Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 02/18/2014
QRT A;NGIRLISS CITY COUNCIL MEETING 321 East 51' Street February 18, 2014 SPECIAL MEETING — 5:15 p.m. REGULAR MEETING — 6:00 p.m. The Mayor may determine the order of business for a particular City Council meeting. The agenda should be arranged to best serve the needs and/or convenience of the Council and the public. Mayor to determine time of break. The items of business for regular Council meetings may include the following: A. CALL TO ORDER - SPECIAL MEETING AT 5:15 P.M. — Executive Session under authority ofRCW 42.30.110(1)(i), to discuss potential litigation with legal counsel. CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING AT 6:00 P.M. B. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CEREMONIAL MATTERS, PROCLAMATIONS & EMPLOYEE RECOGNITIONS 1. Certificate of Recognition — Dean Reed..................................................................................................................................B-1 C. PUBLIC COMMENT - D. LATE ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON THIS OR FUTURE AGENDAS - E. CONSENT AGENDA / Approve 1. City Council Minutes: January 14, 2014............................................................................................................................... E-1 2. Expenditure Approval List: 01/25/2014 to 02/07/2014 for $4,276,739.49...........................................................................E-3 3. Ranney Well Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. 1 l Approve Agreement Amendment for $21,130, for a total contractamount of $71,130.................................................................................................................................................. E-39 4. Public Safety Advisory Board Appointment /Appoint ........................................................................................................E-41 5. Computer Maintenance Management System Software License Renewal l Approve one-year license renewal for $27,100E-46 6. Washington Transportation Alternative Program Grant Acceptance l Accept Grant........................................................... E-47 7. Utility Advisory Committee Representatives / Confirm Appointments................................................................................E-48 8. 81h & Francis Street Sewer Trestle, Project WW05-06 l Approve Change Order 3 for $26,109.15, for a total contract amount of$229,955.88 ...................................................................................................................................................................... E-58 F. QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS — NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Green Crow Rezone................................................................................................................................................................. F-1 Mayor to determine time of break / Hearing devices available for those needing assistance. February 18, 2014 Port Angeles City Council Meeting Page - 1 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS — OTHER (6:30 P.M. or soon thereafter)..................................................................None H. ORDINANCES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. City Hall Hours Ordinance Amendment / Conduct 2"a Reading/Adopt Ordinance............................................................... H-1 2. Apprenticeship Utilization Program Ordinance / Conduct 2"a Reading /Adopt Ordinance ................................................... H-6 I. RESOLUTIONS NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS.........................................................................None J. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 1. Interagency Agreement with State Department of Ecology / Approve....................................................................................J-1 2. Port Angeles Harbor Cleanup Process - Amendment to Work Order 42 /Approve.............................................................. J-12 5. Capacity Provisioning Incorporated — Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding l Approve................................J-14 6. Cable TV Franchise Renewal Professional Services Agreement / Approve.........................................................................J-28 K FINANCE 1. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 2014 Recommendations / Consider Recommendations................................................ K-1 2. WTIP Esplanade Construction Contract- Final Acceptance................................................................................................. K-4 L. COUNCIL REPORTS - M. INFORMATION City Manager Reports: 1. Police -2013 Year End Report ................................................................................................................................................M-1 2. CED Year End Report ...........................................................................................................................................................M-2 N. EXECUTIVE SESSION O. ADJOURNMENT - PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are set by the City Council in order to meet legal requirements. In addition, the City Council may set a public hearing in order to receive public input prior to making decisions, which impact the citizens. Certain matters may be controversial, and the City Council may choose to seek public opinion through the public hearing process. Mayor to determine time of break / Hearing devices available for those needing assistance. February 18, 2014 Port Angeles City Council Meeting Page - 2 1�• • 1�t A• This Honor is Bestowed Upon uean Keed For Outstanding Service and Dedication To The Utility Advisory Committee Industrial Customer Service Representative November 1999 to November 2009 Citizen Member Representative March 2010 to February 2014 y©gyp°�Ta��F And is Presented This Certificate By The City of Part Angeles Port Angeles, Washington This 18th Day Of February, 2014 Dan Di Guilio Dan McKeen Mayor City Manager 10 el PUBLIC INTEREST SIGN-UP SHEET PPRTAk- WASH LE I N GTO N, U.S.A. DATE OF MEETING: February 18, 2014 You are encouraged to sign below if: CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING LOCATION: City Council Chambers 1. You are here to listen to the City Council discussion on a particular agenda item; 2. You want to speak during the Public Comment period of the agenda. If several members of the public are interested in a particular agenda item, the Mayor may move that item so it is discussed earlier in the meeting. Also, the Mayor may use the information provided to organize the Public Comment period. During the Public Comment portion of the meeting, the Mayor will invite citizens to talk with the Council about topics that are not scheduled for public testimony on the evening's agenda. Prior to the start of the "Public Comment" portion of the public hearing, all persons wishing to be heard are asked to sign in with the Clerk, giving their names and addresses, and topic. The Mayor may arrange the order of speakers so that testimony is heard in the most logical groupings. To allow time for the Council to complete its legislative agenda, comments should be limited to no more than 5 minutes per person and a total of 15 minutes for this comment period. At the discretion of the Mayor, these time periods may be lengthened or shortened. Following any public comment, the Mayor may allow time, limited to five minutes, for response from City Council members and/or City staff. No speaker may convey or donate his or her time for speaking to another speaker. if many people wish to speak to a particular issue, the Mayor may limit the total amount of time dedicated to that single issue. Written continents may be submitted into the record of a Council meeting by presenting the written document to the Clerk prior to the meeting, in which case a copy of the document will be provided to each Council Member, but the document will not be read aloud; or a document may be distributed to the City Council, with a copy to the Clerk, by a speaker while the speaker is addressing the Council. G: 1GrouplClerklForrnslCouncil Attendance Roster.doc 7, �� � D � N7 Uilti� . p,. ?10 1 M y y 4-), C rle 41 ci CT N o A ', j -V n c q 1) r' b <)4 iN M '� �y 5 It (n 01 N l �V i, Jj6. Y / N G: 1GrouplClerklForrnslCouncil Attendance Roster.doc PUBLIC INTEREST SIGN-UP SHEET G:1GroupUerk\Forms\Council Attendance Roster.doc Z4$1 6ZOI�k(C4 b r- <_ IV I YIN YIN YIN YIN YIN YIN YIN YIN Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N YIN Y/N Y/N Y/N YIN Y/N YIN Y/N G:1GroupUerk\Forms\Council Attendance Roster.doc CHOOt_ OF 1, A. W V0I.,i Ni i ?9 FALL ?005 NUMBER 1 SEATTLE UNIVERSITY LAw REVIEW WASHINGTON STATE'S 45 -YEAR EXPERIMENT IN GOVERNMENTAL LIABILI'T'Y Michael Tardif & Rob McKenna Reprinted from SEATTLE, UNIVERSITY LAW RsVTEW Volume 29, Number 1 Copyright 0 2005 by Seattle University Law Review ARTICLES Washington State's 45 -Year Experiment in Governmental Liability Michael Tardifr & Rob McKennaI INTRODUCTION In March 1961, the Washington State Legislature (the "Legislature") eliminated the judicial doctrine providing sovereign immunity from tort liability for state government, Sovereign immunity is the right of government to be free from suit or liability.' Sovereign immunity originated in English law and both federal and state courts consistently applied the doctrine after the United States became a nation.2 Courts perceived sovereign immunity to be a prudent protection for government functions and taxpayer funds? The Legislature eliminated the sovereign immunity of state government with a simple statutory "waiver" of the immunity, which read as follows: t Michael Tardif is a Senior Assistant Attorney General in the Torts Division of the Attorney General's Office and was chief of the division from 1987 to 2001. J.D., University of Washington, 1974; M.B.A., University of Puget Sound, 1980. 1. Rob McKenna is Washington State Attorney General and was a member of the Metropolitan King County Council from 1995 to 2004. J,D., 1988, University of Chicago Law School. The authozs acknowledge research assistance provided by David freeman. The authors also acknowledge the files and historical information provided by Delbert (Bud) Johnson, Joseph Montecucco, and Angelo Petruss. Mr. Johnson was chief of the Highways Division of the Attorney General's Office in the 1960s, Mr. Montecucco was chief of the Torts Division from 1969 to 1982, and Mr. Petruss was chief of the Torts Division from 1982 to 1987. Mr, Pebvss passed away in 1987, but had extensive files and notes for a planned law review article on the first 25 years of experience under the Washington State waiver of sovereign immunity. 1. W. PAGE KT -,E] -ON, ET AL., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 131 (5th ed. 1984). 2. See Richard Cosway, Comment, Abolition of Sovereign Immunity in Washington, 36 WASi1. L. REV. 312 (1961). 3, See Hagerman v. Seattle, 199 Wash. 694, 697, 66 P.2d 1152, 1154 (1937). 2 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 The State of Washington, whether acting in its goveininental or proprietary capacity, hereby consents to the maintaining of a suit or action against it for damages arising out of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or corporation. The suit or action shall be maintained in the county in which the cause of action arises: Provided, That this section shall not affect any special statute relating to procedure for filing notice of claims against the state or any agency, department or officer of the state.4 Attorney General John O'Connell described the Legislature's action in sweeping terms in September 1961: Within the body of public law, the doctrine of governmental immunity fxoni tort liability has been described as the towering thorn from the tree which bears no fruit, Through the years, courts and legislatures in this state and elsewhere have pruned the branches or chopped off whole limbs; but it was not until this year that the Washington State Legislature, is Chapter 136, Laws of 1961, apparently laid the axe to the very roots of this doctrine.5 The Attorney General's description was accurate when first given and remains accurate today. No other state had completely waived sovereign immunity. Washington's waiver has not been modified. Washington's waiver has been in force for nearly forty-five years, during which time many questions have been answered. New litigation, however, continues to expand the scope of the waiver, and the extent of liability continues to raise new questions and present difficult problems. Major problems include tlae uncertainty of case-by-case determinations of government liability and the cost of liability for inherently risky governmental' programs, such as corrections and child welfare. Part I of this Aiticle examines the waiver against the background of prior Washington law and the pattern of immunity waivers in other jurisdictions. This examination reveals surprising features of prior Washington law, such as the narrow scope of liability for local governments which lacked sovereign immunity before 1961. It also 4. 1961 Wash. Laws 136. The first sentence is the current WASH. REV. CDD6 § 4.92.090 (2002). 5. Attorney General., State of Washington, Tort Claims Against the State of Washington, panel discussion presented to the Washington State Bar Association Armual Convention, (Sept. 1961) at 1 [hereinafter Tort Claims]. 6. New York had a waiver similar to the Washington waiver, but its administration and interpretation by a specialized tribunal made it significantly different from the Washington waiver, as explained infra Part C. 7. The term "governmental" indicates functions that are unique to government, such as the exercise of power to regulate conduct or the creation of public welfare programs. This use of the term is illustrated in Peter Herzog's article, infra note 47, discussing governmental liability under New York's waiver. 20051 Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 3 reveals fundamental differences between waivers in Washington and in other states. Washington's waiver contains no partial immunities, no limits on claims or damages, and no liability standards for government; it requires neither legislative review and approval of claims, nor adjudication of claims by special tribunals. Waivers in other states contain at least one of these features; most contain two or more. Part II of the Article summarizes three very different periods of development of government liability law following the 1961 waiver. This part of the Article .includes summaries of state experience with claim and defense costs, the effect of two tort reform acts (1981 and 1986), and three proposals for legislative control of govelm- ent tort liability. Part II also summarizes the substance of Washington's governmental liability law and compares it to the laws in other jurisdictions. In the public duty doctrine, for example, Washington law is similar to other jurisdictions. In other areas, including crimes committed by released criminal offenders, Washington law is very different. These differences have proved controversial because they have generated high costs and affected administration of important programs. The law in these areas remains unsettled. Part III of this Article analyzes the results of Washington's waiver and identifies problems caused by the waiver, arguing that court interpretation of the waiver produced a result that was not intended by legislators 45 years ago—expansive liability for purely governmental functions and decisions. This liability has produced high legal defense costs and increasing tort payouts for harms caused, not by the government directly, but by third parties who have contact with broad government programs. The Legislature should take action to ensure that the waiver serves its original intent. The open-ended waiver should be discarded in favor of a statutory scheme that defines the extent of liability for various government functions, as such a scheme would better serve the public interest. I. THE WAIVFR AND ITS 1I15TOR1CAL CONTEXT A. The 1961 Washington Waiver The Washington Legislature's waiver of sovereign immunity contained no hint of later controversies about the extent and cost of government liability. House Bill (HB) 338, waiving the state's immunity, was introduced on January 30, 1961, and. reported out of the Judiciary Committee with a do pass recommendation three days later. S. 1 House Journal, 37th Leg. Reg. Sess., at 194,235 (Wash. 1961). 4 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 The bill had wide support. Committee members voting in favor of the bill included future Seattle Mayor Wes Uhlman, future state Attorney General and United States Senator Slade Gorton, and future Washington State Supreme Court Justice James Anderson. At its second reading on February 7, HB 338 received its only amendment, a proviso stating that the bill did not affect requirements for claim filing.9 On February 8, the House passed HB 338 by a vote of 93-0.10 There was a similar lack of controversy in the Senate. Although the waiver was rejected after it was amended to have retroactive effect, it passed, without the amendment, on March 6 by a vote of 32-9." Attorney General O'Connell portrayed the waiver as an advance in social policy, writing the following: The Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, although limited in scope and strictly construed, represented the acceptance into the law of this country of a valuable principle; and once accepted, that principle expanded in scope, influence, and stature. Accordingly, with its acceptance, there was no longer any reason to continue to give effect to a doctrine universally condemned as productive of unnecessary injustice. The practical experience of modern government with its everyday contact with its citizens had shown that the state and its agencies could injure an individual citizen in a number of ways. The trend today is toward responsible government, that is, responsible toward those for whose benefit and needs it presumably exists. It was in recognition of sound principles of social policy for our state to abolish the doctrine of sovereign tort immunity. Neither Neither the Attorney General nor the four assistants who made the 1961 bar convention presentation predicted major problems as a result of the waiver, though the assistants did note potential administrative difficulties because the waiver contained no provisions for implementing procedures or a method to fund claims.13 Only Assistant Attorney 9. Id. at 303. 10. Id. at 333. 11.1 Senate Journal, 37th Leg. Reg. Sess., at I0I0-11 (Wash. 1961). A supporter of the waiver was Senator Fred Dare who, like Representative Anderson, served as a Justice on the State Supreme Court during an era when the Court decided many of the important cases creating governmental liability. Justice Dore was notable for his strong support for the public duty doctrine and his strong dissent in the fust case creating broad liability for state social welfare progratns. See Babcock v. State, 316 Rash, 2d 596, 643, 809 11.2d 143, 167-68 (1991) (Dore, J. dissenting). Interestingly, Justice Anderson wrote a concur•enceldissent in the same case that expressed reservations on liability for social welfare functions. M. at 623, 809 P.2d at 157 (Anderson, J. concurring in part, dissenting in part). The development of governmental liability law in these areas will be discussed in the second section ofthis article. 12. Tort Claims, supra note 5, at 9. 13. Id. at 38-48. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 5 General Delbert Johnson forecasted that the generality of the waiver would cause difficulty. Certainly, the areas of state immunity are not now clearly defined. Tlie Washington statute gives little guidance. It would seem obvious that a substantial amount of litigation will be required before anyone can make any reasonable conclusions on extent of the area of exclusion from liability in the new act. 14 Forty-five years after the waiver, as subsequent sections of this Article discuss, there is still ongoing litigation over the extent of tort liability for governmental functions in Washington. In 1963, the Legislature provided procedures for claims, lawsuits, and funding.'5 In that same year, Kelso v. City of Tacoma held that the state waiver included municipal corporations. 16 The Legislature enacted a separate waiver, essentially identical to the state waiver, for local government in 1967.17 In response to concerns about increasing claims and costs, the 1989 Legislature added risk management provisions and changed claire and funding provisions.'o The 1999 Legislature moved legal defense costs "off -budget" by providing that they could be funded directly out of the non -appropriated liability account.'9 There were no changes to the waiver itself in any of the later legislation. B. Washington Government Liability Before the Waiver Although the state had complete immunity prior to 1961,20 cities, counties, and quasi -municipal corporations had liability for torts. Cities had liability for proprietary functions, which included comnnon city services such as water, electricity, sewer, garbage, and maintenance of streets and sidewalks.' The primary areas of municipal inurunity were 14, Id. at 28. 15, 1963 Wash, Laws 159. The statutes contained no law governing liability and deleted the claim proviso. 16. 63 Wash. 2d 913, 916-17, 360 P.2d 2, 5 (1963). 17. WASH. Rrv. COAG § 4,96,010 (1967). 18. 1989 Wash. Laws 414. 19, 1999 Wash. Laws 163. 20, While the state had immunity, officials were sometimes sued in tort. In Enaeiy v. Littlejohn, 83 Wash. 334, 145 P. 423 (1915), the plaintiff sued, accusing the state official of negligence for the release of a mental patient who shot the plaintiff. The court held that the claim should be dismissed because the release decisions were discretionary and quasi-judicial. The Legislature also paid "sundry" claims. See Laws of 1959, 1 st Ex. Sess., ch. 11, which contains appropriations for a person shot during a prison riot and for various highway and game claims. 21, Survey of 1953 Washington Case Law, hdlunicipal Corporations, Tort Liahility, 29 WASII. L, RrV. 137 (1954). Proprietary functions were generally activities analogous to those of private business. 6 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 governmental functions, such as police, parks, and health. 12 Counties and quasi -municipal governments, such as school districts, had no immunity. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 4,08,120,23 enacted when Washington was still a territory but still in effect today, provides in part that "an action may be maintained against a county or other of public corporations mentioned or described in RCW 4.08.110 ... for an injury to the rights of plaintiff arising from some act or omission of such county or other public corporation." The lack of immunity for local govennnents did not produce broad liability. Suits against local governments were for routine torts caused directly by acts or omissions of public employees, such as failures to repair roads and sidewalks, 24 or injuries to children caused by property defects or actions of school employees.25 The few cases that imposed broader liability stand out as deviations .26 The limited local government liability before 1961 was consistent with common law doctrines at that time. In his recent article, Un -making Law, The Classical Revival in the Common Law, Professor Feinman points out that "classical" tort law had stable concepts of fault, causation, and damages which .kept tort liabilities within well-defined parameters, and observes that tort law changed dramatically in a 20 -year period beginning in the mid -1960s.27 Courts adopted a "neoclassical" approach to tort law, which was influenced by enterprise liability and risk spreading .28 Under neoclassical law, courts applied rules governing negligence and damages less rigorously, using tort law to make social policy, resulting in rapid liability expansion and large cost increases. 22. Tort claims were sometimes allowed even for these agencies. Rosea v. City of Seattle, 64 Wash. 2d 678, 393 P.2d 967 (1964), held that a city could be liable for an automobile accident caused by a jail 'inmate when he was charged with washing police cars, an act which the court considered proprietary. 23. 1869 Wash. Laws 166 at § 600. 24. Boggess v. King County, 150 Wash, 578,274 P. 188 (1929) (highway repair). 25. Morris v. Union High Sch., 160 Wash, 121, 294 P. 998 (1931) (injury caused by coach); Stovall v. City ofToppenish Sch. Dist, 110 Wash. 97, 188 P. 12 (1920) (hazardous object). 26. Berglund v. County oj'Spokane, 4 Wash. 2d 309, 103 P.2d 333 (1940), held that the county could be liable to an injured pedestrian not for lack of repair on an old bridge, but for failure to fwid capital improvements (adding sidewalks). McLeod v. Grant County Sch. Dist., 42 Wash. 2d 316, 255 P.2d 360 (1953), held that a school district could be liable for the rape of a student based largely on a theory that the school was negligent for having an empty unlocked room which could be a site for a crime. A survey of 1953 case law approved McLeod's determination that the school district had no immunity, but stated that the 5-4 decision on the issues of duty, causation, and foreseeability "may be open to criticism on the basis of tort principles" and "[tlhat a school district may be held liable for rape of a student is admittedly startling." Survey of 1963 Washington Case Law, Municipal CoiTorations, Tort Liability, 29 WASH. L. REv. 137, 138-39 (1954). 27. Jay Feinman, Un-rnakhig Law: The Classical Revival in the Common Law, 28 SEAT -r E U, L. RFv. 1, 29-33 (2004). 28. Id. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 7 When the Legislature waived immunity, the perceived problem was that citizens could not recover for ordinary torts if they were committed by agencies performing governmental functions. For instanee, Hagerman v. Cite of Seattle held that the city was immune from liability for a vehicle accident because the driver worked for the health deparhnent, a governmental agency. 29 The strong dissent did not object to immunity for "fire apparatuses, police cars, and ambulances responding to emergency call," but rather objected to liability being determined by "the character of the department to which the vehicle is assigned for services, rather than to the character of use to which the vehicle is put."3a The Legislature waived immunity in a context in which courts disliked immunity because it prevented recoveries for commonplace torts—such as auto accidents—from agencies performing governmental functions. The context of the waiver indicates that it was intended to allow liability for commonplace torts rather than for governmental functions. The upcoming development of "neoclassical" tort theories and changing judicial views would give the waiver consequences far beyond those contemplated at the time of the waiver. C. Waivers of lmniunity in Other States Although the Washington Supreme Court long urged the Legislature to waive immunity, no single case served as an immediate impetus for the waiver. However, judicial waivers in three other states might have influenced the Legislature. In 1957, the Florida Supreme Court refused to apply sovereign immunity to a claim arising from a fire at a jail.31 In 1959, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to apply sovereign immunity to a claim for a school bus accident .12 In January 1961, the California Supreme Court completely abrogated sovereign immunity in a case involving an injury at a public hospital.33 All three cases involved common toric committed by agencies with governmental functions. Just life the cases that caused the Washington Supreme Court to suggest a waiver of immunity, the torts did not involve issues of goven-imental 29. 189 Wash. 694, 703-04, 66 P.2d 1152, 1156 (1937). 30. Id. at 706, 66 P.2d at 1157. Kilbourn v. City of Seattle, 43 Wash, 2d 373, 261 P.2d 407 (1953), a case in which the supreme court reiterated that it would leave to the legislature the question of waiver of immunity, is similar. Kilbourn held that tiie city had immunity because the plaintiff child was injured by a tree limb in a city park. if the child had been injured on a sidewalk or on school or county property, there would have been no immunity. 31. Hargrove v. Town of Cocoa Beach, 96 so. 2d 130 (Fla. 1957), superseded in statute; Cauley v. City of Jacksonville, 403 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1981), 32. Molitor Y. Kaneland Comm'ty Unif, Dist. 302, 163 N.B.2d 89 (Ill. 1959) (noting that, in Washington, a school district would not have been immune). 33, Muskopfv. CorningHosp. Dist., 359 P.2d 457 (Cal. 1961). 8 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 action, policy, or decision-making. The focus of the cases was on liability for injuries that would be compensable under then existing tort theories but for the fact that the agency causing the injury performed governmental functions. Even if Washington's waiver was inspired by waivers in Florida, Illinois, and Califomia, its breadth was unlike subsequent legislation in those states. Florida and Illinois quickly re -imposed immunity: Florida waived immunity in 1973, but imposed a $100,000 per person limit,34 and Illinois eventually waived immunity, but controlled liability through a special claims court and various limits.35 California was reportedly deluged with lawsuits, 36 prompting its Legislature to impose a moratorium on claims, followed shortly by a re -imposition of immunity with detailed exceptions .17 From the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, all but a few states waived immunity for state and local govemment.38 A majority of states imposed limits on damages, which now range from a low of $50,000 per person and per incident in Nevada to a high of $1 million per person and $5 million per incident in Nebraska.39 A majority of states have also either preserved immunities for a range of government functions or have preserved immunity generally and have enumerated functions for which liability could be imposed, sometimes with standards governing the liability. 40 Common areas in which tort claim acts did not allow liability were regulatory and licensing activities 41 discretionary decisions on governmental matters '42 release and supervision of offenders or mental 34. FLA. STAT, ch. 768.28 (1973). 35. 745 ILL. COMP. STAT. 511, 50518 (1972). The damage limit is $100,000 except for vehicle claims. 36. Colorado Legislative Council Research, Governmental Liability in Colorado, Report to the Colorado General Assembly, Pub, No. 134 at 112 (1968). 37. 1961 Cal. Stat. 1404; 1963 Cal. Stat. 1681, et seq. See generally CALIFORNIA BAR ASS'N, CALIFORNIA GovERNMENT T'oR'f LIABILITY PRACTICE (3d ed. 1992), 38. Keeton, supra note 1. 39. NEv. REV. STAT. § 41.035 (1995); NEB. REV. STAT, § 13-926 (2003). The Nebraska limits are for local governments whose claims are adjudicated by courts of general jurisdiction without a jury. The State of Nebraska has no damage limit, but tort claims are adjudicated by a special administrative tribunal. Nebraska has extensive exemptions from liability for such things as inspections, licenses, highway design and improvements, exercise of employee discretion, and snow or ice conditions on roads. NEB. REV. STAT. §§ I3-910, 81-8, 219 (2003). 40. NAT'L Assoc. OF ATT'YS GPNERAL, SONTEREIGN IMMUNITY: THE LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT AND TTS OFFICIALS (Nov. 1976). Appendix I to this article is a chart comparing the waivers of immunity and damage limitations adopted in 49 other states. 41. See N.T. STAT. ANN. § 59:2-6 (2005). 42. See CAL. Gov''I'CODE § 820 (West 2005). 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 9 patients '43 and design of or lack of capital improvements to public roads or facilities.44 New York was the only state to waive immunity before Washington, enacting an open-ended waiver in 1929. New York's waiver differed from Washington's in two respects. First, it provided that liability would be "determined in accordance with the same rules of law as applied to actions in the supreme court [trial court in New York] against individuals or corporations," but did not expressly waive liability for "governmental" funetions.45 Second, it assigned adjudication of claims to the Court of Claims, a court that handled contract claims, with no provision for jury trials .A6 New York developed law that allowed liability for ordinary torts committed by agencies with governmental functions, but rejected liability for govermnental acts .47 For instance, New York would be liable for injuries to prisoners caused by prison conditions, but not for confining, releasing, or supervising offenders who caused injury to others .41 Some states performed detailed studies of proposed tort claim acts. Two studies in the 1960s examined the open-ended49 approach adopted by Washington, and both rejected it. Kentucky concluded that the open- ended approach would cause problems with the scope of liability, uncertainty of risk, cost, and ability to obtain insurance. Kentucky's findings are as follows: "Open-end" legislation usually carries wide open liability. This causes difficulty in operation; because of the wide area of unforeseen injuries and unlimited damages, the agency or governmental entity would have no basis upon which to foresee and pay claims. Insurance has proven difficult to obtain because of the expanse of the potential risk and indefinite scope of liability; of course, insuring against unlimited contingencies would be prohibitive. so Three years later, Colorado reached similar conclusions about open- ended waivers: 43. See Aiuz. REV. STAT. § 12-820.02(A) (1984); CAL. GOVT CODE § 856(a)(3) (West 1995). 44. See IDAHO CODE ANN.§ 6-904(7) (1971). 45. See N.Y. CT. CL. ACT § 8 (1939). 46. See N.Y. CT. CL. ACT § 12(3) (1939). 47. See Peter Herzog, LiabUity of the State of New York for Purely Governmental Functions, 10 SYRACUSE L. REv. 30 (1958). 48. See Tarter v. New York, 503 N.E.2d 84 (N.Y. 1986); Williams v. New York, 327 N.E.2d 545 (N.Y. 1955); 5carnato v. New York, 83 N.E.2d 841 (N.Y, 1949). 49. Some articles call the Washington approach a "blarAcet waiver" and consider an o?esn- ended approach to be one in which Immunity is completely waived except for defined areas. 50. Michael Canover, Governmental Immunity, KY. LEGIS. RESEARCH COMM'N 22-23, 63 (Nov. 30, 1965). 10 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 The main criticism of this type of approach is that the nature of govertmmental and public activities and functions is not comparable to private activities and responsibilities. Public agencies necessarily engage in a broad spectrum of activities having no private counterpart, which often involve relatively high degrees of exposure to injury - producing events, and which the government cannot voluntarily terminate since they are performed as a matter of public duty, Private persons and corporations, on the other hand, are ordinarily free to withdraw froth activities which entail undue risks of liability. These differences suggest that it might not be wise to treat public and private entities alike for tort liability purposes. 51 The conclusions reached by these legislative studies almost 40 years alto were insightful, predicting issues that would arise from Washington's open-ended waiver of immunity. Il. DEVELOPMENT OF WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT LIABILITY LAW AFTER THE WAIVER Legal developments after the waiver can be divided into three periods in which government liability law went from a period of stability to a period of rapid expansion to a period of retrenchment and debate over the boundaries of liability for risk -prone programs. A. Washington Government Liability Law: 1961-1973 L Case Law Development For the first dozen years after the waiver, Washington law showed no sign of liability expansion and remained similar to law before 1961. The first significant case, Evangelical Church of Adna v. State, $2 raised the issue of whether the 1.961 waiver actually abrogated immunity for truly governmental functions. In Evangelical, plaintiffs successfully sued the State for fire damage caused by a juvenile who had escaped from an "open program" at a correctional facility. Plaintiffs contended 51. Colorado Legislative Council Research, supra note 36, at I18. Colorado rejected an open- ended waiver after noting: "Under this process, the extent of governmental liability cannot be determined with certainty. Many cases must be tried and processed through the courts, many of which may result in the goverrmeut defendant not being held liable. The financial stability of many public entities may also be left unprotected because of the unavailability of insurance at rates that they can afford to pay, resulting from the unknown potential liability." Colorado Legislative Council Research, supra note 36, at 131. 52. 67 wash. 2d 246, 407 P.2d 440 (1965). 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 11 that the State was negligent for having an open program and for assigning the juvenile to the program.53 The State sought reversal because the state acts involved judgment and discretion. 14 Evangelical concluded that the waiver's requirement that liability be analogous to private liability meant that "the statute does not render the state liable for every harm that may flow from governmental action, or constitute the state a surety for every governmental enterprise involving an element of risk."55 The court reversed the verdict, stating that there must be room for government policy decisions and their implementation without the threat of tort liability.s6 Evangelical was a seminal case because it interpreted the private liability limitation in the waiver as excluding governmental functions from liability. Evangelical was significant because it immunized not only policymaking, but also the operational steps taken by officials to implement policy. The court's interpretation of the waiver was consistent with both New York's interpretation of the private liability limitation in its waiver and the federal courts' interpretation of the discretionary immunity limitation in the federal waiver.$' Although Evangelical followed existing law, the case had an internal inconsistency. The court held that discretionary immunity did not protect the State from liability for the assignment of the juvenile offender to a "boiler room detail" that was not affiliated with the open program.S8 In so doing, the court protected the State from liability for its implementation of the decision to have an open program—an administrative decision—but allowed liability for the risks inherent in the decision to have the underlying low security rehabilitation program—a legislative decision. This part of Evangelical forecast the approach taken in cases during the later period of expanding liability. The later cases would not apply the private liability limitation in the waiver and would 53. Id. at 252, 407 P.2d at 443. 54. Id. 55. Id. at 253, 407 2.2d at 444, 56. Id. at 254, 407 P.2d at 444. 57. A law review analysis criticized Evangelical's protection of policy implementation (the assignment to the open program). See Discretionary Acts Protected by Governmental Immunity, Survey of Washington Laws, 41 WASIL L. RFV. 552 (1966) (hereinafter Discretionar)) Acts]. However, Evangelical relied on the leading federal case, Dalelite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15 (1953), which protected policy implementation. Later federal cases have continued that practice. See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991). Some courts interpreted Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955), as allowing liability for "operational" acts done to implement policy, but Gaubert and other decisions in the past 25 years have held that discretionary immunity protects ,judgments made by lower -level. employees who are implementing policies that require making decisions concerning the application of policies and rules to facts. See Timothy B, Richards, Tenth Circuit Survey, Torts Survey: Governmental Liahility, 72 Di-,Nv. U. L. RE -v. 821 (1995). 58. 67 Wash. 2d 246, 255, 407 P.2d 440, 455. 12 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 not use discretionary immunity to protect operational acts done to implement policies in risk -prone govermaiental programs.59 In the years immediately after the waiver, only one other case discussed liability for truly governmental acts. Creelman v, Svenning60 involved a claim that a prosecutor, a county, and the State should be liable for malicious prosecution and negligence in filing charges that were later dismissed. The supreme court affirmed a dismissal based on. pre -waiver case law holding that prosecuting attorneys have absolute immunity. 61 Creelinan did not mention Evangelical, probably because counties have never had sovereign immunity. Older cases had protected the govermnental prosecution function despite the statute providing for tort actions against counties. Creelman is consistent with Evangelical because it immunized, not only the decision to file charges, but also the ministerial details done to prepare for flling.fi2 Further, Creelman rejected an argument that the 1961 waiver meant that the prosecutor could have immunity, but the county and the State would be liable for the prosecutor's acts. 63 The court held that government liability would affect decisions of the prosecutor, rendering the prosecutor's iminunity ineffective .64 In the period after the waiver, all cases claiming liability for government highway functions concerned maintenance and signage issues.65 Not one case raised questions about design or failure to make capital improvements, which could involve governmental issues such as funding, priority, or design choice. The supreme court decided one case that concerned maintenance issues, but had larger implications on the scope of governmental tort duties. That case, Morgan. v. State ,66 involved 59. The import of Evangelical's discussion of the third claim was probably not appreciated at that time because the claim was dismissed based on lack of foreseeability. Barnum v. State, 72 Wash. 2d 928, 435 P.2d 678 (1967), also foreshadowed later cases by implying that immunity did not protect acts implementing policy decisions'but, because it was only a reversal of a CR 12(b)(6) motion and a remand, it had very little effect. 60. 67 Wash, 2d 882, 410 P.2d 605 (1966). 61. Id. at 884, 410 P.2d at 607-08. 62. Tlie complaint alleged not only liability for the decision to prosecute, but negligence in reviewing the information in the file and in failing to conduct an investigation before filing. Id. at 884, 4:0 P.2d 607, 63. Id. at 885, 4I0 P.2d at 608. 64. This rejected a theory of "state liability despite employee immunity" that had been advanced in the law review survey discussing Evangelical. See Discretionary Acts, supra note 57, at 552, 558, 65. Bartlett v. N. Pac. Ity, Co., 74 Wash. 2d 881, 447 P.2d 735 (1968); Provins v. Bevis, 70 Wash. 26 131, 422. P.2d 505 (1967); Raybell v. State, 6 Wash. App. 795, 496 P.2d 559 (1972). Meabon v. State, 1 Wash. App. 824, 463 P.2d 789 (1970), actually narrowed prior liability by holding that the duty to maintain and repair could be satisfied by posting signs warning of hazardous conditions. 66. 71 Wash. 2d 826, 430 P.2d 947 (1967), 20051 Washington's Experiment, with Governmental Liability 13 a child who was killed after he wandered onto a freeway through a broken fence. In affirming dismissal based on lack of duty, the court relied on the absence of a statute creating a duty to fence roads and on an examination of accepted highway engineering standards.67 The court used highway standards to determine that the purpose of highway fencing was to reduce obstructions for motorists, not to protect children.68 The importance of Morgan lies in the court's examination of the details of the particular program in order to determine the scope of an agency's tort duty. The court's willingness to limit duty in the absence of statutes or standards mandating actions would become less evident in later cases. The first regulatory liability cases were Nerbun v. State 69 and Loger v. Washington Timber Prods., Inc. 71 In those cases, the court of appeals held that the purpose of industrial safety inspection laws was to improve workplace safety, but workplace safety laws did not create a duty to protect individual workers .71 These cases were consistent with Morgan because they looked at statutes and standards to determine tort duty, and then looked to the breadth of that duty to determine if liability should be imposed. In summary, Washington courts took a cautious approach to the waiver of immunity before 1974. There were no changes to already existing tort liabilities of government agencies.72 2. Claim and Legal Defense Costs The total cost of payments on tort lawsuits and claims through June 30, 1974, was miniscule. 1n the 1963-1965 biennium, the state paid 44 judgments and. lawsuits, with a total payout of $241,000.73 In the next five biennia, total tort claim payments were: 67. Id. at 830, 430 P.2d at 949-50. 68. Id. at 828, 430 P.2d at 948. 69, 8 Wash. App. 370, 506 P.2d 873 (1973). 70. 8 Wash. App, 921, 509 P.2d 1009 (1973). Lager also determined that inspections were protected by discretionary immunity, finding that discretion was intrinsic to the inspections. Later cases rejected liability because inspections are related to workers' compensation and protected by workers' compensation immunity. See Nielson v. Wallkill Corp., 47 Wash. App. 352, 734 P.2d 961, review denied, 109 Wash. 2d I008 (1987). 71. Nerbun, 8 Wash. App, at 376, 506 P.2d at 877 (1973); Loger, 8 Wash. App. at 931, 509 P.2d at 1015. 72. In Fos -bre v. State, 76 Wash. 2d 255, 456 P.2d 335 (1969), the supreme court even held that the waiver of immunity did not include interest on judgments. 73. The state budgets on a biennial basis and the budget year runs from July I to ,lune 30. The 1963-1965 biennium is the period from July 1, 1962, to June 30, 1964. The state has accurate tort claire cost records because 1963 Wash. Laws 159 at §§ 7 and 10 created a separate tort claims account and directed that all tort payments be made from this account. The payment records presented here are from compilations made in the 1970s by the chief of the Attorney General's 14 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 Biennium Claims Paid Payments 1965-67 77 $315,000 1967-69 100 $916,000 1969-71 143 $985,000 1.97173 160 $668,000 1.973-75 192 $972,000 Tort payments remained stable for eight years at under $1 million per biennium. 74 In this period of traditional liabilities, more than 60 percent of claim payments were for highway maintenance liability claims. The only other agency with significant payments was the Department of Institutions, which included prisons and Iater became part of the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). The claims for this agency related to patient and inmate care and premises liability, but in three of the biennia, even this agency had no significant payments.75 Claim adjustment and legal defense costs were also miniscule in this period. There was no identifiable claim adjustment cost because this function was delegated to each agency for routine claims.76 The Attorney General's Office had no separate tort defense division until 1969, and, at that time, it consisted of only five attorneys, three legal secretaries, and one investigator, with a budget less than $200,000 per year. 77 Office, Torts Division, from state budget agency data available at that time. State tort costs were paid from a general tort account, but the account was funded by reimbursements from the operating budgets of agencies that generated tort claims. 1963 Wash, Laws 159 at § 11. 74. These amounts do not include claims which were covered by insurance, but the state carried virtually no insurance. See 13FTTER4Y CONSULTING GROU?, RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON (1976). The state carried limited insurance for vehicle accidents and for some colleges and universities, but the 1976 consultant report advised that most insurance be cancelled as not cost-effective. 75. In 1963-65, institutions had no payments; in 1969-71 and 1971-73, they had only $24,000 and $31,000, respectively. 76. 1963 Wash. Laws 159 at § 8. 77. Cost figures for earlier years can be adjusted to later years by using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Deflator. Using the GDP Deflator, $1.00 in 1974 was worth $3.04 in 2003. Thus, the approximately $1 million in tort payouts in the 1973-1975 biennium would be approximately $3 million in 2003 dollars. Similar GDP Deflator figures for other years, for use in adjusting later figures are: $2.13 in 1979; $1.56 in 1984; $1.34 in 1989; $1.17 in 1994; and $1.08 in 1999. See Samuel H. Williamson, What is the Relative Value? ECONOMIC HISTORY SERvs. (Apr. 15, 2004), available at http://www.th.net/hmit/compare. Appendix 11 presents state tort claim costs from 1961 to present in a bar graph. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 15 B. Washington Government Liability Law: 1974-1998 1. Case Law Development The twenty-five years after 1973 produced unprecedented new liability for governmental functions. The courts created liabilities that were well beyond those unposed on the state and cities in the first dozen years after the waiver. The liabilities were also unlike any that had been Imposed on counties and quasi -municipal governments in their 100 years without sovereign immunity. During this period, courts took a fundamentally different approach to public liability. a, Discretionary Immunity In 1974, King v. City of Seattle 7" removed the foundation supporting liability protections for governmental functions. Relying on a California case79 rather than on Evangelical, the King court held that there was no immunity for discretionary activities unless the government could show that a "policy decision, consciously balancing risk and advantages, took place.s80 The court also stated that there could be no immunity for decisions which were not "considered," would have been adopted by "no reasonable official," or were arbitrary and capricious.$] The focus on the wisdom of the decision was different from prior law, which had. held that the correctness of the decision was immaterial. Earlier cases stated that the purpose of the immunity was to protect the ability of legislative and executive branches to implement policy, which could not be accomplished if the immunity depended on the courts' view of a decision's wisdom or motivation. 82 After King, the courts imposed further restrictions on discretionary immunity. Later cases stated that discretionary decisions must be made at a "truly executive level" rather than an operational level83 and that immunity could apply only to executive level policymaking decisions rather than "field" decisions. 84 The effect of the new interpretation of discretionary immunity was to limit immunity to adoption of laws, regulations, and policies by legislative bodies, and elected or appointed 78, 84 Wash. 2d 239, 525 P.2d 228 (1974). 79. Johnson v. State, 447 P.2d 352 (CaL 1968). 80. King v. City of Seattle, 84 Wash. 2d 239, 246, 525 P.2d 228, 232-3 (1974), 81. Id. at 247, 525 P.2d at 233. 82. See, e.g., Evangelical Church of A,dna v. State, 67 Wash, 2d 246, 254, 407 P.2d 440, 444 (1965). 83. Mason v. Bitton, 85 Wash. 2d 321, 534 P.2d 1360 (1975). 84. Miotkc v. City of Spokane, 10I Wash. 2d 307, 678 P.2d 803 (1984). 16 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 officials.SS Unlike Evangelical and several relevant federal cases,86 these new cases did not provide immunity when officials made decisions needed to implement policies.87 Among the functions for which the court found had no immunity were: (1) the issuance or denial of pernsits;88 (2) the initiation of police vehicle chases;89 (3) the release of mental patients;4° (4) the conduct of police investigations or response to emergency calls;9t (5) the supervision of paroled felons; 92 (6) the design of highways;93 and (7) military activities, 94 By allowing liability for implementation of policies, King created liability that had not existed previously in Washington or in other jurisdictions. Other states adopted immuli.ities, damage caps, special procedures for governi-nent claims or, like New York, judicially limited liability for governmental functions. Moreover, while King relied on a California decision to limit discretionary immunity, California continued to apply discretionary immunity, along with various statutory limitations, to decisions made by lower -level officials. 95 85. The only significant governmental functions protected by discretionary immunity since King have been the Governor's issuance of an executive order on the Mount St. Helens volcano (Cougar Bus, Owners Ass'n v. State, 97 Wash. 2d 466, 647 P.2d 481 (1982); Karr v. State, 53 Wash. App. 1, 765 P.2d 316 (1988)), an agency director's decision to issue regulations (Bergh V. State, 21 Wash. App. 393, 585 P.2d 805 (1978)), and the Parole Board's decision to parole (Noonan v. State, 53 Wash. App, 558, 769 P.2d 313 (1989)). 86. See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991); Indian Towing Co, v. United States, 350 iJ,S. 61 (1955); Dalelite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15 (1953). 87. The only later case that followed livangelieal in protecting policy implementation was Jenson v. Scribner, 57 Wash. App. 478, 789 P.2d 306 (1990). The court held that discretionary immunity applied to the Department of Transportation's implementation of the legislature's decision to fiend installation of a median harrier. 88. Miotke, 101 Wash. 2d 307, 678 P.2d 803; Haslund v. City of Seattle, 86 Wn.26 607, 547 P.2d 1221 (1976); King v. City of Seattle, 84 Wash, 2d 239, 246, 525 P.2d 228, 232-3 (1974). 89. Mason v. Bitton, 85 Wash. 2d 321, 325, 534 P.2d 1360, 1363 (1975). 90. Petersen v. State, 100 Wash, 2d 421, 671 P.2d 230 (1983). 91, Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash, 2d 582, 664 P.26 492 (1983); Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wash. 2d 275, 669 P.2d 451 (1983). 92. Taggart v. State, 118 Wash. 2d 195, 822 P.2d 243 (1992). 93. Stewart v. State, 92 Wash. 2d 285, 597 P.2d 101 (1979). 94. Emsley a Army Nat'l Guard, 106 Wash, 2d 474, 722 P.2d 1299 (1986) involved an injury during training. Emsley not only rejected immunity, it did not mention the private liability condition, which the court had found determinative in an earlier military case. See Edgar v. State, 92 Wash. 2d 217, 595 P.2d 534 (1979), discussed infra note 97. 95, California cases protected difficult decisions that depended on evaluation of complex circumstances, such as decisions concerning abuse complaints and child placements. See Thompson v. County of Alameda, 614 P.2d 728 (Cal. 1980) (selection of custodians for minor state wards); Alicia T, v. County of Los Angeles, 271. Cal, Rptr. 513 (Ct. App. 1990) (investigation of child abuse); Bratt v. City & County of San Francisco, 123 Cal.. Rptr. 774 (Ct. App. 1975) (police functions such as initiation of pursuits); O'Hagan v, Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 113 Cal. Rpir. 501 (Ct. App. 1974) (permit and license issuance); Bums v. City of Folsom., 107 Cal. Rptr. 787 (Ct. App. 1973) (permit and license issuance). None of these activities are immune in Washington. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 17 b. Duty and Proximate Cause With the loss of most discretionary immunity, the state began receiving claims for negligence in performing basic governmental functions, such as driver licensing. In LaPlante v. State 96 nxlfor example, the plaintiff claimed that the waiver of immunity made the State liable for injuries suffered in an accident caused by a taxi driver who was negligently licensed. The court rejected the argument that the waiver itself created tort duties, holding instead that a claimant must establish that the State had a duty under existing tort law and that the breach of the duty was a cause of the injury." The major issue in cases after LaPlante became whether government agencies had a duty to prevent the hann alleged by a claimant. In Brown v. MacPherson's,98 the court expanded the concept of government liability, holding that agencies could have liability for failure to perform duties lying outside the statutory authority of the agencies.99 This holding was a major change from the traditional rule that an agency has no authority to act except pursuant to powers expressly granted by statute or necessarily implied therefrom.' 0" After the Washington Supreme Court broadened the tort duties of government agencies, the court used proximate causation to limit some of those duties as a matter of "policy." In King v. City of Seattle, the court held that city permit errors should not lead to liability when the plaintiff had not taken actions that would have allowed a project to proceed despite city errors."' In Hartley v. State,102 a case cited frequently in later decisions, the court held that the failure to revoke a driver's license was "too remote or insubstantial to impose liability"103 96, 85 Wash. 2d 154, 531 P.2d 299 (1975). 97. The claim in La ionfe was ultimately dismissed on the basis of lack of causation and the court never reached the duty issue. Edgor v. State, 92 Wash. 2d 217, 595 P.2d 534 (1979), involving a claim by a state National Guard officer for alleged retaliatory conduct by a superior officer, reiterated that the waiver did not create any causes of action and that a plaintiff must show that a cause of action would exist in a private context before he or sbe can proceed with a claim against the state. The court held that the plaintiff in Edgar had no basis for his action because private employees have no right to sue supervisors for harsh supervision or abuse of discretion. 98. 86 Wash. 26 293, 545 P.2d 13 (1975). 99. Plaintiffs contended that the state real estate broker licensing division had failed to convey a warning of an impending avalanche above a recreational subdivision. The licensing division (which asserted that it had relayed the information to the property broker) had no regulatory authority over the subdivision. The court held that the state could be liable for the implied promise of its employee. 100. See, e.g., Barendregt v. Walla Walla Sch. Dist, 140, 26 Wash, App. 246, Gil P.2d 1385, review denied, 94 Wash. 2d 1005 (1980). 101, 84 Wash, 2d 239, 252, 525 P.2d 228, 236 (1974). 102. 103 Wash. 2d 768, 698 P.2d 77 (1985). 103. Td, at 784, 698 P.2d at 84. IS Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29;1 for a drunk driving accident. The court stated that it might be immaterial whether it analyzed liability based on duty or proximate cause.10A The court also noted that licensing was not intended to protect particular persons, presumably meaning that there was no duty to plaintiffs.105 Hartley's circuitous discussion of duty and legal causation indicates some uncertainty concerning the boundaries of regulatory liability which, until later decisions firmly established the public duty doctrine, was left largely unresolved. c. Regulatory Liability The narrow interpretation given to discretionary immunity in both King v. City of Seattle and Mason v. Bitton raised questions about liability for regulatory activities. Georges v. Tudor,106 the first case after King to reject liability for regulation, provided the beginning of an answer. Georges was a lawsuit claiming city liability for a building collapse because the city had not enforced the building code. The court held that regulatory statutes create a duty to act for the public welfare, but do not create duties to protect individuals. 107 Three years later in Baerlein v. State,"" the Supreme Court built on Georges, applying the same concept of duty and holding that the Legislature had not intended securities regulation to create a duty to protect individual investors, 109 The limitation of duty for regulatory functions was first called the "public duty doctrine" in J&B Devel. v. King County.130 It applied to licensing, pennits, inspections, and police functions,"' as well as to correctional and social programs that were intended to improve public welfare (such as by lowering the crime rate), but was not, however, intended to solve a public problem in every situation.' 12 104. Id, at 780, 698 P.2d at 84. 105. Id, at 785, 698 P.2d at 86. 106. 16 Wash, App, 407, 556 P.2d 564 (1976). 107. Id. at 410, 556 P.2d at 567. 108. 92 Wash. 2d 229, 595 11.2d 930 (1979). 109. Boerleln, like many regulatory cases, supported its conclusions with statements of legislative intent, the breadth of the regulatory scheme, and the limited amount of enforcement resources. Id. 110. 100 Wash. 2d 299, 669 P.2d 468 (1983). 111. Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wash. 2d 275, 669 P.2d 451 (1983). 112. Forest v. State, 62 Wash. App. 363, 814 P.2d 1181 (1991), lield that the parole system was intended to reduce crime generally, but not to prevent specific crimes. A later case, Taggart v. State, 118 Wash, 2d 195, 822 P.26 243 (1992), held that parole supervision did create a duty to prevent crime, but used a different analysis. Yonker v. State, 85 Wash, App, 71, 930 P.2d 958 (1997), analyzed the investigative functions of child protective investigators and found that the public duty doctrine applied, but also held that an exception applied, permitting liability for investigation of child abuse. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 19 Some court opinions stated that the public duty doctrine was inconsistent with the waiver,' 13 suggesting that the duty of a government agency should be analyzed without reference to its public status and using only analogies to private liabilities. However, the analogies were poor. For instance, the opinions suggested that the duty for building code inspections should be the same duty as for private fire, boiler, or elevator ir,Spectiorls.14 None of the opinions adequately acknowledged the difference between goven-anent inspections and private inspections, and none were able to convey the nuanced difference between government "spot checks," not intended to identify all violations, and independently contracted private inspections, intended to identify all.' 15 The argument that the public duty doctrine was inconsistent with the waiver was eventually rejected under the rationale that the court must decide the appropriate scope of duty for government defendants, just as it does for private defend.ants.16 The public duty doctrine did not abolish all liability for regulation because the Washington Supreme Court found that the statutes for some programs or the actions of employees could create a duty to an individual. The court, through these cases, developed three exceptions to the public duty doctrine.17 The legislative intent exception created a duty if statutes showed "a clear intent to identify and protect a particular and circumscribed class of persons.""' Only three cases found that this exception applied. The first involved a code for dilapidated hotels, 119 another involved police action required in domestic violence cases, 120 and the final case involved investigation of child abuse complaints.121 This final case is the most 113. J&B Devel., 100 Wash. 2d at 310-11, 669 P.2d at 475-6; Bailey v. Town of Forks, 108 Wash. 2d 262, 727 P.2d 1257 (1987). 114. See, e.g., J&B Devel., 100 Wash. 2d at 310, 669 P.2d at 475. 115. A law review comment argued that liability for regulatory programs depends on whether programs should have a duty based on foreseeability of injury and ability to prevent injury. Jennifer K. Marcus, Comment, Washington's Special Relationship Exception to the Public Duty Doc(rine, 64 WASH. L. Rev. 401 (1989). This approach would result in liability for essentially all ir3;uries within the regulated sphere of activity without recognition that regulatory programs typically audit only a percentage ofregulated activity. Moreover, foreseeability is a legal concept which is not the basis for duty, but is a limitation on the scope of an acknowledged duty. See, e.g., Halleran v. NuWest, Inc., 123 Wash. App, 701, 98 P.3d 52 (2004). 116. Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wash. 2d 275, 287, 669 11.2d 451 (1983); Garnett v. City of Bellevue, 59 Wash. App. 281, 796 P.2d 782 (1990). 117. Some cases list the "rescue doctrine," discussed in Brown v MacPherson's, Inc., 86 Wash. 2d 293, 545 P.2d 13 (1975), as a fourth exception, but that was not a regulatory duty case, since the state had no regulatory authority over the matter at issue. 118, Halverson v. Dahl, 89 Wash, 2d 673, 574 P.2d 1190 (1978). 119. Id. 120. Donaldson v. City of Seattle, 65 Wash. App. 661., 831 P.2d 1098 (1992). 121. 'Yonker v. State, 85 Wash. App. 71, 930 P.2d 959 (1997). 20 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 important of the three, as it created a significant liability. Yonker identified abused children as a particular and circumscribed class intended to receive the benefit of child protective laws, rather than identifying all children to be beneficiaries of those laws.122 Yonker narrowed the class benefited by a regulatory statute to the subset of persons injured if the statute is not enforced. 123 This approach might bring all regulatory schemes within the exception. Every regulatory scheme that benefits a broad class, such as licensing of medical professionals, can be said to benefit only a circumscribed class if the class is limited to those injured if the scheme is not enforced, such as victims of medical errors. The special relationship exception 124 created liability if a plaintiff had direct contact with a regulatory official who gave express assurances on which the plaintiff relied to his or her detriment.12� In J&B Devel. v. King County, the court held that building department approval of plans was an assurance that the plans met the code.I2s This made government liable for contractor errors in plans. 117 The liability ended when Taylor v. Stevens County overruled J&B Devel., holding that plan approval was not an express assurance. The courts have rarely applied the special relationship exception since Taylor."' The "failure to enforce" exception created liability if officials had actual knowledge of a statutory violation and failed to take corrective action, despite a mandatory duty to do so, 129 Bailey v. Town of Forks 130 was the first case to recognize this exception by name, but the exception had been applied earlier in Campbell v. City of Bellevue. t 31 After Bailey, three cases applied the failure to enforce exception broadly, holding local governments potentially liable because they failed to enforce laws when 122. Id. at 80, 930 P.2d at 963. 123. Id. at 76, 930 P.2d at 961. 124. The special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine should not be confused with the different special relationship which arises from govermnent supervision of offenders, discussed supra Part ILB.I.d-e. 125. Taylor v. Stevens County, 111 Wash, 2d 159, 759 P.2d 447 (1988). 126. I00 Wash. 2d 299, 306, 669 P.2d 468, 473 (1983). 127. Radach v. Gunderson, 39 Wash. App. 392, 695 P.2d 128 (1985). 128. Taylor-, 111 Wash. 2d at 167, 759 P.2d at 451 (1988). hollowing Taylor, the special relationship exception has been significant only in cases involving 911 tails. Beal V. City of Seattle, 134 Wash, 2d 769, 954 P.2d 237 (1998), and Noakes v. City of Seoltle, 77 Wash, App, 2d 694, 895 P.2d 842 (1995), seemed to weaken the express assurances requirement by implying that statements that police would he dispatched were an express assurance of protection. 129. Smith v. State, 59 Wash. App, 808, 802 P.2d 133 (1990). 130. 108 Wash. 2d 262, 737 P.2d 1257 (1987). 131. 85 Wash. 2d 1, 530 P.2d 234 (1975). This was a case in which a city electrical inspector failed to order disconnection of electrical service, as required by the city code, after discovering dangerous wiring. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 21 they had knowledge of violations. 132 These cases overlooked the requirement of a statute making enforcement mandatory, an error not corrected until McKasson v. State, which held that the State was not liable for failing to enforce financial reporting requirements when the securities act did not mandate specific enforcement actions. 131 Subsequent cases strictly applied the mandatory duty element along with the actual knowledge element, resulting in little liability under this exception."4 Between 1974 and 1998,.the Washington Supreme Court created broad liability for regulatory and police functions, but thereafter narrowed this liability by adopting the public duty doctrine. The doctrine became a means to determine if regulatory schemes created an obligation to individuals or only an obligation to improve regulated areas without guaranteeing compliance. The public duty doctrine had one anomaly: it protected officials when they declined to act, but did not protect them when they acted. For instance, in Miotke v. Cit); of Spokane, officials were liable to downriver homeowners for modifying a pollution permit to allow a sewer plant upgrade, even though the duty of the officials was to act for the public welfare and not for the benefit of individuals, 135 1f the permit had allowed the discharges, and if officials had declined to modify it at the request of the homeowners, the public duty doctrine would arguably have protected the officials. This anomaly occurs because Washington courts analyze affirmative regulatory acts under this. state's narrow discretionary immunity ride, without considering that the duty is owed to the public and not individuals." 6 The anomaly does not occur in jurisdictions where discretionary immunity protects decisions about matters of public interest. d. Liability for Highway Design and Improvement Traditional highway liability was based on alleged failures to maintain or repair the highway itself or to install signs warning of 132. Coffel v. Clallam County, 58 Wash. App. 517, 794 P.2d 513 (1990); Waite v. Whatcorm County, 54 Wash. App. 682, 775 P.2d 967 (1989); Livingston v. City of Everett, 50 Wash, App. 655, 751 P.2d 1199 (1989). 133, 55 Wash. App. 18, 24, 776 P.2d 971, 974 (1989). 134. See, e.g., Atherton Condo, Apartment -Owners Ass'n Bd, of Dirs. v. Blume, 115 Wash, 2d 506, 799 P.2d 250 (1990). 135. 101 Wash. 2d 307, 330, 678 P.2d 803, 816 (1984). 136. For instance, Hoslund v. City of Seattle, 86 Wn.2d 607, 547 P.2d 1221 (1976), and King v, City of Seattle, 84 Wash. 2d 239, 246, 525 P.2d 228, 232-33 (1974), analyzed regulatory decisions on building permits tinder discretionary immunity whereas Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wash. 2d 673, 574 P.2d 1190 (1978), and Georges v. Tudor, 16 Wash. App. 407, 556 P.2d 564 (1976), analyzed alleged failures of building officials to act as a public duty doctrine issue. 22 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 conditions not apparent to drivers, not on theories that the road was designed improperly or should have been improved. Case law had accepted state and federal highway standards, particularly the national highway signing manual,13' as establishing the standard of care for government.138 In the late 1970s, several cases expanded the bases for liability for traditional highway claims and pennitted new claims on broader theories of liability. In Tanguma v. Yakima County, 139 the plaintiff drove into a canal to avoid colliding with another vehicle which allegedly occupied more than its share of an old bridge. The driver sued the county on theories that the bridge should have met newer standards for width or had signs warning of the dangerously narrow width and allegedly limited sight distance. 140 Tanguma reversed a summary judgment granted based on lack of duty, and while Tanguma did not announce any specific new highway duty, it was significant because there was no road defect in the traditional sense, and the court allowed the case to proceed on a signage theory when the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) indicated that the bridge did not require a warning sign.14' Unlike earlier cases, Tanguma appeared to allow liability based on expert testimony that signage could have been better, without a specific showing that the sign manual or any other highway standard was violated. Though Tanguma rejected the argument that a duty existed to replace a bridge with one meeting current standards, the decision in Boeing Co. v. State 142 accepted failure to improve a road as a basis for liability. Boeing involved a truck that was damaged driving through a substandard railway underpass with a sign stating its clearance.. The truck driver knew the clearance, but underestimated his load height. 14' Boeing allowed liability on theories that the city could have installed special warning devices for the underpass or rebuilt the highway. 144 Boeing was a major expansion of liability because it recognized claims of liability for older highways that did not meet current standards so long as claimants could present expert testimony that those highways were extra -hazardous 137, The State of Washington adopts by law the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices published by the Federal Highway Administration, WASH. REV. CODE § 47.36.030 (1.977); see also MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAmc CONTROL DEVICES, available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/ tiafficoperatious/inuted.lihn (last updated Mar. 25, 2004). 138 See Kitt v. Yakima County, 93 Wash, 2d 670, 611 P.2d 1234 (1980); Schneider v. Yakima County, 65 Wash. 26 352, 397 P.2d 411 (1964). 139, 18 Wash. App. 555, 569 P.2d 1225 (1977). 140. Id. at 557, 569 P.2d at 1227. 141. Id. at 557-60, 569 P.2d at 1227-28. 142, 89 Wash. 2d 443, 572 P.2d 8 (1978). 143. Id. 144. Id, 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 23 or inherently dangerous. Boeing, like Tanguma, also did not treat accepted highway sign standards as determinative of liability. Highway liability expanded again in Stewart v. State 14-1 on a claim that the State was negligent because it did not have lighting on an interstate highway bridge. After rejecting discretionary immunity, Stewart held that the State could be liable for negligent design. 146 Stewart did not limit liability to claims that the bridge was not constructed to accepted design standards for freeways. Rather, Stewart indicated that liability might be based on expert testimony that a different design for lighting on the bridge would have been "good practice."147 Unlike Morgan v. State, 148 decided 12 years earlier, Stewart did not look to federal or state design standards for such bridges to determine if the State should have liability. Two later cases somewhat reduced the new highway design liability. In McCluskey v. Handorff-Sherman,149 plaintiffs alleged that the State was negligent in failing to improve an older road by repaving it and by adding modern median barriers. McCluskey indicated that it might be proper for the State to present a funding limitation defense on claims for failure to make capital improvements. 150 More significantly, McCluskey contained dicta implying that discretionary immunity would protect against claims that arise from the State's failure to allocate funds for capital improvements through its statutory priority array process."' A county case resolved a similar issue on the basis of duty rather than immunity. Ruff v. County of King, held that the county had no duty to upgrade an older road to current safety standards unless the road itself was inherently dangerous or deceptive to a prudent driver. 152 By the late 1970s, the waiver produced new liability for the governmental functions of road design and improvement. The Washington Supreme Court later limited liability for failure to upgrade older facilities, but did not limit liability for negligent original design, 1.45. 92 Wash. 2d 285, 5971'.2d 1.01 (1979). 146. Id. at 294, 597 P.2d at 106-07. 147. Id. at 293, 597 P.26 at 106. 148. 71 Wash. 2d 826, 430 P.2d 947 (1967). 149. 125 Wash. 2d 1., 882 P.2d 157 (1994). 150. Id, at 8-9, 882 P.2d 151. 151. Capital improvements to state highways are controlled by priority and funding procedures governing the state Department of Transportation, the Transportation Commission, and the Legislature. WASH. REV. CODE § 47.05 (1994). The supreme court has also held that evidence of funding considerations is material in government cases involving capital improvements because funding is an issue in govcmment liability cases, even if it would not be an issue in private liability cases. See Bodin v. Stanwood, 130 Wash. 2d 726, 927 P.2d 240 (1996). Titus, one of the results of Washington's narrow discretionary immiruity is that government budget issues are tried to juries. 152. 125 Wash. 2d 697, 707-08, 887 P.2d 886, 891 (1995). 24 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 even if the design complied with highway design standards, 153 There was inconsistency in this result. If a public agency was sued for failure to improve a road by rebuilding it to meet a standard adopted after the road's construction, the case would be dismissed based on Ruff because there would be no duty to upgrade the road with features not required by standards when the road was constructed. However, if an agency was sued for its alleged negligence in failing to incorporate these same features at the time of construction, the lawsuit could proceed based on Stewart if the court heard testimony that it would have been "good practice" for the agency to design the road differently. e. Liabilityfor Release and .Supervision of Mental Patients and Criminal Offenders During the early 1980s, Washington courts began to consider claims that the government was liable for the crimes and accidents of released mental patients and criminal offenders. Over the next fifteen years, several cases created liability for these governmental functions. The issue of liability for actions of released mental patients arose first. In 1983, Petersen v. State held that the State could be liable for an automobile accident caused by a former mental patient. 154 The basis of liability was a doctor's decision not to petition the court for an extra ninety -day commitment, and the doctor's failure to report probation violations on a burglary.155 Petersen held that discretionary immunity did not protect the doctor's decisions. 156 Petersen then held that the doctor's "special relationship"i S7 with the patient created a duty to protect anyone foreseeably endangered by the patient's drug-related mental problerals."' Considering the civil commitment statutes and the unusual facts of Petersen, the court's holding in that case is an odd one. In Petersen, the patient had not been committed because he was dangerous to others or a bad driver, but because he was gravely disabled and a danger to 153. Design of highways is commonly excepted from liability in other states if the design conforms substantially with accepted standards. See JDAIIO CODE § 6-904(7) (1971). Other states also provide that failure to make capital improvements or major repairs is excepted from liability. 154. 100 Wash. 2d 421, 435, 671 P.2d 230, 241 (1983). 155, Id, 156, Id, 157. Id at 426, 671 P.2d at 236. The terns is the same as used for the exception to the public duty doctrine, but the concept is different. A special relationship under the public duty doctrine is between the government and the plaintiff, whereas in release and supervision cases, it is between the government and the released patient or offender and not with the plaintiff, although it creates a duty running to the plaintiff. 158, The Legislature adopted a statute in 1987 which changed the liability standard from negligence to gross negligence. WAsri. REV. CODE § 71.05.120 (1987). 2005] TTrashington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 25 himself.159 State law prohibited holding drug abusers as mental patients unless they had an ongoing mental health problem,' 60 and prohibited disclosing patient information to third parties, such as probation Officers. 161 Petersen's willingness to hold the State liable notwithstanding these circumstances contrasts starkly with Evangelical, which used foreseeability to avoid state liability for a fire set by an escapee who had a history of both escape and fire setting. Despite the unusual nature of its facts and its deviation from the Evangelical approach, Petersen became the basis for claims that government had a special relationship with offenders released from correctional facilities. In the ten years after Petersen, governments, as well as private treatment facilities, were sued for failure to prevent crimes by offenders in treatment or under post -release supervision. Several cases were dismissed on the basis of lack of duty or proximate cause because the crime was unrelated to the crimes for which the offender was being treated or supervised. 162 No case decided whether government could have liability for crimes by offenders under post -release supervision until 1991. Forest v. State held that there was no duty to prevent crimes by offenders on parole because the purpose of parole was to rehabilitate offenders and improve public safety generally, and not to protect individuals .163 Forest found that the failure to enforce exception to the public duty doctrine did not apply because reporting of violations by parole officers was discretionary.' 64 Forest stated that creating liability for parole would be poor public policy because it would negatively affect the parole System. 161 159. Peterson, 100 Wn. 2d at 424,671 P.2d at 235. See WASH. REv. CODS § 71.05.150 (1983). 160. See WAsu, REv. CODE § 71.05.040 (1983), 161. Former WASH. REV, Cobs; § 71.05.390 (1983). 162. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 68 Wash. App, 294, 841 P.2d 1254 (1992); review dented, 121 Wash. 2d 1018, 854 P.2d 42 (1993) (drunk driving accident by offender with substance abuse problem, but who was in custody for reasons not related to substance abuse); McKenna v. Edwards, 65 Wash. App. 905, 830 P.2d 385 (1992), review denied, 120 Wash. 2d 1003 (1992) (drug and alcohol offender who committed rape and murder); Noonan v. State, 53 Wash. App. 558, 769 P.2d 313 (1989), review denied, 112 Wash. 2d 1027 (1989) (burglar in alcohol treatment who committed rape); Baumgart v. Grant County, 50 Wash. App. 671, 750 P.2d 271, review denied, 110 Wash, 2d 1033 (1988) (driving accident by a person with a bad driving record, but in custody only for burglary). Two of these cases (Noonan and elfcKenno) analyzed the issue as one of "duty," and two of the cases (Bawngart and Johnson) used the same analysis, but called the issue "proximate cause." Also, Melville v. State, 115 Wash. 2d 34, 39-40, 793 P.2d 952, 955 (1990) held that the State did not have a duty to provide mental health treatment that would prevent an offender from committing crimes after release. 163. 62 Wash. App, 363, 370, 814 P.2d 1181, 1185 (1991). The analysis in Forest was similar to the analyses in New York cases. 164. Id. 165. Id. at 369-70, 814 P.2d at 1185. Washington liability would also have been unfair because Clic offender was an Oregon parolee receiving interstate supervision. Under Oregon law, an officer 26 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 Forest indirectly rejected the Petersen analysis by analyzing supervision of offenders as a correctional function done to benefit society rather than as an activity meant to prevent crimes against individuals. However, in 1992, Taggart v. State, without overruling Forest, held that parole officers had a "take charge" relationship with parolees.1 ' This holding created the kind of special relationship discussed in Petersen. The court stated that "parole officers had a duty to protect others from reasonably foreseeable dangers engendered by parolees' dangerous propensities."' 67 Taggart held that neither discretionary immunity nor quasi-judicial immunity protected the state from liability.168 The court characterized the parole officer's supervision of parolees as administrative rather than quasi-judicial in nature. 169 Taggart was remarkably different from case law in other jurisdictions. Although the court discussed authority from other states, it relied on cases which contained special circumstances, such as disobedience of a court order, giving permission for prohibited employment, or failure to provide inforination.171 When other jurisdictions directly considered whether parole officers had a duty to prevent crime by offenders, they found that there was no duty or that there was discretionary iminunity.171 Taggart did cite two cases creating a duty to prevent crimes by offenders, but one of those cases was overridden by legislation and one has not been followed and is on the verge of being overruled. 172 Subsequent to Taggart, other jurisdictions continued to find immunity or create no duty for this governmental function. 171 supervising an offender is not considered to have control over an offender and is not liable for an offender's crimes. There is also a $100,000 limit on any claims against the state. See Kim v. Multnomah County, 970 P.2d 631 (Or. 1998); Oiz. REV. STAT. § 30.270 (1987). 166. 118 Wash. 2d 195, 222, 822 P.26 243, 257-58 (1992). 167. Id. at 224, 822 P.2d at 257-58. 168. Id. at 228-29, 822 P.2d at 260. 169. Id. at 205-6, 822 P,2d at 248. I70. Semler v. Psychiatric Inst., 538 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1976), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 827 (1976); Acevedo v. Pima County Adult Prob. Dep't, 142 Ariz, 319, 960 P.2d 38 (Ariz. 1984); Ichnson v. State, 447 P.2d 352 (Cat. 1968). 171. See, e.g., Berling v. Obio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 557 MEN 174 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1989); C.L, v. Olson, 422 N.W.2d 614 (Wis. 1988). 172. Sterling v. Bloom, 723 P.2d 755 (Idaho 1986), overridden by IDAHO CODC- § 6.904A (1988); Dep't of Corrs, v. Areakok, 721 P.2d 1121 (Alaska 1986), has not been applied in later cases, and State v. Sandsness, 72 P.3d 299 (Alaska 2003), indicates that it will likely be overruled if challenged. 173. See, e.g., Schmidt v. HTG, Inc., 961 P.2d 677 (Kan. 1998). In Schmidt, the Kansas Supreme Court stated: "We reject this overbroad construction (T'aggartl which escalates the State's responsibility to that of a virtual guarantor of the safety of each and every one of its citizens from illegal and unlawful actions of every parolee or person released from custody under any type or kind of supervi sion." Schmidt, 961 P.2d at 687. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 27 Taggart created an expansive liability. The court expressed concern that liability might adversely affect the ability of parole officers to make decisions about the liberty of parolees and the safety of the public. J74 To mitigate this problem, Taggart created an immunity for parole supervision "if [the officer's] action is in furtherance of a statutory duty and in substantial compliance with the directives of superiors and relevant regulatory guidelines .',17' Three years later, Savage v. State effectively removed the immunity by holding that it protected only parole officers personally and not the State. "6 Taggart also expressed concent over the implications of its decision by stating that the Legislature could deal with problems created by the court's decision. Before the waiver, the Washington Supreme Court declined to create liability for the State and deferred the policy issues implicit in government liability to the Legislature. 17 After the open- ended waiver, the court no longer deferred policy decisions on expansions of government liability to the Legislature, but made those decisions itself with the suggestion that the Legislature could deal with any resulting problems. Later cases expanded Taggart. Bishop v. Miche178 and Hertog v. City of Seattle, 179 for example, held that county and city probation and pretrial release officers could be liable for failing to monitor and report violations to the court.' so Bishop and Hertog rejected arguments that officers reporting to the court had quasi-judicial immunity.181 However, Bishop ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs claim because the court had broken the chain of causation by continuing the offender on probation after a full report by the probation officer two days before the offender caused the fatal accident. 182 174, Taggart, 118 Wash. 2d at 215, 822 P.2d at 253. 175. Id. at 216, 822 P.2d at 253-4. Dissenting Justice Guy characterized the qualified immunity as "illusory and nothing more than a negligence standard wrapped like a gift box which contains sticks and ashes." Id. at 236, 822 P.2d at 263-4 (Guy, J. dissenting). 176. 127 Wash. 2d 434, 441-42, 899 P.2d 1270, 1274 (1995). Savage states that Taggart created qualified immunity only to protect parole officers from monetary loss, but, as both the dissent and a law review comment note, Taggart pointed out that all state employees have statutory indemnity Pimm the state under WASH. REV. CODE § 4.92 (2602). Tlsus, the immunity in Taggart must have been intended to protect the state. See Kristi Anderson Bjornerud, The Uncertain Scope of sovereign Immunity in Washington A ter Savage Y. State, 71 WASH. L.1ZFV. 1069 (1996). 177. See, e.g., Kilbourn v. City of Seattle, 43 Wash. 2d 373, 261 P.2d 407 (1953). 178. 137 Wash. 2d 518, 973 P.2d 465 (1998). 179. 138 Wash. 2d 265, 979 P.2d 400 (1999). 180, Bishop, 137 Wash. 2d at 525-26, 973 P.2d at 469; Hertog, 138 Wash. 2d at 275-76, 979 P.2d at 406-07. 181, Bishop, 137 Wash. 2d at 526, 973 P.2d at 469; Hertog, 138 Wash. 2d at 290-91, 979 P.2d at 414. 182. &shop, 137 Wash. 2d at 532, 973 P.2d at 472. 28 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 Bishop and Hertog appeared to reject Savage's holding that the immunity of the officer does not apply to the government, as there was evidence in both cases that the officers complied with all directives governing supervision of the offenders. The courts stated that the qualified immunity that might protect the officers in this circumstance would not protect the city and county from claims for their negligence in adopting the regulations, but did not state that the city and county would remain liable for the officers' acts.183 In Hertog,184 the concurring judge argued that Taggart, ignored the reality that officials often lack the means to control dangerous offenders.185 The supreme court acknowledged the concurrence, but declined the invitation to modify Taggart, reiterating that the Legislature could respond to any liability problems. 186 The court noted that liability claims did not appear to have been a problem for the state after Taggart. 1117 This would change soon after Bishop. f. Social Welfare Liability By the 198Os, the state's social programs faced claims of liability in several lawsuits involving programs for dependent children and. investigations of child abuse.' 88 Babcock v. State'.8' was the first case that imposed liability on a social program. Babcock involved four girls who had been removed from the custody of their father by a Louisiana court and placed with their grandparents in Washington. Due to interference by the father, social workers removed the girls from their grandparents' home, placing them instead with their maternal aunt and uncle.190 Later, the girls reported abuse by the uncle.191 The lawsuit claimed that the State had been negligent because it had not done a criminal background check on the uncle who had been acquitted of rape some years earlier. 1112 The supreme court originally affirmed a dismissal because the placements had been approved by the Washington court following contested hearings.' 93 The asserted basis for liability was that the social workers had been negligent 183. Id, at 532; Hertog, 138 Wash. 2d. at 278, 979 P.2d at 408. 184. 88 Wash, App, 41, 63, 943 P.2d 1153 (1997) (Agid, L concurring). 185. Id. 186. Hertog, 138 Wash. 2d. at 278-79, 291, 979 P.2d at 408, 414, 187. Id. at 278-79, 979 P.2d at 408. 188. Under WAsii. 12Ev. CODE § 13.34 (1977), the courts can take custody of abandoned, abused, or neglected children tivho are defined as "dependent." 189. 112 Wash. 2d 83, 768 P.2d 481 (1989). 190. Id. at 87, 768 P.2d at 483. 191. Babcock v. State, 112 Wasb. 2d S3, 90, 768 P.2d 481, 486 (1989). 192. Id. at 91, 768 P.2d at 486. 193. Id. at 108, 768 P.2d at 494. 2005] Washington's Experiment with. Governmental Liability 29 in preparing reports to the court because they had not discovered the uncle's acquittal. 194 The court held that the reports to the court must be protected by prosecutorial and witness immunity in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.' 95 Two years later, the court reconsidered and held that social workers did not have absolute imlx unity.196 On reconsideration, the court considered the social workers' investigation to be separate from the judicial process. 197 This was a major change from prior law which had held that prosecutorial and judicial immunity barred claims for negligence in investigations preceding decisions to prosecute or in preparing a report to the court.198 The court's rejection of immunity for social workers involved in juvenile dependencies opened a large new area of govenunental liability. Justice Dore's dissent argued that the extent of liability for alleged errors in dependencies could be a problem, noting that the state had but 850 social workers for 25,000 to 27,000 children in dependencies. 199 Later decisions interpreted Babcock broadly, creating more liability for governmental child welfare functions. Babcock had dealt only with the scope of immunity for a child placement decision, not with issues of 200 duty and negligence, which were to be decided on remand. 194. Id. at 94-95, 768 P.2d at 488. 195. The dependency statutes create a system of shelter care, disposition, and review hearings in which the court makes decisions concerning removal of children from parents, care of children while in court custody, and eventual permanent placement of children. The role of social workers is to act variously as investigators, prosecutors, and service coordinators within the court -directed system. WASH. REV. CODE §§ 13.34 (1977), 26.44 (1999), 74.13 (1965), 74.15 (1995). 196. Babcock, 112 Wash. 2d at 87, 768 P.2d at 483. 197.13abcock v. State, l 16 Wash. 2d 596, 610, 809 P.2d 143, 151 (1991). 198. See, e.g., Creclman v, Svenning, 67 Wash. 2d 882, 410 P.26 606 (1966). The Creehn-an court applied prosecutorial inununity to reject a claim that a prosecutor had inadequately investigated a case. The following two cases held that judicial immunity protected mental health officials frmn claims that they had been negligent in making recommendations to courts. Tobis v. State, 52 Wash. App. 150, 758 P.2d 534 (1988); Bader v. State, 43 Wash. App. 223, 716 P.2d 925 (1986), 199. Babcock did hold that social workers should have a qualified immunity from suit because, like police officers, they were charged with making decisions that greatly interfered with people's lives and making difficult decisions under difficult circumstances. Guffey v. State, 103 Wash. 2d 144, 690 P,2d 1163 (1984), created a qualified immunity for police officers. This immunity, like discretionary immunity in jurisdictions other than Washington, would protect social worker judgments, as long as no statutes or agency procedures were violated and their actions were "reasonable." In his concurrence, Justice Anderson objected to this qualified immunity as too narrow and "virtually non-existent and illusory." Justice Anderson's view appears to have been validated by Walter v. State, 64 Wash. App. 318, 824 P.2d 1225 (1992), review denied, 119 Wash. 2d 1014, 833 P.2d 1390 (1992), and Lesley v. Dept of Sac, & Health Servs., 83 Wash. App. 263, 921 P.2d 1066 (1996), review denied, 131 Wash. 2d 1026 (1997), which declined to grant qualified immunity to judgments made by social workers about investigations. 200. Duty and negligence were contested because state law did not require criminal background checks for relatives and because the uncle's arrests and acquittal were non -conviction 30 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 Nevertheless, a series of decisions interpreted Babcock as creating a duty to investigate, which ran in favor of the suspects in investigations. 201 AIthough Babcock stated that social workers would have absolute immunity if they had initiated a dependency and if all of their investigative results had been part of an adversary process, the Washington Court of Appeals held that this language was dicta and did not create social worker im unity.202 In Lesley v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.,203 the court refused to give collateral estoppel effect to a dependency court decision approving removal of children from parents after contested "shelter care" hearings. However, two years later, in Tyner v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. '2114 the court held that a social worker's alleged negligent investigation was not the proximate cause of a child's removal from her parents, which occurred only after a judge ordered removal following a hearing. 205 The cases after Babcock were based on an assumption that the state owed a tort duty to parties in dependency proceedings. These cases did not resolve the question of whether statutes created a public duty to investigate child abuse for the overall benefit of society or a specific duty to investigate for the benefit of individuals. As noted previously in the discussion of the public duty doctrine, Yonker v. Dep't of Sac. & Health Servs. held that child protective statutes satisfied the legislative intent data unavailable to non -law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Social and Health Services. Chief Justice Dore's dissent in Babcock discussed the duty and negligence issues extensively. 201. Tyner Y. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 141 Wash, 2d 68, 1 P.3d 1148 (2000); Gilliam v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 89 Wash. App. 569, 950 P.2d 20 (1998), review denied, 135 Wash, 2d 1015, 960 P.2d 937 (1998); Lesley, 83 Wash. App. 263, 921 P.2d 1066 (1996); Waller, 64 Wash, App. 318, 824 P.2d 1225 (1992); Dunning v. Pacerelli, 63 Wash, App. 232, 818 P.2d 34 (1991). None of these cases acknowledged Favors v. Matzke, 53 Wash. App. 789,'770 P.2d 686 (1989), which held that state investigation statutes did not create a duty to subjects of investigations. 202. Gilliam, 89 Wash. App. 569, 950 P.2d 20 (1998). This was the conclusion even when a parent had stipulated to the dependency process and cooperated in the dependency investigation and resolution through the court process. 203. 83 Wash. App. 263, 921 P.2d 2066 (1996). 204. 92 Wash. App. 504, 963 P.2d 215 (1998), rev'd by Tyner v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 141 Wash. 2d 68, 1 P.3d 1148 (2000). 205. Tyner stated that the social worker had presented all the material facts needed by the court to decide the issue of removal. Tyner distinguished Lesley on the basis that the social worker in Lesley had removed the child before obtaining a court order, whereas the Tyner social worker had acted wholly within the judicial process by first obtaining a court order. Tyner was in error on that point because social workers have no statutory authority to take custody of children without a court order; only police have this authority and the facts in Lesley, 83 Wash. App. at 266-67, 921 P.2d 1068-69, indicate that a police officer took custody of the child. Tyner was eventually reversed by the supreme court on the basis that there was a fact question on whether al] material facts had been disclosed to the judge, but the proximate cause defense was left intact. Tyner, 141 Wash. 2d 68, 1 P.3d 1148. 20051 Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 31 exception to the doctrine and created a state tort duty to prevent child abuse.206 2. Claim and Legal Defense Costs The total cost �of state payments on tort lawsuits and claims rose steadily from 1974 to 1998. From 1975 to 1979, the tort payouts averaged approximately $2 million per biennial period, slightly more than twice the average from the prior ten years.207 From that point, the payouts almost doubled in every biennium, except one, for ten years, reaching $28 million in the 1987-89 biennium. The payouts averaged approximately $20 million per biennium from 1989-95 and doubled to approximately $40 million per biennium from 1995-99. The increase in tort payouts aligned with decisions expanding governmental liabilities. The period in the 1980s in which payouts rose from less than $2 million to $28 million followed cases which narrowed discretionary immunity and created liabilities for regulatory, police, correctional, and highway design and improvement functions. The doubling of payouts after 1995 was consistent with the effect that would be expected from claims caused by the expansion of social welfare and correctional liability in Babcock (1991) and Taggart (1992). 1n the 1980s, the state resolved ten claims for more than $1 million, all but two of which involved a vehicle collision or a property claim. Large claims became more frequent in the 1990s, when twenty-two claims resolved for more than $1 million between 1990 and 1998. Of these claims, twelve involved correctional, social welfare, highway design, or regulatory liabilities, four involved personnel or civil rights liabilities, and only six involved traditional liabilities. The new liabilities for correctional and social welfare fi.rnctions accounted for a large amount of the increase in claim payouts. The claims almost always involved murder, violent crimes, sex or physical abuse, severe neglect, or drunk driving. The claimants were usually children, disabled, surviving spouses, or crime victims. The fear that 206. 85 Wash. App. 71, 81-82, 930 P.2d 958, 964 (1997). This liability was initially inconsistent with police liability because the public duty doctrine protected police from liability for alleged negligence in investigation. The possibility that the State could risk manage its liability by sending complaints to the police, ended with Rodriguez v. Perez, 99 Wash. App. 439, 994 P.2d 874 (2000), review denied, 141 Wash. 2d 1020, 10 P.3d 1073 (2000), which held that police have the same liability as social workers. 207. Data for biennia before Fiscal Year (FY) 1985 are drawn from historical records maintained by the Attorney General's Torts Division of data originally compiled by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). Summary data after FY 1985 are drawn from the 1989-91 and 1999- 01 Risk Management Biennial Reports prepared by the Division of Risk Management of the Department of General ,Administration. 32 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 sympathetic juries would return high awards to plaintiffs spawned increasingly high settlements in such cases. The three largest payments on claims fled between 1990 and 1998 were two jury verdicts and one settlement, together totaling over $29 million and involving a murder by a parolee and claims of sexual and physical abuse in group or adult family homes. 208 State legal defense costs remained modest throughout the 1970s. By 1980, the Torts Division had seven lawyers, eleven investigators, and other support staff, all on a biennial budget of approximately $2 million. The state's staff remained relatively constant until the rapid increase in liabilities in the mid-1980s. In 1987, a management study recommended a large increase in tort defense due to the number, cost, and complexity of state liabilities.209 Torts Division staff increased to eighty-five, including over thirty lawyers. This staff remained essentially the same until 1999, with a budget increasing from $11 million to $20 million a biennium over that period. Tort claim costs declined for several years after the increase in the state's tort defense effort. There was an apparent correlation between the declining claim costs and increased defense efforts. In contrast to the small and stable tort claim and defense costs from 1961 to 1974, the costs in the next twenty-five years rose substantially and consistently. In 1974, the total biennial cost of state tort liability was approximately $2 million and stable. Twenty-five years later, the biennial cost was $65 million or more and increasing steadily.210 3. Tort Reform in the 1980s Local government reacted quickly to the liability for governmental activities and the increase in claim costs. hl his June 1978 remarks to municipal and prosecuting attorneys, the Seattle City Attorney viewed the waiver less positively than did the Attorney General in 1961: 208. The $6.4 million jury verdict in the case involving a murder by a former parolee came shortly after Bishop v. Miche observed that liability under Taggart did not appear to have created problems for the state. 209. LEGAL SERVICES MANAGEMENT STUDY, OI<FICE OF TUE A'rr'Y GEN., PIJASE 1, RE,commENL)ED STAFFTNU LEvELs, Price Waterhouse (1987). 210. This cost did not include risk management and claim adjustment staff at the OFM, the DOT, and other agencies. The Price Waterhouse study had recommended a major increase in risk management. Legislation established a risk management and claim adjustment office at the Department of General Administration (DGA), which moved to the OFM in 1999. 1989 Wash. Laws 419. Large agencies also have risk management staff. The cost also did not includc premiums ($3 million in 1993) for the excess insurance policy that the state began purchasing in FY 1993 to cover claims over $5 million, If the 1974 cost was adjusted using the price deflator, supra note 77, the 1998 tort cost would have been approximately $5 million rather than $65 million. 20051 Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 33 The years since 1961 have not been kind to the old King in the State of Washington. He was hit and run by the legislature with the adoption of RCW 4.92.090 and RCW 4.96.010, kicked in the shins by the Supreme Court when it struck down our claims statutes, and suffered a heart attack with tlae adoption of comparative negligence, If there is any life left in the old boy, he is now drowning in the rising tide of lawyers and litigation. The cities and counties in the State of Washington are now suffering the consequences of the King's demise. Million dollar claims and unending theories of liability haunt nearly every govennnent decision. Each year the governments we serve expand their responsibilities and regulations (from SEPA to Shorelines to Public Disclosure to traffic lights), yet each year there are increasing numbers of plaintiffs who appreciate our vulnerability. Comprehensive insurance coverage at affordable prices is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.211 The Seattle City Attorney proposed legislation assigning government liability only for activities comparable to those in the private sector, but not for uniquely governmental activities. The proposed legislation contained liability limitations for regulations (licensing, pennits, inspections), road and facility design, fire protection, and failure to prevent crime. Local govenu-hent liability issues lead the Washington State House and. Senate Local Government Committees to conduct a 1979 study on local governs-ent insurance problems.212 In addition to recommending legislation facilitating risk management and risk pooling, the study recommended changes in substantive law. The most significant proposal was to eliminate joint and several liability for government so that it would not be the "deep pocket" when it was joined as a defendant with 211. Douglas N. Jewett, Submission offs Working Draft of Legislation Limiting Municipal Tort Liability, presentation to Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys and Washington State Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (June 15, 27, 1978). The reference to the claims statute related to Hunter v. North Mason Sch. Dist., 85 Wash. 2d 810, 539 P.2d 845 (1975), which held that time limits on government claims were unconstitutional under the state constitution, despite article Il, section 26 of tlme Constitution, which permitted the Legislature to direct the manner of suing the state. Petersen v. Stale, 100 Wash. 2d 421, 671 P.M 230 (1983), later held that cost bonds in state tort cases were also unconstitutional. 212, Concerns about these issues also arose in other states with early waivers of immunity,. Although California had re -imposed immunities for governmental functions, courts had interpreted the immunities narrowly, the immunities had eroded, and claims and large judgments had increased in areas not formerly subject to liability. Insurance companies in California viewed municipal liability as uncertain, with risks which were unstable, unpredictable, and often hard to manage due to their inherent risk. Staff Background Paper, Government Liability, (June 1977); California Citizens' Comnns.sion on Tort Reform at 52-53, 86-89, 111-12, INDPP. COMM'N RTTORT (1977). 34 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 others who had no resources. The study also endorsed bills to provide for contribution among tortfeasors and to establish a 180 -day claim filing deadline. Additionally, it proposed bills allowing governmental "affirmative defenses" based on compliance with standards in road and facility cases and lack of notice in inspection cases. By the early 1980s, the liability for governmental functions created concerns for the state. In 1984, the Attorney General wrote a letter to legislative leaders suggesting that they consider immunities for certain government functions.213 The letter emphasized that the loss of almost all discretionary immunity created extensive liability for judgment calls by public employees in areas of design, law enforcement, and social services. It further emphasized that most tort lawsuits did not involve the direct liability of the state, but involved indirect liability on a theory that the state failed to prevent another party's conduct. In the ten years prior to the 1984 letter, the Legislature enacted two major tort law changes, the first of which increased government liability, the second of which did not.'" The Legislature did not respond to the suggestions for governi-nent-specific tort reform, but events in the next two years led to a general tort reform that decreased government liability. In 1985 and 1986, there was a "hard" insurance market caused by declining interest rates, past competition and rate decreases in the insurance industry, and insurance underwriting losses caused by expanding liabilities in many corporate, professional, and public enterprises. 215 This change caused large premium increases or unavailability of insurance for enterprises with unpredictable risks. 216 In Washington, the "insurance crisis" produced a coalition of self-insured 213. Ken Eikenberry, Letter to Legislative Leaders Re: Government Liability (Apr. 3, 1984). 214, In 1974, the Legislature adopted comparative negligence rather than contributory negligence, which permitted claims against highway agencies by drivers who formerly had no claim. 1973 Wash. Laws 138. In 1981, the Legislature allowed joint tortfeasors to sue each other for contribution, but this did not help public entities who were deep pocket defendants in cases with insolvent codefendants. 1981 Wash. Laws 27. 215, Mm ARD K. WiLLAiZD & ROBERT L. WILLMORE, U.S. DCP'T OF JUSTICE, REPORT OF TIrF TORT POLICY WORKING GROUP ON THE CAUSES, EXTENT, AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURRENT CRISIS IN INsUI?ANCE AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY (Feb. 1986). An ad laoc committee of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) disagreed with the conclusion that increases in tort liability had a connection with increasing insurance costs, but the experience of the state of Washington as a large uninsured entity was consistent with the Justice Department report and not the NAAG report. See FRANCIS X, BELLOTTI, NACL ASs'N of ATTYS. GEN. All lloc COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE, AN ANALYsis OF Ti -12 CAUSES OF THE CURRENT CRisis OF UNAVAILABILITY AND UNAFFORDAPTLITY OF LIABILITY INSURANCE (1986). Independent studies of the 1985-86 insurance issues revealed that routine cases, such as automobile claims, were not growing, but that "high stakes" torts were growing much faster in frequency and cost. See RANK CcidJ oKATION, THE: INSTITUTE Folz CIVIL JUS'rICE, TRENDS IN TORT LITIGA'rioN, THE STORY 3LHIND TRE STATISTICS (1987), 216. See supra note 199 and accompanying text. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 35 businesses, local governments, nonprofit organizations, and professionals that successfully supported tort reforin.217 The two most significant reforms were a general damages cap and a change from joint and several liability to proportional liability ii -i cases in which a plaintiff had some fault. 218 In 1989, the Washington Supreme Court held that the damage cap was unconstitutional,219 but left joint and several liability unscathed. Proportional liability mitigated the effect of the loss of contributory negligence in cases against governments. If a plaintiff who had fault joined the government as a defendant with an uninsured driver or criminal, the govenunent would only pay for its share of fault, which was often small.220 While the change in joint and several liability probably helped lower tort payments in the early 1990s, much of the benefit of this reform was losi when Welch v. Southland held that liability could not be apportioned to intentional tortfeasors under RCW X1.22.22' This holding prevented governments from apportioning fault to criminals and drunk drivers who were often codefendants in the most expensive cases. C. Washington Government Liability Law, 1999-2005 In the last six years, government liability has not expanded as rapidly as it did over the prior twenty-five years. While broad liabilities remain, certain goverlu-rental liabilities were curtailed, particularly in the area of offender supervision and child welfare. In contrast to mild retrenchment in Those areas, liability for goveliumental highway design decisions has not receded. 1. Case Law Developments a. Duty and Public Duty Many cases which expanded governmental liability, such as Petersen v. State '222 created new duties without reference to or in spite of the statutes governing the public agency. Recent cases have done the opposite by looking at governing statutes to determine if an agency has a tort duty. For instance, in Murphy v. State ,223 a sheriff sued the Pharmacy 217, 1986 Wash. Laws 305. See Talmadge & Peterson, In Search of a Proper Balance, 22 GoNz, L. Rtv. 259 (1986). 218. 1986 Wash. Laws 305 at §§ 401, 501. 219. 5ofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wash. 2d 636, 771 P.2d 711 (1989). 220. If a plaintiff had no fault, the government would he responsible for the fault of an insolvent codefendant. 221. 134 Wash. 2d 629, 630, 952 P.2d 162, 163 (1998). 222. 100 Wash. 2d 421, 671 P.2d 230 (1983). 223. 115 Wash. App. 297, 62 P.3d 533 (2003). 36 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 Board for negligence in disclosing his confidential prescription records to support an unsuccessful prosecution. The Murphy court, deciding whether there was a duty to protect the confidentiality of the records by carefully examining pharmacy statutes, held that pharmacy statutes allowed disclosure to the prosecutor despite a Pharmacy Board practice of following medical privacy statutes.224 Ultimately, Murphy stated that agencies are creatures of statute whose duties are determined by the Legislature, not by their employeea.225 Application of the public duty doctrine has remained consistent since the late 1990s. There have been no new cases applying the legislative intent exception. . Halleran v. State 226 is demonstrative. Halleran involved a lawsuit claiming negligent investigation by the State Securities Division, and the court reiterated that the failure to enforce exception requires a mandatory statutory duty to act rather than discretionary enforcement authority.227 The Washington Supreme Court continues to hold that statements by 911 operators can fall within the special relationship exception and create a duty to prevent crime. 228 However, Sinks v. Russe11229 limits the duty to situations in which the 911 call indicates that a crime is imminent rather than indicating simply that police assistance is desired .210 The public duty doctrine remains unevenly applied to affirmative acts by officials. In Borden v. City of Olyrnpia,231 plaintiffs sued the city after it approved a private storm water system that flooded on neighboring property. Even though the city did not own or operate the system, Borden held that the public duty doctrine did not apply because the city's role was "proprietary," not regulatory, as it was involved in financing and design assistance .232 In contrast, Babcock v. Mason County Fire Dist. held that the public duty doctrine protected a fire district from liability for alleged negligent decisions about how to fight a fire, a markedly different treatment of affirmative acts .233 This holding was a rare decision applying the doctrine to protect against liability for acts rather than failures to act. If the officials had relied on discretionary 224. Id. at 304-5, 62 P.3d at 537. 225. Id. at 317, 62 P.3d at 543. 226. 123 Wash, App. 701, 98 P.3d 52 (2004). 227. Id. at 714, 98 P.3d at 58. 228. Bratton v. Welp, 145 Wash. 2d 572, 39 P.3d 959 (2002). 229. 109 Wash. App. 299, 34 P.3d 1243 (2001). 230. Id. at 302-3, 34 I'.3d at 1245. 231. 1 l3 Wash. App, 359, 53 P.3d 1020 (2002). 232. Id. at 371, 53 P.3d at 1026. 233. 144 Wash. 2d 774, 793, 30 P.3d 1261, 1272 (2001). 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 37 immunity rather than on the public duty doctrine, they likely would have been found liable because firefighting decisions are not policy decisions. b. Correctional and Social Welfare Liability Taggart v. State continues to hold the government liable for crimes committed by offenders under probation or post -release supervision.234 However, liability has been reduced by decisions that require proof that better supervision would have prevented the crime. Taggart and subsequent cases dealt with duty and immunity issues but did not discuss how a plaintiff would prove that better supervision would prevent a crime. The assumption seemed to be that the plaintiff would show supervision violations that should have resulted in the offender being incarcerated. Two cases have now established that requirement. First, Bell v. State held that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that "but for" negligent supervision, the new crime would not have occurred .21' The court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the State on the issue of causation, the basis of which was lacy of evidence that the Parole Board would have revoked parole had violations been reported,23' Next, Estate of Borden v. Dep't of Correction�37 made the causation requirement even more stringent. Borden reversed a plaintiff verdict because there was no evidence that the judge would have jailed the offender if alleged violations had been reported, no evidence that any jail sentence would have coincided with the date of the crime, and no evidence that the prosecutor would have noted the violations for hearing.23s Borden. is significant because modem post -release systems provide for a retuin to jail only for short periods .219 Additionally, the case demonstrated just how difficult it is to prove that revocations of probation or release would have occurred when the revocation decisions are discretionary judicial or administrative decisions. Couch v. Dep't, of Corrections, 240 another recent case, placed a second limitation on offender supervision, holding that the duty to supervise is defined largely by requirements imposed by statutes and 234. 118 Wash. 2d 195, 219, 822 P.2d 243, 255 (1992). 235. 147 Wash. 2d 166, 179, 52 P.3d 503, 510 (2002). 236, Id. at 183, 52 P.3d at 512, 237. 122 Wash. App. 227, 95 P,3d 764 (2004), review denied, 154 Wash. 2d 1003, 114 P.3d 1198 (2005). 238. Id. at 246-47, 95 P.3d at 774. 239. The Sentcnce Reform Act provides 12 different sanctions for offenders who violate release conditions, only one of which is jail, which is limited to 60 days per violation. See Wmi-i, Rev. CODE § 9.94A.634 (2004). 240, 113 Wash. App. 556, 54 P.3d 197 (2002), review denied, 149 Wash. 2d I012, 69 P.3d 874 (2003). 38 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 court orders. 241 The court concluded that the state was not liable for a murder by an offender who was being supervised only for the purpose of collecting unpaid court costs and fines, thus limiting liability for offender supervision to crimes that are related to behaviors governed by the court orders and statutes under which the offender is supervised. 242 However, the law is not entirely settled because a later case, Joyce v. State,24' did not follow Couch, holding that the state had a duty to prevent an automobile accident by an offender who was allegedly in violation of reporting conditions related to third degree assault and possession of stolen property convictions, but who had no convictions related to driving.244 The Supreme Court declined review in Couch but granted it in Joyce. 245 One new case removed an apparent statutory immunity for community notification about sex offenders when a statute246 allowed local law enforcement agencies to release sex offender information, but provided that there was no liability for failure to release such information. This case, Osborn v. Mason County, held that the immunity did not apply to an alleged failure to give notification because it was qualified by the phrase "except as otherwise provided by law."247 Osborn concluded that the "other law" could be the tort law rescue doctrine. The result is that common law tort liability can be an exception to statutory immunity from. tort liability.248 Several decisions have narrowed social welfare liability in a similar manner to correctional liability. No decision has renounced the liabilities created after Babcock, but decisions limit those liabilities in a variety of contexts. 241. Id. at 564, 54 P.36 at 201. 242. Id. at 571, 54 P.3d at 205. 243, 116 Wash, App. 569, 75 P.3d 548 (2003), review granted, 150 Wash, 2d 1032, 84 P.3d 1229 (2004). 244. Id. at 594, P.3d at 561, 245. Joyce based its duty holding on the fbreseeability that an offender with mental health problems would have an automobile accident. Murphy v. State, 115 Wash. App. 297, 62 P.3d 533 (2003), rejected foreseeability as a basis for duty, holding that foreseeability is a limitation on a duty rather than a source of a duty. A case from another division of the Court of Appeals has applied Couch and distinguished Joyce, In Estate of Danis v. State, 127 Wash. App, 833, 113 P.3d 487 (2005), t15c court held that the state had no duty to prevent a property crimes offender from committing murder. The court distinguished Joyce by stating that no reasonable jury could find the Davis murder foreseeable. The court reached this conclusion despite evidence of the offender's mental health problems, which had been Joyce's basis for finding that an unrelated crime was foreseeable. 246. 1990 Wash. Laws 3. 247. 122 Wash. App. 823, 835, 95 Pad 1257, I264 (2004), review granted, 154 Wash. 2d 1002, 95 P.3d 1257 (2005). 248. Id. at 837, 95 P.3d at 1265. 20051 Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 39 Pettis v. State held that the duty to investigate child abuse runs only to parents and children.' 49 Third parties who are subject to investigation have no right to sue for negligent investigation.250 In a reversal of approach from cases over the past twenty years, Pettis also stated that any extension of liability was a policy matter to be deferred to the Legislature. 251 M. W. v. Dept of Soe. & Health Servs.2s2 further limited the duty to investigate. M. W held that the duty applies only to claiins by parents or children for negligent removal, negligent failure to remove, or negligent placement in harmful foster care, but not to claims that the conduct of the investigation itself caused an injury.253 M.W., like many recent cases, is notable because it carefully examined statutes before reaching its conclusion on the scope of duty. Terrell C. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs, similarly relied on statutes to hold that the duty to act to protect abused children does not extend to protecting other children from wrongs caused by the abused child.214 Terrel. C. rejected a claim that the state had a special relationship with an abused child which created an obligation, analogous to that in Taggart, to prevent wrongs by the child."' A recent case also gave collateral estoppel effect to a dependency court order, something that Lesley v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.216 refused to do. Miles v. Child Protective Servs .257 held that an agreed dependency order estopped parents from claiming, in a later lawsuit against the State, that their children had not been abused.zss Additionally, a recent local govermnent case expanded social welfare liability. The court in Caulfield v. Kitsap County held that a county social worker had a special relationship with a disabled plaintiff approved for in-home care funding, and that this relationship gave the county an obligation to oversee the home assistance provided by a third - party hired by the plaintiff.259 This holding potentially widens the state's liability because programs to fund self-directed. services for independent 249. 98 Wash, App. 553, 562-3, 990 P.3d 453, 458-9 (1999). 250. Pettis was the first case to cite Favors v. Matzke, 53 Wn. App. 789, 770 P.2d 686 (1989), which had reached this conclusion ten years earlier. 251. 98 Wash. App. at 560, 990 P.3d at 457. 252, 149 Wash. 2d 589, 70 P.3d 954 (2003). 253. Id. at 602, 70 P.3d at 970. 254. 120 Wash. App. 20, 25-6, 84 P.3d 899, 902, review denied, 152 Wash, 2d 1018, 101 P.3d 109 (2004). 255. Id. 256, 83 Wash. App. 263, 921 P.2d 1066 (1996). 257. 102 Wash. App, 142, 6 P.3d 112 (2000), 258. Miles distinguished Lesley v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 83 Wn. App. 263, 921 P.2d 1066 (1996), on the basis that: the Lesley shelter care order was not final and appealable. 259. 108 Wash. App. 242, 249, 29 P.3d 738, 742 (2001). 40 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 elderly and disabled are growing. Statutes authorizing the funding do not provide that recipients are government wards or that their care is managed by government. 211 Caulfield is different from recent cases because it determined duty without examining statutes governing such financial assistance programs. Correctional and social welfare liability might be reduced by a decision interpreting the 1986 Tort Reform Act. Tegman v. 4ccid. & Med. Invest., Inc. held that damages caused by intentional tortfeasors must be segregated from damages caused by fault -based conduct and cannot be collected from negligent codefendants of intentional tortfeasors.261 This holding means that governments do not have to pay the share of damages which a jury assigns to intentional tortfeasors who are codefendants or responsible entities in tort lawsuits. Tegman potentially -reduces Iiability for large claims based on criminal conduct or drunk driving by third parties. c. Highway Liability While recent cases reduce some goverinniental liabilities, highway design liability remains broad. In Owen v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R,R. Co.,2fi2 the plaintiffs were motorists in a traffic backup extending across multiple railroad tracks on a city street. When a train approached, motorists in front of the plaintiffs moved off of the tracks, but the plaintiffs pulled onto the tracks and were hit by the train .263 The crossing had the warning signals and gates required by standards, as well as signs warning motorists not to stop on the tracks.264 Owen held that the city could be liable because it had not adopted safety measures beyond those required by standards ,265 Owen is similar to Stewart v. State266 because it creates liability for failing to design facilities to exceed standards, A second case expanded the duty of care owed by governments for road maintenance. Although case law often proved inconsistent, many cases, as well as Washington Pattern Instruction 140.01, provided that a city's duty to maintain and sign streets was limited to "persons using them in a proper manner and exercising ordinary care for their own safety."267 Keller v. City of Spokane 211 eliminated this qualification of the 260, 1999 Wash, Laws 336; 1989 Wash. Laws 427. 261, 150 Wash, 2d 102, 108, 75 P.3d 497, 499 (2003). 262. 153 Wash. 2d 780, 108 P.3d 1220 (2005). 263. Id. at 784-5, 108 P.3d at 1221-2. 264. Id. 265. Id. at 790, 108 P,3d at I225, 266, 92 Wash. 2d 295, 597 P,2d 101 (1979). 267. WASH, PA77ERN.luaYIN3TR. Civil §140.01 (3d ed.1991). 268. 146 Wash. 2d 237, 44 P.3d 345 (2002). 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 41 duty because it conflicted with the abolition of comparative negligence. However, Keller declined to remove the qualification that the city's duty was to keep the streets safe only for "ordinary travel. ,269 Liability for lack of capital improvements to highways has been reduced by federal highway laws. The Highway Safety Acts of 1966 and 1973 required states to develop safety data, including a computerized collision report database, to support funding requests.270 The plaintiffs used this data to claim that states had a duty to make capital improvements to older roads. 271 Congress concluded that this liability had a negative effect on participation in the federal program and enacted a statute prohibiting use of federal safety data in tort lawsuits .112 In 2001, the Washington Supreme Court held that this statute was unconstitutional .27' The United States Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the statute was an exercise of Commerce Clause power because of its relationship to federal highway safety issues.274 The result is that state courts must apply the federal statute. The federal, government has thereby indirectly restricted a major governmental liability in Washington. 2. Claim and Legal Defense Costs Although the expansion of government liability slowed in. the last six years, state claim costs continued to rise. Claim payouts were $50 million in the 1999-2001 biennium, $1.19 million in the 2001-2003 biennium, and almost $64 million in the 2003-2005 biennium.275 In addition, the self-insured retention (SIR)276 on the state's excess insurance policy increased in FY 2001 from $5 million to $25 million per claim on DSHS/DOC cases and $15 million per claim on cases for all other state agencies. The current premium for the policy is over $10 million per biennium. 269. The limitation of the duty to motorists using a street for ordinary travel is consistent with cases holding that governments have no duty to protect motorists from extremely careless driving. See, e.g., Braegelmann v. County of Snohomish, 53 Wash. App. 381, 766 P.2d 1137 (1989); Klein Y. City of Seattle, 41 Wash. App. 636, 705 P.2d 806 (1985), 270, See 23 C.F.R. § 924.9 (2005). 271. WILLIAM E. KsNwoR'my, KCur-u-mm's KiLLrR ROADS FROM CRASH TO vr-rtDtcr, 149, 161-62, 176-78 (2d ed. 1999). The history of prior collisions on roads was used to support arguments that roads were "hazardous" and in deed of "repair." 272. 23 U.S.C. § 409 (1987). 273. Guillen v. Picrce County, 144 Wash. 2d 696,31 P.3d 628 (2001). 274. Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129 (2003). 275. The payout data is derived from the same source as indicated in supra note 207 and OFM records ofclaimpayments. 276. The SIR is an amount which must be paid on a claim before any insurance reimbursement. 42 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 The payouts and insurance premiums do not completely represent the state's exposure. In the past three years, two verdicts with a total value of approximately $25 million have been reversed and dismissed. There are currently two verdicts on appeal with a value of approximately $45 million.217 The trends from 1974-1998 remained after 1998. For claim years 1999 through 2004, there were twenty-seven verdicts or settlements over $1 million, fifteen of those were over $2 million. Moreover, there are still large claims pending for those claim years. Of the payouts over $1 million, twenty-one of them were for correctional, social welfare, or regulatory liabilities. Five of the remaining six large claim payouts were for highway claims based at least partly on negligent design or failure to improve theories. The state's payouts are dominated by claims based on liability for governmental functions. As one might expect, legal defense costs increased in conjunction with the increasing complexity of lawsuits against the state. The Torts Division currently has a total staff of 135, including over fifty lawyers. The biennial budget is approximately $38 million. Thus, the total cost of state tort liability has increased to an approximate range of $110 million to $150 million per biennium. III. ANALYSIS OF THE WAIVER. AFTER FORTY-FIvE YEARs A. Application of the Waiver Has Not Been Consistent with Legislative Intent at the .Time the Waiver was Enacted The legal context at the time of the waiver indicates that the Legislature did not intend to create liability for govemmnental functions. At that time, the perception was that agencies should be liable for routine torts, not that agencies should be liable for uniquely goven-n-rental functions. Indeed, this interpretation was given to the New York waiver, which was similar to the Washington waiver. This was also the interpretation given to the Washington waiver. Evangelical interpreted the requirement that liability be analogous to private liability to mean that the waiver was not intended to create governmental liability. 278 At that time, Washington counties and quasi -municipal governments had lacked sovereign immunity for almost 100 years. Washington cases had not created liability for governmental fiulctions, despite the lack of sovereign immunity. In the mid-1970s, Washington cases began interpreting the waiver as allowing liability for governmental functions. These cases did not 277. See discussion note 207, infra. The value includes post judgment interest, 278. Evangelical Church of Adna v. State, 67 Wash. 2d 246, 254, 407 P.2d 440, 444 (1965). 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 43 analyze the context of the waiver or the effect of the private liability condition in the waiver, but relied on cases from other jurisdictions to reduce discretionary immunity. 279 The new interpretation of the waiver dramatically changed the nature and cost of government liability in Washington. B, Legal Consequences of the Waiver The primary legal consequence of the waiver has been broad liability for the regulatory, police, correctional, social welfare, and highway design functions of governnlent. Within the development of this liability, there have been several subordinate trends. After the waiver, government liability remained unchanged for almost a dozen years. This period was followed by twenty-five years of liability expansion. Only a few cases, primarily those dealing with regulatory functions, limited governmental liability. In the last six years, decisions have reduced some governmental liability, particularly correctional and social welfare liability. Curiously, this trend has been different for state and local governments. Almost all recent state cases narrow liability, whereas local government cases expand liability on correctional, law enforcement, highway, and even social welfare claims. 280 One difference among the three eras has been the degree to which cases rely on statutes to determine government duties. Following the waiver, cases such as Evangelical, Morgan, and Loger looked closely at governing statutes and the nature of programs to determine the existence and scope of duty. During the next twenty-five years, cases such as Stewart, Petersen, and Taggart paid less attention to statutes governing agencies. These cases created duties based on general tort principles or the Restatement of the Law of Torts. In the most recent period, cases returned to a close analysis of statutes and agency programs to determine the existence of duty and boundaries for liability. This is particularly 279. Mason v. Bitton, 85 Wash. 2d 321, 534 P.2d 1360 (1975), and King v. City of Seattle, 84 Wash. 2d 239, 525 P.2d 228 (1974), were the two cases that changed previous concepts of governmental liability. See supra Part 111.13.a -b. The last case to mention the private liability condition was Edgar v. State, 92 Wash. 2d 217, 595 P.2d 534 (1979), dealing with the issue of military discipline. Ater the 1970s, Washington courts, unlike New Fork courts, did not use the private li.abiIity condition as a limitation on liability for govenunental functions, although it was mentioned in Cena v. State, 121 Wash. App. 352, 89 P.3d 432 (2004). 280 See, e.g., Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wash. 2d 237, 44 P.3d 845 (2002); Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wash. 2d 518, 973 P.2d 465 (1999); Hcrtog v. City of Seattle, 13S Wash. 2d 265, 979 P.2d 40 (1999); Osborn v, Mason County, 122 Wash. App. 823, 95 P.3d 1257 (2004); Caulfield v. Kitsap County, 108 Wash. App. 242, 29 Pad 738 (2001); Rodriguez v. Perez, 99 Wash. App. 439, 994 P.2d 874 (2000), 44 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 evident in Couch, in the newer social welfare cases such as Pettis, M. W., and Terrell C., and in regulatory cases such as Murphy and Halleran. Over the forty-five years since the waiver, courts have changed their approach to separation of powers. Evangelical, consistent with New York and federal law, held that tort liability should not interfere with policies in the legislative and executive branches of government. By the mid-1970s, courts protected explicit policy-making by the highest officials, but allowed tort liability for the implementation of policies. By the 1990s, the Washington Supreme Court stated that liability should affect government. policy-making in the areas of child welfare and the release and oversight of offenders in cases such as Babcock, Savage, and Bishop. 281 Washington cases adopted an approach to separation of powers which did not recognize the traditional deference given to policies of other branches of government. C. Financial Consequences of the Waiver The waiver initially had little effect on local government because county, city, and quasi -municipal governments already had liability for all activities except those of city departments with governmental functions. The waiver also had little effect on state government because claims for traditional tort liabilities were few in number and modest in cost. After decisions created liability for governmental functions, the effect of the waiver has been to produce very high tort costs for a relative handful of claims every year. For instance, DSHS resolved 259 FY 2004 claims for $6.6 million through April 2005, but $6,335,000 of that amount was paid on only six clailns.282 The major cost of state tort liability lies in lawsuits in which the government has joint and several liability with an offender, an underinsured motorist, or another third - party wrongdoer. As a consequence of expanded tort liability, state and local governments lost the ability to insure most activity, and any available insurance was costly. Ironically, one of the original justifications for abolishing sovereign immunity was the availability of low cost insurance. Even in California, where liabilities are limited by statute, the 281. Savagc v. State, 127 Wash. 2d 434, 899 P.2d 1270 (1995), citing Babcock v. State, 116 Wash. 26 596, 809 P.2d 143 (1991), states that a purpose of state liability is "the salutary effect of providing the state an incentive to ensure that reasonable care is used in fashioning guidelines and procedures for the supervision of parolees." Savage was cited for this point ill Bishop, 137 Wash, 2d at 529-30, 973 P.2d at 470-71. This is a reversal in position from Evangelical, which held that tort liability for polices and procedures for supervising juvenile offenders "would do naught but stifle the basic governmental process and policy." Evangelical, 67 Wn,2d at 258, 407 P.2d at 446-47. M. These are claims filed in FY 2004 and these amounts represent claim resolutions through April 2005. These amounts will increase as additional FY 2004 claims are resolved. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 45 availability and cost of insurance was a problem for local government by the mid -1970.s. Local government in Washington experienced difficulty in the same period. These problems were serious by the mid-1980s, when local governments were part of the coalition supporting the 1986 Tort Reform Act. Since that time, state government has been largely uninsured, but the cost of its "excess" policy has risen sharply with reduced coverage as payouts for governmental liabilities increase in number and size. . Another consequence of expanded tort liability for governmental functions is the risk to local jurisdictions by the potential for major claims. In the past ten years, the state has had verdicts against it for $2.6 million, $3.6 million, $6.4 million, $8 million, $8.4 million, $9 million, $15 million, $17.8 million, and $22.5 million. All of these verdicts were for correctional, social welfare, regulatory, and/or civil rights liabilities rather than traditional tort liability. Although four of these were reversed and dismissed on appeal and two are pending on appeal, they indicate the kind of exposures governments face.283 A smaller city or county government might not have legal defense and insurance or risk pool resources adequate for the claims and verdicts possible under current law. D. Problems Presented by Washington's Open -Ended Waiver 1, Global Problems When legislative researchers from Kentucky and Colorado studied immunity waivers, they concluded that the open-ended waiver was the poorest choice. 284 They foresaw that case-by-case development of law would cause uncertainty due to the nature of government activity, and noted the difficulty of comparing it to private activity. They foresaw that this uncertainty would cause problems with insurability and high defense costs, and that risk management would be a problem because of high inherent risk and inability of government to withdraw from, limit, or manage activities as a private entity would. Additionally, they predicted 283. The four verdicts reversed on appeal are Murphy v. State, 115 Wash, App. 297, 62 P.3d 533 (2003); Couch v, Dep't of Corrs., 113 Wash. App. 556, 54 P.3d 197 (2002), review denied, 149 Wash, 2d 1012, 69 Pad 874 (2003); Wilson v. State, 84 Wash. App, 332, 929 P.2d 449 (1996), review denied, 131 Wash. 2d 1022, 937 P.2d 1103 (1997), cert. denied, 522 US. 949 (1997); and Liberty Bank of. Seattle, Inc, v. Henderson, 75 Wash. App. 546, 878 P.2d 1259 (1994), review denied, 126 Wash. 2d 1002, 891 P.2d 37 (1995). Joyce v. State, 116 Wash, App. 569, 75 P.3d 548 (2003), review granted, 150 Wash. 2d 1032, 84 P.3d 1229 (2004), is pending in the supreme court along with an appeal of an $8 trillion verdict in a case involving alleged liability for a crime com.mitred by foster children. One large verdict was settled on appeal for a smaller amount. 284. See discussion supra Part LC. 46 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 that some public entities would be unprotected due to problems with insurability and scope of risk. As a result, the researchers recommended that the legislature control public liability. The researchers accurately predicted problems that occurred under Washington's waiver. Problems arose from the broad liability created for high -exposure governmental functions in a particular case, followed by years, even decades, of litigation and high claim costs as subsequent cases worked out the boundaries of the new liability. For instance, only now, twenty-two years after Petersen, are cases defining the boundaries of liability for supervision of offenders. Even with these boundaries, however, this is an expensive liability that presents a major risk for the goverment. One kind of liability stabilized as a result of case law development. Regulatory liability became uncertain in the 1970s and 1980s because decisions created broad liability for building code enforcement and police activities. By the early 1990s, liability became more predictable with the adoption of the public duty doctrine and its exceptions. The doctrine can be adjudicated in summary judgment motions. However, it took almost twenty years to define the rules, and concurring and dissenting opinions in cases suggest that the certainty of the public duty doctrine should be discarded in favor of a more ad hoc approach.2$5 In addition to problems with uncertainty, insurability, and cost, the nature of the open-ended waiver creates heavy liability for unavoidably injury -prone government programs such as mental health, corrections, and social welfare. Case-by-case adjudication responds to facts in a particular case, and a court does not consider the effect of its decision upon a goverment program to be a reason to deny recovery on the merits of a specific case. Individual cases also do not provide evidence that enables a court to determine if liability that seems appropriate on limited facts would be problematic if applied to thousands of similar situations. A decision to award compensation to a sympathetic plaintiff in one case becomes precedent determining liability across a wide spectrum of government activity, as Petersen v. State did. Government liability differs from private liability not only because a single case is likely to have broad effect, but also because government has limited ability to respond to increased liability. Some Washington decisions express the view that broad liability will force program 285. In Babcock, the concurring opinion suggested discarding the public duty doctrine in favor of using "traditional tot law analysis," but then resolved the issue of the duty of firefighters by analyzing whether there should be liability under the facts of the particular case. Babcock, 144 Wash. 2d at 800-41, 30 P.3d at 1275. 2005] Washington's Experiment with. Governmental Liability 47 improvements by penalizing government conduct and policies.286 However, analogies to the accident reduction and risk spreading models of private tort liability are not necessarily sound in the government context. Viability for a private service forces the provider to improve the service or be displaced by another provider, if the liability is inherent in the service, then the liability cost simply becomes part of the cost of all providers, thus spreading risk. Government liability does not achieve this result. There is only one provider, and staff, resources, and level of service are largely fixed by budgets and statutes. Liability costs come out of agency budgets and reduce program services. There is no other provider who will displace the program, and there is no spreading of costs. Thus, liability for high-risk programs reduces funding for programs whose ability to manage risk is severely constrained because the risk is inherent in the governmental function. 2. Specific Problems Several problems flow from the narrow interpretation of discretionary immunity in King v. City of Seattle and subsequent cases. By limiting immunity to high level policy decisions, King created potential liability for judgment exercised by officials on licenses, permits, investigations, law enforcement, firefighting, and similar matters. These are not decisions based on rule or formula. These decisions involve complex situations and the application of rules and policies, such as whether to amend a permit, whether to withdraw from a dangerous fire, or whether to recommend removal of a child. These decisions are commonly protected from liability under federal law and in other jurisdictions, including New York and. California .287 Three Washington cases recognized qualified immunities for public officials ,211 but these immunities were not applied in later cases.289 286. See discussion supra note 279. 287. The scope of discretionary immunity for decisions by public officials in California after Johnson v. State, 447 P.2d 352 (Cal. 1968), is summarized supra note 95 and, for federal officials, is summarized. supra note 57. In New York, discretionary immunity is commonly applied to decisions of public officials on specific matters requiring the exercise of judgment, such as whether to release a juvenile offender or even whether to post non -mandatory highway waming signs. Anton v. State of New York, 757 N.Y.S.2d 338 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003); Niles v. County of Chautauqua, 755 N.Y.S.2d 157 (N.Y. App. DN. 2003), leave to appeal dismissed 793 N.E.2d 413 (N.Y. 2004). 288. Taggart v. State, 118 Wash. 2d 195, 822 P.2d 243 (1992); Babcock v. State, 116 Wash. 2d 596, 809 P.2d 143 (1991); Duffey v. State, 103 Wash, 2d 144, 690 P.2d 1163 (1984). 289. No cases subsequent to Babcock and Taggart have applied qualified immunity to protect state or local government from liability. Lesley v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 83 Wash, App. 263, 921 P.2d 1066 (1996), and Waller), State, 64 Wash, App, 318, 824 P.2d 1225 (1992), declined to apply qualified immunity to social worlcer decisions. Herzog v, City of Seattle, 138 Wash. 2d 265, 979 P.2d 400 (1999), Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wash. 2d 518, 973 P.2d 465 (1999), and Savage v. State, 48 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 The lack of immunity for governmental decisions is most likely the reason for the continuing strength of the public duty doctrine in Washington. Regulators, police, and fire officials (but not correctional officers or social workers) are largely protected from liability by the doctrine in situations in which they decline to act or fail to enforce a law. However, there is an inconsistency when these same officials take affirmative action. Washington cases rarely apply the public duty doctrine to protect affirmative acts by regulators and police. The lack of discretionary immunity for all but high level policy decisions effectively creates liability for those decisions if the decisions involve risk -prone governmental functions. For instance, if budget shortfalls cause the Legislature to direct the DOC to move 1,000 offenders into work release, the state would not be liable for the offenders' post -release crimes on the theory that the Legislature made a careless decision. However, the immunity for the Legislature would have little value because the state could be liable for the same crimes on the theory that the DOC's selection and supervision of each work release is an operational activity which presents a question of fact for the jury on state liability. The state's chance of prevailing before a jury on such claims would be remote. The fact that crimes occurred would all but prove that the DOC selected the wrong offenders for work release and supervised them carelessly.. Therefore, the state could have liability for the inevitable consequence of the legislative decision. The public duty doctrine is the one area of governmental liability that has developed rules protecting governmental functions, though problems nevertheless exist. The doctrine is reliably applied to reject claims for property,economic, and investment losses, but courts virtually always find an exception if the claim is for personal injury.290 Additionally, there are many licensing, inspection, and complaint programs in areas which have the potential for large claims if the government is liable for injuries caused by the licensed entities or alleged failures to investigate complaints about licensees. Daycares, nursing homes, group homes for juveniles and disabled, adult family homes, medical service providers, and foster parents are among the risk prone entities licensed by the state. The failure to apply the public duty doctrine 127 Wash. 2d 434, 899 P.2d 1270 (1995), stated that qualified immunity nright protect individual employees from liability, but not government. 290. For instwrce, early public duty cases finding liability involved fatal accidents (l;alvorson v.1]abl, 89 Wash, 2d 673, 574 P.2d 1190 (1978); Campbell v. City of Bellevue, 85 Wash. 2d 1, 530 P.2d 234 (1975)), and cases finding no liability involved economic loss (13aerlein v. State, 92 Wash. 2d 229, 595 P.2d 930 (1979); Georges v. Tudor, 16 Wash, App. 407, 556 P.2d 564 (1976)). This pattern continues in later cases. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental .Liability 49 to regulated social welfare activities would produce major new governmental liabilities. A second problem with the application of the public duty doctrine is the decision 291 that child abuse investigations are not protected by the doctrine. Other applications of the legislative intent exception created somewhat manageable liabilities because specific enforcement actions in defined circumstances could avoid liability.292 In contrast, liability for child abuse investigation is broad and open-ended because it depends on judgments made by social workers, typically based on limited or conflicting evidence, while balancing child safety and family integrity. A social worker making a decision on a child abuse investigation does not have a clear action that he or she can take to avoid liability. The liability for child abuse investigations is also complicated by the liability to parents for the temporary removal of a child, which exists even if a court approves child removals at shelter care hearings,291 Indeed, Justice Talmadge, in his dissent to Tyner v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.,294 argued strongly that the duty to protect a child and the duties to the parents suspected of abuse are irreconcilable. Liability for crimes by released offenders is an especially problematic liability. The conceptual basis for the liability is that post - release and probation systems give the government control over offenders, rendering the governtrlent liable for their crimes. Other than Washington, every jurisdiction that has considered this liability appears to have judicially or legislatively rejected it, except in narrow circumstances.295 This Iiability is costly because governments are codefendants in cases with offenders who have committed heinous crimes or caused tragic accidents, leading to punitive verdicts. The increasing potential for catastrophic liability claims in this area is a threat to our correctional and court systems. 291. Youker v. Dep't of Soc, & Flealth Servs., 85 Wash. App, 71, 930 P.2d 958 (1997). 292. In Halvorson v. Dahl, 89 Wash. 2d 673, 574 P.2d 1190 (1978), the city could mitigate the risk of tort liability by enforcing a hotel safety code in a limited number of old hotels. Donaldson v. City of 5eatdde, 65 Wash, App. 661, 831 P.2d 1098 (1992), review dismissed, 120 Wash. 2d 1031, 847 P.2d 481 (1993), created only a mandatory duty to arrest under defined and limited circumstances involving domestic violence. 293. Although police are authorized to take custody of children in an emergency, state social workers do not have that authority, but must petition the court for an order permitting removal. WASH. RFv. CODE § 26.44.050 (2005). 294. 141 Wash. 2d 68, 1 P.36 1148 (2000). 295. For instance, New York allows liability for a crime by an offender if police have made a promise to a specific person to protect that person from the offender. The liability is similar to the special relationship exception to The public duty doctrine. Cuffy v. City of New York, 505 N.E.2d 937 (N.Y. 1987). 50 Seattle University Law Review [Vol, 29:1 The policy issue for matey governmental functions is that liability relates to decisions that require judgment about the application of law and rules to disputed facts in risk. -prone areas. The difficulty with governmental liability for highway design is different. Highways are built and signage is placed in accordance with standards developed by national experts. Prior to the era of governmental liability, Washington courts essentially accepted these standards as the basis for the government's duty in cases making claims for negligent repair and signage. Current law creates a problem for highway officials because it creates liability for design and signage, even if highways satisfy well - accepted national standards. CONCLUSION In 1961, the Legislature enacted an open-ended waiver of immunity that was intended to make state . government liability comparable to private liability. This waiver worked well for several years, providing compensation to persons injured by routine government operations. The effect of the waiver changed, however, when courts no longer applied the private liability condition, which created a unique and unprecedented liability for govermnent activities. The open-ended waiver is no longer satisfactory. The case-by-case development of government liability law has been uncertain, inconsistent, and costly. The cases have not protected judgment exercised by public officials or the implementation of legislative and executive policy decisions. On the contrary, the cases have created liability for governmental functions with inherent risk factors, such as misconduct of third parties, which cannot be fully eliminated, even with the best possible risk management. The broad liability for these functions has diverted the resources of worthwhile programs to pay legal defense costs and verdicts that result from the act of governing, The Legislature should replace Washington's waiver with statutes that precisely define the extent of liability for state and local government functions. A statutory liability scheme would serve the public better than would the open-ended waiver. The history of the waiver in Washington and in other states provides the Legislature with ample inforination to determine "where, in the area of governmental processes, orthodox tort liability stops and the act of governing begins. ,296 The most compelling need is to reiterate the original condition in the Washington waiver: that government liability be comparable to the liability of private parties. As in other jurisdictions, there should be no 296. Evangelical Church of Adna v. State, 67 Wash. 2d 246, 253, 407 P.2d 440 (1965). 20051 Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 51 liability for government functions that have no counterpart in the private sector. The Legislature should return Washington's waiver to the interpretation given in Evangelical, and should adopt the rules of law set forth in New York cases that have interpreted the same waiver language since 1929. Consistent with a reiteration of the private liability condition, the Legislature should adopt a discretionary immunity that protects judgments made by public officials in areas of governmental decision- making, such as regulation, law enforcement, and social welfare. The qualified immunities adopted by Washington courts have not sheltered decisions in which public officials exercise judgment about the application of law, rules, and policies to facts. Again, the Legislature should return discretionary immunity to -the interpretation adopted in Evangelical, which is similar to discretionary immunity under federal law and law in other states, such as New York. Adopting a statutory discretionary inununity would reduce the need to use the public duty doctrine to determine when government actors are performing governmental fiulctions that are not subject to liability. The doctrine would remain necessary to determine whether government had a duty to act in situations in which government failed to act. The Legislature should adopt the doctrine and its exceptions as means for determining whether regulatory, police, and social programs create a duty to act on behalf of individuals. However, the Legislature should define the legislative intent exception more carefully because the current interpretation of its criteria misapplies the doctrine by treating only injured persons, rather than all protected persons, as intended beneficiaries of social programs. Under the open-ended waiver, courts have created heavy liability for high-risk governmental functions. Foremost among these functions are offender supervision and child protective activities. The risks in these programs cannot be mitigated by traditional risk management because government cannot eliminate or reducc the dangerous function, nor can it directly control the unlawful behavior of the third parties who cause the injuries. Liability for these finactions is fundamentally at odds with the private liability condition in the waiver. Other states have limited this liability to narrow circumstances. The Legislature should similarly limit correctional and social program liability to harms caused by public employees directly or caused by their disobedience of statutes, court orders, or specific promises of protection. Funds should be spent on the programs and not on defense costs and claim payments inflated by emotion and outrage towards the criminal acts of codefendants in these cases. 52 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 The open-ended waiver has also caused uncertainty about liability for the governmental functions of designing highways and funding capital improvements. New York and other states typically limit liability for these functions by statute or by application of discretionary immunity. The Legislature should clarify the law by limiting liability for govermnental highway programs. While liability for ordinary maintenance and lack of required warnings should remain, there should be no liability for facilities that substantially cornply with standards for design and signage, and there should not be liability for failure to fund capital improvements. The design and finding of public highway systems presents issues and has constraints that are not comparable to those in private capital projects. In examining alternatives to the open-ended waiver, the Legislature should also consider coverage limits that are analogous to private insurance coverage limits. When Washington waived immunity in 1961, tort liability was less prevalent and expensive than it is in today's trend towards deep pocket litigation. A large majority of states that waived immunity in the modern era imposed financial limits on public liability, and those that did not often exercised control through special tribunals or restrictive waivers. Appropriate coverage limits would provide reasonable compensation for injuries caused by government operations while protecting government from excessive claims. The Washington Constitution expressly gives the Legislature control over lawsuits against the government.297 Forty- We years ago, the Legislature exercised this authority by enacting an open-ended waiver of the state's immunity from tort lawsuits, The passage of time and changes in tort law have made this open-ended waiver outmoded; it is a growing burden on legitimate government interests. The Legislature should revisit the waiver and adopt modern statutes that draw a clear boundary between orthodox tort liability and the act of governing. 297. WASH, CONST. ail. Ii, § 26. 2005] Washington's Experinient with Governmental Liability 53 APPENDIX 1 OVERVIEW OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAIVERS AND DAMAGE LIMITS . These are abbreviated descriptions which will permit general comparisons of different approaches to the waiver of sovereign immunity. While most states now have overall state and/or local. government tort claims acts, some states have a variety of different provisions for different government units or situations and this chart cannot capture all of this detail. Statutory citations are very abbreviated in order to fit this chart. 298. The first number is the limit per individual claim and the second is the limit for all claims in an occurrence or incident. 299. Statutory discretionary immunity is generally interpreted as preserving immunity for all decisions involving governmental issues such as release of prisoners, licenses and permits, crime, investigations, etc. Nature of Waiver Damage Limits State State Local State Local AL Immune. No immunity. $100,000/ ALA. CONST. $300,000298 art. I, § 14 AK Partial waiver No immunity. $400,000 to $1,000,000 for with immunity non -economic dainages. for ALASKA STAT. § 09.17.020 discretionary ac s.299 ALASKA STAT. § 09.50.250 AZ Partial waiver with immunities for governmental functions. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 12-820 AR Claims Immune $10,000 Izasurance commission. except to ARK. CODE. limits. ARK. ConIJ extent of § 19.10.201. ARK. CODE § 19.10.201 et insurance. et, seq. § 21.9.201 et seq. ARK. CODE seq. § 21.9.201 et Seq. 298. The first number is the limit per individual claim and the second is the limit for all claims in an occurrence or incident. 299. Statutory discretionary immunity is generally interpreted as preserving immunity for all decisions involving governmental issues such as release of prisoners, licenses and permits, crime, investigations, etc. 54 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 300. The limitation of liability to that comparable to a private person is generally interpreted as excluding liability for governmental functions. 301. Soime. states preserve immunities not only for govenunental functions but for some operational activities, such as snow and ice removal on roads or medical care of residents of state institutions. Nature of Waiver Damage Limits State State T Local State Local CA Statutory scheme of liabilities and immunities. CAL. GOV'T CODE § 810 et seq, CO Partial waiver with immunities None. $150,0001 for governmental functions. $600,000 Cato. REv. STAT. § 24-10-106 COLO. REv. STAT. 24-10-114 CT State claims commissioner; tort lawsuits only if allowed by commissioner. CONN. GEN. STAT. § 4-160 DE Immunity except for vehicles, $300,000 or insurance buildings, and pollution.. limits. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 4012 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 4013 FL Waiver for acts or omissions $100,0001$200,000 or which would create liability for insurance limits. private person.""' FLA. STAT. ch. 768.28 FLA. STAT. ch. 768.28 GA Partial waiver with immunities $100,000,0001$3,000,000 for governmental and GA. CODE ANN. § 50-21-29 operational functi.ons.301 GA. CODE ANN. § 50-21-23 et seq. HI Partial waiver with immunity for discretionary functions and no joint and several liability. HAW. REV. STAT. §662-1 et seq., § 663-10.5 ID Partial waiver with $250,000 (non -economic governmental immunities. damages) IDAHO CODE, § 6-902 IDAHO CODE § 6-1603 300. The limitation of liability to that comparable to a private person is generally interpreted as excluding liability for governmental functions. 301. Soime. states preserve immunities not only for govenunental functions but for some operational activities, such as snow and ice removal on roads or medical care of residents of state institutions. 20051 Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 55 Nature of Waiver Dama e Limits State State Local State Local IL Court of Partial waiver $15,0001 Claims. with $100,000 705 ILL. governmental COMP. STAT. and 511 operational immunities. 705 ILL. COMP. STAT. 1012 -101 et seq, IN Partial waiver with $300,0001$5,000,000 governmental and operational IND. CODE § 34-13-3-7 immunities. IND. CODE § 34-13-3-3 IA Partial waiver with governmental and operational immunities. IOWA CODE § 669.1 KS Partial waiver with $500,000 governmental and operational KAN. STAT. ANN. immunities. § 75-6105 KAN. STAT. ANN. § 75-6104 KY Immune. Partial waiver with governmental immunities. KY. REv. STAT. ANN. § 65.200 et seq. LA Waiver of immunity. $500,000 (non -economic LA. REv. STAT. ANN. § 13:5101 damages) et seq. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13:5106 ME Immunity except for specified $400,000 vehicle, property, road, and MF. REV. S'C'AT. ANN. lit. pollution claims. 14, § 8105 MF. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 14, § 8104-A 56 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 State Nature of Waiver Damage Limits State Local State Local MD Partial waiver Partial waiver $200,000 $200,0001 with immunity with immunity MD. CODE $500,000 for willful or for ANN., MD. CODE grossly discretionary STATE ANN., CTs. & negligent acts. GOVT JUD. PROC, employee acts. MD. CODE § 12-104 § 5-303 MD. CODE ANN., CTs. & ANN., CTs. & JUD. PROC. JUD. PROC. § 5-507 § 5-522 MA Partial waiver with governmental immunities. MASS. GEN. LAWS 25$ § 2 MI Immunity for governmental functions with liability allowed for vehicles, highway maintenance, and proprietary functions. Mica COMP. LAWS §§ 691.1401-1419 MN Partial waiver Partial waiver $300,0001$100,000 with with more MINN. STAT. §§ 3.736, governmental extensive 466.04 and immunities, operational MrNN. STAT. immunities. § 466.03 MrNN. STAT. § 3.736 MS Waiver of immunity. $500,000 MISS. CODE ANN. § 11-46-5 MISS. CODE ANN. § 11-46-15 MO Immunity except for vehicles Approx. $300,0001 and dangerous property. $1,200,000 Mo. ANN. STAT. § 537.600. Mo. ANN. STAT. § 537.610 MT Waiver to extent that a private $750,0001$1,000,000 person would be liable. MONT. CODE ANN. MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 2-9-101 § 2-9-108 et seg. 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 57 Nature of Waiver Damage Limits State State Local State Local NB Claims Board Partial waiver $1,000,000/ with with $5,000,000 exemptions for governmental NES. REv. govermnental and STAT. § 81-8, functions and operational 209 to 235 legislative immunities. review of large NEB. REV. claims. STAT. § 81-8, NEB, RE -v. 209 to 235 STAT. § 81-8- 209 to 235 NV Waiver of immunity. $50,000 NEV. REV. STAT. 41.031 NEV. REV. STAT. 41.035 NH Claims Board Immune $250,0001 $150,000/ (under except for $2,000,000 $500,000 $50,000); vehicles, N.H. REV. N.H. REV. partial waiver premises, and STAT. ANN. STAT. ANN. with road 541-B:14 507-B:4 discretionary maintenance. immunity, N.H. REV. N.H. REV, STAT. ANN. STAT. ANN. 507-B2 541-B:1 et seg. NJ Partial waiver with governmental and some operational immunities. N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 59:1-1 to -7 NM Immunity except for vehicle, $100,000-$750,000 property, law enforcement, and N.M. STAT. ANN. § 41-4-19 certain specified operational functions. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 41-4-1 to -29 NY Waiver to the extent a private person would be liable. 58 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 Nature of Waiver Damage Limits State State Local State Local NC Claims Board; Immune $500,000 Insurance waiver of except to N.C. GEN. limits. immunity to extent of SWAT. N.C. GEN. . extent that insurance. § 143.299.2 STAT. private person N.C. GEN. § 160A-485 would be liable. STAT. N.C. GEN. § 160A-485 STAT. 143.291 ND Partial waiver Partial waiver $250,0001 $250,0001 with with immunity $1,000,000 $500,000 governmental for certain N.D. CENT. N.D. CENT. and some governmental CODE CODE operational functions. § 32- § 32-12.1.03 immunity. N.D. CENT. 12.1.02 N.D. CENT. CODE CODE § 32-12.1.03 § 32-12.1-02 OH Court of Partial waiver $250,000 Claims; waiver with immunity (non - to extent of for economic private party discretionary damages) liability. acts & gov't OHIO REv. OHIO REv. functions. CODE ANN. CODE ANN. OHIO REv. § 27.44.05 § 2743.02-03 CODE ANN. § 27.44.01 et seg. OK Partial waiver with liability to $250,000-$200,000/ extent of private parties and $1,000,000 immunity for govern nental and OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 154 many operational functions. OKLA. ,STAT. tit. 51, §§ 151-60 OR Partial waiver with immunity $50,000-$200,0001$500,000 for discretionary acts, tax ORE. REV. STAT. § 30.270 collection, and claims covered by workers compensation. ORE. RE -v. STAT. § 30.265 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 59 Nature of Waiver Damage Limits State State L Local State I Local PA Immunity except for vehicles, $250,0001$1,000,000 roads, medical claims, liquor 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 8528 sales, and certain other functions. 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 8522 RI Waiver to extent of private $100,000 except no limit if liability. function proprietary. R.I. GEN'. LAWS 9-31-1 R.I. GEN. LAWS 9-31-12 SC Waiver to extent of private $300,000-$1,200,000; liability. $600,000-$1,200,000 S.C. CODE ANN. § 15-78-40 S.C. CODE ANN. § 15-78-120 SD Waiver to extent of insurance Insurance limits. coverage. S.D. CODIFIED LAWS S.D. CODIFIED LAWS 21-32-16 21-32-16 TN Immune except for vehicles, Insurance limits. roads and property. TENN. CODE ANN. TF -NN. CODE ANN. § 29-20-101 § 29-20-311 to 111 TX Partial waiver with immunity $100,000- $100,000 - for discretionary acts and some 250,0001 $250,0001 govermuental functions. $500,000 $300,000- TEx. Civ. PRAc. & REM. CODE $500,000 ANN. § 101.001 et seq. TEx. Civ. PR-A.C. & REM. CODE ANN. § 101.023 UT Partial waiver with $221,400-$553,5001 govenunental immunities. $1,107,000 UTAx CODE ANN. § 63-30d-301 UTAH CODE ANN. § 63-30d-604 VT Partial waiver with $250,0001$1,000,000 govermnental immunities. VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, § 5601 § 5601 VA Partial waiver to the extent of $100,000 or insurance private liability. limits. VA. CODE ANN. § 8.01-195.1 VA. CODE ANN. § 8.01-195.3 60 Seattle University Law Review [Vol. 29:1 Nature of Waiver Dama e Limits State State Local State Local WV Partial waiver with. $500,000 governmental and operational W. VA. CODE §. 29-12A-3 immunities. W. VA. CODE § 29-12A-1 to -12 W1 Partial waiver with immunity $250,000 $50,000, for discretionary decisions. WIS. STAT. except for WIS. STAT. § 893.80 § 893-82 vehicle accidents. WIS. STAT. 893-80 WY Immunity except for vehicles, $250,0001$500,0001 property, medical and law $1,000,000 (medical claim) enforcement. WYO. STAT. ANN. WYO. STAT, ANN. § 1-39-101 § 1-39-118 to -121 2005] Washington's Experiment with Governmental Liability 61 APPENDIX II Washington State Tort Costs by Biennium Bob Lurnens Rick Mathis Eric Brown Andrew Schwab President Vice President Treasurer Secretary Northwest Fudge, & Confections Smuggler's Landing Brown's Outdoor Anime Kat Sky Heaitherton Tessa Jackson Lauren Jeff riles-Jiohnson Staff: Barbara Frederick Landings Art Gallery Individuai Member Udjat Beads Executive Director Ryan Malane Robert Nicholls Jacob Oppelt Ex -Officio: Nathan, West Black Bali Transport White Crane Martlai Arts, Next Door Gastropub City of Port Angeles Richard Stephens Brian Winters Grace Kauffman Meets: Second Monday 6:1.5 pier individual Member E -Z Pawn Sterling Impressions Photographic Grace Kauffman Stewing:.lrnptessions Photoppaphic 360-417-3001 Mike Edwards Citizen Jan Harbick Five SeaSans B & H Richard Stephens hidividual MembeT Meets". Third' Tuesday 10:00arn at Downtown Association office Grace Kauffman, Sterling tntpresMons Photograpl)ic 360-417-3001 Valora Bain Josh Burdine Garrett Burrow Faith Chamberlain Suerra Fairchild Porter Funston Shaylee Hines Gage Jackson Gwen Kauffman Abby Kuth Ashia Lawrence Hannah Stephens Emma Szczepczynsk! Bradley Taylor Mentors-. Sarah Kauffman Barbara Frederick Patty Jackson Meets: Wednesdays at 330pnr at Downtown Association Office, Jan Harbick Five Sea5uns B&B 360-452-8248 Eric Brown Brown's OLACILOOr Dallas Maynard Downtown Resource Officer Charlie Smith Lindberg & Smith Architects Kevin Thompson Family Shoe Brian Winters E -Z Pawn Nathan West City of Port Angeles Meets as needed at Downtown Association office Charlie, Smith Lindberg & Snifth Architects 360-452-6116 Jan Harb�ick Five SeaSuns 8 & B Roberta KDrcz City of Port Angeles Lauren Johnson Udjat Beads Meets First Thursday at 8:30ann at PA Downtown Association office Charlie Smith Lindberg & Smith Ardiiiects 360-452-6115 Alex Anderson Artist Bob & Jan Harbick Five SeaSuns S& B Dani LaBlond Artist Gray Luder Artist Eric Neurath Artist Bob Stokes Artist Meets First Thursday at 10=arn at PA Downtown Association office Tessa Jackson 360-461-6956 Robert Nicholls White Crane Martial' Arts 360-477-4491 Edna Petersen Necessities & Temptations Andrew Schwab Anime Kat Beth Witters Cal Fiber Studio Meets 8:30ani First & Third Friday at Association office Jan Harbick Five SeaSuns B&B 360-452-8248 Mtke Edwards Citizen Lindi Lumens Northwest Fudge & Confections Ryan Makane Black Bail! Transport Rick Mathis Smugglers Landing Samantha Oak l KiLsap Bank Edna Petersen Necessities & emptations Andrew Schwab Anirne Kat Meets 10:00arn First & Third Wednesday at Association office Promotional Events, Spring Into Downtown Girls Night Out Sidewalk Sales 4th of July Parade Entry Downtown In Action Sprint Boat Show & Shine Opening of Railroad Avenue Waterfront Esplanade Opening Trick or Treat Hornetown Holiday Open House Community Tree Lighting The Great Snowball Drop Winter Bucks Promotion Shop'Til You Drop Richard Stephens Individual Member 360-775-4991 Mike Edwards, Citizen Jan Harbick Five SeaSuns B& B Nathan West I City of Part Angeles IMeets 830arn Third Thursday at Association office New Businesses Tasha's Ul Boutique Tall Timber Tattoo Sierra Graphics Arts Northwest Veteran's Resource Center Arnita Coaching Moxie KuLa Yoga Crossfit ThunderRidge Storrn King Crossfit Norpoint Maritime Medical Training Adept Legal Services Seasoned Wornain LaBelle Cireperie Junkyard Lily Easy Street Coffee & Tea House The Main Street Tax Credit Incentive Program allows business owners to make sure a portion of their taxes stay in our community by making a contribution to PA Downtown Association and receiving a credit of 75% of the amount of the donation on their Business & Occupation or Pubhc Utility Taxes in 2014, In 2013 $51,250 was raised. How we used the funds: Rebranding Downtown Logos, Ads, Brand statement Marketing Downtown Rack cards, Coho Magazine Hotel DirectD6es, Iocal events Board Miember Training Main Street Conference Enhanced Safety Improved lighting at Conrad Dyar Memorial Fountain City Council Special Meeting Joint Council/Utility Advisory Committee Council Chambers Port Angeles, WA 98362 January 14, 2014 3:00 p.m. L Call to Order Vice Chairman Dean Reed called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. IL Roll Call UAC Assigned Councilmembers Present: Cherie Kidd, Lee Whetham Other Councilmembers Present: Dan Gase, Patrick Downie Other Councilmembers Absent: Dan Di Guilio, Sissi Bruch, Brad Collins Utility Advisory Committee Members Present: Paul Elliott, Dean Reed, Lynn Bedford Utility Advisory Committee Members Absent: John LeClerc Staff Present: Dan McKeen, (3:07) Craig Fulton, Mike Puntenney, Byron Olson, Phil Lusk, Sondya Wray, Bill Bloor, Maher Abed, (3:04) Kathryn Neal (3:04) Others Present: Jeremy Schwartz — PDN III. Approval of Minutes Vice Chairman Dean Reed asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of December 10, 2013. Dean moved to approve the minutes. Lee Whetham seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. IV. Late Items: Morse Creek Hydroelectric Project Recommendation Update — Information Only Item V. Discussion Items: A. Landfill Bluff Cell Stabilization — Phase I, Project SW02-2012, Professional Services Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants, Amendment 6 Kathryn Neal, Engineering Manager discussed that the Landfill Bluff Cell Stabilization proj ect is about 90% completed. They are moving to the construction side while still in the design stage because of the costs 1 E-1 savings it is going to create. Permitting and design issues are needed to be addressed for the shoreline work at the seawall and at Dry Creek, and groundwater investigations within the east 304 waste cell. An amendment is needed to add scope and budget to the agreement with Herrera. A brief discussion followed. Paul Elliot moved to recommend City Council to authorize City Manager to sign Amendment 6 to the Professional Services Agreement with Herrera Environmental Consultants in an amount not to exceed $156,731, which will increase the contract amount to $2,938,057, and to make minor modifications to the agreement, if necessary. Lynn Bedford seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. B. Landfill Post -Closure Professional Services Agreement — Contract Extension Kathryn Neal, Engineering Manager reviewed the permit, plan, and seawall inspections with the Landfill Post -Closure project. A two year extension is needed for the landfill post -closure professional services with Aspect Consulting. Funding is available in the Solid Waste budget. There was a lengthy discussion. Cherie Kidd moved to recommend City Council to authorize the City Manager to sign a two year extension to the Professional Services Agreement with Aspect Consulting for landfill engineering services in an amount not to exceed $194,528.92, and to make minor modifications to the agreement, if necessary. Paul Elliot seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. VL Information Only Items A. Utility Advisory Committee Citizen -At -Large and Industrial Transmission Representative Appointments (verbal report only) Information only. No action taken. B. 2013 Electric Utility Strategic Planning Session (verbal report only) Information only. No action taken. C Morse Creek Hydroelectric Project Recommendation Update (verbal report only) Information only. No action taken. VII. Next Meeting Dates: February 11, 2014 VIII. Adjournment. 3:40 p.m. Dan DiGuilio, Mayor Janessa Hurd, City Clerk E-2 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description BILL'S PLUMBING & HEATING INC WFT SANIKAN RAYONIER CLALLAM CNTY TREASURER CVCA to County Treasurer 001-1160-511.43-10 CVCA to County Treasurer DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec Department Total: Excise Tax Return -Dec 001-1210-513.42-10 Excise Tax Return -Dec INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS, INC PLASTICS Carrot -Top Industries US FLAG US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEICity Credit Card Pmt City Credit Card Pmt Wall Mount Rack Encl Gas Mask-Peninger Mini Blinds-Roggenbuck Literature Organizer -GR Coffee Filters-Kochanek Reindeer Antler Headbands Dog Wste Disp Bag -CK Toner Cartridges -Hagar Cash Register Rolls -Hagar Book -Fulton WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER Dec Building Surcharge Dec Building Surcharge Nov Building Surcharge Dist Ct Rev to St Treas Dist Ct Rev to St Treas NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES FIELD PURCHASE ORDER PORT ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMM FIELD PURCHASE ORDER US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEICake/Plates-Council Mtg Ferry/Reg-Col I i ns/Gase Legislative Mayor & Council Legislative CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 01-05 A/C 3604529882811B 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B Account Number 001-0000-239.96-00 001-0000-229.40-00 001-0000-229.40-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.10-00 001-0000-237.30-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-213.10-95 001-0000-213.10-95 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-237.00-00 001-0000-229.10-00 001-0000-229.10-00 001-0000-229.10-00 001-0000-229.30-00 001-0000-229.30-00 Division Total: Department Total: 001-1160-511.49-01 001-1160-511.49-01 001-1160-511.31-01 001-1160-511.43-10 001-1210-513.42-10 Division Total: Department Total: 001-1210-513.42-10 001-1210-513.42-10 001-1210-513.42-10 001-1210-513.42-10 001-1210-513.42-10 001-1210-513.42-10 001-1210-513.42-10 001-1210-513.42-10 001-1210-513.42-10 Invoice Amount 85.00 246.51 184.28 530.37 215.96 366.91 -206.53 -13.14 -8,090.31 10,076.45 -24.87 -31.92 -4.96 -33.18 -14.82 -23.94 -55.88 -33.26 -35.28 -8.19 139.50 -63.00 63.00 9,771.84 7,479.59 $20,520.13 $20,520.13 1,489.00 372.00 39.71 59.00 $1,959.71 $1,959.71 1.23 2.13 1.39 7.12 1.23 2.53 2.13 1.22 20.63 Page 1 E - 3 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-1210-513.42-10 28.15 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-1210-513.42-10 1.26 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-1210-513.42-10 28.15 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-1210-513.42-10 1.23 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-1210-513.42-10 57.68 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-1210-513.42-10 56.46 PORT ANGELES BUSINESS ASSN FIELD PURCHASE ORDER 001-1210-513.49-01 65.00 FIELD PURCHASE ORDER 001-1210-513.49-01 65.00 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIVarious Business Lunches 001-1210-513.31-01 62.00 Travel Exp-McKeen 001-1210-513.43-10 32.17 City Manager Department City Manager Office Division Total: $436.71 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-1220-516.42-10 0.25 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-1220-516.42-10 0.43 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 001-1220-516.42-10 0.28 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-1220-516.42-10 1.42 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-1220-516.42-10 0.25 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-1220-516.42-10 0.51 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-1220-516.42-10 0.43 01-05 A/C 3604529882811B 001-1220-516.42-10 0.24 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-1220-516.42-10 4.13 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-1220-516.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-1220-516.42-10 0.25 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-1220-516.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-1220-516.42-10 0.25 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-1220-516.42-10 11.54 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-1220-516.42-10 11.29 DELL MARKETING LP Monitor 001-1220-516.31-60 183.62 PRIMA -PUBLIC RISK MGMT ASSN ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES 001-1220-516.49-01 385.00 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEI Hotel -Coons 001-1220-516.43-10 153.99 Return Trng CD 001-1220-516.43-10 -119.00 WPELRA Membership -Coons 001-1220-516.49-01 200.00 City Manager Department Human Resources Division Total: $846.14 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.12 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.21 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.14 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.71 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.12 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.25 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.21 01-05 A/C 3604529882811B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.12 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-1230-514.42-10 2.06 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-1230-514.42-10 2.81 Page 2 E - 4 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.13 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-1230-514.42-10 2.81 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-1230-514.42-10 0.12 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-1230-514.42-10 5.77 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-1230-514.42-10 5.65 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION FIELD PURCHASE ORDER 001-1230-514.41-50 600.00 PENINSULA AWARDS &TROPHIES FIELD PURCHASE ORDER 001-1230-514.31-01 21.96 SIGNAL PERFECTION, LTD VISUAL EDUCATION EQUIPMNT 001-1230-514.31-01 152.69 SHIPPING AND HANDLING 001-1230-514.31-01 32.52 City Manager Department City Clerk Division Total: $828.40 City Manager Department Department Total: $2,111.25 ADVANCED TRAVEL Travel 001-2010-514.43-10 0.09 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-2010-514.42-10 0.85 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-2010-514.42-10 1.43 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-2010-514.42-10 0.98 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-2010-514.42-10 5.03 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-2010-514.42-10 0.85 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-2010-514.42-10 1.72 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-2010-514.42-10 1.43 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-2010-514.42-10 0.87 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-2010-514.42-10 14.43 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-2010-514.42-10 19.75 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-2010-514.42-10 0.86 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-2010-514.42-10 19.75 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-2010-514.42-10 0.85 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-2010-514.42-10 40.36 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-2010-514.42-10 39.50 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIToner Cartridges -Hagar 001-2010-514.31-01 429.24 Ferry Tickets -Olson 001-2010-514.43-10 40.80 Finance Department Finance Administration Division Total: $618.79 ADVANCED TRAVEL SunGard Conf-Agesson 001-2023-514.43-10 473.87 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-2023-514.42-10 1.10 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-2023-514.42-10 1.92 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-2023-514.42-10 1.25 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-2023-514.42-10 6.41 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-2023-514.42-10 1.10 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-2023-514.42-10 2.27 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-2023-514.42-10 1.92 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-2023-514.42-10 1.10 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-2023-514.42-10 18.57 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-2023-514.42-10 25.33 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-2023-514.42-10 1.14 Page 3 E - 5 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-2023-514.42-10 25.33 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-2023-514.42-10 1.10 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-2023-514.42-10 51.91 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-2023-514.42-10 50.81 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 001-2023-514.49-50 468.45 GOVT FINANCE OFFCRS ASN GAAP Update 001-2023-514.43-10 15.00 Registration Fee 001-2023-514.43-10 15.00 OLYMPIC PRINTERS INC Travel Request Forms 001-2023-514.31-01 578.42 SOUND PUBLISHING INC Fund closure ordinance 001-2023-514.44-10 47.40 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE Shipping Chgs 001-2023-514.42-10 11.82 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIBudgeting Book -Hagar 001-2023-514.31-01 82.49 WASHINGTON (AUDITOR), STATE OF Auditing Charges 001-2023-514.41-50 1,000.94 Finance Department Accounting Division Total: $2,884.65 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-2025-514.42-10 1.59 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-2025-514.42-10 2.77 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-2025-514.42-10 1.81 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-2025-514.42-10 9.26 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-2025-514.42-10 1.59 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-2025-514.42-10 3.28 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-2025-514.42-10 2.77 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-2025-514.42-10 1.59 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-2025-514.42-10 26.82 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-2025-514.42-10 36.59 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-2025-514.42-10 1.64 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-2025-514.42-10 36.59 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-2025-514.42-10 1.59 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-2025-514.42-10 74.98 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-2025-514.42-10 73.40 DATABAR INCORPORATED CYCLES 1-5 1/3/14 001-2025-514.41-50 2,059.49 CYCLES 6-10 1/10/14 001-2025-514.41-50 2,030.60 CYCLES 11-15 1/17/14 001-2025-514.41-50 2,066.54 CYCLES 16-20 1/24/14 001-2025-514.41-50 1,696.62 EQUIFAX CREDIT REPORTS 001-2025-514.41-50 80.04 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP Shipping Chgs 001-2025-514.48-10 38.91 DELUXE FOR BUSINESS Pocket Bag 001-2025-514.31-01 128.58 OLYMPIC STATIONERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 001-2025-514.31-01 15.12 SOUND PUBLISHING INC UTILITY DISCOUNT ORD 001-2025-514.44-10 32.44 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEICash Register Rolls -Hagar 001-2025-514.31-01 455.23 VERIZON WIRELESS 01-13 a/c 271272753-00001 001-2025-514.42-10 68.35 Finance Department Customer Service Division Total: $8,948.19 CANON USA, INC OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-2080-514.45-31 351.55 OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-2080-514.45-31 365.51 Page 4 E - 6 ADVANCED TRAVEL City of Port Angeles Date: 2/12/2014 167.62 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-3010-515.42-10 City Council Expenditure Report 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-3010-515.42-10 1.28 From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 001-3010-515.42-10 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount UNITED PARCEL SERVICE Shipping Chgs 001-2080-514.42-10 22.60 Finance Department Reprographics Division Total: $739.66 Finance Department Department Total: $13,191.29 ADVANCED TRAVEL Source Control Smnr-Bloor 001-3010-515.43-10 167.62 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-3010-515.42-10 0.74 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-3010-515.42-10 1.28 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-3010-515.42-10 0.84 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-3010-515.42-10 4.27 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-3010-515.42-10 0.74 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-3010-515.42-10 1.52 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-3010-515.42-10 1.28 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-3010-515.42-10 0.73 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-3010-515.42-10 12.38 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-3010-515.42-10 16.89 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-3010-515.42-10 0.76 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-3010-515.42-10 16.89 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-3010-515.42-10 0.74 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-3010-515.42-10 34.61 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-3010-515.42-10 33.88 GREAT AMERICA LEASING CORP Copier Chgs 001-3010-515.45-31 163.47 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC Interest Arbitration 001-3010-515.41-50 9,954.00 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST Westlaw database 001-3010-515.31-01 292.15 Attorney Attorney Office Division Total: $10,704.79 CITY OF FORKS Fork Jail Bill -December 001-3012-598.51-23 7,470.00 CLALLAM CNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT Dec Jail Bill 001-3012-598.51-23 63,479.44 Attorney Jail Contributions Division Total: $70,949.44 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-3021-515.42-10 0.49 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-3021-515.42-10 0.85 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-3021-515.42-10 0.56 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-3021-515.42-10 2.85 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-3021-515.42-10 0.49 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-3021-515.42-10 1.01 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 001-3021-515.42-10 0.85 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-3021-515.42-10 0.49 12-23 A/C206T302306084B 001-3021-515.42-10 8.25 12-23 A/C206T310164584B 001-3021-515.42-10 11.26 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-3021-515.42-10 0.51 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-3021-515.42-10 11.26 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-3021-515.42-10 0.49 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-3021-515.42-10 23.07 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-3021-515.42-10 22.58 CLALLAM PUBLIC DEFENDER December Overage 001-3021-515.41-50 3,757.00 Page 5 E - 7 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CLALLAM PUBLIC DEFENDER Public Defender fees 001-3021-515.41-50 3,684.75 GREAT AMERICA LEASING CORP Copier Chgs 001-3021-515.45-31 163.47 MYERS, STAN Excess Cases 001-3021-515.41-50 2,022.86 Indigent Legal Fees 001-3021-515.41-50 3,684.75 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST Westlaw database 001-3021-515.31-01 292.14 Attorney Prosecution Division Total: $13,689.98 Attorney Department Total: $95,344.21 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-4010-558.42-10 0.92 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-4010-558.42-10 1.60 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-4010-558.42-10 1.05 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-4010-558.42-10 5.34 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-4010-558.42-10 0.92 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-4010-558.42-10 1.89 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-4010-558.42-10 1.60 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-4010-558.42-10 0.92 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-4010-558.42-10 15.47 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-4010-558.42-10 21.11 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-4010-558.42-10 0.95 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-4010-558.42-10 21.11 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-4010-558.42-10 0.92 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-4010-558.42-10 43.26 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-4010-558.42-10 42.34 OLYMPIC STATIONERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-4010-558.31-01 178.20 OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-4010-558.31-01 29.68 SOUND PUBLISHING INC Use permit 001-4010-558.44-10 37.18 Development App 001-4010-558.44-10 60.04 Hermann Brothers 001-4010-558.44-10 64.78 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-4010-558.44-10 63.20 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-4010-558.44-10 66.36 LEGAL PUB - HOUSING AUTHO 001-4010-558.44-10 191.18 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEITravel Exp-West/Braudrick 001-4010-558.43-10 573.14 Community Development Planning Division Total: $1,423.16 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-4020-524.42-10 0.33 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-4020-524.42-10 0.55 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-4020-524.42-10 0.36 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-4020-524.42-10 1.85 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-4020-524.42-10 0.33 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-4020-524.42-10 0.66 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-4020-524.42-10 0.55 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-4020-524.42-10 0.33 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-4020-524.42-10 5.36 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-4020-524.42-10 7.32 Page 6 E - 8 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-4020-524.42-10 0.33 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-4020-524.42-10 7.32 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-4020-524.42-10 0.33 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-4020-524.42-10 15.00 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-4020-524.42-10 14.68 Community Development Building Division Total: $55.30 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.05 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.09 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.06 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.28 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.05 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.10 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.09 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.05 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.83 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-4030-559.42-10 1.13 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.05 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-4030-559.42-10 1.13 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-4030-559.42-10 0.05 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-4030-559.42-10 2.31 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-4030-559.42-10 2.26 Community Development Code Compliance Division Total: $8.53 Community Development Department Total: $1,486.99 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-5010-521.42-10 1.96 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-5010-521.42-10 3.40 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-5010-521.42-10 2.23 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-5010-521.42-10 11.40 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-5010-521.42-10 1.96 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-5010-521.42-10 4.04 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-5010-521.42-10 3.40 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-5010-521.42-10 1.96 01-20 A/C 206Z200017790B 001-5010-521.42-10 199.03 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-5010-521.42-10 33.01 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-5010-521.42-10 45.04 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-5010-521.42-10 2.02 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-5010-521.42-10 45.04 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-5010-521.42-10 1.96 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-5010-521.42-10 92.29 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-5010-521.42-10 90.33 GLACKEN AND ASSOCIATES HUMAN SERVICES 001-5010-521.43-10 275.00 Police Department Police Administration Division Total: $814.07 ADVANCED TRAVEL CJTC-Johnson 001-5021-521.43-10 886.29 Page 7 E - 9 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount ADVANCED TRAVEL CJTC-Malone 001-5021-521.43-10 143.43 CJTC-Powless 001-5021-521.43-10 705.10 Simunations Trng-Rife 001-5021-521.43-10 868.55 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-5021-521.42-10 1.23 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-5021-521.42-10 2.13 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-5021-521.42-10 1.39 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-5021-521.42-10 7.12 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-5021-521.42-10 1.23 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-5021-521.42-10 2.53 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 001-5021-521.42-10 2.13 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-5021-521.42-10 1.22 12-23 A/C206T302306084B 001-5021-521.42-10 20.63 12-23 A/C206T310164584B 001-5021-521.42-10 28.15 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-5021-521.42-10 1.26 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-5021-521.42-10 28.15 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-5021-521.42-10 1.23 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-5021-521.42-10 57.68 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-5021-521.42-10 56.46 PENINSULA AWARDS &TROPHIES BADGES & OTHER ID EQUIP. 001-5021-521.31-01 54.79 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIGas Mask-Peninger 001-5021-521.31-11 411.91 Police Department Investigation Division Total: $3,282.61 ADVANCED TRAVEL CJTC-Nutter 001-5022-521.43-10 611.51 CJTC-Stamon 001-5022-521.43-10 736.00 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-5022-521.42-10 3.43 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-5022-521.42-10 5.96 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-5022-521.42-10 3.90 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-5022-521.42-10 19.95 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-5022-521.42-10 3.43 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-5022-521.42-10 7.07 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-5022-521.42-10 5.96 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-5022-521.42-10 3.42 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-5022-521.42-10 57.77 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-5022-521.42-10 78.81 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-5022-521.42-10 3.54 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-5022-521.42-10 78.81 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-5022-521.42-10 3.43 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-5022-521.42-10 161.50 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-5022-521.42-10 158.08 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS FURNITURE, LAB, SPECIAL 001-5022-521.48-10 238.48 GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS HUMAN SERVICES 001-5022-521.43-10 595.00 KING CNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SVCS LIBRARY SERVICES(EXCL 908 001-5022-521.49-01 150.00 LINCOLN STREET STATION EXTERNAL LABOR 001-5022-521.42-10 29.58 Page 8 E - 10 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount Sky Sexton CASIO WATCH 001-5022-521.35-01 65.70 QUILL CORPORATION COMPUTERS,DP & WORD PROC. 001-5022-521.31-01 668.71 SWAIN'S GENERAL STORE INC Pacific Headwear 001-5022-521.20-80 299.18 CLOTHING & APPAREL 001-5022-521.20-80 429.26 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTE I Pa rka-Rife 001-5022-521.20-80 283.94 U Haul Equip Rental 001-5022-521.31-01 311.84 Mini Blinds-Roggenbuck 001-5022-521.31-01 63.96 Literature Organizer -GR 001-5022-521.31-01 428.18 Postage Charges -Morgan 001-5022-521.42-10 19.35 Glock Armorer's Course 001-5022-521.43-10 195.00 Police Department Patrol Division Total: $5,720.75 CANON USA, INC OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-5029-521.45-31 275.64 OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-5029-521.45-31 138.86 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-5029-521.42-10 1.23 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-5029-521.42-10 2.13 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-5029-521.42-10 1.39 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-5029-521.42-10 7.12 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-5029-521.42-10 1.23 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-5029-521.42-10 2.53 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-5029-521.42-10 2.13 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-5029-521.42-10 1.22 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-5029-521.42-10 20.63 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-5029-521.42-10 28.15 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-5029-521.42-10 1.26 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-5029-521.42-10 28.15 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-5029-521.42-10 1.23 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-5029-521.42-10 57.68 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-5029-521.42-10 56.46 NEW WORLD SYSTEMS HUMAN SERVICES 001-5029-521.43-10 1,895.00 PEN PRINT INC PRINTING,SILK SCR,TYPSET 001-5029-521.31-01 243.90 Police Department Records Division Total: $2,765.94 Police Department Department Total: $12,583.37 CANON USA, INC CONTRACT 001-6010-522.45-31 190.69 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-6010-522.42-10 1.72 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-6010-522.42-10 2.98 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-6010-522.42-10 1.95 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-6010-522.42-10 9.97 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-6010-522.42-10 1.72 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-6010-522.42-10 3.54 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-6010-522.42-10 2.98 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-6010-522.42-10 1.71 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-6010-522.42-10 28.88 Page 9 E - 11 Vendor CENTURYLINK-QWEST QUILL CORPORATION Fire Department ACHZIGER, CLARENCE L. BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP CDW GOVERNMENT INC CENTURYLINK-QWEST Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Description Account Number Invoice Amount 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-6010-522.42-10 39.41 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-6010-522.42-10 1.77 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-6010-522.42-10 39.41 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-6010-522.42-10 1.72 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6010-522.42-10 80.75 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6010-522.42-10 79.04 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-6010-522.42-11 0.49 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-6010-522.42-11 0.85 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-6010-522.42-11 0.56 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-6010-522.42-11 2.85 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-6010-522.42-11 0.49 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-6010-522.42-11 1.01 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-6010-522.42-11 0.85 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-6010-522.42-11 0.49 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-6010-522.42-11 8.25 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-6010-522.42-11 11.26 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-6010-522.42-11 0.51 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-6010-522.42-11 11.26 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-6010-522.42-11 0.49 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6010-522.42-11 23.07 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6010-522.42-11 22.58 COPY PAPER 001-6010-522.31-01 123.25 Fire Administration Division Total: $696.50 Install Antenna Modules 001-6020-594.64-10 1,219.50 UNIFORM CLOTHING 001-6020-522.20-80 128.94 SALE SURPLUS/OBSOLETE 001-6020-594.64-10 82.64 SALE SURPLUS/OBSOLETE 001-6020-594.64-10 2,700.08 SALE SURPLUS/OBSOLETE 001-6020-594.64-10 1,061.26 SALE SURPLUS/OBSOLETE 001-6020-594.64-10 1,770.05 SALE SURPLUS/OBSOLETE 001-6020-594.64-10 262.61 SALE SURPLUS/OBSOLETE 001-6020-594.64-10 78.58 SALE SURPLUS/OBSOLETE 001-6020-594.64-10 6,046.87 SALE SURPLUS/OBSOLETE 001-6020-594.64-10 785.26 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-6020-522.42-10 1.59 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-6020-522.42-10 2.77 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-6020-522.42-10 1.81 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-6020-522.42-10 9.26 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-6020-522.42-10 1.59 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-6020-522.42-10 3.28 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-6020-522.42-10 2.77 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-6020-522.42-10 1.59 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-6020-522.42-10 26.82 Page 10 E-12 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-6020-522.42-10 36.59 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-6020-522.42-10 1.64 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-6020-522.42-10 36.59 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-6020-522.42-10 1.59 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6020-522.42-10 74.98 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6020-522.42-10 73.40 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS RADIO & TELECOMMUNICATION 001-6020-594.64-10 83,123.40 RADIO & TELECOMMUNICATION 001-6020-594.64-10 11,952.48 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC RADIO & TELECOMMUNICATION 001-6020-594.64-10 27,430.82 RICHMOND 2 -WAY RADIO RADIO & TELECOMMUNICATION 001-6020-594.64-10 3,569.73 RADIO & TELECOMMUNICATION 001-6020-594.64-10 780.48 RADIO SUPPLIES 001-6020-594.64-10 1,801.61 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEI Postage 001-6020-522.42-10 11.76 Exercise Equip-Bogues 001-6020-522.49-90 212.27 VERIZON WIRELESS 01-15 a/c 264395724-00001 001-6020-522.42-10 79.31 Fire Department Fire Suppression Division Total: $143,373.92 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.12 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.21 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.14 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.71 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.12 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.25 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.21 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.12 12-23 A/C206T302306084B 001-6021-522.42-10 2.06 12-23 A/C206T310164584B 001-6021-522.42-10 2.81 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.13 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-6021-522.42-10 2.81 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-6021-522.42-10 0.12 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6021-522.42-10 5.77 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6021-522.42-10 5.65 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEI Rechargeable batteries -KB 001-6021-522.31-14 48.83 Fire Department Fire Volunteers Division Total: $70.06 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIUniform Jackets -Dubuc 001-6022-522.31-01 322.60 Fire Department Special Operations Division Total: $322.60 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-6030-522.42-10 0.25 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-6030-522.42-10 0.43 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-6030-522.42-10 0.28 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-6030-522.42-10 1.42 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-6030-522.42-10 0.25 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-6030-522.42-10 0.51 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-6030-522.42-10 0.43 Page 11 E-13 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604529882811B 001-6030-522.42-10 0.24 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-6030-522.42-10 4.13 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-6030-522.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-6030-522.42-10 0.25 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-6030-522.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-6030-522.42-10 0.25 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6030-522.42-10 11.54 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6030-522.42-10 11.29 WSAFC Dues 001-6030-522.49-01 90.00 Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Total: $132.53 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-6040-522.42-10 0.25 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-6040-522.42-10 0.43 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-6040-522.42-10 0.28 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-6040-522.42-10 1.42 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-6040-522.42-10 0.25 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-6040-522.42-10 0.51 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-6040-522.42-10 0.43 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-6040-522.42-10 0.24 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-6040-522.42-10 4.13 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-6040-522.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-6040-522.42-10 0.25 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-6040-522.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-6040-522.42-10 0.25 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6040-522.42-10 11.54 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6040-522.42-10 11.29 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIFerry Tickets-Bogues 001-6040-522.43-10 13.55 VERIZON WIRELESS 01-10 a/c 571099962-00001 001-6040-522.42-10 65.59 WSAFC 2014 EVIP CLASS 001-6040-522.43-10 250.00 Fire Department Fire Training Division Total: $371.67 Carrot -Top Industries US FLAG 001-6050-522.31-20 169.50 OLYMPIC PARTY & CUSTODIAL SUPPLIE:JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 001-6050-522.31-01 155.88 Fire Department Facilities Maintenance Division Total: $325.38 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-6060-525.42-10 1.10 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-6060-525.42-10 1.92 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-6060-525.42-10 1.25 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-6060-525.42-10 6.41 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-6060-525.42-10 1.10 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-6060-525.42-10 2.27 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-6060-525.42-10 1.92 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-6060-525.42-10 1.10 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-6060-525.42-10 18.57 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-6060-525.42-10 25.33 Page 12 E-14 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-6060-525.42-10 1.14 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-6060-525.42-10 25.33 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-6060-525.42-10 1.10 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6060-525.42-10 51.91 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-6060-525.42-10 50.81 Fire Department Emergency Management Division Total: $191.26 Fire Department Department Total: $145,483.92 ADVANCED TRAVEL Landfill Mtg-Fulton 001-7010-532.43-10 71.55 IACC Conf-Neal 001-7010-532.43-10 542.50 Landfill Mtg-Neal 001-7010-532.43-10 20.83 Landfill Mtg-Puntenney 001-7010-532.43-10 17.75 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-7010-532.42-10 3.80 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-7010-532.42-10 6.60 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-7010-532.42-10 4.32 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-7010-532.42-10 22.08 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-7010-532.42-10 3.80 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-7010-532.42-10 7.83 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-7010-532.42-10 6.60 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-7010-532.42-10 3.79 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-7010-532.42-10 63.95 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-7010-532.42-10 87.26 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-7010-532.42-10 3.91 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-7010-532.42-10 87.26 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-7010-532.42-10 3.80 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-7010-532.42-10 178.81 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-7010-532.42-10 175.02 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP Shipping Chgs 001-7010-532.42-10 47.88 JORDYN OWEN Mileage reimbursement 001-7010-532.31-01 6.22 Jordyn Owen MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 001-7010-532.31-01 29.38 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEI Daily News Subscription 001-7010-532.49-01 135.20 Public Works -Gen Fnd Pub Wks Administration Division Total: $1,530.14 Public Works -Gen Fnd Department Total: $1,530.14 ASM SIGNS SIGNS, SIGN MATERIAL 001-8010-574.41-50 520.32 CANON USA, INC OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-8010-574.45-31 27.03 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-8010-574.42-10 0.37 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-8010-574.42-10 0.64 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-8010-574.42-10 0.42 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-8010-574.42-10 2.14 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-8010-574.42-10 0.37 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-8010-574.42-10 0.76 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-8010-574.42-10 0.64 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-8010-574.42-10 0.37 Page 13 E-15 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-8010-574.42-10 6.19 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-8010-574.42-10 8.44 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-8010-574.42-10 0.38 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-8010-574.42-10 8.44 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-8010-574.42-10 0.37 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8010-574.42-10 17.30 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8010-574.42-10 16.94 OLYMPIC STATIONERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 001-8010-574.31-01 13.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 001-8010-574.31-01 58.43 PEN PRINT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 001-8010-574.31-01 59.36 SOUND PUBLISHING INC Holiday Happenings Adv 001-8010-574.44-10 343.80 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEI Lights-Kochanek 001-8010-574.31-01 49.96 Keyholder-Kochanek 001-8010-574.31-01 80.24 Parks Dept Parks Administration Division Total: $1,215.98 CANON USA, INC OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-8012-555.45-31 181.94 OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-8012-555.45-31 24.33 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-8012-555.42-10 0.37 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-8012-555.42-10 0.64 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-8012-555.42-10 0.42 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-8012-555.42-10 2.14 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-8012-555.42-10 0.37 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-8012-555.42-10 0.76 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-8012-555.42-10 0.64 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-8012-555.42-10 0.37 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-8012-555.42-10 6.19 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-8012-555.42-10 8.44 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-8012-555.42-10 0.38 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-8012-555.42-10 8.44 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-8012-555.42-10 0.37 01-14 A/C 3604577004947B 001-8012-555.42-10 43.95 01-20 A/C 206T217227465B 001-8012-555.42-10 57.46 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8012-555.42-10 17.30 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8012-555.42-10 16.94 Parks Dept Senior Center Division Total: $371.45 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-8050-536.42-10 0.25 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-8050-536.42-10 0.43 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-8050-536.42-10 0.28 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-8050-536.42-10 1.42 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-8050-536.42-10 0.25 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-8050-536.42-10 0.51 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-8050-536.42-10 0.43 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-8050-536.42-10 0.24 Page 14 E-16 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-8050-536.42-10 4.13 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-8050-536.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-8050-536.42-10 0.25 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-8050-536.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-8050-536.42-10 0.25 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8050-536.42-10 11.54 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8050-536.42-10 11.29 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 001-8050-536.49-50 329.07 OLYMPIC STATIONERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 001-8050-536.31-01 9.96 PEN PRINT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 001-8050-536.31-01 29.68 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC CEMETERY MARKERS 001-8050-536.34-01 2,302.00 SEARS COMMERCIAL ONE HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS 001-8050-536.35-01 198.83 Parks Dept Ocean View Cemetery Division Total: $2,912.07 ANGELES MILLWORK & LUMBER CO HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS 001-8080-576.31-20 11.22 LUMBER& RELATED PRODUCTS 001-8080-576.31-20 52.11 CED/CONSOLIDATED ELEC DIST INC Volunteer Field 001-8080-576.31-20 -139.55 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 001-8080-576.31-20 47.70 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-8080-576.42-10 1.23 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-8080-576.42-10 2.13 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-8080-576.42-10 1.39 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-8080-576.42-10 7.12 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-8080-576.42-10 1.23 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-8080-576.42-10 2.53 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-8080-576.42-10 2.13 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-8080-576.42-10 1.22 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-8080-576.42-10 20.63 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-8080-576.42-10 28.15 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-8080-576.42-10 1.26 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-8080-576.42-10 28.15 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-8080-576.42-10 1.23 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8080-576.42-10 57.68 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8080-576.42-10 56.46 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP Shipping Chgs 001-8080-576.42-10 52.26 INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS, INC PLASTICS 001-8080-576.31-20 2,665.23 Jim Breitbach CDL FOR JIM BREITBACH 001-8080-576.49-90 130.00 CDL FOR JIM BREITBACH 001-8080-576.49-90 -130.00 MURRAY MOTORS INC HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS 001-8080-576.31-01 256.69 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS LAWN MAINTENANCE EQUIP 001-8080-576.31-01 607.69 LAWN MAINTENANCE EQUIP 001-8080-576.31-01 1,008.06 PAINT & CARPET BARN, THE PAINTS, COATI NGS, WALLPAPER 001-8080-576.31-40 2,574.50 PORT ANGELES POWER EQUIPMENT FIRST AID & SAFETY EQUIP. 001-8080-576.31-01 95.37 LAWN MAINTENANCE EQUIP 001-8080-576.31-01 608.77 Page 15 E-17 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description SUNSET DO -IT BEST HARDWARE HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS Senior Center Facilities HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEICoffee HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS SWAIN'S GENERAL STORE INC SHOES AND BOOTS Extension Cords -CK SHOES AND BOOTS Facilities Maintenance HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS Division Total: HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES CHEMICAL, COMMERCIAL,BULK ANGELES MILLWORK & LUMBER CO HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS 001-8131-518.31-20 HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS THURMAN SUPPLY PLUMBING EQUIP FIXT,SUPP US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEITree lights for downtown 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B Dog Wste Disp Bag -CK Parks Dept Park Facilities 001-8131-518.42-10 Parks Dept Account Number 001-8080-576.31-20 001-8080-576.31-20 001-8080-576.31-20 001-8080-576.31-01 001-8080-576.31-01 001-8080-576.31-01 001-8080-576.31-01 001-8080-576.31-20 001-8080-576.31-20 001-8080-576.31-20 001-8080-576.31-20 001-8080-576.31-20 001-8080-576.31-20 Division Total: Department Total: CED/CONSOLIDATED ELEC DIST INC ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 001-8112-555.31-20 Facilities Maintenance Senior Center Facilities Division Total: US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEICoffee Filters-Kochanek 001-8130-518.31-01 Extension Cords -CK 001-8130-518.31-01 Facilities Maintenance Custodial/Janitorial Svcs Division Total: AMSAN JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 001-8131-518.31-01 ANGELES MILLWORK & LUMBER CO ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 001-8131-518.31-20 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-8131-518.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-8131-518.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-8131-518.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-8131-518.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-8131-518.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-8131-518.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 001-8131-518.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-8131-518.42-10 12-23 A/C206T302306084B 001-8131-518.42-10 12-23 A/C206T310164584B 001-8131-518.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-8131-518.42-10 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-8131-518.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-8131-518.42-10 0 1 -16 A/C206T355724768B 001-8131-518.42-10 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8131-518.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8131-518.42-10 DAVE'S HEATING & COOLING SVC AIR CONDITIONING & HEATNG 001-8131-518.48-10 OLYMPIC SEWER & DRAIN CLEANING PLUMBING EQUIP FIXT,SUPP 001-8131-518.31-20 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY INC Recommission Dumbwaiter 001-8131-518.48-10 TYCO INTEGRATED SECURITY Security Svc 001-8131-518.42-10 Invoice Amount 38.18 10.32 91.16 86.61 134.31 3.34 73.79 26.96 22.54 44.81 5.34 67.75 721.10 $9,378.80 $13,878.30 70.80 $70.80 191.26 96.60 $287.86 32.37 35.98 0.24 0.42 0.28 1.42 0.24 0.50 0.42 0.24 4.12 5.62 0.26 5.62 0.24 57.46 11.54 11.30 92.14 141.59 8,295.85 55.87 Page 16 E-18 BAKER, LARRY City of Port Angeles Date: 2/12/2014 132.00 BAXLEY, HAYLEYALYSE SCOREKEEPER PAYMENT FOR M 001-8221-574.41-50 110.00 City Council Expenditure Report OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-8221-574.45-31 135.08 CAPTAIN T'S CLOTHING & APPAREL From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 1,015.71 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount TYCO INTEGRATED SECURITY SECURITY,FIRE,SAFETY SERV 001-8131-518.42-10 55.87 Facilities Maintenance Central Svcs Facilities Division Total: $8,809.59 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B Facilities Maintenance Department Total: $9,168.25 BAKER, LARRY REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 132.00 BAXLEY, HAYLEYALYSE SCOREKEEPER PAYMENT FOR M 001-8221-574.41-50 110.00 CANON USA, INC OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-8221-574.45-31 135.08 CAPTAIN T'S CLOTHING & APPAREL 001-8221-574.31-01 1,015.71 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.12 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.21 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.14 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.71 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.12 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.25 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.21 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.12 12-23 A/C206T302306084B 001-8221-574.42-10 2.06 12-23 A/C206T310164584B 001-8221-574.42-10 2.81 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.13 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-8221-574.42-10 2.81 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-8221-574.42-10 0.12 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8221-574.42-10 5.77 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8221-574.42-10 5.65 DRAKE'S PIZZA & SUBS FOODS: PERISHABLE 001-8221-574.31-01 336.67 EDGAR, KELSEY REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 220.00 FAIRCHILD, NICK SCOREKEEPER PAYMENT FOR M 001-8221-574.41-50 20.00 FARRINGTON, DAVID REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 132.00 HALTTUNEN, DESHAWN A REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 198.00 HANSEN'S TROPHY MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES 001-8221-574.31-01 401.08 HENSEN, JAMES C REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 220.00 ISETT, TRISTAN J SCOREKEEPER PAYMENT FOR M 001-8221-574.41-50 110.00 JACOBSON, MARK REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 176.00 JEFFERS, KYLES B SCOREKEEPER PAYMENT FOR M 001-8221-574.41-50 120.00 LEINART, TOM REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 176.00 LUCAS, DUSTI SALOME SCOREKEEPER PAYMENT FOR M 001-8221-574.41-50 90.00 MUDGE, KRISTA REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 242.00 NEEL, JENNIFER DAWN REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 264.00 PARKER, PAUL RAMON REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 242.00 PEN PRINT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 001-8221-574.31-01 29.68 PEPPARD, GENE REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 110.00 PIMENTEL, HENRY REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 198.00 PORT ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 001-8221-574.41-50 193.46 RAMSEY, SCOTT REFEREE PAY WORKED AT MLK 001-8221-574.41-50 110.00 Page 17 E-19 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount ROBINSON, JASON SCOREKEEPER PAYMENT FOR M 001-8221-574.41-50 90.00 RODOCKER, PAXTON SCOREKEEPER PAYMENT FOR M 001-8221-574.41-50 90.00 ROONEY, RANDY L REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 132.00 SADDLER, CHARLES M REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 110.00 SOUND PUBLISHING INC Reindeer Run Adv 001-8221-574.44-10 247.50 STEPHENS, BRENT SCOREKEEPER PAYMENT FOR M 001-8221-574.41-50 110.00 VISELL, JOSEPH F. REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 132.00 WHIPPLE, DAVID REFEREE PAYMENT FOR MLK T 001-8221-574.41-50 176.00 Recreation Activities Sports Programs Division Total: $6,090.41 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIReindeer Antler Headbands 001-8222-574.31-01 308.94 Recreation Activities Special Events Division Total: $308.94 CANON USA, INC OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 001-8224-574.45-31 67.54 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.12 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.21 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.14 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.71 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.12 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.25 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.21 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.12 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 001-8224-574.42-10 2.06 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 001-8224-574.42-10 2.81 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.13 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 001-8224-574.42-10 2.81 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 001-8224-574.42-10 0.12 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8224-574.42-10 5.77 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 001-8224-574.42-10 5.65 OLYMPIC STATIONERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 001-8224-574.31-01 15.12 PEN PRINT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 001-8224-574.31-01 5.94 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIFiling Cabinet-Kochanek 001-8224-574.31-01 135.45 Recreation Activities Youth/Family Programs Division Total: $245.28 Recreation Activities Department Total: $6,644.63 General Fund Fund Total: $323,902.19 PORT ANGELES CHAMBER OF COMM MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 101-1430-557.41-50 4,222.58 Lodging Excise Tax Lodging Excise Tax Division Total: $4,222.58 Lodging Excise Tax Department Total: $4,222.58 Lodging Excise Tax Fund Fund Total: $4,222.58 GRAPHIC PRODUCTS Sign Supplies 102-0000-237.00-00 -41.88 Division Total: -$41.88 Department Total: -$41.88 A-1 PERFORMANCE, INC BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 102-7230-542.41-50 86.34 ADVANCED TRAVEL ATSSA Trng-Cameron 102-7230-542.43-10 17.75 Page 18 E - 20 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount AMSAN Paper Towels 102-7230-542.31-01 41.19 ANGELES MILLWORK & LUMBER CO SUPPLIES 102-7230-542.31-01 79.50 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 102-7230-542.42-10 0.61 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 102-7230-542.42-10 1.06 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 102-7230-542.42-10 0.70 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 102-7230-542.42-10 3.56 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 102-7230-542.42-10 0.61 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 102-7230-542.42-10 1.26 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 102-7230-542.42-10 1.06 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 102-7230-542.42-10 0.61 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 102-7230-542.42-10 10.32 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 102-7230-542.42-10 14.07 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 102-7230-542.42-10 0.63 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 102-7230-542.42-10 14.07 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 102-7230-542.42-10 0.61 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 102-7230-542.42-10 28.84 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 102-7230-542.42-10 28.23 GRAPHIC PRODUCTS Sign Supplies 102-7230-542.31-25 540.39 OLYMPIC LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS RAGS,SHOP TOWELS,WIPING 102-7230-542.31-01 68.29 ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY INC EXTERNAL LABOR SERVICES 102-7230-542.41-50 365.05 PUD #1 OF CLALLAM COUNTY SR 101 & Euclid Ave 102-7230-542.47-10 17.25 Golf Course Lite 102-7230-542.47-10 9.87 SUNSET DO -IT BEST HARDWARE HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS 102-7230-542.31-25 23.64 HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS 102-7230-542.35-01 11.98 SWAIN'S GENERAL STORE INC HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS 102-7230-542.31-20 19.28 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIFerry Tickets 102-7230-542.43-10 27.10 WWCPA SECRETARY -TREASURER MEMBERSHIPS 102-7230-542.49-01 15.00 Public Works -Street Street Division Total: $1,428.87 Public Works -Street Department Total: $1,428.87 Street Fund Fund Total: $1,386.99 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.06 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.11 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.07 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.36 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.06 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.13 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.11 01-05 A/C 3604529882811B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.06 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 103-1511-558.42-10 1.03 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 103-1511-558.42-10 1.41 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.06 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 103-1511-558.42-10 1.41 Page 19 E - 21 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 103-1511-558.42-10 0.06 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 103-1511-558.42-10 2.88 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 103-1511-558.42-10 2.82 CLALLAM CNTY ECONOMIC DEV CNCL 2013 EDC Annual Dinner 103-1511-558.31-01 37.00 NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA RC & D ANNUAL DUES 103-1511-558.49-01 400.00 PA DOWNTOWN ASSN 4th Quarter 103-1511-558.41-50 5,000.00 PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT ASSN. PENIN DEVELOP DISTRICT DU 103-1511-558.49-01 400.00 SOUND PUBLISHING INC Choose Local Adv 103-1511-558.44-10 540.00 VAN NESS FELDMAN, LLP Professional Fees 103-1511-558.41-50 1,125.00 Economic Development Economic Development Division Total: $7,512.63 Economic Development Department Total: $7,512.63 Economic Development Fund Total: $7,512.63 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 107-0000-237.00-00 29.99 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIPrinter Ribbon -Romberg 107-0000-237.00-00 -1.84 Division Total: $28.15 Department Total: $28.15 ADVANCED TRAVEL NWS Trng-Christopher 107-5160-528.43-10 84.75 Firstnet Wkshp-JC 107-5160-528.43-11 237.78 CENTURYLINK 01-06 A/C 406063845 107-5160-528.42-11 160.22 01-06 A/C 300509854 107-5160-528.42-11 101.53 01-06 A/C 300539444 107-5160-528.42-11 91.34 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 107-5160-528.42-10 3.31 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 107-5160-528.42-10 5.75 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 107-5160-528.42-10 3.76 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 107-5160-528.42-10 19.23 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 107-5160-528.42-10 3.31 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 107-5160-528.42-10 6.82 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 107-5160-528.42-10 5.75 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 107-5160-528.42-10 3.30 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 107-5160-528.42-10 55.70 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 107-5160-528.42-10 76.00 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 107-5160-528.42-10 3.41 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 107-5160-528.42-10 76.00 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 107-5160-528.42-10 3.31 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 107-5160-528.42-10 155.73 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 107-5160-528.42-10 152.44 INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR COMPUTER HARDWARE&PERIPHI 107-5160-528.31-60 815.69 David Schlaegel ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE 107-5160-528.43-10 118.60 Geoffrey Jacobson ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE 107-5160-528.43-10 91.50 Greg Coral ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE 107-5160-528.43-10 91.50 I -COM 911 ALICE JOHNSON'S TRAVEL EX 107-5160-528.43-10 254.92 John Hutchings ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE 107-5160-528.43-10 91.50 Page 20 E - 22 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Jon VanGessen ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE Lou D'Amelio PER DIEM EXPENSES Maureen Wheeler ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE Russ Clithero ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE Shannon Anderson ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE Sherry Erickson ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE Steve Duckworth ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE Terry Garner ASSESSMENT CENTER PER DIE NEW WORLD SYSTEMS HUMAN SERVICES HUMAN SERVICES 3604576684085B DATA PROC SERV &SOFTWARE DATA PROC SERV &SOFTWARE PENINSULA AWARDS & TROPHIES BADGES & OTHER ID EQUIP. RED LION HOTEL -PORT ANGELES REAL PROPERTY, RENT/LEASE SQUAD ROOM EMBLEMS PRINTING,SILK SCR,TYPSET US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIPrinter Ribbon -Romberg Pencom CANON USA, INC CENTURYLINK-QWEST Esther Webster/Fine Arts Travel exp -Romberg ACCIS Dues-GB/JC Pencom Pencom Pencom Fund Account Number 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.43-11 107-5160-528.43-11 107-5160-528.48-10 107-5160-528.48-10 107-5160-528.31-01 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.31-01 107-5160-528.31-01 107-5160-528.43-10 107-5160-528.49-01 Division Total: Department Total: Fund Total: OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 156-8630-575.45-31 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 156-8630-575.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 156-8630-575.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 156-8630-575.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 156-8630-575.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 156-8630-575.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 156-8630-575.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 156-8630-575.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604529882811B 156-8630-575.42-10 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 156-8630-575.42-10 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 156-8630-575.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 156-8630-575.42-10 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 156-8630-575.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 156-8630-575.42-10 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 156-8630-575.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 156-8630-575.42-10 Esther Webster/Fine Arts Division Total: Esther Webster/Fine Arts Department Total: Fine Arts Center Fund Total: BANK OF NEW YORK -DEBT SVC WIRE LTGO 2005 DEBT SVC-PORANG 214-2434-592.83-10 Debt Service 2005 LTGO Bond-WUGA Division Total: Invoice Amount 91.50 112.50 91.50 91.50 118.60 91.50 91.50 102.00 1,595.00 1,895.00 200,148.68 55,680.74 11.52 3,757.81 82.45 23.74 263.62 75.00 $267,037.31 $267,037.31 $267,065.46 16.23 0.37 0.64 0.42 2.14 0.37 0.76 0.64 0.37 6.19 8.44 0.38 8.44 0.37 17.30 16.94 $80.00 $80.00 $80.00 48,732.50 $48,732.50 Page 21 E -23 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount Debt Service Department Total: $48,732.50 Page 22 E - 24 2005 LTGO Bond-WUGA Fund Total: $48,732.50 ANGELES MILLWORK & LUMBER CO BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 9.40 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 9.40 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 25.60 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 25.59 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 18.80 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 18.79 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 25.06 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 25.06 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 93.57 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 93.57 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 16.71 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 16.70 CED/CONSOLIDATED ELEC DIST INC ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 310-8985-594.65-10 73.15 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 310-8985-594.65-10 73.18 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 310-8985-594.65-10 18.18 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 310-8985-594.65-10 18.17 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 310-8985-594.65-10 48.94 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 310-8985-594.65-10 48.93 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 310-8985-594.65-10 31.22 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 310-8985-594.65-10 31.21 HARTNAGEL BUILDING SUPPLY INC BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 86.72 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 86.71 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 36.22 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 48.28 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 48.28 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 121.94 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 4.92 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 4.92 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 20.30 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 20.30 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 11.70 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 11.69 THURMAN SUPPLY BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 3.73 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 3.72 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 3.76 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 310-8985-594.65-10 3.76 Capital Proj-Parks & Rec Misc Parks Projects Division Total: $1,238.18 Capital Proj-Parks & Rec Department Total: $1,238.18 Capital Improvement Fund Total: $1,238.18 BPA -POWER WIRES December Power Wire -EFT 401-0000-213.10-00 2,225,815.00 Page 22 E - 24 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CED/CONSOLIDATED ELEC DIST INC ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-0000-141.42-00 68.11 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 401-0000-237.00-00 120.83 Excise Tax Return -Dec 401-0000-237.10-00 589.07 GENERAL PACIFIC INC ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-0000-141.42-00 2,847.23 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-0000-141.44-00 959.96 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-0000-141.44-00 6,686.03 ALTISOURCE SOLUTIONS INC FINAL REFUND -1440 W 5TH 401-0000-122.10-99 36.72 CAMACHO, LARIO LEO OVERPAYMENT -2326 SAMARA 401-0000-122.10-99 3.77 DURHAM, THELMA FINAL BILL REFUND 401-0000-122.10-99 159.28 OVERPAYMENT -1114 W 8TH ST 401-0000-122.10-99 188.24 GELOTTE, RAYMOND FINAL BILL REFUND 401-0000-122.10-99 599.10 GUSTAFSON, HETTIE J FINAL BILL REFUND 401-0000-122.10-99 8.74 HEILMAN, APRIL D FINAL BILL REFUND 401-0000-122.10-99 10.00 MARKISHTUM, STEPHANIE FINAL BILL REFUND 401-0000-122.10-99 58.65 MORRIS, PATTI FINAL BILL REFUND 401-0000-122.10-99 106.45 NAGLER, CASEY W FINAL BILL REFUND 401-0000-122.10-99 48.76 OLANDER, JOSEPH D FINAL BILL REFUND 401-0000-122.10-99 95.06 PETERSEN, ESTATE OF SARAH A FINAL BILL REFUND 401-0000-122.10-99 205.62 PORT OF PORT ANGELES CREDIT REFUND -2007 O ST 401-0000-122.10-99 7,792.68 PROPERTIES BY LANDMARK INC CREDIT RFND-303 VIEWCREST 401-0000-122.10-99 46.79 OVERPAYMENT -1127 COLUMBIA 401-0000-122.10-99 80.33 WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE OVERPAYMENT -1023 W 12TH 401-0000-122.10-99 337.88 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-0000-141.42-00 953.05 Division Total: $2,247,817.35 Department Total: $2,247,817.35 CED/CONSOLIDATED ELEC DIST INC PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 401-7111-533.35-01 975.60 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 401-7111-533.42-10 0.37 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 401-7111-533.42-10 0.64 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 401-7111-533.42-10 0.42 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 401-7111-533.42-10 2.14 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 401-7111-533.42-10 0.37 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 401-7111-533.42-10 0.76 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 401-7111-533.42-10 0.64 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 401-7111-533.42-10 0.37 12-23 A/C206T302306084B 401-7111-533.42-10 6.19 12-23 A/C206T310164584B 401-7111-533.42-10 8.44 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 401-7111-533.42-10 0.38 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 401-7111-533.42-10 8.44 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 401-7111-533.42-10 0.37 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 401-7111-533.42-10 17.30 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 401-7111-533.42-10 16.94 CLALLAM CNTY UTLTY COORD CNCL MEMBERSHIPS 401-7111-533.49-01 50.00 Page 23 E - 25 Vendor NORTHWEST PUBLIC POWER ASSN ��m�y�■.1•�r■ 3��■:r�n.����c�na Public Works -Electric ADVANCED TRAVEL CENTURYLINK-QWEST EES CONSULTING INC PUBLIC POWER COUNCIL Public Works -Electric A-1 PERFORMANCE, INC ADVANCED TRAVEL CANON USA, INC CED/CONSOLIDATED ELEC DIST INC CENTURYLINK-QWEST Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Description Account Number Invoice Amount EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 401-7111-533.43-10 430.00 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 401-7111-533.43-10 430.00 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 401-7111-533.43-10 430.00 TAPE(NOT DP,SOUND,VIDEO) 401-7111-533.31-01 9.73 Engineering -Electric Division Total: $2,389.10 PPC Mtg-Lusk 401-7120-533.43-10 289.10 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 401-7120-533.42-10 0.37 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 401-7120-533.42-10 0.64 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 401-7120-533.42-10 0.42 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 401-7120-533.42-10 2.14 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 401-7120-533.42-10 0.37 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 401-7120-533.42-10 0.76 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 401-7120-533.42-10 0.64 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 401-7120-533.42-10 0.37 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 401-7120-533.42-10 6.19 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 401-7120-533.42-10 8.44 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 401-7120-533.42-10 0.38 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 401-7120-533.42-10 8.44 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 401-7120-533.42-10 0.37 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 401-7120-533.42-10 17.30 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 401-7120-533.42-10 16.94 Mis Professional Service 401-7120-533.49-01 108.51 MEMBERSHIPS 401-7120-533.49-01 22,350.00 Power Systems Division Total: $22,811.38 BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 401-7180-533.41-50 177.45 Code Chng Conf-Peppard 401-7180-533.43-10 463.93 RENTAL OR LEASE SERVICES 401-7180-533.45-31 176.61 FIRE PROTECTION EQUIP/SUP 401-7180-533.31-01 599.18 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.34-02 74.31 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.34-02 292.03 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.34-02 153.93 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 401-7180-533.42-10 2.94 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 401-7180-533.42-10 5.11 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 401-7180-533.42-10 3.35 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 401-7180-533.42-10 17.10 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 401-7180-533.42-10 2.94 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 401-7180-533.42-10 6.06 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 401-7180-533.42-10 5.11 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 401-7180-533.42-10 2.93 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 401-7180-533.42-10 49.51 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 401-7180-533.42-10 67.56 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 401-7180-533.42-10 3.03 Page 24 E - 26 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 401-7180-533.42-10 67.56 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 401-7180-533.42-10 2.94 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 401-7180-533.42-10 138.43 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 401-7180-533.42-10 135.50 01-14 a/c 3604574717777B 401-7180-533.42-10 127.91 01-16 a/c 206T323879996B 401-7180-533.42-10 54.54 01-16 a/c 206T322760994B 401-7180-533.42-10 54.54 01-16 a/c 206T326157000B 401-7180-533.42-10 54.54 01-16 a/c 206T323881998B 401-7180-533.42-10 54.54 CLINICARE OF PORT ANGELES INC HUMAN SERVICES 401-7180-533.48-10 32.00 COLUMBIA RURAL ELECTRIC ASSN, INC EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 401-7180-533.41-50 2,841.00 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 401-7180-533.49-50 161,713.16 FASTENAL INDUSTRIAL FASTENERS, FASTENING DEVS 401-7180-533.34-02 17.08 GENERAL PACIFIC INC ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.34-02 3,436.28 MATCO TOOLS ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.35-01 16.21 Greg McCabe MEAL REIMBURSEMENTS 401-7180-533.31-01 30.50 Jim Shay MEAL REIMBURSEMENTS 401-7180-533.31-01 30.50 Vern Daugaard MEAL REIMBURSEMENTS 401-7180-533.31-01 30.50 Deborah Wheeler, LLC EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 401-7180-533.49-90 120.00 MOBILE MUSIC UNLIMITED Blue Tooth Car Kit 401-7180-533.48-10 425.98 NAPA AUTO PARTS ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.34-02 273.38 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 401-7180-533.31-01 199.39 OLYMPIC LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING SERV 401-7180-533.41-50 82.79 LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING SERV 401-7180-533.41-50 82.79 PACIFIC OFFICE EQUIPMENT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 401-7180-533.31-01 58.54 PORT OF PORT ANGELES Lease Fees 401-7180-533.45-30 4,100.00 PUD #1 OF CLALLAM COUNTY Henry Boyd Rd 401-7180-533.47-10 496.07 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC CLOTHING & APPAREL 401-7180-533.31-01 244.30 QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 401-7180-533.31-01 7.58 ROHLINGER ENTERPRISES INC ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.34-02 16.26 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.35-01 171.27 TESTING&CALIBRATION SERVI 401-7180-533.48-10 751.21 TESTING&CALIBRATION SERVI 401-7180-533.48-10 633.27 SECURITY SERVICES NW, INC COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 401-7180-533.41-50 650.00 SUNSET DO -IT BEST HARDWARE ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.34-02 60.96 ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.34-02 19.99 SWAIN'S GENERAL STORE INC Boots 401-7180-533.31-01 108.29 Paint Striping Wand 401-7180-533.34-02 29.24 THURMAN SUPPLY PVC Elbow & pipe 401-7180-533.34-02 11.52 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIWall Mount Rack Encl 401-7180-533.34-02 320.91 Shipping Chgs-Hairell 401-7180-533.42-10 31.63 WAGNER-SMITH EQUIPMENT CO ELECTRICAL EQUIP & SUPPLY 401-7180-533.35-01 468.26 Page 25 E - 27 Page 26 E -28 City of Port Angeles Date: 2/12/2014 $2,454,051.21 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC PIPE FITTINGS 402-0000-141.40-00 City Council Expenditure Report PIPE FITTINGS 402-0000-141.40-00 2,654.08 From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Division Total: Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount WESTERN SYSTEMS, INC Traffic Signal Smart 401-7180-533.34-02 639.56 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE CO FIRST AID & SAFETY EQUIP. 401-7180-533.31-01 89.38 Public Works -Electric Electric Operations Division Total: $181,033.38 1.92 Public Works -Electric Department Total: $206,233.86 Page 26 E -28 Electric Utility Fund Fund Total: $2,454,051.21 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC PIPE FITTINGS 402-0000-141.40-00 2,489.74 PIPE FITTINGS 402-0000-141.40-00 2,654.08 Division Total: $5,143.82 Department Total: $5,143.82 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 402-7380-534.42-10 1.10 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 402-7380-534.42-10 1.92 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 402-7380-534.42-10 1.25 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 402-7380-534.42-10 6.41 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 402-7380-534.42-10 1.10 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 402-7380-534.42-10 2.27 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 402-7380-534.42-10 1.92 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 402-7380-534.42-10 1.10 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 402-7380-534.42-10 18.57 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 402-7380-534.42-10 25.33 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 402-7380-534.42-10 1.14 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 402-7380-534.42-10 25.33 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 402-7380-534.42-10 1.10 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 402-7380-534.42-10 51.91 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 402-7380-534.42-10 50.81 01-05 a/c 3604523954268B 402-7380-534.42-10 86.86 01-05 a/c 3604525230978B 402-7380-534.42-10 133.81 01-05 a/c 3604524587479B 402-7380-534.42-10 100.66 0 1 -14 a/c 3604571270975B 402-7380-534.42-10 189.40 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 402-7380-534.49-50 18,595.95 DRY CREEK WATER ASSN, INC MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 402-7380-534.33-10 286.47 MISC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 402-7380-534.33-10 618.93 EVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WA MEMBERSHIPS 402-7380-534.49-01 350.00 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP Shipping Chgs 402-7380-534.42-10 31.40 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC PIPE FITTINGS 402-7380-534.31-20 95.93 HEARTLINE HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS 402-7380-534.31-01 78.97 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TEMP WTPO 4 CERT FOR JASO 402-7380-534.43-10 87.00 TEMP WTPO 3 CERT FOR ERIC 402-7380-534.43-10 87.00 TEMP WTPO 3 CERT FOR RALP 402-7380-534.43-10 87.00 TEMP WTPO 2 CERT FOR BENJ 402-7380-534.43-10 87.00 TEMP WTPO 2 CERT FOR JASO 402-7380-534.43-10 87.00 ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY INC EXTERNAL LABOR SERVICES 402-7380-534.49-90 365.06 PUD #1 OF CLALLAM COUNTY Crown Z Water Rd 402-7380-534.47-10 62.49 Page 26 E -28 AMSAN City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Date: 2/12/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount PUD #1 OF CLALLAM COUNTY Reservoir Rd 402-7380-534.47-10 194.89 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIBottled Water -Safety Mtg 402-7380-534.31-01 3.34 403-7480-535.31-01 Classified Adv -Gates 402-7380-534.44-10 644.00 WHISTLE WORKWEAR Bomberjacket 402-7380-534.31-01 58.63 WWCCPPGROUP EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 402-7380-534.43-10 10.00 Public Works -Water Water Division Total: $22,533.05 403-7480-535.42-10 Public Works -Water Department Total: $22,533.05 403-7480-535.42-10 Water Fund Fund Total: $27,676.87 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 403-0000-237.00-00 139.24 GRAPHIC PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 403-0000-237.00-00 -14.94 403-7480-535.42-10 0.98 Division Total: $124.30 403-7480-535.42-10 16.50 Department Total: $124.30 AMSAN PAPER & PLASTIC-DISPOSABL 403-7480-535.31-01 45.73 CANON USA, INC OFFICE MACHINES & ACCESS 403-7480-535.45-31 174.64 CAPTAIN T'S CLOTHING & APPAREL 403-7480-535.31-01 125.64 SEWING RM,TEXTILE MACHINE 403-7480-535.31-01 49.86 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 403-7480-535.42-10 0.98 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 403-7480-535.42-10 1.70 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 403-7480-535.42-10 1.12 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 403-7480-535.42-10 5.70 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 403-7480-535.42-10 0.98 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 403-7480-535.42-10 2.02 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 403-7480-535.42-10 1.70 01-05 A/C 3604529882811B 403-7480-535.42-10 0.98 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 403-7480-535.42-10 16.50 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 403-7480-535.42-10 22.52 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 403-7480-535.42-10 1.01 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 403-7480-535.42-10 22.52 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 403-7480-535.42-10 0.98 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 403-7480-535.42-10 46.14 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 403-7480-535.42-10 45.17 01-08 a/c 3605650365696B 403-7480-535.42-10 42.17 01-05 a/c 3604529911834B 403-7480-535.42-10 86.86 01-14 a/c 3604576315689B 403-7480-535.42-10 86.86 0 1 -14 a/c 3604574859247B 403-7480-535.42-10 86.75 01-16 a/c 206T325585090B 403-7480-535.42-10 54.40 01-16 a/c 206T329544912B 403-7480-535.42-10 54.40 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 403-7480-535.49-50 10,178.90 FASTENAL INDUSTRIAL CLOTHING & APPAREL 403-7480-535.31-01 155.15 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP Shipping Chgs 403-7480-535.42-10 15.30 GRAPHIC PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES, GENERAL 403-7480-535.31-01 192.75 LINCOLN INDUSTRIAL CORP Repair Shaft 403-7480-535.48-10 205.96 Page 27 E -29 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC Cable/connectors 403-7480-535.48-10 1,058.77 SUNSET DO -IT BEST HARDWARE WELDING EQUIPMENT/SUPPLY 403-7480-535.31-01 102.82 HARDWARE,AND ALLIED ITEMS 403-7480-535.31-01 18.78 CONTRL,INDICA,RECORD INST 403-7480-535.31-01 18.52 SWAIN'S GENERAL STORE INC CHEMICAL LAB EQUIP & SUPP 403-7480-535.31-01 46.30 TYCO INTEGRATED SECURITY SECURITY,FIRE,SAFETY SERV 403-7480-535.41-50 57.32 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC CONTRL,INDICA,RECORD INST 403-7480-535.31-20 587.35 Public Works-WW/Storm% Wastewater Division Total: $13,615.25 Public Works-WW/Stormwtr Department Total: $13,615.25 Wastewater Fund Fund Total: $13,739.55 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 404-0000-237.00-00 23.71 Division Total: $23.71 Department Total: $23.71 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL&ECOLOGICAL 404-7538-537.49-90 1,048.50 Public Works -Solid Waste SW - Transfer Station Division Total: $1,048.50 A-1 PERFORMANCE, INC BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 404-7580-537.41-50 86.33 AMSAN PLASTICS 404-7580-537.35-01 977.94 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 404-7580-537.42-10 0.61 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 404-7580-537.42-10 1.06 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 404-7580-537.42-10 0.70 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 404-7580-537.42-10 3.56 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 404-7580-537.42-10 0.61 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 404-7580-537.42-10 1.26 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 404-7580-537.42-10 1.06 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 404-7580-537.42-10 0.61 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 404-7580-537.42-10 10.32 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 404-7580-537.42-10 14.07 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 404-7580-537.42-10 0.63 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 404-7580-537.42-10 14.07 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 404-7580-537.42-10 0.61 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 404-7580-537.42-10 28.84 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 404-7580-537.42-10 28.23 01-05 a/c 3604522245145B 404-7580-537.42-10 42.31 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 404-7580-537.49-50 14,881.67 ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY INC EXTERNAL LABOR SERVICES 404-7580-537.41-50 365.06 WASTE CONNECTIONS, INC Curbside Recycling 404-7580-537.41-51 46,900.81 Public Works -Solid Waste Solid Waste -Collections Division Total: $63,360.36 EDGE ANALYTICAL TESTING&CALIBRATION SERVI 404-7585-537.41-50 24.00 Public Works -Solid Waste Solid Waste -Landfill Division Total: $24.00 Public Works -Solid Waste Department Total: $64,432.86 Solid Waste -Collections Fund Total: $64,456.57 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 405-0000-237.10-00 60.48 Page 28 E - 30 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount Division Total: $60.48 Department Total: $60.48 CLALLAM CNTY SOLID WASTE DEPT 2013 Solid Waste Chgs 405-7538-537.41-51 830.00 2013 Solid Waste Chgs 405-7538-537.49-90 4,656.97 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 405-7538-537.49-50 11,823.43 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP Shipping Chgs 405-7538-537.42-10 58.70 WASTE CONNECTIONS, INC Curbside Recycling 405-7538-537.41-51 1,318.37 Transfer Stn Operations 405-7538-537.41-51 247,902.73 Transfer Stn 405-7538-537.45-30 5,367.28 Transfer Stn 405-7538-582.75-10 29,123.19 Transfer Stn 405-7538-592.83-10 33,655.53 Public Works -Solid Waste SW - Transfer Station Division Total: $334,736.20 ADVANCED TRAVEL Landfill Mtg-Bloor 405-7585-537.43-10 134.94 ASPECT CONSULTING, LLC CONSULTING SERVICES 405-7585-537.41-50 10,270.45 Public Works -Solid Waste Solid Waste -Landfill Division Total: $10,405.39 Public Works -Solid Waste Department Total: $345,141.59 Solid Waste-LF/Trf Stn Fund Total: $345,202.07 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIBook-Fulton 406-0000-237.00-00 -8.19 Division Total: -$8.19 Department Total: -$8.19 ADVANCED TRAVEL Source Control-Boehme 406-7412-538.43-10 168.34 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 406-7412-538.42-10 0.24 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 406-7412-538.42-10 0.43 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 406-7412-538.42-10 0.28 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 406-7412-538.42-10 1.42 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 406-7412-538.42-10 0.24 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 406-7412-538.42-10 0.51 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 406-7412-538.42-10 0.43 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 406-7412-538.42-10 0.24 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 406-7412-538.42-10 4.13 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 406-7412-538.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 406-7412-538.42-10 0.25 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 406-7412-538.42-10 5.63 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 406-7412-538.42-10 0.24 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 406-7412-538.42-10 11.54 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 406-7412-538.42-10 11.29 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 406-7412-538.49-50 966.45 KITSAP COUNTY CLERK EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 406-7412-538.41-50 2,252.18 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEI Book -Fulton 406-7412-538.31-01 105.69 Public Works-WW/Storm% Stormwater Division Total: $3,535.16 Public Works-WW/Stormwtr Department Total: $3,535.16 Stormwater Fund Fund Total: $3,526.97 Page 29 E - 31 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC SUPPLIES 409-6025-526.31-02 147.50 Public Works-WW/Stormwtr SUPPLIES 409-6025-526.31-02 911.00 SUPPLIES 409-6025-526.31-13 245.49 SUPPLIES 409-6025-526.31-13 441.56 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 409-6025-526.42-10 1.47 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 409-6025-526.42-10 2.55 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 409-6025-526.42-10 1.67 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 409-6025-526.42-10 8.55 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 409-6025-526.42-10 1.47 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 409-6025-526.42-10 3.03 01-14 A/C 3604571535571 B 409-6025-526.42-10 2.55 01-05 A/C 3604529882811B 409-6025-526.42-10 1.47 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 409-6025-526.42-10 24.76 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 409-6025-526.42-10 33.78 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 409-6025-526.42-10 1.52 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 409-6025-526.42-10 33.78 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 409-6025-526.42-10 1.47 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 409-6025-526.42-10 69.22 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 409-6025-526.42-10 67.75 CLALLAM CNTY EMS Medic I Advisory 409-6025-526.41-50 600.00 GE HEALTHCARE SERVICES CONTRACT 409-6025-526.41-50 82.38 KING CNTY OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MGMTDPH EMS ONLINE SUBSCRIPTI 409-6025-526.43-10 1,900.00 OLYMPIC MEDICAL CENTER SUPPLIES 409-6025-526.31-13 221.71 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIUniform Jackets -Dubuc 409-6025-526.20-80 80.66 VERIZON WIRELESS 01-15 a/c 264395724-00001 409-6025-526.42-10 134.17 Fire Department Medic I Division Total: $5,019.51 Fire Department Department Total: $5,019.51 Medic I Utility Fund Total: $5,019.51 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIFerry tickets-Bloor 413-7481-535.43-10 Hotel-Bloor 413-7481-535.43-10 Travel Exp -West 413-7481-535.43-10 Public Works-WW/Storm% Wastewater Remediation Division Total: Public Works-WW/Stormwtr Department Total: ANGELES HEATING, INC CASCADE ENERGY SERVICES CENTURYLINK-QWEST Harbor Clean Up City Rebate City Rebate 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B Fund Total: 421-7121-533.49-86 421-7121-533.49-86 421-7121-533.42-10 421-7121-533.42-10 421-7121-533.42-10 421-7121-533.42-10 421-7121-533.42-10 421-7121-533.42-10 13.55 87.46 92.99 $194.00 $194.00 $194.00 1,500.00 500.00 0.24 0.43 0.28 1.42 0.24 0.51 Page 30 E -32 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 421-7121-533.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 421-7121-533.42-10 12-23 A/C206T302306084B 421-7121-533.42-10 12-23 A/C206T310164584B 421-7121-533.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 421-7121-533.42-10 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 421-7121-533.42-10 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 421-7121-533.42-10 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 421-7121-533.42-10 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 421-7121-533.42-10 DAVE'S HEATING & COOLING SVC City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 GLASS SERVICES CO INC City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 BEN PHILLIPS City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 DAVE & KELLY SANDERS City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 DENNIS HOCHHALTER City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 DIANNE SMITH City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 GLADYS BURTON City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 GLORIA GARRETT City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 SANDY ULF City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 TERESA DUPUIS City Rebate 421-7121-533.49-86 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEI Book -Fulton 421-7121-533.31-01 IMSA Dues-Mahlum 421-7121-533.49-90 Public Works -Electric Conservation Division Total: Public Works -Electric Department Total: CAPACITY PROVISIONING INC UCC FILING OFFICE PUD #1 OF CLALLAM COUNTY Public Works -Electric Public Works-WW/Storm% Conservation ENGINEERING SERVICES Amended UCC Filing Fee Amended UCC Filing Fee Amended UCC Filing Fee Power Supply #1 Telecommunications Public Works -Electric Telecommunications Fund CONSULTING SERVICES CONSULTING SERVICES CONSULTING SERVICES CONSULTING SERVICES CSO Capital Public Works-WW/Stormwtr CSO Capital Fund ALLDATA RENTAL/LEASE EQUIPMENT AMEREX CORPORATION EQUIP MAINT & REPAIR SERV ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, IIFUEL,OIL,GREASE, & LUBES Fund Total: 431-7130-538.48-10 431-7130-538.49-90 431-7130-538.49-90 431-7130-538.49-90 431-7130-538.47-10 Division Total: Department Total: Fund Total: 463-7489-594.65-10 463-7489-594.65-10 463-7489-594.65-10 463-7489-594.65-10 Division Total: Department Total: Fund Total: 501-0000-237.00-00 501-0000-237.00-00 501-0000-141.20-00 Invoice Amount 0.43 0.24 4.13 5.63 0.25 5.63 0.24 11.54 11.29 1,500.00 933.00 115.00 100.00 25.00 65.00 50.00 50.00 100.00 25.00 105.69 70.00 $5,181.19 $5,181.19 $5,181.19 173.44 30.00 -30.00 31.00 40.23 $244.67 $244.67 $244.67 122,022.84 6,172.68 9,882.89 100,040.25 $238,118.66 $238,118.66 $238,118.66 -9.24 -76.59 559.90 Page 31 E -33 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount BAXTER AUTO PARTS #15 AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 77.92 AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 68.06 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 501-0000-237.00-00 8,425.59 FASTENAL INDUSTRIAL AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 38.07 FIRE CHIEF EQUIPMENT CO, INC AUTO & TRUCK ACCESSORIES 501-0000-141.40-00 216.80 FIRST RACE CAR WASH CAR WAS TICKETS 501-0000-141.40-00 648.00 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-237.00-00 -84.94 AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-237.00-00 -6.18 NAPA AUTO PARTS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 53.40 AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 21.64 AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 55.83 AUTO & TRUCK ACCESSORIES 501-0000-141.40-00 3.22 AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 125.74 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 49.25 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTING AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 138.77 SIX ROBBLEES' INC AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 418.32 SUNSET DO -IT BEST HARDWARE AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 14.62 SWAIN'S GENERAL STORE INC AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 16.78 AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS 501-0000-141.40-00 16.78 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIFire Equipment -McBride 501-0000-237.00-00 -6.60 Division Total: $10,765.14 Department Total: $10,765.14 A-1 PERFORMANCE, INC BUILDING MAINT&REPAIR SER 501-7630-548.41-50 103.94 ALLDATA RENTAL/LEASE EQUIPMENT 501-7630-548.48-02 119.24 AMEREX CORPORATION EQUIP MAINT & REPAIR SERV 501-7630-548.35-01 988.32 ARAMARK LAUNDRY/DRY CLEANING SERV 501-7630-548.49-90 141.29 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 501-7630-548.42-10 0.86 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 501-7630-548.42-10 1.49 01-05 A/C 3604525834211 B 501-7630-548.42-10 0.98 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B 501-7630-548.42-10 4.99 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 501-7630-548.42-10 0.86 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 501-7630-548.42-10 1.77 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 501-7630-548.42-10 1.49 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 501-7630-548.42-10 0.86 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 501-7630-548.42-10 14.44 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 501-7630-548.42-10 19.70 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 501-7630-548.42-10 0.88 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 501-7630-548.42-10 19.70 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 501-7630-548.42-10 0.86 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 501-7630-548.42-10 40.38 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 501-7630-548.42-10 39.52 COPY CAT GRAPHICS AUTO & TRUCK ACCESSORIES 501-7630-594.64-10 888.88 Page 32 E - 34 Vendor FAR -WEST MACHINE & HYDRAULICS HEARTLINE LINCOLN INDUSTRIAL CORP MATCO TOOLS MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO MURRAY MOTORS INC ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY INC PORT ANGELES TIRE FACTORY QUALITY 4X4 TRUCK SUPPLY Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Description Cylinder Repair-Veh 5800 AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS METALS, BARS, PLATES, RODS METALS, BARS, PLATES, RODS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS EXTERNAL LABOR SERVICES EXTERNAL LABOR SERVICES AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS EXTERNAL LABOR SERVICES AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS EXTERNAL LABOR SERVICES RUDDELL AUTO MALL Disconnect lights-veh1312 SNAP-ON TOOLS - CHUGGER DEANE AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS SUNSET DO -IT BEST HARDWARE AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS SWAIN'S GENERAL STORE INC AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS THURMAN SUPPLY AUTO & TRUCK MAINT. ITEMS US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIFire Equipment -McBride Lube Handle Assembly Marine Connector -McBride Returned Merchandise -DM Toll Bridge Exp Public Works -Equip Svcs Equipment Services Public Works -Equip Svcs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES CENTURYLINK-QWEST Equipment Services Excise Tax Return -Dec 01-05 A/C 3604525109623B 01-05 A/C 3604523712585B 01-05 A/C 3604525834211B 01-14 A/C 3604576684085B Account Number 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.31-01 501-7630-548.35-01 501-7630-548.35-01 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.49-90 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.35-01 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.31-01 501-7630-548.31-01 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 501-7630-548.34-02 Division Total: Department Total: Fund Total: 502-0000-237.00-00 Division Total: Department Total: 502-2081-518.42-10 502-2081-518.42-10 502-2081-518.42-10 502-2081-518.42-10 Invoice Amount 542.60 106.18 12.36 221.08 31.22 45.25 178.81 79.74 1,096.12 10.82 365.06 46.61 141.03 230.35 1,254.91 609.75 383.06 439.72 40.06 7.93 29.41 9.74 4.46 3.21 11.89 7.52 6.93 85.17 33.95 101.82 -101.94 9.40 $8,434.67 $8,434.67 $19,199.81 394.81 $394.81 $394.81 1.10 1.92 1.25 6.41 Page 33 E -35 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-14 A/C 3604570831558B 502-2081-518.42-10 1.10 01-14 A/C 3604570968343B 502-2081-518.42-10 2.27 01-14 A/C 3604571535571B 502-2081-518.42-10 1.92 01-05 A/C 3604529882811 B 502-2081-518.42-10 1.10 12-23 A/C 206T302306084B 502-2081-518.42-10 18.57 12-23 A/C 206T310164584B 502-2081-518.42-10 25.33 01-05 A/C 3604529887652B 502-2081-518.42-10 1.14 COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 502-2081-518.42-10 25.33 01-05 A/C 3604523877817B 502-2081-518.42-10 1.10 12-14 A/C 3604570411199B 502-2081-518.42-10 51.91 01-14 A/C 3604570411199B 502-2081-518.42-10 50.81 DELL MARKETING LP COMPUTER HARDWARE&PERI PHI 502-2081-518.31-60 2,084.21 DUNN, RICKY DATA PROC SERV &SOFTWARE 502-2081-518.41-50 4,991.77 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYSTEIAirfare-Conf-Harper 502-2081-518.43-10 181.00 Finance Department Information Technologies Division Total: $7,448.24 Finance Department Department Total: $7,448.24 Information Technology Fund Total: $7,843.05 AWC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TRUST Med Den/Vis Premiums 503-1631-517.46-30 248,323.10 LT Disability 503-1631-517.46-31 4,224.74 Life Insurance 503-1631-517.46-32 1,703.22 L1 Med/Vis Premiums 503-1631-517.46-34 -1,099.76 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 115.40 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 -115.40 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 115.40 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 104.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 -104.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 104.90 Disability Board -January 503-1631-517.46-35 218.51 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 104.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 -104.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 104.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 545.90 Disability Board -January 503-1631-517.46-35 105.47 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 -545.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 530.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 104.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 -104.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 104.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 104.90 Disability Board -January 503-1631-517.46-35 15.00 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 -104.90 REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN 503-1631-517.46-35 104.90 Page 34 E - 36 Vendor NW ADMIN TRANSFER ACCT Self Insurance ROBERT BLAKE Self Insurance Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Description REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN Disability Board -January REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN S/NS/WT RETIREES REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN Disability Board -January REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN Disability Board -January REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN Other Insurance Programs IN HOUSE LIABILITY CLAIM Comp Liability Self Insurance Self -Insurance Fund REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN Disability Board -January REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN Disability Board -January REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN REIMBURSE MEDICARE -JAN Account Number 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-33 503-1631-517.46-34 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 503-1631-517.46-35 Division Total: 503-1671-517.49-98 Division Total: Department Total: Fund Total: 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 602-6221-517.46-35 Invoice Amount 104.90 15.37 -104.90 104.90 104.90 -104.90 104.90 104.90 -104.90 104.90 104.90 -104.90 104.90 76,123.60 9,659.40 103.90 54.33 -103.90 103.90 104.90 159.86 -104.90 104.90 104.90 -104.90 104.90 $341,302.04 92.14 $92.14 $341,394.18 $341,394.18 104.90 121.94 -104.90 104.90 104.90 -104.90 104.90 104.90 38.58 -104.90 104.90 Page 35 E -37 Date: 2/12/2014 City of Port Angeles City Council Expenditure Report From: 1/25/2014 To: 217/2014 Vendor Description Account Number Invoice Amount Fireman's Pension Fireman's Pension Division Total: $475.22 Fireman's Pension Department Total: $475.22 Page 36 E -38 Firemen's Pension Fund Total: $475.22 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE -WIRES Excise Tax Return -Dec 650-0000-237.10-00 233.48 Division Total: $233.48 Department Total: $233.48 Off Street Parking Fund Fund Total: $233.48 CENTURYLINK-QWEST 01-14 A/C 3604573532775B 652-8630-575.42-10 52.32 DEX ONE MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA SERV 652-8630-575.44-10 225.10 Esther Webster/Fine Arts Esther Webster/Fine Arts Division Total: $277.42 Esther Webster/Fine Arts Department Total: $277.42 Esther Webster Fund Fund Total: $277.42 AFLAC AFLAC SUPP INSURANCE 920-0000-231.53-10 1,298.58 ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES AWC SUPP LIFE INS 920-0000-231.53-30 391.70 EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PAYROLL SUMMARY 920-0000-231.55-30 535.00 GUARANTEED EDUCATION TUITION PAYROLL SUMMARY 920-0000-231.56-95 263.50 LEOFF P/R Deductions pe 0 1 -19 920-0000-231.51-21 23,176.17 OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT P/R Deductions pe 0 1 -19 920-0000-231.56-20 670.09 P/R Deductions pe 0 1 -19 920-0000-231.56-20 169.85 P/R Deductions pe 0 1 -19 920-0000-231.56-20 -169.85 P/R Deductions pe 0 1 -19 920-0000-231.56-20 169.85 PERS P/R Deductions pe 0 1 -19 920-0000-231.51-10 1,674.16 P/R Deductions pe 0 1 -19 920-0000-231.51-11 11,915.95 P/R Deductions pe 0 1 -19 920-0000-231.51-12 50,092.73 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 589 PAYROLL SUMMARY 920-0000-231.54-10 3,548.50 UNITED WAY (PAYROLL) PAYROLL SUMMARY 920-0000-231.56-10 429.30 VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSOCIATION PAYROLL SUMMARY 920-0000-231.55-20 24.00 WSCFF/EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TRUST PAYROLL SUMMARY 920-0000-231.53-20 1,575.00 Division Total: $95,764.53 Department Total: $95,764.53 Payroll Clearing Fund Total: $95,764.53 Totals for check period From: 1/25/2014 To: 2/7/2014 $4,276,739.49 Page 36 E -38 GELES DATE: February 18, 2014 To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Craig Fulton, P.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Ranney Well Performance Testing, Project WA -13-023, Professional Services Agreement with Layne Christensen, Inc., Amendment No. 1 Summary: In July 2013, the City entered into an agreement with Layne Christensen, Inc., to provide professional engineering services to evaluate the operating performance of the Ranney well. Staff is proposing Amendment 1 to the Layne Christensen, Inc., Professional Service Agreement to continue to evaluate the performance of the Ranney well in order to monitor is performance over time. Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to the professional services agreement with Layne Christensen, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio in an amount not to exceed $21,130, which will increase the contract amount to $71,130.00, and to make minor modifications to the agreement, if necessary. Background/Analysis: The City's primary drinking water source comes from a sixty (60) foot deep Ranney well, located next to the Elwha River, originally designed to be capable of delivering 11.1 million gallons per day (mgd) of raw water. As a result of deconstruction of the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams, sediment that was stored behind the dams is currently washing down the river and re- depositing within the river's channel throughout its length. The deposition of sediment in the vicinity of the Ranney well has the potential to impact its productivity and service life and restrict the recharge of river water into the aquifer that the Ranney well relies on. In addition, the movement of the river bed over time could also impact the productivity of the well As a result of an agreement signed on September 16, 2013, the National Park Service (NPS) agreed to pay for an initial contract with Layne Christensen, Inc. (Layne) to evaluate the Ranney well, in a not - to -exceed amount of $56,000. The initial contract was awarded with Layne for $50,000. Layne completed their evaluation and submitted the final report on December 13, 2013. This evaluation included a review of operational data for the Ranney well, installation of two (2) observation wells to facilitate the measurement of water levels within the aquifer, and performance testing of the Ranney well. Performance testing of the Ranney well indicated that the well is operating relatively efficiently and the lateral screens are not significantly clogged. The well appears to be producing most of the water available and any redevelopment efforts would not result in a substantial increase in production at this time. N:TCOUNCILTINAURanney Well Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. I .docx E -39 February 18, 2014 City Council Re: Ranney Well Professional Services Agreement Amendment No. 1 Page 2 In addition to the minor loss in well efficiency since the well was installed, the well has been impacted by river migration, river channel sedimentation and interference from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (F&W) wells. The Ranney well is currently estimated to be capable of producing about 6.7 mgd on a continual basis, while maintaining water levels above the low water cut off point. The migration of the main river channel to the far side of the valley has effectively moved the recharge source farther from the well resulting in decreased yields due to the additional drawdown caused by the increased time to reach stabilization. Present impacts in the river channel related to sedimentation appear to be the accumulation of material that 1) prevents water from flowing through the side and sub channels adjacent to the Ranney well and that 2) increases the thickness and changes the character of streambed materials. This increase in thickness and changed character probably causes reduced streambed leakance (recharge) resulting in more drawdown in the collector well and less capacity. The degree to which this sediment has impacted the performance of the Ranney well to date is difficult to quantify, given the limited data set prior to dam removal activities. To more thoroughly evaluate sedimentation impacts, it would have been necessary to develop a longer baseline period and survey prior to dam removal to allow future comparisons. The recent evaluation funded by the NPS has provided a valuable baseline for the Ranney well to compare future results to as the sediment stored behind the dams continues to wash down the Elwha River valley and be re -deposited along its length, and the river bed location possibly changes. In order to continue to record water level trends within the aquifer over the course of dam removal and the sediment impact period, Layne recommended that water level recorders be installed on the two observation wells and a direct read graduated staff gauge be installed at the upstream concrete intake structure. They also recommended that a 24 to 48 hour constant rate pump test of the Ranney well be conducted at a lower rate to observe the drawdown trend at the end of the test and better define the current capacity of the well and that similar performance testing to that recently completed (excluding the underwater inspection) be conducted every six months for a period of one year and annually thereafter, while the sediment from behind the removed dams continues to wash down the Elwha River. This additional testing will allow the performance trend of the Ranney well to be determined from the initial baseline testing that has already occurred. To accomplish this, Layne Christensen, Inc., will be assisted by the City's Water Utility crew to perform this work. The tasks for this amendment are summarized in the table below: Table 1: Task and Amounts Tasks Budget Task 4 - Installation of Monitoring of Level Recorders in Observation Wells 1-13 and 2-13 and Gauge. $6,390 Task 5- 24 to 48 Hour Constant -Rate Test of the Collector Well $14,740 Total $21,130 Funding for the proposed amendment is available from the 2014 Water Utility fund in the amount of $25,000. It is recommended that City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to the professional services agreement with Layne Christensen, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio in an amount not to exceed $21,130, which will increase the contract amount to $71,130.00, and to make minor modifications to the agreement, if necessary. E - 40 NGELES DATE: February 18, 2014 To: City Council FROM: TERRY GALLAGHER, CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF KATHLEEN GRAF TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD Synopsis: The Public Safety Advisory Board (PSAB) is a group of citizen volunteers that provide valuable input to both the police and fire chiefs in respect to law enforcement or fire service actions and programs within the community. Currently the PSAB has a vacant position. Kathleen Graf has applied to fill that position and has been interviewed by a subcommittee of the PSAB. Subsequent to that interview the PSAB has endorsed her application and looks forward to Ms. Graf assuming a position on the Board. Recommendation: Appoint Ms. Kathleen Graf to fill the vacant Public Safety Advisory Board position. The Public Safety Advisory Board is composed of citizen volunteers representing different areas of the community that provide valuable counsel to both the police and fire chiefs in respect to the operation of the departments. Currently the PSAB has one opening. The fact that there is an opening on the Board was advertised and applications were solicited from the community. Ms. Kathleen Graf made application to the Board and was interviewed by sitting Board members. His application was met with enthusiastic approval by the interview panel. The Public Safety Advisory Board unanimously recommends that the City Council approve Ms. Kathleen Graf's application to the Board. Ms. Graf has owned and operated her own business since 1966 and is involved with other volunteer efforts within the community. Her husband, Dr. Dennis Wilcox DVM, was a long-time member of the PSAB. Dr. Wilcox recently passed away and it is Ms. Graf s desire to fill the balance of Dr. Wilcox's term, which expires February 29, 2016. E-41 PQRTANGELES WASHINGTON, U.S.A. FEB12 20M el -TT -OF POPT ANGELES CITY C.LF-nK APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE Board, Commission or Committee to which you are seeking appointment: Applicant Name and General Information cz� . GZ4-C First MI Last W2,1 PC- I QIP LUvV '�&&P Home Street Address Poor & City State Zip Home phone yWork phone Cell phone W O j i _.__. I V C � �.� ` C6 t -,A 1��� � i �_t� � �`r G � o�?s�--c K(C e.. Date of Birth (to be completed only by applicants for Public Safety Advisory Board for purposes of criminal history check to ensure compliance with Port Angeles Municipal Code 2.26.020) Certification and Location Information. (circle one) Are you employed by the City of Port Angeles? Yes Are you a citizen of the United States? Ye No Are you a Registered Voter? (qe� No Are you a City resident? Yes No') If so, how long al c Yro'vK � 1 t 1 Do you own/manage a business in the City? es No Do you hold any professional licenses, registrations or certificates in any field.? Yes No If so, please list:4 1- ,� e� 1 =may: Are you aware of any conflict of interest which might arise by your service on a City Board or Commission? If so, please explain: Work or Professional, Experience - List most recent experience first, or attach a resume -+ts°a @-4 G 1 M _ �o Employer 00 04 1 QA -V 1 Title -s7 tvh-L From (M(Y) To (M/Y) Brief job description Employer Title From (MY) To (M/Y) Brief job description Employer Title From (M/Y) To (M/Y) Brief job description Education - List most recent experience first �JLLL=Cve �,t �� A��`� �6.).�eNST Ye° No Institution/Location Degree earned/Major area of study Graduated? Institution/Location Degree earned/�M�ajor area of study h�tl,ue9 �ltt�Tt,tGtCSlty� L b2tdrCC-S> Institution/Location Degree earned/Major area of sturdy Charitable, Social and Civic Activities and Memberships - List major activities you have participated in during the last five years JDt auV, — t1 i7 ti G� 4c.k oeCfi -tom ' r Organization/Location Group's purpose/objective # of members Brief description of your participation: LA-- z c"J,c2 [`)a -W1 97 UVG L)Cb i 1LG�C C�i J� 6. UCS 9� UV -X '. �.-`1 ►y�r� 'f1��� l.=,tr�wiL1t�. ��.�c.�;�art.C�, ��'�� l�'��� Organization/Location Group's purpose/objective # of members Brief description of your participation: J� `j e1) - Z-3 r 2 E - 43 Questions Why are you interested u -i serving on this particular Board or Commission? YL*Va'�, What in your background or experience do you think would help you in serving on this Board? 'R SNoy� ��`����t7 �iWl,l�`_i��fC?i/u�k 6"1V ��....— ��l & 1���.P What is your understanding of the responsibilities of this particular Board or Commission? Please feel free to add any additional comments you wish to make regarding your application. Signature OrLI,U�,-5Q �Lt� Ifj1� i� � c C0)( Date Submit completed forms to: OFFICE OF TRE CITY MANAGER TERESA PIERCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 360-417-4630 or tpierce@cityofpa.us City of Port Angeles 321 E. 5' Street PO BOX 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special accommodations because of a physical limitation, please contact the City Manager's Office at 417.4500 so appropriate arrangements can be made. E - 44 FIREARMS TRAINING SIGSALIER ACADEMY 101 Hand Gun Orientation —Basic Firearms Safety Course for Handgun Owners —Todd Horn 102 Basic Practical Pistol Skills—Todd Horn Low Light Pistor Operator— Chris Cavallaro Concealed Carry Pistol — Todd Horn Close Quarter Pistol Operator 556 Operator Course — Todd Horn Reflexive Shooting—Scott Herringson Bullets and Bandages — Kerry Davis Bullets and Vehicles— Kerry Davis Executive Protection Operations —Tim Arnold Civilian Response to Terrorist Attacks —Todd Rassa Force -On -Force Response to the Active Shooter for the Concerned Citizen — Todd Rassa Civilian Response to Terrorist Attacks — Force -on -Force — Todd Rassa Preparation for Social Collapse — Todd Rassa Advance Social Collapse —Todd Rassa GUNSITE ACADEMY Precision Rifle 7 — Corry THE FIREARMS ACADMENY OF SEATTLE, INC Weeklong Handgun — Marty Hayes C91iLem [@LJ University of Arizona — Bachelor of Science l q & 5 License Massage Practitioner- Peninsula College 191R Certified in Craniosacral — Milne Institute, Big Sur, CA ;ZOO Certified in Medical Chi Gang —China 1ccI% Certified Nutritional Therapist (now a Nutritional Therapist Practitioner) Amb LifeStyle Educator— Metagenics Inc. E - 45 GELES DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Craig Fulton, P.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Renewal of Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) Software License Summary: In 2009, the City approved a 5 -year software licensing agreement with Azteca Systems, Inc., for CMMS software (also known as "City Works"). The agreement recently expired. A one year license renewal has been offered at the same annual cost as the previous 5 years. Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase order for a one year license renewal with Azteca Systems, Inc., for CMMS software, in an amount not to exceed $27,100. Background/Analysis: On January 20, 2009, the City approved a 5 -year software licensing agreement with Azteca Systems, Inc., for CMMS software, also known as "City Works". The agreement recently expired. Due to rapid changes in the software market, the vendor elected to offer the City an annual software renewal, at the same price, instead of a long-term agreement. Funding is available in the Water Utility budget. "City Works" provides comprehensive public asset and work management solutions for utility infrastructure. This system is central to the Water Division's ability to leverage the existing GIS environment currently in use and provides the Water Utility with an efficient tool to manage facility and equipment infrastructure, resources, operations, maintenance work, and permit activities for the Port Angeles Water Treatment Plant (PAWTP). The CMMS is also used to manage preventive maintenance, maintenance/repair activities, preserving the work and asset history of the plant, and interacts directly with the plant's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system (SCADA) to issue work orders. Based on the positive results of using the CMMS in the PAWTP and its excellent potential of being used in other Public Works & Utilities operations, it is recommended the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to sign a purchase order for the CMMS annual license renewal with Azteca Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $27,100. N:TCOUNCILTINALTMMS Software License Renewal.docx E -46 RIT NGELES WASH ING TO N, CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: NATHAN A. WEST, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: WASHINGTON TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM GRANT ACCEPTANCE Summary: Acceptance of funds for the Waterfront Transportation Improvement Program. Recommendation: Council should move to authorize the City Manager to sign necessary agreements accepting the grant. Background: The City has received a grant in the amount of $189,972 from the Washington Transportation Alternative Program in support of the Waterfront Transportation Improvement Project (WTIP). The funds will be used for development of the Phase 11 of the WTIP project in development of the West End Park phase of the project. There is no minimum match requirement for the grant, however, funds previously authorized by Council towards the project were beneficial to the favorable consideration of the grant selection committee. Council should move to accept the grant and authorize the City Manager to sign necessary agreements. E -47 DATE: February 18, 2014 To: City Council FROM: Craig Fulton, P. E., Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Utility Advisory Committee (UAC) / Appoint Citizen -At -Large and Industrial Transmission Representatives Summary: The four-year term of service appointments for the Utility Advisory Committee's two Citizen -At -Large and one Industrial Transmission Representatives ends on February 28, 2014. Applications were solicited and received, and applicants for the Citizen -At -Large Representatives were interviewed by the City Councilmembers on the Utility Advisory Committee on February 1 lfh Recommendation: Effective March 1, 2014, appoint Ms. Lynn Bedford, PhD and Ms. Elizabeth "Betsy" Wharton as the Citizen -At -Large Representatives and Mr. Paul Elliott as the Industrial Transmission Representative to the Utility Advisory Committee to fill the new term until February 28, 2018. Background/Analysis: The four-year term of service appointments for the Utility Advisory Committee's two Citizen -At -Large and one Industrial Transmission Representatives ends on February 28, 2014. The City Manager's office sought applicants for the open Citizen -At -Large Representative positions. Two applications were received. In accordance with the City Council Rules of Procedure, the City Councilmembers assigned to the Utility Advisory Committee reviewed applications and interviewed the candidates in open session during a special UAC meeting on February 11, 2014. The Utility Advisory Committee recommends the City Council appoint Ms. Lynn Bedford, PhD and Ms. Elizabeth "Betsy" Wharton as the Citizen -At -Large Representatives and Mr. Paul Elliott as the Industrial Transmission Representative, to fill the new term until February 28, 2018. The appointment will become effective on March 1, 2014. N:ACCOUNCIL\FINAL\UAC Representaive Appointments.docx E -48 PQRTA19GELEI I 1 1� � � I � 11 � � 11111111111 Board, Commission or Committee to which you are seeking appointment: Utility Advisory Comm.ittee (UAC) Applicant Name and General Information Lynn B,edford First MI, Last 1!4111�MAVAMM Horne Street Address WA 9!8363 city state Zip 0) 1 T- 8N� -2208 ---LqL (360)460 1 Ionic phone Work phone Cell phone LynnBeqt q_ ........ . . ..... . ........ . .... .............. . .. E-mail address Date of Birth (to be completed only by applicants for Public Safety Advisory Board for purposes of criminal history check to ensure, compliance with Port Angeles Municipal Code 2.26.020) Certification and Location Information (circle one) Are YOU employed by the City of Port Angeles,? Yes 6�0 Are you a citizen of the United States,? No Are You a City resident'? (VL -1s No Ifso, how long . ......... . ..... . ..... . Do you own/manage a business, in the City? Yes Do you hold any professional licenses, registrations or certificates in any field? � (e�) No If so, please list-,.,, Liscensed Real Estate Broker E - 49 Are you aware of any conflict of interest which might arise by your service on a City Board or Commission? If so, please explain: No or or Professional 'Experience - List most recent experience first, or attach a resume Coldwell BankerJ)p Broker April 2013 present Employer Title From (M/'Y) To (M/Y) Realtor Brief job description -Anotigs QQrnP-.Q J.glqqhmiggLq5,.Ip_q__,,jndust.ri.aI E in January 2011 March 2013 �eer Employer Title From (M/Y') To (M/'Y) ManufacturiM efficiengy,_traini ... ... ..... M Brief job description Bonneville Power Administration 990 iioyer Title From (M/Y) To (M/Y) -.Liason to wholesale power customers for power sales, transmission, billing, Tq_contractual matters Brief job description Education - List most recent experience first ,pniversit of Nebraska - Lincoln PhD - Structural EqqLneer -,,—,Yes-,-o Institution/Location Degree earned/Major area of study Graduated? University of Nebraska - Lincoln Masters, - Structural EpgL'npqppg. Yes No Institution/Location Degree earned/Major area of study Graduated? _UpLiyersity of Portland, OR BS - Civil Err gineeriqg_,_,,,,,,_ No.,,,.__ --- I nstitution/Locat ion earned/Major eaed/Major area of study Graduated? Charitable, Social and Civic Activities and Memberships - List major activities you have participated in during the last five years Port Angeles Education Foundation PA School District 20, Organ ization/Location Group's purpose/oi��cti-ve of members Policy Review Committee Port Angeles School Dist. —10 Organi zation/LZI, �Jon—----Croup's purpose/objective "--- . ........... — 9 of members 111TVITille III! 10��� 2 E-50 Why are you interested in serving on this particular Board or Corninission? I'm i�nteresited in serving Wqommuni�and �Ihave skills and" abilities, that I believe would allow me to have meaningfgtqpnt (i,bution to this committee . . .......................... . . . ... ....... - Please fee:] free to add any additional coninients you wish to make regarding your application. G licant Signature U Date Submit completed or to: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER TERESA PIERCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 360-417-46 O or tpierce@cityofpa,us City of Port Angeles 321 E. 5"' Street PO Box H 50 Port Angeles, WA 98362 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special accommodations because of physical limiLition, please contact the City Manager's Office at 417.4500 so appropriate arrangements can be made. E-51 PQRT9GEL]EI WAS H 1 N G T O N, U.S.A. APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE cion. or Committee to which you are seeking appointment: Applicant Name and General Information An le t=�e_ First Ml Last Home Street Address City State zip 0 -7T 20Y Home phone Work phone Cell phone Akt E-mail address Date of Birth (to be completed only by applicants for Public Safety Advisory Board for purposes of criminal history check to ensure compliance with Port Angeles Municipal Code 2.26.020) Certification and Location Information (circle one) Are you employed by the City of Port Angeles? Yes ldo Are you a citizen of the United States?'es) No Are you a Registered Voter? No Are you a City resident? Yes' No if so, hove long— Do you ownlmanage a business in the City? Yes 1 Do you hold any professional licenses, registrations or certificates in any field? Yes �d3 If so, please list: E-52 Are you aware of any conflict of interest which might arise by your service on a City Board or COnnn4sion? If.so, please explain: It 4t,-' r 1711 nx O ftv w , Work or Professional Experience - List most recent experience first, or attach a resume Employer Title 1-4W1From (WY) To (M/Y) Brief job description (41 /41-A1,W1 a �W Y2c Employer Title �>' _ From (M/Y) To (M/Y) - Brief job description yy�� ) /y �/} A-� j y y/ f�� y j ? q Jy����j�j/Sayyy3e} � � i ir�V.f✓} �f% /4/ { .+�V'Y /6��I'i `'/L / GN` "'fs' p •'Y7 '^ • ` G.0 Employer Title ,From (M/Y) to (M/Y) Brief job description Education - List most recent experience first Institution/Location Degree earned/Major area of study hlstitution/Location Degree earned/Major area of study Institution/Location Degree earned/Major area of study Graduated? Graduated? Charitable, Social and Civic Activities and Memberships - List major activities you have participated in during the last five years Organization/Location Group's purpose/objective # of members Brief description of your participation: ' 7e "-f. L _ - .� Z AX - Organization/Location Group's purpose/objective # of members Brief description of your participation: 2 E-53 Questions Why are you interested in serving on this particular Board or Commission? Whit in your background or experience do ou think would 1 1 you in serving on this Board? K� /> a �'1A ✓rift" 1. Zvi A/h/'1W 4/ 1A11- � ' Zee-` ,�WF 7_,7 7A�° What is your understanding of the responsibilities of this particular Board or Commission? Please feel free to add any additional comments you wish to make regarding your application. Applicant Signature Submit completed forms to OFFICE OFTHE CITY MANAGER TERESA PIERCE, DuPUTY CITY CLERK 360-417-4630 or tpierce@cityofpa.us City of Pott Angeles 321 E. 5`1' Street PO Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362 1/27 20r�: Date In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special accommodations because of a physical limitation, please contact the City Manager's Office at 417.4500 so appropriate arrangements can be made. 3 E-54 ReceIVr0 FR 6 2014 MAR 1 6 RECD WASH IN GTO N, U. S. A. a C?q oa CITY C31= PORT ANUF_LES City of POtt _.._CITY CLERK_ Angeles APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE Board, Commission or Committee to which you are seeking appointment: Applicant Name and General Information. 5 6, 3� First MIS X2-1) -7 <3 sk Home Street Address city /_ D Ratfe-phM e 62. V14 V -) air f &11-,) Wil State Ww4trl+wxle . CZ ►',tel E-mail address Date of Birth (to be completed only by applicants for Public Safety Advisory Board for purposes of criminal history check to ensure compliance with Port Angeles Municipal Code 2.26.020) Last J2— Zip Certification and Location Information (circle one) Are you employed by the City of Port Angeles? Are you a citizen of the United States? Are you a City resident? If so, how Iona f I Do you own/maI.n CD c go business in the GityIQy -ylm yl Da you hold an rofessio �s� registrations or certificates in�ayfield? Y YP � g If so, please list: 1 Yes No Ye No Ye No E - 55 Are you aware of any conflict of interest which might arise by your service on a City Board or Commission? If so, please explain: VA � Work Experience - List most recent experience first, or attach a resume Employ r10 Title From (M/Y) To (M/Y) Brief jo-b descri tioiz,-�) ' Employer TitleFrom (M/Y) To ►D 12-0 f 0 -- /,01V Brief iob diption rl 2 -ON, u / Z._,1 (M/Y) To (M/Y) Brief job description Education - List most recent experience first AYM—M4 _Q i,- S/ Yes o Institutio cat on Degree earned/Maj orp�area of study ated? C\S� vI •� T� �tecl? Institution/Location Degree earned/Major area of stud. Yes No Institution/Location Degree earned/Major area of study Graduated? Charitable, Social and Civic Activities and Memberships - List major activities you have participated in during the last five years e �yv �4 Organization/Location Group's purpose/objective # of members Brief description of your participation: �98� C &a4Yt!1Q11.[) eA 0+� Organization/Location Brief description of your participation: Group's purpose/objective 2 # of members E - 56 go Questions Why are you interested in serving on this particular Board o/r' Commission? �g s What in your background or experience do you think would help you in serving on. this Board? What is your understanding of the responsibilities of this particular Board or Commission? Please feel free to add any additional comments you wish to make regarding your application. 3Vr � Applicant ftnature // Date Submit completed forms to; OFFICE, OF Tim, CITY NTANAGER City of Port Angeles 321 E. 5t" Street PO Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special accommodations because of a physical limitation, please contact the City Manager's Office at 417.4500 so appropriate arrangements can be made. 3 E - 57 f IES COUNCIL DATE: February 18, 2014 To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Craig Fulton, P.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: 81h & Francis Sewer Trestle Repair & Retrofit Project, WW05-06, with Coultas General Contracting — Change Order 3 Approval Summary: Coultas General Contracting of Poulsbo, WA was contracted to perform the construction contract for the Sewer Trestle Repair and Retrofit, Project WW05-06. One change order to this contract requires Council approval. Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager to sign Change Order 3 to the construction contract with Coultas General Contracting for the 8th & Francis Sewer Trestle Repair and Retrofit Project, WW05-06, in the total amount of $26,109.15 for a revised total contract price of $229,955.88, and to make minor modifications to the change order, if necessary. Background/Analysis: The Sewer Trestle Repair and Retrofit, Project WW05-06, includes repairs to the existing sewer trestle, improvement of the existing sewer line carried by the trestle, and replacement of the existing sewer manholes located at 8th and Francis St. and at 9th and Francis St. The trestle that crosses Peabody Creek ravine, carries a 21 inch diameter corrugated metal gravity sewer main that extends from a manhole located at 8th and Francis St. to the manhole located at 9th and Francis St. The pipe provides sewer collection conveyance from the entire area south of Lauridsen Boulevard between Cherry Street and Francis Street. An engineering evaluation of the trestle identified structural repairs that needed to be made in order to withstand seismic loads. In addition, the evaluation recommended that the corrugated metal pipe (CMP) sewer be replaced or relined. The existing attachment of the pipe to the trestle was inadequate and the CMP was not lined or fitted within a sleeve; the pipe was about 40 years old and exposed to the elements. A contract was awarded on July 16, 2013 to Coultas General Contracting in the amount of $184,940.16 to perform the repairs. During the course of construction, additional work was determined to be necessary to make a complete and useable project. Change order 3 requires Council authorization because it exceeds the City Manager's authorization level of 15% of the original contract value based on the total of all change orders. The following is a summary of the change order: Change Order No. 3 — Additional seating channels were fabricated into the longitudinal struts that support the new sewer force main in order to provide a stronger connection to the seismic diaphragm (stanchions) that are part of the trestle at the bents. The alteration was necessary to accommodate the tight space requirement for the sewer pipe and to ensure the N:ACCOUNCIL\FINAL\8th & Francis Sewer Trestle Change Order Approval.docx E -58 February 18, 2014 Re: WW05-06 8h & Francis Sewer Trestle Repair and Retrofit Page 2 seismic integrity of the system. In addition, there were a number of additional timbers that required relocation to the exterior of the seismic diaphragm. The work was tracked on a time and materials basis. The final negotiated cost for this work was $26,109.15, including applicable taxes and markups. It is recommended that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to sign Change Order 3 to the construction contract with Coultas General Contracting for the 8th & Francis Sewer Trestle Repair and Retrofit Project, WW05-06, in the total amount of $26,109.15 for a revised total contract price of $229,955.88, and to make minor modifications to the change order, if necessary. E - 59 .70RT COUNCIL DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: CITY COUNCIL NGELES FROM: NATHAN A. WEST, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: REZONE APPLICATION -REZ 13-01 GREEN CROW PROPERTIES - PORTER STREET Summary: Consideration of an application to rezone an approximately 1.56 acre property from RS -9 Residential Single Family to RMD Residential Medium Density. Recommendation: Following Council's review of the public record created at the Planning Commission's January 22, 2014, public hearing, Council should conduct a first reading of the attached draft ordinance in support of a rezone from Residential Single Family to Residential Medium Density citing the 14 findings and 6 conclusions identified as Exhibit "A" to the attached ordinance. Background: In accordance with the Port Angeles Municipal Code a site specific rezone is considered a quasi-judicial matter. Section 18.02 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code specifies that no more than one open record public hearing shall be conducted on such applications. As a result of this requirement, Council is conducting a quasi-judicial proceeding on the closed record created through the open record public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014. An excerpt of the Planning Commission's minutes (Attachment B) and staff's report (Attachment C) are attached to this memorandum for your information. The quasi-judicial process is intended to result in a fair and impartial decision. As such, communications outside of a public hearing are not permitted. Process details were sent to interested parties and Council members on January 7 and February 4, 2014. To refresh and orient Council members as to quasi judicial process, City Manager Dan McKeen sent an e-mail to Council members on January 9th. Copies of those communications are also attached to this memorandum (Attachment D). Any ex parte communications should be disclosed as part of the quasi-judicial qualification prior to consideration of the application. Community & Economic Development staff received a complete application to rezone property owned by Green Crow Properties from Residential Single Family to RHD Residential High Density in December 2013. During the course of review, staff concluded that they could not support a rezone to the RHD Residential High Density for the reasons in the attached staff report. F-1 City Council Memo —February 18, 2014 Green Crow Rezone — REZ 14-01 Page 2 In discussion with the applicant, staff determined that the applicant's intent is a density consistent with the Residential Medium Density zone rather than the Residential High Density zone. Because property in the area designated to be Residential Medium Density on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map has been developed as Single Family Residential, staff could support a rezone to Residential Medium Density to ensure an adequate amount of RMD inventory. As discussed in the attached staff report, the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map directs development in the City of Port Angeles. All land use development decisions must be supported by the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. Although some properties have not been rezoned to the land use designation depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, zoning consistent with the Land Use Map is anticipated. This process is further explained in the attached staff report that was available to the public during the public hearing. During the public hearing, neighborhood residents expressed concern that a rezone of the subject property to multi family would result in an increase in traffic along neighboring streets - both Porter Street and Eckard Avenue. Information was provided during the public hearing explaining that any development of the subject property would result in some improvement to Porter Street, whether it be for single-family or multiple -family use at the time of development. Given compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map and available utilities in the area, staff recommended, and the Planning Commission concurred by a 3 — 2 vote, to forward a recommendation of approval of a rezone to Residential Medium Density for the approximately 1.56 acre property. The recommendation is supported by the findings, and conclusions listed in the Planning Commission's attached Minutes excerpt. Staff suggests that Council adopt an additional Finding and an additional Conclusion in taking final action on this item. The additional Finding (14) and Conclusion (F) are identified in Exhibit "A" to the attached draft ordinance. Finding 14 identifies the public process and Conclusion F is intended to follow through in support of Conclusion B. Staff will be available for questions. Attachments: Attachment A - Ordinance, findings, and conclusions Attachment B -Planning Commission minutes excerpt Attachment C -Staff Report Attachment D -Public hearing information F-2 COUNCIL ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington, rezoning approximately 1.56 acres from RS -9 Residential Single Family to RMD Residential Medium Density. WHEREAS, the City received an application to rezone approximately 1.56 acres from RS -9 Residential Single Family to RHD Residential High Density; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2014 and the Planning Commission recommended rezoning 1.56 acres from RS -9 Residential Single Family to RMD Residential Medium Density; described in the attached Exhibit A and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council approval of the rezone application; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW) have been met; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after conducting a public hearing and considering the Planning Commission's recommendation, finds that there have been changes in circumstances since the current zoning of the property was adopted and that the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the City and its citizens and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DO HEREBY ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. The Findings and Conclusions marked Exhibit A and attached are hereby adopted and entered. F-3 Section 2. The Official Zoning Map, Ordinance 2801 as amended, is hereby amended to change the zoning of that property described in Exhibit A from RS -9 Residential Single Family to RMD Residential Medium Density. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to attach a copy of this Ordinance to the Official Zoning Map and to file certified copies with the Clallam County Auditor and Clallam County Assessor. Section 4 -Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect five days following the date of its publication by summary. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of February, 2014. ATTEST: Janessa Hurd, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: William E. Bloor, City Attorney PUBLISHED:, 2014 By Summary H:\a ORD INANCES&RESOLUTIONS\2006-10.BradowRezone.032806.wpd February 13, 2014 -2 Dan DiGullio,MAY0R F-4 Exhibit A FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF REZONE REZ 13-01 GREEN CROW PROPERTIES Findings An application for rezone of a 1.56 acre parcel from Residential Single Family RS -9 to Residential High Density (RHD) was received by the City of Port Angeles Department of Community & Economic Development on December 9, 2013, from Green Crow Properties. Green Crow Properties is the owner of the subject property. The application was deemed to be complete on December 11, 2013. 2. The subject general vicinity is largely developed with low density residential uses south of Park Avenue and west of Porter Street. Properties located east of Porter Street and north of Campbell Avenue are partially built out with a mix of multi -family and single family uses. 3. The site is located in the Mount Angeles Neighborhood which is in the City's East Planning Area on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The entire City Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were reviewed with respect to the proposal. The following elements, goals, and policies were found to be most relevant to the proposal: Growth Management Element Goal A, Policy l; Land Use Element Map Goal A, policy 2; Goal B, Policies 1,3, & 4; Goal C, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4. These references are attached as Attachment B to the January 22, 2014 staff report. 5. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides an expected framework for land use decisions within the City. The zoning of any property must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that illustrates where certain classifications of uses may occur within the City. 6. Changes to the City's Zoning Map must be in the public interest and must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map in accordance with Section 17.03.020 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. 7. The subject property is identified on the City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as being mostly in an imprecise margin area between the High Density Residential (HDR) designation (to the north), Medium Density Residential (MDR) (to the south and east), and Low Density Residential (LDR) (to the west). A small area of the site (18%) is located within the HDR designation. 8. Much of the land designated for medium density residential (MDR) use in the vicinity has been developed at single family residential low density standards, leaving little MDR land available for medium density development. 9. Approximately 17.3 acres of land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood is zoned as Residential High Density. Of that land zoned RHD, 8.5 acres or 49% remains undeveloped. Approximately 13 acres of land is zoned as RMD in the Mount Angeles neighborhood. Of that land zoned RMD, 3.5 acres or 29% remains undeveloped. Based on this analysis, there is a greater need for RMD zoned land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood than the need for RHD zoned land. 10. The subject site is located between existing RHD zoned areas and RS -9 zoned areas. The Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Element, Goal C, Policy 4) indicates that RMD zoning is appropriate to use as a transition between different land uses. 11. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non -Significance on January 21, 2014. This satisfies the City's State Environmental Policy Act review. Future development actions will require individual review dependent on the action. F-5 12. Notice of the rezone application was placed in the Peninsula Daily News on December 15, 2013. Surrounding property owners were notified by mail on December 13, 2013. The site was posted on December 11, 2013. Written comment was taken on the proposal until December 30, 2013. Several comment letters in opposition to the proposal were received from neighbors as a result of the legal notification and site posting. 13. Several comment letters were received from surrounding property owners indicating that they do not believe high density development is appropriate for the area. Loss of neighborhood character and adverse traffic impacts were the most commonly cited reasons for the objections. 14. Per Section 18.02.070 PAMC, only one open record public hearing was conducted on this matter. The City Council considered the closed public record on February 18, 2014. Conclusions: A. Other properties exist within the general neighborhood that are currently zoned RHD. There is not a lack of available property zoned for high density residential development in the general area. As such, the proposal appears to serve a single private interest. No supporting documentation was submitted to indicate a need for additional high density residential zoning in the City or in this particular neighborhood. B. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates that most of the site is located between three land use designations in an imprecise margin. Only the northeast portion of the subject property, comprising 18% of the site, is designated High Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. The majority of nearby lands are designated as MDR Medium Density Residential. Information was not presented indicating a need to extend the High Density Residential (HDR) designation to encompass the subject property. C. Development trends in the area and in the City do not indicate a recognized need for higher density housing. Such a need would have to be documented in order to approve the proposed rezone. Currently, the rezone is inconsistent with the growth and population trends of the City of Port Angeles. D. Rezoning the property to Residential Medium Density meets the land use needs of the city and neighborhood, reduces expected neighborhood impacts, and continues the established urban design of the area. E. Rezoning of the site to RMD Residential Medium Density rather than RHD Residential High Density would not reduce the allowed density below the proposed number of units that are indicated in the application materials as being anticipated for development on the site provided in the rezone proposal. F. A rezone to RMD Residential Medium Density is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and allows the provision of land to be developed to serve multiple family housing needs. Adopted by the Port Angeles City Council at its meeting of 2014. Dan DiGuilio, Mayor Janessa Hurd, City Clerk F-6 a�6 kid Alt n gh�� d et FC e S i ■ 4 Q 0 '^ 3 C ^ W Q 4 Z W NtNOII L4 - am sw y `� " '✓ 19 � N Z 10Y�S! M ,gL4""0 S h I �V. 33 3 3 r 3 3 3 dY � ab?J 's �K < s � W�� I r s.D xr' Sh. �i'IQe NG N r+ R i6 � ggg5g 14�� ac GS ®3 F 8 a�• �y 5` `ix d a ry > i Otnsl 's aro,l ;b .Bet]Rl lf 3 I l GG < sae fie s��"n eulAzcc�izl=Bassi F-7 9 i 0.9 Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2014 Page 2 COUNCIL MEMO ATTACHMENT B JANUARY 22, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES EXCERPT: PUBLIC HEARING: Chair Boyle read the qualifying questions for quasi judicial proceedings to the Commissioners. All Commissioners responded that they had no Appearance of Fairness issues to report. No objections were noted from any member of the audience. REZONE APPLICATION — REZ 13-01— GREEN CROW, Campbell Avenue/Porter Street: Proposal to rezone approximately 1.56 acres from RS -9 Residential Single Family to RHD Residential High Density. Associate Planner Scott Johns reviewed and summarized the staff report recommending rezone of the subject property to RMD Residential Medium Density rather than RHD Residential High Density as proposed by the application. He explained that during analysis of the rezone application, staff determined that a rezone to High Density could not be supported. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of the property, a land inventory, character of the streets serving the site, and available services would support a recommendation to Medium Density. Staff noted these issues to the applicant who agreed that Medium Density would be more appropriate for the site. A January 22, 2014, letter from Green Crow is included regarding this matter. As a result, staff is recommending a revised Finding 9 to the original staff report and a new Conclusion E in support of a recommendation to RMD Residential Medium Density. Commissioner Morris asked several questions relative to the basis for zoning as shown on the "` "' C6mpr'ehensive` P1ari `L d U§&"' He "as {e "—f& cla""r"'i kation a"s to °t `" &-"' i erericel5etwe, n RHD and RMD zoning densities. Mr. Johns explained that the Comprehensive Plan is the primary guide for planning in the City with imprecise margins between land use designations allowing for flexibility relative to specific boundaries. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map allows morphing between an intended land use designation to another depending on specific circumstances outlined in the Comprehensive Plan document. All of the property south and east of the subject property is designated to be MDR Medium Density Residential but has not been developed to MDR densities by the property owner, to date. Much of the property in the area designated for medium density development has developed as single family such that the expected increased density for the area has not, and cannot now be achieved. Chair Boyle opened the public hearing. Nathan West, Director, City of Port Angeles Community & Economic Development, noted for the audience that this will be the only public hearing for this item. There will not be a public hearing before the City Council. Bruce Emery, Green Crow Properties, 724 East 8th Street noted that his employer owns abutting properties to the east and south and it is not in the best interest of those they have sold properties to thus far, nor future purchasers, to overdevelop the subject property. They have a F-8 Planning Commission Minutes COUNCIL MEMO ATTACHMENT B January 22, 2014 Page 3 good deal more property to develop and they wish to be good neighbors. They agreed with staff s recommendation to increase density only to medium density rather than high density given the neighborhood sentiment, to protect the developing area, and established neighborhood. One reason for requesting an upzone to high density was because the property immediately abuts a high density use along Campbell Avenue and another is because a portion of the property is designated High Density Residential. When he originally applied for the rezone, he mistakenly reviewed the RMD Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance thinking the action would result in a density of some 19 units. They would agree to a RMD designation if approved. He agreed that the RHD density would allow some 60 units, which would not be appropriate for the area. So he agreed that from a density perspective, the RMD designation would result in a more reasonable medium density for the area. The highest desired density is 22 units. Looking at 4 or 6 plex cottage units, a max build out would be 19. Eckard Avenue is not pedestrian or traffic friendly. Green Crow owns a good deal of property in the area adjacent to the subject property. In developing property along Campbell Avenue to a high density use several years ago, Green Crow an internal street was planned to access from Campbell to, within, and through the Green Crow property that was approved for a planned residential development. The subject property is part of that larger development. An easement was retained along the eastern portion of the most northwest lot owned by Green Crow within the larger site that could provide an interior access to the subject property rather than from abutting Porter Street. A significant amount of landscaping is required between medium density and single family land uses which should provide a good buffer to the single family neighborhood. Mr. Emery noted that further upgrade to Campbell Avenue may be required when additional development occurs accessing Campbell Avenue from the larger Green Crow property. A medium density development, access from that point may trigger that upgrade. But it is ypossible to access the subject property such that access from Porter Street is not necessary. The RMD--- zoning is a good transition zone between lower density and higher density development. Most importantly, the land use element of the Growth Management Act requires that all development be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. The amended proposed rezone is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Green Crow realizes that the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically identify the entire subject area as being appropriate for RHD zoning and he believes that staff has correctly analyzed the potential provided for the Comprehensive Plan for Medium Density zoning. The Plan actually indicates that more of the area should have been medium density than is developed. Because a large amount of the Green Crow property has developed to single family, that potential no longer exists. The proposal to medium density would establish a medium density development in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. In closing, Green Crow is willing to address concerns and mitigate any negative issues that are foreseen with medium density development. As landowners in the area, they are not interested in imposing negative impacts to the neighborhood. George Kheriaty, 1108 Eckard Avenue thanked the Planning Commission for their service, and thanked Green Crow for being socially responsible, and staff for serving the public. The intersection of Porter and Eckard is extremely narrow being approximately 400 square feet in F-9 Planning Commission Minutes COUNCIL MEMO ATTACHMENT B January 22, 2014 Page 4 area, with the road being 24 feet in developed width. The intersection of Porter Street and Campbell Avenue is considerably larger at some 2,000 square feet in area. There is a wetland in the midst of the Green Crow property with a wet area in the middle of where the proposed access roadway would be. There is substantial water runoff in this area. Every home in the area has significant compaction issues. While he appreciated that the City and developer are trying to do what they can to address long standing water issues, water runs down the street every day. The use of Porter Street as an access point would not be ecologically sound. Access from Campbell Avenue would be great. Mr. Kheriaty acknowledged that people need housing. He strongly believes that access to the proposed site, if developed to a multi family density, should be via a better developed street [than Porter Street] with less impact to existing ecology conditions in the area which in this case would be Campbell Avenue. He responded to questions regarding the surface water issue for his property in the neighborhood. He responded to Commissioner Miller that an alternate access to the subject property would allow him to accept an upzone of the subject property. Andrew Chapman, 1158 Eckard Avenue lives on the corner of Eckard Avenue and Porter Street. The [half] street is a poorly developed street intersection: it is very narrow. He has water runoff in his yard deep enough to support ducks. Multiple family development will bring unacceptable traffic along Eckard and/or Porter Streets. The property owner already has a good deal of property designated for Medium Density development: why is it not developed? Bradley Petersen, 1151 Eckard Avenue has real concerns about access from the subject site to Porter Street. Eckard Avenue is not developed to handle a lot of traffic which is accessed from Mt. Angeles Road. An entrance to the subject property would likely be from Mt. Angeles Road to Eckard Avenue to Porter Street. Eckard Avenue can't support a high volume of traffic: it is "constructed with no li in, - shoul er; it'`s very narrow, and there`d oto children. Paul Stagen, 1119 Eckard Avenue reiterated that residences in the area have standing water underneath. Water concerns in the area are well known. Joshua Bunch, 1111 Eckard Avenue reiterated that Porter Street is not pedestrian or even vehicle friendly. Traffic from Porter Street as a result of the proposal is a big concern. Field Lee, 1127 Eckard Avenue agreed with previous speakers and believes that access should not be permitted from Porter but should be from Campbell Avenue to this site. There are plenty of high density areas for development. Chair Boyle asked if there were additional speakers and noted that this is the only public hearing for this rezone proposal. Commissioner Morris noted that the concerns expressed are not selective to this particular neighborhood, but are common to many neighborhoods. He believes that many of the concerns expressed are those that will be addressed at the time of development. F-10 Planning commission Minutes COUNCIL MEMO ATTACHMENT B January 22, 2014 Page S Planner Johns responded that virtually any development of the subject property will require improvement to the east side of Porter Street which is a substandard street. That street development will result in, at minimum, widening of the roadway abutting the developing property. If the abutting property is developed to a medium density rather than a single family density, that roadway improvement will result in not only widening to the full street width, but will include full amenities - curb, gutter, and stormwater. Even single family development would require improvement but not necessarily curb and sidewalk. He spoke briefly regarding roadway design techniques used to calm traffic patterns. He agreed with the applicant that multiple family development of the neighboring Green Crow property was always intended to access Campbell Avenue, not Porter Street. Trudy Teter, 1103 Eckard Avenue agreed with previous speakers. She noted that other neighborhoods have at least one side of the roadway has a sidewalk. She said that it is important to plan for pedestrian safety when designing neighborhoods. Her neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks. In response to Commissioner Miller, staff stated that the City does not enter into conditioned or contract rezones. There being no further comment, Chair Boyle closed the public hearing. Commissioner Morris thanked the audience for taking the time to participate in the public hearing process. He noted that the concerns expressed by the neighborhood will remain issues of concern by Commission members and by staff in malting future decisions regarding any subsequent development processes. Commissioner Morris moved to recommend approval of a rezone to RMD Residential Medium Density citing the following 13 findings and 5 conclusions: Findings 1. An application for rezone of a 1.56 acre parcel from Residential Single Family RS -9 to Residential High Density (RHD) was received by the City of Port Angeles Department of Community & Economic Development on December 9, 2013, from Green Crow Properties. Green Crow Properties is the owner of the subject property. The application was deemed to be complete on December 11, 2013. 2. The subject general vicinity is largely developed with low density residential uses south of Park Avenue and west of Porter Street. Properties located east of Porter Street and north of Campbell Avenue are partially built out with a mix of multi -family and single family uses. 3. The site is located in the Mount Angeles Neighborhood which is in the City's East Planning Area on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The entire City Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were reviewed with respect to the proposal. The following elements, goals, and policies were found to be most relevant to the proposal: Growth Management Element Goal A, Policy 1; Land Use Element Map F-11 Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2014 Page 6 COUNCIL MEMO ATTACHMENT B Goal A, policy 2; Goal B, Policies 1,3, & 4; Goal C, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4. These references are attached as Attachment B to the January 22, 2014 staff report. 5. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides an expected framework for land use decisions within the City. The zoning of any property must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that illustrates where certain classifications of uses may occur within the City. 6. Changes to the City's Zoning Map must be in the public interest and must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map in accordance with Section 17.03.020 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. 7. The subject property is identified on the City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as being mostly in an imprecise margin area between the High Density Residential (HDR) designation (to the north), Medium Density Residential (MDR) (to the south and east), and Low Density Residential (LDR) (to the west). A small area of the site (18%) is located within the HDR designation. 8. Much of the land designated for medium density residential (MDR) use in the vicinity has been developed at single family residential low density standards, leaving little MDR land available for medium density development. 9. Approximately 17.3 acres of land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood is zoned as Residential High Density. Of that land zoned RHD, 8.5 acres or 49% remains undeveloped. Approximately 13 acres of land is zoned as RMD in the Mount Angeles neighborhood. Of that land zoned RMD, 3.5 acres or 29% remains undeveloped. Based on this analysis, there is a greater need for RMD zoned land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood than the need for RHD zoned land. r 10: The -subject site� islocatedbetween -existing RHD zoned areas and RS-9zoned areas: The , _ E Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Element, Goal C, Policy 4) indicates that RMD zoning is appropriate to use as a transition between different land uses. 11. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non -Significance on January 21, 2014. This satisfies the City's State Environmental Policy Act review. Future development actions will require individual review dependent on the action. 12. Notice of the rezone application was placed in the Peninsula Daily News on December 15, 2013. Surrounding property owners were notified by mail on December 13, 2013. The site was posted on December 11, 2013. Written comment was taken on the proposal until December 30, 2013. Several comment letters in opposition to the proposal were received from neighbors as a result of the legal notification and site posting. 13. Several comment letters were received from surrounding property owners indicating that they do not believe high density development is appropriate for the area. Loss of neighborhood character and adverse traffic impacts were the most commonly cited reasons for the objections. F-12 Planning Commission Minutes COUNCIL MEMO ATTACHMENT B January 22, 2014 Page 7 Conclusions: A. Other properties exist within the general neighborhood that are currently zoned RHD. There is not a lack of available property zoned for high density residential development in the general area. As such, the proposal appears to serve a single private interest. No supporting documentation was submitted to indicate a need for additional high density residential zoning in the City or in this particular neighborhood. B. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates that most of the site is located between three land use designations in an imprecise margin. Only the northeast portion of the subject property, comprising 18% of the site, is designated High Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. The majority of nearby lands are designated as MDR Medium Density Residential. Information was not presented indicating a need to extend the High Density Residential (HDR) designation to encompass the subject property. C. Development trends in the area and in the City do not indicate a recognized need for higher density housing. Such a need would have to be documented in order to approve the proposed rezone. Currently, the rezone is inconsistent with the growth and population trends of the City of Port Angeles. D. Rezoning the property to Residential Medium Density meets the land use needs of the city and neighborhood, reduces expected neighborhood impacts, and continues the established urban design of the area. E. Rezoning of the site to RMD Residential Medium Density rather than RHD Residential High Density would not reduce the allowed density below the proposed number of units that are indicated in the application materials as being anticipated for development on the : siteprovided in, therezone-proposals. F-13 CITY COUNCIL MEMO ATTACHMENT "C" STAFF REPORT AND APPLICATION MATERIALS F-14 COUNCIL MEMO ATTACHMENT C PORTNGELES WASH IN G T O N, U.S.A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 22, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott K. Johns AICD, Associate Planner RE: REZ 13-01 APPLICANT: Green Crow Properties OWNER: SAME LOCATION: The east side of Porter Street, south of its intersection with Campbell Avenue. REQUEST: Rezone a 1.56 acre property from Residential Single Family to Residential High Density. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial of a rezone from RS -9 to RHD but recommends approval of a rezone from RS -9 to Residential Medium Density (RMD) to the City Council, citing 14 findings and 6 conclusions included in Attachment A. PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting a rezone from Residential Single Family RS -9 to Residential High Density RHD. The subject property is legally described as a portion of Parcel A of BLA 06-11 as recorded in Volume 63 of Surveys, Page 11, being a portion of the SE '/ of the NW of Section 14, Township 30 North, Range 6 West. The parcel is undeveloped and is a total of 68,002. square feet (1.56 acres) in area. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The application is for a rezone which would permit all potential land uses allowed within the proposed zone, subject to subsequent approval for specific development. F-15 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties January 22, 2014 Page 2 The subject property is located along the east side of Porter Street, approximately 150 feet south of its intersection with Campbell Avenue. The site is currently zoned Residential Single Family, RS -9. Adjacent lots to the east, south, and west of the site are also zoned Residential Single Family RS -9. The property directly adjacent to the north is zoned Residential High Density RHD. The application materials provide a rationale for the proposed rezone and states that the property is ultimately suited for high density development (see applicant's letter dated December 9, 2013). An action by the Planning Commission will follow a public hearing held at a regularly scheduled meeting and a recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council that will make a final decision based on the existing record at a regularly scheduled meeting. No written or verbal testimony or additional evidence will be taken at the City Council public meeting. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW The City's Comprehensive Plan serves as the core of the land use controls which all other City plans, ordinances, and regulations must be in compliance with and support. The Comprehensive Plan is the foundation upon which the City's development regulations (Zoning, Critical Areas, and Subdivision Ordinances) and Urban Services Standards and Guidelines (Capital Facilities Plan and Urban Services and Utilities Plan) are based, and from which the City's future urban design will come. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows the subject area as being partially (approximately 18.5% of the site) in the High Density Residential (HDR) designation with the bulk of the site being located in the imprecise margin between a Medium Density Residential (MDR) designation to the south and east, and a Low Density Residential (LDR) designation to the west. The HDR designation extends from the north east corner of the subject property to the north and east of the site approximately 1,500 feet. The area designated as MDR lies to the south and east of the subject site, however, much of this area has been subdivided and built to the RS -9 zone standards, which reduces the anticipated density established in the Comprehensive Plan. The anticipated development pattern in the area is to contain low density residential use to the west of Porter Street with higher residential densities to the east of Porter. The subject property was designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map in 2004. A Comprehensive Plan land use designation allows property to be rezoned to the designated density, in this case, Residential High Density, but does not require that it be rezoned to the designated density. The entire Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were reviewed with Plan elements, goals, and policies found to be most relevant to the proposal listed in Attachment B. ZONING CODE/DEVELOPMENT REGULATION REVIEW The purpose of the Zoning Code is to implement the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan by dividing the City into zones and to promote the orderly and expected development of such areas as directed by the Plan. The most relevant zoning code sections are listed in Attachment B. F-16 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report January 22, 2014 REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW There are no environmentally sensitive areas located on the subject property, however a category 3 wetland exists approximately 100 feet east of the parcel. The wetland is surrounded by a buffer area and is further separated from the subject site by the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) power line right-of-way. The category 3 wetland includes a 50' buffer which is considered appropriate per PAMC 15.24070(C)(1)(c) for low intensity uses. Low density single family residential use is determined to be a low intensity use, while multifamily residential use is determined to be a high intensity use, requiring a 100' wetland buffer. Since an established 50' buffer exists with a walking path at the outer edge, increasing the buffer width is impractical adjacent to the subject property. Improved wetland protection through the addition of fencing and additional signage indicating the buffer edge and the existence of the wetland will be required of any future high intensity development on the site. The site is not located within a 100 -year floodplain area. The City's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for rezone of the site to Residential High Density on January 21, 2014, per WAC 197-11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Notice of the proposed rezone was published in the Peninsula Daily News on December 15, 2013, posted on the site on December 11, 2013, and mailed to adjacent property owners on December 13, 2013. Five comment letters were received from citizens during the public comment period which ended on December 30, 2013. All of the public comment letters were in opposition to the proposal, stating adverse impacts to the Eckard Avenue neighborhood, primarily from anticipated traffic increases, but also from the anticipated change to the neighborhood's single family character. Comment letters are included as Attachment D. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Fire Department had no comment on the rezone proposal. Emergency services are available to the area and subsequent development will require compliance with Urban Services Standards. The Public Works and Utilities Department noted that utilities are available in the area but utility extensions and full roadway improvements will be required to Porter Street at the time of development for development of the adjacent property in a medium or high density zone. STAFF ANALYSIS The application is for a change to the City's Zoning Map. The application does not include a request to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan. When reviewing a site for rezone, it is important to understand that, while an applicant may intend a particular development in the rezone application, the property use may be any use allowed by the underlying Zoning Code designation. F-17 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report January 22, 2014 REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties Page 4 The subject site is shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as being mostly located within an imprecise margin between a Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) designations. A portion of the northeast corner of the site is touched by the HDR designation and accounts for approximately 18% of the total property being designated HDR. The subject site is located south of the intersection of Porter Street and Campbell Avenue. Porter Street and Campbell Avenue are both collector arterial streets at that location. The subject site abuts Porter Street south of the Campbell Avenue intersection at which point Porter Street is classified as an access street. Porter Street is under developed at this location and does not meet the standard for placement of a high density use. Porter Street will require improvements to be made as part of any future development on the site, regardless of proposed project density. The site is a portion of a larger undeveloped ownership area extending to the east. That undeveloped property is owned by the proponent of this rezone proposal. Established single family residential uses exist to the south, west and northwest, with high density residential uses to the north. The subject site is currently zoned RS -9. A small portion (approximately 21,045 SF) of the larger undeveloped site is zoned High Density Residential along the Campbell Avenue frontage with the remaining southerly portion zoned RS -9. Because high density development requires more intensive City service needs, certain criteria are used to determine whether an increase in density should be permitted. The site is not located along an arterial street where bus service is easily available for high density development. The only available public access to the site is from Porter Street, a local access street. The nearest bus service is located more than 6 tenths of a mile to the north. The site is located near the southerly border of the city where urban services are less available than they are closer to the center of the city. Although a 1.6 acre parcel directly adjacent to the subject property was dedicated to the City of Port Angeles for future park purposes, there are no developed public recreational uses located nearby or within walking distance of the subject property. There are no plans or schedule for development of dedicated 1.6 acre parcel for park use at this time. All utilities are readily available in surrounding rights-of-way with the necessary capacity to serve a high density residential development. Public schools in the area are not overcrowded and are located a short distance (less than 3,000 feet) from the site. The proposal would not create an excessive inventory of high density residential land available for development city wide. However, within the Mount Angeles Neighborhood there is currently an adequate inventory of lands zoned RHD to meet the current demand. The tables below show the total amount of lands zoned both RHD and RNID, the areas built at both high and low density, and the area of undeveloped land Citywide. F-18 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties Table A: Inventory of existing High Density and Medium Density zoned areas Citywide January 22, 2014 Page 5 Category Area in Acres % of total RHD Total Area Zoned RHD 119.5 Ac 100% Built out to RHD density 60.3 Ac 50.3% Built at SFR density 47.5 Ac 39.7% Undeveloped 13.7 Ac 11.5% 9.5% Developed at SFR density 1 3.52 Category Area in Acres % of total RMD Total Area Zoned RMD 130.11 100% Built out to RMD density 43.4 33% Built at SFR density 48.6 37% Undeveloped 36.7 28% Build out to nonresidential use 1.36 1 % The following table indicates the areas zoned RHD and RMD, and the type of development on those sites in the Mount Angeles Neighborhood and compared to City wide calculations. Table B: Mount Angeles Neighborhood RHD Analysis Category Area in Acres % of Neighborhood Area % of Citywide RHD Total Area zoned RHD 17.33 100% 14.5% Area Undeveloped 8.56 49% 62.5% Developed as Duplex 1.1 6% 9.5% Developed at SFR density 1 3.52 20% 7.4% Developed at Multi -family 1 4.15 1 24% 8.6%* *Duplex and multi family combined Mount Angeles Neighborhood RMD Analysis Category Area in Acres % of Neighborhood Area % of Citywide RMD Total area zoned RMD 12.87 100% 9.9% Area Undeveloped 3.47 29% 9.45% Developed as SFR 4.63 36% 9.5% Developed as Multi -family 4.50 35% 10.3% As indicated by the above tables, there are currently 8.6 acres of undeveloped land zoned RHD in the vicinity of the subject site. That amount constitutes 49% of the total RHD land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood, but is 62.5% of the RHD zoned property in the Mount Angeles neighborhood. F-19 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties January 22, 2014 Page 6 The amount of available land zoned RMD in the Mount Angeles neighborhood is 3.47 acres in the vicinity of the subject site. That amount constitutes 28% of the total RMD land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood and 9.45% of the RMD zoned land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood. RHD zoned land use is normally located along arterial streets and closer to the center of the city due to the higher intensity demands of such development. Per the City's Comprehensive Plan, RMD uses can serves as a transition area between different uses, such as between high density and low density development and generally results in much lower service demand than would high density development. Staff's recommendation that the subject property serve as a transition zone (RMD) would be consistent with these policies given the single family development that exists west, south, and northwest of the subject property. As proposed, the application does identify that a change has occurred to demand a higher density in the area or City wide. Criteria necessary for a rezone to high density residential development has not been provided. Staff believes that the above analysis indicates that a rezone to RMD is a more appropriate zone to be located at this site than the requested RHD and would provide an additional density that infrastructure in the area was intended to serve. Le;lislative process The proposal is a site specific rezone per R.C.W. 36.7013 Local Project Review ("The Regulatory Reform Act"), and Codified in Port Angeles Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.02.070. The application is limited to one "open record" public hearing and one closed record appeal. The meeting before the Planning Commission is a public hearing, at which time a decision is rendered. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals must be based solely on the information contained in the official file. Attachments - A. Recommended Findings and Conclusions and Maps B. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Citations C. Public Comment Letters D. Application Materials F - 20 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report January 22, 2014 REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties Page 7 ATTACHMENT A Findings and Conclusions in Support of REZ 13-01— Green Crow Properties Findings An application for rezone of a 1.56 acre parcel from Residential Single Family RS -9 to Residential High Density (RHD) was received by the City of Port Angeles Department of Community & Economic Development on December 9, 2013, from Green Crow Properties. Green Crow Properties is the owner of the subject property. The application was deemed to be complete on December 11, 2013. 2. The subject general vicinity is largely developed with low density residential uses south of Park Avenue and west of Porter Street. Properties located east of Porter Street and north of Campbell Avenue are partially built out with a mix of multi -family and single family uses. 3. The site is located in the Mount Angeles Neighborhood which is in the City's East Planning Area on the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. 4. The entire City Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were reviewed with respect to the proposal. The following elements, goals, and policies were found to be most relevant to the proposal: Growth Management Element Goal A, Policy 1; Land Use Element Map Goal A, policy 2; Goal B, Policies 1,3, & 4; Goal C, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4. These references are attached as Attachment B to the January 22, 2014 staff report. 5. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides an expected framework for land use decisions within the City. The zoning of any property must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that illustrates where certain classifications of uses may occur within the City. 6. Changes to the City's Zoning Map must be in the public interest and must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map in accordance with Section 17.03.020 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. 7. The subject property is identified on the City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as being mostly in an imprecise margin area between the High Density Residential (HDR) designation (to the north), Medium Density Residential (MDR) (to the south and east), and Low Density Residential (LDR) (to the west). A small area of the site (18%) is located within the HDR designation. 8. Much of the land designated for medium density residential (MDR) use in the vicinity has been developed at single family residential low density standards, leaving little MDR land available for medium density development. 9. A rezone is considered a spot zone if it meets any of the following three criteria: 1.) The rezone primarily serves a private interest, 2.) The rezone is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or surrounding territory, or 3.) The rezone constitutes an arbitrary or capricious action. F-21 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties January 22, 2014 Page 8 10. Approximately 17.3 acres of land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood is zoned as Residential High Density. Of that land zoned RHD, 8.5 acres or 49% remains undeveloped. Approximately 13 acres of land is zoned as RMD in the Mount Angeles neighborhood. Of that land zoned RMD, 3.5 acres or 29% remains undeveloped. Based on this analysis, there is a greater need for RMD zoned land in the Mount Angeles neighborhood than the need for RHD zoned land. 11. The subject site is located between existing RHD zoned areas and RS -9 zoned areas. The Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Element, Goal C, Policy 4) indicates that RMD zoning is appropriate to use as a transition between different land uses. 12. The SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Non -Significance on January 21, 2014. This satisfies the City's State Environmental Policy Act review. Future development actions will require individual review dependent on the action. 13. Notice of the rezone application was placed in the Peninsula Daily News on December 15, 2013. Surrounding property owners were notified by mail on December 13, 2013. The site was posted on December 11, 2013. Written comment was taken on the proposal until December 30, 2013. Several comment letters in opposition to the proposal were received from neighbors as a result of the legal notification and site posting. 14. Several comment letters were received from surrounding property owners indicating that they do not believe high density development is appropriate for the area. Loss of neighborhood character and adverse traffic impacts were the most commonly cited reasons for the objections. Conclusions: A. Other properties exist within the general neighborhood that are currently zoned RHD. There is not a lack of available property zoned for high density residential development in the general area. As such, the proposal appears to serve a single private interest. No supporting documentation was submitted to indicate a need for additional high density residential zoning in the City or in this particular neighborhood. B. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates that most of the site is located between three land use designations in an imprecise margin. Only the northeast portion of the subject property, comprising 18% of the site, is designated High Density Residential on the Land Use map. The majority of nearby lands are designated as medium density residential. Information was not presented indicating a need to extend the High Density Residential (HDR) designation to encompass the subject property. C. Development trends in the area and in the City do not indicate a recognized need for higher density housing. Such a need would have to be documented in order to approve the proposed rezone. Currently, the rezone is inconsistent with the growth and population trends of the City of Port Angeles. D. Rezoning the property to Residential Medium Density meets the land use needs of the city and neighborhood, reduces expected neighborhood impacts, and continues the established urban design of the area. F -22 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties January 22, 2014 Page 9 E. As proposed the rezone would constitute an illegal spot zone because the rezone primarily serves a private interest. However, a rezone to RMD is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, and allows the provision of a more reasonable amount of land to be created for multiple family housing. F. Rezoning of the site to RMD rather than RHD would not reduce the allowed density below the proposed number of units that are indicated in the application materials as being anticipated for development on the site provided in the rezone proposal. F -23 M-1 I W" T- R Ono Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report January 22, 2014 REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties Page 10 ATTACHMENT B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES Growth ManaLyement Element Goal A. "To manage growth in a responsible manner that is beneficial to the community as a whole, is sensitive to the rights and needs of individuals and is consistent with the State of Washington's Growth Management Act." The Eckard Avenue neighbors are concerned about traffic impacts to Eckard Avenue. Guarantees of street improvements to Porter Street such that use of Eckard Avenue is discouraged would need to be included in any development proposal. Policy 1. "In all its actions and to the extent consistent with the provisions of this comprehensive plan, the City shall strive to implement the following goals of the State Growth Management Act:" a. "Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner." Urban facilities and services do exist. The property is located within the City limits, although in a suburban context. Land Use Map Goals and Policies Goal A."To guide current and future development within the City in a manner that provides certainty to its citizens about future land use and the flexibility necessary to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future." Policy 2."All land use decisions and approvals made by the City Council and/or any of its appointed Commissions, Boards or Committees should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its land use map." Land Use Element Residential Goals and Policies Goal B. "To have a community where residential development and use of the land are done in a manner that is compatible with the environment, the characteristics of the use and the users, and the desired urban design of the City." Policy 1. "Urban services shall be available for all residential areas as required by the Capital Facilities Element concurrency policy." Services for water & sewer would need to be extended from Campbell Avenue ( 350' north), and Porter Street would need improvement to arterial standards prior to further development to meet this policy. Policy 3. "All residential developments should be designed with the provisions of fire protection and service vehicle access as key factors in street design and circulation pattern. For efficient circulation, rights-of-way should be obtained and improvements made to further the grid street pattern of the City. Cul-de-sacs may be permitted when designed as an integral part of the major grid street pattern of the City." Significant improvements to Porter St. will be required to minimize impact to Eckard Avenue and to provide adequate fire and service vehicle access. The site is at the edge of the 4 -minute emergency response time. Policy 4. "All residential developments should be encouraged to preserve and capitalize on existing unusual, unique, and interesting natural, historic, archaeological, and/or cultural features, should preserve and utilize natural vegetation, should utilize and preserve scenic views, should maximize southern exposures and solar efficiency, should offer protection from prevailing winds, and should be designed to minimize energy use." The property is less than 100' from a category 3 wetland. Medium and High Density residential density is considered to be a high intensity use relative to wetland buffer widths. Approving the proposed rezone would require expanding the wetland buffer from 50' to 100' adjacent to the site. F -27 Department ofCommunity &Economic Development Staff Report REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties January 22, 2014 Page I1 Goal C. "To have a community of viable districts and neighborhoods with a variety of residential opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages, characteristics and interests." The proposed rezone would not enhance the existing character of the neighborhood because there currently are single family residences and multifamily residences. Street improvement in the area (primarily addition ofsidewalks) would enhance the ability for interaction and enjoyment of the neighborhood. Policies 1. "Residential land should be developed on the district and neighborhood concept. Although such districts may be composed primarily of residential uses of a uniform density, a healthy, viable district should be composed of residential uses of varying densities which may be augmented by subordinate and compatible uses. Single family and multi -family homes, parks and open -spaces, schools, churches, day care and residential services, home occupations, and district shopping areas are all legitimate components of district development and enhancement. A neighborhood should be primarily composed of low, medium, or high density housing." The proposed rezone would notprovide for significant changes in district land use composition, as high density residential uses currently occur in the vicinity and no other/new use will be introduced. Franklin elementary school is approximately 3,000 feet northwest of the site and Peninsula College is approximately 3, 000 feet northeast of the site. No developed city parks in the vicinity. No commercial uses within one mile radius. This is an auto dependent neighborhood. Policy 2. "Medium and high density housing should be located in areas of the community most suitable for such uses, based on existing services, public facilities, and transportation." The proposed rezone is located within the city limits andpublic facilities and services are available. However, the site is near the extreme south side of the city and not centrally located closer to core services. Policy 3. "Medium and high density housing should be served by arterial streets of sufficient size in order to satisfy traffic demand and to lessen neighborhood traffic congestion." The proposal does not meet this policy. Porter is not an arterial at this location. Policy 4. "Medium and high density housing could be a transitional use between different land uses, provided such other uses would not adversely impact the residential nature of the housing." Medium density residential use would create a more appropriate buffer between the low density residential use west of Porter and south and east of the project site, and the High density residential uses to the north. Capital Facilities Element Goals and Policies Housing Element Goal A. To improve the variety, quality, availability, and attainability of housing opportunities in the City of Port Angeles. This proposal would allow for an increase in high density housing. Policy 11. The City should investigate the appropriate siting of additional land to be designated medium density and high density. The proposal would add new area for increased density. In review of the applicable goals and policies as they relate to the proposal, the following analysis is provided: • The proposed rezone would allow for the development and infill of undeveloped property consistent with the Growth Management Act's requirement that land use development be consistent with adopted Comprehensive Plans and which encourages growth in areas within the capacity of the region's public services and facilities. F -28 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties January 22, 2014 Page 12 A portion of the site was designated High Density Residential on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map in 2004 after public review of a major Comprehensive Plan update. The site is located along a dedicated city street right-of-way (Porter Street) and is served by public facilities (water, sewer, electric and communications) which are locational criteria for multiple family zones. The frontage of the site being along Porter Street, which is currently developed only on the west side. Porter Street intersects with Campbell Avenue approximately 150 feet north of the site. Campbell Avenue has been upgraded as a result of previous development actions to handle additional traffic potential from anticipated increases in density from the proposed development. Circulation patterns and traffic in the area should not be negatively affected by multiple family residential uses that could locate on the site if a rezone were approved. The proposal is therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies for higher density residential. • Site development will required adherence to all pertinent building and engineering standards which will be greater than for single family development if developed to a multiple family development. The provision of off-street parking and landscaping for the site is required. Therefore, no unnecessary impact to surrounding neighboring streets is anticipated. • The proposed rezone would encourage the development of the site to a density that has been identified as desired for the area by the City through its Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation as High Density Residential (HDR). Analysis of the buildable land supplies of various zones shows that higher density residential areas are much less available for development than low density residential areas, making it desirable to increase the areas of the City designated for higher density residential land uses. ZONING ORDINANCE Existing: RS -9 (PAMC 17.11.010) Purpose: "This is a low density residential zone intended to create and preserve urban single family residential neighborhoods consisting ofpredominantly single family homes on larger than standard Townsite-size lots. Uses that are compatible with and functionally related to a single family residential environment may be located in this zone. Because of land use impacts associated with nonresidential uses, few nonresidential uses are allowed in this zone and then only conditionally. This zone provides for variety in the urban land use pattern for the City's single family residential neighborhoods, following a curvilinear street system of non through public and private streets with irregularly shaped lots, minimum 75 foot front lot lines, and 60 foot rights-of-way for collector arterial streets in large rectangular blocks and usually located in outlying areas with large tracts of vacant buildable land. " Examples of permitted and conditional uses include single family residential, adult family homes, duplexes, accessory residential units, public parks and recreation facilities, churches, libraries and public and private schools. F -29 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report January 22, 2014 REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties Page 13 Proposed: RHD (PAMC 17.15.010) Purpose: "This is a high density residential zone for multi family residential structures. Compatible uses may be allowed on Conditional Use Permits but the zone is still regarded as a residential area, and commercial enterprises are not generally felt to be compatible. Few nonresidential uses are allowed in this zone and then only conditionally, because of land use impacts associated with nonresidential uses. This zone provides the basic urban land use pattern for the City's higher density multi family residential neighborhoods (at seven times the density of the City's basic single family residential neighborhoods), following a standard rectangular street grid system of 60 foot rights- of-way for local access streets and 300 foot by 500 foot blocks and usually located in areas that are largely developed and closer to the center of the City. " Examples of permitted and conditional uses in the RHD zone are similar to those allowed in the RS -9 zone, except they also include multiple family structures, apartments, duplexes, dormitories permitted outright, with mortuaries and funeral parlors, and social service agencies providing 24-hour residential care allowed by conditional use permit. Density is permitted in the RHD zone at 38.56 units per acre. Specific development standards in the RHD zone require 7,000 square feet for the first two units, then 1000 square feet for each unit thereafter. Therefore, at ultimate build out, the subject site would support up to 60 dwelling units. Design and landscape standards in the RHD zone include requirements to provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit, one tree for each 6 parking space, parking lots to be screened with a vision obscuring fence or vegetation adjacent to residentially zoned property and visual screening of outside garbage collection areas. Any amendment to Title 17 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code (Zoning Code) shall be consistent with Section 17.96. 100 PAMC, which reads as follows: PAMC 17.96.100 Amendments. A. In determining if an amendment to these regulations is needed, the City Council shall give due consideration to the proper relationship of such amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the entire Zoning Regulations; it being the intent to retain the integrity and validity of the zones herein described and to avoid any isolated spot zoning changes in the Zoning Map. B. Any amendments adopted by the Council may be modified from the form in which they were advertised within the limits necessary to relate properly such amendment or amendments to the Zoning Regulations. Final action on such modifications shall be subject to review and report of the Planning Commission prior to final passage by the City Council. C. No application for a change of zoning of any lot, parcel or portion thereof shall be considered by the Council within one year of the final action of the Council upon a prior application covering any of the same described land. This provision, however, shall not impair the right of the Council to propose their own action any amendment or change in the boundaries of any of the zones in these regulations. F -30 January 7, 2014 TO: Applicant and All Respondents Re: An application by Green Crow Properties requesting a rezone of property at Campbell Avenue and Porter Street Subject: Procedure This letter is intended to explain to interested parties the procedure that will be followed to hear and decide the application by Green Crow Properties requesting a rezone of property at Campbell Avenue and Porter Street. In summary: A public hearing will be conducted by the City's Planning Commission. All the testimony and documents received at the public hearing will then be transmitted to the City Council along with the action recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council will consider the record of the Planning Commission at a public meeting but will not receive additional testimony or documents. The City Council will then decide whether to grant the requested rezone. The following provides additional details about the procedure described above: • You are encouraged to review the entire application. It is available for review at the City's Department of Community & Economic Development. • The entire process, from Planning Commission through the final decision by the City Council, is subject to the appearance of fairness doctrine. A summary of the appearance of fairness rules is available through the City's Department of Community & Economic Development to any interested party. • One important element of the appearance of fairness rules is that neither the City Council nor Planning Commission members can discuss this matter, or receive independent information regarding the application prior to the public hearing or Council meeting. Written public comment received during the public comment period that will end on January 14, 2014, will be included in staff's information to the City Council and Planning Commission. • The City's Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on January 22 2014 6 PM, in the City Council Chambers, 321 East Fifth Street. This will be an open record hearing, which means that the Planning Commission will accept testimony, written comments and other evidence for and against the rezone application. F-31 • The Planning Commission hearing (January 22) will be the last opportunity for the applicant and members of the public to provide testimony, comments, or evidence for or against the application. No additional testimony, comments or evidence will be considered after the public hearing on January 22. If you plan to participate in the public hearing process in person, you will need to attend the Planning Commission public hearing. • After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. • The City Council will consider the rezone application during the Council's regular meeting of February 26, 2014, 7 PM, City Council Chambers. The City Council is the decision -maker on this rezone application. The action at the City Council will be based on the closed record created by the Planning Commission. The City Council will not accept additional testimony or evidence at the February 26 meeting. • The City Council will consider all the testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission and will decide what action the City will take on the rezone application. • If you have questions regarding any of this procedural information, please don't hesitate to contact Community & Economic Development staff at 417-4750. CC: Planning Commission members City Council members F - 32 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties January 22, 2014 Page 14 ATTACHMENT C Public Comment Letters F -33 P61t f/,v i 21Y ola 6 / I F - 34 To: City of Port Angeles City Council and Port Angeles Planning Commission Members From: Mr. and Mrs. William F. Mead Jr, 1127 Eckard Ave, Port Angeles, WA �r Re: Application to rezone 1.56 acres zoned RS -9 to RHD Residential High Der�'sIiy E I Date: December 28, 2013 (�SCC I FY PORTANGELES -- = r�"✓`� �cVELOPi1AEfJT We oppose the rezoning of 1.56 acres at 1212 Campbell Avenue from RS -9 residential single family to Residential high density for the following reasons: 1. Cambell avenue is already zoned RHD with numerous RHD properties, no more RHD is needed in this area. 2. All surrounding areas from Rook Drive and Eckard Avenue are Single family residences and we want to maintain that zoning. 3. Has the traffic impact been reasearched? Many cars and pedestrians travel north and south on Porter from Eckard Avenue to Park Street on a narrow poorly maintained road with no sidewalks. This includes students going to Franklin Elementary. Increased traffic on Eckard Avenue between Mt. Angles and Porter (with no sidewalks) poses risk to many neighborhood children. 4. What is the Environmental Impact to the surrounding wetlands area? 5. Rezoning will further reduce property values in surrounding areas. 6. A RHD does not meet the needs of the surrounding community we want to maintain Single Family Residences in this area. Sincerely, William Mead Gena Mead F - 35 To: City of Port Angeles City Council and Port Angeles Planning Commission Members From: Matthew and Trudy Teter; 1103 Eckard Ave, Port Angeles, WA 98362 RE: Application to re -zone an approximately 1.56 acre property currently zoned RS -9 Residential Single Family to RHD Residential High Density. FD� 15-�, (!5 Applicant: Green Crow Properties - South of 1212 Campbell Ave DEC 2 4 2013 Date: 12/21/2013 CI cto t, I Z, We noticed the posting for a re -zoning at the end of the street that we live on and we have some concerns with re -zoning this property, ► Campbell avenue has property that is already zoned for RHD. Please consider using land there that is already zoned for RHD. ► The site borders wetlands and was very saturated with water even before the big soil hill was moved to create a more level lot. It would be recommended to require an engineered soil test to see if the site is suitable for such development. ► We are concerned with the traffic impact for Eckard Ave. This street has limited lighting and no sidewalks and should be considered for a neighborhood if the developer is going to add to the traffic of the street. ► Homeowners that surround the subject property want to single family residences and want to protect their property values. b. What is the environmental impact? ► Many homeowners in the area looked at the master plan for the development prior to purchasing their homes. At that time, there was no Porter Access for RHD. I- Why should public representatives choose a developer's request over the citizens? F - 36 To: City of Port Angeles City Council, and Port Angeles Planning Commission Members From: George Kheriaty; 1108 Eckard Avenue, Port Angeles, 98362 RE: Application to REZONE an approximately 1.56 acre property currently zoned RS -9 Residential Single Family to RHD Residential High Density. Date: December 20, 2013 1 0 N E a a a a U a 0 M a 9 0 0 n a 0 N 0 n 0 0 0 a 0 0 M 0 a X a E 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 a N 0 0 E M 0 N a N 0 U N n 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 W a a 0 N 0 0 a a N a N N N 0 0 I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed zoning change in our neighborhood. Zoning on the subject parcel should remain as it is. Please carefully consider the following list of public concerns: • Keep RHD where it is already properly zoned for RHD: Campbell Avenue • Spot zoning to a particular parcel without regard to its surroundings is not a good idea. • Proposed site borders wetlands. • What is the environmental impact? • Many homeowners in the area looked at the master plan for the development prior to purchasing their homes. There was no Porter access for RHD. • What is the traffic impact? • Hopefully public representatives consider citizen's concerns as well as a developer's request. • There is plenty of property zoned RHD if developers wish to build multi -family buildings. • The homeowners around the proposed rezone want to protect their property values. • Due to the high number of children living on Eckard Avenue, lack of street lights, and lack of sidewalks adding the additional traffic created by RHD would make it very dangerous. • Homeowners that surround the subject property want single family residences. ;�1111.111�" 15 ..0 c 4 BEG 2 3 2W IF -37 December 21, 2013 TO: Sue Roberds, City of Port Angeles From: Heather & Andrew Chapman 1158 Eckard Ave. Port Angeles, 98362 Concerning: PUBLIC NOTICE REZONE Property South of Campbell We write this letter to express our opinion concerning the possible rezoning of the property South of Campbell Ave. We live on the corner of Porter and Eckard Ave. and are nearest in proximity to the property under consideration to be rezoned from single family housing to multiple family housing. It is also suggested that with the rezone the access point to this property will be less than 90ft from our front door at the end of Eckard Ave. We are not in favor of the suggested site for the multifamily housing, and we are especially against the location of the entrance to this site. When we bought our corner lot all plans for the surrounding area showed single family residences and no through roads, which is one of the main reasons we decided to buy our house. Additionally, if the property in question is rezoned the property value of the houses in our neighborhood will drop. In a time where homes have decreased in value, it seems like it would be in the best interest of the city of Port Angeles to not take steps that would further decrease property values in an entire neighborhood. Here are some other issues concerning the rezoning of the property South of Campbell Ave: • There are no shoulders or sidewalks on Eckard Ave. or Porter. With higher volume of traffic on those roads people out walking and playing will be at a higher risk then they already are. • There are no lights on Eckard Ave. or Porter to help illuminate the roads. • There are already multifamily homes on Campbell, accessed from Campbell, why not continue to build there. • The proximity to the wet lands, how will this impact them? • With so much concrete and water runoff, where will it go? The culverts on Porter already receive heavy runoff. • Our location means that children in elementary school have to walk to school or get a ride. What does this mean for Porter all the way to Race Street? Especially since there are no lights, no sidewalks, no shoulder, and hardly enough room to drive two cars side by side. Does this mean a bus stop? Children getting run over? • With such a big project means very big equipment and trucks. Eckard Ave. would be the road all would go down, which is full of single family homes. • Eckard Ave. would become a very, very busy road. DEC 2 3 ()1 Therefore, the Chapman family on the corner of Porter and Eckard Ave. at 1158 Eckard Ave. are not in favor of the location of the suggested site for the multifamily rezone and location of the entrance to the suggested new site. Sincerely Heather & Andrew Chapman F - 39 Department of Community &Economic Development Staff Report REZ 13-03 — Green Crow Properties January 22, 2014 Page 14 ATTACHMENT D Application Materials F -40 727 E. 8th ® P.O. Sox 2469] Port Angeles, WA 98362-0074 !E� (360) 452-3325 - FAX (360) 417-3676 RM December 9, 2013 City of Port Angeles Department of Community and Economic Development 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 RE: Rezone Application on behalf of Green Crow Properties, Inc. Dear Review Staff, Enclosed is a completed application and related materials proposing a change in zoning for approximately 1.56 acres of land currently zoned RS -9 to Residential High Density (RHD). The application is being submitted on behalf of Green Crow Properties, Inc., and involves a parcel of land originally created and designated on the face of the Campbell Avenue Planned Residential Development (PRD) as "Multi Family (Future Phase)" (see Plat, V. 15, P. 56). The following provides the rationale for why we feel granting of the request is warranted. Land Use and Zoning Designation. The City of Port Angeles' Land Use Designation for the site is somewhat mixed in that the property exists at the juncture of three separate land use designations, including Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR). However, only the mapped HDR designation actually encounters the property—encompassing the northeast corner of the property (see Land Use Map, enclosed). The property is also conveniently bordered to the west by Porter Street—a logical boundary between the subject property and the LDR designation to the west. For these reasons, approval of the request would be consistent with the Official Land Use Designation Map for the City of Port Angeles. As noted, the subject property is currently zoned RS -9. It abuts land to the north that is currently zoned RHD—the zone that is being requested (see Zoning Map, enclosed). Approval of the request would not introduce any incompatible land uses. Therefore, approval of the request would be consistent with the City's current zoning regime. Land Use Policies. The City of Port Angeles' Comprehensive Plan establishes goals and policies, consistent with the State Growth Management Act, for the orderly growth and development of land within City limits. Chapter V, Goal A, F-41 Policy 1 of the Plan specifically addresses how the Land Use Map should be applied, stating that: "The area between land use designations should be considered an imprecise margin in order to provide flexibility in determining the boundary of such areas. When determining appropriate zoning designations for an area near a margin, the goals, policies, and objectives of the Land Use Element should take precedence (page 50)." Chapter V, Goal C, Policy 1 of the Plan states: "Although such districts may be composed primarily of residential uses of a uniform density, a healthy, viable district should be composed of residential uses of varying densities... (page 51)." Lastly, the Plan recognizes the need to provide an increased variety of quality, affordable housing opportunities (page 69). Approval of the requested change in zoning would be consistent with the Official Land Use Map, those Comprehensive Plan policies aimed at appropriately locating higher -density housing opportunities, and those policies that encourage variety in available housing opportunities. By allowing multi -family housing development, Green Crow will be able to provide variation to the housing densities established in the area, and allow greater flexibility for providing lower-income housing opportunities within the vicinity. Site and Vicinity Characteristics. As noted earlier, the location of S. Porter Street to the west of the subject property provides a logical barrier between the proposed higher -density residential development of the site and lower -density residential uses established west of S. Porter Street. Approval of the request would be consistent with land uses and densities already established to the north along Campbell Avenue. Demand for low-cost housing opportunities in the vicinity of the subject property is made that much more urgent by the proximity to Peninsula College, to the northeast of the site. The property is already graded and will require minimal site preparation for new development. It is adjoined to the west by open space and City parkland, and to the south by lots under the ownership of the applicant. Therefore, the risk of land use conflicts are minimal. The property is already covered under the Construction Stormwater General Permit, which includes an active Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Thus, any future development of the site will include appropriate best management practices for the control of erosion and other possible stormwater impacts. As noted above, approval of the request would be consistent with the City's Official Land Use Map, zoning districts, land use policies, and specific circumstances of the site. For these reasons, Green Crow believes a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the City Council, is appropriate. F - 42 Thank you for your consideration on this matter. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this information, please contact me at (360) 417-3669, or send me an email at b ruce(a)-g reen crow. com. Sincerely, �� Wce �' l�va�c �i- Bruce Emery Green Crow Properties, Inc. IF - 43 File #t'=: --6 1 CITY OF PORT ANGELES Rezone Application PLEASE READ ALL I1VSTR UCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM 1. (A) APPLICANT -77y1 - — Daytime Phone (360) d Address O, 3!j 18362 Phone 6 -) (13) PROPERTY OWNER (if other than applicant) Property Owner's Address (if other than applicant) Daytime Phone (C) APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE if other than applicant or property owner Phone 2. (A) Legal Description of Subject Property 'PIA sir (13) General Location of Subject Property 6E,60y-new-o� 3. Size of Subject Property ��7, qS,41 - sq.ft. blocks _acres. 4. Zoning of Subject Property - R5 - C-1 Proposed Zoning Designation RiVb 5. Characteristics of Subject Property (how is it developed) te-6e,rj 6. Characteristics of Surrounding Area (what uses are around the property) -51;LI41e - I i 1 0 NAIL (7am ;4, A 7. Comprehensive Plan Designation of Property " 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation of Surrounding Properties-,�,,bg s InD ?,, Y-- /JD;< 9. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies please- 1117�,C�tj F - 44 10. JUSTIFICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE (A) Relationship to Comprehensive Plan R?L" c -_i s earlijll�t (B) Suitability of Property for Proposed Zoning_D I -®7J 7� ;_S 4"%L /' g4 y" 1C'4M;)v��D� (C) Change in Circumstances Since Original Zoning !JAd i, 44 60/,.�l Atl- � (D) Inappropriateness of Current Zoning lea 11. I CERTIFY that all of the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and acknowledge that wilful misrepresentation of information will immediately terminate this application. SIGNATURE Date CITY OF PORT ANGELES Planning Department, 321 East Fifth Street, P.O. Box 1150, Port Angeles, WA 98362 (360) 417-4750 -45 Green Crow Properties, Inc. Rezone Application Campbell Avenue and Porter Street Property Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies The following text excerpts were compiled from the Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan, as adopted on June 5, 2005 (Ordinance #3163). They were selected based on their relevance to the requested rezone from the current RS -9 zone to the RHD zone, for approximately 1.56 acres owned by Green Crow Properties, Inc. Purpose of the Comprehensive Plan A City's Comprehensive Plan serves as the core of the land use controls which all other city plans, ordinances, and regulations must be in compliance with and support (Introduction, Page 1). IV. Growth Management Goal A. 1. In all its actions and to the extent consistent with the provisions of this comprehensive plan, the City should strive to implement the following goals of the State Growth Management Act: a. Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. b. Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. c. Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. d. Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population. Promote a variety of residential densities and housing types and sizes, and encourage preservation and expansion of existing housing stock (Page 1). V. Land Use Element High Density Residential (Up to 39 Units per Acre, except that existing motel or hotel units may be converted to residential units at a density greater than 39 Units per Acre). The primary intent of this designation is for development at a density up to 39 units per acre and is intended for areas where a higher concentration of residents is compatible with the surrounding area and uses. Condominiums, apartments, and planned residential developments are the types of building designs appropriate for this category (Page 49). Goal A. A. To guide current and future development within the City in a manner that provides certainty to its citizens about future land use and the flexibility necessary to meet the F - 46 challenges and opportunities of the future. Policies 1. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map should be used as a conceptual guide for determining current and long-range zoning and other land use decisions. The map's land use designations are intended to show areas where general land use types are allowed. The area between land use designations should be considered an imprecise margin in order to provide flexibility in determining the boundary of such areas. When determining appropriate zoning designations for an area near a margin, the goals, policies and objectives of the Land Use Element should take precedence. 2. All land use decisions and approvals made by the City Council and/or any of its appointed Commissions, Boards or Committees should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its land use map. Objective 1. The City will review and revise as necessary the existing Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, and other development regulations to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (Page 50). Goal C To have a community of viable districts and neighborhoods with a variety of residential opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages, characteristics and interests. Policies 1. Residential land should be developed on the district and neighborhood concept. Although such districts may be composed primarily of residential uses of a uniform density, a healthy, viable district should be composed of residential uses of varying densities, which may be augmented, by subordinate and compatible uses. Single family and multi -family homes, parks and open -spaces, schools, churches, daycare and residential services, home occupations, and district shopping areas are all legitimate components of district development and enhancement. A neighborhood should be primarily composed of low, medium, or high density housing. 2. Medium and high density housing should be located in areas of the community most suitable for such uses, based on existing services, public facilities, and transportation (Page 51). VIII. HOUSING ELEMENT General Comments The City recognizes the extreme importance of available clean, safe, and affordable housing in the community. In April of 1991, a Housing Needs Assessment Study was conducted for the Port Angeles area as part of a larger two county study. This report is included with the Comprehensive Plan as Appendix C. The results of this study and public comments greatly influenced the development of the following goals and policies, which strive to improve the quality, affordability, and availability of housing for all segments of the community. 2 F - 47 Goals, Policies, and Objectives Goal A. To improve the variety, quality, availability, and affordability of housing opportunities in the City of Port Angeles. 11. The City should investigate the appropriate siting of additional land to be designated medium density and high density. 12. The City should strive to achieve an appropriate balance between attainable marketrate housing and affordable housing and ensure that affordable housing is provided in a way that contributes to the physical appearance and economic and social health of the neighborhoods and the City (Pages 69-70). Goal B. 6. Adequate low and moderate income housing opportunities should be provided within the Port Angeles Planning Area. 7. A scattered site housing construction program should be promoted (Page 71). F - 48 tiFIN e �M. � d- p S f ata .. _ eoo ., ., w f ivy ;4 f f i pg Wd$ a�6 kid Alt n gh�� d et FC e S i ■ 4 Q 0 '^ 3 C ^ W Q 4 Z W NtNOII L4 - am sw y `� " '✓ 19 � N Z 1OY�S! M ,gL4""0 S h I �V. 33 3 3 r 3 3 3 dY � ab?J 's �K < s � W�� I r s.D xr' Sh. �i'IQe NG N r+ -X;1*XO N R -` AOVlI 3 t~ I 9 M^ I 3 i6 gy � ggg5g 14�� ac GS ®3 F 8 a�• �y 5` `ix d a ry > i Otnsl 's aro,l ;b .Betlf 3 ]Rl I l GG < sae fie s��"n eul"zcc�izl=Bassi F -50 9 i 0.9 COUNCIL MEMO ATTACHMENT D From: Dan McKeen Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 7:52 AM To: Sissi Bruch; Brad Collins; Dan Gase; Dan DiGuilio; Patrick Downie; Cherie Kidd; Lee Whetham Cc: Nathan West; William Bloor; Janessa Hurd Subject: Quasi -Judicial Matter Mayor & Council, I wanted to make you aware that we have a pending quasi-judicial application that will require action by the City Council . It has been quite some time since Council has seen a quasi-judicial matter, and it is important that your decision is made only on the record presented to you as part of the Council meeting packet. For this reason, staff strongly discourages any communications with proponents or opponents of the project prior to the public meeting. In case there is any question, a site specific rezone is considered a Quasi-judicial matter per our Municipal Code. Any communications including emails, phone calls, or in person conversations need to be disclosed as part of the public meeting proceedings and these communications may be cause for a Council member to be disqualified from consideration of the matter. If you receive a communication, staff would be happy to respond on your behalf indicating that concerns will be incorporated into the record and presented to the Planning Commission at the time of the public hearing. Once the Planning Commission consideration is completed the complete and closed record will be presented at the next available Council meeting. If you have any questions about the rules that apply when considering quasi-judicial matters, please don't hesitate to contact Bill Bloor or Nathan. Dan Dan McKeen - City Manager CITY of PORT ANGELES PO Box 1150 / 321 E. Fifth Street / Port Angeles, WA 98362 Email: dmckeen@cityofpa.us/ Phone: 360-417-4501 Website: www.cityofpa.us F-51 February 4, 2014 TO: Applicant and All Respondents Re: An application by Green Crow Properties requesting a rezone of property at Campbell Avenue and Porter Street Subject: Corrected Procedure — Please see 7`" bulleted item This letter is intended to explain to interested parties the procedure that will be followed to hear and decide the application by Green Crow Properties requesting a rezone of property at Campbell Avenue and Porter Street. In summary: A public hearing will be conducted by the City's Planning Commission. All the testimony and documents received at the public hearing will then be transmitted to the City Council along with the action recommended by the Planning Commission. The City Council will consider the record of the Planning Commission at a public meeting but will not receive additional testimony or documents. The City Council will then decide whether to grant the requested rezone. The following provides additional details about the procedure described above: • You are encouraged to review the entire application. It is available for review at the City's Department of Conununity & Economic Development. • The entire process, from Planning Commission through the final decision by the City Council, is subject to the appearance of fairness doctrine. A summary of the appearance of fairness rules is available through the City's Department of Community & Economic Development to any interested party. • One important element of the appearance of fairness rules is that neither the City Council nor Planning Commission members can discuss this matter, or receive independent information regarding the application prior to the public hearing or Council meeting. Written public comment received during the public comment period that concluded on December 30 2013, will be included in staff's information to the City Council and Planning Commission. • The City's Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on January 22 2014 6 PM, in the City Council Chambers, 321 East Fifth Street. This will be an open record public hearing, which means that the Planning Commission will accept testimony, written comments and other evidence for and against the rezone application. F - 52 • The Planning Commission hearing (January 22) will be the last opportunity for the applicant and members of the public to provide testimony, comments, or evidence for or against the application. No additional testimony, comments or evidence will be considered after the public hearing on January 22. If you plan to participate in the public hearing process in person, you will need to attend the Planning Commission public hearing. • After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. • The City Council will consider the rezone application during Council's regular meeting of February 18, 2014, 6 PM, City Council Chambers. The City Council is the decision - maker on this rezone application. The action at the City Council will be based on the closed record created by the Planning Commission. The City Council will not accept additional testimony or evidence at the February 18 meeting. • The City Council will consider all the testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission and will decide what action the City will take on the rezone application. • If you have questions regarding any of this procedural information, please don't hesitate to contact Community & Economic Development staff at 417-4750. CC: Planning Commission members City Council members F -53 NGELES DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAN MCKEEN, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CITY HALL HOURS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Summary: In 2009, City Hall Customer Service and City Clerk Hours were decreased as a way to save on staffing costs as part of the 2009 Budget process. Since that time, the City has received significant negative feedback from the public, Council and staff regarding the inconsistency of the hours during the week as well as the shortened hours on Friday. Currently the City is making changes to the Customer Service area to improve access for the physically disabled, provide private access to Customer Service staff for confidential communications, and increase security for the area. Staff decided this was the best time to revise our City Hall business hours to provide increased and more consistent access for our citizens. Recommendation: Conduct a 2nd reading of the proposed ordinance to increase City Hall hours and adopt the ordinance as read by title. Background / Analysis: In 2009, the City Hall Customer Service and City Clerk Hours were decreased Monday through Thursday to 8:30 a.m. — 4:00 p.m., and on Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. This change was implemented to save on staffing costs as part of the 2009 Budget process. Since that time, the City has received significant negative feedback from various groups, including the public, City Council and staff. The most frequently received complaints have been the inconsistency of the hours during the week and closing early on Friday. The City is making numerous changes to the customer service area, including remodeling the front counter to improve access for the physically disabled, providing private access for citizens to have confidential conversations about their utility accounts, and more security for the Customer Service area. Staff decided this was the best time to revise our City Hall business hours. The new proposed hours will be Monday through Friday: City Hall 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Customer Service Counter 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. These new hours will increase the access for our citizens to make payments in person and access our customer service staff for other utility account needs. In addition, the hours are consistent throughout the week, providing an easy to remember schedule for the public. H-1 Page 2 City Hall Hours Ordinance Amendment City Hall will open at 8:00 a.m. and close at 5:00 p.m. Departments will be available to answer questions and provide customer service. The Customer Service counter will begin accepting payments at 8:30 a.m. and close at 4:30 p.m., however, staff will still be available to answer questions. H-2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington making changes to Chapter 2.44.030 and Chapter 3.70.010 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code relating to City Hall business hours. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 1249 as amended and Chapter 2.44 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code relating to City Hall business hours are hereby amended by amending Section 2.44.030 to read as follows: 2.44.030 Business hours. A. Except as noted in subsections B., C., and D., all public offices of the City shall remain continuously open for the transaction of business from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, inclusive, of each week. B. Customer service and City Qer-k hours are: Monday *i,..ettgi, Thttt:sda . Monday through Friday: 8:30 a.m. to 4:9930 p.m. it Ft:id ., 8:30 a.m. to 12:330 p. . C. Police Department hours are: Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. D. On Saturdays, Sundays and State legal holidays all such public offices shall be closed. E. Whenever a legal holiday falls upon a Sunday, the following Monday shall be the legal holiday. F. Whenever a legal holiday falls upon a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be the legal holiday. Section 2. Ordinance 2789 as amended and Part B of Section 3.70.010 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code relating to Finance Department fees are hereby amended by amending Part B of Section 3.70.0 10 to read as follows: 1 H -3 3.70.010 Finance Department fees. B. Utility connections/reconnections and automatic connects. 1. Utility connections/reconnections$25.00, during the following regular hours: 440oday *r,..ettgr, Thtt :sda . Monday through Friday; 8:30 a.m. to 4:99 30 p.m. .; an F -Fid .. 4:20 „ *� 2. Automatic connects pursuant to property owner agreements—$15.00 3. Utility service provided pursuant to PANIC 13.54.035(B), 13.54.050(B), and 13.54.060(B)—$15.00 4. Utility service provided pursuant to PAMC 13.12.030, 13.12.040, 13.12.041, 13.12.042, 13.12.060, 13.54.080, 13.54.120, 13.54.050(D), 13.54.060(D), 13.54.070(B) and 13.57.030(C)— $30.00, which includes all applicable taxes. 5. The fee for special emergency connects or disconnects outside of regular hours shall be $130.00. Section 3- Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of the scrivener's/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 4 - Severability. If any provisions of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstances, are held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or application of the provisions of the Ordinance to other persons or circumstances, is not affected Section 5 - Effective Date. This Ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum. This ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. 2 H-4 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 18th day of February, 2014. APPROVED AS TO FORM: William E. Bloor, City Attorney ATTEST: Janessa Hurd, City Clerk DAN DI GUILO, Mayor PUBLISHED: , 2014 By Summary 3 H -5 G, E L DATE: February 18, 2014 To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Craig Fulton, P.E., Director of Public Works and Utilities William Bloor, City Attorney Nathan West, Director of Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Apprentice Utilization Program Summary: The attached ordinance creates an Apprenticeship Utilization Program. It would apply to public works contracts issued by the City having a value of one million dollars or more, and require that at least fifteen percent of the labor hours be filled by people in state -approved apprenticeship programs. Recommendation: Conduct 2nd reading of the Apprentice Utilization Program ordinance, and adopt the ordinance as written. Background / Analysis: Development and enhancement of local contractor related trades is one way to improve long term economic stability in the Port Angeles economy. Ensuring there are adequate learning opportunities for apprentices can contribute to improved workforce capacity and capability The attached ordinance creates an apprenticeship utilization requirement. It applies to the larger public works contracts issued by the City - those with a bid amount in excess of one million dollars. It would require that fifteen percent of labor hours on such public works contracts be filled by persons enrolled in state -approved apprenticeship programs. Several other cities and counties in Washington have adopted similar programs. In broad terms, apprenticeship programs are adopted to serve two goals. The first is to encourage the development of a skilled work force in the area. Apprenticeship is a means to provide a trained and capable workforce possessing the skills necessary to fully participate in the construction trades. The second is to promote jobs for local area residents. Having a local apprenticeship requirement in local contracts will encourage local residents to engage in apprenticeship training. This, in turn, will lead to minimum wage, middle-class jobs. City staff has been working with Peninsula College to explore opportunities for training and capacity building that will strive to provide a depth of qualified apprentices in Clallam and Jefferson Counties. Staff plans to have additional updates on this effort presented at future Council meetings. It is recommended that Council conduct the 2nd reading of the attached Apprentice Utilization Program ordinance, and adopt the ordinance as written. Following adoption all bid opportunities of one million dollars and greater will provide an apprentice opportunity. Program.docx H - 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Port Angeles, Washington adding a new Chapter 3.80 to Title 3 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code establishing an apprentice program. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new Chapter is added to Title 3 of PAMC to read as follows: Sections: 3.80.010 Use of apprentices required for public works 3.80.020 Definitions 3.80.030 Apprenticeship utilization 3.80.040 Administration 3.80.050 Reporting, monitoring and proof of compliance and enforcement 3.80.010 Use of apprentices required for public works. Apprentices shall be utilized on the construction of all public works in accordance with this chapter. 3.80.020 Definitions 1) "Apprentice" means an apprentice enrolled in a state of Washington apprenticeship training program. 2) "Apprentice utilization requirement" means the requirement established by this Chapter that no less than fifteen percent of the total reported labor hours involved in a public works project be performed by apprentices. 3) "Contractor" means a person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or joint venture entering into a contract with the City to construct a public work. 4) "Director" means the Director of Public Works and Utilities, Director's designee. 5) "Emergencies" means unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the City that either: a. Present an immediate threat to the proper performance of essential functions; or 1 H -7 b. Will likely result in material loss or damage to property, bodily injury, or loss of life if immediate action is not taken. 6) "Bid Amount" means the actual bid submitted by a contractor to perform a public work, including costs of materials, supplies, equipment, and labor, but excluding taxes and contingency funds. 7) "Labor Hours" means the total hours of workers receiving an hourly wage who are directly employed on the site of the public works project. "Labor hours" shall include hours performed by workers, including foremen, employed by the contractor and all subcontractors working on the project. "Labor hours" shall exclude hours worked by superintendents, owners, and workers who are not subject to prevailing wage requirements. 8) "Public work" refers to all City funded construction projects that constitute a public work pursuant to RCW 39.04.010, as now or hereafter amended, in which the awarded Bid Amount is $1,000,000 or more at the time of contract advertisement. 9) "State -approved apprenticeship training program" means an apprenticeship program approved or recognized by the Washington State Apprenticeship and Training Council. 10) "Subcontractor" means a person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or joint venture that has contracted with the contractor to perform all or part of the work to construct a public work by a contractor. 3.80.030 Apprenticeship utilization. 1) Apprentices utilized in accordance with this chapter must be enrolled in state -approved apprenticeship programs. 2) Notice of the apprenticeship requirements of this Chapter shall be included in all instructions to bidders for projects on which the Bid Amount is reasonably expected to be $1,000,000 or more. 3) The provisions of this chapter are intended to impose a requirement on companies awarded certain Public Works contracts. These provisions are not intended to create an actionable duty on the officers and employees of the City of Port Angeles. These provisions are not intended to confer on any third parties an independent cause of action or claim for relief against the City, and these provisions shall not be used as a basis for a lawsuit challenging the award of any contract by the City of Port Angeles. 2 H -8 3.80.040 Administration Apprentices shall be utilized for the construction of public works by contractors and subcontractors in accordance with this section. 1) Apprenticeship utilization program requirement: Public works by contracts shall require that a man(latory 15 percent minimum of the contract labor hours sluffl be p erl'ornie(lby apprentices enroHe(I �n a state of Wasldngton cerffl' e(l program The 15% contract labor hours may be an aggregate of both contractor and subcontractor apprentice manhours. 2) Contract requirements. The contract documents for such public works construction projects shall include provisions imposing the apprentice labor requirements established in this Chapter. Such contractual provisions may include liquidated damages. The Director is hereby authorized calculate for each project a liquidated damages amount, calculated to reimburse the City for the Contractor's breach of this Chapter. 3) The City will make available an apprenticeship utilization plan form, which identifies the intended usage of apprentices by the contractor and/or any subcontractors to be submitted and used in evaluation of successful bidder in awarding of the public works contract. If the contractor cannot show its 15% minimum apprentice hours proposal, the bid may be deemed non- responsive by the City. 4) Failure to meet utilization goal. Failure by a contractor to comply with established apprenticeship requirements, unless otherwise reduced or waived in writing as set forth below, shall be deemed a breach of contract for which the City shall be entitled to all remedies allowed by law. Failure to comply with the apprenticeship requirements may also be considered evidence bearing on a contractor's responsibility for award of future contracts with the City. 5) Reduction or Waiver. The Director, or his designee, may reduce or waive the requirements of this section for a specific project at any time for the following reasons: a. An emergency exists. b. The demonstrated lack of availability of apprentices in specific geographic areas; c.A disproportionately high ratio of material costs to labor hours, which does not make feasible the required minimum levels of apprentice participation; d. The reasonable and necessary requirements of the contract render apprentice utilization infeasible at the required levels; e. The participating contractor has demonstrated a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of this section and has been unable to retain enough apprentices. 6) Grant funding. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the extent they are deemed to be in conflict with state or federal grant funding requirements. 3 H -9 7) By entering into a public works contract, all firms, corporations, and persons subject to the provisions of this chapter agree to submit to the City all information, reports, and policies relevant to the enforcement of applicable provisions of this chapter. The City will require periodic reporting on apprentice utilization to be included with each invoice submitted to the City. Such reports shall include an apprenticeship utilization report by the contractor and subcontractors that will identify the actual work performed by apprentices for the contractor and subcontractors on a monthly basis. Required reporting will include the identification of individual apprentices by name and Washington State apprenticeship registration number, and the total apprentice labor hours worked. This provision is not intended and shall not be used to discriminate against any applicant for training. The Director is hereby authorized to adopt administrative policies and procedures that establish the means and methods appropriate to efficiently carry out the reporting requirements of this Chapter. 8) All apprenticeship utilization requirement documentation shall be submitted in a timely manner to coincide with billing period. The City of Port Angeles will not release any construction funds until all apprenticeship utilization requirement documentation has been submitted to the City. Monthly reporting to the City is deemed necessary to ensure successful implementation of this program 9) Upon successful completion of the public works project, the City's project manager will compile & submit a final apprenticeship report to be used by the Director for the report to City council. Dispersing of final project funds shall be withheld until this report is completed and given to the Director. 3.80.050 Reporting to the City Council. The Director, or his designee, shall report to the council upon the use of apprentices for construction projects. The report shall be part of the final contract acceptance presented to Council and will include: 1) The percentage of labor hours actually worked by apprentices on each awarded project and the total number of labor hours on each awarded project; 2) The number of apprentices by contractor broken down by trade and craft category; 3) Others facts and information that demonstrate the results and consequences of the apprenticeship program established by this chapter. 11 H-10 Section 2 - Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of the scrivener's/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 3 - Severability. If any provisions of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstances, are held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, or application of the provisions of the Ordinance to other persons or circumstances, is not affected. Section 4 -Effective Date. This Ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum. This ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Angeles at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of APPROVED AS TO FORM: William E. Bloor, City Attorney ATTEST: Janessa Hurd, City Clerk PUBLISHED: 2014 By Summary 5 2014. Dan Di Guilio, Mayor H-11 NGELES DATE: February 18, 2014 To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Craig Fulton, P.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: DOE Interagency Agreement for Financial Assistance - Landfill Bluff Cell Stabilization — Phase 1, Project SW02-2012 Summary: The State of Washington through the Department of Ecology (DOE) has acquired financial assistance in the amount of $3,999,100 for waste relocation that is part of the Landfill Bluff Stabilization Project. An interagency agreement has been developed to provide for the acceptance and administration of these funds. Recommendation: Accept the financial assistance from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the amount of $3,999,100 and authorize the City Manager to sign the Interagency Agreement for the acceptance and administration of these funds, and to make minor modifications to the Agreement, if necessary. Background/Analysis: The Port Angeles Landfill (PALF) is located along the Straits of Juan de Fuca, and erosion of the marine bluffs is threatening to expose municipal solid waste and allow that waste to spill onto the beach. A project has been developed by the City to alleviate the threat of an uncontrolled release occurring to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The State of Washington, through the Department of Ecology (DOE), has acquired financial assistance in the amount of $3,999,100 to support waste relocation that is part of the Landfill Bluff Stabilization Project. An interagency agreement has been developed to provide for the acceptance and administration of these funds. The interagency agreement is attached with this memorandum. It is recommended that City Council accept the financial assistance from the Washington State Department of Ecology in the amount of $3,999,100 and authorize the City Manager to sign the Interagency Agreement for the acceptance and administration of these funds, and to make minor modifications to the Agreement, if necessary. Attachment: Interagency Agreement N:\CCOUNCIL\FINAL\DOE Interagency Agreement for Financial Assistance - Landfill Bluff Stabilization SW02-2012.docx J-1 wwr DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington IAA No. C1400163 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT (IAA) BETWEEN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND CITY OF PORT ANGELES THIS INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, hereinafter referred to as "ECOLOGY," and the CITY OF PORT ANGELES hereinafter referred to as the "CITY" pursuant to the authority granted by Chapter 39.34 RCW. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT to provide funds from ECOLOGY to the CITY to assist the CITY in carrying out a portion of the Port Angeles Landfill Cell Stabilization project hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT". A summary of the total PROJECT objectives and budget are provided in Appendix A. THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED THAT: 1) STATEMENT OF WORK ECOLOGY shall furnish funding to the CITY to implement only the Waste Relocation element of the PROJECT at the closed Port Angeles Landfill located at 3501 West 18'b Street, Port Angeles, WA 98363. ECOLOGY shall reimburse costs in an amount not to exceed $3,999,100 to the CITY for personnel (non - CITY employees), contracts, purchased services, equipment, and or supplies reasonable and necessary for the performance of all or any portion of the activities set forth below: 1. Removal of existing final cover on the eastern portion of the 304 landfill cell. 2. Removal of the existing final cover from the 351 landfill cell. 3. Removal of a portion (up to 265,000 cubic yards) of the solid waste material currently contained in the eastern portion of the 304 landfill cell. 4. Screening of removed solid waste material for identifiable dangerous wastes. 5. Appropriate management of any dangerous wastes identified during waste screening. 6. Placement of the removed 304 landfill cell solid waste material into the 351 landfill cell. 7. Placement of new final cover meeting or exceeding the requirements of WAC 173-304 on the uncovered areas of the 304 landfill cell. J-2 State of Washington, Department of Ecology IAA No. C1400163 Page 2 of 10 8. Placement of new final cover meeting or exceeding the requirements of WAC 173-351 on the uncovered areas of the 351 landfill cell. 9. Restoration and/or improvement of landfill gas, leachate, and stormwater systems within areas of the facility affected by the work identified in items 1 through 8. 10. Construction, as necessary to maintain safety or regulatory compliance during execution of items 1 through 9, of features such as access roads and temporary stormwater and wastewater facilities. 2) SCOPE OF SERVICES The CITY intends to accomplish the itemized activities in the Statement of Work above by executing and managing one or more contracts for construction, construction management, engineering, and archaeological services. The CITY will perform the following services in accomplishment of the PROJECT. Eligible expenses not to exceed $3,999,100 related to Tasks 2 through 5 below may be reimbursed under this Agreement. Task 1 - Project Administration/Management A. This task includes the CITY personnel and their associated City General &Administrative overhead expenses. The CITY will administer the PROJECT. Responsibilities will include, but not be limited to: maintenance of PROJECT records; submittal of payment vouchers, fiscal forms, and progress reports; compliance with applicable procurement, contracting, and interlocal agreement requirements; attainment of all required permits, licenses, easements, or property rights necessary for the PROJECT; and submittal of required performance items. B. The CITY will manage the project. Efforts will include: conducting, coordinating, and scheduling project activities and assuring quality control. Every effort will be made to maintain effective communication with the CITY's designees; ECOLOGY; all affected local, state, or federal jurisdictions; and any interested individuals or groups. The CITY will carry out this PROJECT in accordance with any completion dates outlined in this Agreement. Required Performance: 1. Effective administration and management of this PROJECT. 2. Timely submittal of all required performance items, progress reports, and financial vouchers. Task 2 -Archaeology/Cultural Resources All ground disturbing activities for the PROJECT will be managed as part of an accepted Archaeological Monitoring/Inadvertent Discovery Plan. Required Performance: 1. Provide monitor where required for excavation activities. 2. Protect or recover archaeological resources consistent with local, state, federal and tribal requirements. 3. Submit a copy of all executed contracts for archaeology/cultural resources services performed under this task. The CITY must submit executed contracts before ECOLOGY will consider reimbursement for work performed under this task. J-3 State of Washington, Department of Ecology IAA No. C1400163 Page 3 of 10 Task 3 - Construction Management, Construction Engineering, and Quality Assurance A. The CITY will provide adequate and competent construction management and inspection for the PROJECT using a construction management consultant. The CITY and consultant will revise or update the schedule whenever major changes occur and resubmit to ECOLOGY. The CITY will review and approve change orders (see Task 5) and authorize payments to the construction contractor. B. The consultant will develop a detailed Construction Quality Assurance Plan. This plan must describe the activities which the consultant will undertake to achieve adequate and competent oversight of all construction work. C. To provide construction quality assurance and quality control, the consultant will conduct field engineering and construction inspections to ensure the work and materials are in conformance with the contract documents and are of acceptable quality. Performance testing will be monitored to ensure compliance with specifications and ability to meet performance requirements. Daily written and verbal reports of construction activities will be performed. D. The CITY will undertake professional engineering work from an engineering consultant as required during the course of construction. Engineering support during construction may be required to interpret original design intent, review Contractor proposed changes, develop solutions to adapt the design to any unforeseen conditions, and review Contractor submittals that document materials, equipment, and systems to be incorporated into the work. Also included is engineering consultant preparation of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manuals for new facilities, and the preparation of record drawings to document as -built conditions. The CITY will provide ECOLOGY's Project Manager with a set of "as -built" plans. Required Performance: 1. Submit a copy of all executed contracts for engineering and construction quality assurance services performed under this task. The CITY must submit executed contracts before ECOLOGY will consider reimbursement for work performed under this task. 2. Invite ECOLOGY Project and Financial managers to pre -construction meeting. 3. Submit a Construction Quality Assurance Plan. 4. Ensure a high level of construction quality. 5. Ensure PROJECT is constructed as outlined in approved Plans and Specifications. 6. Submit Record Drawings (as-builts) to ECOLOGY. 7. Provide O&M Manual for review and approval by ECOLOGY. Task 4 — Project Construction (low bid) A. The CITY will execute a construction contract with the low responsive responsible bidder to construct the PROJECT. B. The selected construction contractor will perform all construction activities for the project. Contractor responsibilities include provision of material for and construction of the PROJECT in conformance with the contract documents, and within the contract time specified. C. The CITY will complete the construction in accordance with the approved Plans and Specifications. J -4 State of Washington, Department of Ecology IAA No. C1400163 Page 4 of 10 Required Performance: 1. Satisfactory completion of the PROJECT in conformance with the approved Plans and Specifications. 2. Submit the following required submittals: a. Bid Tabs, the Notice of Award, and a copy of the executed contract. The CITY must submit Bid Tabs, the Notice of Award, and a copy of the executed contract before ECOLOGY will consider reimbursement for work performed under this task. b. Copy of the advertisement for bids and the affidavit of publication. c. Copy of the notice to proceed. d. Minutes of the pre -construction meeting. 3. Ensure constructed facilities in conformance with Contract Documents. 4. Complete work in a timely manner. 5. Ensure successful start-up of new systems. 6. Provide required training of the CITY staff regarding warranties, and guarantees for the equipment, materials, and workmanship. 7. Comply with all applicable local, State, and Federal regulations and requirements related to the work. Task 5 —Construction Change Order Contingeaa A. The CITY and its consultants will negotiate all construction contract change orders to the construction contract necessary for successful completion of the PROJECT. B. The CITY will submit the construction contract change orders to ECOLOGY for approval. Required Performance: Submit all construction contract change orders to ECOLOGY. Changes to the construction contract must be approved prior to reimbursement for work performed under this task. ECOLOGY will review and confirm: 1. Completed work meets the performance requirements in the Task descriptions. 2. Work is executed in a manner which complies with all applicable local, State, and Federal regulations and requirements related to the work. 3) RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO SOLID WASTE PERMIT Clallam County Environmental Health Services (CCEHS) is the permitting authority for the Port Angeles Landfill. The PROJECT will require a modification of the CITY's existing solid waste permit for the landfill. The CITY has submitted an application to CCEHS for the solid waste permit modification. Several PROJECT task elements require regulatory approval from CCEHS under the solid waste permit. The CITY's submittals of relevant documents to CCEHS and to ECOLOGY, and subsequent CCEHS's approvals of them through the modification of the solid waste permit, will satisfy for the purposes of this Agreement the following performance requirements in the Scope of Services above: Task 3, Requirement 3 - Submit a Construction Quality Assurance Plan. Task 3, Requirement 6 - Submit Record Drawings (as-builts) to ECOLOGY. Task 3, Requirement 7 - Provide O&M Manual for review and approval by ECOLOGY. J-5 State of Washington, Department of Ecology IAA No. C1400163 Page 5 of 10 4) PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE Subject to its other provisions, the period of performance of this Agreement shall commence on the date the agreement is signed by ECOLOGY and be completed by June 30, 2015 unless terminated sooner as provided herein. Amendments extending the period of performance, if any, shall be at the sole discretion of ECOLOGY. 5) PAYMENT Compensation for the work provided in accordance with this Agreement has been established under the terms of RCW 39.34.130 and in accordance with Governor's Executive Order 10-07 and RCW 39.26.180(3). This is a performance-based contract, in which payment is based on the successful completion of expected deliverables. Payment for eligible costs shall not exceed $3,999,100 unless the parties mutually agree to a higher amount. ECOLOGY will not make payment until it has reviewed and confirmed completed work is included in the list of reimbursable activities set forth in the Statement of Work, and meets the performance requirements provided in the Scope of Services. 6) BILLING PROCEDURE The CITY shall submit a request for payment to ECOLOGY no more frequently than once per month. The CITY must submit a request for payment on approved State Invoice Voucher forms: A19 -1A, B2, C2, provided electronically by ECOLOGY. Until there is a change in agency policy, the CITY must submit an A19 -IA with an original signature in blue ink, signed by an authorized person. The B2 and C2 forms may be submitted in electronic format. The CITY must also include copies of invoices to support costs itemized on Form C2. Invoices must be provided in the order they are itemized on the C2 and may be submitted electronically with the B2 and C2 forms. A request for payment and all invoices are to be submitted to: By USPS ATTN: TAMI RAMSEY W2R PROGRAM — SWRO DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO BOX 47775 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7775 By e-mail tami.ramsey@ecy.wa.gov Each invoice shall reference the Agreement number C1400163 and identify the related activity itemized in the Statement of Work and Scope of Services. A final claim for payment shall be submitted within 30 days after the completion of the work or within 15 days after the Agreement expiration date, whichever is earlier. ECOLOGY will approve payments within 30 days of receipt of a properly completed payment request. Payment for approved and completed work will be issued through Washington State's Department of Enterprise Services Statewide Payee Desk. To receive payment you must register as a state-wide vendor by submitting a state-wide vendor registration form and an IRS W-9 form at website, htip://www.des.wa.gov/seivices/ContractingPurchasing/BusinessNendorPU/Pages/default.aspx. If you have questions about the vendor registration process you can contact DES at the Payee Help Desk at (360) 407-8180 or email I a� yeehelpdesk&des.wa.gov. J-6 State of Washington, Department of Ecology IAA No. C1400163 Page 6 of 10 7) AGREEMENT ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. 8) THIRD -PARTY CONTRACTS The CITY agrees to take complete responsibility for all actions of any third -party contracts used for the performances under this Agreement. Following execution of a third -party contract, the CITY will submit a copy of the signed contract to ECOLOGY. ECOLOGY will review the contract and provide a written determination for costs eligible for reimbursement under this Agreement and the backup documents required to support those costs. 9) ASSIGNMENT The work to be provided under this Agreement, and any claim arising thereunder, is not assignable or delegable by either party in whole or in part, without the express prior written consent of the other party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 10) DISPUTES In the event that a dispute arises under this Agreement, it shall be determined by a Dispute Board in the following manner: Each party to this Agreement shall appoint one member to the Dispute Board. The members so appointed shall jointly appoint an additional member to the Dispute Board. The Dispute Board shall review the facts, agreement terms and applicable statutes and rules and make a determination of the dispute. The determination of the Dispute Board shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. As an alternative to this process, either of the parties may request intervention by the Governor, as provided by RCW 43.17.330, in which event the Governor's process will control. 11) GOVERNANCE AND PRECEDENCE This Agreement is entered into pursuant to and under the authority granted by the laws of the state of Washington and any applicable federal laws. The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed to conform to those laws. In the event of an inconsistency in the terms of this Agreement, or between its terms and any applicable statute or rule, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: a. Applicable Federal and State of Washington statutes, regulations and rules. b. Mutually agreed written amendments to this Agreement. c. This Agreement. d. Statement of Work and Budget. e. Any other provisions of the Agreement, including materials incorporated by reference. 12) INDEPENDENT CAPACITY The employees or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement shall continue to be employees or agents of that party and shall not be considered for any purpose to be employees or agents of the other party. J-7 State of Washington, Department of Ecology IAA No. C1400163 Page 7 of 10 13) RECORDS MAINTENANCE The parties to this Agreement shall each maintain books, records, documents and other evidence that sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended by either parry in the performance of the service(s) described herein. These records shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by personnel of either party, other personnel duly authorized by either party, the Office of the State Auditor, and federal officials so authorized by law. All books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this Agreement will be retained for six years after expiration and the Office of the State Auditor, federal auditors, and any persons duly authorized by the parties shall have full access and the right to examine any of these materials during this period. Records and other documents, in any medium, furnished by one parry to this agreement to the other party, will remain the property of the furnishing party, unless otherwise agreed. The receiving party will not disclose or make available this material to any third parties without first giving notice to the furnishing parry and giving it a reasonable opportunity to respond. Each party will utilize reasonable security procedures and protections to assure that records and documents provided by the other party are not erroneously disclosed to third parties. 14) RIGHTS IN DATA Unless otherwise provided, data which originates from this Agreement shall be "works for hire" as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 and shall be owned by ECOLOGY. Data shall include, but not be limited to, reports, documents, pamphlets, advertisements, books magazines, surveys, studies, computer programs, films, tapes, and/or sound reproductions. Ownership includes the right to copyright, patent, register, and the ability to transfer these rights. 15) SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of applicable law and the fundamental purpose of this agreement, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. 16) TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' prior written notification to the other party. If this Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or eligible costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. 17) TERMINATION FOR CAUSE If for any cause, either party does not fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, or if either party violates any of these terms and conditions, the aggrieved party will give the other party written notice of such failure or violation. The responsible party will be given the opportunity to correct the violation or failure within 15 working days. If failure or violation is not corrected, this Agreement may be terminated immediately by written notice of the aggrieved party to the other. J-8 State of Washington, Department of Ecology IAA No. C1400163 Page 8 of 10 18) FUNDING AVAILABILITY ECOLOGY's ability to make payments is contingent on availability of funding. In the event funding from state, federal, or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date and prior to completion or expiration date of this agreement, ECOLOGY, at its sole discretion, may elect to terminate the agreement, in whole or part, or renegotiate the agreement, subject to new funding limitations or conditions. ECOLOGY may also elect to suspend performance of the agreement until ECOLOGY determines the funding insufficiency is resolved. ECOLOGY may exercise any of these options with no notification restrictions. 19) WAIVER A failure by either party to exercise its rights under this Agreement shall not preclude that party from subsequent exercise of such rights and shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights under this Agreement unless stated to be such in a writing signed by an authorized representative of the party and attached to the original Agreement. 20) AGREEMENT MANAGEMENT The representative for each of the parties shall be responsible for and shall be the contact person for all communications regarding the performance of this Agreement. The ECOLOGY Representative is: The CITY Representative is: Name: Peter Lyon Name: Kathryn Neal, P.E. Regional Section Manager Engineering Manager Address: W2R Program - SWRO Address: PO Box 1150 PO Box 47775 (321 East Fifth St) Olympia WA 98504-7775 Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 Phone: (360) 407-6381 Phone: (360) 417-4821 Email: plyo461@ecy.wa.gov Email: kneal@cityofpa.us Fax: (360) 407-6305 Fax: (360) 417-4709 J-9 State of Washington, Department of Ecology IAA No. C1400163 Page 9 of 10 21) ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. The signatories to this Agreement represent that they have the authority to bind their respective organizations to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. State of Washington Department of Ecology Signature Date Polly Zehm Deputy Director Approved as to form: Attorney General's Office City of Port Angeles Signature Date Dan McKeen City Manager J-10 State of Washington, Department of Ecology IAA No. C1400163 Page 10 of 10 APPENDIX A LANDFILL CELL STABILIZATION PROJECT PROJECT SUMMARY The Port Angeles Landfill Cell Stabilization Project is being undertaken to prevent an uncontrolled release of municipal solid waste into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Port Angeles Landfill serves eastern Clallam County and the cities of Port Angeles and Sequim. It is located on the west edge of town at the end of W. 18"' Street. As a result of continuing erosion at the base of the bluffs along the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the edge of one of the municipal solid waste cells was exposed at the top of the 135 ft - high bluff in 2011. The CITY has made short term repairs, but a larger project is needed to protect the Strait from the threat of deposition of refuse. This project is based on a managed retreat of the landfill away from the shoreline, rather than extensive shoreline armoring. The remediated shoreline will form an embayment through natural erosive forces, and the amount of refuse removed is sufficient to provide at least 25 years of protection, based on conservative (high) estimates of erosion rates. The two primary elements of the project are: 1) Waste Relocation - Relocation of up to 265,000 cubic yards of refuse from the eastern portion of the 304 Cell and placement of the refuse in the 351 Cell; 2) Seawall Modifications - Modifications at the ends of an existing seawall to provide scour protection and an adaptable transition between the seawall and the eroding bluff. The CITY is proceeding with project design and permitting, and the project is scheduled to be advertised for bids between March 2014 and May 2014, with a strong preference for the earlier date. The entire project construction is scheduled to be complete by October 2014, when wet weather is anticipated to make site work unfeasible. If construction is not complete at that time, a second construction season will be required in May through October 2015. TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATED COSTS Design, site investigations, and permitting $2,938,057 Post Construction Award Design Support $500,000 Construction Management Services $1,600,000 Construction Contract, including tax $14,660,000 TOTAL $19,698,057 ECOLOGY SHARE REIMBURSEMENT Task 1 Project Administration/Management (City personnel and associated Indirect Costs) $0 Tasks 2 through 5 $3,999,100 TOTAL $3,999,100 NGELE COUNCIL DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: NATHAN WEST, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WILLIAM BLOOR, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: HARBOR CLEANUP PROCESS - AMENDMENT TO WORK ORDER NO.2 Summary: The City Council previously approved Work Order No. 2. Work Order No. 2 is for work to complete a draft Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Western Port Angeles Harbor Group's Agreed Order with Department of Ecology. This amendment adds to the scope of work and the budget. Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment to Work Order No. 2 expanding the scope of work and increasing the total price from $555,500 to $573,500 and to approve minor modifications to the Work Order as needed. The City's share of the increase is $4,500. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2012, the Department of Ecology released a harbor sediment investigation report. Based on that report, DOE subsequently notified the City that it is one of several entities potentially liable for some portion of the contaminants in the harbor. The City and the other entities named as potentially liable parties (PLP) — the Port, Nippon, Merrill & Ring, and Georgia Pacific — joined together to share costs and jointly approved a series of agreements, which include: an Agreed Order, Participation Agreement, and Environmental Services Agreement. The Agreed Order (AO) legally obligates the City, and the other PLPs who signed it, to complete a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RDFS) for the Western Port Angeles Harbor (WPAH). The PLP group also identified four technical consultants to work on the RDFS, each one with a specified piece of the work. The PLP group selected one consultant, FLOYDISNIDER, as the coordinator, to act as administrator for all the consultants. The PLP group contracted with J-12 Page 2 Memo to Council Re: Harbor Cleanup -Amendment to Work Order No. 2 February 18, 2014 FLOYDISNIDER, which in turn subcontracted with the other three consultants. The contract specified that work would be performed under three work orders. Work Order No. 1 is currently in effect and has been since April, 2013. In essence, it provides for collection of data, which will be used to prepare the RDFS. In October, 2013, the City Council approved Work Order No. 2, which delineates work needed to prepare the RDFS. Work Order No. 2 relates to RDFS content and was included in the original overall project scope of work and fee estimate as work that would be conducted. Work Order No. 2 was approved with a budget amount of $555,500. The consultants now recommend an amendment to Work Order No. 2 authorizing an increased scope of work and an increase of $18,000 for a total revised amount of $573,500. The City's share of the $18,000 is $4,500. The increased amount of $18,000 would be spent to perform watershed loading calculations and evaluation. As facts and issues have evolved, these calculations appear to have immediate applications for the FS to determine natural recovery rates, which is very important to determining a remedy. Council has previously authorized a $1,200,000 budget for this project with the funding coming from the Harbor Study Surcharge collected on the monthly utility bill. Originally, the City had anticipated a $400,000 Remedial Action grant from the State Department of Ecology. Unfortunately, that grant was not approved in 2013 but the funding request is contained in the Department of Ecology's supplemental budget request currently before the State Legislature. We are hopeful that the Legislature will approve the grant as part of the supplemental budget process under discussion. The City has also started receiving payments from insurance companies who previously provided liability insurance coverage to the City. We believe that those insurance payments, plus the Department of Ecology grant, will allow the City to end the Harbor Study Surcharge earlier than expected once we get a more secure handle on the total funding that may come from insurance. We anticipate that we will be giving Council an in-depth briefing regarding the finances associated with this project once we have the outcome of the current legislative request and further information from our insurance carriers. It should be noted that the City currently has commitments for expenditures that total $1,152,825 — leaving a contingency of $47,175 available for further work to be authorized. The contingency amount assumes Council approval of the proposed amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to approve an amendment to Work Order No. 2 expanding the scope of work and increasing the total price from $555,500 to $573,500, and to approve minor modifications to the Work Order as needed. J-13 NGELES COUNCIL DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAN MCKEEN, CITY MANAGER WILLIAM BLOOR, CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: SALE OF CAPACITY PROVISIONING, INC., (CPI) Summary: CPI provides fiber network connections and equipment to the City under a long-term contract. Wave Broadband has offered to purchase CPI, resulting in the need for the City to evaluate its options regarding these services. On December 17, 2013, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CPI, providing the City with future rate predictability. Wave objected to one item. City staff, CPI and Wave subsequently agreed on a compromise that addresses Wave's concern while maintaining substantial benefits for the City. Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendments to the MOU with CPI attached, and authorize the City Manager to make minor modifications as necessary. Background / Analysis: In 2002, Capacity Provisioning, Inc., (CPI) entered into a seven-year contract with the City to provide fiber optic computer network connections and equipment. In 2009, the City conducted a competitive selection process to select a provider for fiber optic network services. CPI was selected again to provide these services to the City with another seven-year contract, which expires on September 6, 2017. In the summer of 2013, the owners of CPI notified the City they intended to sell the company. Columbia Telecommunications Company (CTC) was hired to evaluate the City's alternatives in light of that announced intent to sell. Then in November, CPI notified the City that Wave Broadband has made a firm offer to purchase CPI. In addition, CPI and Wave made an offer to the City to extend the City's contract with CPI until 2024, and Wave Broadband has agreed to honor the extended agreement if they finalize the purchase of CPI. J-14 Page 2 Memo to Council Re: Capacity Provisioning, Inc. February 18, 2014 After receiving this news, City staff consulted with CTC. Together, they developed a recommendation that the City accept the offer from Wave Broadband and CPI, providing the City with future rate predictability. On December 17, 2013, the City accepted the offer from Wave Broadband and CPI and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with CPI. Shortly after that, Wave objected to one element of the MOU. City staff, CPI and Wave subsequently agreed on a compromise that addresses Wave's concern while maintaining substantial benefits for the City. The significant change is that the City has agreed to exempt specified connections from the 90 -day provision. That provision allows the City to terminate services on 90 days' notice. The amendment excludes specified services from that provision. The 90 -day provision continues to apply to other connections and services. CTC analyzed the amendment. CTC and City staff are comfortable recommending acceptance because the connections excluded from the 90—day provisions are "core" connections that the City would not remove so long as the CPI agreement lasts. J-15 AMENDED AND RESTATED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding (this "MOU") is made and entered into this day of February _, 2014 (the "MOU Effective Date") by and between the City of Port Angeles, a Washington municipal corporation (the "C�"), and Capacity Provisioning Inc., a Washington corporation ("CPI"). This MOU amends and restates in its entirety that prior Memorandum of Understanding dated December 19, 2013, by and between the City and CPI. Factual Background A. Metropolitan Area Network Services. On March 30, 2010, the City and CPI entered into that certain Metropolitan Area Network Services Agreement pursuant to which CPI is providing wide area networking, point-to-point fiber optic communications services, Internet access services, on-call network consulting services and other telecommunications services to the City (collectively, the "MAN Services") in exchange for certain non-recurring charges and monthly recurring fees as described in the Services Agreement. On December 20, 2011, CPI and the City entered into a Supplement to the Metropolitan Area Network Services Agreement (the "Supplement"), which sets forth the terms and conditions for commercial use of the City -owned site as authorized in Section 4.5 of the Metropolitan Area Network Services Agreement (the Metropolitan Area Network Services Agreement, as amended by the Supplement, is referred to herein as the "Services Agreement"). The Services Agreement provides for an initial term that will expire on September 6, 2017. The Services Agreement also provides in Section 5.9 [City Right to Purchase] that under certain circumstances the City shall have a right to purchase the core switching equipment, customer premises equipment, telecommunications facilities and site drops owned by CPI and used in connection with the provision of the MAN Services to the City (the "Purchase Option"), and further provides in Section 5.5 [Subcontracts/Assignment] that any assignment or transfer of CPI's right, title or interest under the Services Agreement will be subject to the City's prior written approval. B. Right -of -Way License. On March 19, 2013, the City and CPI entered into that certain Right -of -Way License Renewal No. 2 (the "ROW License") pursuant to which the City granted CPI a license to construct, maintain, operate and use a telecommunication system in the public streets, alleys and rights-of-way in the City to provide private telecommunications services to public institutions and business end users in the City. CPI provides certain of such services pursuant to the Services Agreement. The ROW License provides for a term of five (5) years that will expire on March 18, 2018. The ROW License also provides in Section 14 [Sale or Transfer] that any assignment or transfer of CPI's right, title or interest under the ROW License will be subject to the City's prior written approval and that the City shall have the right of first refusal to acquire the telecommunications system owned by CPI, in the event of any transfer, assignment or sale (the "ROFR1. C. Wireless Mobile Data System. On December 20, 2011, CPI and the City entered into a Wireless Mobile Data System Acquisition and Integration Agreement, as subsequently amended on July 19, 2012 and again on September 12, 2012 (as amended, the "WMDS Acquisition Agreement"), pursuant to which CPI constructed a wireless mobile data system (the "WMDS System") for the City's ownership and use. In accordance with the WMDS Acquisition Agreement CPI completed the construction of the WMDS System and the City successfully Memorandum of Understanding J-16 completed all system acceptance testing in accordance with the WMDS Acquisition Agreement and accepted the WMDS System. On December 20, 2011, CPI and the City entered into a Wireless Mobile Data System Operation, Management and Maintenance Services Agreement (the "WMDS OM&M Agreement") pursuant to which CPI provides operations, management and maintenance services for the WMDS System for the City. D. CPI's Sale to Wave Broadband. CPI and WaveDivision I, LLC, a Washington limited liability company d/b/a Wave Broadband ("Wave"), have agreed in principal that CPI will sell to Wave substantially all of CPI's tangible and intangible assets and business operations, including without limitation the Services Agreement the ROW License, and the WMDS OM&M Agreement. (The Services Agreement, the ROW License, and the WMDS OM&M Agreement are referred to collectively as the "Current Agreements".) The purchase and sale transaction between Wave and CPI (the "Transaction") is expected to close (the "Closing") on or before March 1, 2014, and is expressly subject to the receipt of various regulatory approvals and third party consents and the satisfaction of other closing conditions among which are (i) the amendment of the Current Agreements as provided herein, (ii) the consent of the City to the assignment of the Current Agreements from CPI to Wave, (iii) the City's waiver of any rights under the Purchase Option, and (iv) the City's confirmation of the status of the Current Agreements. As part of the Closing, Wave will acknowledge in writing that it will be bound and obligated to fully perform and carry out all duties, obligations, and liabilities of CPI to the City under the terms and provisions of all of the Current Agreements between CPI and the City that accrue from and after the Closing. Understandinia and Atareement IN CONSIDERATION of the agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Representations. The statements made in the Factual Background set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein for all purposes. The parties each represent that the other party and Wave may justifiably rely on the statements made in the Factual Background. Matters Relatinia to the Services Atareement and the WMDS OM&M Agreement. (a) Term. The term of each of the Services Agreement and the WMDS OM&M Agreement is hereby extended and shall continue in full force and effect until September 6, 2024. The City shall retain its right to further extend the term of each of the Services Agreement and the WMDS OM&M Agreement for up to two additional one-year periods by providing notice, as applicable, in accordance with (i) Section 2.4 [Agreement Term] and Section 5.1 [Notices] of the Services Agreement or (ii) Section 1 [Agreement Term] and Section 4.5 [Notices] of the WMDS OM&M Agreement; provided however, the monthly recurring fees for the MAN Services and the monthly recurring fees payable by the City pursuant to the WMDS OM&M Agreement may be increased during each such one year extension periods in accordance with Section 2(b) of this MOL). Memorandum of Understanding J-17 (b) Pricing. The fees for each of the MAN Services provided to the City as of the MOU Effective Date pursuant to the Services Agreement and the fees for the services provided to the City as of the MOU Effective Date pursuant to the WMDS OM&M Agreement are set forth on Schedule 1, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference (the "Current Fees List"). The fees set forth on the Current Fees List will remain in effect through September 5, 2017. On September 6, 2017 and annually thereafter for the remainder of the term of the Service Agreement and the remainder of the term of the WMDS OM&M Agreement, any and all of the service fees and charges thereunder may be increased by up to five percent (5%) per year plus an amount equal to the increase, if any, in City -imposed taxes or fees related to the services provided pursuant to the Services Agreement or the WMDS OM&M Agreement. (c) Purchase Option. The City hereby irrevocably waives any and all of its rights under the Purchase Option. Effective from and after the Closing, Section 5.9 [City Right to Purchase] of the Services Agreement is hereby amended to delete the Purchase Option in its entirety and the Purchase Option shall be of no further force or effect. (d) Recall Rights. The City has not exercised its rights pursuant to Section 2.6 or Section 2.10(3) of the Services Agreement to recall the use of any of the dark fibers granted to CPI (the "Recall Rights"). The City hereby irrevocably waives any and all of its rights under the Recall Rights. Effective from and after the Closing, Section 2.6 or Section 2.10(3) of the Services Agreement are hereby amended to delete the Recall Rights in their entirety and the Recall Rights shall be of no further force or effect. (e) Limited Right to Discontinue Service. Section 3.2 of the Services Agreement grants the City the right to discontinue sites serviced under the Services Agreement by providing ninety (90) days' written notice to CPI. The parties hereby amend Section 3.2 of the Services Agreement to amend and limit the City's rights to discontinue service under Section 3.2 (upon ninety (90) days' prior written notice of termination) only as follows: (1) At any time, the City may terminate service to a site serviced under the Services Agreement if such site is removed from City inventory, sold, or transferred, provided that the City, at least 30 days prior to the effective date of termination, orders other or additional services for other existing or replacement sites with the same or greater value as the services being terminated (each, a "Transferred Site"); and (2) Beginning from September 6, 2017, the City may terminate service to a site serviced under the Services Agreement only for (i) those services that are identified as a "Terminable Service" on the Current Fees List attached as Schedule 1 to this MOU or (ii) Transferred Sites. With respect to any Transferred Site for which the City terminate services pursuant to Section 3.2, as amended above, the City shall give 30 days' written notice in the event Memorandum of Understanding J-18 that any such Transferred Site is subsequently reacquired by the City, and such reacquired site shall be added back to the Services Agreement. Matters Relating to the ROW License. (a) Term. The term of the ROW License is hereby extended and shall continue in full force and effect until September 6, 2024. In the event the City determines to extend the term of the Services Agreement for up to two additional one-year periods pursuant to Section 2(a) of this MOU, then the term of the ROW License shall be extended automatically such that it is coterminous with the Service Agreement. (b) ROFR. The City hereby irrevocably waives any and all of its rights under the ROFR. Effective from and after the Closing, Section 14 of the ROW License is hereby amended to delete the ROFR in its entirety and the ROFR shall be of no further force or effect. 4. Matters Relating to the Transaction. (a) Current Agreements. On the condition that as part of the Closing Wave acknowledges in writing that it will be bound by and obligated to fully perform and carry out all duties, obligations and liabilities of CPI to the City under the terms and provisions of the Current Agreements, as amended hereby, that accrue from and after the Closing (substantially in the form of Acknowledgment attached to this MOU), then the City consents to the assignment of all of CPI's right, title and interest in the Current Agreements, as amended hereby, and the delegation of CPI's obligations under the Current Agreements, as amended hereby, to Wave, effective as of and subject to the Closing, and the City releases CPI, effective on the Closing, from all obligations and liabilities under the Current Agreements that accrue from and after the Closing and the City releases Wave, effective on the one-year anniversary of the Closing, from all obligations and liabilities under the Current Agreements that arise or accrue prior to the Closing. Further, following Closing the City irrevocably consents to Wave's assignment of the Current Agreements to (i) Wave's successor in a consolidation, merger or acquisition, (ii) an entity under common control with, controlled by or in control of Wave, or (iii) a lender, as an assignment of collateral to secure credit extended to Wave or its parent company. For the elimination of doubt, CPI is not assigning to Wave, and Wave shall have no obligations with respect to, the WMDS Acquisition Agreement, and the sole outstanding obligation of CPI under the WMDS Acquisition Agreement is set forth in Section 4.15 [Warranties] thereof, which obligation will expire and be of no further force or effect on May 21, 2014. The City represents that there are no pending claims pursuant to Section 4.15 [Warranties] of the WMDS Acquisition Agreement and the City is not presently aware of the basis for any such claims. (b) City Representations. The City represents and warrants as follows: (i) true, complete and correct copies of the Current Agreements are attached hereto as Exhibit A (the Services Agreement together with the Supplement), Exhibit B (the ROW License), and Exhibit C (the WMDS OM&M Agreement); (ii) the Current Agreements 4 Memorandum of Understanding J-19 have not been amended or modified in any respect except as provided in this MOU; (iii) the Current Agreements constitute the entire understanding between CPI and the City with respect to the subject matter in each of such documents, respectively; (iv) the Current Agreements are in full force and effect and there are no uncured defaults (and the City is not presently aware of the basis for any defaults) or unpaid monetary, performance or other obligations thereunder; (v) there are no unpaid liquidated damages that have been assessed pursuant to Section 5.7 [Violations and Remedies] of the Services Agreement and there are no pending assessments or any basis for same; and (vi) there are no existing facts or circumstances that with or without the giving of notice or the passage of time, or both, would constitute a default of any term or condition of the Current Agreements. (c) Fiber Optic WAN Use Agreement. The City and Wave are parties to a Fiber Optic WAN Use Agreement originally made on August 27, 2002, and as subsequently amended on December 31, 2002, and again on December 3, 2003 (as so amended, the "WAN Agreement"). The effectiveness of this MOU is expressly conditioned on and subject to an acknowledgement in writing by Wave at the Closing (substantially in the form of Acknowledgment attached to this MOU) that the WAN Agreement is ratified and remains in full force and effect and that nothing in this MOU affects any term or condition of the WAN Agreement. The City represents and warrants that there are no existing facts or circumstances that with or without the giving of notice or the passage of time, or both, would constitute a default of any term or condition of the WAN Agreement. 5. Notices. From and after the Closing, all notices from the City under the Current Agreements shall be directed to Wave Broadband, at 401 Kirkland Park Place, Suite 500, Kirkland, WA 98033, Attn: James A. Penney, Executive Vice President, and all applicable provisions of the Current Agreements (including, without limitation, Section 5.1 of the Services Agreement, Section 4.5 of the WMDS OM&M Agreement, and Section 15.2(b) of the ROW License) are hereby amended accordingly. 6. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified by this MOU, all terms, conditions and provisions of the Current Agreements shall continue in full force and effect as set forth therein and are hereby ratified and confirmed. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of the Current Agreements and the terms and conditions of this MOU, the terms and conditions of this MOU shall prevail. This MOU may not be modified or rescinded except in a writing signed by the Parties. Wave and its affiliates, successors and assigns are intended third party beneficiaries of this MOU. This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to its principles of conflict of laws. Each party represents and warrants to the other that it has full power and authority to enter into and perform this MOU. 7. Conditional Effectiveness of this MOU. The effectiveness of this MOU is expressly conditioned on and subject to the occurrence of the Closing of the Transaction. This Memorandum of Understanding J -20 MOU shall be void ab inito and of no force or effect if the Closing does not occur on or before March 1, 2014. [Remainder of Page is Blank; Signature Page Follows] Memorandum of Understanding J-21 [Signature Page] Intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties have executed this MOU as of the MOU Effective Date. CPI: Capacity Provisioning Inc. 31-2 Name: Title: City: City of Port Angeles By: Name: Title: Attest: City Clerk ADDroved as to Form: City Attorney Memorandum of Understanding J -22 FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Acknowledgement is entered into by WaveDivision I, LLC, a Washington limited liability company d/b/a Wave Broadband ("Wave"), pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding dated February , 2014 (the "MOU"), by and between the City of Port Angeles, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"), and Capacity Provisioning Inc., a Washington corporation ("CPI"). All capitalized terms used herein without being defined shall have their respective meanings as set forth in the MOU. Pursuant to Section 4(a) of the MOU, Wave hereby acknowledges to the City that, effective as of and following the Closing, it will be bound by and obligated to fully perform and carry out all duties, obligations and liabilities of CPI to the City under the terms and provisions of the Current Agreements, as amended by the MOU, which accrue from and after the Closing. Pursuant to Section 4(c) of the MOU, Wave hereby acknowledges to the City that, effective as of the Closing, the WAN Agreement is ratified and remains in full force and effect and that nothing in the MOU affects any term or condition of the WAN Agreement. Dated: 2014 WaveDivision I, LLC By: Name: Title: Memorandum of Understanding Acknowledgement J -23 SCHEDULE 1 Current Fees List Schedule 1 Memorandum of Understanding J -24 EXHIBIT A Services Agreement (together with the Supplement) Exhibit A Memorandum of Understanding J -25 EXHIBIT B ROW License Exhibit B Memorandum of Understanding J -26 EXHIBIT C WMDS OM&M Agreement Exhibit C Memorandum of Understanding J -27 NGELES DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Craig Fulton, P.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Cable Television Franchise Renewal Professional Services Agreement Summary: The City wishes to retain Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) using a professional services agreement to provide the technical support services necessary for the City to successfully complete the upcoming Cable Television (CATV) Franchise renewal process with WAVE Broadband. CTC has a history of working with the City on telecommunications projects, including finalizing the previous CATV franchise renewal. CTC has many years experience working on cable television franchise renewals, are reasonably priced, and they have current knowledge regarding the City's telecommunications agreements and infrastructure. Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager to sign the CATV Franchise Renewal Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation in an amount not to exceed $76,850 and to make minor modifications to the agreement, if necessary. Background/Analysis: In May 2002, the City approved a 15 year Cable Television (CATV) franchise under the federal Cable Television Act, which is scheduled to end in May 2017. Under the federal Cable Television Act, a CATV franchise renewal may take up to 36 months to complete. Therefore, the City needs to start its renewal process beginning in May 2014. Renewing the franchise will lock the City into a 17 year relationship, and complications may occur if the City's interests are not adequately addressed during the renewal process. The City wants to retain Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) to help the City successfully navigate through the franchise renewal process. CTC has a history of working with the City on its telecommunications projects, including the previous CATV franchise renewal agreement. CTC has many years of experience in working on CATV franchise renewals and know the City's current telecommunications agreements and infrastructure. Because City staff will perform some of the tasks previously handled by consultants, CTC's proposal for the CATV franchise renewal is $76,850. This unique "blended" approach of City Staff, Consultant, and possibly local media companies for survey efforts, will significantly reduce overall costs. This cost savings is estimated between $73,000 and $123,000 when compared to the initial consulting services budget estimate of $150,000 - $200,000. This proposed consultant fee is also significantly lower than what other comparable municipalities have spent on their franchise renewals. Some examples include Bellingham, WA ($125,000) and Richland, WA ($100,000 so far N:TCOUNCILTINALTable TV Franchise Renewal Professional Services Agreement.docx J -28 February 18, 2014 City Council Re: Cable TV Franchise Renewal Professional Services Agreement Page 2 and additional costs are anticipated). This cable franchise renewal process has been budgeted in the 2014 budget. Under this contract CTC will, with the assistance and oversight of City staff, review the current cable provider's past performance under the franchise agreement, perform a technical review of the cable infrastructure, conduct community surveys to obtain an understanding of the needs and wants of the City and its citizens, negotiate the new franchise agreement, and assist staff in drafting any needed Ordinances. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Agreement. Cost of the consultant is covered in the budget under capital projects. Any individual tasks needed to complete the agreement may be moved to local vendors or City staff where possible. It is recommended that City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to sign the CATV Franchise Renewal Professional Services Agreement with Columbia Telecommunications Corporation in an amount not to exceed $76,850 and to make minor modifications to the agreement, if necessary. J -29 .70RT COUNCIL DATE: February 18, 2014 TO: CITY COUNCIL NGELES FROM: NATHAN A.WEST, DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2014 RECOMMENDATIONS Summary: The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee has provided City Council with recommendations regarding 2014 lodging tax marketing funds. Recommendation: 1.) Council should consider the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's recommendation to approve the committee amended marketing budget subject to the required list of performance measures and to lift the sequestration for use of these funds; 2.)Direct staff to prepare a 2014 Budget amendment as appropriate. Background / Analysis: On October 24, 2013, the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) met to consider recommendations for the 2014 Budget. On December 17, 2013 City Council approved these recommendations subject to the evaluation of a specific marking plan by the Committee. This consideration was based on the 2014 Budget ordinance sequestering all marketing funds associated with the Chamber of Commerce contract. Council requested that specific performance metrics be required prior to release of sequestered funds. The LTAC met on January 6, 2014 to review the marketing plan and to identify appropriate performance measurements for the Chamber marketing approach. Planned media expenditures were reviewed along with funding for the Olympic Peninsula Tourism Commission. The Committee resolved to commit the marketing funds in accordance with the table below. Internet Marketing $23,525 Magazines and Travel Journals $15,613 Vacation Planners $14,200 Television $30,000 Vancouver Island Marketing $19,512 Washington State Fe $6,300 Olympic Peninsula Tourism Commission $22,000 Administration $65,000 Total Marketing Expenditures $196,150 K-1 Notable changes to the Chamber's proposed marketing were the elimination of the Olympic National Park Magazine/Backpacker and the Washington State Ferry System Digital Screen ads. A $7,000 increase was allocated to the Olympic Peninsula Tourism Commission. The total Chamber contract for 2014 results in a $31,000 increase from 2013 and includes $70,000 for event grants, $64,000 for visitor center operations, and $9,850 for an operating contingency resulting in a total Chamber contract amount of $340,000. In order to ensure that the marketing effort is effective the Committee recommended that the following performance measures be applied and reviewed on a quarterly basis. These measurements were noted as follows: • Visitor Center statistics • Chamber of Commerce online statistics on website visitation • Occupancy rates from local hotels • Regional website analytics • Regional area percentage • Online data analytics and social media analytics • Monthly room tax collected • Integrated Tourism Commission data • Monthly comparisons to prior year • Summer visitor center surveys The Lodging Tax Committee plans to review metrics to date and refine the performance measures as necessary at their April Committee meeting. Should Council concur with the LTAC recommendation staff will need to prepare a budget amendment lifting removing the sequestration of funds from the adopted 2014 Budget Ordinance. The amendment will coincide with the 2014 1st quarter budget amendment. The LTAC recommends that Council approve the committee amended marketing budget subject to the required list of performance measures and to lift the sequestration for use of marketing funds. Attachment A Committee Recommended — Marketing Expenditures K-2 Attachment A LTAC Recommended Marketing Expenditures K-3 m m � m < e^ X i S .f — m m f`, m u d o z� D\ r r N r 2 r J S S O S r C- W G O 4 A W � O FA y y Yi Yi Yi �. Yi Yi Yi y y y Yi ffes�, Yi Yi & to Yi Yi W W LL K-3 1/i D1 DLES COUNCIL DATE: February 18, 2014 To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Nathan A. West, Director Community and Economic Development Craig Fulton, P.E., Director of Public Works & Utilities SUBJECT: Waterfront Development Project — Esplanade TR02-2003, Final Acceptance Summary: Primo RCI, Inc., has completed the construction of the Waterfront Development Esplanade Project. The work has been inspected and accepted as complete and Primo RCI, Inc., is requesting final payment in the amount of $165,292.95 for a total project amount of $4,099,834.78. A 5% retainage bond has been held for the project. Recommendation: Accept the Waterfront Development Esplanade construction contract and authorize release of the retainage bond upon receipt of the required clearances. Background/Analysis: Primo RCI, Inc., was awarded the contract in the amount of $3,908,476.80 and the construction of the project began on October 8, 2012. The final contract amount, adjusted for quantity variance and change orders was $4,099,834.78. The following table is a summary of project construction costs: For informational purposes, one warranty issue has been identified since the City took occupancy of the facility with regard to cracking that is associated with the underlying control joint on each of the the panels. The contractor has been informed and is being responsive at working toward a resolution of the issue with the City and the designer. K-4 Contract Bid Change Unit Final Cost Project Cost & Alternate Orders (11) Quantity Variance Amount Variations Contract $3,908,476.80 $173,456.71 $17,901.27 $4,099,834.78 4.9% For informational purposes, one warranty issue has been identified since the City took occupancy of the facility with regard to cracking that is associated with the underlying control joint on each of the the panels. The contractor has been informed and is being responsive at working toward a resolution of the issue with the City and the designer. K-4 February 18, 2014 City Council Re: WTIP Esplanade Construction Contract Page 2 The following is a summary of pertinent dates with regard to completion of this project: Physical Completion & Beneficial Occupancy August 27, 2013 1 -Year Warranty Commencement August 28, 2013 Punchlist Completion September 27, 2013 Ribbon Cutting Ceremony September 27, 2013 As -built Record Drawings/O&M Manuals Received December 4, 2013 Negotiation of Change Orders Complete December 9, 2013 Final Payment Request December 27, 2013 Final Completion Date December 27, 2013 The work has been inspected and accepted as complete and Primo RCI, Inc., has requested final payment in the amount of $165,292.95. RCW 60.28 requires retainage of 5% on public improvement contracts for the purpose of claims of any person arising under the contract; and for the State with respect to taxes, increases, and penalties imposed pursuant to unemployment compensation, industrial insurance, and excise taxes. In accordance with RCW 60.28, the City must release and pay in full the amounts retained during the performance of the contract within sixty days after final completion of all contract work. Resolution of the warranty issue is underway and a letter has been provided to Primo Construction for those repairs. It is recommended that Council accept the Waterfront Development Esplanade construction contract and authorize release of the retainage bond upon receipt of the required clearances from the State of Washington. N:ACCOUNCIL\FINAL\WTIP Esplanade Construction Contract - Final Acceptance.docx K-5 NGELES DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 2014 To: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERRY GALLAGHER, CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: POLICE DEPARTMENT 2013 ANNUAL REPORT I am pleased to announce that our 2013 annual report is now available on the Department website. Please click on http://www.cit off a.us/policeAnnualRpLlitm The report serves to highlight some of the many accomplishments of our Police Department over the past year. 2013 was a good year for the Department. Budget savings were considerable, schedule changes contributed to an improved quality of life for staff, and, along the way, we even managed to solve a crime or two. PAPD works to stay involved in our community. We sit on the board of Peninsula Behavioral Health; we are heavily involved with Healthy Families; we work hard to serve our downtown community; and we are involved in our local schools. Such involvement is critical to the successful policing of our community and any claim we may have to being a Community Policing oriented Department. I hope you enjoy the report and find satisfaction in the many accomplishments of the Police Department. Our goals include providing quality public safety services to this community while being recognized as a model organization. Please let us know if we are meeting those goals. M-1 M -2 City of Port Angeles Parks &Recreation Department Activities Fourth Quarter 2013 October 1st—December 31st Vern Burton Center Main Hall E*tints Vern Burton Center Meeting Room Users • Kids After School Program • Retired Kiwanis • Blood Drive • Cheerleading • Airplanes • Planning • Pickleball • Parks, Recreation & Beautification Commission • Winter Break Day Camp • Olympic Paddlers • Cheerleading • Human Resources • Daddy Daughter Dance • Parks Department • Volleyball • Youth Football Officials • Basketball • Public Works • Clallam County Gem & Mineral Association • Engineering • Senior Center Dances • Future Riders Football • Senior Games • Olympic Bike Adventure • Blood Drives • Pen Com • Christmas Fair • Crab Festival • Christmas Cottage • NOBAS • Vern Burton Rock Gem Jewelry Show • After School Kids • Ski Swap • Fine Arts Center • Winterfest • Parks & Recreation Christmas Party • Festival of Trees • WA State P&R Conference • Badminton • Fire Dept. • Mervin Manufacturing Christmas Party • Regence • WA State P&R Conference • Festival of Trees • PA Symphony • Christmas Fair • Badminton • Reindeer Run • Pitching • Harvest Dinner • 5 Acre School M -2 Port An eles Fine Arts Center Port An eles Senior & Communit Center Events • 41 Educational Programs — 1,168Participants • Cest Si Bon Gala Dinner & Auction — Dec. 18 - 60 guest • 39 Health Programs — 2,894 Participants • Special Holiday Music Performances — Nov. 16 & 30 — • 73 Social/Recreation Programs — 10,439 Participants Dec. 7&21 — 85 guest • Volunteer Hours — 4,699 • Launching Of Plein Air Wine — Dec. 18- sold 10 cases to • Volunteers — 371 Participants date *4 Ih Qtr Total Current Memberships 1,405 Exhibitions City - 913 • Personal Truth — Trisha Hassler- to Nov 3 County — 492 • Art Convergence 2013 — Juried Exhibit Nov 14 to Jan 10, Total Quarterly Attendance — 32,826 2014 — 37 artists Education • Artists Presentation — Trisha Hassler - 35 participants • Art Convergence Juror's presentation — 40 participants • Holiday Traditions family workshops — Three workshops- total 60 students Volunteer Meetings • Executive Committees • Membership Committees • Event Committees • Board Meetings • Finance Committees • Entryway Committees • Docent Training • Volunteer hours — 1018 from 49 docents Visitors — 647 City, Pier/G,atewa Eveuts Youth, Fail ',& Adult Pro rams • Port Angeles Farmers' Market - Saturday • After School Program — 42 Kids Enrolled • Olympic Bike Adventure • Cheerleading Program— 62 Kids Enrolled • Reindeer Fun Run/Walk • Daddy Daughter Dance — 354 Participants • Crabfest • Winter Break Kids Program — 8 Kids Enrolled • Animal Blessing • Memorial Service M -3 M-4 ec al E*i6nt Pro ta111S SoortS Pro rams • Tip-Off Tournament — 28 Teams • Pickleball — 71 Participants • Holiday Hoops Basketball Tournament - 17 Teams • Fall Co-Fd Soccer - 170 Participants • Rain-Deer Fun Run/Walk — 96 Participants • Co-Fd Volleyball— 35 Participants • Adult Basketball - 57Participants • 4I of July Celebration October • Arts in Action • Property Sales: 3 • Weddings • Niche Sales: 0 • Church Events • Interments: 3 • Concerts on the Pier • Grave Inurnments: 2 • Port Angeles Farmers' Market - Saturday • Niche Inurnments: 0 • Port Angeles Farmers' Market - Wednesday • Pre-Need Sales: $4,902.58 • Sprint Boat Show & Shine • At-Need Sales: $5,769.69 Olympic Bike Adventure November • Property Sales: 6 • Niche Sales: 3 • Interments: 1 • Grave Inurnments: 2 • Niche Inurnments: 0 • Pre-Need Sales: $9,039.23 • At-Need Sales: $26,009.67 December • Property Sales: 2 • Niche Sales: 2 • Interments: 2 • Grave Inurnments: 0 • Niche Inurnments: 0 • Pre-Need Sales: $3,590.29 • At-Need Sales: $11,496.62 Total Sales: $60,808.08 M-4 • Finished Longhouse Removal Project • Submitted Lodging Tax Applications for Parks & Rec. • Working on Employee Evaluations • Interviewed and Filled Custodian & Caretaker Positions • Working on 2014 Budget • Working with PA Community Garden for Wolverton Park • Working on 2014 Work Plan • Evaluating Recreation Programs/Fee's/Cost Recovery • Reviewing PANIC for Possible Code Changes • Working on new City/Parks & Rec Website Design • Working with newly formed Dog Park Committee • Working with the PAFAC on Entryway Committee/Improvements • Working with State Auditor on Recreation Programs • Reviewing Upcoming Olycap Contract at Senior Center & Farmer's Market Contract • Janitorial Maintenance -Restroom Cleaning, Litter Pick -Up, Graffiti Removal • Cemetery Maintenance- Burials, Mowing, Weedeating, Equipment Servicing • Facility Repairs on City Hall, Vern Burton, Senior Center • Beautification Maintenance -Pruning in Greenhouse, Atrium Cleaning, Ordered and Planted Summer Planters and Hanging Baskets, Planted Memorial Trees, Cleaned Tree Pits Downtown, Weeding & Placing Bark around City Facilities. • Planted Fall/Winter Flowers • Worked with the Garden Club to develop new plant design for Billy Loo's Garden. Ordered and planted material. • Cleaned Boat Launch and Made Repairs on Ediz Hood Floats • Completed Parks Monthly Safety Meetings • Sports Maintenance- Prepped fields for Fall Soccer/Football. Closed fields on 11-11-13 and disabled lights. • Turf Maintenance- Mowing, Trimming, and Edging various Parks & Facilities. • Found Holiday Tree for Conrad Dyar Memorial Fountain. • Completed Field/Playground Inspections. • Finished assisting the LEKT on the removal of the Lincoln Park Longhouse. M -5