Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

CITY OF SNOHOMISH

VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 173

									             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: chriswake@aim.com

To: hamlin@ci.snohomish.wa.us

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

								
To top