmember City Council Meeting 125 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8a Schedule of Checks For the Check Run February 14, 2008 Checks Issue Vendor / Invoice Check Number Date Invoice Description Amount Amount 126 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b Snohomish City Council Workshop Minutes February 5, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pro-tem Schilaty called the Snohomish City Council joint workshop with the Snohomish School Board to order at 6 p.m., Tuesday, February 5, 2008, in the Snohomish School District Resource Service Center, George Gilbertson Boardroom, 1601 Avenue D, Snohomish, Washington. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Melody Clemans Larry Bauman, City Manager Karen Guzak Danny Weinberg, Support Services Dir. R. C. “Swede” Johnson Tim Heydon, Public Works Director Dean Randall Corbitt Loch, Planning Director Lynn Schilaty, Mayor Pro-tem Torchie Corey, City Clerk Doug Thorndike COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT Randy Hamlin, Mayor SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SCHOOL STAFF PRESENT Jay Hagen, President Betty Robertson, Acting Superintendent Leah Hughes-Anderson Karen Riddle, Business Services Dir. David Johnson Scott Hodgins, Capital Projects Dir. Josh Seek There were eight citizens in attendance. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Bond Election Overview Ms. Robertson gave an update on Superintendent Mester who was doing well while undergoing aggressive treatment for lymphoma. He was now waiting for a stem cell transplant. Boardmember Tom Pendergast was out with eye surgery. A school district information guide for the bond election was provided. The district was in the middle of a 15-year plan to improve facilities. In 2003 the Citizens Facilities Advisory Committee met to review all facilities and develop the long-range plan. The first phase, including construction of a new elementary school and high school, and modernizing Snohomish High School was funded with the 2004 bond. A second citizens group was formed in 2007 to determine whether the plan was still appropriate. The new group recognized there was not enough money from the 2004 bond to finish the high school project, due to the sharp escalation of construction costs, but the task had begun, including new tennis courts and a better entrance from Avenue D. The three-story, 28 classroom building would be finished next fall. Other SHS projects would City Council Meeting 127 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b be part of phase II with the remaining funding needs added to the list of projects in the 2008 bond. Also included in phase II was the modernization and expansion of Valley View Middle School and an expansion at Centennial Middle School. Emerson Elementary School students had been going to Valley View and then back to SHS. However Valley View students would move on to Glacier Peak High School next fall. Emerson students would be shifted to Centennial since Emerson Elementary remained within the district boundary for Snohomish High School. Ms. Riddle discussed tax impacts of the bond measure. The tax rate has dropped over the past several years due to growth in assessed value. The new bond measure rate would be in the range of $2.50 per $ 1,000 assessed value. The bus levy would be finished so the tax rate should stay level. Councilmember Johnson asked if the 2007 citizen group was aware of the Fire District 4 levy which would impact tax payers this year. The group was not aware of the increase in City utility rates. Were taxpayers going to be willing to open their pocketbooks? Ms. Riddle said those topics were not items of discussion with the group. They had concentrated on the 15-year plan. Ms. Robertson said one question dealt with the four phases of the original plan. Having only half the funds for the SHS modernization was critical. Knowing the tax rate would not increase made the group think it was doable. Competition was always a reality for the voters but it did not change the need for the various projects. The reality was the longer the projects waited, the more construction would cost. b. Snohomish High School Modernization Mr. Hodgins said the projects were on schedule. The modernization had been challenged with balancing the scope and dollars since the money no longer paid for the entire project. Phase I work was completed last summer with the tennis courts and access to where the contractor would stage the next segment. New construction was now visible along Seventh Street. The new classroom building had a completion date of mid-October 2008. The new high school would open in September 2008 so population would decrease at SHS during the transition period. Once students were transferred into the new classrooms, modernization of the existing structures would begin. This would include renovation of Building A, the gym, and commons area. Additional work would include parking improvements, finishing a bus loop, and visitor drop-off. The intent was to move as much traffic onto the site and off the street as possible. With the new high school the number of drivers to the campus would decrease while parking availability would increase. 128 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b The bond would provide funding for construction of a new library media center and performing arts center, and demolition of Building B. Construction would start in January 2009 and be completed by summer 2010. The original goal was to finish the entire scope by 2011. Councilmember Guzak was pleased with the architectural design and mapping when the development was presented to the Design Review Board. Mr. Hodgins said there were some outstanding issues with the City such as completion of the fire loop on Seventh Street. The design was in place and had been approved by the City Engineer. There was also an issue with the amount of stormwater leaving the site. A tentative agreement had been reached to separate sewer from the stormwater line that will leave the campus on Fifth Street and run to Second Street. A third issue regarded additional safety on Avenue D with a pedestrian crossing at Sixth Street. Councilmember Johnson asked about the new detention pond. Cemetery Creek head- waters were at the stadium. He confirmed the plan would be approved. Since the high school was going to cover four grades, was there enough gym space for example for all the athletic teams? Mr. Hodgins said Athletics Advisor Mark Albertine was looking at the timing for all the sports. The renovations to the gym would be minor and the facilities would remain open. It had been confirmed with the state that the auxiliary gym in Building B could remain in use until they were ready to take it down. The new high school would also help with the broader picture. c. Disposition of Existing Hal Moe Pool Property Ms. Riddle said the district had not currently made any plans for the property. They needed to keep it until the pool vacation plans were finalized. The School Board would be part of the decision. The facility had not been appraised yet. There had been two phone calls from small businesses potentially interested but none she would consider serious buyers. The City was also interested in the property but not the pool. Councilmember Clemans noted the property had been in the public domain for a long time. The Council and Board could work together to find a way to return the property to the public. It was a great opportunity to turn it into a park along the Centennial Trail which would restore the whole site to its original intent. Ms. Robertson confirmed other sites for a pool were being explored. The community wanted a bigger pool which would not fit at that location. Competitive events needed a bigger site but would generate revenue which was needed to cover operational costs. The district would be wise to hold on to it for now. Councilmember Guzak asked about a pool complex as part of a possible community center. It could be built at the Snohomish Freshman Campus. City Council Meeting 129 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b Ms. Riddle said the only concern about the SFC was that it was not part of the greater downtown Snohomish area. According to the YMCA, recreation facilities should be more visible. Citizens had also asked about the water table and flooding potential at the freshman campus. Councilmember Clemans asked what was to happen to the SFC. Ms. Robertson said the SFC was to be a transition center initially to house students affected by school construction projects. This was the last year for freshmen to attend SFC because next year they would attend the two four-year high schools. Councilmember Johnson asked if the SFC would be demolished in a future phase. Ms. Robertson said another citizen group would be formed in 2011 before requesting the 2012 bond and the SFC future would be decided then. An elementary school might be constructed there. Councilmember Johnson said there was a 20-year window so there would be state matching funds again. d. Planning for Potential UGA Expansion Mr. Bauman said the City was a co-applicant with a developer in a proposed expansion of the City’s urban growth area north of US 2. It was a 350-acre site. Land uses were not yet determined. The proposal was in the environmental impact statement stage and a lot of information was being submitted to the county as part of that. There was a conflict with Lake Stevens which had also applied for an expansion of their UGA into the same area. These were overlapping applications that would need to be adjusted if one or the other was approved. The outcome was unknown until the County Council made a decision. If approved, the school district would be impacted with the new territory. The City hoped to be determining land uses in the next month or so. A school might be required in the area. The City would be happy to make a presentation to the Board and bring the developer who had done a lot of analytical work on the project. Ms. Robertson agreed the expansion would have a huge impact on the north end of town in terms of housing children. The elementary schools were full now. The request was #13 on the county comprehensive plan docket. The County Council was scheduled to make a decision in spring 2009. It was a political decision ultimately but large amounts of factual information were being gathered for a logical decision also. Part of the discussion was who could serve the area best with utilities and other infrastructure. 130 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b The County Council would have to determine the natural affiliation of people in the area also, as to which jurisdiction they wanted to be in. e. Freshman Campus Plans – included above with Hal Moe Pool discussion f. Fiber Optic Project Update Ms. Hodgins said two schools were online now and the plan was to include all the schools eventually. The intent was to increase band width to improve data and voice communications, as well as stream video. They were able to work with the City and dedicated a line to the City to connect various facilities. It was a community project. One advantage was it would be cheaper to run their own system rather than buy those services from a vendor. The District would see real savings in the cost of service. There was 57 miles of fiber, 30% of which was underground. The challenge had been to get the various permits which had taken longer than implementing the project. Verizon installed it after a public bid process where three proposals were received. The District may use Verizon to provide the service but it was not a requirement. The District phone service needed to be replaced also. As each school was put online, they would be able to transmit data. The system would provide band width for a long time. There would be media servers at each school location and storage data at the Resource Service Center which was the hub of the system. Mayor Pro-tem Schilaty asked about the City’s Emergency Operation Center. Mr. Bauman said the City was included to piggy-back on the school district system. The cost was higher than anticipated so the highest priority was the EOC. It was important to make sure the EOC could connect to data at City Hall and provide functional phones. A full report would be brought to the Council at a future date. Councilmember Johnson asked who would maintain the system. Mr. Hodgins said the initial contract provided a year’s coverage to cover damage of poles for example. They would talk with Verizon but were also writing up a proposal for long- term services right now. Mr. Bauman asked if the District would consider a resolution in support of the UGA expansion application. It was agreed to discuss that after the City made a presentation on the subject to the School Board. Councilmember Guzak handed out information regarding the KRKO radio towers. Councilmember Johnson asked about the funding shortfall at Glacier Peak High School. The handout stated that funds had not been borrowed from the SHS allocation. City Council Meeting 131 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b President Hagan said the project was still within the amount projected, as long as state matching funds were received. There was still $63 million for the SHS modernization. Ms. Riddle indicated that the interest earned and higher-than-anticipated state matching funds received for Little Cedars Elementary School and Glacier Peak were used on the new construction. Ms. Robertson said the reasoning was that students could not be housed in partially completed buildings. 3. ADJOURN at 6:50 p.m. APPROVED this 19th day of February 2008 CITY OF SNOHOMISH ATTEST: __________________________ ______________________________ Randy Hamlin, Mayor Torchie Corey, City Clerk 132 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b Snohomish City Council Meeting Minutes February 5, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Pro-tem Schilaty called the Snohomish City Council meeting to order at 7 p.m., Tuesday, February 5, 2008, in the Snohomish School District Resource Service Center, George Gilbertson Boardroom, 1601 Avenue D, Snohomish, Washington. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Melody Clemans Larry Bauman, City Manager Karen Guzak Grant Weed, City Attorney R. C. “Swede” Johnson Danny Weinberg, Support Services Dir. Dean Randall Tim Heydon, Public Works Director Lynn Schilaty, Mayor Pro-tem Corbitt Loch, Planning Director Doug Thorndike John Turner, Police Chief Torchie Corey, City Clerk COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT Owen Dennison, Senior Planner Randy Hamlin, Mayor MOTION by Randall, second by Guzak, to excuse Mayor Hamlin. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). There were forty citizens in attendance. 2. APPROVE AGENDA contents and order Action Item 6c was added to pass Resolution 1194 in support of federal and state funding requests for the wastewater treatment plant. The word “interim” was removed from Consent Item 7d regarding City Engineer services. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS on items not on the Agenda Morgan Davis, 206 Avenue I, commended Councilmember Johnson for voting against the approval of utility rate option D1 at the last meeting. Councilmember Johnson also said he would introduce a proposal to eliminate the 6% utility tax which went into the General Fund and not into the utility budget. Please press for the full repeal of the 6% utility tax. At the January 2nd meeting, Councilmember Thorndike said it was unfair to compare Snohomish’s utility rates with Everett’s rates. On January 23rd a utility letter was received comparing the City’s utility costs with Duvall. Duvall had the highest utility rates in the state because it had to replace its whole wastewater treatment plant two years ago. Duvall’s population was half that of the City and that was also a dishonest comparison. There was a recent Seattle Times guest editorial written by Ted Milburn who stated the City’s utility problem was not the fault of fish or environmentalists but the fault of City government. The problem was also due to mismanagement and dishonest information disseminated to the public and press. Angela Day, 11804 Springhetti Road, came to talk about the proposed construction of radio towers in the valley. She was concerned about the potential health effects to citizens if the towers were built. While there was not scientific consensus on the issue a significant number of studies showed there was some cause for concern. The exact risk could not be estimated. However as public policy makers, the Council was to manage risks. They should evaluate if City Council Meeting 133 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b there would be any benefits if the towers were constructed and what the potential risks were. While the depth of the risk was unknown, the consequences were high. The people affected not only had minor health issues but studies showed twice the incidence of leukemia in an area up to six kilometers away. That would include the City to just past the high school. She encouraged the Council to make their concerns known to the County Council, hearing exam- iner and Federal Communications Commission which had not approved the construction. Kristin Kelly, 1429 Avenue D #198, was the county Program Director for Futurewise and the Smart Growth Director for Pilchuck Audubon Society. She spent a great deal of time analyzing regulations and policies to help educate and advocate for good land use planning that would best protect forests, farm land and water quality for the future needs of people and wildlife. The society had opposed the tower construction from the beginning. Studies had shown that all large towers were hazards for birds and caused deaths upon impact. Many studies were done on small song birds which could easily maneuver in flight. Large numbers of water fowl wintered at Shadow Lake near the planned towers site. The swans had 7-8 foot wing spans and weighed thirty pounds on average. Swans were not very maneuverable and could not dart around like small birds. There was evidence that electromagnetic fields from towers could also impact the birds. There was great economic potential for the City through the birding society. Birders came to the area and no doubt also stopped in town for other needs. The Audubon Society wanted to partner with the City to help promote birding in the area. The towers would not be a good addition to birding, in addition to the other impacts. Once some towers were in, the permitting of more towers would occur. The FCC allowed for and encouraged towers to group together. Lee Bennett, 13501 Kenwanda Drive, was president of the Citizens to Preserve the Upper Snohomish River Valley. He lived outside the City limits but the City was where he came to shop and dine. He had been concerned about the proposed construction for a number of years. There were health effects coming to light that were unknown five years ago when the issue first went to the hearing examiner and County Council. The radio towers threatened the birds, the rural atmosphere of the county and many of the values that brought people to the City. Please take the matter very seriously. Jeff Bongard, 4618 Tom Marks Road, was a property owner in the proposed urban growth area expansion request overlapped by both Lake Stevens and Snohomish. He did not want development to occur in the area but was resigned to the fact that it would occur. He had good knowledge of what the City had in mind for development based on studies that had been made public over the past year. Last December City staff met with Joywood residents to discuss the proposed expansion. It was a very positive meeting. The City indicated it was moving forward with plans for expansion in his area and he was anxious to see those plans. Joywood property owners had formed an association and he was elected Information Officer. Matt Shaeffer, 102 Stone Ridge Drive, was elected a Joywood spokesperson and was here on behalf of the Joywood association. His family had lived in the Joywood area for forty years and his parents still lived there. The whole community identified with Snohomish, attended Snohomish schools, shopped in town, and that was why he lived in the City now. Lake Stevens had taken a pro-active approach in initiating public meetings and contracting for a study of land uses and growth. The Snohomish Planning Commission and City Council had put a lot of effort into coming up with ideas for the UGA expansion but it was time the City took the next step. There was a lot of opposition from the environmentalists, residents and anti-growth community in the early 1990’s when the City started looking at the Bickford Corridor. Then the Council and Planning Commission took the initiative to form a citizen’s advisory committee to study the area, the needs of the City, and the community, to see what 134 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b would impact the area residents to a great degree. Many months were spent getting public opinion and collectively putting together a plan and proposal the City ultimately adopted in the comprehensive plan. The City was now about to reap the benefits of that plan with the annexation and Snohomish Station. He asked the Council to work in partnership with the Joywood community and move forward with the City’s plan. Coby Dilling, 4709 Tom Marks Road, was invited yesterday to work with Lake Stevens Planning Director Becky Ableman to master plan the area impacted by both proposals. The invitation to work with that staff, officials, and consultants showed that Lake Stevens was extremely interested in the area. As the chairman of the Joywood association, he asked the Council to afford the same opportunity to the residents by forming a citizen’s advisory group because residents were extremely concerned about the process. Joywood represented 48.5% of the assessed value of the area. If the process was going to move forward, the SR 9/US 2 LLC and Joywood residents needed to dialogue along with the Council and staff. There was the opportunity to bring appropriate growth and building to the county in the right way, with all parties involved. Members of the environmental community should also be invited. He handed out a packet of information Lake Stevens was using and asked the City to put together a similar packet to get the community involved in the process. Mike Reid, SR 9/US 2 LLC, represented the City’s co-applicant in the proposed expansion of the City’s UGA. They along with City staff had been engaged in the process for two years to carefully study and determine the suitability of the area for the expansion. His pledge at the start of the process was to be deliberate and careful, with the intent of developing a quality community. Now that the environmental impact statement was in process, it was time to commence a community outreach to work with the neighbors. They differed from the other community’s process in that they as property owners had asked to be part of the Snohomish community, as opposed to a government demanding that it take an area without the people’s consent. Under New Business this evening the Council would be asked to consider a proposed resolution which would form a solid foundation in determining what the community should be and how it should be designed. It created a formal invitation to the neighbors to help scope and craft the community outreach process. It was hoped a workshop could be scheduled for March 4th for the presentation of a game plan and to determine together how to bring a new neighborhood into Snohomish. Leonard Klein, 14764 179th Avenue, Monroe, represented both the Snohomish Seventh Day Adventist Church and Charlie Barber whose house was at 816 Baird Avenue. Mr. Barber was a member of the church congregation. Charlie’s mother lived in Merry Haven Health Care Center. The Baird property was in poor condition now and had been neglected, due to lack of funds. The house was considered uninhabitable by the City building inspector and different builders. However it was the only place Charlie had. The family had lived there since 1950. The church wanted to build a new house for Charlie, including an apart- ment to help share expenses. He asked the Council to waive the building permit fees. 4. NEW EMPLOYEE INTRODUCTIONS Chief Turner introduced new civilian Police Department employees Property Technician Julie Kostelecky and Community Service Officer Dawn Davis. Judge Patricia Lyons gave the oath of office to new Police officers Carl Whalen, Christopher Erbe and Ryan Boyer. City Council Meeting 135 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Senior Multifamily Residential Development Tonight’s ordinance would amend the way the density allowance for senior housing projects was applied. Currently senior housing projects located within the high density residential designation and within an overlay area bounded by Lincoln Avenue, Wood Street, Second Street, and the Pilchuck River were eligible for a density of thirty units per acre. There was no income criterion for the density allowance and the age threshold for senior housing was not currently defined. As proposed by the Planning Commission, the City would no longer use an overlay to identify eligible properties. Instead the density allowance would be applied to the multi- family, commercial, and mixed use designations. Higher densities for senior housing would be one-third more than the standard density for all applicable designations except high-density residential which would maintain the existing maximum of thirty units per acre, consistent with the comprehensive plan policies. The density allowance would change from a general benefit to all senior housing projects to those serving low-income senior households. The proposed regulations required that eligible projects limit occupancy to households with incomes at or less than 50% of the area median adjusted for household size. The Planning Commission felt the density allowance should be used to encourage development that served a public purpose or need. Senior households would be defined as those with one or more persons aged 62 or older and one other person to whom the age restriction did not apply. The definition of senior as one aged 62 or older was based on past practice and was consistent with other sections of the code which included a threshold for senior housing. Staff researched the origin of setting the age at 62 but found nothing in the record about the selection of that number. Age 62 only represented an early retirement age and was somewhat arbitrary. The Council was free to define ‘senior’ for this portion of the code without detriment to other sections. Consistency with other definitions wasn’t necessary. Mr. Weed explained that the Federal Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination against families but contained an exemption allowing for senior housing restrictions that met the definition of housing for older persons. The proposed incentive for low-income housing density contained a hybrid age-based restriction between ages 55 and 62 provisions in the Fair Housing Act. However, any deviation from the FHA required substantiation of a strong rational basis for doing so, showing there was the need to deviate from federal provisions. If there was not evidence to deviate, it was probably safer to adopt the federal FHA regulation definitions. There was a provision allowing all residents to be aged 62 or older, or one person who was 55 with no restriction on the other members. At least one federal Court of Appeals decision upheld the hybrid so it had been done successfully in other jurisdictions. Citizens’ comments: Morgan Davis, 206 Avenue I, had spoken about the injustice to the working poor. A lot of seniors in their 50’s worked and did not get Social Security until they were 62. The new utility rates would heavily impact the working poor and were an emergency that the City could justify as Mr. Weed said. The minimum age should be set at 50 which would benefit the working poor. Most of the working poor lived in multi-family housing. There were only forty or fifty who were fortunate enough to own their homes who qualified for 136 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b the utility discount. Facing a $300 utility bill was an emergency for the working poor. Bob Hart, 406 Wood Street, had a few concerns about the proposed ordinance. The first issue regarded the age criteria. At a national seminar he attended, the predominant age was 55. This policy would provide a benefit to a group of citizens and tax payers so as many people as possible should be eligible for the benefit. On the parking issue, it was more likely both spouses would be alive and have cars at the younger age. Parking was the only issue that could change between ages 55 and 62. He proposed different space requirements based on different age criteria which would provide flexibility and fairness. He did not understand why the Planning Commission and staff equated senior density to affordable or low-income. Was there separate zoning for ‘destitute business park’ or ‘impoverished retail’? The problem was the City wanted to help low-income seniors but did not want to spend taxpayer money to do it so the proposed solution was to get the developer to subsidize it. More density would mean spreading the land cost over more units so the final cost per unit was less, and the savings would be passed on to the buyer or renter. Unfortunately that was not the case for four reasons: (1) land was only a small component of the total cost; (2) there were certain costs unique to senior housing that offset the potential benefit such as elevators, more security, common areas, and handicap provisions. There would still be traffic and parks mitigation, and sewer and water connection fees based on the number of units. (3) Low income involved dealing with more bureaucracy. The income or net worth of the buyer would have to be proven. (4) How could the builder’s profit be controlled or limited? It could be hoped some of the profit would be passed on but it could not be controlled. Senior housing as a general concept was a great idea. There was a large potential market for seniors, from the widow wanting to downsize to the empty-nesters who wanted less upkeep and more fun in life. The density was a great idea for seniors, providing small communities within the greater community of the City, and it met a goal of strategic planning by increasing vitality. Ray Cook, 7802 Riverview Road, was president of the Snohomish Affordable Housing Group. They had struggled in the past few years to find affordable land on which to build more units. This ordinance would benefit them in attaining their goal of 100 units. It appeared they would meet their goal. There was a huge demand for affordable housing. The median income criteria were quite restrictive. The ordinance said the City had the right to enforce the eligibility criteria. How was that going to be done? Mr. Davis said the Planning Commission had approved the provisions for low-income seniors for multi-family housing. How could a low-income senior buy one of Mr. Hart’s $300,000 condos? There was a crying need for multi-family housing which was rentals and not condos. Stick with the low-income criteria. Citizens’ comments - closed Councilmember Clemans asked for clarification on the low-income threshold. Mr. Dennison said it was the HUD threshold determined for the Seattle-Bellevue- Everett metropolitan statistical area. It was broken down by household size. Fifty percent of the median income in 2007 for a family of two was $31,150 per year. Councilmember Guzak had no concern about setting the standard at age 55 for seniors. Regarding Mr. Hart’s proposed different parking ratios based on resident age, the parking regulations seemed clear and she was not inclined to make any changes at this time. City Council Meeting 137 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b Councilmember Randall also leaned toward age 55 as the standard and allowing different ages for additional people in the household. Age 62 was very restrictive. The rest of the ordinance should be left as written. Councilmember Thorndike asked if the intent was to provide an increased number of units in a project for the purpose of those units being occupied by people of a certain minimum age and who had a relatively low income. Mr. Dennison confirmed it was to provide an incentive to create more housing to accommodate senior citizens with low incomes. Mr. Loch said right now increased density was allowed for senior housing development for age 62 seniors with no income limit. The change was adding the income limit making it only available to seniors with low income. Councilmember Thorndike confirmed this would not address accumulated wealth, such as if someone had equity from another place but did not have a strong income flow. It did not require people to be destitute to occupy a unit, whether purchased or rented. Councilmember Johnson knew Mr. Cook had worked with the affordable-housing group for years. The HUD rate currently was $31,150. Should that figure be changed, based on Mr. Cook’s experience? What was low income in Snohomish? Mr. Cook confirmed $31,150 was definitely low-income for a family of two. The figure was $27,000 for a single person. The figure could be raised which would help signifi- cantly. He was not sure how it was going to be enforced, especially when it was a private entity project such as Mr. Hart would build. How would the City ensure the project would continue to be low-income? The age limit of 55 would significantly help fill the units and increase demand for low-income housing. Councilmember Johnson asked if cottage housing would fit in with this proposal. Mr. Cook did not think it would fit since it would be hard to acquire the land with prices escalating. A private entity would have a tough time meeting the criteria and building the units. The affordable-housing group had struggled to find affordable land that would be cost effective for the project. The group rented to those at 60% of the median income. Their proposed project to be built on City property could only be successful because of the significant lease rates. The group could not purchase property at the going rate and build affordable low-income senior housing. Councilmember Guzak asked how the group enforced income requirements for the affordable-housing projects. Mr. Cook said the maximum time a resident could stay in a unit was two years, except seniors who were exempt. Income levels were reviewed each year. Their units were rentals so it was easy to enforce. The resident met the criteria and was allowed to continue the lease, or was asked to leave. Mayor Pro-tem Shilaty verified the main concerns were the age limit and enforcement of income levels. MOTION by Guzak, second by Clemans, that the City Council adopt Ordinance 2143 138 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b with a change of the minimum age from 62 to 55, and keep the 50% of Seattle-Bellevue- Everett income level for a family of two. MOTION by Johnson, second by Randall, to amend the motion to raise the HUD low- income level to 60% of the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett index. Councilmember Guzak would not vote for the amendment for two reasons. 50% of median income for the Seattle area was higher than the City’s so by adopting the Seattle index as the baseline, the people that qualified in Snohomish were actually getting a higher allowance. By lowering the age to 55, a larger population was being served with more people eligible for the projects which met the City’s goal. Councilmember Clemans said the median income was also discussed as part of the utility rate deliberation. Ways to adjust the income rate were going to be discussed at a future meeting. They should consider the entire picture, looking at the utility rate structure and low-income housing, to determine whether they wanted to adjust the median income. Councilmember Guzak wanted to look at analysis of how the 50% or 60% rates would impact the City. Was there census data to support the number of people impacted? She would prefer that it be a future agenda item to allow for further study. Councilmember Johnson said that the City had some of the highest housing expenses in the county. The cost of housing in Snohomish was unbelievable compared to other areas in the region. With the utility rates and the proposed school bond, there were costs that were forcing people out of town. He supported raising the rate to 60%. Councilmember Schilaty confirmed the Council had discretion to change both the age and income level. Mr. Weed said there was latitude in the law to deviate to a lower age threshold such as 55 if the Council was satisfied there was evidence in the record to support the change. The Council also had discretion regarding the income level. VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: The amended motion to increase the income level to 60% of HUD passed (4-2) with Clemans and Guzak voting nay. Mr. Weed confirmed the original motion to be voted on next was to approve the ordinance in its entirety but with a revision for the age threshold from age 62 to 55. Councilmember Thorndike observed that what they were about to do was establish screening criteria for residents regarding age and money which had nothing to do with what a developer might charge for purchase or rent. This was not an affordable-housing ordinance. It was restricting who could live in a house. If someone adopted the altruistic goal to rent to people of a certain age or income, then they had the opportunity to put more units on the market at whatever price they could get. This was not saying rent must be limited to a percentage of income. This was not rent control but was tenant control. If the goal was to restrict the eligible purchasers or renters, that was what the ordinance would probably do. Mr. Weed said the only provision in the currently proposed ordinance for enforcement of the restriction was a covenant that ran with the land and title of the property which must be recorded to reflect a commitment to low-income and age requirements. The covenant City Council Meeting 139 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b was a contract among residents of the facility. It was questionable whether the City had authority to enforce the covenant. The City might have other enforcement rights under the zoning code, but the essential restriction went against the title to the property. There would be people in the community that might be affected by it who would have authority to enforce whether it was followed. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion passed (5-1) with Thorndike voting nay. b. Street Vacation for a Portion of Union Avenue Right-of-Way Tonight’s hearing was to consider vacating a portion of Union Avenue in the area south of First Street. The applicant owned the property at 901 First Street and the request was for vacation along the east side of that property. Union Avenue south of First Street was originally 80 feet wide. Normal street rights-of-way were usually 60 feet wide. There was a vacation on the other side of the same right-of-way about 18 months ago when the Council vacated a seven foot portion. This would also be a seven foot vacation. The reasons for both of the vacations were similar. These were older buildings in the downtown area and required stairways that jutted out into the right-of-way. Staff was recommending the request be granted. There would still be 66 feet remaining which could accommodate a proposed parking structure in the area. The vacation would cover 840 square feet. The appraisal value from the first vacation was used to determine the value of this vacation. The only utility affected was a storm drain in the vacated portion near the south end of the property but it would not cause harm for the proposed project at 901 First Street. Easements would need to be written to cover that utility. The only difference from the previous request was that the Council decided to sell the first right-of-way for half the value. The amount listed for this vacation was for the full value of the property. Mr. Weed pointed out section 5 of the ordinance which was a provision reserving an easement to the City within the vacated area for utilities. Before the vacation could become final and recorded, the property owner and the City had to agree on the easement. Citizens’ comments: Joshua Scott, Mosaic Architecture, said the vacation would enable the property owner to renovate an important historic building downtown. The needs of the property were identical to the vacation approved last year. His client had been operating under the assumption that the compensation required would be the same for both properties at half the appraised value. This understanding came from a May 9th pre-application conference when they had been made aware of a change. However it was presented as a different application process only and not a change in compensation computation. There was a November 9th e-mail from City Engineer Tom Hansen stating that one-half the appraised value was usually required for compensation. Mr. Scott stated in the December 12th letter included in the agenda packet that half the appraised value at $12.50 per square foot was acceptable to his client. Then a couple weeks ago he received another e-mail from the City Engineer stating the full appraised value would be required. Mr. Heydon said terms were the same as proposed for Mr. Swoboda but it was Council’s prerogative to change the amount as they saw fit. There were some issues with the appraisal as pointed out by Mr. Swoboda who actually asked to be given the property in exchange for improving the area. The appraiser’s letter noted the value was based on the assumption there were no material encumbrances such as easements which would reduce the value of the property 140 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b due to the effect of actual property use. This would not be an issue if his client was paying half the appraised value. However it was an issue if the full appraisal value was charged and an easement was required on the southern portion. One goal noted in the City’s strategic plan was to support downtown revitalization and redevelopment. Legally assisting a property owner downtown with the renewal of his building was well within the scope of that goal and was therefore in the City’s best interest. That was easily defendable as a finding in granting a reduction of the full appraised amount, especially in light of other information presented. Councilmember Johnson confirmed the date Mr. Scott received notification that half compensation was not acceptable was January 23rd. Would the client go ahead if the fee was at appraised value rather than half as Mr. Swoboda paid, and would the client be willing to sign the appropriate document regarding the easement? Mr. Scott said his client was in the audience and could answer that question. Mayor Pro-tem Schilaty verified that Mr. Scott was under the assumption the whole time he was dealing with the City that the cost would be half the appraised value of the portion of land being vacated. Mr. Scott said the e-mail was confirmation of previous conversations. On November 9th agreement was reached on the scope of the vacation. He had asked for a specific list of what else was required by the City. Mr. Hansen requested confirmation that the former appraisal was acceptable, that one half the value was $12.50 per square foot, and that one half the appraised value was what was usually requested for compensation. The issue was scheduled for public hearing before Mr. Scott was notified by e-mail that the value previously quoted was not the value that was going to be placed on the ordinance. It was not until Mr. Scott read the agenda staff report that he realized there was a change in the compensation requirement. There was room in the code to grant the reduction and they were prepared to pay half the appraised value. Councilmember Clemans asked what the current code said. Mr. Scott read SMC 12.48.040 regarding compensation. Point C said compensation could be waived or reduced when the City initiated the vacation, or the Council deemed it to be in the best interest of the City based on listed criteria. Point C was the point added in April they had not been aware of and apparently neither was staff in November. Councilmember Guzak asked Mr. Scott to review the proposed project for the land. Mr. Scott said the current situation was an apartment upstairs, two shops on the main floor and a vacant lower floor of the building. The lower floor was marginally habitable. His client proposed to restore the lower floor to a leasable state, restore the main floor so there were three full spaces to lease, and restore the upper floor with a small addition that would allow two dwelling units. Access on the east side of the property was currently owned by the City and could not be improved until the property owner had control of the land. There would be new public walkways along the side of the building. The historic building would be preserved. These would be offices and residential condos providing another opportunity for property ownership of smaller spaces which was unique to the downtown. It was a beneficial project to the City. Downtown was full of conditions such as this with structures existing across property lines. Had Union Avenue been developed, the property being discussed would have been a sidewalk typically installed by the City Council Meeting 141 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b developer. It was a sidewalk the developer would like to put in but was being forced to purchase the property as well. It seemed only fair to be consistent with the last finding, at half the appraised value. Morgan Davis, 206 Avenue I, asked that the law be applied equally. In 1990 there was a triangle ‘no man’s land’ the City did not even own but forced him to buy at the full appraised price. His project was beneficial to the City as well. The Council should apply the ordinance equally to everyone and the full appraised value should be charged. Ray Cook, 7802 Riverview Road, was glad to hear that Mr. Mardini was going to do the project. Mr. Cook had read the appraisal report which explicitly stated if there were any easements that affected the property, the value was not valid. Mr. Cook did opinions of value and was called by appraisers for comparable sales. The first thing he did was to find a ‘like kind’ sale and there was an obvious ‘like kind’ sale 60 feet away which was the same seven foot vacation for half the value. That was an exact ‘like kind’ sale. Tom Hamilton, 607 B Pearl Street, said the Council history in vacations was to request an amount of 50% value. It would be appropriate to stay with that, particularly since the project was brought up at the same time as the previous vacation. Mike Reid, 40 Lake Bellevue Suite 100, Bellevue, was a land developer and a property investor. After listening to the opinions, he would concur with Mr. Scott. Perhaps under different rules at a different time the City had a different policy. But if there was a recent comparable across the street, and 50% compensation was the City’s recent policy, it was a reasonable conclusion. Citizens’ comments - closed Councilmember Randall asked Mr. Weed if there was any legal way in the code to go with one-half value. Mr. Weed said the revised ordinance currently in effect required 100% of appraised value. He did not have the code in front of him but thought there was language allowing the Council to make an adjustment under 100% of the appraised value if certain criteria were met. The hearing could be continued to the next meeting so staff could contact the appraiser to determine what the appraised value would be since the City was requiring reservation of an easement, and secondly, evaluate whether the applicant met any of the code criteria that would allow adjusting the amount of compensation. MOTION by Randall, second by Johnson, that the City Council continue the hearing to the next Council meeting in two weeks. Councilmember Johnson asked staff to contact the applicant to find out if he would be willing to continue with the process if the utility easement was required. If the City was going to require an easement and full compensation, the issue may be null and void. Councilmember Guzak thought there was enough information to make a decision tonight. The code that was read seemed to indicate the Council had the right to change the full compensation requirement. Mr. Weed said there were certain criteria in the ordinance which would have to be met for the Council to make an adjustment. 142 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b Mayor Pro-tem Schilaty said the Council needed to be sure they were meeting the necessary requirements. Councilmember Johnson asked, if the recommendation came back that the Council did not have the right to waive 50% to be consistent with the Swoboda vacation, could a majority of the Council deviate and waive the requirement. Mr. Weed said the Council did not have the authority to go against what its ordinance required without amending the ordinance. There were two ways to make an adjustment. The appraiser could say the value would be less if the easement was required, or the applicant could meet one of the criteria giving the Council discretion to adjust the amount charged, regardless of what the appraiser said. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion passed unanimously (6-0). 6. ACTION ITEMS a. AUTHORIZE Reimbursement Agreement for Waterline Upsizing for Kendall and Denny Additions The primary water mains used within a sub-division to meet code were 8” water mains which usually provided fire hydrant flow and domestic service. When putting together an area water system, there were certain larger water mains used as the system backbone. These were usually 12” or 16” lines that helped not just one developer but a whole area. It was common for water systems to have reimbursable agreements for any oversizing above an 8” water main that a developer installed. There was an existing 6” line on Ludwig Road. It was at the end of the lower pressure zone and was far away from the reservoir at Emerson Elementary School. The pressure was weak and so was flow for fire. There were several sub-divisions proposed for that area and several already existed that were relying on a sub-standard system with insuf- ficient fire flow to meet the Fire Department requirement. When the Kendall sub-division went in, the developer had options. One was to install sprinklers in every house which was expensive. Other options were reviewed that would provide the necessary 1,000 gpm flow to the sub-division and eliminate the need for sprinklers. A win-win solution was reached for the whole area west of SR 9 when the developer offered to install a 12” line from Fifth Street and connect on the other side with a 12” line. The installation costs between an 8” and 12” were about the same for labor. However there was a difference in the cost of the pipe and fittings. This agreement was an analysis of the difference in price of materials between what the developer needed to install versus what the City asked him to put in as a benefit to the water system on the west side of SR 9. Councilmember Johnson confirmed the waterline went from Fifth Street under SR 9 and stopped at the Kendall development and Denny’s Addition. This was all inside the UGA and was the first residential subdivision in that recently annexed area. Would the water line have to be upgraded to go north to Weaver Road and where there would be more development? Mr. Heydon said the line would not have to be upgraded. Another issue in the area was City Council Meeting 143 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b the elevation increased heading north, resulting in less pressure and flow. Department of Health requirements called for a minimum 20 psi when there was fire flow so the City could not go north of the Kendall project. Cross Valley Water District had slightly higher pressure and the City’s north pressure zone was slightly higher than that. There was talk of tying the Cross Valley system into the north pressure zone along Bickford Avenue, which would provide the higher pressures needed. Councilmember Johnson verified the system as installed now would not go north. Mr. Heydon said it would get looped within that area but it would not go farther north than Kendall. There was some additional piping on Second Street to have multiple ties into the area but that was south. That line could supplement some of the 12” section. Councilmember Johnson said that based on his experience with PUD and talks with Cross Valley, when an applicant made a request, it was usually the applicant’s respon- sibility to upgrade. How long had the City been paying a pro rata share? It was like mitigation fees. Mr. Heydon said the City had been doing it since the late 1980’s. He had been working in water utilities for years, starting at Boulder, Colorado, in the 1970’s where they did the exact same program. It was a very common practice. Councilmember Johnson asked that in the future all the expenses regarding the materials less the pro rata share be included in the packet. Costing was not obvious to a layman. Councilmember Guzak had checked with Mr. Heydon that this was fair compensation for the cost of material upgrades from 8” to 12” pipe. MOTION by Guzak, second by Randall, that the City Council approve the agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute the water utility reimbursement upsizing agreement with Chase Properties LLC, and take any steps necessary to implement the agreement. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). Recess at 9:07 Reconvene at 9:12 b. Policies for Downtown Wayfinder Signs and Kiosks – PASS Resolution 1192 New wayfinder signs and kiosks would be installed in about a month, and guidelines and policies for administration were needed. Staff wanted to start marketing the sign space to local businesses, lease the signs, and manage the kiosks in a manner acceptable to the Council. The policies had been reviewed by the City Attorney and Historic Downtown Snohomish. The City Manager would have authority to adjust for unanticipated minor day-to-day issues but larger changes would be brought back to the Council for review. MOTION by Clemans, second by Guzak, that the City Council pass Resolution 1192 containing wayfinder sign and kiosk rules, policies and procedures. Councilmember Johnson asked how citizens would be notified that sandwich boards had to be removed when the wayfinder signs went up. That was part of the sign ordinance. Mr. Loch would reconfirm with the Council that that was their preference. If it was 144 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b decided to proceed with enforcement, there would be public information, outreach, and collaboration with the Chamber and HDS to make sure everyone was aware the process would begin. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion passed unanimously (6-0). c. SUPPORT Federal and State Funding Request for the Wastewater System Improvements – PASS Resolution 1194 (added at beginning of meeting) Mayor Hamlin had spoken with Representative Rick Larson regarding the City’s request for funds from the federal State and Tribal Grant program. Representative Larson had suggested that a resolution from the City Council would be helpful in supporting the application as an attachment to the City’s request. The resolution detailed the City’s need and why the project was supported by the City Council. MOTION by Johnson, second by Randall, to pass Resolution 1194 supporting staff efforts to acquire grant funds that would support the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and Combined Sewer Overflow projects. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). 7. CONSENT ITEMS a. AUTHORIZE payment of claim warrants #38397 through #38546 in the amount of $521,302.31, and payroll checks #11460 through #11494 in the amount of $539,442.61 issued since the last regular meeting b. APPROVE the minutes of the regular meeting of January 15, 2008 c. ACCEPT Senior Center Cleanup at 506 Fourth Street d. AUTHORIZE City Manager to Sign Contract for Interim City Engineer Services (amended at beginning of meeting) MOTION by Guzak, second by Clemans, to pass the Consent Agenda. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). 8. OTHER BUSINESS/INFORMATION ITEMS Councilmember Clemans wanted to discuss Resolution 1195 presented by SR 9/US 2 LLC. Councilmember Guzak would like to wait for two weeks, to read through the resolution and get staff feedback. She would like deeper analysis and comment by legal counsel. Mayor Pro-tem Schilaty said a workshop with the residents was being considered for March 4th. Time may be of the essence. Perhaps there should be movement on the issue and get citizen participation in the process. Mr. Bauman said there had been communication to the residents through their appointed representatives that the City intended to develop such a process and incorporate residents in developing an involvement process about preliminary land use designations for the proposed UGA expansion. It was of interest to the area residents to see the Council moving forward in that direction. It would be a positive step but whether timing was critical was the question. City Council Meeting 145 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b Councilmember Guzak was concerned about the other resolutions listed. She did not know what Resolutions 1145 and 1165 contained. How could the Council approve the issue with- out reading the other resolutions? She favored going ahead with incorporating the northern UGA into the Snohomish boundary and meeting with the citizens but did not want to pass a resolution when she did not have the background information. Councilmember Randall agreed that waiting a couple weeks would not be detrimental to the process. He would like to look at it some more. Staff needed to be sure they agreed with the language in the resolution. Councilmember Johnson asked if Mr. Loch had any issues with Resolution 1195. Mr. Loch and Mr. Bauman had an opportunity to make minor edits to the resolution when they saw it today. It was acceptable as written at this time. It was basically the strategy that the City would embark on in this public outreach program. This was a signal to the residents more than staff because Council had already indicated this was their desire. Councilmember Johnson had chastised the Mayor and staff because every time the UGA issue came up, Lake Stevens had beaten the City to the punch. It was time the City took some positive aggressive action. Councilmember Clemans said this resolution told the interested parties that the Council wanted dialogue to start right away. She supported the resolution even though it was a little rushed. It was time to move forward. She was pleased with the work staff and the Council had done in the deliberate efforts to be factual and in a way that made sense for the county. It was now time to make a statement to the residents. Councilmember Randall would support the resolution knowing that Mr. Bauman and Mr. Loch had seen it. Mike Reid, SR 9/US 2 LLC, wanted to address Councilmember Guzak’s concerns. About 18 months ago Resolution 1145 was passed when the City and the LLC group agreed to a detailed work plan. Since that time countless hours and dollars had been spent to ensure that the will of the Council was met. Now it was time to revisit Resolution 1145 to make sure they were on course, to move forward, and bring the neighbors into the process. Mr. Loch said with Resolution 1165 the City agreed to be a co-applicant with the investment group to the county for an amendment to the county comprehensive plan. Coby Dilling, 4709 Tom Marks Road, fully supported the resolution. It was time for the Council to provide direction. Councilmember Johnson’s comments to be proactive with Lake Stevens were appreciated. The residents needed to know the Council supported the process. There would be an opportunity to discuss zoning and development in an open forum. He would be making an independent presentation to County Councilmember Somers in May. The County Council wanted to know what the citizens wanted. It would be difficult for the residents to make that determination unless it was known exactly where Lake Stevens and Snohomish stood on the issues. This was just committing the City and Council to open that dialogue. He did not want to be part of Lake Stevens and this allowed an opportunity to make that known. Morgan Davis, 206 Avenue I, had no personal opinion about whether the City should annex north of US 2. However those people were reading about the City’s outrageous utility rates. 146 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b Who was going to want to annex into Snohomish for a $300 utility bill? He asked again that the 6% utility tax be eliminated. There was plenty of money in the general fund. The soil clean-up at the proposed senior center was only $66,000 and $200,000 was budgeted, so right there was a $135,000 surplus that could compensate for any diminished funding from the tax. Mr. Reid said it was very important that the Council signal, as a co-applicant, to the Joywood community that the City wanted to actively engage them. The Lake Stevens visioning process would begin on Thursday. Mayor Pro-tem Schilaty said from a perception point of view, time did make a difference. Staff had been very involved in the process. This was not just a representation of the LLC group. The City had worked very hard on it also. MOTION by Johnson, second by Clemans, to pass Resolution 1195. The motion passed unanimously (6-0). 9. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson complimented Chief Turner on the officers’ swearing-in ceremony. Secondly, he asked that a resolution be brought back for action removing the 6% utility tax. He was not allowed to amend the tax at the time of increasing the utility rates. Then the Council could debate the issue. Councilmember Guzak was impressed by the speakers regarding the KRKO towers and the potential health impact to citizens. She would draft a letter expressing Council’s concerns to the hearing examiner, FCC and County Council for discussion at the next City Council meeting. Also Councilmembers had a grand time in Olympia meeting with representatives and people in key decision-making positions, although it was disappointing that there was so little money available. The federal government was not in a position to help in the way it used to. She was still hopeful the City could get some funding to help reduce sewer rates. Councilmember Thorndike had been to the AWC Cities Legislative Action Conference in Olympia a couple times. This year they had the advantage of having the City lobbyist work with them, making very efficient use of their time with key people. It was an excellent value, in addition to all the hard work Mr. Pennington had done on the City’s behalf. Secondly, he was not continuing on the Community Transit Board as he had hoped but was an alternate. There were now three cities in the large-city category where there had been two before and those cities each had two seats. The medium-size cities had three seats on the board and the nine smaller cities were now represented by two seats which were filled by Brier Council- member Gipson and Gold Bar Mayor Crystal Hill. Councilmember Clemans also went to Olympia. The lobbyist did a lot of great preparatory work and kept them on schedule. Mr. Bauman’s presentations to the representatives were excellent. It also mattered to have the delegation of four members plus the City Manager. 10. MANAGER’S COMMENTS Mr. Bauman was going to Olympia in the morning to meet with Representative Dunshee and General Lowenberg of the state Department of the Military to discuss the Armory property. He hoped to get a better sense of whether the base realignment and closure project com- bining the Everett and Snohomish armories was on track for them to be off the property by 2011, and to determine the City’s contact at the state to keep track of the project. City Council Meeting 147 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8b As mentioned earlier March 4th was identified as a workshop date with the developer co- applicant for the SR 9/US 2 UGA expansion. He confirmed the Council was agreeable to scheduling the workshop for an update and next-steps discussion on the project and to determine what this year’s projects would be in support of the UGA expansion process. 11. MAYOR’S COMMENTS Mayor Pro-tem Schilaty was honored and privileged to attend the Olympia conference with her fellow Councilmembers. They were in force in their representation. Mr. Bauman led them well. Mayor Pro-tem Schilaty enjoyed seeing Councilmember Thorndike and his wife crowned as King and Queen at the Groundfrog Day celebration. She thanked him for his work on the Community Transit Board and in his continued capacity as an alternate. 12. Adjourn to EXECUTIVE SESSION at 9:42 p.m. to discuss Potential Litigation for fifteen minutes with no action anticipated. 13. Reconvene and ADJOURN at 9:58 p.m. APPROVED this 19th day of February 2008 CITY OF SNOHOMISH ATTEST: __________________________ ______________________________ Randy Hamlin, Mayor Torchie Corey, City Clerk 148 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8c Date: February 19, 2008 To: City Council From: Randy Hamlin, Mayor Subject: Re-Appointment of Christine Wakefield Nichols to the Planning Commission Planning Commission member Christine Wakefield Nichols’s term expires on February 20, 2008. Ms. Wakefield Nichols has expressed a desire to again serve the community in this role. The purpose of this agenda item is to obtain Council’s confirmation of my appointment of Christine Wakefield Nichols to another six-year term on the Planning Commission. I hereby nominate Christine Wakefield Nichols to serve another term as a member of the Planning Commission. Ms. Wakefield Nichols has many years of experience serving on citizen advisory boards relating to land use. Planning Commissioners serve six-year terms. Appointment of individuals to the Planning Commission requires confirmation by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council CONFIRM the nomination by Mayor Hamlin of Christine Wakefield Nichols to a new term at Position 5 of the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENT: Email from Christine Wakefield Nichols City Council Meeting 149 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8c From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:52 am Subject: Planning Commission Dear Mayor Hamlin - I would like to ask to be reappointed to the planning commission for a second term. As background, I was appointed by the Governor and served seven years on the State's Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. Currently I still serve on Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT), the County's Growth Management Advisory Council - an experience which continues to give me a broad overview of important development issues and access to the latest staff information about trends and problems. Right now, the PC is made up of a great group of people with diverse experience and educational backgrounds, all of whom sincerely care about the direction that Snohomish is heading and, all of whom, come to the meetings prepared to participate. It is a well balanced group, and with your consideration I would like to continue to serve. Christine Wakefield Nichols, MSW P.O. Box 1918 Snohomish, WA 98291 360-563-0622 & Fax 425-258-2531 150 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d Date: February 19, 2008 To: City Council From: Andrew M. Sics PE, Project Engineer Subject: Award of a Contract with HWA GeoSciences, Inc. for Sewer Lagoon Cleanup Design Support ______________________________________________________________________________ The purpose of the agenda item is to authorize execution of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Snohomish and HWA GeoSciences, Inc. for support services for the design of the Sewer Lagoon Cleanup in the amount of $48,314. This project is slated to be covered under the 2008 budget. The 2008 budget has $500,000 allocated for design services and construction of this project. The Biosolids/Waste Soil Disposal Area is approximately one acre in size, located on a currently unused area within the City of Snohomish Wastewater Treatment Plant site. This area, formerly part of the original sewer lagoon, has not been used since the treatment plant was rebuilt in 1994. Components of the project include: • Attend meetings with BHC and the City and discuss conceptual design elements of the cleanup project. • Sample shallow site soils and conduct laboratory testing for the purpose of providing a soil cement mix design specification. Testing will be conducted in two to three representative samples that will be composited in the HWA laboratory. Lab mix design includes three batches of five specimens each at different cement contents, unconfined compressive strength on four specimens from each batch, and permeability on one from each batch. Test results will be provided with a summary and recommendations for field mixing, placement, and compaction. • Prepare text sections for bid specifications pertaining to soils and soils cement. • Review preliminary and final project plans and specifications. • Attend meetings with Ecology and the City, as needed. • Advance and sample three soil borings through dike (approx. depth 15’-25’), sample site soils. • Conduct laboratory testing to determine engineering properties of in-situ dike materials. • Conduct stability analysis of dikes during maximum design water level. • Prepare summary report with conclusions regarding berm stability and provide recommendations for remedial action, as appropriate. • Meeting and project management. • Update Sampling and Analysis Plan. • Drill and install two borings/groundwater monitoring wells. • Develop and sample wells. • Collect and analyze groundwater samples. • Reporting. City Council Meeting 151 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the City Manager to sign and execute the Professional Services Agreement with HWA GeoSciences, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $48,314 for Support Services for the Sewer Lagoon Cleanup Design and to take any steps necessary to execute such agreement. ATTACHMENTS: A. Consultant Agreement, Scope, and Fee B. 2008 Budget CIP Form 152 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890 116 UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON 98290 TEL (360) 568-3115 FAX (360) 568-1375 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF SNOHOMISH AND HWA GeoSciences Inc. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into in Snohomish County, Washington, by and between the CITY OF SNOHOMISH, hereinafter called the “City”, and HWA GeoSciences Inc., a Washington corporation, hereinafter called the “Consultant”. WHEREAS, the Consultant has represented, and by entering into this Agreement now represents, that the firm and all employees assigned to work on any City project are in full compliance with the statutes of the State of Washington governing activities to be performed and that all personnel to be assigned to the work required under this agreement are fully qualified and properly licensed to perform the work to which they will be assigned. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants and performances contained herein below, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I. PURPOSE The purpose of this agreement is to provide the City with consulting services to provide environmental and geotechnical consulting services at the one-acre lagoon site at the Snohomish Wastewater Treatment Plant in Snohomish, Washington, as described in Article II. The general terms and conditions of relationships between the City and the Consultant are specified in this agreement. ARTICLE II. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work is set out in the attached Estimate of Professional Services, herein after referred to as the “scope of services” Exhibit A. All services and materials necessary to accomplish the tasks outlined in Exhibit A shall be provided by the Consultant, unless noted otherwise in the scope of services or this agreement. ARTICLE III. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSULTANT 3.1 MINOR CHANGES IN SCOPE. The Consultant shall accept minor changes, amendments, or revisions in the detail of the work as may be required by the City when such changes will not have any impact on the service costs or proposed delivery schedule. Extra work, if any, involving substantial changes and/or changes in cost or schedules will be addressed as follows: City Council Meeting 153 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d Extra Work. The City may desire to have the Consultant perform work or render services in connection with each project in addition to or other than work provided for by the expressed intent of the scope of work in the scope of services. Such work will be considered as extra work and will be specified in a written supplement to the scope of services, to be signed by both parties, which will set forth the nature and the scope thereof. Work under a supplemental agreement shall not proceed until executed in writing by the parties. 3.2 WORK PRODUCT AND DOCUMENTS. The work product and all documents listed in the scope of services shall be furnished by the Consultant to the City, and upon completion of the work shall become the property of the City, except that the Consultant may retain one copy of the work product and documents for its records. The Consultant will be responsible for the accuracy of the work, even though the work has been accepted by the City. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this agreement or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, all work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City. Upon request, the Consultant shall tender the work product and summary to the City. Tender of said work product shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost to the City. Consultant will not be held liable for reuse of these documents or modifications thereof for any purpose other than those authorized under this Agreement without the written authorization of Consultant. 3.3 TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Consultant shall be authorized to begin work under the terms of this agreement upon signing of both the scope of services and this agreement and shall complete the work within 365 days, unless a mutual written agreement is signed to change the schedule. An extension of the time for completion may be given by the City due to conditions not expected or anticipated at the time of execution of this agreement. 3.4 NON-ASSIGNABLE. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 3.5 EMPLOYMENT. Any and all employees of the Consultant, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Consultant under this agreement, shall be considered employees of the Consultant only and not of the City, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workman’s Compensation Act on behalf of any said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any negligent act or omission on the part of the Consultant or its employees while so engaged in any of the work or services provided herein shall be the sole obligation of the Consultant. 3.6 INDEMNITY. a. The Consultant will at all times indemnify and hold harmless and defend the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and 154 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d against any and all lawsuits, damages, costs, charges, expenses, judgments and liabilities, including attorney’s fees (including attorney’s fees in establishing indemnification), collectively referred to herein as “losses” resulting from, arising out of, or related to one or more claims arising out of negligent acts, errors, or omission of the Consultant in performance of Consultant’s professional services under this agreement. The term “claims” as used herein shall mean all claims, lawsuits, causes of action, and other legal actions and proceedings of whatsoever nature, involving bodily or personal injury or death of any person or damage to any property including, but not limited to, persons employed by the City, the Consultant or other person and all property owned or claimed by the City, the Consultant, or affiliate of the Consultant, or any other person. b. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its members, officers, employees and agents, the Consultant’s liability to the City, by way of indemnification, shall be only to the extent of the Consultant’s negligence. c. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this agreement. 3.7 INSURANCE. a. Minimum Limits of Insurance. The Consultant shall, before commencing work under this agreement, file with the City certificates of insurance coverage to be kept in force continuously during this agreement, and during all work performed pursuant to all short form agreements, in a form acceptable to the City. Said certificates shall name the City as an additional named insured with respect to all coverages except professional liability insurance. The minimum insurance requirements shall be as follows: (1) Comprehensive General Liability. $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage, $2,000,000 general aggregate; (2) Automobile Liability. $300,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage; (3) Workers’ Compensation. Workers’ compensation limits as required by the Workers’ Compensation Act of Washington; (4) Consultant’s Errors and Omissions Liability. $1,000,000 per occurrence and as an annual aggregate. b. Endorsement. Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voiced, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. City Council Meeting 155 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d c. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance to be provided by Consultant shall be with a Bests rating of no less than A:VII, or if not rated by Bests, with minimum surpluses the equivalent of Bests’ VII rating. d. Verification of Coverage. In signing this agreement, the Consultant is acknowledging and representing that required insurance is active and current. 3.8 DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED AND COMPLIANCE WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LEGISLATION. The Consultant agrees to comply with equal opportunity employment and not to discriminate against client, employee, or applicant for employment or for services because of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, marital status, sex, age or handicap except for a bona fide occupational qualification with regard, but not limited to, the following: employment upgrading; demotion or transfer; recruitment or any recruitment advertising; layoff or terminations; rates of pay or any other forms of compensation; selection for training, rendition of services. The Consultant further agrees to maintain (as appropriate) notices, posted in conspicuous places, setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. The Consultant understands and agrees that if it violates this nondiscrimination provision, this agreement may be terminated by the City, and further that the Consultant will be barred from performing any services for the City now or in the future, unless a showing is made satisfactory to the City that discriminatory practices have been terminated and that recurrence of such action is unlikely. 3.9 UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES. During the performance of this agreement, the Consultant agrees to comply with RCW 49.60.180, prohibiting unfair employment practices. 3.10 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Affirmative action shall be implemented by the Consultant to ensure that applicants for employment and all employees are treated without regard to race, creed, color, sex, age, marital status, national origin or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification. The Consultant agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that all of its employees and agent adhere to this provision. 3.11 LEGAL RELATIONS. The Consultant shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and ordinances applicable to work to be done under this agreement. This contract shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of Washington. Venue for any action commenced relating to the interpretation, breach or enforcement of this agreement shall be in Snohomish County Superior Court. 3.12 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant’s relation to the City shall at all times be as an independent contractor. 3.13 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. While this is a non-exclusive agreement the Consultant agrees to and will notify the City of any potential conflicts of interest in Consultant’s client base and will seek and obtain written permission from the City prior to providing services 156 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d to third parties where a conflict of interest is apparent. If a conflict is irreconcilable, the City reserves the right to terminate this agreement. 3.14 CITY CONFIDENCES. The Consultant agrees to and will keep in strict confidence, and will not disclose, communicate or advertise to third parties without specific prior written consent from the City in each instance, the confidences of the City or any information regarding the City or services provided to the City. ARTICLE IV. OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY 4.1 PAYMENTS. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this agreement and as detailed in the Exhibit A scope of services as provided herein after. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. Payment shall be on a time and expense basis, provided however, in no event shall total payment under this agreement exceed $48,314. In the event the City elects to expand the scope of services from that set forth in Exhibit A, the City shall pay Consultant an additional amount based on a time and expense basis, based upon Consultant’s current schedule of hourly rates. a. Invoices shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of the scope of services. The invoice will state the time expended, the hourly rate, a detailed description of the work performed, and the expenses incurred during the preceding month. Invoices must be submitted by the 20th day of the month to be paid by the 15th day of the next calendar month. b. The City will pay timely submitted and approved invoices received before the 20th of each month within thirty (30) days of receipt. 4.2 CITY APPROVAL. Notwithstanding the Consultant’s status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld if work has been completed in compliance with the scope of work and City requirements. ARTICLE V. GENERAL 5.1 NOTICES. Notices to the City shall be sent to the following address: CITY OF SNOHOMISH C/O: ____________________ 116 UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: City Council Meeting 157 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d Arnie Sugar, LG, LHG HWA GeoSciences Inc. 19730 64th Avenue West, Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mail with proper postage and address. 5.2 TERMINATION. The right is reserved by the City to terminate this agreement in whole or in part at any time upon ten (10) days’ written notice to the Consultant. If this agreement is terminated in its entirety by the City for its convenience, a final payment shall be made to the Consultant which, when added to any payments previously made, shall total the actual costs plus the same percentage of the fixed fee as the work completed at the time of termination applied to the total work required for the project. 5.3 DISPUTES. The parties agree that, following reasonable attempts at negotiation and compromise, any unresolved dispute arising under this contract may be resolved by a mutually agreed upon alternative dispute resolution of arbitration or mediation. 5.4 NONWAIVER. Waiver by the City of any provision of this agreement or any time limitation provided for in this agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. DATED this ________ day of February, 2008 CITY OF SNOHOMISH NAME OF CONSULTANT By: By: Larry Bauman, City Manager Arnie Sugar, Vice President ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: By: Torchie Corey, City Clerk Grant K. Weed, City Attorney 158 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d EXHIBIT A City Council Meeting 159 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d 160 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d City Council Meeting 161 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d 162 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d City Council Meeting 163 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d 164 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d City Council Meeting 165 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8d ATTACHMENT B 2008 Capital Improvement Plan Individual Project Request Form Date Adopted December 4, 2007 Project Name: Lagoon Cleanup Project Category: Wastewater Treatment Project Description: Cap abandoned 30-acre lagoon site. Staff Lead: Tom Hansen Start Year: 2008 Assigned Department: Public Works End Year: 2008 Total Project Budget: $500,000 Project Number: 432-000-594-55-41-10 Current Year Budget: $500,000 Total City Revenues: $450,000 Estimated Carryover From 2007 Total External Revenues: Revenue Notes and/or Requests for Budget Changes: Capital Future Year Projections ($s in 000s) Project Project Expenditures by Category Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Pre Design - Design Engineering 50 50 Land - Buildings - Improvements 360 360 Inspections 20 20 Contingency 20 20 Sales Tax - Other - Total Project Expenditures 450 - - - - - 450 Project Revenues Other Fund Transfers - Grants - LID - Bonds - Real Estate Excise Tax - Connection Fees - Utility Rate - Replacement Portion - Private Donation - Public Works Trust Fund - General Funds - 474 Bio Solids Reserve 450 450 Street Funds - Total Project Revenues 450 - - - - - 450 166 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8e Date: February 19, 2008 To: City Council From: Mike Johnson, Parks and Facilities Supervisor Tim Heydon, Public Works Director Subject: Small Works Roster – Resolution 1196 In July 2004, City Council passed Resolution 1098 establishing and defining the use of the Lynnwood Small Works Roster. In 2008, the City of Lynnwood is no longer in the Small Works Roster business and has turned it over to the Municipal Research Service Center. On January 15, 2008, City Council authorized the City Manager to sign an interlocal agreement with MRSC for the use of the MRSC Small Works Roster. After City Attorney review of Resolution 1098, a new and more up to date resolution was in order. Resolution 1196 was created so that the City of Snohomish would have the option of making and using its own small works roster as well as the MRSC roster. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council PASS Resolution 1196. ATTACHMENT: Resolution 1196 City Council Meeting 167 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8e CITY OF SNOHOMISH Snohomish, Washington RESOLUTION 1196 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON ON THE SUBJECTS OF ESTABLISHING A SMALL WORKS ROSTER PROCESS TO AWARD PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS, AND A CONSULTING SERVICES ROSTER FOR ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING, AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHEREAS, RCW 39.04.155 and other laws regarding contracting for public works by municipalities allow certain contracts to be awarded by a small works roster process; and WHEREAS, in order to be able to implement small works roster processes, the City is required by law to pass a resolution establishing specific procedures; and WHEREAS, RCW 39.80.030 requires that an agency publish in advance that agency's requirement for professional services, and that one of the ways to accomplish that notification is to announce generally to the public its projected requirements for any category or type of professional services and request qualification statements to be kept on file with the agency; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Resolution 1098 is hereby repealed. Section 2. Number of Rosters. The City of Snohomish may create a single general small works roster, or may create a small works roster for different specialties or categories of anticipated work. Said small works rosters may make distinctions between contractors based upon different geographic areas served by the contractor or utilize the MRSC Rosters. MRSC Rosters. The City wishes to contract with the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC) to adopt for City use those state wide electronic databases for small works roster and consulting services developed and maintained by MRSC and authorizes the City Manager to sign that contract. In addition, paper and/or electronic rosters may be kept on file by appropriate City departments. Section 3. Small Works Rosters. The following small works roster procedures are established for use by the City pursuant to RCW 39.04.155: 1. Cost. The City need not comply with formal sealed bidding procedures for the construction, building, renovation, remodeling, alteration, repair, or improvement of real property where the estimated cost does not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), which includes the costs of labor, material, equipment and sales, and/or use taxes as applicable. Instead, the City may use the small works roster procedures for public works projects as set forth herein. The breaking of any project into units or 168 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8e accomplishing any projects by phases is prohibited if it is done for the purpose of avoiding the maximum dollar amount of a contract that may be let using the small works roster process. 2. Publication. At least once a year, the City of Snohomish shall publish, in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction, a notice of the existence of the roster or rosters, and solicit the names of contractors for such roster or rosters. Responsible contractors shall be added to an appropriate roster or rosters at any time that they submit a written request and necessary records. The City of Snohomish may require master contracts to be signed that become effective when a specific award is made using a small works roster. An interlocal contract or agreement between City of Snohomish and other local governments establishing a small works roster or rosters to be used by the parties to the agreement or contract must clearly identify the lead entity that is responsible for implementing the small works roster provisions; or At least once a year, on behalf of the City, MRSC shall publish, in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction, a notice of the existence of the roster or rosters and solicit the names of contractors for such roster or rosters. Responsible contractors shall be added to appropriate MRSC roster or rosters at any time that they submit a written request and necessary records. The City may require master contracts to be signed that become effective when a specific award is made using a small works roster. 3. Telephone or Written Quotations. The City shall obtain telephone, written, or electronic quotations for public works contracts from contractors on the appropriate small works roster to assure that a competitive price is established and to award contracts to a contractor who meets the mandatory bidder responsibility criteria in RCW 39.04.350 (1) and may establish supplementary bidder criteria under RCW 39.04.350 (2). a) A contract awarded from a small works roster need not be advertised. Invitations for quotations shall include an estimate of the scope and nature of the work to be performed, as well as materials and equipment to be furnished. However, detailed plans and specifications need not be included in the invitation. b) Quotations may be invited from all appropriate contractors on the appropriate small works roster. As an alternative, quotations may be invited from at least five contractors on the appropriate small works roster who have indicated the capability of performing the kind of work being contracted, in a manner that will equitably distribute the opportunity among the contractors on the appropriate roster. "Equitably distribute" means that the City may not favor certain contractors on the appropriate small works roster over other contractors on the appropriate small works roster who perform similar services. If the estimated cost of the work is from one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), the City may choose to solicit bids from less than all the appropriate contractors on the appropriate small works roster but must notify the remaining contractors on the appropriate small works City Council Meeting 169 February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8e roster that quotations on the work are being sought. The City has the sole option of determining whether this notice to the remaining contractors is made by: (i) Publishing notice in a legal newspaper in general circulation in the area where the work is to be done; (ii) Mailing a notice to these contractors; or (iii) Sending a notice to these contractors by facsimile or email. c) At the time bids are solicited, the City representative shall not inform a contractor of the terms or amount of any other contractor's bid for the same project. d) A written record shall be made by the City representative of each contractor's bid on the project and of any conditions imposed on the bid. Immediately after an award is made, the bid quotations obtained shall be recorded, open to public inspection, and available by telephone inquiry. 4. Limited Public Works Process. If a work, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement project is estimated to cost less than thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000), the City may award such a contract using the limited public works process provided under RCW 39.04.155 (3). For a limited public works project, the City will solicit electronic or written quotations from a minimum of three contractors from the appropriate small works roster and shall award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder as defined under RCW 39.04.010. After an award is made, the quotations shall be open to public inspection and available by electronic request. For limited public works projects, the City may waive the payment and performance bond requirements of Chapter 39.08 RCW and the retainage requirements of Chapter 60.28 RCW, thereby assuming the liability for the contractor's nonpayment of laborers, mechanics, subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers, and taxes imposed under Title 82 RCW that may be due from the contractor for the limited public works project. However, the City shall have the right of recovery against the contractor for any payments made on the contractor's behalf. The City shall maintain a list of the contractors contacted and the contracts awarded during the previous 24 months under the limited public works process, including the name of the contractor, the contractor's registration number, the amount of the contract, a brief description of the type of work performed, and the date the contract was awarded. 5. Determining Lowest Responsible Bidder. The City Council shall award the contract for the public works project to the lowest responsible bidder provided that, whenever there is a reason to believe that the lowest acceptable bid is not the best price obtainable, all bids may be rejected and the City Council may call for new bids. A responsible bidder shall be a registered and/or licensed contractor who meets the mandatory bidder responsibility criteria established by Chapter 133, Laws of 2007 (SHB 170 City Council Meeting February 19, 2008 CONSENT ITEM 8e 2010) and who meets any supplementary bidder responsibility criteria established by the City. 6. Award. All of the telephone bids or quotations shall be collected and presented at the same time to the City Council for consideration, determination of the lowest responsible bidder, and award of the contract. Section 4. Consulting Services Rosters 1. Consulting Services. Consulting services are professional services that have a primarily intellectual output or product and include architectural and engineering services as defined in RCW 39.80.020. 2. Publication. At least once a year, on behalf of the City, MRSC shall publish, in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdiction, a notice of the existence of the consulting services roster or rosters and solicit statements of qualifications from firms providing consulting services. Such advertisements will include information on how to find the address and telephone number of a representative of the City who can provide further details as to the City’s projected needs for consulting services. Firms or persons providing consulting services shall be added to appropriate MRSC roster or rosters at any time that they submit a written request and necessary records. The City may require master contracts to be signed that become effective when a specific award is made using a consulting services roster. 3. Professional Architectural and Engineering Services. The MRSC rosters will distinguish between professional, architectural, and engineering services as defined in RCW 39.80.020, and other consulting services and will announce generally to the public the City’s projected requirements for any category or type of professional or other consulting services. The City reserves the right to publish an announcement on each occasion when professional services or other consulting services are required by the agency and to use paper and/or other electronic rosters that may be kept on file by appropriate City departments. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this ____ day of February 2008. CITY OF SNOHOMISH By_______________________ Randy Hamlin, Mayor, ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By_____________________________ By_____________________________ Torchie Corey, City Clerk Grant K. Weed, City Attorney City Council Meeting 171 February 19, 2008
"CITY OF SNOHOMISH"