Loading...
09/05/2000 City Council1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Thomas A. Miller, Council President Dave-Earling, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief Robin Hickok, Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Dir. Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Dir. Noel Millet, Public Works Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 8/22 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2000 Minutes pprove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #41312 THROUGH #43271 FOR THE WEEK OF ]aim AUGUST 21,'2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $304,598.64. APPROVAL OF CLAIM Checks CHECKS #41316 THROUGH #43344 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 28, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $76,277.34 f(D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT d (E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE BRACKETT'S NORTH CONCRETE BULKHEAD REPAIR AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page i Computer I (F) REQUEST FOR CREATION OF POSITION — COMPUTER NETWORK SUPPORT Technician TECHNICIAN rd #3321 (G) ORDINANCE NO. 3321 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF Rezone 300 EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL 2^' Ave. S PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH FROM NEIGHBORHOOD. BUSINESS (BN) TO PUBLIC (P) Ord #3322 (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3322 AMENDING CHAPTER 5.05 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE nimai I RELATING TO THE CONTROL OF ANIMALS WITHIN THE CITY, ADDING NEW Control SECTIONS THERETO, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ECritical 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO DE SECTION 20 15(B) — CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS. opes REGARDING STEEP SLOPES Senior Planner Steve Bullock recalled this item had been discussed at a Council work session on August 22. He explained the current Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted in 1995 and no changes had been made to the ordinance since that time. One element of the Critical Areas Ordinance, geologically hazardous areas, was divided into three categories: 1) Erosion potential due to specific soils that have inclinations of up to 15 %. Critical area buffers and setbacks may be eliminated as long as the proposed development meets the City's erosion control requirements; 2) Landslide hazard areas due to specific soils on slope inclinations from 15 % -40 %. As long as the development proposal is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 19.05, the critical areas buffers and setbacks may be eliminated; and 3) Steep slope hazardous areas due to specific soil types and inclination over 40 %. The current ordinance would not allow encroachment into steep slope hazard areas and a minimum buffer and setback of 25 feet must be maintained. Mr. Bullock stated there were a number of properties that were developed prior to the adoption of the 1995 Critical Areas Ordinance that encroach significantly beyond the Critical Areas Ordinance buffers and setback and even into the critical area and buffer in some instances. He explained the 1995 Critical Areas Ordinance was based on a model ordinance developed by the Department of Ecology. As the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires the City to increase densities in urban areas; the proposed amendment was an attempt to balance somewhat conflicting goals to protect potential hazardous areas with building at appropriate densities in urban areas. Over the five years since the Critical Areas Ordinance "was adopted, the City has gained experience with projects that requested critical areas reasonable use exceptions and variances including geotechnical reports that indicate the slopes were stable and with proper construction techniques, development would not increase the .potential for instability. Mr. Bullock explained this proposal is a change to only the steep slope section of the ordinance based on a study conducted by Zipper Zeman Associates. The study identifies three soil categories where even if the slope inclination was over 40 %, the slopes should be stable with the correct type of development as long as they are underlain by one of three soil categories, no water was present on the site such as seepage, streams or wetlands, and there was no historic record of soil movement. The proposed ordinance would allow the City to approve a development that met this criteria. Mr. Bullock stressed this exemption would not ever apply to a steep slope area over 40% that did not have one of the three soil Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 2 LJ 1 0 types, a site with water or a site with a history of slope failure. The proposal would only apply when the geotechnical report demonstrated the three conditions were present. City Attorney Scott Snyder said the initial Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted on a "cookie cutter" approach; the Department of Ecology used averages from a variety of ordinances to develop somewhat conservative numbers. The Zipper Zeman study was based on an analysis of the City's own soil types in order to comply with best available science requirements, the mandatory guideline under SEPA and the State's critical areas provisions. He outlined an amendment to the, ordinance the Planning Board considered, which would avoid dual, conflicting development requirements. He explained the City currently had very restrictive landslide provisions that would be reviewed by the Council in the near future. He said the proposed ordinance initially had a standard for landslide hazard area development; he recommended rather than including the standard in the ordinance that would conflict with an existing ordinance, that the ordinance refer to Chapter 19.05. Councilmember Petso inquired about liability if the geotechnical advice was incorrect and sliding occurred on the property or adjacent property. Mr. Bullock explained the Critical Areas Ordinance included a process for studies to be conducted via a three -party contract. The City hired the consultant, funded with moneys provided by the .applicant. He said liability would be addressed by changes to the provisions in Chapter 19.05. Mr. Snyder said the third -party contract contained an indemnity provision and the City required professional liability insurance in $2 million increments. He said the City was insulated from liability by the State Building Code, recognizing the Building Official relies on the representations of building professionals. Councilmember Petso clarified her question was liability in the event the geotechnical report was wrong and some unforeseen factor existed that later resulted in problems. Mr. Snyder said a developer owed a duty of lateral and subjacent support to neighboring property owners. Once work occurred in the toe of a slope, failure to maintain the slope via something other than natural causes would typically be the developer's liability. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Peter Hart, 10415 228 "' Street SW, Edmonds, submitted written comments regarding the proposed changes to the steep slope ordinance. He said their home abuts a steep slope along Edmonds Way. He expressed concern that proper notice was not provided regarding the proposed amendment, commenting only an article in the Edmonds Enterprise alerted his neighbors and him to the proposal. He recommended public notice comparable to a rezone or variance proposal be provided to adjacent property .owners such as mailed announcements and neighborhood signs and said adequate public notice had not been provided in this instance. He referred to slides that occurred in other areas where "engineered solutions" were unable to keep several homes from sliding. As a professional engineer, he was aware of the critical nature of building on steep slopes and the requirement for extraordinary care in design and construction. He recommended the following be included in the ordinance to assure the public and property owners that appropriate safeguards have been made: stipulations for a quality control system, peer review of the geotechnical report and site development plans, and inspection and monitoring of the design team. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, concurred with Mr. Hart that this issue needed more public involvement. As an owner of a steep slope area, she was interested in ensuring no slides occurred. She supported additional public involvement, commenting not enough of the public. had been notified. She urged the Council to hear all voices with regard to this issue. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 3 Charles Warner, 2002188 1h Avenue W, Edmonds, said the degree of a slope did not mean the slope was inherently dangerous; the subsurface soil conditions or uncontained water runoff caused the slope to be dangerous. He urged the City to define the slope in a manner other than the angle or degree of slope. . He suggested the City consider Snohomish County's regulations that require a geotech to evaluate an identified steep slope, make recommendations, and design construction in a manner consistent with subsurface soil conditions. He agreed with Mr. Hart's suggestion for a peer review. 'He expressed concern with a third -party contract, paid for by the applicant, indicating this limited the market for reasonable and cost - effective evaluation of the slope. He was aware of recent situations where City - approved consultants submitted substantial billings before even visiting the site. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said the City Council had the ability to hold more than one public hearing. He pointed out there appeared to be members of the public who were not aware this process was occurring. He recommended the Council delay any decision until more members of the public had an opportunity to testify. Robert Bates, 10411228 1h Street SW, Edmonds, said their home abuts a slope overlooking Edmonds Way. They were concerned when a nursing home was built below their property during the past 1 %2 years, particularly how the loss of trees would affect the slope. He said they were concerned with development that would be allowed under the current code and their concern would be heightened if more impingement was allowed via the proposed amendment. He pointed out the importance of conserving slopes. He said his concern was not only for the slopes, but for the loss of trees that would occur as a result that would change the slope drastically. Mary Bates, 10411 228 "' Street SW, Edmonds, expressed her surprise that the meeting was not better attended because so many residents live on steep slopes. She viewed the proposal from an esthetical, view and ecological viewpoint and urged the Council to retain the beauty of Edmonds. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Bullock described the City's efforts to notify the public, explaining the Planning Board discussed the issue at three separate meetings before holding a public hearing and prior to the issue being presented to the City Council. The City Council held a work session on the issue and that agenda had been posted. Tonight's public hearing had also been advertised and posted. In response to the comment that slopes were inherently dangerous but the types of soils and subsurface water made them dangerous, Mr. Bullock said the intent of the proposed change was to identify a steep slope hazard area. He said a steep slope hazard area would be prone to failure if there was a history of past failures (evidence of past slides), if there was water on the slope, and if certain soil types were present. He said the intent of the ordinance was to allow properties without a history of past failures, without water on the slope and with certain soil types to be developed and to allow that development to occur without the onerous process of a critical areas variance or critical areas reasonable use exception. In response to the concern expressed regarding public input, Mr. Snyder explained a public hearing had a dual purpose, to educate the Council as well as the public. He commented many of the questions asked had been addressed by the Planning Board. In response to Mr. Warner's suggestion to consider soil types, Mr. Snyder said that_was the basis for the ordinance. He explained Edmonds was well mapped regarding the types of soils. He said the suggestions made by Mr. Hart were addressed in Chapter 19.05 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 4 and were applicable to areas with a history of slides or specific soil types. For example, the City requires mandatory peer review. Chapter 33 of the building code, incorporated into Chapter 19.05, addressed a majority of the items Mr. Hart recommended be included in the engineering analyses. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council review the proposed amendment to the Critical Areas Ordinance along with changes to Chapter 19.05 as the ordinances defer to each other. Regarding Ms. Bates' comment to prohibit development to preserve views and green spaces, Mr. Snyder said this may lead to takings claims. Councilmember Earling asked if the areas where there was known earth movement, such as the Meadowdale area, would be excluded from participating in this process as well as other areas in the City with underground water, etc. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Councilmember White asked what public notification process would be followed for development in an area governed by this ordinance. Mr. Bullock said all critical area reviews began with submittal of a checklist regarding the physical characteristics of the site which was confirmed by a staff member. He said the checklist addressed the topography of the site, stream corridors, wetlands, etc. If staff identified steep areas or "mushy" areas, a developer would be required to submit topographic information identifying the inclination of the slope and, if appropriate, a wetland biologist study regarding any wetlands. If no wetlands were present and the slope was over 40 %, the third party contract could be initiated, possibly resulting in an exception for the steep slope area of the property. He said the foregoing process would be done administratively between the applicant, staff and third party geotechnical consultant and no public hearing would be conducted. Assuming the results of the report were negative, the developer could apply for a building permit which may require a specific engineering plan for the building permit process and peer review to ensure the development proposal would be stable on the slope. No public notice or public hearing process would be required for the permit to be issued. He concluded there was no provision for public notice /comment in the process. Councilmember White observed there was no process for neighbors to appeal the issuance of the building permit. Mr. Bullock agreed. Mr. Snyder commented the exemption of the property, a staff decision, was appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember White asked how a resident would learn that an exemption occurred. Mr. Bullock agreed it would be difficult for adjacent property owners to know. Councilmember White asked if a posted notification on the property regarding the exemption could be integrated into the ordinance. Mr. Bullock said the process he outlined was for single family development; a majority of the properties using this provision would be single family. However, some commercial development may make use of this provision which would include public notice due to requirements for design review, SEPA, etc. He said only single family development would not have a notice associated with the development. Mr. Snyder said a public notification provision for an exemption could be incorporated such as the standard notification procedure of posting notice on the site and providing mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet. He said the Council could establish a threshold such as development of a certain number of square feet. Councilmember White asked if notification could be limited to the two deep adjacent property owners. Mr. Snyder said that would be acceptable. Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Bullock's response to Mr. Hart's suggestion for peer review and items to be included in the engineering analysis that those items would be addressed by Chapter 19.05. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 5 Councilmember Petso questioned whether Chapter 19.05 would be triggered by all development or whether Chapter 19.05 applied only to landslide areas or other known problem areas and therefore Mr. Hart's suggestions would not apply to generic steep slopes. Mr. Snyder answered that was correct and recommended the Council hear from the City consultants regarding how the soil types were targeted for exclusion. He agreed if a building permit applicant was developed on a steep slope that met the criteria,, peer review would not be required. Most of the items in Mr. Hart's letter would be addressed by foundation studies, mechanical standards, etc. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. John Zipper, President, Zipper Zeman Associates, 9111 Cascade Drive, Edmonds, said Chapter 19.05 had very rigorous requirements that an engineer /applicant must follow. Within the proposed exemption to the steep slope ordinance, their recommendation identifies three geologic conditions that exist within the City that are well documented on published geologic maps. He said the soil types are glacial till and advance outwash. Because the soils are comprised of sand and gravel or silt, sand and gravel, they tend to be very stable and there was no history of instability in those type of deposits. Instability exists in those deposits that were associated with surface water or ground water, thus the reason for the provision in the amendment that if a site or adjacent property exhibits ground or surface water even if associated with the "good" soil types, the site would not be suitable for the exemption from the steep slope ordinance. Councilmember Petso referred to a house on a steep slope with no ground water where the property owner at the bottom of the slope cut into the hillside and asked if he could guarantee the ordinance would lead to a process that would ensure the house would not be at risk. Mr: Zipper .said there was never a guarantee but there were provisions for maximum excavation infringement close to an adjacent property line. The purpose was to provide a presumptive angle below which excavation could be made but retained by shoring designed by a structural engineer that followed provisions in the building code and was subject to review. He said defining an angle excavation could not exceed and requiring engineering design to retain the excavation were accepted standards within engineering and building to minimize risk to upslope property. Mr. Snyder said the consultant indicated well -done development that provided onsite dewatering, used good foundation design and was properly engineered would actually decrease the probability of sloughing, thus making the site safer than before development occurred. He said the most critical point was when the toe of the slope ' was cut, therefore, retaining walls/barriers during construction and construction monitoring was critical. He summarized a properly constructed retaining wall would provide a more stable final site, if properly engineered, monitored and installed. Mr. Zipper agreed with Mr. Snyder's comments, stating the provisions of Chapter 19.05 require a great deal of detailed engineering for any structure or excavation into the hillside. Councilmember Petso pointed out Chapter 19.05 would not apply to numerous steep slope developments. Mr. Bullock said Chapter 19.05 applied to a mapped Meadowdale area but also allowed the Building Official to apply it in any situation they deemed appropriate. Therefore, the City could require any project applying for an exemption from a steep slope area would be required to follow the Chapter 19.05 review process. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 6 1 Councilmember Petso said. public comment indicated the ordinance might be better if peer review was added, structured without the third -party contract, the City follow Snohomish County's example, and that a public notice provision be included. She preferred the Council investigate these suggestions and consider the ordinance again on a later date. Council President Miller said he did not object to Councilmember Petso's suggestion although there had been a number of meetings already before the Planning Board and the City Council. He pointed out the concerns raised in Mr. Hart's letter appeared to have been addressed by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Zipper and the issue of peer review and subsurface analysis was addressed in Chapter 19.05. If the Council wished to defer this item, he suggested it be reviewed along with Chapter 19.05. Mr. Snyder said there were no applicants who would be inconvenienced by a delay as there were no applications pending at this time. Further, construction in these areas was prohibited during the rainy season, typically mid - October until April. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO SCHEDULE A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 3 AND BRING IT FORWARD WITH CHAPTER 19.05. Councilmember White requested staff integrate a notice provision including posting the property when an exemption was granted and if the development exceeded 20,000 square feet, mailed notification to adjacent property owners on all sides: Councilmember Earling complimented staff and the consultant on their efforts, commenting the information provided was very thorough and well presented. Councilmember Petso requested staff investigate alternatives for obtaining geotechnical advice such as the process followed by Snohomish County. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS tmnative re. I Betty Mueller, 209 Caspers Street, Edmonds, said Linda Carter, who has worked in all the casinos in Card Rooms Shoreline, was to be present to describe the shocking things that occur in those casinos. Ms. Mueller advised signatures to place an initiative regarding card rooms on the ballot would be submitted to the City soon and she hoped Ms. Carter could address the Council before then. Ms. Mueller reported Ms. Carter informed her that casinos in Shoreline regularly check in guns, often with bullets in the chambers. They also check in knives and prostitution occurs via the casinos and an adult entertainment facility. Ms. Mueller reported free food was served at the casinos which entices customers to remain in the casinos rather than visit restaurants. This would negatively impact restaurants in Edmonds if card rooms /casinos were allowed. Ms. Mueller commented on the politeness they encountered when gathering signatures in the City. Planning Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, said she attended the August 23 Planning Board aoard meeting regarding churches. She said she requested all 23 Edmonds churches be notified regarding the ting re: rches meeting but only two churches were represented. She said the information from the meeting referred to a memo between Scott Snyder and Mr. Pigeon, Edmonds Presbyterian Church, but was not included in the packet. When she requested a copy of the letter two weeks ago, staff was hesitant to provide it although Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 7 . they agreed it was public record. She asked the Council for assistance in obtaining a copy of the memo. She said the Planning Board meeting regarding the steep slopes did not indicate when the recommendation would be presented to the City Council. She thanked the Council for their willingness to hold a second public hearing on the steep slope amendment. sales Tax Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said while driving through numerous small towns Suggestion over the summer, he found many collect sales tax that was used for events and suggested Edmonds consider this. He also commented many small towns were built along the freeway which increases visibility. Hank Sitco, 4008 212 " Street SW, Mountlake Terrace, referred to the two events held by the Police I Edmonds Police Foundation in August, the dunk tank at the Taste of Edmonds and their first annual Foundation garage sale. On behalf of the Edmonds Police Foundation, he thanked Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember White for participating in the dunk tank along with members of the Edmonds Police and Fire Departments and other community volunteers. He thanked Councilmembers Plunkett and Davis, Betty Mueller, Ruby Rockwell, and other community volunteers for their assistance at the garage sale. He explained the income derived from these events benefits the Community Youth Services Unit of the Edmonds Police Department who provides programs and activities for the youth in the community. He reminded the Council of the Edmonds Challenge run/walk event to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Friday, September 8 at City Park. Totem Art Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said he recently learned the 20 foot tall totem that was Piece at donated to the City and displayed at the old City Hall had been removed and cut up during the Former City construction of the public safety facility. He questioned how this could occur and said the City's ties Hall with history were being eliminated. He said the local contractor, Syd Locke, retrieved the totem from the dumpster and has the pieces in his yard. Mr. Hertrich asked what authority the City had to cut up this historic piece of art. Mr. Snyder said the totem was and is City art, therefore, when it was discovered the pole was rotted and painted with lead -based paint, the City took the issue to the Arts Commission. The Arts Commission held a series of public hearings and determined it appropriate to de- accession the totem. This decision was made in conjunction with the family who donated the pole to the City. Due to the lead -based paint, disposal was problematic, eventually requiring the totem to be cut into pieces under specific conditions, the pole coated with a substance to keep the lead based paint intact and disposed of in a construction landfill. The last pole discussion was a request to the contractor to obtain the pole and dispose of it in a construction landfill as the contract originally required. Public Charles Warner, -20021 88`h Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the concern expressed by rocess Councilmembers Earling and White about public notice regarding steep slopes, stating although citizens may comment, there was no redress to a Council's decision to another body. He felt it was "showmanship" for the Council to discuss impacting the public process. He urged the City to review /amend the ordinance that addresses citizens' rights to impact the public process. 5. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES (AWC) AWC Health HEALTH INSURANCE TRUST Insurance Trust Human Resources Director Brent Hunter recalled several months ago he reported the Self- Insurance Fund was dropping precariously low, prompting the Council to request he provide a monthly progress report. He referred to the report in the. Council packet illustrating claims expended in July, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 8 administrative costs, premiums collected, and the ending balance. He explained there had been $119,000 ,in health insurance claims in July, slightly lower than normal, bringing the reserves from $81,000 to $91,000. Mr. Hunter said last month the Health Insurance Committee agreed to petition AWC to determine if they would allow the City to return to the trust. A letter was sent to AWC who voted recently to allow the City to return without any special conditions. Mr. Hunter displayed a comparison of the current premium costs to AWC's premium costs in 2000 and 2001. As he explained to the Council last month, if the City remained self - insured, the consultant recommended a 20 -23% rate increase for 2001, or an additional $390,000 to maintain the self - insurance fund. AWC health insurance costs would increase 5% in 2001 for medical, 8% for dental and 34% for vision, substantially less than the anticipated 20 -23% rate increase if the City remained self insured. Mr. Hunter pointed out AWC's current cost for an employee is $208.25 and the City's was $211.93. Under the anticipated 23% rate increase, the City's rate per employee would increase to $260.67 in 2001. The net effect of returning to AWC would be approximately a 3% rate increase in .2001. He said the employee.Health Insurance Committee recommended the City return to the AWC health insurance be effective October 1, 2000, as the self- insurance plan year was October 1 — September 31. If the Council agreed to return to AWC, AWC would begin signing up employees next week and anticipated the October 1 deadline could be accomplished. Mr. Hunter further explained that if the City returned to AWC, ending self - insurance, the City would be responsible for any claims incurred prior. to September 30. He said the anticipated total for claims runoff would be approximately $250,000. If the reserve in the fund remains at $90,000 - $100,000, he anticipated approximately $160,000 would be necessary to fund the claims runoff. He summarized his request was to authorize the City to return to AWC Health Insurance Trust and transfer $160,000 from unanticipated revenue into the self - insurance fund for claims runoff. Councilmember Petso recalled the Health Insurance Committee discussed approaching AWC regarding returning to the AWC Health Trust but she did not recall a recommendation by the committee to actually return. She asked if all representatives understood the action being requested of the Council. Mr. Hunter said all representatives. had attended the meetings where returning to AWC was discussed and the consensus was to maintain benefits at the lowest cost possible. He sent a letter to AWC requesting to return to AWC and this action was a request to authorize the City to return to AWC. He said information had also been included in the employee newsletter. Councilmember White asked whether benefits would be impacted by the change. Mr. Hunter answered it would be a fairly seamless conversion. When the City self- insured, it used the same benefit plan, with the exception of the additional $250 wellness benefit for physical exams and vaccinations and a change to the vision coverage which will no longer provide a lump sum. Employees with Group Health coverage will not see any change in benefits. Councilmember White asked if the deductible would be carried over. Mr. Hunter said the current provider would be asked to provide information to Regence that would carryover all deductibles for medical and dental. He said there would be too much change to the vision plan to make a conversion. As the City contracted with Regence for its self- insurance plan and AWC also contracts with Regence, the provider list would remain the same. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY- COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO CONTRACT WITH AWC HEALTH INSURANCE TRUST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. `L.1' Salary 6. PRESENTATION OF "L -5" SALARY PLAN FOR NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND la for Non APPROVAL OF NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES SALARY ORDINANCE Represented Employees Human Services Director Brent Hunter explained this was a presentation of a new salary plan for non- represented employees with a recommendation from the Human Resources Committee. If acceptable to the Council, he requested approval of an attached salary ordinance that would implement the plan. He thanked the Human Resources Committee for their review of the proposed salary plan, advising the Human Resources Committee was comprised of Councilmembers Orvis, Davis, and Miller, Mayor Haakenson, Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler and himself. Mr. Hunter explained keeping salary levels up was one of the more difficult problems the City faced, particularly keeping them up on an ongoing basis and the City, like many organizations, had a history of short term fixes. He explained the Human Resources Committee agreed the proposed salary plan would address short term problems and, if accepted on a policy level, would address problems of wage compression, City salaries below comparable salaries, recruitment of qualified employees, and lack of performance incentives and lack of consistency Mr. Hunter explained there had been a problem with wage compression in the City's fire department for a number of years and comparison with neighboring cities often reveals substantial gaps in the amount the City pays to top managers and what other cities are paying. Regarding recruitment of qualified employees, Mr. Hunter explained it was necessary when hiring the two new directors to exceed, the salary range in order to obtain the caliber of person for the position, hiring these directors at a wage higher than was paid to the City's current directors. Mr. Hunter commented most director positions are "topped out" due to their being hired at the top of the range or having been employed by the City long enough to have reached.the top of the salary range. This situation provides no financial incentive for the Mayor to encourage or reward superior performance. Regarding lack of consistency, Mr. Hunter explained the proposed salary plan would be more consistent from year to year and demonstrate to the City's employees that there was a consistent approach to addressing salary inequities. Mr. Hunter displayed a comparison of Fire Department salaries, pointing out Edmonds Fire Chief was paid slightly under $82,000 in 1999, the Assistant Fire Chief approximately $75,000. Their subordinates' pay, which includes overtime, exceeded the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief in a number of instances. In 1999, the Fire Chief was the fifth highest paid employee in the department and the Assistant Chief was the tenth highest paid employee in the department. A comparison of the Police Chief's salary to other cities of similar size revealed Edmonds' Police Chief's salary was the lowest at $86,360. He pointed out there was a $20,000 difference between the salary paid to the Edmonds Police Chief and the City of Lynnwood Police Chief although they were comparable positions and comparable populations. Mr. Hunter displayed a comparison of department head salaries which illustrated the new director's salaries were higher than existing directors, some of whom have been in the City's employ for many years and have a great deal of experience. Mr. Hunter explained the L -5 salary plan was proposed by Council President Miller who worked with this plan in a previous city. Mr. Hunter explained the purpose of the L -5 salary plan was to attract, retain and reward employees. He pointed out some of the City's directors had been approached with offers to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 10 leave the City for higher salaries. Mr. Hunter explained the L -5 salary plan considered salaries in the Puget Sound region. He displayed a list of Puget Sound cities in Pierce, Snohomish and King counties with greater and less population than Edmonds. In addition to surveying total salary paid, total compensation was considered. He displayed a benefit comparison of health insurance and vacation and holiday accrual. He said the benefit comparison illustrated the City was not just weak in salaries and strong in benefits. Mr. Hunter explained the L -5 salary plan was based on the median salary; cities were ranked by population and the salary information. determined for each city and position. The four cities higher in population and four cities below in population were then ranked by salary and the fifth or median level was selected as the most representative salary. He said the intent was to repeat the process each year in time for review by the Human Resources Committee and Council so that the impacts could be addressed in the budget process. Mr. Hunter said after the L -5 information was gathered, the positions were grouped on the basis of the salary data collected and level of difficulty /complexity. He displayed a list of the grouping by position, explaining the Human Resources Committee agreed to use the L -5 ranking for the highest position in each group, the Police Chief in the director's group, and set that as the top of the salary range for all directors and establish the low range based on a 20% salary range. He explained most of the change occurred at the department director level as sufficient salary corrections have been made in lower levels over the years. Mr. Hunter summarized adopting the L -5 salary plan would allow the Mayor to have financial incentives to reward employees via merit increases. The intent would be to have an annual update and review by the Human Resources Committee prior to the budget. He said any proposed changes would be reviewed by the Council each year. Mr. Hunter said the final step would be approval of the salary ordinance for non - represented employees, creating new salary ranges for all non - represented positions effective immediately. He said the next agenda item was a request for mid -year salary adjustments for non- represented employees to implement the L -5 salary plan. Councilmember Orvis clarified the next step was to appropriate funds; the first step was not a monetary expenditure, only a policy. Mr. Hunter agreed. Councilmember Orvis said the Council maintained control of salaries via the budget process. Mr. Hunter agreed. Councilmember Petso questioned how the proposed L -5 salary plan would address wage compression in the Fire Department. She said if a union employee's salary exceeded the Chief's salary, there would still be compression. Mr. Hunter said most of the compression problem was driven by employees via collective bargaining. He said the Police and Fire Department wages were the most "watched" wages and thus were the most comparable. The Human Resources Committee believed if the City was comparable with other Fire Chiefs, the possibility for wage compression would be reduced. Councilmember Petso asked what if there was still salary compression. Mr. Hunter said the Fire Chief was comfortable with the proposal. Councilmember Petso expressed concern the proposed L -5 salary plan would not solve the problem of wage compression. She asked if only population was considered when making comparisons. Mr. Hunter answered yes. Councilmember Petso asked whether consideration had been given to differences between job descriptions in neighboring cities, such as Public Works Director who manages all water and sewer services compared to Edmonds who has other water and sewer providers. Mr. Hunter said consideration was given to how comparable some cities Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 11 were. He attempted to keep the positions as similar as possible and if there was a great deal of disparity in job descriptions, he did not use the data for that city. Councilmember Petso asked how the Mayor incorporated performance incentives into the L -5 salary plan. Mr. Hunter said the Human Resources Committee recommended funds be set aside for the Mayor to correct some of the existing salary problems. Total implementation of the plan was estimated to be $140,000 (bringing all employees to the L -5 level). The Human Resources Committee recommended a partial adjustment and requested Mayor Haakenson determine an amount that would be necessary to make the most critical adjustments (to be addressed in Agenda Item 7). He said future corrections and the remainder of the implementation would be accomplished via the performance review process and a merit increase. Councilmember Petso observed all non - represented employees in a particular grouping would be paid at the salary range established for the highest L -5 salary in the group. She observed if the Police Chief was the highest paid, adopting the policy would result in salaries for all directors to be based on the Police Chief's salary. Mr. Hunter agreed, commenting the positions were grouped not only on the basis of salary but similar level of responsibility. Councilmember White asked how the range was established. Mr. Hunter answered he selected a 20% range. The salaries for the recently hired directors was $90,000 and the top of the range was $100,000. A director with less experience likely would be paid at the lower range. He said the Ewing Study had a 30% salary range but 20% was a more realistic assessment of today's market. He commented the salary for the newly hired directors was a good indicator of the current market. He said the newly hired directors were earning similar salaries in their previous employment. Councilmember White referred to the benefit comparison, pointing out a director in Lynnwood had 92% of his/her benefits paid by the city and a director in Edmonds had 80% of their benefits paid by the city. A director in Lynnwood received 136 vacation days after 10 years and 200 vacation days after 20 years compared with 128 vacation days after 10 years and 176 vacation days after 20 years for an employee in Edmonds. He said the current salary for the Police Chief of Lynnwood was approximately $5,000 above the top range in Edmonds. Mr. Hunter said the intent of the Human Resources Committee was a salary plan that placed Edmonds in the middle of the range. Councilmember Orvis observed page 2 of the ordinance included the appropriation requested in Agenda Item 7. Councilmembers agreed to combine the discussion of Agenda Items 6 and 7. Salary 7. REQUEST FOR MID YEAR SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES Adjustment for Non - Mr. Hunter explained the Human Resources Committee found several positions that were far enough Represented awry they needed immediate correction. As the Human Resources Committee was uncomfortable with Employees implementing the salary plan all at one time, they requested Mayor Haakenson determine appropriate salary adjustments that were needed to implement the new L -5 salary plan. He said the immediate concern was that the salaries of the newly hired directors were higher than existing directors and a compression problem needed to be addressed. He said full implementation costs were approximately $140,000; the $30,000 requested was a partial implementation to correct the worst disparities. He said the remaining corrections would be made next year and in future years. Councilmember Orvis inquired about the annual cost of implementing the adjustments Mayor Haakenson recommended. Mayor Haakenson answered approximately $120,000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 12 Councilmember Orvis recalled from the Human Resources Committee discussion that $78,000 - $80,000 would be necessary for the first phase. Council President Miller pointed out those most impacted by the L -5 salary plan were department directors and complete implementation would be $140,000. Council President Miller said salary compression had been an ongoing problem for a number of years and the need to resolve it had been identified in the Ewing study. Regarding Councilmember Petso's concern that compression would still exist, he said labor groups were approximately at the L -5 level but non - represented employees were at approximately a L -7 — L -10 level. By adjusting the salaries to the L- 5 level, Edmonds' salaries would be comparable to other cities' salaries. As a result, it would be the egregious hours put in by 1 -2 employees that would result in their salary exceeding the Chief s salary rather than 10 -15 employees earning more than the Chief. He recognized Edmonds did not have the same tax base that Everett, Lynnwood or Redmond had but the City was in the same competitive market and by adopting L -5 would establish salaries in the top five. Council President Miller acknowledged the City had lost several talented employees due to salaries as the City had not kept pace with other cities in its salaries and benefits. He encouraged the Council to support the L -5 salary plan, pointing out it would improve morale as well as assist with attracting and retaining directors. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the City's most important resource was not its fire trucks, not the PRISimr" firearms training program, not computers, not equipment of any kind but the employees. He said represented employees' wages were fairly represented in the market via a union contract, but non - represented employees do not have a 1 -3 year adjustment to their salaries via union contracts. He commented he did not have the ability to provide any merit pay increase to several directors because they were at the top of the salary level. He said several directors had not received any increase other than cost of living increases for 5 -6 years. He pointed out the importance of paying directors an equitable, fair wage and via a merit increase, bring their salaries up to an appropriate level. He urged the Council to keep in mind that the employees were the City's most important resource. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE L -5 SALARY PLAN ORDINANCE PRESENTED YRIS EVENING AND APPROVE $30,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 2000. Councilmember White said the Edmonds Fire Department was consistently rated among the highest in the State, the City's Police Department was one of only five in the State with national accreditation and the City's parks were second to none in the State, yet he was embarrassed by what the City's directors were paid. He pointed out the Lynnwood Police Chief earned approximately $20,510 more in a city that was smaller geographically and had less population. Bothell has 10,000 less population and their Police Chief earns $24,700 more that the Edmonds Police Chief. Edmonds' Police Chief pays 20% of his benefits; Lynnwood's Police Chief pays 8% and Bothell's Police Chief pays 1 %. Councilmember White recalled when the City interviewed for the director positions, applicants came from many other cities, indicating people want to work in Edmonds which may be why the City "can get away" with a mid -range salary. He pointed the City demanded excellence but paid moderately. Councilmember White said he was overwhelmed by the lack of respect shown to the City's directors and said the adjustments were extraordinarily overdue. Councilmember Petso pointed out there were two separate issues, 1) whether the City's directors were adequately paid which she said it appeared they may not be, and 2) whether the L -5 policy would address Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 13 that problem or whether the L -5 salary plan was the correct policy to address the problem. She said there are numerous ways to increase salaries including bringing all salaries up to the level of the newly hired directors or reviewing the job description of each director, comparing it to the other cities and determining an appropriate salary based on the job duties rather than population. She said one of the worst possible ways to increase salaries was to set the Public Works Director's salary, for example, based on what eight nearby cities pay their Police Chief. She said she was unable to endorse such a policy. Councilmember Petso recommended the Council not addressing the problem as part of the L -5 policy. She said the L -5 policy was not the solution to 'compression and could make compression problems worse. Councilmember Petso recalled a comment made by Councilmember Earling that the Council should consider the budget as a whole and compensation should be a part of that. She recommended the City establish priorities; obviously a high priority would be to correct department director's salaries but without the whole picture, the Council could not say with certainty that was the highest priority. She suggested a decision be delayed until the entire budget picture was before the Council. Councilmember Davis commented Edmonds was a top notch city and needed to pay .its department directors what they were worth. He disagreed with Councilmember Petso's objections to the L -5 salary plan, pointing out the L -5 plan utilized a median level in other cities. He was initially concerned the L -5 salary plan would pit cities against each other and artificially increase salaries but now agreed the market would drive salaries. If the City did not increase salaries, employees would leave for other cities. Councilmember Petso said she did not object to comparing the salary of, for example, the Parks and Recreation Director to other Parks and Recreation Directors doing the same job; however, she said paying the Parks and Recreation Director based on the salary of Lynnwood's Police Chief was not appropriate. Councilmember Davis disagreed with Councilmember Petso, stating the department heads are indispensable and equal in status and responsibility. Therefore, a system needed to be established that could address salaries in an equitable manner. Councilmember Petso pointed out the L -5 salary plan addressed not only department heads but also other non - represented employees. She said L -5 was a policy decision to pay the City's Traffic Engineer within the same range as the Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor regardless of what the Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisors in other jurisdictions, doing the same job, are paid. She said it. was unknown which job the L -5 salary would be linked to, only the highest paid position. She questioned the connection between the positions in each group, for example, the connection between the salary for the Fleet. Maintenance Manager and the Court Administrator. She recognized that all employees were valuable and necessary but failed to see any logical connection between establishing a salary for a Court Administrator based on the salary for a Fleet Maintenance Manager. Mayor Haakenson said the ranges were determined by 1) current pay rates and the way the employees were currently grouped, and 2) the knowledge, skill and education level. He pointed out the Council had the ability to consider the ranges each year. Councilmember Petso said in future years the Council would not have the ability to consider what each position in the group, doing the same job were paid in other cities. The Council would only be considering the L -5 for comparable cities. Mayor Haakenson said the Council would have the ability to request comparables in the future. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 14 Councilmember Davis said the intent of the Human Resources Committee was to design a uniform plan to avoid 1 -2 employees seeking an increase at each Human Resources Committee meeting based on their individual performance. He acknowledged the L -5 plan was a philosophical way of viewing salaries and was at least a starting point. Councilmember Earling said by taking action on this appropriation, the Council created the potential for $30,000 this year and $30,000 next year. He recalled there had been several other expenditures, all for one -time expenditures. He also pointed out long- standing inequities have contributed to directors and other staff members leaving the City for opportunities in other cities. Council President Miller restated the motion as follows: APPROVE THE L -5 SALARY ORDINANCE AND TRANSFER $30,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND TO MAKE A MID -YEAR SALARY ADJUSTMENT. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. The approved ordinance reads as follows: Ord #3323 Amending ORDINANCE NO. 3323 AMENDING THE ANNUAL SALARY ORDINANCE NO. 3285 FOR Annual Salary Ord BUDGET YEAR 2000, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3316, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN 3285 (Non- THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Represented Employees) Because the next Agenda Item pertains to establishing the salary for the Mayor, Mayor Haakenson did not participate in the discussion and requested Council President Miller lead the discussion and any V action taken on this matter. 8, PRESENTATION OF NOVEMBER 1999 REPORT FROM THE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE on Salaries of Elected ESTABLISHING SALARY FOR THE MAYOR Officials Council President Miller said the information gathered by the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials revealed a significant gap in the salaries of the Edmonds Mayor and CEOs of other Puget Sound cities. He recalled the Council created the Citizen Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials to study and hold public hearings to de- politicize the process of setting salaries for the Mayor and City Council. The Commission made a recommendation in October 1999 for an adjustment to the salaries. There were not sufficient Councilmembers present for the four votes required, although the motion passed on a 3 -2 vote. Chairman of the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials, Kevin Clarke, 23924 107 " Place W, Edmonds, explained the commission was comprised of seven citizens who were appointed by the City Council, Mayor and commission members. The commission established its own criteria for market comparables of full -time CEOs and full -time directors and Councilpersons in the State of Washington. He said the commission included a broad cross section of individuals. Mr. Clarke reviewed the criteria established including population, assessed value of all real estate within the city, size of the general fund, and number of employees the mayor oversaw in each city. Specific data was requested from Human Resources Director Brent Hunter regarding salary and benefits including vacation, medical benefits and other forms of compensation. Using this criteria, the commission selected the cities for comparison which included Bothell and Lynnwood. After gathering data, the commission held two public hearings and invited Councilmembers to make a presentation or provide written Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 15 comments regarding their compensation, recognizing the potential for criticism for voting on their own salaries. No Councilmember made a presentation or provided any written information. As Councilmember Van Hollebeke was not seeking re- election, he testified regarding the hours Councilmembers put in and how they are compensated. Mr. Clarke pointed out this process occurred in the climate of I -695; the commission's presentation was provided to the Council a week prior to the election. Mr. Clarke said during the public hearing process no one stated the City's public officials were overpaid; in fact, all members of the public said the City's elected officials were doing an excellent job and working hard to represent the City and concurred with the process the commission was following. The public concurred with the commission's conclusions regarding the Council and Mayor's salaries. He said the Council minutes indicate only one individual commented on the Council and Mayor's salaries. Mr. Clarice said when there were not enough votes on the City Council to pass the proposed ordinance amending the Council and Mayor's salaries, the commission was disappointed and could not understand why the Council directed them to establish comparables, take public input, make a recommendation and then did not support the commission's recommendation. He pointed out the commission's recommendations were at the mid -point of the range. The level of the Mayor's compensation was at that time and still is substantially lower than any other city. He said the Mayor of Bothell which has less population, less assessed value, $4 million less in their general fund and fewer employees, earns $99,000 — Edmonds' Mayor earns $65,000. Bothell's Assistant City Manager earns more than Edmonds Mayor. Since the comparisons were made in 1999, the salary of Bothell's mayor has been increased to $111,890 and similar increases, a minimum of 3 %, have been provided to other CEOs. Mr. Clarke said the comparables clearly indicate Edmonds CEO is underpaid. He acknowledged the process had always been a political process and asked how the commission could improve the process. He said some Councilmembers may seek re- election to the Council or Mayor and may be criticized for voting to raise their own salary. He recalled when the commission made their recommendation, there were two Councilmembers running for mayor; one candidate had a long history of service in the City and his retirement plan could enable him to receive a substantial windfall if he was elected. This was discussed openly with the public and the commission and the commission determined this was a circumstance and whomever was elected mayor should not be penalized from having a fair wage based on the structure of their retirement compensation. He said no one testified requesting salaries not be increased due to the potential of I -695 and only one Councilmember brought up that issue during the deliberations. Mr. Clark reiterated the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials recommendation was the same salary structure recommended last year, recognizing those salaries were not current market value. The Mayor's salary would still be dramatically behind that of other cities' CEOs and substantially behind the salaries of department heads. Councilmember Petso expressed her appreciation for the efforts of the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials. She asked if the commission considered whether there was a difference in experience, training, education or job performance for a City Manager and Mayor. Mr. Clarke said that issue was hotly debated by the commission. Although the commission recognized there may be differences in experience, training and education, the job description of the CEO was a full -time employee who managed a budget, department heads, city employees. Councilmember White pointed out one difference between a City Manager and Mayor was a Mayor also perfornied numerous ceremonial tasks, likely an additional 20 -30 hours per week. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 16 For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Hunter explained the request was to increase the Mayor's salary from $65,000 per year to $84,000 per year, effective September 15, 2000. The additional expenditure for the balance of 2000 would be $5,540. Mr. Clarke pointed out the public hearing process revealed the public's perception that in order to run for Mayor in Edmonds, one needed to be rich, independently wealthy, or own your own business. The public did not want any candidate to have to consider earning less money to serve the City as mayor. The public wanted fair compensation for the Mayor and not to make it an elitist position. Councilmember White commented he voted in favor of the ordinance the last time it was before the Council. He recalled there was concern at that time regarding the impacts of I -695 and the desire not to take any action until the potential impacts were known. He felt that was an erroneous basis for not supporting the ordinance at that time because the Mayor's position either deserved a higher salary or it did not. He said the Mayor's salary should not be gauged against the library or any other expenditure as this was a personnel /salary issue. He said the Mayor was elected because citizens want his/her expertise, knowledge, education and life experiences and want him/her to be the CEO of the City. Councilmember White pointed out 18 City employees currently earn more than the Mayor, even with the proposed increase, several directors will still earn more than the Mayor. Councilmember White said it was meaningless for any Councilmember to even consider potential criticism for voting to raise his/her own salary. He doubted any Councilmember as an employee told their employer not to raise their salary because their neighbor might not like it. He said he would resign before basing his decision on how it might impact his re- election potential. He enjoyed being on the Council but it cost more to be a Councilmember than the $50 per meeting the Council received. He said the salary levels for the Mayor of six neighboring cities were thousands more than the proposed salary and all the neighboring cities were smaller, with less assessed valuation, and fewer employees. He indicated his strong support for the commission's work and their recommendation. Councilmember Petso asked why this was not a budget issue and why the Council should not delay a decision until it could be considered with all other budget issues .facing the City. She agreed the proposed salary was appropriate but City must determine whether it could afford to pay it this year and in future years. She expressed concern with funding salaries from unanticipated revenue. Council President Miller said he included this item on the agenda along with the L -5 study because the previous Council did not take action on this item last year. Councilmember Plunkett disagreed with Councilmember White's suggestion that any Councilmember would consider this or any other issue as a political issue. He said any number of Council votes could be raised as an issue in a campaign. He said all Councilmembers make decisions based on what they believe was best for the City. He said Councilmembers who voted to adopt the ordinance believed the Mayor deserved a higher salary and those who voted against it, believed $65,000 was adequate. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER .DAVIS, TO ADOPT THE CITIZEN COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS' RECOMMENDATION AND INCREASE THE MAYOR'S SALARY TO $84,000 EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 2000. Councilmember Davis indicated he would support the motion as the Mayor oversaw a budget of over $21 million, oversee parks, fire and police and that person deserves a salary that does not require they be independently wealthy or retired. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 17 Councilmember Petso said she was not comfortable with voting on the salary and later deciding how to fund it. She said voting against the motion did not necessarily mean a Councilmember felt the salary was inappropriate but that the timing was not appropriate. She said she likely would vote against the motion because this was a budget issue and should be considered in the context of the entire budget and a determination should be made regarding how to pay for it first. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAVIS, WHITE AND EARLING IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO APPROPRIATE $5,540 FROM UNANTICIPATED REVENUES TO COVER THE INCREASE IN THE MAYOR'S SALARY, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 2000. Councilmember Earling recalled most appropriations from unanticipated revenues were for one time costs. As this is a long -term commitment, he preferred it be funded from the Council Contingency fund with the understanding it would be funded from the General Fund next year. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO APPROPRIATE $5,540 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND TO COVER THE INCREASE IN THE MAYOR'S SALARY, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 2000. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ord #3324 Establish COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO Annual ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3324, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, Salary for WASHINGTON, TO ESTABLISH AN ANNUAL SALARY OF EIGHTY -FOUR THOUSAND Mayor ($84,000) ($84,000) DOLLARS FOR THE POSITION OF MAYOR, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE, SEPTEMBER 15, 2000. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAVIS, WHITE AND EARLING IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. 9. MAYOR'S REPORT Special Council Mayor Haakenson advised the Tuesday, September 19 City Council meeting was rescheduled for Meeting on 3' Monda September 18 due to the election on Tuesday. Sept. 18 � p y' school I Mayor Haakenson reported he was at Seaview, Elementary today for a presentation regarding Governor Safety Locke's school safety program. Program On behalf of the directors, Mayor Haakenson thanked the Council for their vote regarding salaries, commenting it was a big step forward. 10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS Excused I COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, Absence TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER WHITE FROM THE AUGUST 22 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER WHITE ABSTAINED. Councilmember Earling extended a welcome to Development Services Director Duane Bowman. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 18 1 muniry Councilmember Earling said Community Transit would be re- establishing Saturday service beginning in nsit mid - September on a one -year basis, funded by the. monies appropriated by the Legislature. He reported the Sound Transit commuter rail from Tacoma to Seattle would be operational September 18 and run in the morning and afternoon. The commuter rail in the north end would be operational next year. He said Sound Transit would begin operating four more bus lines in mid - September, bringing the number of bus lines to 11 or 12 of the eventual 17 planned bus routes. He said Sound Transit currently transports 15,000 — 17,000 people per day on their new bus service. Card Room Councilmember Davis reported the card room taskforce anticipated a draft report would be available by Taskforce the end of the weekend and a final report will be presented to the Council. I IL Councilmember Orvis advised the signatures on the petition he was circulating were due Monday morning. Councilmember Petso wished her stepson, Nick, a happy 18`' birthday. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. &FRIAIN, ►, • SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 5, 2000 Page 19 4 " AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. SEPTEMBER 5, 2000. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2000 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #41312 THROUGH #43271 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 21, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $304,598.64. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #41316 THROUGH #43344 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 28, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $76,277.34. (D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT (E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE BRACKETT'S NORTH CONCRETE BULKHEAD REPAIR AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (F) REQUEST FOR CREATION OF POSITION — COMPUTER NETWORK SUPPORT TECHNICIAN (G) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) TO PUBLIC (P) (H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.05 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE CONTROL OF ANIMALS WITHIN THE CITY, ADDING NEW SECTIONS THERETO, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL'BECOME EFFECTIVE 3. (30 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.15(B) - CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS, REGARDING STEEP SLOPES 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 5. (15 Min.) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON CITIES (AWC) HEALTH INSURANCE TRUST 6. (30 Min.) PRESENTATION OF "L -5" SALARY PLAN FOR NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES AND APPROVAL OF NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES SALARY ORDINANCE 7. (15 Min.) REQUEST FOR MID YEAR SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES 8. (20 Min.) PRESENTATION OF NOVEMBER 1999 REPORT FROM THE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SALARY FOR THE MAYOR 9. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 10. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS /UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46.