The URL can be used to link to this page

08262014 Part 1Todd Voth Jason Avila Jon Lane MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL Dick Deane Mayor HOSES LAKE Joseph K. Gavinski City Manager David Curnel Karen Liebrecht Bill Ecret August 26, 2014 AGENDA Sophia Guerrero, Executive Secretary Civic Center -Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. IDENTIFICATION OF CITIZENS WANTING TO DISCUSS AGENDA ITEMS IDENTIFICATION OF CITIZENS WANTING TO DISCUSS NON-AGENDA ITEMS 4. PRESENTATIONS AND A WARDS -None 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes -August 12, 2014 B. Approval of Bills and Checks Issued C. Accept Work-Sewer Force Main Project -2013 6. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS A. Reappointments -Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 7. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS AND QUOTES -None 8. PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, OR PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Communication -Denial of Business License Application -The Hydrofarmer B. Communication -Request an Extension & Approve Easement -Penhallurick 9. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Ordinance -Amend MLMC 13.12 Water, Sewer, Stormwater Rates -rd Reading B. Ordinance -Amend MLMC 2.48 -Planning Commission -1st Reading C. Ordinance -Amend MLMC 3.30 -Utility Occupational Tax -1st Reading D. Ordinance -Amend MLMC 8.28 -Noise Control -1st Reading E. Resolution -Request to Build on Unplatted Property -Perdue F. Resolution -Nuisance Abatement Costs -Pence G. Resolution -Repealing Resolution No. 3396 & Adopting New Resolution H. Resolution -Abandon Easement -1625 Filmore -Keranov 10. REQUEST TO CALL FOR BIDS -None Finance Municipal Police Chief Parks & Recreation Fire Chief Community City Attorney W. Robert Services Dave Ruffin Spencer Grigg Tom Taylor Development Katherine L. Taylor Gary Harer Gilbert Alvarado Kenison Page 2 -Moses Lake City Council meeting, August 26, 2014 11. REFERRALS FROM COMMISSIONS -None 12. OTHER ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION A. Request for Annexation -Desert Golf, LLC 13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 14. COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 15. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND COMMENTS A. Request to Improve Block Street to Community Standards -Maiers Dev. B. Staff Reports 1. Draft Shoreline Master Program -Responsiveness Summary Executive Session -Labor Relations Finance Municipal Police Chief Parks & Recreation Fire Chief Community City Attorney W. Robert Services Dave Ruffin Spencer Grigg Tom Taylor Development Katherine L. Taylor Gary Harer Gilbert Alvarado Kenison MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL August12, 2014 Council Present: Dick Deane, Bill Ecret, Karen Liebrecht, Jason Avila, Jon Lane, and David Curnel Absent: Todd Voth The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Deane. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Officer Tufte led the Council in the pledge of allegiance. PRESENTATION AND AWARDS SERVICE AWARDS Years of Service pins for 1 O years of service with the City were given to Todd Schanze, James Whitmore, and Thomas Tufte. Years of Service pins for 15 years of service with the City were given to Lori Moholt-Phillips and Virginia Kennedy-Novak. Years of Service pins for 20 years of service with the City were given to Mike Moro and Manuel Moreno. A Years of Service pin for 25 years of service with the City was given to Dave Thompson. A Years of Service pin for 35 years of service with the City was given to Joseph K. Gavinski. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes: The minutes of the July 22 meeting were presented for approval. Approval of Claims, Prepaid Claims, Checks, and Payroll: Vouchers audited and certified by the Finance Director as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims, certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the Council for approval and is retained for public inspection at the Civic Center. As of August 12, 2014 the Council does approve for payment claims in the amount of $958,897.78; prepaid claims in the amounts of $66,365.62, $5 ,186.71 , $12,828.50, and $96,057.00 ; claim checks in the amount of $1 ,385,543.60; and payroll in the amounts of $5,264.82 and $387,797.19. Resolution -Accept Easement-Maiers Development Corporation: A resolution was presented which accepts a utility access easement from Maiers Development Corporation for Desertpoint Major Plat, Lot 1, Block 2, Commercial Binding Site Plan 2nct Amendment. S. L. & A. No. 1 Major Plat -Final Plat and Findings of Fact: Mike Lee, of Sam Lee & Associates, has submitted a final plat application to divide 11 .58 acres into two lots. The site is zoned C-2, General Commercial, and abuts Central Drive north of Valley Road. The Planning Commission recommended that the final plat be approved with conditions. The Council's approval of this decision incorporates and adopts the Findings, Conclusion and Decision of the Planning Commission. Action Taken: Dr. Curnel moved that the Consent Agenda be approved, seconded by Mr. Lane, and passed unanimously. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS -None CONSIDERATION OF BIDS AND QUOTES HERON BLUFF TRAIL PROJECT The City received four bids for the Heron Bluff Trail Project. The project includes constructing a 3,000' long activity trail starting at the west end of Neppel Trail and extending through the Blue Heron Park, then along the lakes ho re and ending at the existing activity trail that was constructed as part of the Bluff West Plat. There will be benches and trash receptacles at three locations. Action Taken: Mr. Ecret moved that the bid be awarded to Kelaye Concrete in the amount of $239,980, seconded by Mrs. Liebrecht, and passed unanimously. City Council Minutes: 2 August 12, 2014 CLOVER DRIVE LIFT STATION PROJECT The City received six bids for the Clover Drive Lift Station Project. This project consists of rehabilitating the existing lift station and other site work. Action Taken: Mr. Lane moved that the bid be awarded to POW Contracting in the amount of $288,486.84, seconded by Mr. Avila, and passed unanimously. PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, OR PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCE -EXTEND MORATORIUM ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA GARDENS -2N° READING/PUBLIC HEARING An ordinance was presented which extends the moratorium on the establishment of "collective gardens" for the medical use of marijuana. The ordinance of the City of Moses Lake extending a moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana collective gardens, defining "medical marijuana collective gardens", providing for a public hearing establishing an effective date, and providing that the moratorium, unless extended, will sunset within six (6) months of the date of adoption was read by title only. Joseph K. Gavinski, City Manager, pointed out that the extension of the moratorium continues the City's wait and see position on the medical marijuana issue. He mentioned that the legislature is considering measures that may eliminate the collective gardens and incorporate them into the recreational marijuana regulations. The public hearing was opened. There were no comments. Action Taken: Dr. Curnel moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Mr. Lane, and passed unanimously. Joseph K. Gavinski, City Manager, stated that the legislature is considering merging some of the medical marijuana issues with the recreational marijuana issues in order to address some of the conflicts between the two. Action Taken: Mrs. Liebrecht moved that the second reading of the ordinance be adopted, seconded by Mr. Avila, ,and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION -SIX YEAR STREET PLAN -PUBLIC HEARING A resolution was presented which adopts the amended Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. The resolution to amend Resolution 2695 Transportation Improvement Program for 2015-2020 was read by title only. The public hearing was opened. There were no comments. Action Taken: Dr. Curnel moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Mr. Lane, and passed unanimously. Action Taken: Mr. Lane moved that the resolution be adopted, seconded by Mr. Avila, and passed unanimously. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCE -AMEND 13.08 -WATER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS -1sT READING An ordinance was presented with amends Chapter 13.08, Water and Sewer Connections, by establishing a reimbursement for the installation of the sewer main on Randolph Road to serve Asta Real. City Council Minutes: 3 August 12, 2014 The ordinance amending Chapter 13.08 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Water and Sewer Connections" was read by title only. Action Taken: Mrs. Liebrecht moved that the first reading of the ordinance be adopted, seconded by Dr. Curnel, and passed unanimously. ORDINANCE -AMEND 13.12 -WATER, SEWER, AND STORMWATER RATES -1 8r READING An ordinance was presented which increases the rate for the delinquent seNice charge and for turn-ons or turn-offs after 4 p.m and before 8 a.m. The ordinance amending Chapter 13.12 of the Moses Lake Municipal Code entitled "Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Rates" was read by title only. Action Taken: Dr. Curnel moved that the first reading of the ordinance be adopted, seconded by Mr. Avila, and passed unanimously. REQUEST TO CALL FOR BIDS BIOSOLIDS LAND APPLICATION PROJECT -SAND DUNES WWTP Staff requested authorization to call for bids for the 2014 Biosolids Land Application Project. This project consists of loading, hauling, and land applying approximately 400 dry tons of biosolids from the Sand Dunes Wastewater Treatment Plant to agricultural land in the Mae Valley area. Action Taken: Mr. Lane moved that staff be authorized to call for bids, seconded by Mr. Avila, and passed unanimously. REFERRALS FROM COMMISSIONS -None OTHER ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION TIB GRANT APPLICATIONS -SIDEWALK AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS Staff requested authorization to apply for two Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) grants. The grant would pay 75% of the project costs. The projects would be for construction of a sidewalk along the west side of Stratford Road between SR-17 and Maple Drive and for the construction of Lark Avenue from Pioneer Way to Kiefer Drive. Gary Harer, Municipal Services Director, gave some background on the two projects. Action Taken: Mr. Ecret moved that staff be authorized to apply for the grants, seconded by Dr. Curnel, and passed unanimously. REQUEST FOR CITY SERVICES -2107 WESTSHORE DRIVE Chris Hansen requested permission to connect 2107 Westshore Drive to City sewer without annexing the property into the City. It would be impractical for the property to be annexed at this time since there are no properties in the area with Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreements or property owners that want to annex. Mick Hansen, representing the property owner, stated that a new home is being built on this lot and they would like to connect to City seNices. There is a community water system so City water is not needed at this time. Action Taken: Dr. Curnel moved that the request for City seNices be granted with the stipulation that an Extra Territorial Utility Extension Agreement be required, seconded by Mr. Avila, and passed unanimously. CODE ENFORCEMENT A letter from the City Attorney provided information on different methods of code enforcement, including voluntary cooperation, civil infraction, abatement, summary abatement, and administrative enforcement. The City Council Minutes: 4 August 12, 2014 City uses the administrative enforcement process which has been found to be too limiting and lacks the flexibility needed to respond to the variety of code enforcement issues encountered by staff. There are also several provision in the code that are inconsistent and/or in direct conflict. Examples were provided of other code enforcement regulations that include both a consolidation of code enforcement into a single chapter and also provide a greater degree of flexibility for staff in implementing the code enforcement process. Katherine Kenison, City Attorney, stated that current code enforcement regulations result in the remedy not accomplished in a timely fashion and complaints are still received, and some of the current code provisions are in conflict with each other which confuses staff on how to enforce the code violation. The current administrative code enforcement mechanism is not providing a satisfactory result. She provided several examples of how the administrative code enforcement process does not work. There was some discussion and it was the consensus of the Council that staff proceed with changes to the code enforcement process. BLOCK STREET -TRAFFIC CONTROL AND CONSTRUCTION Gary Harer, Municipal Services Director, stated that Bob Fancher requested that the stop signs on Block Street be relocated to Penn Street and that Block Street be improvement from Fifth Avenue to Wheeler Road. The change of location of the stop signs is simple and will allow better flow of traffic. The request to improve Block Street would include 41' of asphalt and a 1 O' wide sidewalk on one side and a 6' wide sidewalk on the other side. The estimated cost for the street improvements is $150,000. The reason for the requested street improvements is the increased traffic because of the new kidney dialysis facility on Elder. Block Street would be used by these patients to access the hospital on Wheeler Road. He mentioned that the street improvement costs could be partially reimbursed by calling in an existing covenant and setting up a reimbursement schedule for when the unplatted property is platted. The existing platted property could not be required to participate in the street construction. Joseph K. Gavinski, City Manager, pointed out that the City has not been doing many street projects due to budget constraints but the request for street improvements could be discussed during budget sessions. It was the consensus of the Council that the street improvements be discussed during budget sessions. DRIVEWAY VARIANCE -343 GIBBY ROAD Carly Jansen, Managing Member of Smoothery, LLC, requested a deviation to the driveway standards to allow the driveway to be constructed approximately 15' from the interior lot line at 343 Gibby Road. A driveway cannot be installed along Broadway Avenue in accordance with the setbacks required by the Community Standards. The existing power poles along Gibby Road are located such that a driveway cannot be installed in the window that meets the Community Standard setbacks. The proposed location encroaches into the required 20' setback by approximately 5'. Gary Harer, Municipal Services Director, stated that the location of the driveway is the best possible for this lot and staff has no issues with it. There was some discussion by the Council. Action Taken: Mr. Lane moved that the requested deviation be granted seconded by Dr. Curnel, and passed unanimously. NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS BUSINESS LICENSE -APPEAL Alan Heroux, on behalf of Brent Heroux, stated that he is appealing the denial by the City of a business license for a marijuana medicinal and botanical manufacture business at 1450 Wheeler Road , which is in a Light Industrial Zone. He stated that their business plan allows them to sell live plants to other producers, which is an allowable use and in the Light Industrial zone includes the manufacturing, processing, or packaging of food products. He provided information supporting his contention that the City was in error by not approving the business license. City Council Minutes: 5 August12, 2014 Joseph K. Gavinski, City Manager, stated that the statute supplied by Mr. Heroux is a taxing statute and does not apply to the current situation. He pointed out that agricultural uses are not allowed in any of the City's zones and that the business license was for the growing of plants. He mentioned that staff had discussed the application and it was felt that the business was for the harvesting and processing of the product and selling it instead of selling the live plants. Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Director, stated that he had requested clarification from Brent Heroux about the description of his business and he only talked about production and nothing about selling potted plants or edibles. There was some discussion by the Council and it was recommended that the business license application be resubmitted with a clarification of the description of the business. COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS -None CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND COMMENTS SHORELINE MASTER PLAN UPDATE Gilbert Alvarado, Community Development Director, stated that the staff is working on the cumulative response to the comments from the Department of Ecology on the Shoreline Master Program. The response will be provided to the Council in the near future. When the cumulative response is approved by the Council it will be forwarded to the Department of Ecology. The Department of Ecology will review the response and provide comments. AMBULANCE REPORT The cash report on the ambulance operations for the month of July was provided. BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT The July Building Activity Report was provided. INVESTMENT REPORT The City received $15,196.81 in investment income for May 2014. SALES TAX/TRANSIENT RENTAL INCOME The City received $454,949.89 in sales tax and $53,058.98 in transient rental income in July. The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ATTEST Dick Deane, Mayor W. Robert Taylor, Finance Director DATE 8/14/14 TIME 13: 56: 03 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 1 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= BRANDON BURNS 00005507 0000070810 23.08 REIMB FOR FUEL, FILTERS 0000070810 94.75 REIMB FOR FUEL, FILTERS ====================== TOTAL: 117. 83 CITY OF MOSES LAKE 00008107 0000070680 160,897.22 REPAY INTERFUND LOAN 0000070680 17,172.37 REPAY INTERFUND LOAN ====================== TOTAL: 178,069.59 DATABAR 00007974 0000070818 855.25 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000070818 676.24 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000070818 380 .09 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000070818 125.27 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000070818 104.49 MAIL UTILITY BILLS ====================== TOTAL: 2,141.34 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 00007824 0000070816 38.66 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 229.35 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 193.36 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 20.38 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 71. 02 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 12.26 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 76.39 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 12.90 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 10.74 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 13 .44 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 59.23 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070816 79.07 MISC SUPPLIES DATE 8/14/14 TIME 13: 56: 03 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E TABULATION OF CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 2 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= 0000070816 10.23 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 827.03 LOWES 00003886 0000070837 203.00 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070837 26 .13 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070837 28.63 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070837 45 .06 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 302.82 PUD OF GRANT COUNTY 00001501 0000070826 672. 78 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 16.80 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 5,144.84 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 596.06 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 1,214.46 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 35.34 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 1,528.80 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 19.01 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 1,326.12 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 237.89 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 45.48 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 19.27 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 776. 25 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 159.34 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 844.66 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 38,510 .44 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 12,828.05 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 86.25 ELECTRIC SERVICE DATE 8/14/14 TIME 13: 56: 03 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S COUNCIL MEETING T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 3 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= PUD OF GRANT COUNTY 00001501 0000070826 1,757.88 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 598.99 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 1,249.22 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0000070826 941. 88 ELECTRIC SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: 68 ,609.81 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 00005456 0000070838 45.20 SHIPPING CHARGES 0000070838 26 .36 SHIPPING CHARGES 0000070838 7.67 SHIPPING CHARGES ====================== TOTAL : 79.23 REPORT TOTAL: 250,147.65 DATE THU, AUG 14, 2014, 1:56 PM TIME 13 : 56: 04 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E TOTALS BY FUND FUND NO 000 116 410 490 493 495 498 517 519 528 T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 FUND NAME GENERAL FUND STREET WATER/SEWER SANITATION STORM WATER AIRPORT AMBULANCE FUND CENTRAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT RENTAL BUILD MAINTENANCE TOTAL AMOUNT 190,542.28 1,004.00 52,985.40 380.09 125.27 86.25 104. 49 7.67 117. 83 4 I 7 94, 3 7 250, 147 .65 CHANGES TO BE MADE SHOULD BE LISTED BELOW VEND NO. P.O. NO. AMT LISTED CORRECTED AMT ACTION TO BE TAKEN CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE PAID TOTALS PAGE XAPPRVD ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * C L A I M S A P P R 0 V A L * * WE, THE UNDERSIGNED COUNCILMEN OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE MERCHANDISE * OR SERVICES SPECIFIED HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THAT ABOVE CLAIMS ARE APPROVED, AS NOTED, FOR PAYMENT * IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,147.65 THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 * * * COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER * * * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FINANCE DIRECTOR * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DATE 8/21/14 TIME 13 : 15: 28 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E TABULATION OF CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 1 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORP 00000203 0000070917 3,362.26 SNS/LRC GAS USAGE 0000070917 10.60 SNS/LRC GAS USAGE 0000070911 63.71 NATURAL GAS SERVICE 0000070911 11. 55 NATURAL GAS SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: 3,448.12 DAT ABAR 00007974 0000070928 592. 51 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000070928 468.49 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000070928 263.32 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000070928 86. 79 MAIL UTILITY BILLS 0000070928 72 .40 MAIL UTILITY BILLS ====================== TOTAL: 1,483.51 IRON HORSE REAL ESTATE 00004874 0000070950 600.00 PROCESSING FEE/APPLICATION ====================== TOTAL: 600.00 UMPQUA BANK 00007077 0000070825 145. 96 BLOOD PRESS MONT,EXCER BIKE 0000070825 147.98 BLOOD PRESS MONT,EXCER BIKE 0000070813 25.04 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0000070906 10.00 i{l...~v ~\.. 0000070915 65.41 COMPUTER,BREAKROOM SUPPLIES 0000070809 151. 95 1'\l:~c .~"" e \)l-,: €-\ 0000070825 233.02 BLOOD PRESS MONT,EXCER BIKE 0000070825 780.44 BLOOD PRESS MONT,EXCER BIKE 0000070808 29.46 (Y'\. ~.$. c.. $ \ .. .'-(> {> l"I-8 0000070890 50.34 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS 0000070809 308.79 '('<"'\ ~::.<:... S\..A..~QL~~ DATE 8/21/14 TIME 13:15:28 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G L AKE T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 08/26 /2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 2 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= UMPQUA BANK 00007077 0000070809 0000070809 0000070809 0000070809 0000070809 000007080 9 0000070809 0000070809 0000070809 0000070809 0000070809 0000070809 0000070809 0000070809 0000070836 0000070836 0000070836 0000070817 0000070817 0000070817 0000070915 0000070809 0000070836 0000070809 109.75 ti 11 12. 35 ,, ,, 10.00 II II 239.09 495 .40 745 .22 204.49 173.54 \\ \\ \\ \\ 1• 2,410.30 ,, 74 .69 8.40 139 . 51 77 .40 167.85 193.50 1,331.35 46 .66 323.65 279.00 18 .96 13 .75 186.52 332.92 "' \ \ \\ MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS MISCELLANEOUS MISC SUPPLIES,POSTAGE,FUEL MISC SUPPLIES,POSTAGE,FUEL MISC SUPPLIES,POSTAGE,FUEL COMPUTER,BREAKROOM SUPPLIES ff'J ':>(., )\A.~ Q l 1 v MISCELLANEOUS --!> f\"-l; 5 c_ s '-\ (>" t. l. (. DATE 8/21/14 TIME 13: 15: 28 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26 /2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 3 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= 0000070809 234.65 0000070890 3.17 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS 0000070890 752.37 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS 0000070890 120.79 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS 0000070890 590.00 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS 0000070890 1,180.00 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS 0000070808 61.99 \"\~::><.. $~~ L~~ 0000070808 16.17 fr\ 'S ~t.. S~ 9Q L3, ~ 0000070890 49. 71 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS 0000070817 105.59 MISC SUPPLIES,POSTAGE,FUEL 0000070915 1,322.19 COMPUTER ,BREAKROOM SUPPLIES 0000070915 99.00 COMPUTER,BREAKROOM SUPPLIES 0000070915 274.06 COMPUTER,BREAKROOM SUPPLIES 0000070915 209.97 COMPUTER,BREAKROOM SUPPLIES 0000070890 556.17 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS 0000070836 3 71. 20 MISCELLANEOUS 0000070890 77.56 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS 0000070890 28.60 MISC SUPPLIES/REGIS ====================== TOTAL: 15,694.70 REPORT TOTAL: 21,226.33 --------- DATE THU, AUG 21, 2014, 1:15 PM TIME 13:15:30 TOTALS BY FUND FUND NO --------- 000 102 103 410 490 493 495 498 517 519 528 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 FUND NAME AMOUNT ---------------------------------------------------- GENERAL FUND 13,144.89 TOURISM 13 '75 GRANTS AND DONATIONS 754.09 WATER/SEWER 3' 707' 33 SANITATION 263.32 STORM WATER 164 '95 AIRPORT 49. 71 AMBULANCE FUND 177. 99 CENTRAL SERVICES 1,905.22 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 927 .37 BUILD MAINTENANCE 117.71 TOTAL 21,226.33 CHANGES TO BE MADE SHOULD BE LISTED BELOW VEND NO. P.O. NO. AMT LISTED CORRECTED AMT ACTION TO BE TAKEN CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE PAID TOTALS PAGE XAPPRVD ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * CLAIMS APPROVAL * * * * WE, THE UNDERSIGNED COUNCILMEN OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE MERCHANDISE * * OR SERVICES SPECIFIED HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THAT ABOVE CLAIMS ARE APPROVED, AS NOTED, FOR PAYMENT * * IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,226.33 THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FINANCE DIRECTOR * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S TABULATION OF CLAIMS C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G L A K E T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 1 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= A & H PRINTERS 00000001 AAA READYMIX INC 00000027 AFFORDABLE AUTO REPAIR INC 00007734 AG WEST DISTRIBUTING CO INC 00006842 AMERIGAS 00007048 AMSAN GENERAL SUPPLY 00003053 APWA 00000004 ARCADIA PUBLISHING 00003841 BASIN BARK 00006621 BASIN LOCK & SECURITY 00003 714 BATIERY SYSTEMS 00004673 BESSE MEDICAL SUPPLY 00006688 0000070815 0000070918 TOTAL: 0000070842 412.92 300.73 713. 65 168.86 ====================== TOTAL: 168.86 0000070843 897 .57 ====================== TOTAL: 897.57 BLDG INSPECTION RECORDS VOLLEYBALL FLYERS SHORT LOAD CONCRETE REPROGRAM ECM SIGNAL 0000070801 0000070801 7.45 MISC PVC SUPPLIES 5.90 MISC PVC SUPPLIES TOTAL: 13. 35 0000070844 20.91 PROPANE TOTAL: 20.91 0000070845 1,180.10 MISC CLEANING SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 1,180.10 0000070841 830.00 APWA MEMBERSHIP DUES ====================== TOTAL: 830 . 00 0000070804 138.44 MAC RESALE -BOOKS TOTAL: 138. 44 0000070846 62.04 RED LAVA ROCK ====================== TOTAL: 62. 04 0000070756 32.37 LEVER-HANDLE ONLY (AIRPORT) TOTAL: 32.37 0000070848 14.34 BATIE RY ====================== TOTAL: 14.34 DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E PAGE 2 XAPPRVD T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 08/26/2014 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= BESSE MEDICAL SUPPLY 00006688 BIO SYSTEMS INC 00005488 BLUE LINE TRAINING LLC 00007468 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 00000133 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 00006022 BUD CLARY CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP 00005449 BUD CLARY FORD 00006454 BUD CLARY TOYOTA CHEVROLET 00000150 BUSBY INTERNATIONAL 00005008 CASCADE ANALYTICAL INC 00005014 CASCADE DIESEL INC 00003551 0000070901 531. 03 ====================== TOTAL: 531.03 0000070847 1,198.00 TOTAL: 1,198.00 0000070830 129.00 TOTAL: 129.00 0000070904 617.08 ====================== TOTAL: 617.08 0000070819 2,048.69 TOTAL : 2,048.69 0000070852 276.98 TOTAL: 276.98 0000070850 349.52 ====================== TOTAL: 0000070851 0000070851 0000070851 349.52 244. 07 322.44 228.80 ====================== TOTAL: 0000070849 TOTAL: 0000070860 0000070860 TOTAL: 0000070853 795.31 205.01 205.01 1,471. 86 694. 00 2,165.86 7.82 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES REGISTRATION UNIFORM PANTS MISC AMBULANCE SUPPLIES DIAGNOSE CHECK ENG LIGHT TENSIONER, V-BELT WHEEL ALIGNMENT, SUPPLIES WHEEL ALIGNMENT, SUPPLIES WHEEL ALIGNMENT, SUPPLIES ALUMINUM BOXES SAMPLE TESTING SAMPLE TESTING RADIATOR CAP DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09 :52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 3 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= CASCADE FIRE CORPORATION 00003644 CEDAR STREET CLEANERS 00004655 CENTRAL MACHINERY SALES INC 00002779 CENTRAL MANUFACTURING INC 00005478 CHS INC 00000249 CIT GROUP/COMM SRVCS IN 00005316 CITY OF MOSES LAKE 00008107 00008201 00008107 00008201 00008107 TOTAL: 7.82 0000070854 203.64 SEAT BELT ====================== TOTAL: 203.64 0000070831 0000070829 711.58 UNIFORM MAINTENANCE 2. 43 UNIFORM MAINT ====================== TOTAL: 714.01 0000070941 0000070855 24 .36 JET SET OILSHED 453.18 EXCAVATOR RENTAL TOTAL: 477.54 0000070858 1,243 .66 SUPPLIES TOTAL: 1,243 .66 0000070862 34,633.51 FUEL FOR VEHICLES TOTAL: 34,633.51 0000070805 716 .82 SNS MERCHANDISE RESALE -SHOES ====================== TOTAL: 716.82 0000070943 9.55 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 9.55 0000070839 310 .82 WATER SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: 310 .82 0000070943 48.34 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 48.34 0000070839 0000070839 284.25 WATER SERVICE 2,212.89 WATER SERVICE TOTAL: 2,497.14 DATE B/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENOOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E TABULATION OF CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 4 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= 0000070943 19 .14 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 1, 156 .11 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 1,175.25 00008201 0000070839 B,421.99 WATER SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: BI 421. 99 00008107 0000070943 2. 91 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 270.0B EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 272.99 00008201 0000070839 907 .89 WATER SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: 907.89 00008107 0000070943 72.85 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 9.29 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 82 .14 00008201 0000070839 2,357.06 WATER SERVICE 0000070839 405.61 WATER SERVICE 0000070839 353.20 WATER SERVICE 0000070839 4,160.53 WATER SERVICE 0000070839 171. OB WATER SERVICE 0000070839 505.05 WATER SERVICE 0000070839 424.58 WATER SERVICE 0000070839 1,753.61 WATER SERVICE 0000070933 1,550.42 WATER SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: ll, 681.14 00008107 0000070943 51. 07 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 51.07 DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S M E E T I N G C 0 U N C I L T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 5 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ==~==================================================================================================================== CITY OF MOSES LAKE 00008201 0000070839 137.97 WATER SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: 137. 97 00008107 0000070943 5.52 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 9. 72 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 1. 29 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 4.34 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 51. 49 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 63.56 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 135. 92 00008201 0000070839 246.69 WATER SERVICE 0000070839 258.41 WATER SERVICE 0000070933 5,220.72 WATER SERVICE 0000070839 2,457.09 WATER SERVICE 0000070839 83 .75 WATER SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: 8,266 .66 00008107 0000070943 131. 56 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 60.37 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 191. 93 00008201 0000070933 4,146 .17 WATER SERVICE ===~================== TOTAL: 4,146.17 00008107 0000070943 31,623.95 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 7,612.34 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 2,584.20 EXCISE TAX DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G L A K E T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 6 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= 0000070907 230,000.00 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 0000070907 230,000.00 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 0000070907 25,818.75 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 0000070907 25,818.75 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 0000070907 145,000 .00 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 0000070907 145,000.00 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 0000070907 73,906.25 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 0000070907 73,906 .25 DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ====================== TOTAL: 991,270.49 00008102 0000070840 5,747 .50 BUILDING PERMIT FEE ====================== TOTAL: 5,747.50 00008107 0000070943 13,463.65 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 13,463.65 00008201 0000070839 1,667.95 WATER SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: 1,667.95 00008107 0000070943 1,033.59 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 1, 033 . 59 00008201 00000708 39 527.25 WATER SERVICE ====================== TOTAL: 527.25 00008107 0000070943 25.48 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 2,830.76 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 46.00 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 53 .13 EXCISE TAX 0000070943 3,334.54 EXCISE TAX ====================== TOTAL: 6,289.91 DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G L A K E T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 7 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= CITY OF MOSES LAKE 00008201 00008107 COLUMBIA BASIN DAILY HERALD 00000210 COLUMBIA BASIN MACHINE 00000211 COLUMBIA BEARING BDI 00000274 COMMERCIAL TIRE 00005968 CONCESSIONS SUPPLY 00006286 0000070839 276.17 0000070839 897.36 0000070839 425.51 0000070933 255.10 0000070839 355.97 0000070839 1,146.00 0000070839 95.70 0000070839 95.70 ====================== TOTAL: 3,547.51 0000070907 145,000.00 0000070907 18,332.50 ====================== TOTAL: 163,332.50 0000070800 285.12 0000070800 285 .13 0000070832 80.00 ====================== TOTAL: 650.25 0000070856 206.04 ====================== TOTAL: 206.04 0000070939 36.00 ====================== TOTAL: 0000070859 0000070859 36.00 1,776.13 4,287.50 ====================== TOTAL: 6,063.63 0000070909 122.19 WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE WATER SERVICE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS PROGRAM ADVERTISING PROGRAM ADVERTISING ADVERTISING FABRICATE EXTENSION GAT BELT NEW TIRES NEW TIRES LRC RESALE DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 8 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= ====================== TOTAL: 122.19 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC DIST 00000819 0000070938 69.98 BROAN 0000070861 25.52 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070861 7.74 MISC SUPPLIES 0000070861 1,381.12 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 1,484.36 CROWN PAPER & JANITORIAL 00007120 0000070857 1,099 .51 TOWELS, CLEANING SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 1,099.51 D & L SUPPLY COMPANY INC 00006974 0000070865 982.70 MONUMENT CASINGS TOTAL: 982.70 D L T SOLUTIONS INC 00004305 0000070623 4,356.88 AUTOCADE SFTWRE SUBS UPGRD ====================== TOTAL: 4,356.88 DB SECURE SHRED 00003144 0000070908 5.51 RECORDS DESTRUCTION 0000070908 5.51 RECORDS DESTRUCTION 0000070908 13.78 RECORDS DESTRUCTION 0000070908 13. 78 RECORDS DESTRUCTION 0000070908 13.78 RECORDS DESTRUCTION 0000070908 5.51 RECORDS DESTRUCTION 0000070908 5.51 RECORDS DESTRUCTION 0000070908 5.51 RECORDS DESTRUCTION ====================== TOTAL: 68.89 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 00003221 0000070949 3,132.50 ANNUAL STORMWATER PERMIT ====================== TOTAL: 3,132.50 DOG-ON-IT-PARKS 00005386 0000070922 164.37 DOI ROLL BAGS DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 9 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= E F RECOVERY 00007244 EASTERN CASCADE DIST 00006909 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 00005914 FABER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 00000501 FASTENAL COMPANY 00007372 FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA 00007168 GRAINGER PARTS OPERATIONS 00002755 GRANT CO SOLID WASTE DEPT 00000640 GRANT COUNTY ECON DEV COUNCIL 00005738 HACH COMPANY 00000712 0000070922 0000070922 164.37 DOI ROLL BAGS 164.36 DOI ROLL BAGS ====================== TOTAL: 493.10 0000070944 0000070944 TOTAL: 0000070834 TOTAL: 0000070833 TOTAL: 0000070866 5,009.50 AMBULANCE BILLING 120.54 AMBULANCE BILLING 5,130.04 34.50 DRINKING WATER 34.50 30.00 SERVICES 30.00 47.13 BROOMS, HANDLE ====================== TOTAL: 0000070867 0000070867 TOTAL: 0000070925 47 .13 1,074.97 MISC SUPPLIES 106.45 MISC SUPPLIES 1,181.42 6,165.82 SNS RESALE ====================== TOTAL: 0000070868 0000070868 6,165.82 469.78 MISC SUPPLIES 258.03 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 727.81 0000070923 23,828.87 LANDFILL DUMPING FEES TOTAL: 23,828.87 0000070811 36.00 LUNCHEON/AEROSPACE OPPOR ====================== TOTAL: 36.00 0000070871 159.61 PH TESTING SUPPLIES DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E PAGE 10 XAPPRVD T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= HACH COMPANY 00000712 HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY 00006809 HOCHSTATTER ELECTRIC 00000705 IBS INC 00004860 INLAND PIPE & SUPPLY COMPANY 00003727 IRRIGATORS INC 00003840 JERRYS AUTO SUPPLY 00005835 KATHERINE L KENISON 00006980 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOL 00007194 MARX OVERHEAD DOOR 00006724 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 00005385 0000070871 1, 705.10 PH TESTING SUPPLIES TOTAL: 1,864.71 0000070932 820.04 PROMATE TOTAL: 820.04 0000070934 0000070897 336.68 DEFROST TERMINATION SWITCH 192.70 HVAC LABOR/POLE SEQUENCER TOTAL: 529.38 0000070872 661.26 STOCK SUPPLIES TOTAL: 661.26 0000070696 951.60 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 951.60 0000070873 TOTAL: 0000070822 0000070875 0000070875 58.27 OIL DRIPPER 58.27 29.20 FUEL FOR CHAIN SAW 44.26 MISC SUPPIES/LABOR 428.35 MISC SUPPIES/LABOR TOTAL: 501.81 0000070812 5, 725.00 PROF SERVICE/CITY ATTY TOTAL : 5,725.00 0000070924 136.51 MAINT AGREE/CH COPIER TOTAL: 136.51 000007087 7 304.28 REPAIR DOOR ====================== TOTAL: 304.28 0000070878 l,708.48 CHECK VALVES DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E TABULATION OF CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 11 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ============================================================================~========================================== METRON POWDER COATING 00006872 MOSES LAKE SOCCER TOTS 00007063 MOSES LAKE STEEL SUPPLY 00001268 MSI MARTIAL ARTS ACADEMY 00007322 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 00006113 OASIS AUTO SPA 00004834 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE INC 00006727 OU PRESS DISTRIBUTION CENTER 00006745 OXARC INC 00001412 TOTAL: 1,708.48 0000070879 323 .70 POWDER COAT GATE TOTAL: 323.70 0000070931 376.00 HOOPSTERTOTS INSTRUCTION TOTAL: 376.00 0000070940 0000070880 0000070880 23.76 MISC SUPPLIES 26.22 MISC SUPPLIES 14.70 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 0000070921 0000070921 64. 68 108.00 KICKBOXING INSTRUCTION 408.00 KICKBOXING INSTRUCTION TOTAL: 516.00 0000070881 2,083.15 SODIUM HYPO TOTAL: 2,083.15 0000070820 708 .00 CAR WASHES-APRIL & JULY 2014 TOTAL: 708.00 0000070946 3 72. 55 PROF SERVICE/AT & T CLAIM TOTAL: 372.55 0000070802 18.14 MAC RESALE -BOOKS ====================== TOTAL: 0000070942 0000070942 0000070942 0000070882 18.14 365.01 MISC GASES/SUPPLIES 36 .28 MISC GASES/SUPPLIES 106.56 MISC GASES/SUPPLIES 141.16 MISC SUPPLIES DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 12 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= PUD OF GRANT COUNTY 00001501 QCL INC 00006542 QUILL CORPORATION 00004811 RAINBOW FLYING SERVICE 00003974 RAMADA MOSES LAKE 00006884 REDDY ICE 00004329 REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS 00004837 ROYAL ORGANIC PRODUCTS 00007187 ROYCE ROLLS RINGER 00004390 0000070882 103.69 MISC SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 752.70 0000070912 0000070912 1,381.10 ELEC SERVICE/ST LIGHTS 34,947.83 ELEC SERVICE/ST LIGHTS TOTAL: 36,328.93 0000070898 50.50 PRE-EMPLOY DRUG TESTING TOTAL: 50.50 0000070916 378.66 ENVELOPES, BREAKROOM SUPPLIES 0000070916 28.98 ENVELOPES, BREAKROOM SUPPLIES 000007082 1 56.42 COFFEE, FILTERS 0000070884 133. 77 FLOOR MATS 000007082 1 56.42 COFFEE, FILTERS TOTAL: 654.25 0000070886 400.00 LAWN CARE TOTAL: 400.00 0000070920 3,439.62 CONCERT PEFORMER LODGING ====================== TOTAL: 3,439.62 0000070807 555.00 ICE RESALE/CASCADE CAMPGROUND ====================== TOTAL: 555.00 0000070930 15,507.87 PROF SERV/RED LIGHT TICKETS ====================== TOTAL: 15,507.87 0000070913 4,233.45 TIPPING FEES ====================== TOTAL: 4,233.45 0000070900 309 .53 MASTER LOCK ====================== TOTAL: 309.53 DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E TABULATION OF CLAIMS TO BE APPROVED C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 13 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= SAMARITAN HEALTHCARE 00001836 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 00006229 SHIRTBUILDERS INC 00004022 SMITH SPORT OPTICS INC 00008016 SPECfRUM COMMUNICATIONS 00002691 STATE AUDITORS OFFICE 00003249 SWANK MOTION PICfURES INC 00008015 T 0 ENGINEERS 00005176 TERESA WAKKURI 00004588 THOMSON REUTERS -WEST 00004968 TIM RICH CONSULTING LLC 00003351 0000070903 15.60 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES ====================== TOTAL: 15.60 0000070948 0000070948 0000070887 285.94 PAINT/SUPPLIES 126.80 PAINT/SUPPLIES 30.09 PAINT ====================== TOTAL: 442.83 0000070814 223.05 HARDEN/RODRIGUEZ SHIRTS ====================== TOTAL: 223.05 0000070806 220.20 SNS MERCHANDISE RESALE-GLASSES ====================== TOTAL: 220.20 0000070888 0000070888 48.02 REPAIR RADIO, HEADSET, CAMERA 268.57 REPAIR RADIO, HEADSET, CAMERA ====================== TOTAL: 316.59 0000070929 1,155 .72 PROF SERV/AUDIT ====================== TOTAL: 1,155.72 0000070919 645.26 MOVIES IN PARK (RV & ET) ====================== TOTAL: 645.26 0000070824 0000070824 231. 56 12 .19 ====================== TOTAL: 243.75 PROF SERV AIRPORT OVRLY 2014 PROF SERV AIRPORT OVRLY 2014 0000070926 328.00 KINDERMUSICK INSTRUCfION ====================== TOTAL: 328.00 0000070899 959 .12 LEGAL BOOKS ====================== TOTAL: 959.12 DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09: 52: 51 PAGE 14 XAPPRVD C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 NAME OF VENDOR Department VENDOR NO Object Description Expenditure Account P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= UMPQUA BANK 00006670 UTIL UNDRGRND LOCATION CENTER 00004598 VALLEY ATHLETICS 00006626 VERIZON WIRELESS 00002107 WALTER E NELSON CO 000062 67 WATER GEAR INC 00004417 WEAVER EXTERMINATING SERVICE 00004290 WEINSTEIN BEVERAGE COMPANY 00005990 0000070889 420.00 SERVICE CALL TOTAL: 420.00 0000070910 658.83 BANKING FEES ====================== TOTAL: 658.83 0000070835 0000070835 0000070835 55.90 UNDERGROUND LOCATES-JULY 2014 55.90 UNDERGROUND LOCATES-JULY 2014 55.90 UNDERGROUND LOCATES-JULY 2014 ====================== TOTAL: 167.70 0000070896 568.85 PAINT TOTAL: 568.85 0000070914 269.39 MONTHLY USAGE ====================== TOTAL: 269.39 0000070891 209.97 CARPET CLEANER ====================== TOTAL: 209.97 0000070803 2,345.67 SNS MERCHANDISE RESALE ====================== TOTAL: 2,345.67 0000070893 69.06 RODENT CONTROL ====================== TOTAL: 69.06 0000070927 1,014.67 LARSON/LAUZIER/SNS RESALE 0000070927 572 .07 LARSON/LAUZIER/SNS RESALE 0000070927 2,275.54 LARSON/LAUZIER/SNS RESALE 0000070927 732.60 LARSON/LAUZIER/SNS RESALE 0000070927 752 .10 LARSON/LAUZIER/SNS RESALE 0000070927 174.00 LARSON/LAUZIER/SNS RESALE 0000070927 572. 08 LARSON/LAUZIER/SNS RESALE DATE 8/22/14 TIME 09:52:51 NAME OF VENDOR Department C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S L A K E T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G 0 F 08/26/2014 Expenditure Account PAGE 15 XAPPRVD VENDOR NO Object Description P.O. Number P.O. Amount Purpose of Purchase ======================================================================================================================= WEST COAST FIRE & RESCUE 00006789 WESTERN EQUIPMENT DIST INC 00004582 WESTERN PETERBILT INC 00006802 ZIGGYS #13 00006567 ====================== TOTAL: 6,093.06 0000070828 90.20 ====================== TOTAL: 90.20 0000070892 489.85 ====================== TOTAL: 0000070894 0000070894 489.85 19. 20 556.10 ====================== TOTAL: 575.30 0000070895 8.34 TOTAL: 8.34 ============================= REPORT TOTAL: 1,427,951.82 HYDRAULIC FLUID CAPS, FILTERS REPLACE SENSOR REPLACE SENSOR PREMIX CONCRETE, STAPLES DATE FRI 1 AUG 22 1 2014 1 9:52 AM TIME 09:52:52 TOTALS BY FUND FUND NO --------- 000 102 103 116 410 450 452 477 490 493 495 498 517 519 528 C I T Y 0 F M 0 S E S T A B U L A T I 0 N 0 F C L A I M S C 0 U N C I L M E E T I N G FUND NAME -------------------------------------- GENERAL FUND TOURISM GRANTS AND DONATIONS STREET WATER/SEWER 2011 BOND FUND 2004 BOND FUND WATER SEWER CONSTRUCTION SANITATION STORM WATER AIRPORT AMBULANCE FUND CENTRAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT RENTAL BUILD MAINTENANCE TOTAL CHANGES TO BE MADE SHOULD BE LISTED BELOW L A K E T 0 B E A P P R 0 V E D 0 F 08/26/2014 AMOUNT -------------- 821984.26 4,084.88 115. 05 441397.68 601418 .74 5111637. 50 4371812.50 51 747.50 411531.48 51981.33 11203.37 101907.41 235.64 50,826.04 1701068.44 114271951.82 VEND NO . P . 0. NO . AMT LISTED CORRECTED AMT ACTION TO BE TAKEN CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE PAID TOTALS PAGE XAPPRVD ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** C L A I M S A P P R 0 V A L * WE1 THE UNDERSIGNED COUNCILMEN OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE MERCHANDISE * OR SERVICES SPECIFIED HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THAT ABOVE CLAIMS ARE APPROVED1 AS NOTED 1 FOR PAYMENT * IN THE AMOUNT OF $114271951.82 THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST1 2014 * * * COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER * * * * * * * * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FINANCE DIRECTOR ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** August 19, 2014 TO: City Manager For City Council Consideration FROM: Municipal Services Director SUBJECT: Accept Work Sewer Force Main Project -2013 Pegram Construction, Inc. has completed the 2013 Lift Station Project. The project included installing 12,500 feet of 20-inch sewer force main and installing air relief valves along Base Line Road and Road K. This project completed the installation of a parallel force main from Nelson Road to the Sand Dunes Treatment Plant. This work was awarded in the amount of $1,226,486. The final contract amount is $1,224,653. The contract work is physically complete and ready for acceptance by City Council. Upon acceptance of the contract, we will enter into the 60-day lien period as required by Washington State Law. Respectfully Submitted, ~I A-\'.\ aA0\_ Gary Harer, PE/PLS Municipal Services Director DATE: August 19, 2014 FROM: Project Engineer l2J1-{ TO: Municipal Services Director SUBJECT: PEGRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC. SEWER FORCE MAIN PROJECT -2013 ACCEPT WORK Pegram Construction, Inc. has completed work for the above project. This project consists of a base bid installing 12,500 lineal feet of 20" C-900 PVC Sewer Force Main including installing connecting to existing 20" AC sewer force main and installing Air Relief Valves. The bid also includes restoring the trench area. This work was awarded in the amount of $1,226,486.39. The final contract amount for the work is $1,224,653.37. Pegram Construction did an exceptional job on this project, finishing slightly below the original contract amount and almost a month ahead of the original schedule. They were also very cooperative and worked with City Staff to come up with field modifications that saved both time and money. The contract work is physically complete and ready for acceptance. Upon acceptance of the contract, we will enter into the 60 day lien period as required by Washington State Law, prior to release of the contractor's retainage. c: City Engineer/ Assistant Municipal Services Director Inspector August 19, 2014 TO: FROM: City Manager for City Council Consideration Parks and Recreation Director @ SUBJECT: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Reappointments As the current terms of all members of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee are set to expire September of 2014, it seems like the appropriate time to suggest reappointments. Additionally, with a change in employment, Laura Susserman appears to have left the community for employment away from her past position as the General Manager of the Comfort Inn and Suites Hotel. We have attempted to contact her in writing without success. At this point, it seems logical to assume that with her departure from the community, she is no longer able to serve on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. We have been in contact with the new General Manager of the Holiday Inn and Suites and her name is Kim Kirkbride. Kim has expressed a desire to serve on the committee in the position that Laura previously held. This group will be meeting in the future to provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding 2015 Lodging Tax Funding support. Thank you for your consideration. Spencer Grigg Subject: FW: Lodging Tax Advisory Committe Interest -----Original Message----- From : Kim Kirkbride [mailto:kimk@lincolnandassociates.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30 , 2014 2:09 PM I am writing this to express my interest in filling the vacancy that there is on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee for the City of Moses Lake. If I should need to do/send anything further to be able to fill this position please let me know! Thank you Kim Kirkbride General Manager Comfort Suites, Moses Lake 509-765-3731 1 August 21, 2014 Mr. Gilbert Alvarado Community Development Director 321 S. Balsam St. Moses Lake, WA 98837 AUG 21 2014 COMMUNITY rmvEJ.OPMENT J'LANNJN(; & illJJLOlNG CITY OF MOSES LAKE RE: August 19, 2014, Denial of Business License Application-The Hydrofarmer Dear Mr. Alvarado: Per our discussion on the topic of the letter you sent denying the above referenced Business License Application, I request to be placed on the agenda at the next City Council meeting to discuss the matter with the City Council. Sincerely, ~~- Alan Heroux 509-750-0072 August 19, 20 J 4 Brent Heroux 220 Beal Moses Lake, WA 98837 CITY OF HOSES LAf<E SUBJECT: Business License Application -The Hydrofamer Dear Mr. Heroux: The Community Development Department has receipted your business license application submitted on August 15, 2014 for "the manufacture of marijuana for food products". Prior to receiving your application, l spoke with Alan Heroux who clarified the intent of your proposed business. See attached letter. It is still clear to me that your business license application is intended for the production, or growing, of marijuana. Under the description portion of the business license application, you used the terms 11manufacture of marijuana". The definition of "Manufacture" contained within Initiative Measure No. 502 includes the following excerpt: "Manufacture " me ans the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a c ontrolled substance, .. Again, it is production of marijuana that is the intent of your business as I read your City of Moses Lake business license application and your Marijuana License Application with the Washington State Liquor Control Board (Board) which is for a Marijuana Producer Tier 3. The Board's web-page has a producer license description for this type of license. The description is as follows: "To produce marijuana for sale at wholesale to marijuana processor licensees and to other marijuana producer licensees. Tier 3 allows for between ten thousand square feet and thirty thousand square feet of dedicated p l ant canopy". Based on my conversation with Alan Heroux, the production, or growing of marijuana, would be part of your business. The City considers the production of marijuana, if they are plants, an agricultural use. Our current zoning scheme does not allow agriculture uses, which are prohibited in a11 zoning districts. Consequently, we cannot process your business license application which is for a prohibited use. City Manager 764-3701 City Attornev 764-3703 ·Community Development 764·3750 ·Finance 764-37l 7 F1rc 765·2204 Municipal Services 764·3783 ·Municipal Court 764-3701 ·Parks & Recreation 764-3805 ·Police 764-3887 ·Fax 764-3739 401 S Balsam St .. P.O. Drawer 1579 . Moses Lake, WA 98837-0244 · www.cltyofml.com As we cannot process your business license application, I have enclosed a refund for the business license application you submitted to the City of Moses Lake. Please find the enclosed $40 dollar refund. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. I can be reached at (509) 764-3745. Gilbert Alvarado Community Development Director GA:jt Enclosure August 15, 2014 Mr. Gilbert Alvarado, City of Moses Lake Community Development Director 321 S. Balsam St Moses Lake, WA 98837 RE : Business License Application, The Hydrofarmer, 1450 Wheeler Rd. Dear Mr. Alvarado: I'm writing this letter to accompany a new Business License Application made by My Brother. We changed the description portion of the application to clarify the business intent. We have also attached a list of definitions, which show why the description of the intended use does conform to the current zoning regulations. It is our belief that if the City of Moses Lake looks at this application reasonably taking into consideration the wording in the Light Industrial Zoning Ordinance along with the attached definitions, the application will be approved without further delay. Please contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully Submitted, Alan Heroux Sc~/!/-7so--oci 7 t7. RECEIVED AUG 15 2014 COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT .PLANNl:\G & UUILDING ClTY Of MOSl::S LAKE Type of<llG~ J:t BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF MOSES LAKE 321 South Balsam -P.O. Drawer 1579 Moses Lake , Washington 98837 (509) 764-3750 Fax(509) 764-3758 ~ew Business o Ownership Change o Non-profit o Name Change o Location Change o Exempt Is this a Home Occupation? o Yes }#Jo Is the business located outside of city limits? o Yes ~No WA State Uniform Business Identifier (UBl)_o_:c._) __ .-;>_J _C>_·/:_0 __ 3_.Y,~'/~------------- Non-Profit No. _______________________________ _ WA State Contractors No.-------------Expiration Date: ________ _ BUSINESS NAME: (/...e. /lyc.~,pf:,,,,Mi",,. Business Owner: J_,..11tr..f 1/4.l'OO..">< Home Phone: Business Phon e: Business Address: /f-)0 W~'2.:;/er. /t/ 7Xe ?l'(AM•tbt't{,Jl'e t>f '/11•/Fl;.:(e!l\.et DESCRIPTION: -I?.· 7''?·~-1,/J.l't'dac:fs. ~o1-ISO ··cc~;;; Cel l Phone: _____ _ City: )1(-:.:.sc0s ~/<e State: lv A Zip:_</&~8~_5_7 ___ _ Mailing Address (ifdi~ren0:~~~· ~~~~~~~~~=~~~--------------------~ City: Jrc,-:;--e ~ la)€> State: _tv~'/f _____ ZIP: 9gg37 (NOT APPLICABLE FOR BUSINESSES LOCATED 0 'TSIDE CITY LIMITS) w~ {'o·r-7 6.~-a.s-1:) -L LC-J~ Phone:L~ Sol--¥3/ ~3AA1 ZIP: f.883) REPORT SALES OR USE TAX WITH LOCATION CODE 1309 IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION WITH THE MOSES LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT AT (509) 765-2204, BEFORE THIS APPL/CATION CAN BE ISSUED Receipt Number / 7 t./ '1 rf7 Date ej; sjJ '/Amount l/ 0 ~ ii) Received by Community Development: ______ _ ZONE: _____ _ Building Official: Inspection Scheduled For:---------- Approved by: Date: Occupancy Type ______ _ Fire Marshal/Inspector Date Routed: Approved by: Date: ____ _ Water Department Date Routed: Approved by: Date: ____ _ Home Occupation: Property owner notice mailed: End of Comment Period: ____ _ Approved: ____ _ Community Development Director approval: ______________ Date: ___ _ Industrial User Survey Required? o Yes o No Survey form given on (Date): ______ _ NOTES: ________________________________ _ SIGN AND DATE BACK PAGE UNDER APPROPRIATE CATEGORY BUSINESS LICENSE FEE SCHEDULE-5.04 (Prorated Quarterly) If Purchased: Jan 1-Mar 31 FEE: $80.00 If Purchased: Apr 1-Jun 30 FEE:60.00 NAME CHANGE/LOCATION CHANGE EXEMPT/NON-PROFIT APPLICATION PROCESS STILL APPLIES· NO CHARGE If Purchased: Jul 1-Sep 30 FEE: $40.00 If Purchased: Oct 1-Dec 31 FEE: $20.00 HOME OCCUPATION -18.55 BUSINESS LICENSE FEE PER SCHEDULE ABOVE APPLICATION PROCESS APPLIES City required to notify adjacent neighbors of proposed use of property. Ten day comment period must be satisfied before Issuance oflicense SOLICITORS(S.36), T AXl(S.40), SECONDHAND DEALER, PAWNBROKER(5.22) If your company is one of the above, each employee, including the owner (if he/she is participating). ****EACH PERSON MUST DO A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION APPLICATION. See application for fees. HOME OCCUPATION-18.55 I hereby acknowledge that I have read and understand fully the above sections of the Municipal Code on zoning concerning home occupations and I agree to comply with all applicable city and state ordinances. EXEMPT -5.04.090 Business License Exemption Certification: I do not anticipate annual sales for (year) of more than $2,000. The gross annual sales for (previous year) were$ . I understand that the business license exemption must be renewed annually. If sales of more than $2,000 are made in any calendar year, I understand that I must report these sales to the City of Moses Lake and obtain a City of Moses Lake business license. I have read, or have had read to me, the above and declare under penalty or perjury of the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. ALL OTHER LICENSES-5.04 (Standard) I certify that the information I have provided to the city is correct. I agree to comply with all federal, state, county and city laws applicable to the establishment, construction, operation, and maintenance of the use herein identified. I further agree to replace or repair to current community street and utility standards any damage to city streets and/or utilities resulting from the establishment construction, operation, or maintenance of the use herein identified. I certify that I have received a copy of the zoning regulation consistent with designated location and MLMC Chapter 5.04, that I understand the requirements of the zone, and that the use herein identified ill be established, operated, and maintained in compliance with those regulations. SIGNATURE DATE C>E /3 l'io1?{ City of Moses Lake Zoning Ordinance Allowed Use: Manufacturing, processing, or packaging of food products, excluding meat products, seafood products, distilling, fermenting, canning, slaughtering, rendering, curing, and tanning. DEFINITIONS BY: Chapter 82.04.213 RCW Business and Occupation Tax Chapter 69.50 RCW Uniform Controlled Substances Act Washington State Retail Food Code Chapter 246-215 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) University of Washington, Alcohol & Drug Abuse Institute Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia DEFINITIONS: REC.t~~lJED AUG 1 5 2014 CO.WMllNff\' l>EV£LOPMENT PLANNI:\'(i & BUILIHl\'G crrv OF MOS£S LAKE "Agricultural Product" does not include marijuana, useable marijuana, or marijuana-infused products, or animals defined as pet animals under RCW 16. 70.020. "Manufacture" means the producti.on, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container. "Food" means a raw, cooked, or processed edible substance, ice, BEVERAGE, or Ingredient used or intended for use or for sale in whole or in part for human consumption, or chewing gum. "Controlled substance" means a drug, substance, or immediate precursor included in Schedules I through Vas set forth in federal or state laws, or federal or commission rules. "Production" includes the manufacturing, planting, cultivating, growing, or harvesting of a controlled substance. "Plant Propagation" is the process of creating new plants from a variety of sources: seeds, cuttings, bulbs and other plant parts. "Marijuana" or "marijuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not, with a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. The term does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. "Marijuana edibles" means food items made with marij uana or infused with Marijuana extracts. "Marijuana-i nfused products" means products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts, are intended for human use, and have a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent and no greater than sixty percent. The term "marijuana-infused products" does not include either useable marijuana or marijuana concentrates. "Cannabis Consumption" Among the variety of ways cannabis is consumed; forms of smoking or oral consumption are most common. Richard Penhallurick 905 Stratford Rd Moses Lake, WA 98837 August 20, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City Council: On July 8, 2014, the City Council considered and granted my request to build on unplatted property. The permission granted had a thirty day period in which to provide an easement and apply for a building permit. I have been working with staff on an easement recorded and then submitted to staff on Wednesday July 23, 2014. I was informed that I do not have a legal description of the easement and since the 30 days has passed, I will have to submit another request. I would like the City Council to grant an extension and approve the easement since it was submitted timely. I have met legal requirements for an easement as stated in the following. However, in the case of an easement, a "deed [of easement] is not required to establish the actual location of an easement, but is required to convey an easement" which encumbrances a specific servient estate. Smith v King, 27 Wash.App. 869, 871, 620 P.2d 542, 24 A.LR. 4th 1049 (1980) (citing cases). The servient estate must be sufficiently described. See Seattle v. Nazarenus, 60 Wash.2d 657, 660-61, 374 P.2d 1014 (1962). I am attaching various case law to substantiate that I do indeed have an easement, it was presented within the time allowed, it should be accepted and time should be allowed to complete the application for a building permit. The last time the City Council considered my request there were concerns about access. This has now been addressed. I restate the following for information to facilitate discussion. 1. Utilities: The project I have proposed for this unique property will only require water for fire suppression. There is no need for sewer. The issue of my access to Walmart's fire hydrants for fire suppression will need to be confirmed with the Fire Chief no matter if I am required to plat or not. The easement regarding this access is recorded in Grant County and fire flow was judged sufficient on Walmart's plans on record with the City. There is no argument with this requirement. 2. Platting: As a Planning Commissioner, I have always understood that when we review plats, a few factors drive the platting requirement. Staff wants to make sure adequate utilities exist to serve the site and adjacent property if that is the case. Platting also confirms property ownership -where does my property begin/end? Easements are also considered. In my case I would argue that there is no need to plat, ifthere is no need to extend utilities given there is no additional properties to extend "to and through". To the West, Wal mart is served along with the commercial strip malls further West. To the North is SR-17. To the South is the water body of Moses Lake. To the East is the water body Moses Lake. The issue of property ownership could be confirmed without the platting requirement. Walmart has property pins adjacent to my property. The construction I propose does not require more than that to figure the location of my property lines. This is the same idea for example when city Building Inspectors do an inspection. The requirement to verify the property pins is not the City's responsibility but rather the contractor who submits a site plan with their permit. Areas like Knolls Vista and the Lower Peninsula are great examples where areas exist that over time property pins have been removed, covered, etc. The inspections occur with the responsibility of the accuracy of information submitted with the building permit falling on the contractor. Also, I would ask that the City Council consider their previous actions with similar requests to build on unplatted property that were not required to plat. Recently the City Council was presented with a request from Mick Hansen for property South of 1-90. City staff mentioned that because of the location of the property, platting would not be beneficial. Mr. Hansen's is similar to mine: State Highway/Route to the North; State of Washington natural resource to the South and West. 3. Land Use: A question was raised about the use of my property. This property is zoned Commercial. Given its unique location there is not much I can do with it. Do I wish I could build something more along the lines of my strip mall? Yes, but what business wants to have a view of the back of Walmart and minimal exposure to public travel. If a future use is proposed, City Code requires review before any change can be made and necessary changes can be made to address the City Code at that time. The mini-storage I propose is low impact development that does not require prime location. This is true of most mini-storage facilities that have already been built in town. Please consider my request for an extension oftime to build on unplatted property. 886 P.2d 564 125 Wash.2d 544, 886 P.2d 564 View Washington Reports version Briefs and Other Related Documents Judges and Attorneys Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc. Page 1 of 21 Norman BERG and Marjorie Berg, husband and wife, Respondents, v. Robert Y. TING and Kathy Ting, and their marital community, Petitioners, and First Nationwide Bank, a federal savings bank; the City of Seattle; John L. Cahill and Beverly J. Cahill, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Defendants. No. 60928-4. Jan. 5, 1995. Reconsideration Denied March 29, 1995. Property owners brought action to quiet title to purported easement across neighbors1 property. The Superior Court, King County, George A. Finkle, J., granted summary judgment for neighbors. The Court of Appeals, 850 P.2d 1349, reversed, and neighbors sought review. The Supreme Court, Brachtenbach, J., held that: (1) grant of easement did not sufficiently describe location of easement to satisfy statute of frauds; (2) conveyance would not be reformed to include proper description of easement; (3) property owners' withdrawal of opposition to subdivision was not part performance of agreement to convey easement and thus did not take agreement out of statute of frauds; and (4) neighbors did not judicially admit location of easement. Court of Appeals reversed; Superior Court judgment reinstated. Durham, J., filed opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in wh ich Madsen, J., concurred. West Headnotes ill if KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 141 Easements 141! Creation, Existence, and Termination 141k12 Express Grant 141k12(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases Grant of easement must describe specific subservient estate. ill ~ KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 141 Easements http://web2.westlaw.com/result/ documenttext.aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 1411 Creation, Existence, and Termination 141kl k. Nature and Elements of Right. Most Cited Cases Although it is incorporeal right, easement is interest in land. ill if KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 185 Frauds, Statute Of 185VI Real Property and Estates and Interests Therein 185k60 Creation of Easements 185k60(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases Page 2 of21 Express grant of easement is "conveyance" within meaning of statute of frauds. West's RCWA 64.04.010, 64.04.020. ill ~ KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 141 Easements 1411 Creation, Existence, and Termination 141k12 Express Grant 141k12(2) k. Sufficiency of Words of Conveyance in General. Most Cited Cases Deed of easement is not required to establish actual location of easement, but is required to convey easement which encumbrances specific servient estate; servient estate must be sufficiently described. ill ~ KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 185 Frauds, Statute Of 185VIII Requisites and Sufficiency of Writing 185k105 Contents of Memorandum 185k110 Description of Lands 185k110(1) k. Sufficiency in General. Most Cited Cases Grant of easement which stated that location of easement was to be determined by reference to future finally approved short plat application did not satisfy statute of frauds, as description of servient estate referred to nonexistent instrument and did not refer to any instrument which contained appropriate description. lfil ~ KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 185 Frauds, Statute Of 18SVIII Requisites and Sufficiency of Writing 18Sk105 Contents of Memorandum 185k110 Description of Lands 18Sk110(1) k . Sufficiency in General. Most Cited Cases http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 3 of 21 Description of parcel over which easement was to be located which was appended to grant of easement was not sufficient to describe specific location of easement for purpose of statute of frauds, as parties clearly intended that less than entire parcel comprise servient estate; recognizing easement from description of entire parcel would undermine recording statute. West's RCWA 65.08.070. ill if KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 141 Easements 1411 Creation, Existence, and Termination 141k12 Express Grant 141k12(2) k. Sufficiency of Words of Conveyance in General. Most Cited Cases Grant of easement was such that it would not have been entitled to be recorded pursuant to statute where grant described location of easement by referring to and relying entirely on description of lots in short plat to be later approved and recorded. West's RCWA 65.04.030(1). Ifil if KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 328 Reformation of Instruments 3281 Right of Action and Defenses 328k10 Matters Subject to Reformation 328k13 Matter of Description 328k13(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases Reformation of grant of easement which inadequately stated that location of easement was to be determined by reference to future finally approved short plat application to include specific legal description of easement would be inappropriate, absent any evidence that mutual mistake or scrivener's error caused inadequate description. ill if KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 358 Specific Performance 358II Contracts Enforceable 358k27 Certainty 358k29 Description of Subject-Matter 358k29(2) k. Description of Lands in General. Most Cited Cases 358 Specific Performance Gif' KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 358II Contracts Enforceable 358k40 Part Performance of Oral Contracts 358k41 k. In General. Most Cited Cases http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 4 of21 Conveyance instrument containing inadequate description may be subject to specific performance under doctrine of part performance, which takes agreement out of statute of frauds, if all terms of contract are proved. L1Ql if KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 358 Specific Performance 3581 Nature and Grounds of Remedy in General • 358k18 Persons as Against Whom Performance May Be Enforced 358k22 k. Purchasers in General. Most Cited Cases Specific performance of agreement conveying easement may be granted with respect to subsequent purchasers of property which would be subservient estate, where subsequent purchasers have notice of rights of another under contract conveying interest in land. L!1J ii" KeyCite Citing References for t his Headnote 185 Frauds, Statute Of 185IX Operation and Effect of Statute 185k129 Part Performance in General 185k129(3) k. Agreements Relating to Real Property in General. Most Cited Cases 358 Specific Performance G1 KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 358II Contracts Enforceable 358k40 Part Performance of Oral Contracts 358k41 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Under doctrine of part performance, agreement to convey estate in real property which is not in writing, in compliance with statutes, may be proved without writing, and specifically enforced, if there is sufficient part performance of agreement. West's RCWA 64.04.010, 64.04.020. I.LlJ ii" KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 185 Frauds, Statute Of 185IX Operation and Effect of Statute 185k129 Part Performance in General 185k129(3) k. Agreements Relating to Real Property in General. Most Cited Cases Property owners' withdrawal of opposition to subdivision proposal of neighbors, which constituted consideration for grant of easement to owners across portion of subdivision, was not "part performance" sufficient to remove agreement from statute of frauds; tender of consideration did not supply necessary terms to conveyance agreement. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%. .. 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 ill}~ KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 185 Frauds, Statute Of 185IX Operation and Effect of Statute 185k129 Part Performance in General Page 5of21 185k129(3) k. Agreements Relating to Real Property in General. Most Cited Cases Court would decline to follow restatement section purporting to set forth part performance doctrine for taking contracts for transfer of interest in land out of statute of frauds, as section was inconsistent with state's part performance test which examined factors of delivery and assumption of actual and exclusive possession, payment or tender of consideration, and making of permanent, substantial and valuable improvements, referable to contract. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 129. lliJ. if KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 185 Frauds, Statute Of 185XII Evidence 185k158 In General 185k158( 4) k. Sufficiency. Most Cited Cases 358 Specific Performance ii1' KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 358IV Proceedings and Relief 358k118 Evidence 358k121 Weight and Sufficiency 358k121(5) k. Part Performance of Contract Within Statute of Frauds. Most Cited Cases Where specific performance of oral agreement to convey interest in land or agreement which does not adequately define terms of agreement is sought, party relying on part performance doctrine must prove by clear and unequivocal evidence existence and all terms of contract, in addition to establishing that there has been part performance. I.ill ~ KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 185 Frauds, Statute Of 185IX Operation and Effect of Statute 185k144 k. Waiver of Bar of Statute; Estoppel. Most Cited Cases Defendant owners of alleged servient estate did not admit location of easement claimed by adjacent property owners, in adjacent owners' action to quiet title to easement; defendants stated in answer that servient estate was not locatable, described what grant of easement "purports to grant," and referred to grant of easement "claimed by" plaintiff. http ://web2. westlaw. com/result/ documenttext.aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 6 of21 **566 *546 Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S., Bruce H. Hurst, Karen J. Summerville, Thomas F. Peterson, Seattle, for petitioners. Davis, Wright & Tremaine, Stephen M. Rummage, Seattle, for respondents. BRACHTENBACH, Justice. Neighboring residential property owners dispute whether a grant of easement complies with the statute of frauds, and, if not, whether the easement is nevertheless enforceable under the doctrine of part performance. Norman and Marjorie Berg (the Bergs) and Robert Y. and Kathy Ting (the Tings) are owners of adjacent waterfront parcels on Lake Washington in Seattle. The Bergs brought an action to quiet title to an easement across the Tings' property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Tings on the basis that the grant of easement did not comply with the statute of frauds, and was void and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although the grant of easement did not comply with the statute of frauds, it was enforceable under the doctrine of *547 part performance. We reverse the Court of Appeals, and reinstate summary judgment in favor of the Tings. The Tings' property is located directly northeast of and adjacent to the Bergs' property. The Tings purchased their property in October 1988 from John and Beverly Cahill. In 1983, the parcel directly northeast of and adjacent to the Cahills' property was owned by Dr. and Mrs. Kenneth Hanson, who had signed a contract to sell the parcel to Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Young. Later in 1983, the Cahills and the Youngs submitted an application to the City of Seattle for a short plat which would allow them to subdivide the Cahill and Young properties. They proposed dividing the two parcels into seven lots, five on the Hanson property and two on the Cahill property. The Bergs publicly opposed the short plat application. They wrote letters to the City of Seattle and neighboring property owners, and expressed opposition at neighborhood **567 meetings. In 1984, the Cahills, the Youngs and the Bergs met, and agreed that the Bergs would withdraw their opposition to the short plat application in exchange for an easement down the subdivision's driveway and across the Cahill property to the Berg property. On March 3, 1984, the parties executed their written agreement and a grant of easement. The Bergs dropped their opposition to the application. The next month, the City gave conditional approval to the short plat application. Although the plan still contained seven lots, they were reconfigured. Consequently, on June 8, 1984, the parties executed an updated agreement prepared by the Bergs' attorney. On the same day, they executed the grant of easement which is at issue in this case. The grant of easement provides in part that the [g]rantors have combined their respective properties for the purpose of subdividing them and have applied to the City of Seattle for approval of a Short Subdivision, Variance, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a SEPA-Environmental Determination, under Master Use Permit Application No. 83-549 (the "Application"). Clerk's Papers, at 202-03. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 7 of21 *548 Paragraph 5 of the grant then provided: 5. Grant of Easement. For value received, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantors, Grantors hereby grant, convey and warrant to Grantees and their licensees, invitees, heirs, successors and assigns a perpetual, nonexclusive easement in, under and over the following tracts: TRACT A: The area designated as the private driveway across Lots A, B, C, and F, the exact location of which shall be determined by reference to the conditionally granted Application when the same is finally approved and recorded; and TRACT B: That portion of Lots F and G of the Short Subdivision applied for under the Application as the same is finally approved and recorded situated between the private driveway referred to in TRACT A above and the shore of Lake Washington, the upland boundary of which portion shall be a line commencing at the northwest corner of Lot G and running southerly to the point of intersection with the southerly boundary of the private driveway referred to in TRACT A above, thence westerly 50 feet along the southerly boundary of said private driveway, thence southerly, in a line parallel to the westerly boundary of Lot G, to the southerly boundary of Lot F; to provide ingress and egress and for utilities to and for the benefit of the Berg Property, subject to the following terms and conditions: A. With respect to Tract B, Grantees shall have the right, but not the obligation, to locate and construct a 20-foot road across Tract B between any point on the private driveway referred to in Tract A and Grantees' property line Clerk's Papers, at 203. The grant also provided that the Cahills could construct a 20- foot-wide road from the private driveway to provide access to the beachfront of lot F or G, and that if they did, the Bergs could not locate their own road, but could locate and construct a 20-foot road from such road constructed by the Cahills to the Bergs' property line. Clerk's Papers, at 203-04. The grant provided that once a road was constructed to the Bergs' property line, it was to be surveyed and the agreement modified to limit the scope of easement over the surveyed road, but that prior to such a survey and modification, "the easement shall encompass all of Tract B." Clerk's Papers, at 204. *5 49 Appended to the document were the legal descriptions of the Berg, Cahill (Ting) and Young properties. The grant provided that in the event of litigation, the prevailing party would be entitled to costs and attorney fees. The grant of easement was recorded on June 18, 1984. The Youngs' interest in the Hanson property expired, and they did not purchase it. Thus, the grant of easement (which was not signed by the Hansons) involves only the Cahill property. **5 68 Final approval of the short plat application did not occur until May 2, 1988. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 8of21 As finally approved, the application contained six, not seven lots, and the lots were reconfigured and redesignated. ill ~ As discussed hereafter, a grant of easement must describe a specific subservient estate; that is an absolute. Here, the grant of easement attempts to describe the subservient estate by reference to a future "finally approved" short plat application. That document did not exist until almost 4 years after the grant. Examination of the finally approved short plat discloses beyond question the fatal error of the attempted description of the subservient estate. The most glaring deficiency is the description of tract B as part of the subservient estate. It describes the easement as being over a portion of lots F and G as in the finally approved short plat. There is no lot G in the finally approved short plat. Equally fatal is the fact that in the finally approved short plat the purported easement appears (so far as it affects Tings' property) to be located entirely on lot E, but the grant describes no easement over lot E. The finally approved application was recorded on May 6, 1988, several months before the Tings purchased the Cahill property in October. The deed from the Cahills to the Tings does not mention th~ easement. The Bergs never used or improved any of the Cahill property for an easement. Shortly after the Tings purchased the property, Mr. Berg mentioned the easement to the Tings. The Tings have refused to acknowledge the easement. *550 In March 1990, the Bergs brought this action to quiet title in the easement across the Tings' property. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The Tings argued that the grant of easement was invalid because it did not adequately describe the servient estate and therefore violated the statute of frauds. The Tings pointed out that the grant of easement provided that the location of tracts A and B would be determined with regard to the finally approved and recorded short plat application. The trial court granted the Tings' motion. The trial court said in its oral ruling that the grant did not sufficiently describe the servient estate, but instead referred to a future document with uncertain terms and uncertain legal descriptions. The trial court also commented, in response to the Bergs' claim that the statute of frauds should not be applied to work a fraud, that it found no evidence of fraud on the Tings' part, noting particularly that the Bergs' attorney drafted the grant of easement. The trial court awarded the Tings costs and attorney fees. The Bergs appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the grant of easement violated the statute of frauds, but is enforceable under the doctrine of part performance. The court also reversed the award of attorney fees in favor of the Tings, and directed the trial court to award fees in favor of the Bergs . The court awarded the Bergs costs and attorney fees on appeal. In a motion for reconsideration, the Tings argued for the first time that they are bona fide purchasers. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. The Tings' petition for review was granted. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 9 of21 The trial court and the Court of Appeals both held that the grant of easement is void on its face and does not comply with the statute of frauds. However, while the trial court granted summary judgment to the Tings on this basis, the Court of Appeals held that the grant of easement is enforceable under the doctrine of part performance. The Bergs maintain that, contrary to the holdings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, the grant of easement does comply with the statute of frauds. ill~ ill if *551 Under RCW 64.04.010, "[ e]very conveyance of real estate, or any interest therein, and every contract creating or evidencing any encumbrance upon real estate, shall be by deed ... ". Every deed "shall be in writing, signed by the party bound thereby, and acknowledged ... ". RCW 64.04.020. Although it is an incorporeal right, an easement is an interest in land. See Perrin v. Derbyshire Scenic Acres Water Corp., 63 Wash .2d 716, 388 P.2d 949 (1964). An express grant of easement is a conveyance within the meaning of the statute of frauds. **569 E.g., Ormiston v. Boast, 68 Wash.2d 548, 550, 413 P.2d 969 (1966). ill ~ To comply with the statute of frauds, "a contract or deed for the conveyance of land must contain a description of the land sufficiently definite to locate it without recourse to oral testimony, or else it must contain a reference to another instrument which does contain a sufficient description." Bigelow v. Mood, 56 Wash.2d 340, 341, 353 P.2d 429 (1960). However, in the case of an easement, a" deed [ of easement] is not required to establish the actual location of an easement, but is required to convey an easement" which encumbrances a specific servient estate. (Some italics ours.) Smith v. King, 27 Wash.App. 869. 871, 620 P.2d 542, 24 A.LR.4th 1049 (1980) (citing cases). The servient estate must be sufficiently described. See Seattle v. Nazarenus, 60 Wash.2d 657, 660-61, 374 P.2d 1014 (1962). ill~ Here, the writing describes the interest conveyed as "a perpetual nonexclusive easement in, under and over" two tracts of land, tract A and tract B. These tracts are described as certain portions of the lots of the conditionally granted short subdivision application "when the same is finally approved and recorded" and "as the same is finally approved and recorded ... ". Clerk's Papers, at 203. The granting clause thus refers to a description of the encumbered property as the same is approved in the future, and refers to a then nonexistent instrument as defining the servient estate. The grant thus did not contain a sufficient description of the land nor did it reference an instrument which did contain such a description. Ifil if *5 52 The Bergs argue, however, that the grant of easement complies with the statute of frauds in accord with the analysis in Netherlands Am. Mortgage Bank v. Eastern Ry. & Lumber Co., 142 Wash. 204, 252 P. 916 (1927). They argue that the grant was of a "floating easement" and rely on the principle that the easement's location need not be exactly established in the conveyancing instrument. They point out that appended to the grant of easement were legal descriptions of the three parcels-the Young and Cahill parcels (which were originally intended to be encumbered by the easement) and the Berg parcel. They reason that the Cahill property was thus sufficiently described and the location of the easement on that property could be established in the future. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/20 14 886 P.2d 564 Page 10of21 In Netherlands, the granting clause conveyed strips of land between parallel lines on each side of the grantee's railroad as the same may be laid out and built on and across sections numbers seven (7) seventeen (17) twenty-one (21) and twenty-three (23) all in township number fourteen (14) north of range one (1) west of the Willamette Meridian, to be used ... for railroad right of way or other railroad purposes .... Netherlands, at 205, 252 P. 916. The court held the grant of easement granted the railroad the right to select the location of the easement over the described sections. However, the servient estate-the sections which were encumbered by the floating easement-were specifically described in the granting clause. Here, in sharp contrast, the granting clause only describes tracts A and B, and does not describe the entire Cahill parcel. If the granting clause had described the entire Cahill parcel as the servient estate, the case might be analogous to Netherlands. Netherlands does not support the Bergs' argument. Moreover, accepting the Bergs' argument would require that we ignore language in the granting clause which clearly shows the parties' intent that less than the entire Cahill property comprise the servient estate. Paragraph 5 of the grant, titled "Grant of Easement", does not refer to the entire Cahill property. Nothing in the granting clause even hints that the *553 entire Cahill property is the servient estate; instead the granting clause contains a description of tracts which, while inadequate as a description of the servient estate, obviously shows that less than the entire Cahill property was intended as the servient estate. Where it is manifestly apparent that the parties' granting language was clearly not intended to define the entire Cahill (and Young) parcels as the servient estate, we will _not substitute the appended legal description of the Cahill parcel for the description in the granting clause in order **570 that the Bergs may be saved from the statute of frauds problem which the grant of easement presents. It is essential to the integrity of the recording system and the stability of real estate titles that we reject the contention that it was adequate to append the description of the entire Cahill tract. We have recognized that the legislative purpose in enacting RCW 65.08.070 was "to give greater stability to land titles, by authorizing prospective purchasers or encumbrancers to rely upon the title as disclosed by the record." (Italics ours.) Adams v. Mignon, 197 Wash . 293, 298, 84 P.2d 1016 (1938); accord Lazov v. Black, 88 Wash.2d 883, 886, 567 P.2d 233 (1977). IZl ~ The Legislature has recognized the vital importance of being able to determine the exact legal description from the record. RCW 65.04.030(1) provides in part: "[D]eeds, contracts and mortgages of real estate described by lot and block and addition or plat, shall not be filed or recorded until the plat of such addition has been filed and made a matter of record". Under that provision, the grant of easement was not entitled to be recorded because it described lots in a short plat not yet in existence, much less approved and recorded . The grant itself contains its own fatal deficiency by referring to and relying entirely on the description of lots in a short plat to be later (almost 4 years in fact) approved and recorded. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%. .. 8/1 9/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 11 of 21 Ifil ~ The Bergs maintain, however, that the agreement should be reformed to reflect the parties' intent (and they rely on parts of the record supporting their view of that intent), and then the agreement's validity should be assessed under the statute of frauds, citing *554 Snyder v. Peterson, 62 Wash.App. 522, 527, 814 P.2d 1204 (1991), where the court reformed a contract before assessing its validity. The Tings maintain, to the contrary, that under Howell v. Inland Empire Paper Co., 28 Wash.App. 494, 624 P.2d 739, review denied/ 95 Wash.2d 1021 (1981) and cases cited therein, an agreement containing an inadequate legal description to be conveyed is void and is not subject to reformation or specific performance. As to reformation, in Williams v. Fulton, 30 Wash.App. 173, 176 n . 1. 632 P.2d 920, review denied, 96 Wash.2d 1017 (1981), the court addressed the flat statement in Howell that an agreement containing an inadequate legal description is void and is not subject to reformation. The court in Williams said the statement was sufficient in the fact pattern in Howell, but correctly added that Howell should not be construed so as to prevent reformation in an appropriate factual setting. See, e.g., Lofberq v. Viles, 39 Wash.2d 493, 236 P.2d 768 (1951) (conveyances of real property may be reformed on the ground of mutual mistake where mistake is indicated by clear and convincing evidence); see generally Warren L. Shattuck, Contracts in Washington/ 1937-1957: Part II, 34 Wash.L.Rev. 345, 360-61 (1959). Snyder v. Peterson, supra, cited by the Bergs, is in accord, and stands for the proposition that where there a scrivener's error or mutual mistake leads to the deficient description, the contract may be reformed. Snyder, 62 Wash.App. at 527, 814 P.2d 1204. Here, however, there is no evidence of any mutual mistake or scrivener's error resulting in an inadequate description, and reformation of the agreement prior to assessing the sufficiency of the description for statute of frauds purposes is not appropriate.FNl Again we note that the grantees' (Berg) attorney dra~ed the grant relying on a nonexistent document*555 as the sole source of the description of the subservient estate. FNl. There are cases permitting a correct legal description of land to be inserted by an agent subsequent to an earnest money agreement or option to purchase, without violating the statute of frauds. See 2 Washington State Bar Ass'n, Real Property Deskbook § 37.36, at 37-24 (2d ed. 1986). Those cases are not relevant in this case, which does not involve either an earnest money agreement or option to purchase and where there was no authorization for an agent to insert a correct legal description at a later time. Ifil if As to the statement in Howell that an instrument containing an inadequate description is not subject to specific performance, the case which is cited for the proposition did not address the part performance doctrine. **571 Herrmann v. Hodin, 58 Wash.2d 441. 364 P.2d 21 (1961), cited in Howell, 28 Wash.App. at 496, 624 P.2d 739. Given that the part performance doctrine may be applicable in the case of an oral agreement, which of course would entail an inadequate written description (none at all), it follows that the doctrine may apply in a case involving an inadequate written description. Under the doctrine of part performance, both this court and the Court of http://web2.westlaw.com/result/ documenttext.aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 12of21 Appeals have specifically enforced agreements containing inadequate descriptions. Stephens v. Nelson, 37 Wash.2d 28, 35, 221 P.2d 520 (1950) (later the conclusion in Stephens that a description is defective if it omits the county and state was reversed in Lofberg v. Viles, supra ); Dunbabin v. Allen Realty Co., 26 Wash.App. 660, 665, 613 P.2d 570 (1980). However, as discussed below, all the terms of the contract must be proved. I.!.Q1 ;;tf Another issue exists in this case with regard to whether the agreement may be specifically enforced under the doctrine of part performance. The Tings were not parties to the agreement. However, specific performance may be granted with respect to subsequent purchasers where the subsequent purchasers have notice of the rights of another under a contract conveying an interest in land. Baird v. Knutzen, 49 Wash.2d 308, 311. 301 P.2d 375 (1956). A significant question in this case, therefore, is whether the Tings are bona fide purchasers for value; if so, specific performance should not be granted. In their motion for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals, the Tings for the first time argued that they are bona fide purchasers of the Cahill property who took without actual or constructive notice of the easement claimed by the Bergs, and therefore they took free of the encumbrance. The Tings never raised the issue in the trial court, though, and under well-settled principles we will not address *556 the issue. RAP 2.5(a); Kramarevcky v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 122 Wash.2d 738, 750, 863 P.2d 535 (1993). Our refusal to address the bona fide purchaser question does not prevent resolution of this case, however. Even if the doctrine of part performance is otherwise applicable, its requisites are not satisfied in this case. il1l ~ Under the doctrine of part performance, an agreement to convey an estate in real property which is not in writing in compliance with the requisites of RCW 64.04.010 and .020 may be proved without a writing, and specifically enforced, if there is sufficient part performance of the agreement. Miller v. McCamish, 78 Wash.2d 821, 826, 479 P.2d 919 (1971) (citing cases). The part performance doctrine "is based on the premise that in certain situations it would be fraudulent to permit a party to escape performance of his [or her] duties under an oral contract after ... [permitting] the other party to perform in reliance upon the agreement." 2 Washington State Bar Ass'n, Real Property Deskbook § 37.40, at 37- 27 (2d ed . 1086) (citing Miller v. McCamish, supra). This court has identified three factors, or elements, which are examined to determine if there has been part performance of the agreement so as to take it out of the statute of frauds: (1) delivery and assumption of actual and exclusive possession; (2) payment or tender of consideration; and (3) the making of permanent, substantial and valuable improvements, referable to the contract. Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wash.2d 715, 724-25, 853 P.2d 1373 (1993); Powers v. Hastings, 93 Wash.2d 709, 717, 612 P.2d 371 (1980). In addition, where specific performance of http ://web2. westlaw .com/result/ documenttext.aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 13 of21 the agreement is sought, the contract must "be proven by evidence that is clear and unequivocal and which leaves no doubt as to the terms, character, and existence of the contract." Miller, 78 Wash.2d at 829, 479 P.2d 919 (quoting Granquist v. McKean, 29 Wash.2d 440, 445, 187 P.2d 623 (1947)); see Williams v. Fulton, 30 Wash.App. 173, 178, 632 P.2d 920, review denied, 96 Wash.2d 1017 (1981); Powers, 93 Wash.2d at 713-17, 612 P.2d 371 ("clear and unequivocal" evidence standard*557 applies where specific performance sought, but lesser standard applies where damages sought); SA George W. Thompson, Real Property§ 4463, at 361 (1963 repl.). FN2 FN2. In Kruse v. Hemp, supra, we declined to address whether there was part performance, because there was insufficient evidence of a contract. Here, the trial court did not reach the part performance issue and thus did not assess whether there is sufficient evidence of a contract under the clear and unequivocal evidence standard for specific performance of the contract. We also do not reach this issue. **572 I!n ~As to whether there is sufficient evidence of part performance, the issue is whether consideration alone is sufficient part performance of the grant of easement. There is no dispute that of the three factors set forth above, the only performance alleged here is the Bergs' withdrawal of their opposition to the subdivision proposal. The Tings maintain that consideration alone is not enough to show part performance. In Richardson v. Tavlor Land & Livestock Co., 25 Wash.2d 518, 529, 171 P.2d 703 (1946), the court observed that there is a wide diversity of opinion about the relative importance of the three factors. Where all are found, the strongest case is generally presented, and conversely, where none is found, there is little to warrant a decree of specific performance. Richardson, at 529. 171 P.2d 703. There is a conflict as to whether any single one of the factors is either indispensable or all-sufficient, and the payment of consideration is the least convincing of the three. Richardson, at 529, 171 P.2d 703. The court said "no positive rule has been, or can be, formulated for the government or decision of all cases indiscriminately, but that the determination of each case must depend upon the particular facts and circumstances involved therein." Richardson, at 529, 171 P.2d 703 ~ The court noted: "This court has uniformly held that payment of the purchase price, in whole or in part, is not of itself a sufficient part performance to remove an oral agreement for the sale of land from the operation of the statute" of frauds. Richardson, at 530, 171 P.2d 703. More recently, in an opinion handed down after the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in this case, this court said that *558 the doctrine of part performance "requires at least two" of the three factors. Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wash .2d 715. 724-25. 853 P.2d 1373 (1993). This statement is dictum, since the court held that the doctrine of part performance did not apply because the parties never agreed on the material and essential terms of a contract. Kruse, at 725, 853 P.2d 1373. As a definite statement, the statement is also somewhat inaccurate, because in prior cases where the doctrine of part performance was addressed, the court never set forth a rigid requirement that two of the three factors be present. In general, though, the court's dictum accords with the observation that usually where part performance is found, two http://web2.westlaw.com/result/ documenttext. aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/ 19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 14of21 of the three factors are present; however, there is no absolute rule that two of the three factors must be present for the doctrine of part performance to take a real estate conveyancing agreement out of the statute of frauds . This clarification of the language in Kruse necessarily requires rejecting the Tings' argument that because only one, rather than two, of the three factors is present in this case, the doctrine of part performance does not apply. We agree with the Tings, however, that consideration alone is insufficient evidence of part performance to take the grant of easement out of the statute of frauds. In Miller, 78 Wash.2d at 828-29, 479 P.2d 919, the court said: "As evidenced by the test required in this state to successfully assert part performance, the court's overriding concern is precisely directed toward and concerned with a quantum of proof certain enough to remove doubts as to the parties' oral agreement". The cou rt said that where relief is granted from the statute of frauds, it is for "the specific reason that to enforce the statute would be to defeat the very purpose for which it was enacted-i.e., the prevention of fraud arising from uncertainty inherent in oral contractual undertakings." Miller, at 829, 479 P.2d 919. The Tings aptly point out that while the nonmonetary consideration in this case may provide some evidence of the existence of some kind of contract, it reveals nothing about the character or terms of any contract. We agree. In this case the evidentiary function of the doctrine of part performance is not satisfied by consideration alone. *559 The Bergs urge, however, that where a grant of easement is concerned, the three **573 factors of part performance will have diminished probative value because possession will never be exclusive, and making valuable improvements will often be inconsistent with limited rights granted. While this observation may have some validity, it does not follow that consideration alone should be sufficient part performance to take a grant of easement out of the statute of frauds. Although the part performance doctrine, as recognized in Richardson, is a flexible doctrine, its evidentiary function must be preserved, and we will not abandon that function simply because the doctrine may be difficult to apply in certain situations. Lill ;J' In reaching its conclusion that the doctrine of part performance is satisfied in this case, the Court of Appeals relied upon the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 129 (1981). The court said § 129 is consistent with the Washington approach discussed in Richardson and Powers, i.e., that the determination whether there has been part performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' reasoning, § 129 is not consistent with the part performance doctrine recogn ized by this court. Under§ 129: A contract for the transfer of an interest in land may be specifically enforced notwithstanding failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds if it is established that the party seeking enforcement, in reasonable reliance on the contract and on the continuing assent of the party against whom enforcement is sought, has so changed his position that injustice can be avoided only by specific enforcement. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 15 of21 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 129 (1981). Comment a to this section states that it restates what is widely known as the part performance doctrine. The Court of Appeals found comment d to the section particularly apt: "[T]he making of the promise [must be] admitted or ... clearly proved [,] [t]he promisee must act in reasonable reliance on the promise, before the promisor had repudiated it, and the action must be such that the remedy of restitution is inadequate. If these requirements are met, neither the taking of possession nor payment of money nor the making of improvements is *560 essential. Thus, the rendering of peculiar services not readily compensable in money may justify specific performance, particularly if the promisee has also taken other action in reliance on the promise." Berg v. Ting, 68 Wash.App. 721. 732, 850 P.2d 1349 (1993) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts§ 129 cmt. d (1981)), review granted, 123 Wash.2d 1013, 871 P.2d 599 (1994). Section 129 is a specific application of§ 139, which provides that promissory estoppel may serve as a substitute for compliance with the statute of frauds. Comment a to § 139 states expressly that "[s]ections 128 and 129 state particular applications of the same principle [as section 139] to land contracts". Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 139 cmt. a. FN3 FN3. Section 139 has not been adopted in this state. Cases where the section has been urged have been resolved on other grounds. See Family Med. Bldg., Inc. v. Department of Social & Health Servs., 104 Wash .2d 105, 702 P.2d 459 (1985); Lectus, Inc. v. Rainier Nat'/ Bank, 97 Wash.2d 584, 647 P.2d 1001 (1982); Lige Dickson Co. v. Union Oil Co., 96 Wash.2d 291. 635 P.2d 103 (1981); Klinke v. Famous Recipe Fried Chicken, Inc., 94 Wash.2d 255, 616 P.2d 644 (1980). Recently, the court heard oral argument in a case where the Court of Appeals applied § 139 in the context of an employment contract. Greaves v. Medical Imaging Svs., Inc., 124 Wash.2d 389, 879 P.2d 276 (1994). Section 129, and in particular comment d as applied by the Court of Appeals, requires none of the three factors which we have recognized as evidence of part performance. The Court of Appeals cited two cases in support of its application of .§ 129. In one of these cases, Kirk v. Tomultv, 66 Wash.App. 231, 237, 831 P.2d 792, review denied, 120 Wash.2d 1009, 841 P.2d 47 (1992lt the court said that part performance of a contract on one side and an acceptance of benefit by the other can take a conveyance out of the statute of frauds. The court in Kirk added: "Equity should intervene to deny one party what would clearly be an unjust enrichment **574 as long as the character, terms and existence of the contract can be clearly and unequivocally established to the satisfaction of the court." Berg, 68 Wash .App . at 732, 850 P.2d 1349 (quoting Kirk, 66 Wash.App. at 237, 831 P.2d 792). The court in Kirk said that the critical inquiry is whether there was intent to create an easement. Kirk, at 237, 831 P.2d 792. However, unlike the case now before the court, in Kirk the part http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn=_top&rp=%2fFind% ... 8/19/2014 i I . I I I 886 P.2d 564 Page 16of21 performance consisted of both consideration and improvements, as at least part of the *561 easement area at issue there was improved with an access road in accord with the easement agreement. Kirk, at 237-38, 831 P.2d 792. Also, the court in Kirk did not address the 3-factor formulation set out in Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wash.2d 715, 853 P.2d 1373 (1993), Powers v. Hastings, 93 Wash.2d 709, 612 P.2d 371 (1980), and Richardson v. Tavlor Land & Livestock Co., 25 Wash .2d 518, 171 P.2d 703 (1946). In Garbrick v. Franz, 13 Wash.2d 427, 431, 125 P.2d 295 (1942), also cited by the Court of Appeals, the court said that the test for the part performance exception is : "Have the acts of one of the parties changed his situation to such an extent that he cannot be adequately compensated in damages or placed in his original position?" This language must not be read out of context, though. The court in Garbrick proceeded to discuss the kind of acts which constitute part performance, payment, possession, and improvements, and specifically in that case found that significant improvements by a lessor in possession constituted sufficient part performance of a lease in excess of 1 year. On its facts and in its analysis, Garbrick is distinguishable from the Restatement (Second) approach which the Court of Appeals used. I11J. ~ We decline to follow § 129 in this case. Application of § 129, and in particular comment d, to enforce the grant of easement would run counter to the evidentiary function underlying this state's part performance doctrine. The agreement does not contain an adequate description of the servient estate. Nothing about the consideration given, unique or otherwise, reveals anything about any real property transaction, and certainly nothing about the servient estate. We point out that where specific performance is sought, the party relying on the part performance doctrine must prove by clear and unequivocal evidence the existence and all the terms of the contract. However, that proof is in addition to establishing that there has been part performance. The three factors we have recognized have independent evidentiary import apart from the extrinsic evidence which must be presented to establish the existence and terms of the contract. Applying § 129 would require abandoning the evidentiary function of the *562 part performance doctrine in this case, and leave the establishment of the servient estate to extrinsic evidence alone-a result at odds with the statute of frauds. In summary on this point, § 129 does not reflect Washington law, and we decline to depart from the protections which the statute of frauds and the part performance doctrine lend to real estate transactions. The Bergs maintain that failure to order specific enforcement of the agreement will work a fraud, and injustice will result. It must be remembered, however, that the Bergs' attorney drafted the grant of easement, and could have properly included a legal description of the servient estate which would have satisfied the statute of frauds, for example, a metes and bounds description, or a description with incorporation of the then-existing plat application. Any harshness FN4 of the result of requiring compliance with the statute of frauds (or, alternatively, sufficient part performance to meet the evidentiary function of the doctrine of part performance) could easily have been avoided. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Tings, who were not parties to the agreement, have committed fraud. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn=_top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 17of21 FN4. This record does not definitely establish whether, absent the Bergs' withdrawal of their opposition to the short plat, the subdivision would have been approved. 1121 ~ Finally, the Bergs argue that the Tings have admitted the existence and location of the easement in their answer to the complaint, and therefore have made a judicial admission which constitutes an exception to **575 the statute of frauds. We have not previously recognized such an exception, and do not do so here. However, even if such an exception exists, there was no judicial admission in this case. As the Tings note, the Bergs allege in their complaint that the Tings have asserted that the servient estate is not locatable, and in their answer the Tings affirmatively state the servient estate is not locatable. The Tings also describe what the grant of easement "purports to grant" in their answer, referring to the grant of easement "cla imed by plaintiff Berg". Clerk's Papers, at 54. Given these circumstances, we reject *563 the Berg's contention that a judicial admission has been made. The Tings ask this court to reinstate their attorney fees awarded by the Superior Court, and to award them attorney fees on appeal, including those fees incurred in the Court of Appeals, based upon an attorney fees and costs provision in the grant of easement. We grant the Tings' request. In summary, we hold that the grant of easement does not comply with the statute of frauds and that the doctrine of part performance does not apply in this case to take the grant of easement out of the statute of frauds. We reinstate the summary judgment and attorney fees award in favor of the Tings and direct awards of attorney fees on appeal and discretionary review in their favor. See RAP 18.1. We reverse the attorney fees awards in favor of the Bergs. ANDERSEN, C.J., and UTTER, DOLLIVER, SMITH, GUY and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. DURHAM, Justice (concurring in part, dissenting in part). While I concur with the majority that the grant of the easement failed to conform with the statute of frauds, I disagree with the majority's rigid application of the doctrine of part performance. The majority effectively precludes a court from ever finding part performance in the grant of an easement. This is contrary to both the equitable nature of part performance, and the court's tradition of weighing the unique circumstances of each case to determine the enforceability of an agreement not in compliance with the statute of frauds. Because the facts of this case have not been fully resolved, I would deny both parties' motions for summary judgment and remand for trial. The dispute before the court concerns whether a grant of an easement conforms with the statute of frauds, and if not, whether there was sufficient part performance to remove the agreement from the statute of frauds. While complicated, the relevant facts are as follows. In 1983, the Cahills submitted*564 a short plat application FNl to the City of Seattle. The Bergs, whose property lies directly adjacent to the Cahill property, publicly opposed this application. Fearing this would slow or thwart the application's http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 18of21 approval, the Cahills offered the Bergs an easement across their property in return for their cessation of opposition. In 1984, the parties executed this agreement in writing. FN1. Approval of a short plat application gives the property owner permission to subdivide his or her property. It is undisputed that the Bergs dropped their opposition to the short plat application upon signing the grant of the easement. In 1988, Seattle approved a modified version of the original short plat application. FN2 Shortly after Seattle's approval, the Ca hills sold their property to the Tings. It is unclear whether the Tings knew of the easement when they bought the property. In any event, when the Bergs mentioned the easement to the Tings, they denied its existence. In response, the Bergs brought this action to quiet title in the easement. FN2. In the initial short plat application, the property was divided into seven lots. By 1988, the lots had been reconfigured slightly and reduced to six. In determining the enforceability of an agreement granting an easement, the court first considers whether the agreement conforms with the statute of frauds. If it does not, the court determines whether there is sufficient part performance to remove the agreement from the statute of frauds. Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wash.2d 715. 724-25. 853 P.2d 1373 (1993); Powers v. Hastings, 93 Wash.2d 709, 717, 612 P.2d 371 (1980); **576 Richardson v. Taylor Land & Livestock Co., 25 Wash.2d 518, 528-29. 171 P.2d 703 (1946). Even if sufficient part performance exists, there must be "clear and unequivocal" evidence of the terms, character and existence of the agreement to compel its enforcement. Miller v. McCamish, 78 Wash.2d 821. 829, 479 P.2d 919 (1971) (quoting Granquist v. McKean, 29 Wash.2d 440, 445, 187 P.2d 623 (1947)). By insisting on a written deed, the statute of frauds mitigates the possibility of perjury or fraud in agreements for the conveyance of real property. RCW 64.04.010, .020. The *565 statute of frauds reflects a recognition that fraud or perjury is more apt to occur when an agreement is based only on the strength of a handshake, rather than on the specifics of a written instrument. In contracts for the purchase or sale of real property, the statute of frauds precludes reliance on oral testimony by requiring that a written agreement meticulously describe the location of the property, or refer to another instrument that describes the location. Herrmann v. Hodin, 58 Wash.2d 441. 443, 364 P.2d 21 (1961). By requiring the clear delineation of property boundaries, the statute of frauds ensures a systematic and organized transfer of property. In contrast, an easement merely allows one property owner to use the property of another. Since it is often both unnecessary and difficult to describe the exact boundaries of an easement, the statute of frauds does not require a description of the precise location of an easement. Instead, the statute of frauds dictates that a deed locate the easement on a specific servient estate. Smith v. King, 27 Wash .App. 869, 871. 620 P.2d 542, 24 A.LR.4th 1049 (1980) (citing Rhoades v. Barnes. 54 Wash. 145, 102 P. 884 (1909)). By its terms, the written agreement between the Bergs and Cahills granted an http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn = _ top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 19 of21 easement to the Bergs in consideration for their discontinuation of public opposition to the short plat application. For the grant of the easement to have satisfied the statute of frauds, it needed to locate the easement on a specific servient estate. Smith v. King, supra. The agreement used the conditionally approved short plat application as the basis for describing the location of the easement, but simultaneously stated that the location of the easement could be found by referring to the "finally approved" short plat application. As the Court of Appeals held, the grant of the easement could be reasonably read either as fixing the location of the easement, or as providing the method for locating the easement in the future. Berg v. Ting, 68 Wash.App. 721. 729, 850 P.2d 1349 (1993). As a result, it failed to refer to a specific servient estate, and thus did not comply with the statute of frauds. *566 This court has recognized, however, that there are instances where an inequitable result would follow from the failure to enforce an agreement that has not met the requirements of the statute of frauds. Where the repudiating party would reap a windfall, this court has developed the doctrine of part performance to remove such agreements from the statute of frauds and allow their enforcement.FN 3 See Richardson v. Taylor Land & Livestock Co., supra 25 Wash .2d at 529, 171 P.2d 703. In these circumstances, sufficient part performance of the agreement overcomes the failure to conform with the statute of frauds. Richardson, at 528-29, 171 P.2d 703; Powers v. Hastings, supra; Kruse v. Hemp, supra. FN3. Furthermore, where evidence of an agreement "leaves no doubt as to [its] terms, character, and existence", it becomes unnecessary to apply the statute of frauds since the statute was developed to combat fraud resulting from uncertainty in agreements. Miller v. McCamish, 78 Wash.2d 821. 829, 479 P.2d 919 (1971) (quoting Granquist v. McKean, 29 Wash.2d 440, 445, 187 P.2d 623 (1947)). Given that the grant of the easement between the Cahills and Bergs failed to conform with the statute of frauds, the next step is to determine whether there was sufficient part performance of the agreement to remove it from the statute of frauds. This court originally developed the doctrine of part performance to allow enforcement of oral agreements for the purchase/sale of real property. FN4 *.*577 Richardson v. Taylor Land & Livestock Co., supra; Powers v. Hastings, supra; Miller v. McCamish, supra. We examined three elements or circumstances to determine whether sufficient part performance occurred: FN4. Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wash.2d 715, 853 P.2d 1373 (1993) applied the doctrine of part performance to written agreements that failed to conform with the statute of frauds. Kruse, at 725, 853 P.2d 1373. (1) delivery and assumption of actual and exclusive possession of the land; (2) payment or tender of the consideration, whether in money, other property, or services; and (3) the making of permanent, substantial, and valuable improvements, referable to the contract. Richardson, 25 Wash.2d at 528-29, 171 P.2d 703, cited in Kruse, 121 Wash.2d at 724, 853 P.2d 1373; Powers, 93 Wash.2d at 717, 612 P.2d 371. We acknowledged http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _ top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 20 of21 some general, but flexible, guidelines. *567 First, evidence of all three elements provided the strongest case for invoking the doctrine of part performance, whereas the total absence of these elements provided the weakest. Richardson, 25 Wash .2d at 529. 171 P.2d 703. Second, of the three elements, evidence of consideration provided the least support for a finding of part performance. Richardson, at 529. 171 P.2d 703. Third, generally two elements needed to be present for a finding of part performance, but as the majority admits the "court never set forth a rigid requirement that two of the three factors be present." Majority, at 572. Finally, when making a part performance determination, courts are not limited to considering solely the three elements outlined in the doctrine of part performance. See Richardson, 25 Wash.2d at 528-29, 171 P.2d 703. In applying the doctrine of part performance, we emphasized that "no positive rule has been, or can be, formulated for the government or decision of all cases indiscriminately". Richardson, at 529, 171 P.2d 703. Rather, the facts and circumstances of each case must be considered on their own merits. Richardson, at 529, 171 P.2d 703. The court applied a flexible analysis to determine whether an agreement existed. See Richardson, at 529, 171 P.2d 703. Today, however, the majority sets forth a rigid application of the doctrine of part performance which holds that it will not invoke the doctrine of part performance without a showing of actual possession or improvement of the property by the nonrepudiating party. In other words, of the three elements comprising the part performance doctrine, evidence of consideration alone will never result in a finding of part performance. This approach ignores the context in which the doctrine developed. In purchase/sale agreements, actual possession and improvement of property, along with consideration, are likely indicators of a purchase/sale transaction. By definition, however, the grantee of an easement does not take actual possession of property. Whether the recipient of the grant of an easement may make improvements to the property depends on the terms of the easement. As a result, consideration often is the only element of the doctrine of part performance applicable to a grant of an easement. *568 This is not to say that the doctrine of part performance has no relevant application to a grant of an easement that fails to conform with the statute of frauds. But it must remain flexible for it to be adaptable. Just as the statute of frauds recognizes the distinction between the grant of an easement and the purchase/sale of property, so must the doctrine of part performance. The majority's holding, which categorically rejects a finding of part performance based on consideration, effectively prohibits a court from ever finding part performance of a grant of an easement. The majority defends its position by arguing that consideration "reveals nothing about the character or terms of any contract." Majority, at 572. The majority appears to believe that a finding of sufficient part performance will lead the court to immediately order specific performance of the agreement. For a court to order specific performance, however, there must be "clear and unequivocal" evidence as to the terms, character, and existence of the agreement. FNS **578 Miller v. McCamish, 78 Wash.2d 821, 829. 479 P.2d 919 (1971) (quoting Granquist v. McKean, 29 Wash.2d 440, 445, 187 P.2d 623 (1947)). The majority engages in a significant departure from http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _top&rp=%2fFind%... 8/19/2014 886 P.2d 564 Page 21 of 21 our precedent by arguing that the doctrine of part performance provides the sole evidentiary basis for determining the terms, character, and existence of an agreement. FNS. Where a party seeks damages, as opposed to specific enforcement, the terms, character, and existence of an agreement must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Powers v. Hastings, 93 Wash.2d 709, 716- 17, 612 P.2d 371 (1980). Specific performance is appropriate where there is "substantial evidence of the terms, character and existence of the agreement, and of part performance". (Italics mine.) Powers, 93 Wash .2d at 713, 612 P.2d 709. While we require evidence of part performance, we do not require that the part performance itself elucidate the terms of an agreement. Powers, at 722, 612 P.2d 371. Instead, we insist on a "quantum of proof" to demonstrate the exact terms of an agreement. (Italics omitted.) Miller, 78 Wash.2d at 828-29, 479 P.2d 919. The elements comprising the doctrine of part performance can illuminate fully the terms, character, and existence of an agreement, or they can work in conjunction with other evidence. Their *569 relevance will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In general, the evidentiary function of the doctrine of part performance will differ depending on whether the disputed agreement was oral or written. When no written instrument exists to identify the terms and character of an agreement, the doctrine of part performance has greater evidentiary value. The elements of part performance-actual possession of the property, consideration, and improvements on the property-elucidate the terms and conditions of an agreement. In instances where there is no written instrument, the majority's position may be defensible. Under these circumstances, consideration has the weakest evidentiary value because the only term of the agreement it describes is payment. Where there is a written agreement, however, it is necessary to consider the probative value of the writing. It is imperative to ask whether the writing dispels doubts as to the terms, character, and existence of the agreement. In the present case, the majority chooses to ignore the written agreement between the Bergs and Cahills which specifically grants an easement across the Cahills' former property. By ignoring a written instrument of significant evidentiary value, the majority thwarts its own attempt to discover the terms and conditions of the agreement. Accordingly I would deny both parties' motion for summary judgement, and would remand for a trial on the merits to determine whether there was sufficient part performance to remove the agreement from the statute of frauds, and whether the evidence taken as a whole left no doubt as to the terms and character of the agreement. MADSEN, J., concurs. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/documenttext.aspx?fn= _top&rp=%2tFind%... 8/19/2014