city of snohomish

CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890

116 UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON 98290 TEL (360) 568-3115 FAX (360) 568-1375

NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING

SNOHOMISH CITY COUNCIL

in the

George Gilbertson Boardroom 1601 Avenue D

TUESDAY

May 19, 2015 7:00 p.m.

AGENDA

Estimated time

7:00 1. CALL TO ORDER

a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call

2. APPROVE AGENDA contents and order 3. APPROVE MINUTES of the meeting of May 5, 2015 (P. 1)

7:05 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS on items not on the Agenda (and/or to request time to speak on any Action or Discussion items on this agenda)

7:15 5. NEW EMPLOYEE INTRODUCTION 6. ACTION ITEMS 7:20 a. 2015 Budget Amendments – ADOPT Ordinance 2289 (P.21) 7:30 b. Council Position on Metropolitan Parks District Ballot Measure PROPOSITION NO. 1 to create a Snohomish Metropolitan Park District with boundaries the same as the boundaries of the City as now or hereafter established and to be governed by the Snohomish City Council as the ex officio Board of Commissioners to support the park system and recreation programs. – PASS Resolution 1329 (P.29) 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7:40 a. 1

st Quarter 2015 Financial Report (P.33)

Continued on Next Page

7:50 b. Spruce Street Right-of-Way Vacation Request (P.47) 8:00 c. 1

st Quarter 2015 Police Report (P.55)

8:10 8. CONSENT ITEMS

a. AUTHORIZE payment of claim warrants #56523 through #56625 in the amount of $1,273,892.42 issued since the last regular meeting (P.67)

b. APPROVE City Manager Contract Addendum (P.81)

8:15 9. OTHER BUSINESS/INFORMATION ITEMS 8:25 10. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS/LIAISON REPORTS 8:35 11. MANAGER’S COMMENTS 8:45 12. MAYOR’S COMMENTS 8:55 13. ADJOURN NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, June 2, 2015, workshop at 6 p.m., regular meeting at 7 p.m., in the George Gilbertson Boardroom, Snohomish School District Resource Center, 1601 Avenue D.

The City Council Chambers are ADA accessible. Specialized accommodations will be

provided with 5 days advanced notice. Contact the City Clerk's Office at 360-568-3115.

This organization is an Equal Opportunity Provider.

AGENDA ITEM 3

City Council Meeting 1 May 19, 2015

Snohomish City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 2015

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Guzak called the Snohomish City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 5, 2015, in the Snohomish School District Resource Service

Center, George Gilbertson Boardroom, 1601 Avenue D, Snohomish, Washington.

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Derrick Burke Larry Bauman, City Manager Karen Guzak, Mayor Grant Weed, City Attorney Tom Hamilton Owen Dennison, Planning Director Paul Kaftanski Steve Schuller, Public Works Director Dean Randall Eric Fournier, Police Admin. Sergeant Michael Rohrscheib Torchie Corey, City Clerk Lynn Schilaty Debbie Emge, Economic Dev. Manager

There were fifteen citizens in attendance.

2. APPROVE AGENDA contents and order – no change 3. APPROVE MINUTES of the meeting of April 21, 2015 MOTION by Kaftanski, second by Rohrscheib, to approve the April 21, 2015 meeting

minutes. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS on items not on the Agenda (and/or to request time to speak on

any Action or Discussion items on this agenda)

Morgan Davis, 206 Avenue I, confirmed public comment would be allowed on Action Item 6a regarding the Metropolitan Park District resolution of intent. Concerning the MPD levy rates and amounts, staff had perhaps unknowingly put out poor information. He asked three questions at the last meeting that would give transparency to the citizens but didn’t get any answers. It would have saved the Council and public a lot of confusion. In the April 21

st

packet the ballot explanatory statement had one particularly misleading sentence: “Once the first year property tax rate is set, the rate would be limited in succeeding years by state statutes to no more than a 1% increase per year.” That was blatantly false and deceptive language. Last Friday he gave the Council a copy of an e-mail from the county assessor levy comptroller that stated once a MPD was approved, the maximum rate of 75 cents per $1,000 assessed valuation was set to calculate the maximum levy amount now estimated at $834,000 annually, up from $750,000 in March. This Council could recommend a lower teaser rate of 25 cents and the first year revenue would be $278,000. However the next MPD board could change the amount desired for 2018 from $278,000 to the maximum amount $834,000. The difference of $556,000 was considered taking banked capacity. That tripled the revenue in one year, not a mere 1%. $556,000 could be recovered from 2017 with a simple majority vote of the board. Even with Resolution 1327, it was still bogus by withholding Council’s intention, either collectively or individually, of how much to charge the taxpayers; in other words, asking for a blank check without any accountability. His neighbor compared it to a bait-and-switch scam, or buying something sight-unseen. He urged the Council to reject Resolution 1327 altogether and tell the truth to the voters. In fact the Council should totally reverse itself on the MPD and look to other solutions to get money for the General Fund.

AGENDA ITEM 3

2 City Council Meeting May 19, 2015

Mayor Guzak thanked Mr. Davis for his research. Mr. Bauman said staff had studied Mr. Davis’ e-mail from the county and responded with alternate language for Action Item 6b. Three alternate versions of the explanatory statement removed the problematic language regarding future levy limits. Elaine McClain, 1018 – 13

th Street, came in gratitude for all that she and her husband had

received from people in town since moving here four years ago. About two years ago her husband started singing on First Street. Thanks to the Mayor and City staff, a few problems were worked out. He knew it was good to sing for those with dementia so he went to many retirement homes, helping himself and those he sang for. The police were always supportive when she needed a little more time to park. She wasn’t the only one taking care of Jerry. Many people and businesses had been wonderful to them –Todo Mexico, Rock City Café, Joyworks, Scott Swoboda, Snohomish Bicycles, the art gallery, and Daedalus Dentures. Safeway had senior coffee every Tuesday morning which they enjoyed. They went to the fitness center where one of the new owners taught the Silver Sneakers. For two years Ms. McClain had wanted to do yoga and Mayor Guzak agreed that Jerry could be with her so that she could do something for herself. The whole town was taking care of Jerry. She would be happy to do anything she could to give back and help. Jerry McClain, 1018 – 13

th Street, sang Unchained Melody for the Council and audience.

5. PRESENTATIONS

a. Appreciation of Service on Economic Development Committee for Laura Scott and Josh Scott

Mayor Guzak presented certificates of appreciation to Laura Scott and Joshua Scott for their service on the EDC. She thanked them for their service. Citizen volunteers were so appreciated and valuable to the community. Josh Scott considered the EDC a great committee. Snohomish was a wonderful place to volunteer. There was always something to do. He appreciated the opportunity. Laura Scott enjoyed her time on the committee. It gave her an opportunity to learn about the community. She looked forward to continuing to serve on the Planning Commission. Councilmember Schilaty was the Council liaison to the EDC. She appreciated these two people who gave their time, expertise, and commitment to the community. The EDC would miss their experience and wisdom.

b. Snohomish Garden Club 80

th Anniversary Proclamation

Mayor Guzak presented President-elect Laura Hartman with the proclamation in honor of the Snohomish Garden Club’s 80

th birthday.

Ms. Hartman said the club was an amazing organization that almost ran itself. It had 200 members right now and at least half showed up each month. The basket program was expanded through a partnership with the City and local merchants. The Club increased its scholarships and grants. Last year’s donation of veggie garden produce to the food bank had grown to 25,000 pounds.

AGENDA ITEM 3


c. Snohomish County Tourism Bureau Annual Report – Amy Spain

Amy Spain, SCTB Executive Director, said tourism was economic development. The figures shown were reported by Dean Runyan Associates who did an annual economic impact study for the state. 2014 visitors to the state spent $19.5 billion, accounting for $1.7 billion in local and state taxes that helped to support infrastructure in both the county and state. The average travelling party in commercial lodging was 2.2 people who stayed 2.5 nights and spent $468 per day for the $19.5 billion. Day travelers spent $108. 163,450 people were directly employed by tourism businesses in the state. The national picture hadn’t been that rosy. No national travel program marketed the country as a visitor destination to people around the world until 2013. Unfortunately Washington was the only state without a state tourism office since the Legislature ended funding in 2011. Bridge funding of $500,000 was provided to keep the state website live, print visitor guides, and have services for people wanting to come to Washington State. Travelers came to the community in a variety of ways, spending their money at the gas stations and grocery stores, on recreation, and entertainment. That in turn allowed those businesses to hire people to serve the visitors. It had an impact on wages and profits of those businesses. Local businesses then bought goods and services from other businesses in the county for the trickle-down effect. 10,000 people were directly employed by tourism businesses in the county. Visitors generated over $31 million that stayed in the county for all the infrastructure needs. The segments impacted by the visitor dollars were restaurants, transportation and fuel, retail, recreation and entertainment, accommodations, and grocery stores. Lodging was fourth in generating spending dollars. Restaurants, transportation, and retail all received a larger share of the visitor dollar. The overnight traveler was purchasing more, eating out, and engaged in other recreational opportunities. In 2014 SCTB saw a 9% increase in visits to their website and achieved over $272,000 of free media coverage from public relations activities. Visitor centers countywide served over 95,000 people. Tourism spending in the county was becoming a $1 billion industry, up 5.7 % from 2013. A couple indicators of the strength of the industry were the hotel occupancies at 71.1% and hotel/motel tax collections up 7.3%. Ads were put out to generate awareness of the community as a visitor destination and to bring leads from certain publications. Over 2,000 pieces of material related to sales and service of conventions, sports, and group tours were distributed at 20 trade shows and 3 sales missions. In addition to going to meet event planners, 25 familiarization tours were conducted to bring travel planners to the county to show them the wonderful things to see and do here. Event planners were shown facilities that could accommodate their events. Staff conducted 5 sales missions, going to Vancouver BC, Olympia, Seattle, Indianapolis and Orlando, along with community partners such as hotels, convention centers, tourism officials, and attraction representatives, to meet one-on-one with group tour operators or members of the media. An additional 183 direct leads were generated for hotel partners and attractions from the trade shows. The bureau also served a hundred groups who hadn’t made their arrangements through SCTB. If the Lynnwood Convention sales staff booked a conference that had nothing to do with bureau sales staff, the bureau still offered convention services to the group,

AGENDA ITEM 3


helping with things like parking permits, spouse tours, or off-site receptions. Group tour, meeting and event planner bids were prepared which resulted in 31,000 total definite room nights. Pending overnight bookings at the end of the year were 5,163. The two doubled the 2014 economic impact over 2013. This was in part supported by the Tourism Promotion Area. With the TPA a new staff member was added in 2012. Tammy Dunn, Sports Development Manager, said over $37.1 million in economic impact was derived from sports alone. Some events included national exposure such as Lake Stevens Ironman, Mastercraft Pro Wakeboard Tour, and the Ice Fest Figure Skating Competition. Sports economic impact in the City was $6.4 million last year from three youth soccer tournaments, two lacrosse tournaments and the Snohomish River Run which was also a half-marathon. The Sports Commission received recognition in 2014 from Sports Events Magazine, receiving the Readers’ Choice Award for the fourth time and the “Sports Planner to Watch” for a second time in the last several years. The commis-sion’s board of directors assisted staff with resources and oversight. Leisure travel development included advertising in a number of publications which generated about 6,700 requests for information. Many more people were going to the website. Four new electronic newsletters were developed: quarterly visitor newsletter, sports quarterly which focused on sporting events taking place in the county; volunteer newsletter; and a sports spotlight which went out to support events taking place. It was used to generate either more participation for a half-marathon or spectator support. A 9% increase was seen in website visitors. Over 11,000 visits were made to the Stay, Shop & Save website which was a program that primarily advertised in British Columbia. There was a new arts and cultural brochure, and new insert to the Aviation Adventures featuring Harvey Field activities. Staff monitored what visitors were requesting and did some in-house pieces, for example golf, waterfalls, and top 10 hikes in the county. A visitor guide with spring/summer and fall/winter issues included seasonal articles. They contracted with travel writers to come explore the county for a fresh perspective so it wasn’t all generated by SCTB staff. Last year a program was tried called Tourism Revealed, created with a scavenger hunt appeal where people registered for the program and got access to coupons and discounts but it didn’t take off so it was closed for 2015. The public relations program included bi-monthly newsletters that went out to about 1,400 travel writers and editors around the world, highlighting different kinds of topics with each issue. Staff also attend appointment-based travel tours for one-on-one sessions with travel writers and editors to pitch story ideas, in addition to having the travel writers come to the community. The bureau sent press releases and made pitches to the media resulting in the publication of 45 articles for over $272,000 in free media coverage. SCTB was very active in social media as that was where people were communicating. There were five Facebook pages for different market segments. They were on Twitter and Pinterest, and were adding Pinterest boards all the time as it was one of the fastest growing social media platforms now. 17 specialized videos were on YouTube about different kinds of activities to do in the county. Two television ads were launched in 2014; one in February about aviation opportunities like scenic flights and balloon rides and another in May/June for outdoor adventure travel.

AGENDA ITEM 3


Jennifer Bravo, Visitor Services Manager, said the visitor information centers were all about partnerships. She thanked everyone in the community for keeping the Snohomish VIC going well. Others included Lynnwood Heritage Park and Future of Flight at Paine Field. There was an advertising presence at Alderwood Mall and an outreach at Seattle Premium Outlets to encourage people to use social media. They were out-and-about in the community at various festivals, and will be at Kla Ha Ya Days this year. VICs helped support community events. The Snohomish VIC was the registration point for the Grinch Run and the Chocolate Walk. Volunteers had fun with the Halloween trick-or-treating. 66% of VIC visitors come from more than 50 miles away; 6% from other counties; 31% from other states, 29% from other countries, and 34% from local areas. Each VIC was a little different. The Future of Flight had a lot of foreign visitors which impacted statistics. 80 volunteers contributed 11,000 hours last year for an in-kind contribution of $295,000. Area businesses donated lots of in-kind services both to the VICs and the bureau. 19 new volunteers joined last year. There was an emphasis on training so volunteers knew what they were talking about to visitors. Familiarization tours were conducted each year at different locations so volunteers got out to every community in the county. A variety of training topics were covered as well as fun events for the volunteers. SCTB served a role in the tourism industry by providing industry education. In 2014 there were 5 programs with some very broad topics while others were very targeted. They were also educating front-line staff so when the visitor came in, staff could answer their questions. A ‘hot sheet’ went out every month listing key events around the county with links back to the website for more information. Staff received free attraction tours to experience those attractions and be better representatives. The entire staff played an active role in a variety of local, state and national organizations serving on boards of directors, lodging tax advisory committees, park boards, and various clubs and organizations throughout the community. The bureau was also active as a com-munity neighbor. VICs participated as drop locations for holiday blanket drives and worn US flags, assisted the Navy Newcomer Program, and sold forest service passes. Councilmember Hamilton thanked the bureau for their wonderful job because his was one of the 10,000 jobs created in the county and was pictured on the cover of the spring/ summer adventure activities. Over the weekend there were three flight periods and none of the customers were from the county; several came from Eastern Washington, King and Pierce Counties. Throughout the year there were international visitors. A lot of people looked for activities when they came to this area and ballooning happened to be one of them. He was able to translate that into business for the City providing recommendations of places to eat or stay. Councilmember Kaftanski thanked Ms. Spain for the comprehensive report. When she said economic impact, was that gross sales? Ms. Spain said Dean Runyan Associates was the company that did the annual economic impact reports. DRA had a proprietary method that drew from a number of resources to determine the economic impact of visitors: consumer reports, port and border crossing data, surveys, interviews, and multiple other points of information. All these sources were overlaid with interviews they did. They also did a study of the impact of hotel rates on a community. It wasn’t so much the exact dollar figures but that DRA had been doing the study for over twenty years so the trend could be seen. The same formulas were used year after year to see changes in the trends, whether increasing or decreasing.

AGENDA ITEM 3


Mayor Guzak loved to hear the energy and enthusiasm of bureau staff and all the great work done on such a modest budget. The City was very dependent on tourism activity.

6. ACTION ITEMS

a. APPROVE Resolution of Intent for Metropolitan Parks District – PASS Resolution 1327

Tonight’s presentation was the second the Council has had on this topic. On April 21st

the Council reached consensus on project support but not on intent of an initial levy rate. Only five citizens spoke on the topic which may have been part of Council’s reluctance to determine an initial rate. Tonight staff was proposing that the levy rate be removed from the resolution of intent and focus instead on projects. Even with the ability and time to provide more complete scopes and estimates for the selected capital projects, it would be problematic to provide enough analysis of project demands to incorporate effectively into a proposed levy rate. Much of the work would be done in the future. Without master plans and more specific scopes of work for projects, any kind of estimate at this point was pretty foolhardy to propose. The impact on property owners for levy rates was provided. The MPD impact on a 2015 average-valued home of $247,200 was listed with levy options from 25 cents to 75 cents. The annual impact of those options was $61.80 to $185.40; monthly impact ranged from $5.15 to $15.45. Councilmember Burke thought it was fairly unusual to put levy information on a ballot without the numbers. If information wasn’t on the ballot about how much, this was something all Councilmembers could be criticized for later on. Mr. Bauman said the nature of this kind of district did not allow the City to create a very specific and final levy rate. The resolution of intent was designed to give the voters some guidance about the thinking and intentions of the Council in forming the MPD. If the Council felt a levy rate was an appropriate element to include in the resolution, staff would support that in any way possible. Councilmember Burke clarified he was asking if it was unusual to have something like this in the verbiage of a ballot, not list the numbers. Mr. Bauman said the resolution of intent was being reviewed tonight and not the ballot measure. The only relationship between the two was to include that information in the ballot statement which was the next item on the agenda. It was actually more unusual to have a resolution of intent than unusual to not have one. Councilmember Kaftanski added that when Seattle went forward with its MPD, Seattle noted its intention as the MPD board would be to levy a property tax rate of 37 cents. Since the April 21

st meeting Ferndale has placed a MPD measure on the November ballot

and informed its citizens that the intended rate of the board would be 50 cents per $1,000 assessed valuation. It was a usual procedure to identify an intended tax rate. Mayor Guzak pointed out the MPD board will not be setting the levy rate until Fall 2016. The City didn’t have cost estimates for some of the projects hoped to be done. To leave this open with some examples of what the rate impacts would be in the ballot measure would be entirely appropriate. She was supportive of the direction they had gone.

AGENDA ITEM 3


Morgan Davis, 206 Avenue I, quoted a statement from the April 21st meeting minutes:

“City residents used state and county parks and people outside the City used City parks so there was no way to draw a line around them and say ‘you use this so you have to pay for it.’” He used county and state parks but helped pay for them. His property tax bill clearly showed that he had to pay county and state taxes as well as City, library, hospital, fire, schools, and the county conservation district taxes. However the wealthy families of Fobes, Dutch Hill, Lords Hill, and Clearview didn’t pay City taxes and wouldn’t have to pay any MPD taxes even though they frequently used the City’s parks and restrooms. $1 million in state and county grants paid for the land and for construction of the boat launch which flooded regularly. Stockers had legal rights and easements to move their cattle and have overflow parking for soccer tournaments. Dogs and cattle didn’t mix well. With cow manure around, children will be at risk for e-coli. Pea patches didn’t cost that much. A fenced-in dog park couldn’t cost that much for some chain link fence and benches. Some Councilmembers wanted to turn the vacant Hal Moe Pool building into an indoor skate and bicycle motor-cross race track for recreational opportunities for the whole northwest region. City residents shouldn’t be burdened with all those costs since most users wouldn’t be City residents. He asked Councilmembers ‘who wanted the levy rate set at 50 cents or lower?’ and asked that the record show no one voted. Tell the voters what the projects will be and the cost, and explain why the parks budget needed to more than double in one year. This MPD scheme needed to go back to the drawing board and come back next year after staff did its homework. Why couldn’t the Council just ask for a five-year property tax or sales tax levy, or use the banked capacity with an advisory election vote that a Councilmember supported at the March 17

th workshop?

Ann Stanton, 18340 NE 143

rd Place, Woodinville, thanked the Council for taking this

amazing step for an opportunity to create a MPD. There were a number of residents here and people like her who loved this town. This was a legacy action that was as important as the Transportation Benefit District. It was remarkable what this Council had done and they should be applauded. Councilmember Hamilton wanted some clarification. At the last meeting the Council passed a resolution to put the ballot measure before the citizens. Tonight with Resolution 1327 the Council was merely addressing priorities for the MPD. The next action was the explanatory statement where the Council will address any funding issues they wished to convey to the voters. They weren’t talking about funding in this particular resolution. Mr. Bauman said tonight’s draft resolution did not include a section for levy rate, as the version presented April 21

st had. Staff’s assumption was that Council’s action on the

resolution of intent would help inform what text needed to be inserted, if any, into the ballot statement. Options were provided for different versions of the ballot statement. Councilmember Hamilton confirmed that they were looking at two different issues, and technically a third when they approved the committees. Councilmember Kaftanski respectfully disagreed. If the resolution of intent was designed to inform what was in an explanatory statement, the resolution needed to either be silent on a tax rate which meant the explanatory statement would be silent, or it needed to state a tax rate which would be in the explanatory statement. Mr. Weed clarified that the explanatory statement was intended to inform voters factually what the ballot proposition was intended to do if voted into law or not. The resolution of intent was completely discretionary; the Council was not required to have one but was

AGENDA ITEM 3


allowed to. The connection to the ballot statement was to explain to the voters what the ballot measure language was intended to mean and what state law allowing for creation of a MPD was intended to do. The voters pamphlet explanatory statement did not have to mirror or contain anything from the resolution. Councilmember Schilaty said this resolution was originally brought by staff to help clarify what the Council might intend as a MPD board in setting the rate and priority of projects; it could be in no way binding. She didn’t know if Seattle or Ferndale had cost estimates for specific projects and therefore came to a certain amount that they intended to levy. The Council hadn’t come to that point; they were asking the public to vote on a MPD and to then allow them as a board to set that rate. The projects were listed in the resolution. The Council could choose either to list those projects or do away with the resolution of intent; they didn’t have to have it. One thing that would be useful in the resolution was the process and the long period of time they had to set the rate. At that time there would be much useful information available, not only from staff analysis but from public input. The explanatory statement could indicate there would be a public process to set the rate or be completely silent. She didn’t want to set a rate and then find out it wasn’t enough, or set the highest rate possible and it’s more than was needed. The board could always lower the rate. They didn’t want to scare voters away either with a full levy amount. The projects they were interested in doing could be listed, or scrap the resolution altogether. Mayor Guzak appreciated everyone’s comments. The resolution showed intent, listed four particular projects, and expected communication to the citizens with lots of factual information coming forward. The resolution of intent was much more explanatory than the statement which was limited to 200 words. The resolution could be very useful in explaining to folks what was intended and what the process was going to be. MOTION by Guzak, second by Randall, that the City Council pass Resolution 1327. Councilmember Kaftanski would not support the motion. The resolution was very explanatory in nature. If they were going to explain their intention as the MPD board was to develop four capital projects and to devote the majority of new MPD money to the number one priority to increase maintenance as established in the Parks Recreation and Open Space Long Range Plan update, they had an obligation to identify an intended rate. Looking at the data staff provided at the last meeting, the minimum to achieve the low level of maintenance for the next 20 years that staff identified as appropriate for a MPD to fund would take at least 33 cents/$1,000 AV. If they agreed maintenance was the top priority of a MPD, they were already talking about a base of 33 cents/$1,000 AV, and that didn’t address the four capital projects identified in the resolution. He was involved in master planning and construction oversight. The correlation between what it cost to build a project and the cost estimate in the master plan was rather weak; usually a project was built for a lot more than what the master plan estimated it would be. There wasn’t enough money at 75 cents to develop a higher level of maintenance and actually get the four projects done without other funding sources. It was a lot of money, deservedly so, because they needed to give more money to parks. He was looking to supplement the parks budget but they had to be sensitive to rate payers and tax payers in the community. On the capital side, 15 cents/$1,000 AV got a MPD of $3.6 million over twenty years to develop the capital projects. A lot could be done with that money. Sometimes the scope of work of a project drove what they had to get to build but many times they had to say ‘this is the amount of money we have available’ and develop the scope to match that.

AGENDA ITEM 3


MOTION TO AMEND by Kaftanski, second by Hamilton, that the City Council establish a rate of 48 cents per $1,000 assessed valuation as the intended rate to fund the additional number one priority of maintenance and help to develop the four capital projects listed in the resolution of intent. Mr. Weed said the order of procedure should be for the Council to first deliberate and then vote on proposed amendment, followed by a return to the main motion. Mayor Guzak understood from the information received from Mr. Davis that even if the Council was to do 48 cents, they would still have banked capacity up to 75 cents. Setting the rate at 48 cents was speculation, with no information on which to support that figure. She would vote ‘no’ on the amendment. Councilmember Schilaty thanked Councilmember Kaftanski for his work. His numbers were likely very reliable but not having seen how he got to the 48 cents and exactly how it worked, she wasn’t prepared to vote ‘yes’ on this motion tonight. The taxpayers were savvy enough to look at the explanatory statement stating the board would levy from a range of 0 to 75 cents, and it obviously wouldn’t be zero. That was full disclosure. Even if passed, 48 cents might just be a minimum they looked at. Once the board got into it, the rate could go to 75 cents. She hoped that wouldn’t be the case but to pick a number at this point was speculative. Councilmember Hamilton had given their stewardship in the City great consideration. Parks were certainly a very important element of quality of life in town and for citizens. The Council was in a difficult place. Parks were very important and the Council wanted citizen support to pass the MPD. At the same time citizens had a certain sensitivity to the amount of money they would be paying. The full levy rate would result in about a 73% increase in the City portion of property tax; 48 cents in the amendment was still a 43% increase. Citizens would read the voters pamphlet statements for and against this with counter proposals. This was a real quagmire. Banked capacity was a ticking time bomb. Each November any Council, without looking at the restrictions on property tax, could literally double the property tax rate to citizens in town. There were some constraints that prevented that large of an increase. He was surprised to see that if they didn’t charge the full 75 cent/$1,000 AV, it became banked capacity that could be used by a future MPD board. Citizen feedback showed they were concerned about how much money they were paying in property taxes. Looking at the town demographics, the citizens were somewhat older and this was an expensive place to live in. The Council had to be sensitive to that. A lot of thought went into the suggestion of 48 cents. He had looked at the numbers also; they had a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens to look at it. The rate would be set in November 2016 for the 2017 tax levy. The board would decide how much money they wanted to raise and that would dictate the rate. It could be $400,000 or $500,000 or even the maximum amount of $834,000. The maintenance issue was the top priority. There were some capital improvements and capital investments the board wanted to make, and there may only be so many dollars for that. Clearly citizens had indicated their priorities and things they would like to see. The board may have a budget to work within, and for sure within the amount voters were willing to spend for these improvements. The tax rate was a very sensitive issue. This issue and the explanatory statement were directly linked. He didn’t want to put the cart before the horse. He was in support of the motion. The Council had to demonstrate to the citizens that the Council’s responsibility to the citizens was taken into consideration. The Council wasn’t just going to go out and generate as much money as it could for projects.

AGENDA ITEM 3


Councilmember Burke assumed the resolution of intent didn’t bracket the Council into the four projects; if new opportunities came along later that fell outside, it wasn’t binding. Mr. Bauman confirmed the four projects listed were simply priorities for the initial period of the MPD’s life. Over the course of decades other projects would naturally arise and be funded as a course of the MPD’s business if it’s established. Councilmember Burke probably spent more money personally than everybody here on access to public lands and waterways for his annual permits, fishing license, etc. They were talking about developing things for the City that were real products, would cost real money, and provide real benefit. Hal Moe Pool redevelopment was huge. Boat launches around the state were in terrible disrepair; this was going to be a huge boon to the state. Dog parks were popular and would only get more popular over time. A good product sold itself. Everyone knew there were things like cost overruns. It should just be stated clearly and let people make up their minds. The perception of parks would change in the next 20-25 years. Huge things were going on in the state’s environment that would affect the thinking about this money and parks. More and more people would not be driving and would need places to go. Regarding property tax, he owned a home and he got paid money. Last week the family went to eastern Washington to hunt wild mushrooms and the forest was so dry. Things were changing. The Council could create something here that would have a changing and new meaning. There was an opportunity to embrace this. They should just lay it out. Councilmember Randall thought the four projects were very important to include but it was unfortunate there were no reliable cost estimates right now. Hal Moe Pool was the big-ticket item probably. He appreciated Councilmember Kaftanski’s work but there were no really good numbers yet on what these projects were going to cost and it would be difficult to set a rate for the ballot measure. They should list the projects and range, and just be honest that the amount was unknown at this point. The public process was going to be very important as they listened to the community members if this does pass, and also getting good numbers from staff. Some money might be leveraged into grants so the City may not have to pay every single dollar of all the projects. The City got a lot of grant funding for the roundabout. Transportation projects and park projects were a little different but grant funding could be available. Councilmember Schilaty said unfortunately this was the tool given by the Legislature and this was how it worked. A rate couldn’t be set until the board was formed. The Council could come up with an intent. The only way to really be transparent was to say ‘there is a range; we don’t know what the rate is yet, and these are our projects.’ That was as honest as they could be. As for stewardship, she would hate to say a number that then didn’t turn out to be the rate set. The public had to trust that the MPD board would exercise their stewardship. If the public didn’t trust that, then citizens shouldn’t vote for this. If voters approve the MPD and these projects have the value expected, citizens would know the board would use its stewardship and determine a rate reflective of what was needed. Councilmember Kaftanski noted that within a year there would probably be a scope for the pool redevelopment project with some unit costs, as well as better data for the other smaller projects. The initial analysis assumed no type of federal or local grants, or use of Real Estate Excise Tax dollars. Councilmembers all brought their experiences to the dais. It would really surprise him if the scope doesn’t say 75 cents/$1,000 AV was needed to do what they would like to see done. If they set an intended rate of 75 cents today, he personally believed the probability was lower that the MPD would pass in August. If

AGENDA ITEM 3


they were silent, the probability was lower. A lot of voters would ask themselves if they should vote to establish a special purpose taxing district with a range of what the cost would be but not knowing what it would be. If the data wasn’t available today, maybe the MPD vote should be delayed a year. If the Council wasn’t ready to rescind the ballot measure in August, he suggested that an intended rate was the appropriate thing to do, letting tax payers know what they would likely face. Mayor Guzak thought putting a rate out now was counter-indicated as they didn’t know. It set expectations for voters and it wasn’t an appropriate expectation. Councilmember Hamilton had misspoke when he said 48 cents would be a 43% increase. Looking at his notes, it would be a 47% increase of the City property tax. The objective was to create a resolution at Council discretion that the voters would be able to read regarding the Council’s intent. A lot of public input would be taken in the future if the MPD passed, not only about scope and priority of projects, but also regarding what people would be willing to spend. The objective tonight was to say ‘here is what we’re looking at today.’ The Council’s goal was to put the MPD before the voters for approval. He looked at this as a consideration of what the citizens might anticipate as a legitimate rate from the Council. VOTE ON THE MOTION AMENDMENT: The amendment failed (3-4) with Schilaty, Guzak, Burke and Randall voting nay. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion passed (4-3) with Kaftanski, Rohrscheib and Hamilton voting nay.

b. APPROVE Voters Pamphlet Explanatory Statement for Metropolitan Parks District

As a result of further analysis, it has become clear that banked capacity is created at the outset if a MPD is established. Once the MPD board chooses an initial rate such as 50 cents, banked capacity is automatically created for the amount related to the additional 25 cents limit of the MPD. Because of that, staff was recommending that a reference to the 1% annual limit for growth be removed from the explanatory statement. Staff provided the Council with three additional versions listed as Alternative 1, Alter-native 2, and Alternative 3, in addition to the original version in the packet. Alternatives 2 and 3 made no reference to a maximum rate allowed. Staff recommended that one of these two alternatives provided the most appropriate language for the Council to review. The City Attorney reviewed the matter and looked at the analysis regarding the banked capacity issue as provided by the county assessor’s office. He concurred that removal of a reference to the maximum rate allowed was appropriate, as it was very complex to try to describe the mechanism of banked capacity within the 200-word limit for the ballot statement. Trying to give voters an education about how property tax works without confusing them further with the technical aspects involved in property tax mechanisms was a really difficult thing to do. Staff had really struggled with it and concluded that the best result was to remove reference to that maximum rate allowed and not confuse the voters further with the concept of how banked capacity might operate in future years. Mr. Weed added that it got very difficult to explain all the different scenarios to voters that could affect what they actually paid in 200 words. At least three different things could happen when the board met to discuss and determine the amount of money to

AGENDA ITEM 3


collect for these projects and the maintenance. In the first year the board could say they wanted to collect x dollars so the levy rate would be established by the county assessor at whatever that ended up to be between 1-to-75 cents/$1,000 AV. In the second year the board would need to decide to take the statutorily allowed 1% which did not require a vote of the people, or decline to take it. Another decision that could happen without a vote of the people was if the levy rate was set at something under 75 cents initially. According to the assessor’s office the difference would become banked and the MPD board could make the discretionary call to take the banked capacity in any given year. That could increase the tax amount tax payers paid. A third scenario that could change the amount tax payers paid was that the MPD board had legal authority to borrow and make debt payments on bonds. The board could allow a levy lid lift to increase the levy over and above what it had previously set to fund those bonds. The 200-word explan-atory statement was simply intended to be a factual statement of what the ballot measure meant. At the same time there was still language in the statements letting voters know state law set the maximum that could be levied in a MPD which was 75 cents/$1,000 AV. Staff recommended removing the language that said “once the first year property rate is set by law, the amount would be limited in succeeding years to increase no more than 1% annually without voter approval.” He also recommended deleting the sentence “at the maximum tax rate allowed, the estimated initial annual revenue would be $834,000.” That was recommended because it could imply to voters that there was an intention to levy the maximum amount allowed but that would not be determined until the MPD was formed, the board took public input, and a decision made on the amount. Councilmember Schilaty understood where three Councilmembers were coming from in wanting to set a rate, but given the different scenarios provided and how the funding rates could change, she wanted voters to look at this and ask ‘am I willing to pay the maximum of 75 cents/$1,000 AV?’ Also three Councilmembers were up for re-election. Looking at Alternative #3 a voter would know between 1 cent and 75 cents could be assessed so should be prepared to pay 75 cents; of not, the citizen shouldn’t vote for this. Council-member Burke spoke to the issue of what was valued. The resolution listed four capital projects. Were our citizens willing to look at those projects and park maintenance and be willing to spend up to 75 cents? If they weren’t, then they shouldn’t vote for this. She hoped it wouldn’t be set at 75 cents because that didn’t seem to be sensitive to the tax payers but there were no guarantees that it wouldn’t be 75 cents. She could make no guarantees that a 48-cent tax rate would remain after developing a MPD. Councilmember Randall thought Councilmember Schilaty favored Alternative #3 and that was his preference also. It was concise at 155 words and pretty straightforward without all the convoluted things included in it. MOTION by Kaftanski, second by Rohrscheib, that the City Council adopt Alternative #3 for the explanatory statement. Councilmember Hamilton considered this to be a difficult issue for voters because it was 1-1/2 years away before voters would even know how much they would be asked to pay. He was very supportive of parks. Increased maintenance was included because the parks were a real jewel of the City. Citizens were proud of the parks which helped define the City. Parks helped bring people to town and that created economic value. The objective was to create an understanding for the taxpayers so they would have some concept of what they were voting for. Leaving it open-ended and possibly 75 cents, he suspected the con statement would hammer on the idea of a large increase in property tax and that may weigh on the voters. The Council was really looking at a way to create an environ-

AGENDA ITEM 3


ment where people would want to pass this. He hadn’t made up his mind yet if he could support Alternative 3 or not; it didn’t give citizens a true sense of where the Council was going. He was really uncomfortable with this open-ended deal and the perception that it would cost people a lot of money. He appreciated that the property tax issue was much more complicated than they thought, even more so than regular property tax. Mr. Bauman had one technical change recommended by the City Attorney. The official nomenclature under state law was Metropolitan Park District. He asked that “Parks” be changed to “Park” if the Council was going to consider this language. Councilmember Schilaty appreciated this Council very much and their thoughtfulness in juggling with these difficult issues. Each of them came to the dais with a very committed heart to doing the best for citizens. They wanted the measure to pass and it was uncom-fortable that they couldn’t do it with a specific amount for the taxpayers. She didn’t want the citizens to be under any illusion that something was going to happen when it might not. She would have to personally decide if she was prepared to pay 75 cents for it or not. This was the tool they were given and they had to be realistic and honest about it. Councilmember Burke said if this gets approved, committees will be formed, meetings held with conceptual drawings, and people will get really excited. Leave it a blank slate for now. Mr. Weed said under state law, the City Attorney was responsible for writing the explan-atory statement, certifying that it met statutory requirements. If a statement was submitted to the county that did not meet requirements, the elections department with their legal staff got to veto it and prepare their own. The good thing was the process had been iter-ative; everyone had a chance to weigh in and be heard which was very important. Councilmember Hamilton realized it was a complex issue and the Council may actually be overruled by someone. He was uncomfortable with the alternative and would abstain. VOTE ON THE MOTION: The motion passed (6-0-1) with Hamilton abstaining. Mayor Guzak thanked staff and Council as this was really difficult. It was also very heartfelt. They all believed in the City and the value of parks, and wanted to bring the MPD forward in a way that they could all support.

c. APPROVE Pro and Con Statement Committees for Metropolitan Parks District

The applicants for the Pro Committee were Lya Badgley, John First and Ann Stanton. Gary Ferguson withdrew his request. That left three applicants. The Con Committee applicant was Morgan Davis. MOTION by Hamilton, second by Rohrscheib, that the City Council appoint Lya Badgley, Ann Stanton, and John First to the ballot statement Pro Committee and appoint Morgan Davis to the ballot statement Con Committee for the City of Snohomish Propo-sition 1 on the primary election ballot in 2015. The motion passed unanimously (7-0).

AGENDA ITEM 3


7. DISCUSSION ITEM – Economic Development and Transportation Elements Briefing Tonight the Council was being asked for guidance on any particular concerns or direction regarding the amendments proposed by staff and the advisory boards. Many policies in the Economic Development Element dated back to the 2001 Economic Development Plan and some were actually older, dating back to the mid-1990’s. The existing policies tended to be long, dense, jargon-heavy and, in many cases, without clear direction. The ED Element was sequentially reviewed with recommendations first by the Economic Development Committee, followed by the Planning Commission. These reviews resulted in far fewer policies, with remaining policies much easier to understand and more meaningful. The proposed goals addressed general economic development expansion and diversification, economic costs versus the benefits of regulation, promoting quality of life factors, and the efficient use of public resources to encourage and sustain economic development. Refinements and updates were made throughout the policies. A new policy direction was an emphasis on the cost of regulation as a potential impediment to economic development. There was one new goal and three new policies. Proposed implementing policies directed an evaluation of current regulations for their impact on economic development, a cost benefit analysis for new regulations, and review of proposed regulations by the EDC. This was a new direction in the ED element. In several cases the Planning Commission made changes subsequent to EDC review resulting in somewhat diverging recommendations. These included ED 1.8 which regarded promotion of local craft industries. The EDC recommended the policy focus on craft beverages while the Planning Commission felt that was fairly narrow for a 20-year plan so they removed the reference to the beverage industry, expanding it to include all local craft industries. Goal ED 2 regarded regulations that affect economic development. The EDC recommended balancing private costs and community benefits of regulations that affect economic develop-ment. The Planning Commission felt the potential cost of regulations would be borne by both public and private entities and therefore removed the reference to ‘private.’ ED 3.2 had a minor editorial change regarding investment infrastructure to foster a high quality of life standard. The Planning Commission removed the word ‘thereby.’ Mayor Guzak supported the Planning Commission wording in the two versions. It was not quite so confining. ‘Craft industries’ was good and costs were both public and private. The word ‘thereby’ was superfluous. Councilmember Kaftanski concurred with the Planning Commission version on ED 1.8, 2, and 3.2. Regarding goals 2.2 and 2.3 on cost benefit analysis and EDC review of proposed regulations that may have an economic development impact, it could be argued that any ordinance could have economic development impact; he would challenge people to identify one that didn’t. He suggested removal of 2.3 along with 2.2 because regulations would be studied constantly. The EDC had the opportunity and discretion to weigh in on any proposed ordinance. He didn’t want to see the Council ham-strung by these two policies. Mayor Guzak said a red flag came up in her reading of the EDC language on ED 2.3 also. Mr. Dennison concurred that the EDC had opportunity to evaluate, review, and provide a recommendation to the Council on any potential legislation.

AGENDA ITEM 3


Councilmember Schilaty noted that sometimes these were placeholders and reminders for the future. She understood not wanting to get caught up in the quagmire. She could support the elimination of 2.2 but keep 2.3 because things got lost as new Councilmembers came on. It was a placeholder and reminder that the EDC was there to help guide along the way. Councilmembers Burke, Randall, Rohrscheib and Hamilton concurred with removing both. Moving on to proposed amendments to the Transportation Element, most of the policies were twenty years old, and perhaps more detailed and prescriptive than necessary. The Planning Commission recommended a significantly reduced list intended to preserve the important direction in existing policies and the current policy framework; respond to requirements of the Growth Management Act, countywide planning policies, and the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Vision 2040 multicounty planning policies; and to place a greater emphasis on non-motorized transportation options as well as updating policies addressing sustainability. These policies were segregated into sections addressing the transportation system overall: active transportation which was non-motorized circulation; public transit and transportation demand management; intersection of land use and transportation; environmental consider-ations in the design of transportation systems; maintenance and preservation of the existing system; and financial considerations. There was a slightly different format in that certain policies may refer back to multiple goals. Goals were aggregated and the policies were divided up among those general themes. Goals and policies addressed City infrastructure, and had been reviewed by the City Engineer who concurred with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to the Council. Councilmember Kaftanski commented on goal TR 2, promoting non-motorized travel to reduce the number of trips made by single-occupant vehicles. That struck him as a negative. The reality was that even as usage of nonmotorized modes increased, the automobile was not going away; it was an important element of the transportation system. He recommended that staff and the Planning Commission consider making the language more positive, such as “increase the share of trips made by nonmotorized modes” and not pick on any one mode in particular. Related to goal TR 5, he was interested not only in the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of the transportation system but in improving the environmental outcomes of the system. He hoped to weave in some environmental outcome into TR 5. Regarding policy TR 5 that spoke about employing traffic calming measures, he would like to make it ‘employ effective traffic calming measures’ because there were ineffective ones that had debilitating effects on fire response, people speeding up between speed bumps, etc. Mayor Guzak acknowledged and appreciated Councilmember Kaftanski’s combing through and fine-tuning of the documents. She confirmed Mr. Dennison had the needed information. Councilmember Hamilton complimented the Planning Commission and Economic Develop-ment Committee on all their hard work over an extended period, putting in a lot of effort, and making a lot of really good improvements to the documents.

8. CONSENT ITEM - AUTHORIZE payment of claim warrants #56440 through #56522 in

the amount of $455,645.33, and payroll checks #14693 through #14711 in the amount of $432,715.15 issued since the last regular meeting

MOTION by Hamilton, second by Burke, to pass the Consent Agenda. The motion passed

unanimously (7-0).

AGENDA ITEM 3


9. OTHER BUSINESS/INFORMATION ITEMS Councilmember Burke noticed the stop sign south of Rite-aid at the dry cleaner’s was really

derelict. Driving the other day in the early-morning sun, he couldn’t even see it. Mr. Schuller confirmed the sign was on private property approaching Second Street. Signs

on private property such as those in mall parking lots weren’t regulated. Staff could notify Rite-aid management that comments had been received.

Councilmember Burke asked how a private party could buy a stop sign. Mr. Schuller said they had access either to non- or regulatory signs, such as in catalogs. Councilmember Burke said the Pilchuck River had been on his mind with all the news about

water flows. Was the City’s take of water flow going to go way down this summer when the flow in the river dropped? Had it ever gone this low before?

Mr. Schuller said staff had met with Washington Water Trust and the Tribes who considered

the City’s flow from the Pilchuck River to be significant. There weren’t any current studies on what that meant but cursory data by Fish & Wildlife and others considered that during the hot dry summer months the flow the City took out of the river was significant on the lower Pilchuck. What that meant to endangered species hadn’t risen to the point of doing a strong scientific research paper. Both the Tribes and Trust were interested and wanted to pursue money for the City to be able to return water to the Pilchuck River some day, considering it one of the larger environmental projects in the watershed.

Councilmember Burke asked when this would come back to the Council. Mr. Schuller planned to provide an update in late summer on what was being proposed,

trying to break it down with the various options available. Staff needed to do some research so the Council would have the necessary information to make some key decisions.

Mr. Weed said the more it was examined, the more staff understood that a multi-faceted

strategy was needed. Staff was trying to work through the issues carefully and thoughtfully before bringing some recommendations back to the Council. It was a fairly complex issue.

Councilmember Burke wanted to see information on worst-case scenario modeling especially

related to the Everett water supply. This was one of their most important decisions to make. Mr. Schuller was chair of the Everett Water Utility Committee and could bring a regional

approach to the work being done, relating not only to the City but the entire county, as it may be helpful to understand the regional planning being done due to climate change.

Councilmember Burke said one of his concerns was the politicizing of water supplies and

rights. What was going on in the western part of the country was profound and would be multi-decade. Making the decision right now freaked him out.

10. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS/LIAISON REPORTS Councilmember Hamilton said the Planning Commission would meet tomorrow night to look

at the draft 2015 comprehensive plan vision statement. Community Transit’s monthly board meeting would be in Everett on Thursday.

AGENDA ITEM 3


Councilmember Burke had the pleasure of attending the Shrek play last week at Snohomish High School. It was outstanding and a lot of fun to watch. His youngest daughter was part of the dragon costume.

Councilmember Rohrscheib’s daughter appreciated the slide being put back in at the Boys &

Girls Club park. Secondly, was there any protocol on clean-up after auto accidents? A car accident Friday night at 10

th/Avenue D resulted in a lot of broken glass in the street. There

was pretty significant damage with vehicle parts laying on the sidewalk. Debris left after accidents seemed to happen quite often. Was any one group responsible for cleaning it up?

Sgt. Fournier said it was usually the tow company’s duty to clean up after the accident. Mr. Schuller added that Public Works relied on people calling in or the crew driving by. Councilmember Rohrscheib asked if there was an update on the possible intersection adjust-

ment at the aquatic center entrance. Department of Ecology did some work on the storm drains and the way they were parked blocked the intersection. A woman pulled out and was fortunately not T-boned by a car heading south. A lot of people struggled to pull out of there safely, especially considering all the additional traffic.

Mr. Schuller said the speed limit was reduced from 30 miles per hour to 25 mph and a four-

way stop was installed at nearby Fourth Street. Parking was removed by the senior center at Fifth Street and several parking spots were removed when the senior housing went in. Some businesses were getting sensitive to removing parking spaces that had been there for years. Work had been done at the Trails End restaurant to improve visibility. It was a complex S-curve turn. Some traffic calming techniques could be discussed as a long-term City strategy. Several cities faced increased traffic because of growth and density. Seattle was reviewing a drop in the minimum speed limit from 25 to 20 mph which hadn’t been allowed legislatively until 2013, except in school districts. Business and specialized residential areas lowered the speed limit, following up with appropriate engineering and signage.

Councilmember Rohrscheib noticed there wasn’t a stop sign next to the Hal Moe Pool at the

Lincoln/Third Street intersection heading north. It was a busy area. Councilmember Kaftanski encouraged staff to take a more expeditious look at the exit out of

the aquatic center. Councilmember Schilaty put in another plug for Shrek. Her son was the technician who lit

up the dragon. Also, her daughter was home from Africa and the family was about halfway through the observation period for possible illness.

11. MANAGER’S COMMENTS

Economic Alliance Snohomish County’s annual meeting will be held at the Tulalip Resort on May 14

th. As a member of EASC the City had two free tickets. The Mayor had claimed one

and the other was still available if any Councilmember wished to attend. Mr. Weed had some good news to report. Most often litigation was discussed in Executive Session but this litigation was no longer pending because it was dismissed. In 2003 the City was sued by the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance concerning violations of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit relating to the wastewater treatment plant and

AGENDA ITEM 3


exceedences of the permit limits. PSA filed claims relating to the violations of the federal Clean Water Act, and sought extensive fines and penalties allowed of up to $10,000 per day. The City entered into a negotiated consent agreement that put the federal lawsuit on hold and committed to a long list of things it would do to reach compliance. This was all separate and apart from the agreed orders entered into with the Department of Ecology. After 12 years and all the things the City and Public Works department had done to turn around effluent treatment, the City has complied with all the items it was required to do. In consultation with PSA the City proposed dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning that it could not be filed again and each party covering their own costs. Last week the order was signed off by federal Judge Barbara Rothstein, bringing a long saga of pending litigation against the City to an end. What was the significance other than not having federal litigation pending? As long as it was pending, it could affect the City’s bond rating and the rate at which it could borrow, and in a number of other ways that could have financial consequences. PSA has reached out to the City to discuss bringing forth a public announcement of the cooperative effort that has led to cleaner water and better function of the wastewater treatment plant. Mayor Guzak thanked staff for all their diligent work. This was great news.

12. MAYOR’S COMMENTS

Mayor Guzak and Lake Stevens Mayor Vern Little were re-elected to the Snohomish County Tomorrow Executive Committee. An update was given by the county legislative lobbyist Brianna Taylor. Everyone was especially interested in transportation. Senate and House transportation budgets had passed and were now in negotiations, with a hope for concurrence and a transportation package by the end of the special session. The Legislature was also still working on funding for public schools. Puget Sound Regional Council had some money for Rural Town Center transportation projects. The City’s 30

th Street/John Jump Road project had a construction ‘ask’ of $810,000.

It was ranked highly so there was hope to get construction funding. Stanwood’s comprehensive plan update was also presented at SCT. It was very interesting to see how cities dealt with zoning, economic development, and transportation; it was another example of local creative problem solving. North County Mayors received a presentation by Burlington Northern, now wholly owned by Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. BN was looking to expand, putting over $6 billion into capital investment last year for 129 miles of new double track, 613 new locomotives and 7,500 rail cars. They were dealing with 270 bridges as they were committed to being the service provider for the western states. Coal and oil trains and potential safety problems were discussed. There were new standards for developing double-hulled oil cars. Dollar Tree opened with 27 new employees. Everything was $1. The previous dollar store had been Dollar Plus. Mayor Guzak would testify before the County Council tomorrow regarding seven acres of the Stocker boat launch property in the county to make sure the county kept that as park and not revert it back to agricultural land. On May 19

th at Forterra’s annual breakfast she would

talk about how Forterra helped the City with planning for the Pilchuck District and transfer of development rights, and being such a great partner for a small city. Councilmember Burke had read some language related to what was going on with farm land. If it went through as written, it was a little anti-trust. No new wedding centers would be able

AGENDA ITEM 3


to open in those areas. That wasn’t legal from the outset. Councilmember Hamilton complimented staff for working with PSA. If anyone followed that organization, PSA had created some headaches of unbelievable proportions for entities and companies. He really appreciated what staff had done to work with them. This was huge for the City.

13. ADJOURN at 9:35 p.m.

APPROVED this 19

th day of May 2015

CITY OF SNOHOMISH ATTEST:

__________________________ ______________________________

Karen Guzak, Mayor Torchie Corey, City Clerk

AGENDA ITEM 3


ACTION ITEM 6a


Date: May 19, 2015

To: City Council

From: Jennifer Anderson, Finance Director

Subject: 2015 Budget Amendment

The purpose of this agenda item provides for the City Council’s consideration of proposed

Ordinance 2289 (Attachment A), amending the 2015 Budget.

BACKGROUND: The 2015 Budget was adopted on November 18, 2014 as Ordinance 2280

(Attachment B). Since the adoption of the original 2015 budget, revenue sources, personnel,

operating and capital expenditures are under constant review by staff to minimize the risk of

expenditures exceeding authorized budget allocations and to better reflect revenue sources

expected to be received by the City in the fiscal year.

As of May 1, 2015, staff has revised revenue estimates for various funds to better reflect likely

receipts to be taken in during the year. Expenditure allocations needing amendment include

personnel and benefit costs, cost allocation charges, capital project costs and inter-fund transfers.

Attachment C identifies – by fund – the budget line items proposed for amendment.

STRATEGIC PLAN REFERENCE: None

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 2289 amending the

2015 Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Ordinance 2289

B. Ordinance 2280

C. Proposed Budget Amendments by Fund

ACTION ITEM 6a


ATTACHMENT A

CITY OF SNOHOMISH

Snohomish, Washington

ORDINANCE 2289

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON

AMENDING THE 2015 BUDGET AS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE 2280

CONCERNING REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS

DEPARTMENTS AND FUNDS FOR THE YEAR 2015

WHEREAS, the Snohomish City Council adopted the 2015 budget pursuant to

Ordinance 2280; and

WHEREAS, the City has experienced changes in both revenues and expenditures during

the budget year 2015 which necessitates revision to the 2015 budget; and

WHEREAS, the City has experienced changes in scope and scheduling of capital

projects; and

WHEREAS, the economic conditions resulting from slowly recovering national and

world economic crises require constant vigilance by City staff in managing City finances for the

foreseeable future;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH,

WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The 2015 budget, as adopted in Ordinance 2280 is hereby amended as follows:

ACTION ITEM 6a


Section 2. Except as set forth above, all other provisions of Ordinance 2280 shall remain in full

force, unchanged.

Section 3. This Ordinance shall become effective 5 days following publication of a summary

consisting of the title of this Ordinance.

ADOPTED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 19th

day of May,

2015.

CITY OF SNOHOMISH

By____________________________

KAREN GUZAK, MAYOR

ATTEST:

By___________________________________

Torchie Corey, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By___________________________________

Grant K. Weed, City Attorney

ACTION ITEM 6a


ATTACHMENT B

CITY OF SNOHOMISH Snohomish, Washington

ORDINANCE 2280

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON FOR THE YEAR 2015, AND SETTING FORTH IN SUMMARY FORM THE TOTALS OF ESTIMATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCES, REVENUES, AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR EACH SEPARATE FUND, AND ENDING FUND BALANCES FOR ALL SUCH FUNDS COMBINED

WHEREAS, State law requires that the City adopt an annual budget before the end of each calendar year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held public workshops on October 7, 2014 and October 21, 2014 in preparation of the City’s 2015 Budget; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended a budget as provided by law; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014 and November 18, 2014, the City Council held public hearings on the City Manager's 2015 Recommended Budget, also as required by law;

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In accordance with the provisions of RCW 35A.33.075, the budget of the City of Snohomish for 2015, in aggregate amount of $35,187,177 is hereby adopted. Section 2. The totals of budgeted revenues and appropriations for each separate fund are set forth in summary form as follows:

ACTION ITEM 6a


Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of the budget, hereby adopted, to the Office of the Auditor of the State of Washington, Division of Municipal Corporation, and to the Association of Washington Cities. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force January 1, 2015.

ADOPTED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 18th day of November, 2014. CITY OF SNOHOMISH By Karen Guzak, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By By Torchie Corey, City Clerk Grant Weed, City Attorney Date of Publication:

Effective Date:

ACTION ITEM 6a


ATTACHMENT C

ACTION ITEM 6a


ACTION ITEM 6b


Date: May 19, 2015

To: City Council

From: Larry Bauman, City Manager

Subject: Adoption of Resolution 1329 in Support of Metropolitan Park District

Proposition 1

The City Council has approved placing Proposition 1 on the August 4 ballot for the Primary

Election regarding the creation of a Metropolitan Park District for the City of Snohomish. The

attached Resolution 1329 would provide the City Council the opportunity to consider

communicating its support for and urging voters to approve this measure.

While state law (RCW 42.17.130) prohibits the use of facilities of a public office to support or

oppose a ballot measure or an election campaign for public office, there are several exceptions to

this broad prohibition. One of these exceptions specifically allows a local government legislative

body, such as a city council, to vote on a motion or resolution to express support or opposition to

a ballot proposition if the following procedural steps are first taken:

1) The notice for the meeting must include the title or number of the ballot proposition;

2) Members of the legislative body and members of the public must be allowed an

approximately equal opportunity to express opposing views.

Following such Council and public comment on the resolution, the Council would be legally

permitted to vote on a resolution in support of the ballot measure.

As the City Council has supported the ballot measures recently proposed by the Snohomish

School District and Snohomish County Fire District 4, it is also recommended that the City

Council direct the Mayor to transmit Resolution 1329, if approved, to the members of the School

Board and to the Fire Commissioners requesting that they adopt a similar resolution of support.

STRATEGIC PLAN REFERENCES: INITIATIVE #1: Establish a sustainable model for

strengthening and expanding our parks, trails, and public spaces and STRATEGY #1.A:

Establish a sustainable funding model to maintain and expand the City’s existing system.

RECOMMENDATIONS: That the City Council PASS Resolution 1329 providing the City

Council’s recommendation that voters support the Metropolitan Park District Proposition

1 on the August 4, 2015, ballot and DIRECT the Mayor to forward this resolution by letter

to the governing bodies of Snohomish School District and Snohomish County Fire District

4 with a request for each of those districts to also adopt a resolution of support.

ATTACHMENT: Resolution 1329

ACTION ITEM 6b


CITY OF SNOHOMISH

Snohomish, Washington

RESOLUTION 1329

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON

SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1 FOR FORMATION OF A

METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT TO BE DECIDED ON THE 2015

PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT

WHEREAS, the City of Snohomish City Council recognizes the importance of

maintaining a high quality of life for its citizens through the provision of well maintained and

appropriately designed parks and recreation facilities; and

WHEREAS, the availability of attractive and functional park and trail systems within

walking distance of residential areas contribute to the health, fitness, economic well being and

overall enjoyment of life within the community; and

WHEREAS, the City has adopted an updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space Long-

Range Plan (“Parks Plan”) that identifies a number of deficiencies in the City’s existing parks

system as well as opportunities for its enhancement; and

WHEREAS, the Snohomish City Council has placed before the voters on the August 4,

2015, Primary Election Proposition 1 to establish a Metropolitan Park District (MPD); and

WHEREAS, the decision to request voter approval of the MPD measure was based in

part on the results of a 2014 citizens survey that demonstrated community support to approve a

new source of revenue that would allow the City of Snohomish to improve parks maintenance as

well as make certain capital improvements in the parks system; and

WHEREAS, the investment of public resources in the City’s existing parks system is

estimated at $25 million; and

WHEREAS, the most recent economic recession that began in 2008 demonstrated the

vulnerability of City revenues and resources to maintain sufficient funding for parks maintenance

during periods of economic downturn; and

WHEREAS, Proposition No. 1 could potentially generate revenues that would provide a

sustainable funding level for parks maintenance and for parks improvements; and

WHEREAS, the proposed parks improvement priorities adopted by the City Council in

Resolution 1327 that may be funded by a MPD include redevelopment of the Hal Moe Pool,

further development of the boat launch property, development of the Interurban Trail and

creation of an off-leash dog area;

ACTION ITEM 6b


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS:

The City of Snohomish City Council hereby supports Proposition No. 1 for the formation

of a Metropolitan Park District and recommends to the voters of Snohomish that they cast an

“Approved” vote on Proposition No. 1 on the August 4, 2015, election ballot.

PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 19th

day of May,

2015.

CITY OF SNOHOMISH

By____________________________

KAREN GUZAK, MAYOR

Attest:

By____________________________

TORCHIE COREY, CITY CLERK

Approved as to form:

By____________________________

GRANT K. WEED, CITY ATTORNEY

ACTION ITEM 6b


DISCUSSION ITEM 7a


Date: May 19, 2015

To: City Council

From: Jennifer Anderson, Finance Director

Subject: 2015 Financial Report – as of March 31, 2015

The purpose of this agenda item is for the Council’s review and acceptance of the first quarter

2015 Financial Report as of March 31, 2015 (See Attachment).

BACKGROUND: The 2015 Budget was adopted by the City Council on November 18, 2014 in

Ordinance 2280. On a quarterly basis, staff presents a financial report to inform the Council of

actual versus budgeted revenues, expenditures and fund balances.

ANALYSIS:

General Fund revenues, except property tax revenues received mainly in May and November,

received to-date are mostly on track with the overall quarterly target. Sales tax revenue, which is

the largest portion of General Fund revenue sources, is exceeding the quarterly revenue expected

for this time in the budget year; this continues to be positive news for the General Fund. As

always, staff remains cautious about our sales tax revenue source as the economy maintains. The

CPI for March 2015 increased +0.2% on a seasonally adjusted basis. The last twelve months saw

a decrease of -0.1% before seasonal adjustments; however, this is neither a decrease nor increase

from the +0.2% for the twelve months ending March 2014.

Utility taxes receipts are on track with targeted levels and gambling taxes continue to exceed

quarterly targets. License and permit revenues are minimal at this time primarily due to the

construction season not in full swing yet; however, plan check and other developmental fees

have exceeded the annual budget target and will be a candidate for budget amendment.

Intergovernmental or shared revenues which include criminal justice and liquor profits are

essentially on target for 2015. Other revenue include miscellaneous sources from penalties, fines,

facility rentals, interest income, sales of fixed assets and a variety of other sources which are

often hard to predict during the budget setting process.

Transfers-in to the General Fund for 2015 include $50,000 from the REET Fund (117) for off-

setting park maintenance costs. Transfers from one fund to another are completed on a quarterly

basis with the first quarter entries completed on schedule.

For the 2015 first quarter ending March 31, 2015, General Fund revenue sources received are

23.1% of the adopted 2015 Budget.

General Fund expenditures as of the 2015 first quarter are on target. With the exception of

Human Resources, where the annual WCIA and property insurance premiums are paid in full in

DISCUSSION ITEM 7a


January of each year, thus skewing the overall division budget target, all General Fund divisions

are performing as expected in the first quarter of the budget year. First quarter cost allocation

charges have been imposed and staff is monitoring the cost allocation charges to minimize year-

end true-up costs that skew the overall budget to actual performance.

Overall for 2015, General Fund expenditures are essentially on budget target at 24.0% of the

Adopted 2015 Budget.

The General Fund - Fund Balance is $1.169 million as of March 31, 2015. This fund balance

reserve level is 17.2% of 2015 revenues less allocations and transfer-in sources per current

council policy with the total balance unassigned but used to provide cash flow to pay

expenditures when due while the City waits to receive property taxes and shared revenues. The

unassigned fund balance is also a security against unforeseen changes in needs, i.e. natural

disasters, economic downturns or loss of shared revenues.

Street Fund is a special revenue, operating fund that collects motor vehicle fuel tax revenues

and receives a transfer-in from the General Fund. Revenue sources are on track with the first

quarter 2015 budget target. Street maintenance expenditures are below the first quarter target as

maintenance & operations work will typically occur in the later quarters of the year.

The Street Fund balance is $101,736 as of March 31, 2015 or 11% of budgeted revenue sources

and is assigned to future daily operational costs.

Utility Enterprise Fund revenue sources are on track at the first quarter 2015 with rate billings

exceeding budgeted revenue targets in all three utilities. Capital and Connection charges

typically follow building and development revenue activities as this revenue source is a

combined charge on the building permit. Utility expenditures are below first quarter typical

targets primarily due to debt service obligations not due until June and December of each year.

Fund Balances for the Utility Enterprise Funds as of March 31, 2015 total over $10.8 million

dollars. Utility Fund reserves are a combination of unassigned, assigned, committed and

restricted funds for daily operations, operating reserves, debt service and capital projects.

Internal Service Funds are utilized for Fleet & Facilities and Information Services activities.

These internal service funds are funded with cost allocation charges from other funds. Updated

fleet and technology equipment plans were prepared and used to determine cost allocation fees

for these internal service funds.

Fund Balance for the Fleet & Facilities Fund is $680,809 and Information Services is $340,029.

These funds are set aside for future maintenance and technology equipment replacement plans.

Non-Operating Funds budget-vs-actual revenues and expenditures, as of March 31, 2015, are

listed in summary for each special revenue, debt, capital project, other internal service and

trust/agency funds. Fund balances for these types of funds are typically assigned, committed or

restricted as the fund is established for a designated purpose.

DISCUSSION ITEM 7a


Fund Balance Review

All fund balances as of March 31, 2015 total $16,959,419. Utility Enterprise fund reserves of

$10,886,682 make up the largest portion of the overall City of Snohomish fund balance amount.

Below is a summary of fund balance by fund type. Because of the cash basis method of

reporting, a reminder that fund balance is cash and cash equivalent balances divided among all

funds.

Fund Balances are designated according to GASB Statement 54, a Fund Balance Reporting and

Governmental Fund type definition guideline on how a City may reserve funds. The following

chart summarizes all fund reserves designations.

DISCUSSION ITEM 7a


STRATEGIC PLAN REFERENCE: Not applicable

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council REVIEW and ACCEPT the 2015

Financial Report as of March 31, 2015 .

ATTACHMENT: Financial Report as of March 31, 2015

DISCUSSION ITEM 7a


DISCUSSION ITEM 7b


Date: May 19, 2015

To: City Council

From: Yoshihiro Monzaki, City Engineer

Subject: Spruce Street Vacation Request

Mr. Lance Harvey, owner of the property at 35 Lincoln Avenue (Parcel No. 00555900100100),

has requested a street vacation of a portion of unopened Spruce Street along the north side of the

35 Lincoln Avenue property. A street vacation is a process whereby the City agrees to relinquish

its ownership of a street right-of-way to a land owner. Mr. Harvey has acquired the services of

Dirk L. Weimann, Professional Land Surveyor, with River City Land Services, Inc. to assist with

the City street vacation process.

The total requested area to be vacated is approximately 2,472 square feet. If granted by the City,

the vacated portion of the City’s right-of-way would become a part of the 35 Lincoln Avenue

parcel. Mr. Harvey is requesting a vacation of a portion of the southern half of the Spruce Street

right-of-way that is next to his property. Spruce Street is an undeveloped right-of-way that has a

width of 60-feet. Mr. Harvey’s property is 4,475 square feet which is less than the required

minimum of 6,000 square feet for a buildable lot. The additional area from the vacation will

allow Mr. Harvey to develop this lot. An existing detached garage was constructed on the

northern half of Spruce Street. The house (51 Lincoln Avenue) was constructed in 1927, but it is

not known if the garage was constructed at that time or after. The requested vacation area has

been delineated so as not to include the portion of the garage that extends south past the

centerline. See Attachment B.

Chapter 12.48 of the Snohomish Municipal Code (SMC) describes the process for Street

Vacations. The code allows the applicant to request a meeting with the City Council to discuss

the proposal. This allows the applicant to discuss the petition with the Council before spending

funds on a professional appraiser, and preparation of legal descriptions. If the vacation is

approved by the City, the applicant will be required to compensate the City for the vacated

property in accordance with a City approved third party appraisal report.

Attachment A includes the transmittal letter and street vacation application. The applicant has

included in the letter a statement as to how the requested vacation satisfies the criteria for

granting a vacation as set forth in SMC 12.48.080. Although the applicant states correctly in

Criteria 5 that each abutting owner has an access to their property, the resident at 28 Pine Avenue

uses Spruce Street to access the back portion of their property.

Attachment B shows the hatched area that represents the requested street vacation area. An

access easement will be provided as shown as the “Proposed 20’ Driveway” on the drawing to

provide access to the 28 Pine Avenue property. To satisfy the lot dimension requirements the

existing gravel access must be relocated to the north within the new access easement. Mr.

Harvey will be required to construct the new gravel access. A utility easement will be provided

that will cover the same hatched area as the requested vacation area. This will allow for future

DISCUSSION ITEM 7b


utilities and the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) to maintain their guy wire and

anchor that is located east of the shed near the centerline of Spruce Street.

Attachment C is an aerial map that shows the approximate area of the requested vacation.

City staff recommends that the application be conditionally approved by the City Council. Staff

recommends that a condition be placed on this vacation requiring the petitioner to provide

permanent access and utility easements as required by the City and the PUD.

Per SMC 12.48.015, the City Council’s “preliminary determination shall not be final or binding

in any respect. If the applicant thereafter decides to proceed with a street vacation petition, all

provision of this chapter shall apply.”

STRATEGIC PLAN REFERENCE: Initiative #4, Increase multi-modal mobility within and

connections to the community.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council DISCUSS the Street Vacation request and

RECOMMEND staff process the petition for vacation of a portion of the Spruce Street

right-of-way.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Transmittal Letter and Criteria Responses

B. Street Vacation Exhibit

C. Street Vacation Aerial with Parcel Lines Exhibit

REFERENCE: Chapter 12.48, Street Vacation, Snohomish Municipal Code.

DISCUSSION ITEM 7b


ATTACHMENT A

DISCUSSION ITEM 7b


DISCUSSION ITEM 7b


ATTACHMENT B

DISCUSSION ITEM 7b


ATTACHMENT C

DISCUSSION ITEM 7b


DISCUSSION ITEM 7c


Date: May 19, 2015

To: City Council

From: John Flood, Police Chief

Subject: Police Quarterly Report

PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to provide Council with an update of law

enforcement activity for the first quarter of 2015. Perhaps the most notable for the first three months

of 2015 is a noticeable decrease in most property crimes across the board in comparison to the same

period in 2014 with residential burglary down 72%, theft down 22%, and vehicle theft down 52%.

STRATEGIC PLAN REFERENCE: Not specifically applicable. This item responds generally to

the full scope of the plan.

RECOMMENDATION: None

ATTACHMENT: Police Quarterly Report

DISCUSSION ITEM 7c


CONSENT ITEM 8a

Schedule of Checks for the Checks Issued Since the May 5, 2015 Meeting Name Check # Invoice # Check Date Description Amount


Snohomish County Treasurer 56523 CrimevictimsEDC 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $105.70

56523 CrimevictimsTVB 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $1.58

56523 CrimevictimPark 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $0.13

Check Total $107.41

Strauberry Studios 56524 5615 5/11/15 Business License Overpayment $25.00

Check Total $25.00

Washington State Department of Licensing

56525 VOID

Washington State Treasurer 56526 EDCSTGEN40 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $2,268.25

56526 EDCSTGEN50 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $1,345.24

56526 EDCSTGEN54 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $103.68

56526 EDCHWYSAFETY 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $4.57

56526 EDCDEATHINV 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $2.88

56526 EDCJISACCT 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $312.49

56526 EDCTRAUMA 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $83.03

56526 EDCSCHOOLZONE 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $55.56

56526 EDCAUTOTHEFT 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $159.00

56526 EDCTRAUMABRAIN 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $26.52

56526 WSPHIWAYSAFE 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $16.42

56526 TVBSTGEN50 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $26.86

56526 TVBSTGEN40 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $42.60

56526 TVBJIS 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $10.00

56526 TVBTRAUMA 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $5.00

56526 PARKINGSTGEN50 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $3.95

56526 PARKINGSTGEN40 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $3.54

56526 PARKINGJIS 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $10.00

56526 PARKINGTRAUMA 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $5.00

56526 BLDGSVCCHG 5/11/15 State Pass Thru April 2015 $72.00

Check Total $4,556.59

Batch Total $4,821.00

Washington State Department of Licensing 56527 F189189 5/13/15 Original CPL Fuller $18.00

56527 F189190 5/13/15 Renewal CPL Goode $21.00

56527 F189191 5/13/15 Original CPL K Thompson $18.00

56527 F189192 5/13/15 Original CPL R Thompson $18.00

56527 F189193 5/13/15 Original CPL Desuler $18.00

56527 F189194 5/13/15 Original CPL Rea $18.00

56527 F189195 5/13/15 Original CPL Tuck $18.00

Check Total $129.00

Batch Total $129.00

AAA Champion LLC 56528 55 5/13/15 May janitorial $1,852.93


A. Daigger & Company 56529 PS1210549 5/13/15 RACK COMBO BLU GRN 2 PK $12.50

Check Total $12.50

CONSENT ITEM 8a



ADS LLC 56530 12522.220415 5/13/15 data analysis, field service $2,903.16


Automatic Funds Transfer Services, Inc 56531 81236 5/13/15 Storm Printing for March/April Billing $85.59

56531 81236 5/13/15 Garbage Printing for March/April Billing $85.59

56531 81236 5/13/15 Sewer Printing for March/April Billing $85.59

56531 81236 5/13/15 Water Printing for March/April Billing $85.58

56531 81236 5/13/15 Storm Postage for March/April Billing $170.78

56531 81236 5/13/15 Garbage Postage for March/April Billing $170.78

56531 81236 5/13/15 Sewer Postage for March/April Billing $170.78

56531 81236 5/13/15 Water Postage for March/April Billing $170.79


Allied Waste of Lynnwood 56532 December 2014 5/13/15 Recycling Services December 2014 $45,374.08

56532 December 2014 5/13/15 Solid Waste Services December 2014 $99,022.06

56532 December 2014 5/13/15 Solid Waste Tax December 2014 $-555.89


American Swing Parts 56533 62090 5/13/15 swing chain, shackles $614.00

Check Total $614.00

B&H Photo-Video 56534 96046953 5/13/15 replacement audio recording device $587.02

Check Total $587.02

Benchmark Document Solutions 56535 9348 5/13/15 City Hall Fax Machine $20.67

Check Total $20.67

BHC Consultants 56536 6706 5/13/15 WWTP Upgrades 13-48 $16,986.61


Bickford Motors 56537 1072519 5/13/15 gasket, hose assem. $60.18

56537 1072432 5/13/15 sensor $50.26

Check Total $110.44

Bio Clean, Inc.

56538 6282 5/13/15 Decontamination of Patrol Veh #XSC021 $277.45

Check Total $277.45

CDW G 56539 TW47431 5/13/15 Wireless Router replacement - City Hall $208.95

56539 TW65605 5/13/15 Mounting equip for permit counter TV $66.30

56539 VB72041 5/13/15 TV for permit counter $432.27

56539 VC48455 5/13/15 3 yr extended warranty for permit TV $48.83

Check Total $756.35

CONSENT ITEM 8a



Central Welding Supply Inc. 56540 RN04151032 5/13/15 acetylene $13.92

Check Total $13.92

Chemsearch 56541 1884008 5/13/15 drain cobra program $141.44

Check Total $141.44

Clair Olivers & Associates 56542 284 5/13/15 WW Projects Assistance $826.00

Check Total $826.00

Clearbrook Inc 56543 211304 5/13/15 polyclear $2,944.07


City of Everett Environmental Lab 56544 i15000982 5/13/15 lab analysis $172.80

Check Total $172.80

City of Everett Finance 56545 i15000984 5/13/15 lab analysis $97.20

56545 I15000983 5/13/15 Storm Water Sample Water Quality Testing $189.00

Check Total $286.20

Comcast 56546 892709-5/15 5/13/15 Water Share Shop Internet $17.35

56546 892709-5/15 5/13/15 Storm Share Shop Internet $17.35

56546 892709-5/15 5/13/15 Wastewater Share Shop Internet $17.35

56546 892709-5/15 5/13/15 Streets Share Shop Internet $17.35

56546 892709-5/15 5/13/15 Parks Share Shop Internet $8.67

56546 892709-5/15 5/13/15 Fleet & Facilities Share Shop Internet $26.01

56546 482016-5/15 5/13/15 Manager Share City Hall Internet $15.98

56546 482016-5/15 5/13/15 Human Resources Share City Hall Internet $16.00

56546 482016-5/15 5/13/15 Clerk Share City Hall Internet $16.00

56546 482016-5/15 5/13/15 Inspection Share City Hall Internet $16.00

56546 482016-5/15 5/13/15 Economic Dev Share City Hall Internet $16.00

56546 482016-5/15 5/13/15 Planning Share City Hall Internet $16.00

56546 482016-5/15 5/13/15 Finance Share City Hall Internet $16.00

56546 482016-5/15 5/13/15 IS Share City Hall Internet $16.01

56546 482016-5/15 5/13/15 Engineering Share City Hall Internet $16.00

56546 475077-5/15 5/13/15 Skate Park Video $91.46

Check Total $339.53

CompuCom Systems Inc 56547 62757749 5/13/15 software for new springbrook server $4,258.11


City of Mountlake Terrace 56548 2827 5/13/15 AHA Annual Assessment 7/1/15-6/30/16 $1,061.00


Corporate Office Supplies 56549 161479 5/13/15 printer ink $235.39

Check Total $235.39

CONSENT ITEM 8a



CUZ Concrete Products 56550 229593 5/13/15 shop sewer project-manhole sections $1,283.84


DataQuest 56551 CISNOH-20150430 5/13/15 Preemployment Screening $222.00

Check Total $222.00

David Berra 56552 8LQ2RH 5/13/15 Travel Expense Project Manager Candidate $865.01

Check Total $865.01

Dell Marketing LP 56553 XJNTW1TK6 5/13/15 New springbrook server $5,868.53


Denise Johns 56554 ZYEYHF 5/13/15 Travel Expense Project Manager Candidate $712.20

Check Total $712.20

Department of Commerce 56555 PWTF-255225 5/13/15 WWTP Upgrade, Principal $120,312.50

56555 PWTF-255225 5/13/15 WWTP Upgrade, Interest $7,720.05

56555 PWTF-259432 5/13/15 Phase 1 CSO Improvements, Principal $104,385.96

56555 PWTF-259432 5/13/15 Phase 1 CSO Improvements, Interest $6,698.10

56555 PWTF-256554 5/13/15 Comprehensive Water System Plan $18,000.00

56555 PWTF-256541 5/13/15 Cemetery Creek Trunk Sewer, Principal $73,684.21

56555 PWTF-256541 5/13/15 Cemetery Creek Trunk Sewer, Interest $4,390.35






Discovery Benefits 56556 540800-IN 5/13/15 HSA-Monthly $4.50

Check Total $4.50

Dog-ON-it Parks 56557 DO110506 5/13/15 drinking/pet fountain $3,692.67


Everett Stamp Works 56558 15402 5/13/15 restroom lock signs $86.92

Check Total $86.92

Evergreen State Heat & AC 56559 27869 5/13/15 ignitor repair-Engineer office $883.46

Check Total $883.46

Federal Express Corp. 56560 5-012-29930 5/13/15 File #12-14-PP PH Binder $29.08

56560 5-019-45097 5/13/15 File #12-14-PP PH Audio $20.60

Check Total $49.68

CONSENT ITEM 8a



Frontier

56561 1223105-4/15 5/13/15 CSO Monitoring System in 2nd Street $121.92

Check Total $121.92

Girard Resources & Recycling, LLC 56562 26972 5/13/15 asphalt tippings $144.00

Check Total $144.00

Goldstreet Design 56563 2302 5/13/15 water quality postcards $1,751.90


Gray & Osborne, Inc. 56564 15410.00-03 5/13/15 Storm NPDES Permit Assistance 14-22 $305.90

Check Total $305.90

Granich Engineered Prod Inc 56565 0000005 5/13/15 valve assy, gasket $285.68

56565 0000010 5/13/15 pump gasket $88.96

Check Total $374.64

H.B. Jaeger

56566 159108/1 5/13/15 13th ST repair parts $256.84

56566 159109/1 5/13/15 5 gallon preco-plug $70.12

56566 159163/1 5/13/15 catch basin riser, cover, gate frame $384.96

56566 159164/1 5/13/15 sewer pipe gasket $1,072.03

56566 158925/1 5/13/15 hose clamp $24.02


Home Depot - Parks 56567 7013276 5/13/15 2x6's $66.79

Check Total $66.79

Home Depot - Streets 56568 5073671 5/13/15 mason line, plump bob, level $58.63

Check Total $58.63

Home Depot - Storm

56569 0592834 5/13/15 heat control film, channellock plier $69.58

56569 5571812 5/13/15 outlet $3.80

56569 4571846 5/13/15 refrig. coil, air hose, plug $46.90

56569 6081533 5/13/15 cable tie, gorilla tape $62.72

56569 6073667 5/13/15 buckets, pole single outlet $19.05

56569 6073642 5/13/15 carpet - WWTP $1,157.44

56569 3013777 5/13/15 shop sewer project $80.16

56569 5013557 5/13/15 rapid cement $60.12


Home Depot Waste Water Treatment 56570 8592953 5/13/15 clamp $5.77

Check Total $5.77

IBS, Inc 56571 587451-1 5/13/15 nitro carb drill $202.92

Check Total $202.92

CONSENT ITEM 8a



Interstate Auto Parts 56572 45221 5/13/15 funnel $13.05 Check Total $13.05

Integra Telecom 56573 12937079 5/13/15 Waste Water Treatment Plant Phone $184.56 56573 12936967 5/13/15 Water Treatment Plant Phones $176.71 56573 12936445 5/13/15 City Hall Digital Phone $66.76 56573 12938707 5/13/15 Water Department Share Shop Phones $52.83 56573 12938707 5/13/15 Street Dept. Share Shop Phone $52.84 56573 12938707 5/13/15 Parks Share Shop Phones $26.40 56573 12938707 5/13/15 Fleet & Facilities Share Shop Phone $79.21 56573 12938707 5/13/15 Collections Share Shop Phone $52.84 56573 12938707 5/13/15 Storm Share Shop Phone $52.84 Check Total $744.99

Iron Mountain Quarry 56574 241698 5/13/15 5/8 minus, 2" chip $1,983.40 Check Total $1,983.40

Wonderware PacWest 56575 405232 5/13/15 wonderware program $3,348.32 56575 405232 5/13/15 wonderware program $3,348.32 56575 405232 5/13/15 wonderware program $3,348.32 56575 405232 5/13/15 wonderware program $3,348.32 Check Total $13,393.28

James Mills 56576 May 2015 5/13/15 LEOFF I Medical Reimbursement $121.28 Check Total $121.28

Kendall B Utt 56577 licreutt 5/13/15 waterworks/pesticide lic. renew reimburs $75.00 Check Total $75.00

Kool Change Printing Inc 56578 32608 5/13/15 Snohomish City Police Sheriff Stickers $167.71 Check Total $167.71

Lakeside Industries 56579 6012782MB 5/13/15 liquid asphalt $226.51 Check Total $226.51

McDaniel Do It Center - Parks 56580 456243 5/13/15 outdoor cord $54.39 56580 K56291 5/13/15 fasteners, key cut $3.34 56580 456097 5/13/15 silicone, fasteners $6.91 56580 456160 5/13/15 speedlite square $5.97 56580 456214 5/13/15 recip blade set $34.81 56580 456392 5/13/15 threadlocker $15.22 56580 456425 5/13/15 fasteners $13.65 56580 456459 5/13/15 fasteners $3.68 56580 456442 5/13/15 fasteners $20.56 56580 455640 5/13/15 Pilchuck Pk Garbage Cans $28.23 56580 456258 5/13/15 Shop Supplies $23.32 Check Total $210.08

CONSENT ITEM 8a



McDaniel Do It Center - Storm 56581 456424 5/13/15 trimmer line $19.57

Check Total $19.57

McDaniel Do It Center-SS 56582 456222 5/13/15 pull string for cables $4.13

Check Total $4.13

McDaniel Do It Center- Streets 56583 456085 5/13/15 fasteners $7.72

56583 456084 5/13/15 batteries $40.53

Check Total $48.25

McDaniel Do It Center - Water 56584 456264 5/13/15 fasteners, febreze $12.44

56584 K56288 5/13/15 grass seed, liq ajax, valve $52.72

56584 456477 5/13/15 tubing $153.39

56584 K54958 5/13/15 Distilled Water $9.73

56584 K54958 5/13/15 Distilled Water $0.52

Check Total $228.80

McDaniel's Do It Center Wastewater

56585 456474 5/13/15 fasteners $6.33

Check Total $6.33

Mink Enterprises 56586 741 5/13/15 City Hall Remodel - paint addtl $543.00

Check Total $543.00

North Sound Hose & Fitting Inc 56587 65488 5/13/15 hose, nozzle $113.25

Check Total $113.25

NW Instrument Services 56588 12821 5/13/15 lab balance service $119.68

Check Total $119.68

Orion Equipment 56589 28 5/13/15 jackhammer, shank, cutter, cart $1,354.39

56589 28 5/13/15 jackhammer, shank, cutter, cart $1,354.39

56589 28 5/13/15 jackhammer, shank, cutter, cart $1,354.40

56589 30 5/13/15 lower handle $82.04

56589 30 5/13/15 lower handle $82.04

56589 30 5/13/15 lower handle $82.04

56589 33 5/13/15 tamping plate $103.06


Pacific Power Batteries 56590 17080705 5/13/15 battery $62.40

Check Total $62.40

Rh2 Engineering Inc.

56591 62509 5/13/15 On-Call #15-15 S Zone Res Cover Replace $1,786.43


CONSENT ITEM 8a



Rubatino Refuse Removal Inc

56592 354405012015 5/13/15 35 yd dumpster rental-WWTP $824.95

Check Total $824.95

Snohomish County Fire Dist.#4 56593 0017 5/13/15 DEM assessment training room $33.00

56593 0017 5/13/15 DEM assessment training room $33.00





56593 0018 5/13/15 File #12-14-PP Facility Use Fee for Hrg $100.00

Check Total $300.00

Snohomish County Pud #1

56594 137317417 5/13/15 #1000531660 9101 56th St SE Street Light $138.11

56594 120875676 5/13/15 #1000140298 2015 2nd St S end Lagoon $2,905.12

56594 143941283 5/13/15 31000508263 24021 24th ST NE WTP-dam $30.70

56594 110930449 5/13/15 Various Locations, Street Lighting $159.21

56594 114245958 5/13/15 Various Locations, Traffic Light $10.07

56594 114245959 5/13/15 Various Locations, Traffic Light $38.03

56594 120880899 5/13/15 Various Locations, Street Lighting $3,711.91



56594 140633667 5/13/15 #1000531586, 2621 Bickford Bldg 7, Light $147.98



56594 156983244 5/13/15 #1000531585, 2749 Bickford, Lights $230.05

56594 100172415 5/13/15 #1000272824, 24022 24th NE, WTP House $82.29

56594 156982629 5/13/15 #1000320746, 2504 Menzel Lk Rd, WTP $2,999.88


Snohomish County Sheriff's Office 56595 I000382020 5/13/15 Law Enforcement Services March 2015 $3,044.33

56595 I000382020 5/13/15 Law Enforcement Services March 2015 $181,438.68

56595 I000382020 5/13/15 Law Enforcement Services March 2015 $33,981.32


Snohomish County Sheriff's Office Corrections

56596 2015-2589 5/13/15 Jail Service fees Med/Pharm March 2015 $56.87

Check Total $56.87

Second Wind 56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training Streets $190.02

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training WWTP $163.07

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training Shop $55.25

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training CollectionStorm $109.16

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training CollectionStorm $109.16

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training Water Dist $216.98

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training Clerk $55.25

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training Parks $109.16

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training Fac/Mechanic $109.16

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training IT $109.16

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training Finance $55.25

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training WTP/Quality $163.07

CONSENT ITEM 8a



56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training Engineering $163.07

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training Bldg $55.25

56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training PW Utilities $19.31



56597 32415 5/13/15 First Aid - CPR Training PW Services $19.31




Shred-It USA, Inc 56598 9405568843 5/13/15 Document destruction fees April 2015 $52.97

Check Total $52.97

Snohomish Co-Op 56599 248493 5/13/15 unleaded $73.29

56599 248485 5/13/15 diesel $62.05

56599 248540 5/13/15 unleaded $77.46

56599 247913 5/13/15 unleaded $71.56

56599 248006 5/13/15 unleaded $63.31

56599 248026 5/13/15 unleaded $36.23

56599 248043 5/13/15 unleaded $41.00

56599 248115 5/13/15 unleaded $12.40

56599 248163 5/13/15 unleaded $34.66

56599 248229 5/13/15 unleaded $47.07

56599 247881 5/13/15 unleaded $51.38

56599 247821 5/13/15 unleaded $48.00

56599 248779 5/13/15 unleaded $78.11

56599 248523 5/13/15 dyed fuel $94.81

56599 248684 5/13/15 diesel $39.30

56599 248685 5/13/15 unleaded $30.15

56599 248687 5/13/15 diesel $87.21

56599 248721 5/13/15 dyed fuel $80.07

56599 248741 5/13/15 diesel fuel $79.99

56599 248787 5/13/15 unleaded $81.59

56599 248764 5/13/15 diesel $28.98

56599 248786 5/13/15 diesel $149.99

56599 248777 5/13/15 diesel $97.93

56599 248781 5/13/15 unleaded $100.35

56599 248618 5/13/15 unleaded fuel $20.49

56599 248636 5/13/15 diesel fuel $85.13

56599 248680 5/13/15 unleaded fuel $93.30

56599 248691 5/13/15 unleaded fuel $54.70


Snohomish Senior Center

56600 15-354 5/13/15 Monthly Fee $1,000.00


Sonic Solutions Inc 56601 13001 5/13/15 power adapter w/sled mount kit $5,242.00


CONSENT ITEM 8a



Sound Equipment Rental and Sales 56602 10083 5/13/15 mini excavator $320.96

Check Total $320.96

Sound Law Center 56603 1721 5/13/15 File #12-14-PP Public Hearing Services $3,822.00


Sound Telecom 56604 150505436101 5/13/15 monthly answering service May 2015 $115.50

Check Total $115.50

Speedway Chevrolet 56605 94915 5/13/15 harness $125.32

Check Total $125.32

Staples Advantage

56606 7135434640 5/13/15 Building Division Office Supplies $17.40

Check Total $17.40

Strategies 360 56607 772-14029 5/13/15 Professional Services - April 2015 $3,142.64


Terry Gilfillan 56608 May 2015 5/13/15 LEOFF I Medical Reimbursement $95.14

Check Total $95.14

Sound Publishing 56609 EDH629021 5/13/15 File #08-15-SL Notice of Application $63.64

56609 EDH627035 5/13/15 Volunteers sought MPD ballot $247.68

Check Total $311.32

The Tribune 56610 5/13/15 City Hall annual subscription $30.00

Check Total $30.00

Tyler Enterprises

56611 April 2015 5/13/15 Inspection Services $100.00

Check Total $100.00

Univar USA Inc 56612 KT257826 5/13/15 almn sulfate $3,132.64


Usa Bluebook Inc 56613 571463 5/13/15 ammonia ion electrode credit $-636.43

56613 577939 5/13/15 magnetic stirring bar $303.90

56613 578670 5/13/15 beaker $14.68

56613 598267 5/13/15 ammonia ion $636.43

56613 606179 5/13/15 ammonia ion electrode orion return $-636.43

56613 631903 5/13/15 lab supplies-WWTP $326.02

Check Total $8.17

CONSENT ITEM 8a



US Bank CPS 56614 030753 5/13/15 Wellness Lunch Seminar $65.00 56614 6063583 5/13/15 tires EP9 $205.86 56614 26096-31 5/13/15 google support-April $16.66 56614 113404 5/13/15 appliance disposal $20.00 56614 75079 5/13/15 google service app $6.66 56614 30032 5/13/15 fuel $51.20 56614 93554 5/13/15 park fence upgrade $54.40 56614 100229391726 5/13/15 EASC Annual Mtg - Guzak $55.00 56614 5/13/15 EASC Ann Mtg - Guzak recd comp. ticket $-55.00 56614 032073 5/13/15 Springbrook Conference Travel $13.00 56614 054634 5/13/15 Springbrook Conference Travel $10.80 56614 723009 5/13/15 Springbrook Conference Travel $35.25 56614 324174 5/13/15 Springbrook Conference Travel $7.50 56614 324165 5/13/15 Springbrook Conference Travel $35.00 56614 3176132229 5/13/15 Springbrook Conference Hotel $511.83 56614 3175259519 5/13/15 Springbrook Conference Hotel $511.83 56614 3172556835 5/13/15 Springbrook Conference Hotel $511.83 56614 93573 5/13/15 Project Manager Interview water, supply $13.80 56614 1728154 5/13/15 Project Manager Interview coffee, pastry $33.24 56614 547882-9550 5/13/15 Postage - Biosolids Contract to Jansen $12.65 56614 668770 5/13/15 plants for garbage enclosure/arborvitae $233.94 56614 77691208 5/13/15 Printer Ribbon for front receipt printer $21.85 56614 46589 5/13/15 Backup Tapes $375.55 56614 5749 5/13/15 Parking for PSRC RPEC Meeting $14.00 Check Total $2,761.85

U.S. Bank N.A - Custody 56615 April 2015 5/13/15 Monthly Maintenance Fee $26.00 Check Total $26.00

U.S. Postmaster 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 Council Postage $8.40 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 City Manager Postage $7.92 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 Clerk Postage $19.68 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 Finance Postage $12.21 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 Police Postage $1.59 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 Planning Postage $12.69 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 Parks Postage $3.66 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 Engineering Postage $2.09 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 Water Postage $142.08 56616 042415-043015 5/13/15 Sewer Postage $142.08 56616 050115-050715 5/13/15 Council Postage $8.36 56616 050115-050715 5/13/15 City Manager Postage $1.44 56616 050115-050715 5/13/15 Clerk Postage $60.48 56616 050115-050715 5/13/15 Finance Postage $36.90 56616 050115-050715 5/13/15 Police Postage $11.74 56616 050115-050715 5/13/15 Planning Postage $122.51 56616 050115-050715 5/13/15 Water Postage $8.64 Check Total $602.47

Utilities Underground Location 56617 5040201 5/13/15 locates-April $27.72 56617 5040201 5/13/15 locates-April $27.72 56617 5040201 5/13/15 locates-April $27.72 Check Total $83.16

CONSENT ITEM 8a



Weed, Graafstra & Benson, Inc 56618 171 5/13/15 April Litigation $789.75

56618 1 5/13/15 April - MPD $2,375.50

56618 32 5/13/15 April - Everett Conveyance $519.25

56618 19 5/13/15 April - boat launch $691.00

56618 32 5/13/15 April - TBD $333.00

56618 193 5/13/15 City Mgr - Sewer Treatment $393.75

56618 193 5/13/15 City Mgr - Water Admin $1,156.25

56618 193 5/13/15 City Mgr - MPD $173.25

56618 193 5/13/15 City Mgr - boat launch $43.75

56618 193 5/13/15 City Mgr - 30th/SR 9 $138.75

56618 193 5/13/15 City Mgr - General fund $6,869.75


Western Facilities Supply Inc 56619 440932-00 5/13/15 paper suuplies $73.20

Check Total $73.20

Whistle Workwear 56620 80634 5/13/15 partial uniform-Murphy $74.67

Check Total $74.67

Washington State Dept of Ecology 56621 WAR045543 5/13/15 2015 DOE NPDES Stormwater Permit Fee $6,420.00


Washington State Department of Enterprise Services 56622 W028817 5/13/15 Envelopes $211.85

Check Total $211.85

Washington State Employment Security Department 56623 090114 5/13/15 UI Tax $-47.89

56623 090114 5/13/15 UI Tax $-14.64

56623 1st Qtr 2015 5/13/15 UI Tax $1,982.43


Xerox Corporation 56624 079423772 5/13/15 #GNX-216657, 032015-042415 $69.41

56624 079423774 5/13/15 #MX4-332344, 032115-042115 $518.08

56624 079423776 5/13/15 #GNX-212028, 032015-042415 $51.20

Check Total $638.69

Zumar Industries

56625 175948 5/13/15 stock signs $842.87

Check Total $842.87

Batch Total $1,273,892.42

Total All Checks $1,278,842.42

CONSENT ITEM 8a



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 claim

warrants #56440 through #56625 in the total of $1,273,892.42 dated through May 13, 2015 are approved for payment

on May 19, 2015.

_____________________ _____________________

Mayor Councilmember

____________________ _____________________

Councilmember Councilmember

CONSENT ITEM 8a



CONSENT ITEM 8b


Date: May 19, 2015

To: City Council

From: Larry Bauman, City Manager

Subject: Addendum to City Manager’s Employment Contract

________________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to revise a previously adopted

addendum to the City Manager’s employment contract at the request of the City

Manager. In 2011, the City Council authorized the Ninth Addendum to this contract for

the purpose of compensating the City Manager for the business use of his personal cell

phone. However, the City Manager will soon be issued a City cell phone and no longer

be required to use his personal cell phone for City business. As a result, this

reimbursement will no longer be needed or appropriate. The proposed contract

addendum would be effective June 1, 2015.

The proposed revision removes the monthly allowance to the Manager for the cell phone

service provider’s monthly cell phone service costs.

STRATEGIC PLAN REFERENCE: Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council APPROVE the Thirteenth

Addendum to the City Manager’s Employment Contract to rescind reimbursement

for cell phone service effective June 1, 2015.

ATTACHMENT: Thirteenth Addendum to the City Manager’s Employment Contract

CONSENT ITEM 8b


THIRTEENTH ADDENDUM TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT

CONTRACT

THIS THIRTEENTH ADDENDUM TO CITY MANAGER

EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT is entered into by and between the City of Snohomish,

Washington, "City," and Larry J. Bauman, "Manager" as follows:

That certain City Manager Employment Agreement dated May 7, 2002, which

commenced May 28, 2002 is hereby amended as follows:

Paragraph 5.d. entitled "Equipment" is hereby revised in its entirety to amend the

following section:

"5.

d. Equipment. Consistent with the City budget, the

City will provide such reasonable equipment to allow the

Manager to perform his employment responsibilities

beyond normal office hours. In consideration of the need

for the Manager to be available to respond 24 hours a day,

seven days a week, the City shall pay the Manager a

monthly allowance of $81.52 or an amount equal to the cell

phone provider’s actual monthly billing of a cell phone that

shall be purchased by and which shall be the personal

equipment of the Manager."

Except as provided above, all other terms and conditions of the City Manager

Employment Agreement dated May 7, 2002 shall continue in full force and effect,

unchanged.

DATED this _____ day of ______________, 2015.

CITY OF SNOHOMISH

By____________________________

KAREN GUZAK, Mayor

Attest:

By___________________________ By______________________________

TORCHIE COREY, City Clerk LARRY J. BAUMAN, City Manager

Approved as to form:

By___________________________

GRANT K. WEED, City Attorney

city of snohomish

Documents