Loading...
2011.05.17 CC Agenda Packet                 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds MAY 17, 2011                 6:00 p.m. - Executive session regarding labor negotiations. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute   1. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda   2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items   A.Roll Call   B. AM-3957 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 10, 2011.   C. AM-3949 Approval of claim checks #125385 through #125526 dated May 12, 2011 for $1,189,729.10.   D. AM-3956 Proclamation declaring the week of May 16-20, 2011 as "Public Works Week" in the City of Edmonds.   E. AM-3939 Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force, 2011-2012 Interlocal Agreement.   F. AM-3940 Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Project.   G. AM-3941 Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the 2011 Waterline Replacement Project.   H. AM-3942 Report on final construction costs for Caspers Street/Ninth Avenue N/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project and Council acceptance of project.   I. AM-3943 Report on final construction costs for the Five Corners Booster Pump Station Packet Page 1 of 290 I. AM-3943 Report on final construction costs for the Five Corners Booster Pump Station Improvements and Council acceptance of project.   J. AM-3946 Report on final construction costs for the Odor Control Improvement Project and Council acceptance of project.   K. AM-3947 Report on final construction costs for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.   L. AM-3944 Repair to the Treatment Plant's outfall pipe and the process for obtaining bids and awarding a contract.   M. AM-3948 Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code (ECC) 8.64.060 Parking Provisions in the Downtown Edmonds area.   3. (5 Minutes) AM-3914 Proclamation for National Law Enforcement Memorial Week.   4. (5 Minutes) Swearing in Ceremony for Corporal Joshua D. McClure.   5. (5 Minutes) AM-3953 Community Service Announcement: Memorial Day Ceremony at Edmonds Cemetery.   6.Audience Comments  (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.   7. (20 Minutes) AM-3950 Presentation by Edmonds Public Facilities District regarding capital bond payment.   8. (30 Minutes) AM-3951 Discussion regarding self-funded medical insurance.   9. (60 Minutes) AM-3952 Discussion of levy options. (Public comment will be received.)   10. (15 Minutes) AM-3958 Report on City Council Committee Meetings of May 10, 2010.   11. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments   12. (15 Minutes) Council Comments   Adjourn   Packet Page 2 of 290 AM-3957   Item #: 2. B. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action  Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 10, 2011. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Attachments 05-10-11 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 05/12/2011 02:38 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 04:08 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 05/12/2011 01:32 PM Final Approval Date: 05/12/2011  Packet Page 3 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES May 10, 2011 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember (arrived 7:20 p.m.) ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Peter Gibson, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Carl Nelson, CIO Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Jim Tarte, Interim Finance Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Bernheim was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Bernheim was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2011. C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2011. D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #125254 THROUGH #125384 DATED MAY 5, 2011 FOR $433,592.90. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #50382 THROUGH #50414 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 16, 2011 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2011 FOR $643,323.84. E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY GEORGE PEPPIN ($4,853.20). Packet Page 4 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 2 3. DISCUSSION OF LEVY OPTIONS. Mayor Cooper advised the PowerPoint regarding the community survey will be posted on the City’s website tomorrow. Councilmember Wilson disclosed that Ms. Peters is a friend and he has worked with her in a professional capacity in the past. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION (MADE AT THE MAY 3, 2011 COUNCIL MEETING) WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Alison Peters, Alison Peters Consulting, suggested Council questions be held until following her presentation. She provided the City Clerk a binder with additional data. Ms. Peters described her background, explaining she has been a pollster for approximately 15 years. She is from Washington State, done work in California and has owned her own business in the Puget Sound area for the past 9 years. She works almost exclusively in the public sector with cities, counties and special districts preparing to place measures on the ballot or assessing the feasibility of projects like this. She explained the main questions the survey sought to answer were: • How are residents feeling about the quality of life in Edmonds and the current pace of economic recovery? • Are residents satisfied with City services and programs? • What are the program and service priorities for residents in this economic climate? • What is the reaction to hearing about a proposal for new operations revenue for the City? She described the survey methodology: • Research Technique: Telephone Interviewing • Sample Type: All 7500+ registered voter households in Edmonds • Field Dates: April 25-28, 2011 • Sample Size: N=400 • Survey Length: 14 minutes Ms. Peters described the survey Demographics: Gender Aware of 2009 Public Male 45% Yes, aware 32% Female 55% No, not aware 45% Unsure 23% Age Geography 18-34 12% NW region (Perrinville) 28% 35-44 11% NE region (Meadowdale) 19% 45-59 29% SW Region (City Center, Esperance 39% 60+ 46% SE region (SR99, Puget Drive 13% Local Quality of Life and Economy Q: Do things in Edmonds seem to be going in the right direction or does it feel things are off on the wrong track? Packet Page 5 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 3 Right Direction 59% Wrong Track 24% Don’t Know 17% Edmonds residents are happy with the way things are going and their overall quality of life. 18-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-59 yrs 60+ yrs Aware of 2009 Public Process Unaware of 2009 Public Process Right Direction 89% 48% 53% 57% 72% 45% Wrong Track 9% 34% 30% 23% 16% 39% Don’t Know 2% 18% 17% 20% 12% 17% The poll shows a correlation between age and perception of quality of life; informed residents are also more likely to indicate their satisfaction with how things are going Perrinville Meadowda le City Center SR99/Puget Drive Right Direction 54% 59% 60% 63% Wrong Track 25% 30% 25% 13% Don’t Know 21% 10% 15% 24% The results show some differences by neighborhood and some places where residents may be less engaged on local issues. The Don’t Know results show residents in Perrinville and SR99/Puget Drive need to be engaged. Q: Overall would you say the economy in this area is getting better, staying about the same, getting worse, don’t know? Getting Better 21% Staying About the Same 56% Getting Worse 20% Don’t Know 3% Residents are neither very optimistic nor very pessimistic. Their answers reflect uncertainty. A greater percentage of people under 45 responded “staying the same” as they may be more affected by the economy. Q: We want you to evaluate the City Council, city leaders and city staff in several areas. Please respond to the following items using a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). Overall Rating (1-5) The job the Edmonds Police Department is doing to maintain public safety 4.19 The job the City is doing maintaining parks, trails, etc. 3.99 The job the City is doing maintaining public facilities and local streets 3.42 The communications you receive from the City 2.90 The job the City is doing spending tax dollars wisely and being transparent 2.88 Packet Page 6 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 4 Over 70% of residents offer ratings of 4 or 5 to both the Police and Parks Departments. Perrinville Meadowdale Downtown SR99/ Puget Dr The job the Edmonds Police Department is doing to maintain public safety 4.11 4.16 4.20 4.30 The job the City is doing maintaining parks, trails, etc 3.98 3.82 4.04 4.10 The job the City is doing maintaining public facilities and local streets 3.45 3.32 3.38 3.66 The communications you receive from the City 3.00 2.55 3.06 2.80 The job the City is doing spending tax dollars wisely and being transparent 2.92 2.70 2.85 3.08 Residents in the SE neighborhoods were noteworthy for the high ratings they gave to Public Works and Finance; Meadowdale residents gave low scores to Communications and Finance. Ms. Peters referred to the Executive Summary that includes key findings. She pointed out one of the key findings: residents hold different beliefs about the state of the local economy and the quality of life in Edmonds. It is possible to have a very high perception of the quality of services and still feel the economy is poor. Awareness of City Finances and Past Public Involvement Efforts: Ms. Peters urged the Council to pay the most attention to this section of questions. Q: Have City leaders engage community leaders and members of the public to address the revenue shortfall over the past two years and move forward toward a solution? Yes 32% No 45% Don’t Know 23% The key to analyzing this question is seeing who knew of the 2009 process and what impact that has on their attitudes. Aware of Process Unaware of Process Unsure 18-34 years = 42% SE region = 55% Women = 28% Men under 45 = 39% 35 to 44 yrs = 63% Women over 45 = 28% Men over 45 = 38% Women under 45 = 52% The largest population in Edmonds, including residents over 60, women over 45 and residents living in the downtown core, were not proportionately engaged in 2009 or perhaps don’t recall what impact the process made on them. Packet Page 7 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 5 Q: Based on what you know, do you think the City is able to fund all city services and programs with its current revenue? Yes 36% No 50% Don’t Know 14% Slightly more than a third (36%) of residents said the City can fund all programs and services with exciting revenue; 50% disagree. Subgroups that think the City’s revenue can fund all services: • Overall 36% • SE region 40% • Men 44% • 35 to 44 yrs 50% • 18 to 34 yrs 51% • Men < 45 62% Q: Do you think the City has a “revenue problem” and needs new sources of funding or a “spending problem” and can still do ore to become more efficient? Revenue Problem 35% Spending Problem 51% Don’t Know 14% A bigger problem: The perception that overspending is the issue, not the tax system or the economy. In response to the previous question, 36% said the City is able to fund all City services and programs with its current revenue; in this question 51% say the City has a “spending problem.” Subgroups that think the City has a “spending problem:” • Overall 51% • 45-59 yrs 56% • Women Under 45 56% • Unaware of 2009 process 58% • Men under 45 65% Service Priorities Q: Which of the following is more important to you right now? Keep taxes as they are 19% 42% Keep tax as they are even if services are cut 23% Shore up the budget and maintain services 29% 52% Get going on maintenance projects 23% Don’t know 5% A majority of residents want to ensure a stable City budget and better funded basic services. Packet Page 8 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 6 Ms. Peters clarified at this point in the survey the concept of a levy had not yet been introduced. Subgroups expressing a priority for “shoring up the budget:” • Women over 45 38% • SW region 36% • Women 35% • Overall 29% Keep Rates as they are Move Forward Women under 45 23% 66% 18-34 yrs 32% 67% Women 35% 59% Downtown 36% 57% Women over 45 37% 58% SR99/Puget Drive 38% 57% Meadowdale 41% 57% Men Over 45 50% 44% Men 51% 42% Men under 45 57% 43% 35 to 44 yrs 52% 38% Perrinville 55% 40% The gender gap is the most significant reason for the overall split in public opinion on this issue. Q: Later this year the City is considering an operations levy…” Do you think this proposal is a good idea or a bad idea? Good Idea 52% Bad Idea 43% Don’t Know 5% 52% of residents have an early positive response to the proposal. This mirrors the response to a previous question regarding what is important to you. Men <45 Men >45 Women <45 Women >45 Aware Unaware DK Good Idea 43% 50% 63% 53% 60% 41% 62% Bad Idea 48% 45% 37% 42% 34% 56% 32% Move Forward 43% 44% 66% 58% 57% 49% 51% Keep Rates 57% 50% 23% 37% 40% 46% 39% % Change 0 + 6 pts -3 pts -5 pts +3pts -8 pts +11 pts Q: I’m going to describe five ongoing needs within the City and I’d like you to tell me which one is your top priority area for funding. Need 2nd priority Top priority $700,000 would pay for local street maintenance projects 27% 26% Packet Page 9 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 7 $1.1 million per year would shore up the budget 19% 29% $100,000 per year would pay for maintenance of city parks, etc. 21% 24% $210,000 per year would pay for public safety 24% 20% $150,000 per year would pay for arts program 8% 1% Budget stability and Public Works are top priorities Perrinville Meadowdale Downtown SR99/ Puget Dr $700k for Public Works 54% 62% 48% 45% $1.1M for budget 44% 42% 55% 44% $100k for parks 42% 43% 49% 47% $210k for public safety 51% 45% 38% 50% Neighborhood priorities vary widely – both in terms of projects and the intensity expressed by residents. Evaluating the Options Ms. Peters relayed a statement from a real estate website regarding Edmonds: “The number of adults working in math and technology in Edmonds is higher than in 95% of US cities.” This reflects the amount of thought, logic and the methodical approach to assessing the survey information. Residents react to well-reasoned information, not emotion. Q: I’d like to know if these statements are important to you or not in evaluating this project. More Important City acknowledged people are worried about economy City completes its strategic plan Levy creates a cash reserve The cost of delaying street maintenance ($5M per year) Economy is tough Council needs to unify around the package Levy should be fore maintenance needs only Less Important Parks, pool and Flower Program deserve stable funding City employees have been cutting back Other revenue (casinos, retail) doesn’t fit our values Delaying projects will make them more expensive Perhaps if we wait, the economy will bounce back making the levy unnecessary Somewhat important Very Important City should complete Strategic Plan first 18% 70% City leaders understand that many people are worried about economy 26% 64% City must stay true to its values 20% 56% City Council needs to support the levy 25% 53% Doesn’t make sense to raise taxes in this economy 29% 51% The levy creates a cash reserve 33% 48% Packet Page 10 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 8 The parks system deserves secure funding 30% 47% Projects should be maintenance only 30% 47% City has been cutting back 34% 43% Wait until economy rebounds 24% 41% Street projects will be 3x to complete later 35% 40% The current need to repair streets will grow if we delay 42% 39% Ms. Peters commented on four pieces of information that work well together when considering next steps: appreciate, vision, plan and stand with us. Q: We would like to know what you think about various options. Should a measure combine projects into a single package or separate projects into individual ballot measure? Residents prefer separate measures to a single package (62% to 31%) -35 to 44 yrs old (78% separate) -People unaware of 2009 public process (73% separate) - SE region (39% single) -18 to 34 yrs old (46% single) - Women under 45 (36% single) Should a measure be focused mostly on maintenance projects or include both maintenance as well as capital improvement? Residents prefer a focus on maintenance over capital projects (62% to 32%) -18 to 34 yrs old (79% maint.) -Men under 45 (74% maint.) -Women under 45 (69% maint.) -45-59 yrs old (39% capital) Should a measure earmark money for specific projects or direct money into a general fund? Residents prefer to earmark money to specific projects so they have stable funding (66% to 30%) -18 to 34 yrs old (78% earmark) -Women under 45 (73% earmark) -35 to 44 yrs old (36% general) There was a preference for maintenance over capital projects and ensuring specific projects are funded. Q: There are a number of factors that affect the plans we’ve been discussing. I’d like to ask you about the cost of the plan and what projects are included. Costs less, $130/year 48% 51% Lean to costs less 3% Costs more, $210/year 37% 40% Lean to costs more 3% Neither 7% Don’t Know 1% Every large subgroup (except men) favors the less costly plan by a significant margin. The biggest subgroups: • Women 56% to 35% • Seniors 53% to 36% • SW Region 52% to 42% • People Unaware of Public Process 54% to 35% % Favoring Less Costly Plan Favor $130 Favors $230 Packet Page 11 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 9 Plan Plan Women Over 40 57% 32% NE region 57% 35% 35 to 44 yrs old 56% 36% Women 56% 35% NW region 54% 36% People Unaware of Public Process 54% 35% Overall 51% 40% % Favoring More Costly Plan Favor $130 Plan Favors $230 Plan SE region 36% 53% People Aware of Public Process 48% 49% Women under 45 53% 48% Men over 45 45% 48% Men 46% 47% Overall 51% 40% Ms. Peters provided the following points for thinking ahead to next steps: • Trend in local levies and bonds in Snohomish County since 2008: fewer measures on the ballot and a lower winning percentage. • Edmonds’ last revenue measure (Transportation Benefit District) was just recently on the ballot (November 2010) and lost by a large margin. • Elections for Council and Mayor in November 2011. • Not much time between now and August or November 2011. • High gas prices, local economic conditions not likely to improve significantly. • Women are increasingly cost sensitive since the recession began and they are 55% of your households. • Polling indicates support from a small majority…within the margin of error. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Ms. Peters focused on the 2009 Levy Committee when there was a 2010 Levy Committee and the Economic Development Commission (EDC). Ms. Peters answered when the questionnaire was written, 2009 was recognized as the starting point of the levy discussions. Staff indicated more significant outreach had occurred in 2009 compared to the work sessions in 2010. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the EDC was an outreach group and had done a tremendous amount of work. Ms. Peters answered the focus was on City-sponsored activities. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the length of a levy was discussed. Ms. Peters answered there are restrictions on what can be discussed in such a poll; polling regarding specifics such as timing, amount, ballot language, etc. cannot be paid for with City funds. In other polls, she has not found that citizens have a strong reaction to the length of a measure; they have stronger opinions about what is funded, cost, etc. Many citizens also do not have an opinion about the timing of a measure and prefer the governing body make that decision. Mayor Cooper explained he told Ms. Peters the levy discussions began in 2009. She was not provided information regarding the EDC because the poll was specifically regarding the levy. Packet Page 12 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 10 Council President Peterson explained Councilmember Wilson and he met last week to develop a concept using comments from the public, Council and staff. He reviewed how the Council got to this point: • Dec 2008: Budget includes a note committing to levy in 2009 • Council forms 2009 levy committee with 60 participants o All 8 groups support a levy, ranging in size from $2.75m to $4.5m o All 8 groups support making economic development a priority • 2009: Council votes 7 times to support a levy o Each vote unanimous o Changes direction based on Eyman initiative, FD1 talks, general concern about timing on Nov ballot • 2010: New levy committee created • Feb 2011: Council discusses levy at retreat, citizen Darrol Haug outlines possible levy options • Mar 2011: Mayor announces levy proposal • April 2011: Levy committee provides mixed feedback • Public comment: April 26, May 3 • Council deliberations: April 5, 19, 26, May 3 He relayed what the Council has heard from staff: • Streets: 97% of our streets need repair of some level • Parks: In last 15 years, added one FTE and decreased seasonal labor, while adding maintenance for 20 new sites • Buildings: Deferred maintenance, debt payments to ECA • Police: Item of greatest interest to the citizens He relayed comments made by the Mayor and Council: • Mayor: “Critically important to keep our city on a stable financial footing” • Councilmember Plunkett: “I can support a levy focused on capital and/or maintenance.” • Councilmember Buckshnis: “I’m ready to vote for those things right now (streets, parks, and the ECA).” • Councilmember Petso: “I think there is unanimous support for some level of funding for streets.” • Councilmember Bernheim: “I’m ready to support putting a levy to the voters, of some size, right now.” • Councilmember Fraley-Monillas: “I supported the TBD because I think our streets need more investment than we currently provide.” • Council President Peterson “We’ve been talking about a levy for a long time, and all of us agree there is a revenue shortfall. Now it’s time to let the voters decide.” • Councilmember Wilson: “I care deeply about getting more cops on the street here, but I am willing to set that aside in order to get broader support for a levy package.” Council President Peterson relayed their proposal: • Maintenance and Safety Levy • $2.75 million • 4 years • 2.5% annual increase Councilmember Wilson explained their proposal was developed after listening to input from the Council and the public in an effort to build as much support from the Council and the public at large as possible. Packet Page 13 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 11 He assured it was neither his nor Council President Peterson’s perfect proposal but it was their attempt at developing a proposal the Council could support. Their proposal would provide: • $800,000 – Street Maintenance • $900,000 – Parks Maintenance • $800,000 – Building Maintenance • $250,000 – Police • $2.75M – Total He provided specifics with regard to the funding: Street Maintenance • $800,000 per year • 100% to street overlays o $15 per square yard, 2” thick (grind and overlay) o Goals: Every 15-20 years for arterials Every 30-35 years for residential streets • This investment level means your street is overlaid every 55 years: o Arterials every 28-38 years o Residential every 56-65 years Parks Maintenance • $900,000 is a dedicated funding stream for parks maintenance o Maintains one of our most important capital assets: our park system o Makes investments like: Replaces oldest and most dangerous playground equipment Reestablishes turf integrity for parks so we aren’t playing on dirt or dangerous surfaces Yost Pool capital needs are increased and dramatic Fishing pier updates to support tourism: electric, lighting, cleaning station Building Maintenance • $800,000 in dedicated funding • $300,000 ECA debt o Worst case scenario o More information provided at May 17 meeting by ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain • Deferred maintenance: $500,000 o Frances Anderson Center asbestos abatement - $50,000 o Frances Anderson Center radiator replacement - $110,000 o Wade James Theater roof replacement - $50,000 Police • 1 Uniformed Officer o Buys back the officer cut in 2011 budget o Cuts since 2008: Lost 2 uniformed officers Lost 1 animal control officer Lost 1 part-time office assistant Lost DARE program Lost School Resource Officer Lost Crime Prevention Unit Packet Page 14 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 12 • Buys back Crime Prevention Unit o Allows for one uniformed officer/analyst o Allows for one civilian FTE Councilmember Wilson summarized their proposal: • $2.75 million levy • $0.43 per $1000 of assessed property • $161.25/year or $13.44/month on average home value at $375,000 • Maintenance and Safety Levy addresses concerns: o Mayor: Moves us to a stable financial footing o Council: Parks and streets maintenance a priority o Public: Buys back public safety cuts • Most importantly, this is a smart, frugal investing in our capital assets and our community safety Councilmember Petso commented the parks maintenance amount far exceeded the amount indicated in the information provided by staff in the packet. She asked whether the amount in Councilmember Wilson and Council President Peterson’s proposal included wages and benefits for parks maintenance staff. Councilmember Wilson answered there is a parks maintenance budget line item of $1.45 million. Their proposal would create a dedicated funding source of $900,000 for parks maintenance. It would increase capital maintenance projects for playground equipment, turf replacement, Yost Pool, etc. Yost Pool is also included in the $1.45 million line item. The $900,000 funds capital projects and the difference between $1.45 million can cover salaries and benefits. Councilmember Petso asked the same question regarding building maintenance. Councilmember Wilson answered of the $500,000, $200,000 is for new projects such as Frances Anderson Center asbestos abatement; the other $300,000 is for projects identified by Public Works. She asked whether there were funds in that amount allocated to wages and benefits. Councilmember Wilson commented a Councilmember did not control how every dime was spent because that was the Executive’s authority; because asphalt did not lay itself and roofs were not put on by themselves, the amount may include wages and benefits. His intent was to focus as much as possible on capital projects. Mayor Cooper asked staff to clarify how much of the maintenance is performed by City staff versus contracted out. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the information she included in the packet contains a list of park maintenance items; out of the $1.4 million budget, she estimated $1.25-1.3 million was labor – benefits and wages. There is a very small budget for supplies and repairs. Many of the projects on the maintenance list are on the list due to limited staffing levels over the past 15 years. Those items total approximately $330,000. That work can be done by adding one FTE or contracting it out. It is less expensive to add one FTE than contract out the work. Public Works Director Phil Williams advised overlays would be contracted out to a private sector company, stimulating the economy. There may be minimal City labor for planning and organizing activities. The $500,000 in building maintenance would be projects like roofs, siding, mechanical systems which are typically contracted out. There would also be some City staff time in building maintenance activities such as painting, small flooring jobs, minor building modifications. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the ECA will need $300,000 for 4 years and how the funds would be used if the economy improves or the ECA sells the naming rights. Councilmember Petso suggested that be answered during next week’s presentation by ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain. She acknowledged the ECA obligation is approximately $300,000/year. How that is budgeted and how much the ECA can provide is still being worked out. Mayor Cooper advised the $300,000 is worst case Packet Page 15 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 13 scenario. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether citizens would support an expenditure for which the City did not have exact numbers. Mayor Cooper reiterated the May 17 presentation will provide further information. As a result of discussions with Mr. Tarte regarding Finance Department staffing, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding one FTE to the Finance Department rather than the Police Department. Councilmember Wilson explained the intent of this proposal is to allow the Council and public to speak to it. They intend to move this proposal next week unless there is a different proposal; their proposal can then be amended. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if consideration had been given to separating the proposals as the survey suggested citizens prefer. Councilmember Wilson answered that is not their proposal; their proposal is 4 years, $2.75 million with a 2.5%/year increase. He invited Councilmembers to make alternate proposals or amend Council President Peterson’s and his proposal. He preferred any significant modifications be done via an independent proposal. Councilmember Petso expressed her preference for an individual item proposal. She asked whether the plan was to place a levy on the August ballot versus November. She recalled a newspaper article that said there was a cost for an August ballot but no cost for a November ballot. City Clerk Sandy Chase clarified the cost depends on what is on the ballot; the cost is shared by entities with items on the ballot. Both the primary and the general election are a better choice than a special election with regard to cost. Councilmember Petso asked whether the general election was less expensive than the primary. Ms. Chase answered it would depend on the number of issues on the ballot. Council President Peterson commented the primary driver for putting a levy on the August ballot rather than November is to provide clarity to the budgeting process. If the results of the levy are known before the budget is prepared and presented to the Council the first week of October, the projections can be much more accurate. Councilmember Wilson commented he is deeply committed to more cops on the street for personal reasons. He is willing to set that aside in an effort to achieve broader support from the Council for a levy proposal. He asked that other Councilmembers have that same open mind. He is unlikely to support 2-5 different ballot propositions because he does not want to pit one line of service against another in this economy. He preferred to have one combined levy. Councilmember Buckshnis emphasized the City will not run out of money next year; the City does not run out of money until 2014. She knows a lot of people who are unemployed and many seniors have called her to say they do will not support a levy. The Finance Committee met with the Finance Director who agreed the City needs to make its reports more citizen friendly. She anticipated a levy on the August ballot would not provide enough time to educate the public. She preferred 2-3 separate measures to provide citizens a choice. Councilmember Wilson asked when Councilmember Buckshnis would get to a point that she had enough confidence in the reporting of the numbers that she could ask voters to support a levy. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the December 31, 2010 quarterly report that has titles not found and overspending on Haines Wharf, emphasizing those issues needed to be resolved because they reflect poorly on the City Council and administration. She did not believe a levy would pass until citizens were provided information. The December 31, 2010 quarterly report on the City’s website is a “data dump” that includes amounts with titles not found. The report is an embarrassment and she has asked that it be removed from the City’s website. The March 30, 2011 quarterly report is the first report since June 2010that has made sense. Packet Page 16 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 14 Council President Peterson recognized that if Councilmember Buckshnis’ questions could be answered, the finances would be clearer to everyone. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis’ suggestion for one FTE in the Finance Department versus a Police Officer, he pointed out the need for additional Finance staff to provide clarity before a levy was placed on the ballot. He recalled a motion he made that was not supported by the Council to use funds from the Emergency Reserve to hire a finance person. His primary concern with numerous propositions, a smorgasbord approach, is the high percentage of people that the survey indicated are aware the City needs to shore up its budget. He did not support placing a “shore up the budget” proposition on the ballot that would compete with road, parks and public safety. He expressed concern with waiting to hire a person in Finance until after a levy was approved when that person was needed now to improve financial reporting in preparation for a levy. Councilmember Bernheim was confident there was no question regarding the accuracy of the reports. He agreed the City needed more user friendly reports which Darrol Haug and Councilmember Buckshnis have made progress toward. At the Finance Committee meeting tonight, Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte explained the City does not have the staff to provide the reports. He preferred not to have new employees included in the levy. Police is not his highest priority; there have been indications that crime is going down and Edmonds is not a high crime area. He preferred to discuss adding police officers during the budget discussions. He supported hiring additional staff for the Finance Department, whether via decreases in other departments or increases in the budget. Councilmember Bernheim noted the Council came close to placing a levy on the ballot a couple years ago and has made great strides with regard to economic development. The Council established the EDC who has made recommendations to the Council including hiring a consultant to study Westgate and Five Corners. Dick’s plans to locate in Edmonds and restaurants and businesses are returning to downtown. He recognized that economic development would not cure the City’s or the United States’ deficit problem. He was willing to place several propositions on the ballot, explaining that was how government compromised with the citizens. He was also amenable to a combined levy. With regard to the August or November election, Councilmember Bernheim preferred to place a levy on the November ballot because he believed the City needed a levy. He feared the voters would not approve a levy on the August ballot because the City was not prepared. He preferred to place 2-3 propositions on the November ballot and allow the candidates to talk about it and educate the voters. He feared there would be a small turnout for the August election and then it would be too late to place a levy on the November ballot. A November election will provide time to develop reports which he noted Darrol Haug is in the process of producing because City staff does not have the time to do because they are busy with revenue and expenses and required State reports. If the Council placed a combined levy on the ballot and it failed, Student Representative Gibson pointed out the City would not receive any money. However, with multiple levy options on the ballot, there is the possibility some will pass. He concluded some money was better than no money. Councilmember Wilson disagreed with Student Representative Gibson’s logic. If he asked Student Representative Gibson for $100, he might give it to him. If he asked 20 times for $5, he was guaranteed not to get $100 from Student Representative Gibson. If the Council needs to ask voters for $2.75 million for safe streets and playgrounds, the voters should not be asked 2.75 million times. The City needs more staff in Finance, Parks and the Police Department because the Council has not asked the voters for money for years and has underfunded City operations for decades. Now the Council is unable to get the reports they want because there is insufficient staff to prepare them. Citizens cannot get their phone calls answered because there is no staff to take their calls. There will always be a better time and a better way to go to the ballot but at some point the City simply needs to do it. There was a measure on the ballot in Packet Page 17 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 15 2003 and then it was decided a levy was not needed that year. An EMS levy in 2008 was passed overwhelmingly with 70% approval. A subsequent TBD ballot measure failed miserably. The City has done a stellar job putting off what can be imaged tomorrow. He summarized if not now, when? Councilmember Petso inquired about her motion last week for $700,000 for roads. Mayor Cooper recalled that motion was tabled. A subsequent motion by Councilmember Wilson to add $400,000 for parks maintenance was deferred and then withdrawn at the beginning of tonight’s levy discussion. Council President Peterson explained Councilmember Wilson and his intent was to have staff draft an ordinance with the aforementioned numbers for Council consideration at the May 17 meeting rather than the random motions the Council has made at previous meetings. Mayor Cooper reported an Everett Herald article today stated sales tax in unincorporated Snohomish County is projected to be over $2 million dollars lower at the end of 2011 than budgeted. Edmonds is on target with 25% collections at the end of the first quarter. Although Councilmember Buckshnis is correct that the City does not use up its reserves until 2014, unless the Council chooses to pass a budget for 2012 that uses more of the reserves, that doesn’t keep a one month reserve, the City will be into the one month reserve by $700,000 in 2012. He urged the Council to consider that as well as declining sales tax and home values when deciding whether to place a levy on the August or November ballot. If the levy is on the November ballot, the 2012 budget he provides the Council in October will reflect the projected shortfall. Following discussion on action taken on the motions made at last week’s meeting, Ms. Chase clarified action taken on motions last week as follows: • Motion by Councilmember Petso to put a $700,000 levy on the ballot for street maintenance. • Amendment by Councilmember Buckshnis to change the amount to $1.5 million failed. • Councilmember Wilson restated Councilmember Petso’s motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution communicating to the auditor that the City of Edmonds wants to go to the ballot with a $700,000 Street Levy. • Amendment by Councilmember Wilson to include $400,000 for parks maintenance. • Motion by Councilmember Wilson to postpone amendment to the next meeting approved. • The motion to amend was withdrawn at the beginning of the discussion of the levy this evening. Ms. Chase concluded no action was taken on Councilmember Petso’s original motion. Mayor Cooper ruled Councilmember Petso’s motion was now on the floor for discussion: COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO PUT A $700,000 LEVY ON THE BALLOT FOR STREET MAINTENANCE. Councilmember Bernheim expressed his support for the motion and his preference for the November ballot. He preferred the November ballot because it allowed additional time to enhance the public’s understanding. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO ADD THAT IT WOULD BE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. Councilmember Petso commented because this levy funded streets and would not impact the budget process, there was less difficulty with postponing it to November. Packet Page 18 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 16 Observing there were only five Councilmembers present, Mayor Cooper asked whether four votes, a majority of the Council, or only three votes, a majority of Councilmembers present, were required to pass a motion. City Attorney Jeff Taraday offered to research. Councilmember Wilson recalled when Councilmember Petso made this motion, it was in an effort to find common ground on which the Council could agree. He asked whether it was her intent to only put a levy for $700,000 on the ballot or if she had a vision for a more comprehensive strategy. Councilmember Petso recalled the Council stopped last week because it got too late to identify other common grounds. Councilmember Wilson asked if it was Councilmember Petso’s intent to have additional elements as part of a levy package. Councilmember Petso answered she preferred not to add elements to this proposal. She assumed if her proposal passed, other proposals could be made that could be combined or be placed separately on the same or a different ballot. Councilmember Wilson asked if a package could be developed that was a little bigger than Councilmember Petso wanted and smaller than he wanted if they both compromised. Councilmember Petso responded she was unwilling to begin bartering; the survey supports $700,000 for roads and the Council appeared to agree on that at the previous meeting. Nothing that happened tonight has changed her perspective. She was unable to commit to funding a police officer in an August ballot. Councilmember Wilson answered he was not asking her to do that. This is her motion and he assumed she had a plan. Councilmember Petso assumed other Councilmembers would propose items of importance to them. With regard to the number of votes to pass a motion, Mr. Taraday explained the vote was not on an ordinance; the votes were on motions that would later be returned to the Council in an ordinance. His understanding is that because it is a motion, a majority of those present, three of the five, is sufficient to pass a motion. Official action to place a levy on the ballot via adoption of a resolution or ordinance would require four votes. Councilmember Wilson observed the Council had never done that. Mr. Taraday read from an unidentified source, “the basic requirement for adoption of a motion by an assembly with a quorum is a majority vote. Majority is more than half the votes cast by persons legally entitled to vote.” THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper advised he would allow the motion to pass although he had misgivings about whether the Council could pass a motion with a 3-2 vote. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD PARKS MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $900,000. Using Councilmember Petso’s feedback where she invited other Councilmembers to add to the underlying proposition, Councilmember Wilson felt it appropriate to build toward a proposal like Mayor Cooper’s and his and Council President Peterson’s proposals. Councilmember Petso opposed the amendment because there was not yet Council consensus on the parks maintenance item particularly since it includes a variety of items currently funded by REET as well as salaries, wages and benefits. She was uncertain what the parks component should look like but she did not support park maintenance as proposed by Council President Peterson and Councilmember Wilson. Councilmember Bernheim was supportive of including parks maintenance in a levy proposal but was uncertain what the parks component should look like. He was glad to have the additional time provided Packet Page 19 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 17 by a November ballot measure to make that determination. By voting no on this proposal tonight, he was not necessarily voting no in the future. He was happy to have items combined in one levy or as separate propositions. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FAILED (2-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING YES. Councilmember Wilson understood a deficit to be when expenses exceed revenues. His understanding was the City would have a deficit of approximately $683,000 in 2012. He asked what portion of the $700,000 in the motion would be used to cover that shortfall. Mr. Tarte answered zero, there would still be an approximately $700,000 deficit because the $700,000 in the motion would be used to fund street overlays. It would have no effect on the 2012 deficit and the 2012 budget would still have an approximately $700,000 deficit. If the Council chose to fully fund street overlays at $1.5 million, Councilmember Wilson asked whether any of that new money would cover the shortfall. Mr. Tarte answered no, $1.5 million would fund street overlays, not shore up the City’s finances. Funds need to be included in a levy to shore up the budget in order to cover the deficit. The most recent projection shows the City effectively out of money December 2013. He clarified the end of 2013 shows a balance of $880,000; that amount would be spent in the first week in January 2014. Councilmember Wilson commented that scenario would likely never happen because the Mayor will make dramatic cuts to services such as the Yost Pool, senior center programs, and other programs, to ensure the City does not run out of money. If a levy is not placed on the August ballot and approved by the voters, those cuts will begin to be made this summer. Mr. Tarte explained if funds from a levy are not available in August, severe cuts will need to be made in services. In his opinion, from a purely financial point of view, the City would be better off liquidating assets rather than severely cutting services. He cited the City’s liquidation of the Fire Department equipment as an example. He summarized the City could get more for its assets if it was not gutted first. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD BUILDING MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $800,000. Councilmember Petso advised she would oppose the amendment for the same reason she opposed the prior amendment. She was hopeful that some of the building maintenance deficit would be REET eligible. Councilmember Buckshnis stated she will also vote against the amendment. The City will not actually be out of money because there is $1.9 million in the Emergency Reserve and $1.3 in the Public Safety Reserve and the City has historically been 3% under budget in salaries and benefits which is not reflected in the forecast. The Council needs to get its hands around the current numbers and forecast accordingly. Councilmember Wilson explained the $1.9 million Councilmember Buckshnis referred to is money set aside in the event of a catastrophe such as an earthquake. It is the Council’s policy not to spend that on anything other than a tsunami, earthquake, etc. The $1.3 million was almost spent on a park and the Council is now considering spending it to mitigate medical benefit inflation. None of that money goes to abating asbestos in the Frances Anderson Center as proposed by the amendment. He recognized no other Councilmembers had children that utilized the recreation services provided in the Frances Anderson Center but other families do. He recommended the Council determine a way to fund basic building maintenance by November if they did not choose to do so via this amendment. Packet Page 20 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 18 Council President Peterson asked how long $3 million, the $1.9 million plus $1.3 million Councilmember Buckshnis referred to, would last if it were moved into the General Fund to support operations. Mr. Tarte answered the levy under consideration is $2.75 million; $3 million would take the City through 2015 or 2016. The result of passing a $2.75 million levy or unrestricting $3 million was basically the same. It would not address the City’s revenue issue; in effect it would be utilizing a $3 million asset for operations and delaying the current conversation to 2015. Council President Peterson objected to simply “kicking the can down the road.” Council President Peterson recalled he drafted the ordinance restricting the $1.9 Emergency Reserve Fund. In light of the numerous disasters that have occurred around the world recently, that is a good fund for the City to have. This Council has been adamant that the $1.3 million in the Public Safety Reserve be used for capital improvements. Unless there was a drastic change in Council policy, he did not understand why those funds were being considered to cover the deficit. If the Council wanted to change that policy and liquidate that asset, that should be discussed prior to a levy. That option has not been raised at the retreat or during any other discussions. Councilmember Bernheim asked what the $800,000 would fund. Councilmember Wilson explained the $800,000 included $300,000, a worse case scenario funding for the ECA. That amount is likely to be slightly less but not a lot less. The remaining $500,000 is a dedicated funding source for building maintenance. It secures the existing $300,000 already in the General Fund for building maintenance and adds $200,000 for items there is not enough money in REET to cover. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her preference for separate ballot propositions rather than bundling levy items. She was unwilling to support $800,000 until she had more information regarding the ECA debt. She was willing to support $500,000. Councilmember Bernheim advised he would support the motion with the understanding he may change some of the details later. In principle he supports putting the ECA debt to the voters whether in a bundled proposition or separate propositions. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE $250,000 FOR POLICE. Councilmember Wilson explained these funds would buy back one police officer. The City currently has 53 uniformed officers and had 56 in 2008. It will also buy back the Crime Prevention Unit that was cut from the budget by funding one uniformed and one civilian personnel. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FAILED (2-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCREASE THE LEVY AMOUNT BY $1 MILLION TO FUND THE DEFICIT AND SHORE UP THE BUDGET FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS. Councilmember Bernheim advised he will support the amendment because it allows the voters to decide. He viewed this as a good topic for a levy. He was open to a combined levy or separate levy propositions. Councilmember Petso advised she will vote against the amendment as well as her original motion as it appears the items are being bundled into one levy. Packet Page 21 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 19 UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper restated the motion with amendments as follows: TO PUT A LEVY ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT WITH $700,000 FOR STREET OVERLAYS, $800,000 FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND $1 MILLION TO FUND THE DEFICIT. Councilmember Wilson hated that there was no funds for cops in the motion, that it would be on the November ballot, that there were no funds for park maintenance but he was willing to support the motion because at a bare minimum it adds some investments and shores up the budget. This is far from a perfect levy proposal and is a bitter, painful pill but he argued it was as bitter for him as anyone else. If the Council was unable to get consensus on this compromise, he was doubtful the Council would reach consensus on anything. He pointed out this meets Councilmember Petso more than halfway, funds what Councilmember Buckshnis has said she wants to fund and funds a few of the things he wants to fund. He urged the Council to support the motion and bring this levy proposal back for public comment next week. Councilmember Petso did not support the motion. There was no way that within an hour of hearing about asbestos in the Frances Anderson Center that she would support funds for building maintenance. She noted there would be public comment next week and an opportunity to vote on a final ordinance, providing the Council time to make improvements. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the ECA debt had increased from $100,000 to $300,000 and she has no details. She reiterated the need to shore up the City’s financials to improve citizens’ understanding. Councilmember Bernheim commented it was not his objective to sour the basic roads proposal. He also did not want to be pigeon holed into maintaining the positions he supported tonight in a final ordinance. He would support the motion with the understanding there would be further public comment and opportunity for additional modifications. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND PETSO VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper advised he will work with staff and Mr. Taraday to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration next week. The ordinance will be drafted so that it can be amended. He suggested Councilmembers with amendments provide them to Mr. Taraday to allow him to draft appropriate language. It is not as critical to have the ordinance perfected next week as the motion directed the levy be placed on the November ballot. He acknowledged the ordinance could be amended to place the levy on the August ballot. Council President Peterson advised ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain will make a presentation to the Council at next week’s meeting. Also at the May 17 meeting, Councilmember Wilson will provide a summary of the self-insurance process. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, relayed a news report regarding a shooting at Edmonds-Woodway High School today and the subsequent lock down of five schools as a precaution. Next, he encouraged the public to visit the Farmers Market on Saturday. He agreed with plans to make cuts if voters did not approve a levy. Packet Page 22 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 20 He advised although property values have declined, property taxes in Snohomish County have increased. With regard to the levy, he asked whether the rate would be fixed for 4 years. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, questioned the Council’s comment that the levy proposal may be changed based on audience comment when the Council did not pay any attention to the poll which was well done and objective. With regard to a smorgasbord levy, he asked the Snohomish County Auditor whether that was possible. They responded that was very complex and recommended he confer with the City Attorney. He referred to Mayor Cooper’s comment at last week’s meeting, it is clear by Mr. Wambolt’s comments that the silly season has arrived, it’s election season. Mr. Wambolt asked Mayor Cooper to identify what he said that was incorrect; Mayor Cooper may disagree with his opinions but his facts were correct. Mayor Cooper also stated that concessions have already been made by employees and to illustrate, he said merit pay increases have been reduced from 3% to 1.5 %. To most people concessions mean compensation was temporarily reduced; the only temporary reduction was in 2009. A Councilmember said last week that the current labor contract negotiations could yield some pleasant news; with compensation comprising 52% of total expenses, he recommended the scope of a levy be delayed until after labor negotiations are complete. He recognized the City needed a levy but would not support a levy until expenses were reduced. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the comment that the City would be out of money by 2014, suggesting the Council start cutting costs. He feared there would be no change even if a levy passed because the primary increase was in salaries, wages and benefits. The current levy proposal provides funds for building maintenance and other things but does not solve the labor and benefit problem. Next, he commented that in a bad economy private business either raises its prices or it reduces hours, reduces staff and cuts prices. He disagreed with the Council’s choice to raise prices via a levy. He referred to Snohomish County’s anticipated decline in sales tax revenue and subsequent 2.6% reduction in expenses to cover the shortfall. He suggested Mayor Cooper make similar reductions in expenses. His family participated in the survey and he found there were too many questions, the survey was too long, questions were confusing and he did not have enough information regarding some concepts such as the strategic plan, the City remaining true to its values and shoring up the budget. He suggested in the future a survey be shorter and would be less expensive. 5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper clarified there was no shooting at Edmonds-Woodway High School. The School was put in lockdown because the Police received a 911 call that there was possibly a shooting. The Edmonds Police Department responded and was on scene in three minutes and made a decision to search the school and lock down Edmonds-Woodway High School, College Place Elementary School, College Place Middle School, and Chase Lake Elementary School. After searching the school it was determined that nothing had happened at the school. School administrators confirmed nothing had happened and thanked the Police Department for responding appropriately. It has since been determined that the 911 call was a hoax. 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Wilson reported Council President Peterson, Mayor Cooper and he attended the Climate Solutions breakfast. The City partners with Climate Solutions to advance clean energy solutions and efficiency. Mayor Cooper, Councilmember Petso and he attended the Regional Fire Authority meeting in Lynnwood last week. On Thursday Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and he are meeting with a group to explore a public-private partnership for a year-round facility at Yost Pool. He also planned to attend the Cascade Land Conservancy breakfast on Thursday. He remarked the Council has been talking Packet Page 23 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 21 about a levy since 2008 and anticipated if he is still on the Council in four years, the Council will still be talking about it. Councilmember Bernheim explained the Council would be talking about levies every couple of years because that was how the Tim Eyman law worked; the new paradigm in local government is the City Council cannot pass tax increases; property taxes can only increase 1% per year, therefore the Council must ask voters for any additional increases. The City tries to keep the cost of government increasing at 1% per year just like the public tries to keep their family budget from increasing more than 1% per year. He anticipated the number of families who were successful at keeping their budgets from increasing more than 1% was quite low unless difficult cuts were being made or assets were being liquidated. He looked forward to public comment on the current levy proposal. He was uncomfortable with the poll and did not think it was necessary to spend that kind of money to ask questions of voters; that is the Council’s role in local government. Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Rutledge’s question regarding a 4 year levy, observing the current levy proposal does not specify a duration. When she made the original motion, it was her understanding it was a 3-year levy; however, now at least two of the three who supported tonight’s levy proposal have presented a 4-year levy. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she is interested in funding for parks maintenance. Mayor Cooper’s levy proposal had $275,000 for parks compared to Councilmember Wilson and Council President Peterson’s proposal that included $900,000 for parks. She referred to Councilmember Wilson’s statement on March 15 that he did not support the 2011 budget or any amendments because he did not believe the financials, pointing out nothing that changed since that time. March 2011 is the first time anything substantial has been provided. Councilmember Wilson responded there is a new Mayor and a new Finance Director. Council President Peterson read an email from a civil engineer working on the Panera Bread project that will convert the existing Barlee’s Restaurant into a new café and bakery with a drive through lane. The letter stated there are a lot of design issues on the project and he has been working with Jeanie McConnell on storm runoff issues. He complimented her knowledge, professionalism and courtesy, stating she has gone out of her way to help him and his client understand the City’s codes, explore different options, answer design questions and follow up with other members of staff when code determinations were needed. At a time when many municipalities are either unwilling or unable to take the time to assist developers, Jeanie has been the exception. It is a refreshing change to work with some who listens to concerns questions and not just say read the code. Council President Peterson thanked Ms. McConnell and other 2nd Floor staff for doing a job that is crucial to economic development in the City. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Packet Page 24 of 290 AM-3949   Item #: 2. C. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Jim Tarte Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type:Action  Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #125385 through #125526 dated May 12, 2011 for $1,189,729.10. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue: Expenditure:1,189,729.10 Fiscal Impact: Claims $1,189,729.10 Attachments Claim Checks 5-12-11 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Jim Tarte 05/12/2011 10:55 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 11:47 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/12/2011 11:48 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 02:35 PM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 05/12/2011 09:16 AM Final Approval Date: 05/12/2011  Packet Page 25 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125385 5/12/2011 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 293683 RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CC RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12 RODENT CONTROL293728 RODENT CONTROL/CITYWIDE 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08 Total :175.20 125386 5/12/2011 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8997 Monthly Wholesale Charges fo 4/30/2011 Monthly Wholesale Charges fo 4/30/2011 411.000.654.534.800.330.00 93,546.83 Total :93,546.83 125387 5/12/2011 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001337335 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 126.34 Public Works Facility0197-001337415 Public Works Facility 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 25.67 Public Works Facility 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 97.56 Public Works Facility 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 97.56 Public Works Facility 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 97.56 Public Works Facility 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 97.56 Public Works Facility 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 97.57 GARBAGE FOR F/S #160197-001337481 garbage for F/S #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 131.88 GARBAGE FOR MCC0197-001338207 garbage for MCC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 60.02 1Page: Packet Page 26 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :831.72125387 5/12/2011 061540 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 125388 5/12/2011 065568 ALLWATER INC 050511039 COEWASTE DRINKING WATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 37.37 Total :37.37 125389 5/12/2011 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC SQ88 NPDES SAMPLING NPDES SAMPLING 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 130.00 Total :130.00 125390 5/12/2011 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH 40363511 Unit 31 - Hydraulic Parts Unit 31 - Hydraulic Parts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 41.06 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.65 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.20 Total :59.91 125391 5/12/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5533376 UNIFORM MAINTENANCE PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM MAINTENANCE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 25.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.38 Total :27.40 125392 5/12/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5533384 21580001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.38 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.40 Total :73.78 125393 5/12/2011 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM PARKS FAX MODEM 2Page: Packet Page 27 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125393 5/12/2011 (Continued)064343 AT&T 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 44.84 Total :44.84 125394 5/12/2011 073643 AUTOLINE CONTROLS INC 312087 CONTROLLERS CONTROLLERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2,310.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 45.03 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 223.73 Total :2,578.76 125395 5/12/2011 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 17955 BURIAL SUPPLIES BURIAL SUPPLIES: SURABIAN 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 393.00 BURIAL SUPPLIES18022 BURIAL SUPPLIES: BALLOUGH 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 393.00 Total :786.00 125396 5/12/2011 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 8812 Finance Director ad (#11-13) Finance Director ad (#11-13) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 23.98 Custodian ad (#11-16) 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 19.86 Total :43.84 125397 5/12/2011 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0003845 E8GB.SERVICES 3/26-4/22/11 E8GB.Services 3/26-4/22/11 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 183.60 Total :183.60 125398 5/12/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 861489-01 INV#861489-01 - EDMONDS PD - TIE CLIPS TIE BAR/SEAL & LTRS (MALE) 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 84.75 3Page: Packet Page 28 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125398 5/12/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP TIE BAR/SEAL & LTRS (FEMALE) 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 50.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 12.88 INV#863264 - EDMONDS PD - BOWER863264 SUMMIT II BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 725.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 68.88 INV#871414 - EDMONDS PD - SERVICE BARS871414 SERVICE BARS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 65.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.18 INV#872913 CREDIT FOR SWITCHES872913 CREDIT FOR DEFECTIVE SWITCHES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 -76.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 -7.28 INV#872913-01 - EDMONDS PD - SWITCHES872913-01 SWITCH ASSEMBLY FOR SL-20X 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 76.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 7.28 INV#873320 - EDMONDS PD - NAMETAGS873320 NAMETAGS - GANNON 001.000.410.521.100.240.00 24.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.240.00 2.35 INV#876309 - EDMONDS PD - GANNON876309 SEW NAME EMBLEM ON GARMENT 001.000.410.521.100.240.00 4.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.240.00 0.43 4Page: Packet Page 29 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,045.57125398 5/12/2011 002500 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 125399 5/12/2011 070334 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS STORES 2523-143693 Unit 337 - Oil Seal, Super Glue Unit 337 - Oil Seal, Super Glue 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.14 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.77 Total :8.91 125400 5/12/2011 072828 CASE POWER AND EQUIPMENT G15788 Unit 3 - Repairs Unit 3 - Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 491.24 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 46.67 Total :537.91 125401 5/12/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 168478 MUREX MUREX 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 156.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.85 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTIESRN04111035 HELIUM FOR PARTY BALLOONS 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 11.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 1.05 Total :183.21 125402 5/12/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN4111036 2954000 CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 36.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 3.47 Total :39.97 125403 5/12/2011 073616 CFO SELECTIONS LLC 6891 Jim Tarte - Interim Finance DIrector 5Page: Packet Page 30 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125403 5/12/2011 (Continued)073616 CFO SELECTIONS LLC Jim Tarte - Interim Finance DIrector 001.000.310.514.100.410.00 5,093.75 Total :5,093.75 125404 5/12/2011 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT14121 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #14121 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 106.40 Total :106.40 125405 5/12/2011 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 19262757 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 709.81 Total :709.81 125406 5/12/2011 069376 CITY OF EDMONDS E6MA.ROW E6MA.ROW PERMIT E6MA.ROW Permit 129.000.240.595.700.410.00 260.00 Total :260.00 125407 5/12/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8630 INV#8630 CUST #47 EDMONDS PD - MAR R&B PRISONER R&B MARCH 2011 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 1,026.67 Total :1,026.67 125408 5/12/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8635 46 5/3/2011 O & M RECONCILIATION 411.000.655.535.800.471.00 344,223.00 Total :344,223.00 125409 5/12/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8634 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS 411.000.655.535.800.472.00 13,800.83 Total :13,800.83 125410 5/12/2011 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH Water Useage for the Month of April 2011 6Page: Packet Page 31 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125410 5/12/2011 (Continued)035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 411.000.654.534.800.330.00 503.40 Total :503.40 125411 5/12/2011 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 37925 2 ECDC Code Books for new PB Members 2 ECDC Code Books for new PB Members 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 153.30 Total :153.30 125412 5/12/2011 062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC RO 17526 Unit 405 - Cover Repairs Unit 405 - Cover Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 240.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.86 Unit 183 - Body RepairsRO 17530 Unit 183 - Body Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,536.67 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 145.99 Total :1,946.12 125413 5/12/2011 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 3B829 Unit EQ73PO - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Unit EQ73PO - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 22,038.00 8.2% Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,823.52 Unit EQ75PO - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria3-B830 Unit EQ75PO - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 22,038.00 8.2% Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,823.52 EQ76PO - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria3-B832 EQ76PO - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 22,038.00 8.2% Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,823.52 7Page: Packet Page 32 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125413 5/12/2011 (Continued)069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC Unit eq77po - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria3B833 Unit eq77po - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 22,038.00 8.2% Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,823.52 Unit EQ78PO - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria3-B834 Unit EQ78PO - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 22,038.00 8.2% Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,823.52 Unit eq79po - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria3B835 Unit eq79po - 2011 Ford Crown Victoria 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 22,038.00 8.2% Sales Tax 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 1,823.52 Total :143,169.12 125414 5/12/2011 073654 COMMERCIAL MAINT CHEM CORP 48430 GRAFFITI REMOVER GRAFFITI REMOVER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 99.99 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 31.36 Total :131.35 125415 5/12/2011 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING APRIL 2011 DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY - APR - EDMONDS PD DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY 04/2011 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 875.40 Total :875.40 125416 5/12/2011 073647 DALAN, KAIJA DALAN0504 REFUND REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 8.00 Total :8.00 125417 5/12/2011 072189 DATASITE 69476 INV#69476 - EDMONDS PD 8Page: Packet Page 33 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125417 5/12/2011 (Continued)072189 DATASITE SHREDDING 4/7/11-64 GAL TOTE 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 80.00 Total :80.00 125418 5/12/2011 072189 DATASITE 69441 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS Doc Shred Services City Clerk 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00 Doc Shred Services Finance 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00 Total :50.00 125419 5/12/2011 069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PWTF-107118 LOAN #PP-09-951-014 Pr Pmt CTED 2009 Water Comprehensive 411.000.654.582.340.780.00 18,000.00 LOAN #PW-02-691-019PWTF-81723 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 10869 2002 Sanitary 411.000.655.582.100.780.00 36,450.00 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 10869 2002 Sanitary 411.000.655.592.100.830.00 2,187.00 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 10869 2002 Sanitary 414.000.656.582.100.780.00 34,875.00 Pr & Int Pmt CTED 10869 2002 Sanitary 414.000.656.592.100.830.00 2,092.50 LOAN #PW-02-691-PRE-123PWTF-87620 Pr Pmt CTED 11830 220th St SW 112.506.630.591.950.780.00 18,143.27 Int Pmt CTED 11830 220th St SW 112.506.630.592.950.830.00 1,088.60 LOAN #PW-04-691-029PWTF-87652 Pr Pmt CTED 13873 220th St SW 112.506.630.591.951.780.00 21,176.47 Int Pmt CTED 13873 220th St SW 112.506.630.592.951.830.00 1,482.35 LOAN #PW-04-691-030PWTF-89344 Pr Pmt CTED 13818 Stormwater Outfall 9Page: Packet Page 34 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125419 5/12/2011 (Continued)069479 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 411.000.652.582.100.780.00 32,062.50 Int Pmt CTED 13818 Stormwater Outfall 411.000.652.592.100.830.00 2,244.38 LOAN #PW-04-691-031PWTF-90955 Pr Pmt CTED 13819 5 Corner Pump Station 411.000.654.582.100.780.00 24,269.74 Int Pmt CTED 13819 5 Corner Pump 411.000.654.592.100.830.00 1,698.88 LOAN #PW-05-691-015PWTF-93726 Pr Pmt CTED 15162 Sewer Lift Station 411.000.655.582.350.780.00 67,614.82 Int Pmt CTED 15162 Sewer Lift Station 411.000.655.592.350.830.00 5,071.11 LOAN #PW-06-962-012PWTF-97974 Int Pmt CTED 17005 100th Ave W 112.200.630.592.950.831.00 2,630.53 Pr Pmt CTED 17005 100th Ave W 112.200.630.591.950.781.00 32,881.58 Total :303,968.73 125420 5/12/2011 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 04/21/11-5/11/11 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 165.00 Total :165.00 125421 5/12/2011 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2011040104 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for April 2011 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,258.40 Total :1,258.40 125422 5/12/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3198 1/6/ & 3/3/11 MINUTES SO SNO CITIES MTG 1/6/11 & 3/3/11 So Sno Cities Meeting 001.000.000.237.910.000.00 102.00 Total :102.00 10Page: Packet Page 35 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125423 5/12/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3196 MINUTE TAKING 5/3 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 375.00 Total :375.00 125424 5/12/2011 073648 DOUMA, ANDREA DOUMA0506 REFUND REFUND DUE TO CANCELLED RENTAL 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 30.00 Total :30.00 125425 5/12/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 34154 OIL OIL 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 5.99 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 0.57 Total :6.56 125426 5/12/2011 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP KENNEMUR0504 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS FOR ALISON AND 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 150.00 Total :150.00 125427 5/12/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU22690 SUPPLIES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.81 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.54 Total :9.35 125428 5/12/2011 063181 FITTINGS INC 00088470 Unit 3 - Hose Assemblies Unit 3 - Hose Assemblies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 203.62 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.34 Unit 31 - Hose Ends, JIC Ends, Hose00088506 Unit 31 - Hose Ends, JIC Ends, Hose 11Page: Packet Page 36 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125428 5/12/2011 (Continued)063181 FITTINGS INC 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 258.81 Total :481.77 125429 5/12/2011 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 175316 May 2011 - Section 125 plan fees May 2011 - Section 125 plan fees 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 25.00 Total :25.00 125430 5/12/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.37 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 60.80 Total :103.17 125431 5/12/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425 771-5553 03 0210 1014522641 07 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 94.86 03 0210 1079569413 10425 NW1-0060 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.47 03 0210 1099569419 02425 NW1-0155 AUTO DIALER 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 218.12 Total :354.45 125432 5/12/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-197-0932 TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 266.75 TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 266.74 SEWER - PW TELEMETRY425-774-1031 SEWER - PW TELEMETRY 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.93 12Page: Packet Page 37 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125432 5/12/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281 LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 39.87 1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530 1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.75 Total :660.04 125433 5/12/2011 068265 FRONTIER ONLINE 32000787 WATER - BROADBAND SERVICE Water- Broadband Service for May 2011 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 79.99 Total :79.99 125434 5/12/2011 073649 GANDEE, KARIN GANDEE0504 REFUND REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 11.00 Total :11.00 125435 5/12/2011 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 100038 Fleet Tire Inventory - 24- EAG RS A Fleet Tire Inventory - 24- EAG RS A 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 2,411.76 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 229.12 Total :2,640.88 125436 5/12/2011 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 09555.00-7 E1FD.SERVICES 4/2-4/30/11 E1FD.Services 4/24-4/30/11 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 665.87 Total :665.87 125437 5/12/2011 073533 H2NATION PUBLISHING INC 1205 APR-11 WEB DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Web Development Services April-11 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 6,255.00 Total :6,255.00 125438 5/12/2011 073650 HAPPY HEARTS MONTESSORI HAPPYHEARTS0502 REFUND 13Page: Packet Page 38 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125438 5/12/2011 (Continued)073650 HAPPY HEARTS MONTESSORI REFUND OF PLAYZONE AMOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 5.00 Total :5.00 125439 5/12/2011 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 116770 Unit 134 - Bushings Unit 134 - Bushings 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.54 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.62 Unit 337 - Oil117035 Unit 337 - Oil 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.80 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.84 Unit 776 - Seal Assembly Oil117132 Unit 776 - Seal Assembly Oil 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.05 Unit 129 - Bushings117430 Unit 129 - Bushings 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.54 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.62 Total :36.01 125440 5/12/2011 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 35 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 7.52 Total :7.52 125441 5/12/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 3093139 6035322500959949 SURGE PROTECTOR/BATTERIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 90.83 9.5% Sales Tax 14Page: Packet Page 39 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125441 5/12/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 8.63 60353225009599496036774 WOOD GLUE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.02 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.95 60353225009599496082948 POLY SHEET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 219.90 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.89 60353225009599498080147 SILICONE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 53.20 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.05 60353225009599498080255 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 42.94 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 4.08 60353225009599498095948 COPPER WIRE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.48 60353225009599499038034 LUMBER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.64 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.01 Total :473.62 125442 5/12/2011 073651 HONIGBAUM, STACY HONIGBAUM0504 REFUND REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 15Page: Packet Page 40 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125442 5/12/2011 (Continued)073651 HONIGBAUM, STACY 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 15.00 Total :15.00 125443 5/12/2011 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fac Maint - Trash Bags, Big Fold Paper Fac Maint - Trash Bags, Big Fold Paper 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 303.79 Total :303.79 125444 5/12/2011 062899 HUFF, ARIELE HUFF13270 WRITE ABOUT YOUR LIFE ONLINE CLASS WRITE ABOUT YOUR LIFE: ON LINE CLASS 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 67.90 Total :67.90 125445 5/12/2011 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 22109 E0JA.SERVICES THRU APRIL 30, 2011 E0JA.Services thru April 30, 2011 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 504.70 Total :504.70 125446 5/12/2011 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 481767-1 Shop Tool - Handsaw Shop Tool - Handsaw 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 141.75 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 8.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 14.28 Total :164.53 125447 5/12/2011 070042 IKON 84695738 Lease - MP171SPF Copier Lease - MP171SPF Copier 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66 Total :30.66 125448 5/12/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1869193 Service appreciation supplies Service appreciation supplies 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 75.57 9.5% Sales Tax 16Page: Packet Page 41 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125448 5/12/2011 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 7.17 Total :82.74 125449 5/12/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1869149 Pens Soap Batteries Pens Soap Batteries 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 80.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 7.65 Total :88.29 125450 5/12/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1869127 Water Dept - Rolling File Water Dept - Rolling File 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 135.00 Water Dept - Rolling File 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 134.99 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.83 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 12.82 Total :295.64 125451 5/12/2011 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2965498 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00 Total :15.00 125452 5/12/2011 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 531688 Shop Tools - Geared Combo Wrench Shop Tools - Geared Combo Wrench 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 55.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 5.27 Shop Supplies - Inflator Gauge, 6v532449 Shop Supplies - Inflator Gauge, 6v 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 173.35 Freight 17Page: Packet Page 42 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125452 5/12/2011 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 17.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 18.14 Shop Tool - Driver Bit Assort, Work534800 Shop Tool - Driver Bit Assort, Work 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 101.93 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 9.68 Shop Supplies535547 Shop Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 131.11 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.31 Unit 648 - Wheel Covers535716 Unit 648 - Wheel Covers 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 66.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.12 Total :616.91 125453 5/12/2011 072367 ITA AMD111021 2011 MEMBERSHIP DUES/PUBLC UTILITY 2011 MEMBERSHIP DUES/PUBLC UTILITY 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 255.00 Total :255.00 125454 5/12/2011 064934 JOHN BARKER LANDSCAPE 11-4-7 MILLTOWN COURTYARD PROJECT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR MILLTOWN 125.000.640.575.500.410.00 2,160.00 Total :2,160.00 125455 5/12/2011 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3476786 INV#3476786 CUST #100828 - EDMONDS PD 18Page: Packet Page 43 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125455 5/12/2011 (Continued)072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 233.40 HANDLING FEE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 22.17 Total :290.57 125456 5/12/2011 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 04112011-03 City Car Wash City Car Wash 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.03 Total :5.03 125457 5/12/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG050711 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 5/7/11 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00 Total :105.00 125458 5/12/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT Lang, Robert City Hall Monitor for 5/5/11 Tree Brd City Hall Monitor for 5/5/11 Tree Brd 001.000.110.511.100.410.00 36.00 Total :36.00 125459 5/12/2011 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC MAY-11 05-11 LEGALS FEES 05-11 Legal fees 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 32,000.00 Total :32,000.00 125460 5/12/2011 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 29325 2795 THERMOSTAT REPLACEMENT 411.000.656.538.800.480.23 2,288.07 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.23 217.37 Total :2,505.44 125461 5/12/2011 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 37 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 19Page: Packet Page 44 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125461 5/12/2011 (Continued)019920 MCCANN, MARIAN LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.290.00 5,980.50 Total :5,980.50 125462 5/12/2011 073645 MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN 56430 E6DB.MEDIATION.PAY 50% OF BALANCE E6DB.Mediation.Pay 50% of Balance 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,716.40 Total :1,716.40 125463 5/12/2011 063773 MICROFLEX 00019999 04-11 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM TAX AUDIT PROGRAM 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 218.64 Total :218.64 125464 5/12/2011 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 125638 131 PROPANE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 26.46 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.51 Total :28.97 125465 5/12/2011 069519 MONFORT, MARY MONFORT0503 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT FOR WA STATE ARTS 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 325.00 Total :325.00 125466 5/12/2011 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 1-10226129 Unit 22 - Head Unit 22 - Head 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 106.44 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.54 Unit 22 - Repairs1-10226301 Unit 22 - Repairs 20Page: Packet Page 45 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125466 5/12/2011 (Continued)021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 476.43 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 43.83 Total :653.24 125467 5/12/2011 063777 MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP.1106007 CLERK'S INDEX Software Support 001.000.250.514.300.480.00 499.00 Total :499.00 125468 5/12/2011 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 11-1196-3 E1JA.SERVICES THRU 3/31/11 E1JA.Services thru 3/31/11 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 35,828.12 E1JA.SERVICES THRU 3/31/1111-1199-3 E1JA.Services thru 3/31/11 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 690.50 E1JA.Services thru 3/31/11 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 757.00 Total :37,275.62 125469 5/12/2011 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0451151-IN Shop Tools - Rando HD Shop Tools - Rando HD 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 66.67 Filter 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.03 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 6.34 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.48 Total :78.52 125470 5/12/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-280253 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: WILLOW CREEK FISH 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 172.35 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-283277 21Page: Packet Page 46 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125470 5/12/2011 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC FIELD 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 191.17 Total :363.52 125471 5/12/2011 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 209 Joint PB/EDC Meeting Minutes Joint PB/EDC Meeting Minutes 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 416.00 Planning Board Minutetaker 4/27/11000 00212 Planning Board Minutetaker 4/27/11 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 432.00 Total :848.00 125472 5/12/2011 070100 NW WA SUBSECTION, PNWS-AWWA 05092011 SHORT SCHOOL/DANIELSON/VAUGHAN SHORT SCHOOL/DANIELSON/VAUGHAN 411.000.656.538.800.490.71 360.00 Total :360.00 125473 5/12/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 700680 INV#700680 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD COVEY PLANNER REFILL TO 7/12 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 20.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.93 INV#871499 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD871499 POST IT NOTES 1.5X2 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.01 POST IT NOTES 3X3 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 25.84 POST IT NOTES 3X5 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 34.00 POCKET MEMO BOOKS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.60 SHARPIES INDUSTRIAL MARKERS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.42 22Page: Packet Page 47 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :119.35125473 5/12/2011 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 125474 5/12/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 855452 LABELS, GLUESTICKS LABELS, GLUE STICKS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 17.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.64 LEAFLET HOLDER873299 LEAFLET HOLDER 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 7.14 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 0.67 BATTERIES/TAPE894810 AAA BATTERIES, TAPE 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 14.26 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 1.36 Total :42.31 125475 5/12/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 839355 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 128.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.23 Total :140.99 125476 5/12/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 848225 PW - Office Supplies PW - Office Supplies 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 128.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 12.23 Total :140.95 125477 5/12/2011 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER April, 2011 APR-11COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL Emergency Medical Services & Trauma 001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,567.26 23Page: Packet Page 48 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125477 5/12/2011 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER PSEA 1 & 2 Account 001.000.000.237.130.000.00 30,967.34 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.000.237.150.000.00 130.50 State Patrol Death Investigations 001.000.000.237.170.000.00 795.99 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.000.237.180.000.00 5,498.69 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.000.237.200.000.00 164.63 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,995.00 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.000.237.260.000.00 556.20 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.000.237.290.000.00 55.55 Multi-Model Transportation 001.000.000.237.300.000.00 55.55 Total :42,786.71 125478 5/12/2011 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 691171 04-11 LEGAL FEES April 2011 Legal Fees 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 2,932.75 Total :2,932.75 125479 5/12/2011 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 13.14 820 15TH ST SW0001520 820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 31.02 820 15TH ST SW0001530 820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 18.57 5TH & ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER0002930 24Page: Packet Page 49 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125479 5/12/2011 (Continued)026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 5TH & ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 14.45 9803 EDMONDS WAY0005060 9803 EDMONDS WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 14.45 Total :91.63 125480 5/12/2011 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 166.76 Total :166.76 125481 5/12/2011 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00060187 Unit 55 - Repairs Unit 55 - Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 5,465.22 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 519.20 Total :5,984.42 125482 5/12/2011 026560 PACIFIC AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CO SI-12388 Fleet - Separator Fleet - Separator 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 252.93 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.28 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.09 Total :312.30 125483 5/12/2011 073642 PACIFIC NW TITLE OF SNO CO 3375-31483 E1GA.TITLE SEARCH E1GA.Title Search 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 350.00 9.2% Sales Tax 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 32.20 Total :382.20 25Page: Packet Page 50 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125484 5/12/2011 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION D13969 B/W copy overage fee B/W copy overage fee 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 7.94 B/W copy overage fee 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 7.94 B/W copy overage fee 411.000.652.542.900.480.00 7.94 B/W copy overage fee 111.000.653.542.900.480.00 7.95 Color copy overage fee 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 31.76 Color copy overage fee 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 31.76 Color copy overage fee 411.000.652.542.900.480.00 31.76 Color copy overage fee 111.000.653.542.900.480.00 31.77 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 3.77 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 3.77 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.480.00 3.77 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.480.00 3.78 Total :173.91 125485 5/12/2011 073542 PAUL, JOAN PAUL0506 REFUND REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 81.00 Total :81.00 125486 5/12/2011 073652 PERRINE, SUSAN aPERRINE13872 A STROKE OF GENIUS A STROKE OF GENIUS #13872 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 60.00 26Page: Packet Page 51 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :60.00125486 5/12/2011 073652 073652 PERRINE, SUSAN 125487 5/12/2011 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH051011 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT UNIFORM PANTS FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAM 001.000.640.574.350.240.00 28.45 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 10.91 MILEAGE FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAM 001.000.640.574.350.430.00 10.71 UNIFORM PANTS FOR DISCOVERY PROGRAM 001.000.640.574.350.240.00 35.03 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 19.01 REFRESHMENTS FOR PLANTING DAY @ PARK 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 34.19 DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 14.74 PRINTING OF BROCHURES FOR MEMORIAL DAY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 61.32 Total :214.36 125488 5/12/2011 028400 PITNEY BOWES INC 734419 C/A 2758-6860-20-0 Maint Agreement for folding/inserting 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 539.42 Maint Agreement for folding/inserting 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 539.41 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 51.24 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.480.00 51.24 Total :1,181.31 125489 5/12/2011 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 2011-3804 1st Qtr 2011 PD testing fees 1st Qtr 2011 PD testing fees 001.000.220.516.210.410.00 700.00 27Page: Packet Page 52 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :700.00125489 5/12/2011 068697 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 125490 5/12/2011 073644 QUALITY CONTROLS CORP S6112-1 PROGAMMING PROGAMMING 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 990.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 94.05 Total :1,084.05 125491 5/12/2011 065579 QUIKSIGN 59091 Sign Install - PLN 20110007 (GRE) Sign Install - PLN 20110007 (GRE) 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 185.06 Sign Install - PLN 20100073 Open Bible59102 Sign Install - PLN 20100073 Open Bible 001.000.620.558.600.410.11 185.06 Total :370.12 125492 5/12/2011 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 117476 INSCRIPTION INSCRIPTION: LAWS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 Total :80.00 125493 5/12/2011 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 1-768366 Unit 31- Part Unit 31- Part 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 174.95 Total :174.95 125494 5/12/2011 067690 ROSS, LINDA Ross, Linda City Hall Monitor for 2010 CLC 4/21/11 City Hall Monitor for 2010 CLC 4/21/11 001.000.110.511.100.410.00 36.00 Total :36.00 125495 5/12/2011 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY APRIL 2011 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD -ANIMAL DISPOSAL #834076- 2 NPC 4/18/11 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 21.36 Total :21.36 28Page: Packet Page 53 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125496 5/12/2011 069593 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 00446-604962 Unit 648 - Service Unit 648 - Service 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 142.64 Total :142.64 125497 5/12/2011 066738 SETCOM CORPORATION 8585 Unit 203 - Headset Unit 203 - Headset 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 260.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.83 Total :268.83 125498 5/12/2011 068177 SHRM 9004010236 SHRM Membership fee - Hardie (8/1/11 - SHRM Membership fee - Hardie (8/1/11 - 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 180.00 Total :180.00 125499 5/12/2011 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0122870-IN Unit eq69wa - 2 Amber Mounts Unit eq69wa - 2 Amber Mounts 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 751.20 Unit 6 - 4-Amber Vertex LED 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 266.64 Freight 511.100.657.594.480.640.00 27.68 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.82 Total :1,055.34 125500 5/12/2011 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-232326 Water Dept Truck - EQ69 - Max-Frame Water Dept Truck - EQ69 - Max-Frame 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 172.96 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.43 Total :189.39 125501 5/12/2011 036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D 36 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 29Page: Packet Page 54 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125501 5/12/2011 (Continued)036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 124.45 Total :124.45 125502 5/12/2011 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARR/81461793 Fleet - Returns - Socket, Terminal Tool Fleet - Returns - Socket, Terminal Tool 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -54.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -5.13 Shop Tools - Hose Clamp PliersARV/14522461 Shop Tools - Hose Clamp Pliers 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 74.96 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 14.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 8.55 Total :39.33 125503 5/12/2011 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000271209 1Q-11 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS & TAXES 1Q-11 Liquor Board Profits & Taxes 001.000.390.567.000.510.00 2,482.62 Total :2,482.62 125504 5/12/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200650851 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 48.46 Total :48.46 125505 5/12/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 107045203 2025-7952-0 VARIOUS LOCATIONS 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 7.77 Total :7.77 125506 5/12/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200594885 4 WAY LIGHT 224TH 76TH SIGNAL LIGHT 30Page: Packet Page 55 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125506 5/12/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 74.50 DECORATIVE LIGHTS 115 2ND AVE S200913853 deocrative lighting 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 40.07 STREET LIGHTING (150 WATTS = 183 LIGHTS201711785 Street Lighting (150 Watts = 183 lights 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1,429.64 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)202529186 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES) 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,649.74 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (400WATTS:13 LITES)202529202 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTING (400WATTS:13 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)202576153 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE) 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,794.14 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)202579488 MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES) 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97 Total :18,769.30 125507 5/12/2011 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000271251 INV#I000271251 CUST#SSH00095-EDMONDS PD SCSO RANGE USAGE 9.5 HR 4/19/11 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 475.00 SCSO RANGE USAGE 9.5 HR 4/20/11 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 475.00 Total :950.00 125508 5/12/2011 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000271391 SOLID WASTE CHARGES SOLID WASTE CHARGES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 587.00 Total :587.00 125509 5/12/2011 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2011-630 INV#2011-630 EDMONDS PD 63 BOOKINGS - APRIL 2011 31Page: Packet Page 56 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125509 5/12/2011 (Continued)064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,670.00 528.5 HOUSING DAYS - APRIL 2011 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 33,031.25 INV#2011-630 REFUND DISPUTED MAR CHGSREFUND CHARGES 1 BOOKING - SLEISTER 3/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -90.00 1 HOUSING DAY - SLEISTER 3/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -62.50 24 HOUSING DAYS-GREMMERT 3/11 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -1,500.00 Total :37,048.75 125510 5/12/2011 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER April-2011 04/11 Crime Victims Court Remittance 04/11 Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.000.237.140.000.00 897.34 Total :897.34 125511 5/12/2011 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT PS0456/PS0457 YOST POOL/SPA 2011 PERMIT RENEWAL 2011 PERMIT RENEWAL FOR YOST POOL AND 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 650.00 Total :650.00 125512 5/12/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 DUMP FEES PARK MAINTENANCE DISPOSAL CHARGES 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 569.63 Total :569.63 125513 5/12/2011 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3001395394 INV#3001395394 CUST#6076358 EDMONDS PD MINIMUM MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE 001.000.410.521.910.410.00 10.36 Total :10.36 125514 5/12/2011 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2488727 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 408.41 32Page: Packet Page 57 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125514 5/12/2011 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 59.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 44.47 Total :512.59 125515 5/12/2011 041100 TED'S CUSTOM UPHOLSTERY INC 27027 Unit 582 - Recover Seat Unit 582 - Recover Seat 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 162.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 15.39 Unit 405 - Recover Seat27037 Unit 405 - Recover Seat 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 162.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 15.44 Total :355.33 125516 5/12/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 148134-4/30/2011 Stormwater Technician, #11-15 ad Stormwater Technician, #11-15 ad 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 159.69 Total :159.69 125517 5/12/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101415-4/30/2011 NEWSPAPER ADS Council, TBD & Plan Brd Agendas 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,860.71 Total :1,860.71 125518 5/12/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1732778 Legal Notice - APL20110001 (Marina) Legal Notice - APL20110001 (Marina) 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 78.40 Legal Notice - BLD 20100999 (Read)1732925 Legal Notice - BLD 20100999 (Read) 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 60.20 Legal Notice - PLN20110002 (Panera)1732952 33Page: Packet Page 58 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125518 5/12/2011 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY Legal Notice - PLN20110002 (Panera) 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 58.48 Total :197.08 125519 5/12/2011 072098 UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES LLC 36055 E8GA.SERVICES FOR JANUARY 2011 E8GA.Services for January 2011 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 289.08 E8GA.Services for January 2011 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 289.08 Total :578.16 125520 5/12/2011 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 1040114 utility locates April 2011 utility locates April 2011 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 51.20 utility locates April 2011 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 51.20 utility locates April 2011 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 52.75 Total :155.15 125521 5/12/2011 072193 VAN HOUSEN, LISYA VAN HOUSEN0504 REFUND REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 15.00 Total :15.00 125522 5/12/2011 073653 WALDRON, JEFFREY WALDRON0510 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00 Total :500.00 125523 5/12/2011 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I11009083 INV#I11009083 EDM301 BACKGROUND CHECKS 04/2011 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 134.75 Total :134.75 125524 5/12/2011 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 25 C/A 4181-01M 34Page: Packet Page 59 of 290 05/12/2011 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 8:55:31AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 125524 5/12/2011 (Continued)070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS Reidy/Theusen conflict matter 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 37.00 Total :37.00 125525 5/12/2011 073612 WRIGHT ROOFING INC 1 SO CO SR CTR CONTRACT Contract payment for So County Senior 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 42,498.06 Total :42,498.06 125526 5/12/2011 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 573 APRIL SOFTBALL UMPIRES UMPIRING OF APRIL MEN'S & CO-ED GAMES 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 3,201.00 Total :3,201.00 Bank total : 1,189,729.10142 Vouchers for bank code :front 1,189,729.10Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report142 35Page: Packet Page 60 of 290 AM-3956   Item #: 2. D. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Mike Cooper Submitted By:Kim Cole Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Proclamation declaring the week of May 16-20, 2011 as "Public Works Week" in the City of Edmonds. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve for consent. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Please refer to the attached proclamation. Attachments Public Works Week Proclamation 2011 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 02:35 PM Form Started By: Kim Cole Started On: 05/12/2011 01:25 PM Final Approval Date: 05/12/2011  Packet Page 61 of 290 Packet Page 62 of 290 AM-3939   Item #: 2. E. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Committee:Public Safety Type:Action Information Subject Title Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force, 2011-2012 Interlocal Agreement. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff recommends this item be approved for the Mayor to sign the interlocal agreement with Snohomish County. Previous Council Action The Public Safety Committee approved the Snohomish Regional Drug Gang Task Force, 2011-2012 Interlocal Argeement to be placed on the consent agenda for the May 17, 2011, Council Meeting. Narrative Since January 1988, the City of Edmonds and other Snohomish County cities have been participants in the Snohomish Regional Drug Gang Task Force (SRDGTF) with offices in Everett. Edmonds was one of the original participants, contributing a detective and equipment to the unit.  In more recent years, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace established the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force (SSCNTF). Since the creation of the SSCNTF, Edmonds, Lynnwood, and Mountlake Terrace have chosen to continue their support of the SRDGTF through financial contribution alone. Edmonds presently has a detective assigned to the SSCNTF.  The SRDGTF receives the majority of its funding through a U.S. Department of Justice grant. The grant amount is based on the number and population of municipalities that participate in the SRDGTF. The required matching funds for the federal grant come from Snohomish County and the participating municipalities. For fiscal year 2011-2012, twenty municipalities, DSHS Child Protective Services, six Tribal Agencies, WSP, and Snohomish County, are pledging matching funds to the SRDGTF.  Edmonds’ share for July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 is $9,998, an increase of $197 over last year’s share. Funding for this item is included in the 2011 Edmonds Police budget. The interlocal agreement and the funding received from participating entities, sets forth the operational framework for the SRDGTF, and has done so since 1988.  The SRDGTF and SSCNTF work very closely and assist each other with staffing and equipment, as needed. For example, should we encounter a drug lab locally the SRDGTF can be called out to dismantle the lab. This assistance can save us literally thousands of dollars in overtime, training, and equipment expense. A more frequent area of cooperation and assistance occurs with investigations where the two task forces may assist each other with investigations involving mutual suspects.  We request that the Council approve this matter authorizing the Mayor to sign the FY 2011-2012 interlocal agreement with SRDGTF.  Packet Page 63 of 290 The ILA has been approved by the City Attorney as to form. Attachments Interlocal Agreement for SRDGTF Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 09:29 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/12/2011 10:38 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 10:48 AM Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/12/2011  Packet Page 64 of 290 Packet Page 65 of 290 Packet Page 66 of 290 Packet Page 67 of 290 Packet Page 68 of 290 Packet Page 69 of 290 Packet Page 70 of 290 Packet Page 71 of 290 Packet Page 72 of 290 Packet Page 73 of 290 Packet Page 74 of 290 Packet Page 75 of 290 Packet Page 76 of 290 Packet Page 77 of 290 Packet Page 78 of 290 Packet Page 79 of 290 Packet Page 80 of 290 Packet Page 81 of 290 Packet Page 82 of 290 Packet Page 83 of 290 Packet Page 84 of 290 Packet Page 85 of 290 Packet Page 86 of 290 AM-3940   Item #: 2. F. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorization to advertise for construction bids. Previous Council Action On November 3, 2008, Council authorized Staff to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for design services for the Sewer Lift Stations Rehabilitation Project. On July 21, 2009 Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with CHS Engineers, LLC for design services for the Sewer Lift Stations Rehabilitation Project. On May 10, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The 2006 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan identified the need to refurbish and upgrade nine existing sewer lift (pump) stations constructed in the 1960's and 1970's as part of the City’s 6-year Capital Improvement Program. The existing mechanical and electrical equipment that operate these stations are obsolete and need to be replaced to prevent pump failures, reduce the risk of sewage overflows and reduce maintenance costs. The piping and ventilation will also be upgraded to improve the operation of the lift stations.  The total estimated construction cost for this project is $3.5M and the costs will be paid by the City's 412 Utility Fund. Construction is anticipated to begin in fall 2011 and continue through 2012.    Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 05/12/2011 11:38 AM Public Works Phil Williams 05/12/2011 04:54 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 05:00 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/13/2011 09:21 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 10:35 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/13/2011  Packet Page 87 of 290 AM-3941   Item #: 2. G. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Mike De Lilla Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the 2011 Waterline Replacement Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorization to advertise for construction bids. Previous Council Action On October 26, 2010, Council authorized Staff to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for designs services for the 2011 Waterline Replacement Project. On January 18, 2011, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with Murray, Smith and Associates to complete the design of the 2011 Waterline Replacement Project.  On May 10, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The 2011 Waterline Replacement Project will upgrade portions of the City’s potable water network by replacing approximately 7,100 linear feet of existing waterlines and associated appurtenances at various locations within the City. The selection of the sites was determined using the data supplied in the 2010 Comprehensive Water System Plan, coordinating with upcoming road, sanitary sewer, and storm drain projects, and input from Public Works. Projects will focus on upsizing and/or looping portions of the existing network to improve flow and pressure and will remove and replace pipes that are near the end of their life cycle and are requiring additional maintenance.   The project includes waterline replacement and street overlay on Dayton Street between State Route 104 and the BNSF railroad tracks.     The design phase is nearing completion and the project is scheduled to be advertised for bids in June 2011.  Construction is expected to start late summer 2011 and be complete by early 2012.    The estimated construction cost for this project is $1.7M.   The funding sources for the project are the 412 Utility Fund, 112 Street Fund (portion of Dayton St. overlay) and the General Fund (fire hydrant cost). Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 05/12/2011 11:43 AM Public Works Phil Williams 05/12/2011 04:54 PM Packet Page 88 of 290 City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 05:01 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/13/2011 09:21 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 10:35 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/13/2011  Packet Page 89 of 290 AM-3942   Item #: 2. H. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Jaime Hawkins Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for Caspers Street/Ninth Avenue N/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project and Council acceptance of project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council accept the project. Previous Council Action On April 7, 2009, Council awarded a contract to T.E. Briggs Construction for the construction of the Caspers Street/Ninth Ave N/Puget Drive (SR 524) Walkway Project. On May 10, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The Caspers Street/Ninth Avenue N/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project is complete.  The project constructed 3,500 lineal feet of new sidewalk on SR524 between Olympic Avenue and 3rd Avenue.  Other improvements included 31 new ADA compliant curb ramps, two midblock pedestrian crossings,  two radar speed feedback signs and minor storm and water utility improvements.   The project was designed by ReidMiddleton and construction was inspected and accepted by City staff with the assistance from Kleinfelder, Inc and SRI Technologies.  Construction was funded by grants from WSDOT and the Transportation Improvement Board, 112 Street Fund and the 412 Utility Fund.  A summary of the construction costs are shown below:       CONSTRUCTION COSTS T.E. Briggs Construction, Inc.$674,566 City Staff $29,972 Kleinfelder, Inc.$12,912 Reid Middleton & Assoc, Inc.$12,030 SRI Technologies $3,614 Miscellaneous $1,318 Total Construction Cost $734,412 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 05/12/2011 04:53 PM Packet Page 90 of 290 Engineering Robert English 05/12/2011 04:53 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/12/2011 04:54 PM Finance Jim Tarte 05/12/2011 04:59 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 05:01 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/13/2011 09:21 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 10:35 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/13/2011  Packet Page 91 of 290 AM-3943   Item #: 2. I. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the Five Corners Booster Pump Station Improvements and Council acceptance of project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council accept the project. Previous Council Action On September 23, 2008, Council authorized Staff to call for construction bids for the Five Corners Booster Pump Station Improvements project, incorporating all facets of the 2003 Water System Improvements project and seismic reservoir security improvements.  On December 16, 2008, Council awarded a contract to Interwest Construction, Inc. for the Five Corners Booster Pump Station Upgrade Project.  On May 10, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The Citywide Water System Improvements project is complete. The project improved the operation and efficiency of the Five Corners Booster Pump Station by replacing valves and piping within the station and upgrading the existing telemetry controls. Other improvements included seismic upgrades and additional security at the reservoir. Similar improvements were made at the City’s Yost and Seaview water system reservoirs.  The project was designed by RH2 Engineering, Inc and construction was inspected and accepted by City staff with support from contract employees. A summary of the construction costs paid by the 412 Utility Fund is attached.   Attachments Construction Costs Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 05/12/2011 06:03 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/13/2011 08:25 AM Finance Jim Tarte 05/13/2011 08:37 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 08:38 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/13/2011 09:21 AM Packet Page 92 of 290 Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 10:35 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/13/2011  Packet Page 93 of 290 CONSTRUCTION COSTS RH2 Engineering, Inc.–Design and Construction Support $132,305 Contractor–Interwest Construction, Inc. $998,631 Testing–HWA Geosciences $412 Inspection–Consultant–SRI $1,300 Staff $8,718 Scott Highland–Inspection $14,038 SnoPUD–Utility Pole $13,499 Total Construction Cost $1,168,903 Packet Page 94 of 290 AM-3946   Item #: 2. J. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Steve Koho Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the Odor Control Improvement Project and Council acceptance of project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff recommends acceptance of the project. Previous Council Action On January 20, 2009, City Council authorized an agreement with Brown & Caldwell to design the Odor Control Improvement Project. On October 6, 2009, City Council authorized awarding the construction of the Odor Control Improvement Project to Prospect Construction, Inc. On May 10, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative An evaluation of the Odor Control System at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant was performed by a consulting engineer in 2007, which provided a report summarizing their recommendations for reducing odor emissions from the plant. A detailed construction design was performed in 2009 by Brown & Caldwell based upon the 2007 evaluation and input from staff.  City Council authorized the construction award to Prospect Construction.   The project is now complete and has been inspected by Kleinfelder and accepted by staff. Approximately 50% of the project was funded by the Plant's capital improvement fund and 50% was funded by outside agencies that share in the plant's expenses. Project Costs Contractor (Prospect Construction, Inc.)  $1,410,312 Change Orders  $44,584 Construction Management  $143,478 Total  $1,598,374 Amount authorized by Council  $1,641,343 City share of project expenses $811,766 Packet Page 95 of 290 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 05/12/2011 04:54 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 05:00 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/13/2011 09:21 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 10:35 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/13/2011  Packet Page 96 of 290 AM-3947   Item #: 2. K. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Report on final construction costs for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Updated costs are being provided for information only.  Previous Council Action On January 25, 2011, Council accepted the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project. On May 10, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The 2009 Asphalt Overlay project was accepted by Council at the January 25, 2011 Council meeting and the final construction cost was reported at $1,082,382.  In February, staff prepared the final grant billing for the project and determined the final construction cost should have been $1,088,225.  The $5,843 difference was city staff cost that had not been included in the January number.  The additional cost was paid from the 112 Street Fund.  Approval of this item will document that the final construction costs reported match the grant paperwork submitted to WSDOT for reimbursement.        Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 05/12/2011 06:29 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/13/2011 08:25 AM Finance Jim Tarte 05/13/2011 08:37 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 08:38 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/13/2011 09:21 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 10:35 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/13/2011  Packet Page 97 of 290 AM-3944   Item #: 2. L. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Steve Koho Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Repair to the Treatment Plant's outfall pipe and the process for obtaining bids and awarding a contract. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action On May 10, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The treated water leaving the Treatment Plant is carried to Puget Sound in an outfall pipe, which runs underneath Dayton Street to Olympic Beach then out to deeper water for final mixing and diffusion.  In 1996, the old concrete pipe was slip-lined with a plastic (HDPE) pipe insert due to deterioration of the old concrete pipe.  When the HDPE pipe was installed, the new pipe was sealed by injecting chemical and cementitious grout into the space between the HDPE pipe and the concrete pipe.  The chemical grout has now reached the end of its life, and staff would like to make a permanent repair by having a mechanical, bolted connection rather than relying on grout.  Since other utility work will be performed in Dayton Street this summer, staff would like to complete the outfall repair before other work is done and the asphalt road surface is restored. The construction expense is estimated to be between $150,000 - $200,000, which is within the guidelines for obtaining bids through the Small Works Roster.  Once a construction design is obtained by a consulting engineering firm, staff proposes to obtain bids directly from area firms through the Small Works Roster rather than from advertised publication.  Once bids are obtained, staff requests approval from the Finance Committee to take the bid results to full Council for award to the lowest qualified bid so that this important work can be expedited and be completed in conjunction with other projects in the same area. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 05/12/2011 04:54 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 05:01 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/13/2011 09:21 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 10:35 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/13/2011  Packet Page 98 of 290 AM-3948   Item #: 2. M. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:Consent   Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code (ECC) 8.64.060 Parking Provisions in the Downtown Edmonds area. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve ordinance. Previous Council Action On May 10, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the consent agenda for approval. Narrative The Downtown Parking Committee, composed of City Council, the Police Department, the Engineering Division and Edmonds Citizens, is tasked, among other things, with reviewing citizen / business requests regarding changes in parking designation. At the March 2011 meeting, the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) addressed parking concerns due to a high volume of ferry commuters parking on 4th Av. N between Daley and 3rd Av. N, for extended periods of time. In addition, the ECA indicated that they didn’t have any use for the designated 1–hour parking area on the west side of 4th Av. N. No other parking restrictions are in place at this location: the 3-hour parking limitation ends at Daley St. along 4th Av. N. The Committee identified placing 3-hour parking limitations along this stretch to eliminate this issue in the future and guarantee more efficient usage of the parking areas. In past practices, the majority of the property owners living within the affected area need to support a parking revision, before the change can take place. Surveys were then sent out to all the property owners along this stretch, asking whether they were in favor of this change or non-supportive. The majority supported designating both sides of this stretch with “3-hour parking limitations” from the hours of 12 midnight to 6pm. The Downtown Parking Committee therefore recommends the following ECC revision:  ECC 8.64.060: Schedule VI – Parking limited on certain streets • Subsection A: current Item # 9    Both sides of 4th Av. N from Dayton St. to Daley St. • Subsection A: proposed Item # 9    Both sides of 4th Av. N from Dayton St. to 3rd Av. N Attachments Attachment 1-Ordinance Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Packet Page 99 of 290 Engineering Robert English 05/12/2011 06:32 PM Public Works Phil Williams 05/13/2011 08:25 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 08:38 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/13/2011 09:22 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 10:35 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/13/2011  Packet Page 100 of 290 - 1 - ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.64.060 AMENDING PARKING PROVISIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN EDMONDS AREA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds offers on-street parking stalls on certain portions of its public rights-of-way; WHEREAS, many ferry commuters are parking for long periods of time on 4th Av. N between Daley and 3rd WHEREAS, the Edmonds Center for the Arts doesn’t have any use for the 1-hour parking stalls on the west side of 4 Av. N; th WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of the Downtown Parking Committee, the City Council finds that the on-street parking on both sides of 4 Av. N; th Av. N between Daley St. and 3rd THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Av. N should be designated as 3-hour parking zones; NOW, THEREFORE, Section 1. ECC 8.64.060 Schedule VI - Parking limited on certain streets 8.64.060 Schedule VI – Parking limited on certain streets. is hereby amended to read as follows (new language is underlined and deleted language is shown in strikethrough): A. In accordance with ECC 8.48.160 and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall park a vehicle for a period of time longer than three hours between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 p.m. of any day except Sundays and public holidays, within the district or upon any of the streets as follows: Packet Page 101 of 290 - 2 - 1. Both sides of Bell Street from Sunset Avenue North to 250 feet west of Sixth Avenue North; 2. Both sides of Daley Street from Third Avenue North to Sixth Avenue North; 3. Both sides of Main Street from Sunset Avenue to Sixth Avenue; 4. Both sides of James Street from Sunset Avenue to Third Avenue South; 5. Both sides of Dayton Street from Sunset Avenue (State Route 104) to Sixth Avenue South; 6. Both sides of Second Avenue from Alder Street to Caspers Street; 7. West side of Railroad Avenue from Dayton Street to Main Street; 8. Both sides of Third Avenue North from its intersection with Dayton Street to the 600 block of Third Avenue North; 9. Both sides of Fourth Avenue from Dayton Street to 3rd 10. Both sides of Fifth Avenue from Howell Way to Edmonds Street; Av. N; 11. Both sides of Maple Street from Fifth Avenue South to 120 feet east of Fifth Avenue South; 12. Both sides of Alder Street from Fifth Avenue South to 120 feet east of Fifth Avenue South; 13. Both sides of Edmonds Street from Sunset Avenue to Fifth Avenue North; 14. West side of Sunset Avenue from Bell Street to Edmonds Street; 15. Both sides of Sunset Avenue from Main Street to Bell Street; 16. North side of Caspers Street from Sunset Avenue to Third Avenue North; 17. East side of Railroad Street from James Street to Main Street; 18. South side of James Street from Railroad Street to Sunset Avenue (State Route 104); 19. Both sides of Third Avenue South, from Dayton Street to Walnut Street; 20. Both sides of Fourth Avenue South, from Dayton Street to 120 feet south of Walnut Street; 21. The east side of Third Avenue North from Edmonds Street to Daley Street; 22. The south side of Daley Street from Third Avenue North to the alley between Third Avenue North and Fourth Avenue North; Packet Page 102 of 290 - 3 - 23. The west side of Sixth Avenue from Dayton Street to Bell Street; 24. The east side of Sixth Avenue from Dayton Street to the alley between Main Street and Bell Street; 25. Both sides of Main Street from Sixth Avenue to 120 feet east of Sixth Avenue; 26. The north side of Dayton Street from Sixth Avenue North to 120 feet east of Sixth Avenue South; 27. Both sides of Walnut Street from Third Avenue South to 120 feet east of Fifth Avenue South; 28. The north side of Howell Way from 300 feet west of Fifth Avenue South to Fifth Avenue South; 29. The south side of Howell Way from 120 feet west of Fifth Avenue South to Fifth Avenue South; 30. The west side of Fifth Avenue South from Howell Way to Erben Drive; 31. Both sides of Second Avenue South from Dayton Street to its dead end, located south of Alder Street; 32. Both sides of Alder Street between its intersection with Second Avenue South and Third Avenue South; and 33. Both sides of Sprague Street from Edmonds Street to Sixth Avenue North. B. In accordance with ECC 8.48.160 and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall park a vehicle for a period of time longer than one hour between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 p.m. of any day, except Sundays and public holidays, within the district or upon any of the streets as follows: Section 2. 1. West side of Fourth Avenue North from Daley Street to Third Avenue North Severability Section 3. . If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of Packet Page 103 of 290 - 4 - the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE COOPER ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFFREY B. TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 104 of 290 - 5 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.64.060 AMENDING PARKING PROVISIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN EDMONDS AREA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 105 of 290 AM-3914   Item #: 3. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted By:James Lawless Department:Police Department Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Proclamation for National Law Enforcement Memorial Week. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For information. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Please refer to the attached proclamation. Attachments Police Week Proclamation Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 10:47 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/12/2011 11:48 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 02:35 PM Form Started By: James Lawless Started On: 04/28/2011 09:41 AM Final Approval Date: 05/12/2011  Packet Page 106 of 290 Packet Page 107 of 290 Packet Page 108 of 290 AM-3953   Item #: 5. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:5 Minutes   Submitted For:Council Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Community Service Announcement: Memorial Day Ceremony at Edmonds Cemetery. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action None Narrative Community Service Announcement: Memorial Day Ceremony at Edmonds Cemetery Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 02:35 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/12/2011 02:38 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 04:08 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 05/12/2011 11:52 AM Final Approval Date: 05/12/2011  Packet Page 109 of 290 AM-3950   Item #: 7. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:20 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilwoman Petso Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Presentation by Edmonds Public Facilities District regarding capital bond payment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action None Narrative Under the terms of the Contingent Loan Agreement between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Public Facilities District, the District is to notify the City if the District requires assistance in making bond payments for the 2008 bond. The District has notified the City that it will require assistance with the payment due June 1, 2011. The PFD expects to need an amount less than the $100,000 already budgeted for this item, so no action is required from Council at this time.  Attachment:  LTAC Funding Attachment:  Ordinance 3687 Attachment:  City of Edmonds Legislative History Summary Attachment:  City of Edmonds and PFD Contributions Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: The PFD will be requesting funding in an amount less than the $100,000 budgeted for this purpose. Attachments LTAC Funding Ordinance 3687 City of Edmonds Legislative History Summary City of Edmonds and PFD Contributions Form Review Packet Page 110 of 290 Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 11:47 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/12/2011 11:48 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 02:35 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 05/12/2011 10:59 AM Final Approval Date: 05/12/2011  Packet Page 111 of 290 LTAC funding for ECA 2010 The 2011 City of Edmonds budget included a special allocation of Lodging Tax funds for Edmonds Center for the Arts. At the November 22, 2010 LTAC meeting the committee approved a one time allocation of $100,000 from ending cash to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Lodging Tax Committee has maintained a significant ending cash balance in the 120 Fund for several years in order to have the flexibility to allocate a larger than usual amount of funding for special needs. The committee discussed the fact that the Edmonds Center for the Arts currently could make good use of additional promotion funding. ECA attracts about 50,000 people each year and a high percentage come from outside Edmonds. Many people from the region have first gotten to know Edmonds through attending an event at the ECA. It is one of the city’s largest attractions for visitors from outside Edmonds and is a vital economic generator. The ECA is operating in the black, commendable for a new facility only in its 5th season, and if ECA has more funding for promotion from LTAC then some of operation dollars can be transferred to capital for bond payments. Allowable uses for the LTAC funds include promoting events that bring visitors to the community. The funding is reimbursable which means the recipient is reimbursed after funds are expended for advertising or other allowable promotional efforts. ECA has received $10,000 annually from the LTAC for several years to fund general advertising for the City of Edmonds and community events in the season brochure. The $100,000 allocated in 2010 is for overall promotion of the 2010-11 season in addition to the City advertising in the brochure. To date the City has reimbursed ECA for $67,500 of the total, and invoices for the remaining $42,500 are expected by the end of the season. Packet Page 112 of 290 Packet Page 113 of 290 Packet Page 114 of 290 Packet Page 115 of 290 Packet Page 116 of 290 Packet Page 117 of 290 Packet Page 118 of 290 Packet Page 119 of 290 Packet Page 120 of 290 Packet Page 121 of 290 Packet Page 122 of 290 Packet Page 123 of 290 Packet Page 124 of 290 Packet Page 125 of 290 Packet Page 126 of 290 Packet Page 127 of 290 Packet Page 128 of 290 Packet Page 129 of 290 Packet Page 130 of 290 Packet Page 131 of 290 Packet Page 132 of 290 Packet Page 133 of 290 Packet Page 134 of 290 Packet Page 135 of 290 Packet Page 136 of 290 4/15/2011 2:28:50PM City of Edmonds ImageFlow Lite Report - Legislative History (Detailed) Page 1 of 2 UserID: clerk (Doc. Ref. - ORD/ Action Code - All/ Ret. Code - All/ File Ref. # - All/ Item Ref. # - All/ Name Ref. - All) Security Class - All/ Brief Desc. # - All/(Doc. Date From Beginning To Current/ Cont. Date From Beginning To Current/ Exp. Date From Beginning To Current) (Keyword1 - 'Public Facilities District'/ Keyword2 - All/Keyword3 - All) File Reference # Keywords Abstract Security ClassName Referred toExp. DateCont. Date Ret.CodeBrief DescriptionAction CodeItem Ref.Doc. DateDoc. Ref. Code ORD 04/24/2001 3358 Create a Public Facilities District - PFD 275 Creating a Public Facilities District Pursuant to Chapter 165, Laws of 1999, State of Washington, Including the Authority to Acquire, Construct, Own, Finance, and Operate a Regional Center Ord# 3358 Public Facilities District Regional Center Convention Center Performing Arts Center Special Events Center PFD Community Services ORD 05/14/2001 3361 Grant Charter-Public Facilities District - PFD 276 Granting a Charter to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Ord# 3361 Charter Public Facilities District PFD Edmonds Public Facilities Community Services Performing Arts Center Convention Center Regional Facility ORD 10/29/2002 3424 Bond Anticipation Note 2002 - PFD Arts Centre 282 Relating to contracting indebtedness; authorizing the issuance of limited tax general obligation bonds for general City purposes; authorizing the issuance of a Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note, 2002, in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $3,240,000 to pay costs of acquiring property for an arts center to be owned by the City or the Edmonds Public Facilities District, pending the issuance of bonds; providing for the determination of the date, interest rate, form, maturity, terms and covenants of the note; creating a note redemption fund, and providing for the delivery of that note to Church Development Fund, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation. Ord# 3424 Bond Bond Anticipation Note PFD Public Facilities District Arts Centre Performing Arts Centre Edmonds Public Facilities District Regional Center Church Development Fund, Inc. Puget Sound Christian College ORD 11/07/2002 3425 Issue Bonds to Acquire/Renovate Performing Arts Theatre-PF 282 Relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of $7,015,000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2002, of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to pay costs of acquiring and renovating facilities for a performing arts theatre, creating on-site parking, and constructing a meeting room for the theatre; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund and a construction fund; providing for bond insurance; and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to Seattle-Northwest Securities Corporation of Seattle, Washington. Ord# 3425 Bonds PFD Public Facilities District Performing Arts Theatre Edmonds Public Facilities District LTGO Bonds $7,015,000 Puget Sound Christian College Arts Theatre Arts Theater Purchase Packet Page 137 of 290 4/15/2011 2:28:50PM City of Edmonds ImageFlow Lite Report - Legislative History (Detailed) Page 2 of 2 UserID: clerk (Doc. Ref. - ORD/ Action Code - All/ Ret. Code - All/ File Ref. # - All/ Item Ref. # - All/ Name Ref. - All) Security Class - All/ Brief Desc. # - All/(Doc. Date From Beginning To Current/ Cont. Date From Beginning To Current/ Exp. Date From Beginning To Current) (Keyword1 - 'Public Facilities District'/ Keyword2 - All/Keyword3 - All) File Reference # Keywords Abstract Security ClassName Referred toExp. DateCont. Date Ret.CodeBrief DescriptionAction CodeItem Ref.Doc. DateDoc. Ref. Code ORD 08/26/2003 3468 Amend Public Facilities District Charter (Meeting Days) 286 Ordinance No. 3468 - Approving an amendment to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Charter; establishing a semi-monthly regular meeting schedule for the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board. Ord# 3468 PFD Public Facilities District Edmonds Public Facilities District PFD Charter Charter Amend PFD Charter ORD 09/27/2005 3563 Authorize Making Loans to Edmonds Public Facilities District 296 Ordinance No. 3563 - Approving and authorizing the making of loans to the Edmonds Public Faciilties District; authorizing the execution of an agreement reflecting the condiitons and terms of such loans; approving and authorizing the making of annual contributions to the Edmonds Public Facilities District; authorizing the execution of an agreement reflecting the conditions and terms of such contributions; and providing for other matters properly relating thereto. Ord# 3563 Loan Loan Guarantee Public Facilities District Edmonds Public Facilities District PFD Guarantee Agreement Bank of America ORD 01/15/2008 3676 Contingent Loan Agreement - Public Facilities District 307 Ordinance No. 3676 - Approving and authorizing the making of loans to the Edmonds Public Facilities District; authorizing the execution and delivery of a contingent loan agreement and related documents; authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith; and fixing a time when the same shall be effective. Ord# 3676 Contingent Loan Agreement Loan Agreement Public Facilities District Edmonds Public Facilities District ORD 06/03/2008 3687 Contingent Loan Agreement with PFD 308 Ordinance No. 3687 of the City of Edmonds, Washington, authorizing the execution and delivery of a final form of contingent loan agreement to the Edmonds Public Facilities District previously approved in draft form by the City Council. Contingent Loan Agreement Ordinance No. 3687 Public Facilities District loan Edmonds Public Facilities District Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds Total Items Printed: 8 Packet Page 138 of 290 City of Edmonds and PFD Contributions Towards Edmonds Center for the Arts (Prior to Snohomish County PFD Tier 2 Contributions) Source Amount Notes City of Edmonds and PFD Contributions - Bonded City of Edmonds First 1/4% REET $1,000,000.00 Edmonds Public Facilities District $2,634,646.00 Snohomish County Public Facilities District $3,752,134.00 Total Amount Bonded $7,034,399.00 Gross proceeds obtained resulting from the interest rate on the day of issuance. City of Edmonds Non-bonded Contributions City of Edmonds First 1/4% REET $1,000,000.00 City of Edmonds Real Estate Excise Tax $50,000.00 Initial contribution to help pay for business plan City of Edmonds Contribution from Hotel Motel Taxes $34,000.00 Initial contribution for market demand and feasibility study City of Edmonds Daley Street Sewer Project $15,000.00 Packet Page 139 of 290 AM-3951   Item #: 8. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:30 Minutes   Submitted For:Councilman D.J. Wilson Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee:Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding self-funded medical insurance. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action This agenda item was on the March PS/HR Committee for discussion.  However, due to lack of time, it was postponed until the PS/HR Committee meeting on 4/5/2011.  This item was discussed at the April 5, 2011 PS/HR Committee.  This item was discussed further at the May 10, 2011 PS/HR Committee. Narrative This has item has been placed on this agenda for further discussion. Attachment 1:   HR Med Ins Info HR Med Ins Info Attachment 2:   City of Edmonds Med-Pharm Analysis 2011  Attachment 3:   April 5, 2011 PS/HR Committee Minutes Attachment 4:   May 10, 2011 PS/HR Committee Minutes Attachments Attach 1 -HR Med Ins Info Attach 2 - City of Edmonds Med-Pharm Analysis 2011 Attach 3 - April 5 2011 PS-HR Committee Minutes Attach 4 - May 10 2011 PS-HR Committee Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 11:47 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/12/2011 11:48 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 02:35 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/12/2011  Packet Page 140 of 290 Packet Page 141 of 290 Packet Page 142 of 290 Packet Page 143 of 290 Packet Page 144 of 290 Packet Page 145 of 290 Packet Page 146 of 290 Packet Page 147 of 290 Packet Page 148 of 290 Packet Page 149 of 290 Packet Page 150 of 290 Packet Page 151 of 290 Packet Page 152 of 290 Packet Page 153 of 290 Packet Page 154 of 290 Packet Page 155 of 290 Packet Page 156 of 290 Packet Page 157 of 290 Packet Page 158 of 290 Packet Page 159 of 290 Packet Page 160 of 290 Packet Page 161 of 290 Packet Page 162 of 290 Packet Page 163 of 290 Packet Page 164 of 290 Packet Page 165 of 290 Packet Page 166 of 290 Packet Page 167 of 290 Packet Page 168 of 290 Packet Page 169 of 290 Packet Page 170 of 290 Packet Page 171 of 290 Packet Page 172 of 290 Packet Page 173 of 290 Packet Page 174 of 290 Packet Page 175 of 290 Packet Page 176 of 290 Packet Page 177 of 290 Packet Page 178 of 290 Page 1 April 5, 2011 Public Safety/Human Resources Committee CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC SAFETY/HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 5, 2011 Committee Members Present: Council Member D.J. Wilson Council Member Diane Buckshnis Others Present: Council Member Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Police Chief Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon, HR Director Debi Humann, Recreation Services Manager Renee McRae, Environmental Education Coordinator Sally Lider, Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin, Recreation Coordinator Tammy Rankins, Engineering Technician 2 JoAnne Zualuf, Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz, Cultural Services Assistant Kris Gillespie, Office Supervisor/SEIU Shop Steward Sue Johnson, Engineering Technician 3 Ed Sibrel, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Fire Marshal John Westfall, City Attorney Jeff Taraday, City Clerk Sandy Chase, City Engineer Rob English, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Building Official Leonard Yarberry Public Present: Jack Loos, Volunteer Health Benefits Committee Consultant Roger Hertrich The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm. MINUTES Council Member D.J. Wilson started the meeting by having all attendees introduce themselves. After introductions were made, Council Member Wilson explained that he served as a delegate on the labor council for the Edmonds Community College union and was present at the bargaining table [during those contract negotiations]. Council Member Wilson further stated that from his experience with negotiations, he would prefer to have had more flexibility [with regard to subjects of bargaining] and he expressed concerns about AWC being a “good” partner for the City. When it comes to benefits, it is his goal to provide the same services and benefits [as AWC] at the same cost or at a lower cost. Council Member Wilson stated that it is also his goal [and possibly that of Council Member Diane Buckshnis] to “do more with less.” Council Member Wilson explained that at the last HR Committee meeting a discussion was held regarding the best health care insurance options for the City. At that meeting, Volunteer Consultant Jack Loos spoke to the subject (see minutes of that meeting) and the recommendation of the HR Benefits Committee was reviewed. Council Member Wilson stated that he came up with a self-funded insurance model [to share] and that the goal of tonight’s meeting was to review the self-funded model and to have a conversation amongst the committee members, Volunteer Consultant Loos and HR Director Humann (prior to having a further conversation with the rest of council) to determine the problems associated with a self-funded plan, to understand how it really works, and to clear up any misconceptions about self-funded plans. Council Member Wilson provided a memo to the committee members, Volunteer Consultant Loos and HR Director Humann. Council Member Wilson stated that it was his intention to provide the memo and template of the self- funded insurance model to council. Council Member Wilson explained that it was his understanding that the City’s Health Benefits Committee, with the assistance of Volunteer Consultant Loos and the Consultant/Broker Wells Fargo, went to market to see what healthcare insurance options were available. The goal of the Health Benefits Committee was to find reasonable plans but not to increase the city’s current healthcare insurance costs. Council Member Wilson pointed out that [in his opinion] Wells Fargo only solicited information from the big insurance companies such as Regence and Premera which do not primarily handle self-funded plans. Council Member Wilson further stated that he believes there is no way that the City can get a good self-funded insurance model without Packet Page 179 of 290 Page 2 April 5, 2011 Public Safety/Human Resources Committee talking to self-funding experts, which would involve a third party administrative committee (with some additional involved costs). Council Member Wilson pointed out that under the current fully-funded structure (AWC plan), there will always be a 10-13% increase in costs each year and the City will not be able to change the benefit options under the current plan. Council Member Wilson also summarized that the Health Benefits Committee suggested staying with AWC for 2011 and possibly 2012 and opting to go with the HealthFirst plan, which would save the City some money. Council Member Wilson explained that, as he understood it, the majority of costs for health insurance premiums for each dollar paid (60-65%) are spent on patient care costs while the remaining 30-35% of each dollar is spent on administrative costs, profit, taxes and reserves, etc. The basic “premise “of self-funded insurance is to cut out the administrative costs and possibly keep the additional savings [if there are any] with the City. If there is a surplus (or “extra” money) additional programs for benefits may be offered with the savings such as smoking cessation, etc. Council Member Wilson stated that the next premise of self-funding is to diversify risk by having a larger risk pool to dilute the risk. Premiums are based on risk and we may be in a higher risk class. Council Member Wilson explained that another key element in moving to a self-funded plan is to examine employee utilization costs (history of what types of services are used by employees such as in vitro fertilization) for the last three years. Council Member Wilson also pointed out that in order for self-funding to work, there has to be enough in “reserves” [money held by the City to pay out on healthcare claims]. Under the current structure, the City spends $2.7M in premium costs that will continue to escalate with the CPI (cost of living increases). Council Member Wilson emphasized that his concern is not with the necessary expense involved in paying for patient care services but with the 30-35% that could be saved with a self-funded plan model. Council Member Wilson explained that in his self- funded model, the estimate is that 75% of costs would be spent on patient care services. If a third party administrator (TPA) was retained to handle the self-funded insurance plan, it would cost approximately $100,000 a year and this could possibly be done without the City having to obtain a loan for reserves. Council Member Wilson further explained that stop-loss coverage would be purchased to create a maximum out-of- pocket cost for the City for each claim cost and that he thought that when the City was previously self-funded, the City did not have stop-loss coverage. HR Director Humann pointed out that the City did have stop-loss coverage when it was self-insured previously. Council Member Wilson stated that he found a carrier for stop loss coverage with a $40,000 stop loss coverage plan at an annual cost of $280,000. Council Member Wilson explained that if no changes are made with regard to health insurance plans, the City will have a $2.7M cost anyway. Using the self-funded model in comparison (with 75% of costs for patient care) and adding back in the cost of paying for claims through a TPA as well as stop loss coverage, the total cost would be approximately $2.4M, with an estimated savings to the City of $275,000. Council Member Wilson further discussed his good working relationships with various insurance brokers that he feels are credible, etc. as well as not putting himself in a situation that would cause a conflict of interest [with his self-insurance background]. Council Member Wilson further explained that one of the issues is that the TPA (without a claims history) would likely place the City into the highest risk pool possible (1.5 -2 times what our cost is now) but that we may, over time, get the money that is not paid out on claims back (provided that we did not incur a number of catastrophic healthcare claims that would reach the stop loss limit) by having the unspent funds placed in a trust fund. Council Member Wilson further discussed how accruing the unspent funds (after 6 years) may create a considerable savings to the City. Council Member Wilson estimated that by years three and four (with a claims history), the self-funded model could be adjusted actuarially to reflect the lower healthcare insurance cost and savings to the City. In summary, Council Member Wilson stated that the only feasible way the City could continue on the fully-funded Regence Plan under the AWC model is to spend more money or to cut benefit levels and City premium costs by switching to Healthfirst. Volunteer Consultant Loos stated that he does not claim to be an expert in self-funded insurance but it is clear that insurance companies are “out to make money.” In Volunteer Consultant Loos opinion, overhead costs are “dramatic” and tend to comprise at least 50% of the total costs for healthcare premiums. Additionally, self-funded reserves must be established and it needs to be determined as to what amount that should be. In a consortium pool like Packet Page 180 of 290 Page 3 April 5, 2011 Public Safety/Human Resources Committee AWC, the City is currently placed in a risk pool with all of the other cities that may skew the risk pool (creating higher costs for the City). Volunteer Consultant Loos stated that one of the unknown pieces of information is whether or not we are benefitting from the current risk pool or not (since it is likely that half of the cities are paying higher than the average cost for premiums and the other half is likely paying lower than the average cost for premiums based on the combined risk pool). Council Member Wilson opined that this is why it will be important to see our claims history (utilization review). Volunteer Consultant Loos stated that some of the concerns with self-funded insurance are: 1) the unknown impacts of future Federal healthcare legislation; 2) annual and lifetime maximum healthcare insurance limits no longer being in place; 3) dependent children being eligible for coverage now through age 26; 4) the Mental Health Parity Act – requiring mental healthcare coverage level to be the same as for other conditions; 5) healthcare purchasing cooperative options in 2015; 6) budget constraints; 7) an unstable population or workforce due to economic conditions including the possibility of layoffs. Council Member Wilson pointed out that under our current health insurance plan, every additional benefit must be paid for. Under the self-funded model, it may be possible for all kinds of additional benefits to be available that may not be utilized very often. Council Member Diane Buckshnis inquired as to whether the increase in medical costs (as Council Member Wilson notes in his self-funded model) will always be at 13% per year. Council Member Wilson explained that the rate of medical inflation in the last twenty years (with the exception of the 1990’s) has caused the average to be around 13%. Volunteer Consultant Loos explained that it was important to distinguish between the CPI and the increase in medical costs; the increase in healthcare premiums each year is not based on the CPI. HR Director Humann pointed out that the average increase in healthcare premiums has been about 10% for the last few years. Council Member Buckshnis inquired as to whether self-funding would require that the City had $4.6M in reserves to start. There was some discussion that followed between Council Member Wilson and Council Member Buckshnis about the $3M that is currently being paid out in healthcare insurance premiums and the usage of the $1.3M associated with transitioning the fire department to Fire District 1. Council Member Buckshnis inquired as to how the stop loss policy works and Council Member Wilson explained that stop loss coverage limits the City’s liability for the amount paid out on a claim within a specific period of time not to exceed a set cost ceiling per claim. Volunteer Consultant Loos further clarified that, when speaking about aggregate stop loss, the stop loss insurance carrier determines what they think the insured’s total claims costs will be then they add an additional 25% to the total cost to the insured. Council Member Wilson stated that currently, if there is a benefit that is not covered under AWC Regence Plan A, the individual users of the plan have to pay for that benefit out of pocket. With a Benefits Committee under self-funding, the City has the ability to choose additional benefits to add to the plan. Council Member Buckshnis inquired as to who the members of the committee would be. Volunteer Consultant Loos clarified that the Benefits Committee members would have the authority to make benefits decisions (not reporting to council) with confidentiality. There was a question from one of the attendees about self-funded insurance possibly having greater costs to the City than what is projected in the self-funded model. Council Member Wilson stated that a more realistic threat to increased costs to self-funding is finding out that our risk pool is higher than the population at large (or average). Council Member Wilson stated that he believes two important self-funding questions to consider are: 1) Does the City want to take the cash flow “hit” now to start; and 2) do we think we have an employee population which wants to be actively engaged in their healthcare insurance plan. Recreation Manager Renee McRae stated that, having participated in self-insurance before at the City, she would have some concerns with the unknown risk pool under a self-funded plan. Ms. McRae also stated that she heard the HealthFirst plan has significantly reduced benefits from our current Plan A. HR Director Humann explained that while there are $10 co-pays under the Healthfirst plan, and the hospital coverage level is 90% as opposed to 100% under Regence Plan A with a maximum out of pocket of $1000 for hospital stays, on the offset, routine and preventative care are covered under Healthfirst at 100%. These services are currently not covered under the current Regence Plan A (including well-adult and child visits, etc.) which results in significant out of pocket for most users. Packet Page 181 of 290 Page 4 April 5, 2011 Public Safety/Human Resources Committee HR Director Humann stated that every employer does need to look at healthcare insurance costs. The City was self-funded several years ago and HR Director Humann stated that she served on the Appeal/Benefits Committee. This committee was very difficult to operate because it is made up of employees and the culture is such that a benefit could be asked for, but if it was denied, it made it very hard to continue on with the model due to “guilt” factors (of disallowing employee benefits) even though it was not fiscally responsible and based on good cause. HR Director Humann stated this experience was a learning one and that better planning would have helped the committee. One example is when the group decided to add benefits such as well-baby examinations, $250 toward physicals (for every covered employee and dependent), in addition to adding orthotics without any actuarial research. The cost of these additional services greatly impacted and “bankrupted” the plan. HR Director Humann said that the principle of self-funding is an excellent way to select benefits and contain costs of a healthcare insurance plan. HR Director Humann said her main concern about self-funding, however, is in the timing. With Federal legislation coming down the pipeline as well as having a smaller employee population size (and potential layoffs without the levy passing nor having the additional employees from the former fire department) along with the minimal size of the HR staff, self-funding may not be feasible. Even with a TPA with the prior self-funded plan at the City, the HR staff spent a lot of time on appeals, claims issues and working with Finance, etc. Council Member Wilson inquired as to whether or not Finance paid for all claims under the self-funded plan. HR Director Humann stated that she didn’t handle that part, but believed they approved the claims. HR Director Humann asked if the City moves $1M to front the self-funded plan, will it bring the City closer to having to do layoffs since the money to do so is not a readily liquid asset. HR Director Humann stated that she is very concerned because while she believes that the long-term impact of self-funded insurance is very beneficial, in the current economic condition, how is it possible to fund this. The timing, the cost, the employee base and lack of HR staffing are all factors [in her opinion]. Council Member Wilson stated that the issues that HR Director Humann brought up are all reasons to bring forth a levy and that these very issues could help support one. Additionally, it is clear that more HR staff is needed and going through the budget process could assist with this. HR Director Humann asked (if a self-funded model is the health insurance proposal) would it not be expected that a proposal would have to go out to the market in order to come up with a self-funded plan to propose to the Council and the unions. She further stated that if we know what the plan model is (HealthFirst with 100% hospital coverage), and with HR putting together a census, shouldn’t the next step be to take that information to the market and seek hard numbers for consideration. Council Member Wilson stated that in theory, the union could be provided with the Healthfirst plan benefit level [under a self-funded plan] and not have to pay AWC the 30% overhead. There was some discussion that followed about the Appeals/Benefits Committee process. Council Member Wilson stated that he is not in favor of an internal Appeals/Benefits Committee. There was some discussion that followed about the idea/need of bringing a self-funded proposal forward to council/unions. Council Member Wilson expressed to the attendees that the $1.3M from the transition of the fire department to Fire District 1 has been “earmarked” for the council’s interest in self-funded health insurance. Recreation Services Manager McRae pointed out that a decision has not been made by council at this point to commit to self-funded health insurance. HR Director Humann asked for clarification as to benefits usage under a self-funded model- are the benefits paid for only when accessed. Council Member Buckshnis stated that [in her opinion] it would be important to have experts on the Benefits Committee. HR Director Humann responded that one of the values of the self-funded plan is to have employee input on the process. By having an external Benefit Committee without employee participation, it may take away from this and it would appear, in fact, that we (as a city) could not make the plan choices for our program but that they would be decided by the external Benefit Committee. Council Member Wilson stated that the appeals process only pertains to certain claims and that if needed, the committee can examine line items for each service. Assistant Police Chief Gannon asked if retiree health insurance coverage was available to retirees if the City switches to a self-funded plan. HR Director Humann stated that COBRA would be offered, but that it is not a legal Packet Page 182 of 290 Page 5 April 5, 2011 Public Safety/Human Resources Committee requirement to provide subsidized retiree healthcare plan options (although it is unlikely that the City would not consider this). Engineering Technician Ed Sibrel pointed out that there are considerable software and security requirements (regarding HIPAA regulations) that would be required that would require additional costs with the self-funded plan that need to be kept in mind. In closing, Council Member Wilson stated that the committee would resume discussion about the healthcare insurance plan (self-funded) on the second Tuesday in May @ 5:30 pm. Council Member Wilson strongly encouraged the union attendees to take the memo he provided on self-funded insurance to share with their union members. The following action was taken regarding the remaining items scheduled on the agenda: 1. Authorization to surplus and sell Police Department equipment. Action: Forward to City Council consent agenda with recommendation to approve. 2. Adopt by reference RCW 9A.56.063, making or possessing motor vehicle theft tools. Councilmember Wilson asked that this item be placed on the committee agenda for April 12th, however Councilmember Buckshnis said she felt it could be placed on the consent agenda as it was a matter of adopting an existing RCW. Assistant Chief of Police Gannon gave a brief explanation of the agenda item. Councilmember Wilson agreed that the item could be placed on the consent agenda for the next regular City Council meeting. Action: Forward to City Council consent agenda with recommendation to approve. 3. Close out Subcontract 87898, Puget Sound Small Vessel PRND (Preventive Radiological/Nuclear Detection), DNDO Action: Forward to City Council consent agenda with recommendation to approve. 4. Discussion regarding self-funded medical insurance This item was discussed earlier in the meeting and will also be scheduled on the May 10 Committee Agenda. 5. Discussion of compensation consultant This item was forwarded to the April 12 Committee Agenda. 6. Discussion of new council staff position related to budget/financials/insurance. This item was forwarded to the April 12 Committee Agenda. 7. Operations policy for Shell Valley emergency access road. Action: Forward to City Council consent agenda with recommendation to approve. The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m. Packet Page 183 of 290 1 CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 10, 2011 Committee Members Present: Council Member D.J. Wilson Council Member Diane Buckshnis Others present: Police Chief Al Compaan, HR Director Debi Humann, Assistant Chief of Police Gerry Gannon, Recreation Services Manager Renee McRae, Parks Maintenance Worker Jesse Curran, Dawn Curran, Engineering Technician JoAnne Zulauf, Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz and Building Maintenance Operator Larry LaFave The meeting was advertised to start at 5:00 pm. Since the Committee Council Members were not present at that time, those present for the meeting (noted as “Others Present” as listed above) disassembled at 5:37 p.m. The PS/HR Committee re-convened at approximately 6:20 pm at the request of Council Member(s) D.J. Wilson and Diane Buckshnis. Other attendees included Evelyn Wellington and HR Director Debi Humann. Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force, 2011-2012 Interlocal Agreement Chief Compaan explained that this item seeks authorization for the Mayor to sign the FY 2011-2012 interlocal agreement with the Snohomish Regional Drug and Gang Task Force. Since January 1988, the City of Edmonds and other Snohomish County cities have been participants in the Snohomish Regional Drug Gang Task Force (SRDGTF) with offices in Everett. The SRDGTF receives the majority of its funding through a U.S. Department of Justice grant. The grant amount is based on the number and population of municipalities that participate. The required matching funds for the federal grant come from Snohomish County and the participating municipalities. Edmonds’ share for July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 is $9,998, an increase of $197 over last year’s share. Funding for this item is included in the 2011 Edmonds Police budget. The interlocal agreement and the funding received from participating entities, sets forth the operational framework for the SRDGTF, and has done so since 1988. Action: Forward to the City Council consent agenda with a recommendation to approve. Self-Insurance There was some discussion by Council Member D.J. Wilson and Council Member Diane Buckshnis as to the meeting start time. Council Member Wilson stated that he had requested that the meeting time be changed to 6:00 pm due to a schedule conflict. Council Member Wilson requested that another meeting time be scheduled to discuss the health insurance agenda item and he requested that HR Director Humann provide him with the names of the attendees who were present earlier. There was some discussion between HR Director Debi Humann and Council Member(s) Wilson and Buckshnis as to whether or not rescheduling an additional meeting would be feasible (as some of those present were spouses of employees) with a possible meeting date of Monday, 5/16/11 @ 5:00 pm. Council Member Buckshnis asked Council Member Wilson to explain/clarify his cost estimates with regard to his projection of the approximate $3M cost for health insurance premiums from AWC along with an additional $1.4M for reserves. Council Member Wilson explained that he had worked closely with Volunteer Consultant Jack Loos for his projected cost estimates on a self-insured model [as precise figures based on claims experience rating/history are only projections due to the inavailability of our claims experience/history from the Association of Washington Cities (AWC)]. Council Member Buckshnis pointed out that the model provided by Council Member Wilson detailed a total projected cost of approximately $4.4M (including reserves). There was some discussion between Council Member Packet Page 184 of 290 2 Buckshnis and Council Member Wilson that the $4.4 million would be comprised of the current monthly premium accrual in addition to the $1.4 million the City currently had in reserves. HR Director Humann stated that she recalled having a discussion with Wells Fargo (who was the City’s health insurance consultant) and Jack Loos as to the new (upcoming) health care reform legislation. Her recollection was that the State required that each self-insured organization had to be fully funded within a specified period of time. HR Director Humann asked if Council Member Wilson knew what that period of time was. He responded he did not. Council Member Wilson stated that as long as our total City’s insurance costs (under a self-insured plan) did not exceed $3M each year (the current cost of our premiums with AWC), the additional $1.5M reserve fund would continue to grow. HR Director Humann pointed out that this would also have to include the cost of the third party administrator, stop loss coverage provider(s), and any other costs associated with self-insurance. Council Member Wilson affirmed that this was correct. HR Director Humann inquired as to whether the council meeting on 5/17/11 was to ascertain Council approval to go to market in order to ascertain hard data that could be brought back to council [for further consideration of a self- insurance plan]. Council Member Wilson responded that he wasn’t sure as to the direction (from council at this point) and was open to suggestion. Council Member Buckshnis stated that the City does not have the money to fund the self-insurance plan, unless the safety reserve was used. There was some discussion between Council Member Buckshnis and Council Member Wilson to further clarify the breakdown of costs in his self-insurance model [between the reserve fund amount and the cost of claims for the benefit of council]. HR Director Humann stated that it seemed reasonable to ascertain more information [on actual plan costs for a self- insured plan]. She explained that with knowledge of the particular plan/benefits desired, and with the help of HR to put together a census, it would make sense to go to market and find out what the actual costs would be for self- insurance. HR Director Humann stated that when the Heath Benefits Committee went to market with Wells Fargo, they encountered some problems that included being blocked by AWC from obtaining meaningful quotes, not having the claims history/experience available to us, needing AWC to release information on all of the retirees and COBRA individuals currently on AWC plans, and finding reasonable quotes for our LEOFF 1 retirees. Council Member Wilson suggested putting together a resolution to bring forth to council for approval (within the next three months) that includes preparing a census of information [based on our AWC-insured employee pool, retiree pool and LEOFF 1 retiree pool] and sending it out to the market to obtain [self] insurance provider quotes. HR Director Humann also pointed out that approval for a budget [for the consultant going out to the market] should also be included in the resolution. Evelyn Wellington inquired as to whether the insurance provider quotes would be for fully funded or self-funded (self-insured) plans only and whether or not the intent was to transition over to a self- insured plan in the next three months. Council Member Buckshnis stated that it would take longer than three months, but that it would [in her opinion] lower the largest cost (which is the administrative cost portion of the total premiums cost) for our health insurance benefits if we went to a self-insured plan. HR Director Humann stated that she believes there are still a lot of concerns about the viability of self-insurance: 1) due to the size of the employee group at the City [to be insured]; 2) if the City does not pass a levy and there are resultant layoffs, the employee group size could be reduced even further and; 3) due to the impending impacts of healthcare reform legislation. Council Member Wilson stated that his concerns are that the “right” questions have not been asked and the “right” answers have not been ascertained with regard to finding out all the information possible on self-insurance [before making a final determination to not look further into the City pursuing self- insurance]. HR Director Humann explained that there was another healthcare consortium, Clearpoint [which the City Health Benefits Committee had explored] that offers a platform for self-insured plans that may be viable at some point in the future for possible estimated plans savings. There are a handful of cities that have chosen to use Clearpoint (such as Kirkland and DesMoines) and it will be of benefit to the City to see how these cities’ plans perform to determine if a cost-savings was realized and to consider whether they may be a good provider choice. Packet Page 185 of 290 3 There was some discussion that followed by the committee and an audience member regarding why organizations (such as AWC) withhold risk pool and claims experience/history information and other possible cost-savings measures. Council Member Wilson explained that as benefits such as health insurance are a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, there are some issues involving contract agreements that must be considered that could lead to arbitration and that there are political impacts. In his opinion, creating a culture in the City of “ownership” regarding healthcare [through self-insurance] is a goal. There was some additional discussion that followed by an audience member and the Council Members regarding collective bargaining agreements within the City. Non-Represented Compensation Policy HR Director Humann distributed copies of the City’s Non-Represented Compensation Policy to the Committee dated 12/16/10 (which was also provided to council) as well as additional background information in a memo on the scope of work to be performed by a compensation consultant (as requested by Council Member Michael Plunkett). This draft scope of work includes a three part RFQ/RFP process. According to HR Director Humann, it seemed to make sense to separate out the scope of work into three sections since the council may determine that it would like to have some of the survey work done “in house” [by HR staff with the help of temporary employees, not the consultant]. Council Member Wilson inquired as to whether other cities handle their compensation surveys in the same manner. HR Director Humann stated that she had discussed with our comparable cities how they handle their compensation surveys and only a few had used consultants (such as the City of Lynnwood) and that these surveys were almost always handled primarily “in house” by HR staff as the City traditionally has for a number of years. HR Director Humann stated that her draft scope of work included: 1) an analysis and review of the current compensation policy; 2) a review and update of all employee job descriptions (which has not been performed since 1997 and is also mandated by WCIA through a personnel audit that requires this work to be completed by October of 2011 or a monetary penalty will likely be imposed) and; 3) conducting a comprehensive compensation market- based survey using comparable cities. HR Director Humann further stated that she was unclear as to the direction Council wanted to take as the scope of work had been left to her to bring back to Council and that she understood her draft scope was a starting point. Council Member Buckshnis inquired as to whether or not HR Director Humann could recall if she had provided this information packet to the levy committee. HR Director Humann responded that she did not believe it had been included in that process because nothing had been decided yet but that she had sent it in February as an agenda memo for the March 2011 HR Committee Meeting. Council Member Buckshnis stated that she would look to see if she had the information and would let HR Director Humann know if she needed another copy. Furthermore, Council Member Buckshnis stated that she believed that this compensation survey is a good idea as she is regularly asked question by the public about our compensation policy and about how it compares to the state and other comparables. Council Member Wilson stated that he also believes that having a compensation consultant review the policies, etc. is a good idea. Additionally, as Council Member Wilson pointed out, the HR Department is minimally staffed [as are many departments in the City], therefore, the review and update of all job descriptions should be handled by the consultant so that HR Director Humann can focus on other HR workload items. Council Member Wilson further suggested that HR Director Humann create an RFQ/RFP for the second defined item in the scope of work (update of job descriptions) and bring that forward to council. In response to some comments made about comparables, HR Director Humann stated that, in her opinion, if the appropriate market comparables are not selected for the compensation survey, it could greatly alter [skew] salary figures. She further added that if comparables do not include the market from which we lose our employees or recruit from, they are not generally useful for retention and recruitment. Financial Analyst Position Council Member Wilson suggested that the financial analyst may best serve the City’s needs by being an employee of the City opposed to a contractor for the Council. There was some discussion that followed about the financial analyst position as a contract versus full time or part time employee position to be further discussed in the future. Council Member Buckshnis suggested that this topic be put on hold until the Finance Director vacancy is filled. The meeting adjourned at 6:58 pm. Packet Page 186 of 290 AM-3952   Item #: 9. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:60 Minutes   Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Discussion of levy options. (Public comment will be received.) Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Place a levy on the August ballot. Previous Council Action The City Council created a Levy Review Committee in 2010 and has received periodic updates.  Mayor Cooper presented a Power Point Presentation regarding his levy proposal at the April 5, 2011 Council Meeting.  A discussion by the Council followed after his presentation.  The Council had further discussion on placing a levy on the ballot at the April 19, April 26 and May 3, 2011 City Council Meetings. The Council discussed this item during the May 10, 2011 Council Meeting (minutes attached). Narrative Continued discussion regarding placing a levy on the ballot.   Attachments Attachment 1: Mayor's 2011 Levy Memo to Council Attachment 2: Forecast (Working Capital) with 2010 Actuals.pdf Attachment 3: April 5, 19 & 26 City Council Minutes re: Levy Discussion Attachment 4: May 3 City Council Minutes re: Levy Discussion Attachment 5: May 10 City Council Minutes re: Levy Discussion Attachment 6: 2011 Parks Levy Considerations Attachment 7: Polling Results Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 02:35 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 05/13/2011 01:53 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/13/2011 02:21 PM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 05/12/2011  Final Approval Date: 05/13/2011  Packet Page 187 of 290 Packet Page 188 of 290 Date: March 30, 2011 To: Council President Peterson From: Mike Cooper, Mayor Subject: Levy Proposal Over the past two years our city council has discussed the idea of placing a levy on the ballot so the voters could be given the opportunity to decide if they want Edmonds to restore services with citizen groups formed to advise council and on three separate occasions I have recommended council move forward to the ballot. The most recent committee has put many long hours into this effort, but no consensus before council. Today I am bringing you a recommendation and asking that you place it before the voters on the August 16 I am recommending a four year levy focused on “ Streets, and Parks For Everyone at $.35/$1000 of accessed evaluation and indexed with a 2.5% increase on an annual basis. This will increase our revenue $2.26 million in 2012. “Safe Neighborhoods, Safe Streets, and • Safe Neighborhoods Police Department and fund the vacant unfunded police officer position at a cost of $210,000/year. • Safe Streets - Dedicate $704,000/year is important to note that this is less than half the annual need of $1.5 million/year. • Parks for Everyone This money would insure that our stream and that we c short fall at Yost Pool. While this covers important essentials it does not fund the roughly $285,000 in deferred maintenance to park facilities. In addition to these dedicated action items, we will have en comply with the council mandated one month ending cash This is sustained for the duration of the four year levy. CITY OF EDMONDS CITY HALL • THIRD FLOOR EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425)771 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City / Hekinan, Japan Peterson, City Council members Over the past two years our city council has discussed the idea of placing a levy on the ballot so the voters could be given the opportunity to decide if they want Edmonds to restore services with more revenue. There have been two separate citizen groups formed to advise council and on three separate occasions I have recommended council move forward to the ballot. The most recent committee has put many long hours into this effort, but no consensus recommendation has come before council. Today I am bringing you a recommendation and asking that you place it before the voters on the August 16th ballot. a four year levy focused on “Safe Neighborhoods, Safe For Everyone”. If approved by the voters the levy would start at $.35/$1000 of accessed evaluation and indexed with a 2.5% increase on an annual basis. This will increase our revenue $2.26 million in 2012. borhoods, Safe Streets, and Parks For Everyone” Action Plan Safe Neighborhoods – Restore our Crime Prevention Program in the Police Department and fund the vacant unfunded police officer position at a cost of $210,000/year. edicate $704,000/year or $.11/$1000 to street is important to note that this is less than half the annual need of $1.5 for Everyone – Dedicate $102,000/year or $.016/$1000 to parks. This money would insure that our flower program has a dedicated funding stream and that we can cover the approximately $50,000/year revenue short fall at Yost Pool. While this covers important essentials it does not fund the roughly $285,000 in deferred maintenance to park facilities. In addition to these dedicated action items, we will have enough in reserve the council mandated one month ending cash balance requirement. This is sustained for the duration of the four year levy. CITY OF EDMONDS THIRD FLOOR (425)771-0246 • FAX (425)771-0252 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Over the past two years our city council has discussed the idea of placing a levy on the ballot so the voters could be given the opportunity to decide if they want more revenue. There have been two separate citizen groups formed to advise council and on three separate occasions I have recommended council move forward to the ballot. The most recent committee has recommendation has come before council. Today I am bringing you a recommendation and asking that you orhoods, Safe . If approved by the voters the levy would start at $.35/$1000 of accessed evaluation and indexed with a 2.5% increase on an Action Plan Restore our Crime Prevention Program in the Police Department and fund the vacant unfunded police officer position at a overlays. It is important to note that this is less than half the annual need of $1.5 Dedicate $102,000/year or $.016/$1000 to parks. program has a dedicated funding approximately $50,000/year revenue short fall at Yost Pool. While this covers important essentials it does not fund the roughly $285,000 in deferred maintenance to park facilities. ough in reserves to balance requirement. Mike Cooper MAYOR Packet Page 189 of 290 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City / Hekinan, Japan While this proposed action cannot rebuild of our workforce needs, do all major projects, or catch up all of the deferred maintenance needs for our city facilities, it does position us to be healthy over the next four years without further cutting needed service. During that four year period we must focus together on a plan to generate the needed long term revenue. I look forward to working with you in the coming months to put a package before the voters that has unanimous approval from the council. Packet Page 190 of 290 29 - A p r - 1 1 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s : S t r a t e g i c O u t l o o k 20 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 Ac t u a l B u d g e t A c t u a l B u d g e t O u t l o o k O u t l o o k O u t l o o k O u t l o o k O u t l o o k O u t l o o k Be g i n n i n g W o r k i n g C a p i t a l B a l a n c e 1, 4 9 7 , 8 6 0 1, 2 7 3 , 2 6 5 2, 1 6 7 , 1 5 6 2, 8 1 5 , 3 1 3 2, 7 5 9 , 5 0 2 2, 7 0 1 , 4 3 8 2, 0 8 7 , 4 8 2 862,048 (996,324) (3,336,691) RE V E N U E Pr o p e r t y T a x 13 , 8 2 8 , 9 0 1 14 , 1 4 7 , 0 8 4 13 , 6 3 7 , 2 9 4 13 , 6 0 9 , 4 8 2 13 , 6 0 9 , 4 8 2 13 , 6 0 6 , 1 7 5 13 , 6 7 8 , 0 9 1 13,824,862 14,011,433 14,200,858 Re t a i l S a l e s T a x 4, 4 1 4 , 8 7 4 5, 5 1 9 , 9 4 9 4, 4 4 6 , 1 1 2 4, 5 2 4 , 1 9 5 4, 6 0 1 , 7 2 5 4, 6 9 3 , 7 6 0 4, 7 8 7 , 6 3 5 4,883,388 4,981,056 5,080,677 Ot h e r S a l e s & U s e T a x 54 3 , 7 3 1 66 5 , 9 0 1 54 2 , 9 0 1 54 6 , 7 9 7 54 5 , 9 1 3 55 1 , 5 0 4 55 7 , 1 5 4 562,863 568,632 574,461 Ut i l i t y T a x 5, 9 5 3 , 0 2 8 5, 2 2 5 , 3 1 1 5, 9 2 8 , 3 3 0 6, 4 4 1 , 9 6 2 6, 1 2 6 , 9 2 7 6, 1 8 8 , 1 9 6 6, 2 5 0 , 0 7 8 6,312,579 6,375,705 6,439,462 Ot h e r T a x e s 30 1 , 6 3 3 29 7 , 5 0 0 30 3 , 1 1 4 31 1 , 9 8 2 30 8 , 6 3 9 31 4 , 2 6 9 32 0 , 0 0 6 325,853 331,811 337,882 Li c e n s e s / P e r m i t s / F r a n c h i s e 1, 0 2 3 , 0 1 7 1, 4 1 8 , 2 1 3 1, 1 9 2 , 1 0 6 1, 0 3 7 , 8 1 3 1, 2 0 5 , 4 0 0 1, 2 1 7 , 3 9 7 1, 2 2 9 , 5 1 4 1,241,752 1,254,112 1,266,596 Co n s t r u c t i o n P e r m i t s 44 8 , 6 1 2 68 8 , 9 9 1 41 5 , 1 1 3 44 7 , 0 1 6 41 8 , 7 3 2 42 2 , 3 8 8 42 6 , 0 8 0 429,808 433,575 437,379 Gr a n t s 13 3 , 4 2 5 4, 6 4 4 21 8 , 1 2 0 4, 4 1 0 4, 4 1 0 - - - - - St a t e R e v e n u e s 72 5 , 8 8 8 75 2 , 4 2 6 78 3 , 1 1 8 74 6 , 8 0 3 75 4 , 5 0 3 74 9 , 1 5 6 75 3 , 8 4 3 758,562 763,314 768,100 In t e r g o v ' t S e r v i c e C h a r g e s 1, 3 4 8 , 7 4 3 37 8 , 1 8 4 18 2 , 9 5 3 86 , 0 4 3 16 6 , 0 9 8 17 1 , 8 5 5 17 7 , 8 3 7 184,053 190,512 197,226 In t e r f u n d S e r v i c e C h a r g e s 1, 3 1 8 , 7 7 3 98 0 , 4 6 9 1, 2 8 4 , 1 3 7 1, 3 8 8 , 9 3 5 1, 3 1 6 , 2 4 1 1, 3 2 2 , 8 2 2 1, 3 2 9 , 4 3 6 1,336,083 1,342,764 1,349,477 Ch g s . f o r G o o d s & S e r v i c e s 2, 3 0 7 , 3 9 0 3, 5 7 4 , 7 8 4 2, 7 4 2 , 7 9 4 2, 2 4 8 , 5 4 5 2, 1 7 9 , 2 8 3 2, 2 1 9 , 2 7 3 2, 2 6 0 , 5 8 1 2,303,222 2,347,215 2,392,580 Fi n e s & F o r f e i t s 67 4 , 6 3 3 64 0 , 3 0 0 62 4 , 4 4 7 66 7 , 1 0 0 67 5 , 6 5 8 69 0 , 7 0 6 70 6 , 0 9 4 721,829 737,920 754,373 Mi s c R e v e n u e s 53 1 , 8 9 0 2, 2 8 9 , 1 3 3 1, 9 3 5 , 4 3 2 44 3 , 5 3 7 44 7 , 5 0 4 43 2 , 5 6 8 44 2 , 8 8 3 453,457 464,294 475,403 T o t a l R e v e n u e 33 , 5 5 4 , 5 3 8 36 , 5 8 2 , 8 8 9 34 , 2 3 5 , 9 7 0 32 , 5 0 4 , 6 2 0 32 , 3 6 0 , 5 1 3 32 , 5 8 0 , 0 7 0 32 , 9 1 9 , 2 3 2 33,338,311 33,802,342 34,274,474 Re v e n u e G r o w t h / ( D e c l i n e ) 2. 0 % - 1 1 . 1 % - 5 . 5 % 0 . 7 % 1 . 0 % 1 . 3 % 1 . 4 % 1 . 4 % EX P E N S E S Sa l a r i e s a n d W a g e s 17 , 7 5 1 , 6 2 6 13 , 3 9 4 , 2 0 2 12 , 4 1 4 , 7 2 6 12 , 7 8 0 , 6 3 2 12 , 7 8 0 , 6 3 2 13 , 0 4 2 , 0 8 6 13 , 3 0 0 , 5 2 0 13,564,063 13,832,819 14,106,892 Be n e f i t s 5, 4 6 4 , 5 3 6 5, 0 0 7 , 7 9 6 3, 8 9 1 , 0 4 0 4, 2 7 8 , 9 2 4 4, 2 7 8 , 9 2 4 4, 2 8 0 , 4 0 9 4, 5 6 3 , 8 8 2 4,870,869 5,203,616 5,564,594 Su p p l i e s 51 5 , 9 3 3 58 4 , 3 6 6 56 7 , 2 6 3 58 0 , 2 9 7 58 8 , 9 8 6 72 6 , 6 1 8 74 4 , 7 8 4 763,403 782,488 802,051 Se r v i c e s 3, 4 5 7 , 8 2 1 3, 6 2 7 , 5 6 6 4, 4 7 2 , 0 5 6 3, 6 9 8 , 2 8 4 3, 6 8 5 , 8 8 0 3, 1 8 1 , 7 1 9 3, 2 9 4 , 9 0 4 3,414,120 3,539,831 3,672,539 In t e r g o v ' t 2, 0 1 9 , 3 1 0 8, 2 9 7 , 4 0 5 8, 0 5 3 , 6 2 2 8, 3 3 2 , 9 1 6 8, 4 3 4 , 3 1 1 9, 0 0 3 , 1 2 2 9, 2 4 7 , 2 3 9 9,498,660 9,757,629 10,024,397 Ca p i t a l 41 , 6 4 3 30 , 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - De b t S e r v i c e 1, 4 1 6 , 1 5 4 1, 4 2 3 , 9 5 1 1, 4 2 2 , 4 5 5 1, 4 5 2 , 2 8 4 1, 4 5 2 , 2 8 4 1, 4 4 5 , 9 1 7 1, 4 4 6 , 8 8 3 1,475,935 1,382,617 1,404,463 Tr a n s f e r s 1, 2 3 9 , 3 2 0 1, 2 6 6 , 1 8 9 2, 0 1 3 , 0 5 1 80 9 , 7 7 8 55 3 , 1 2 8 86 0 , 0 2 6 88 2 , 3 9 2 935,384 959,020 983,319 In t e r f u n d 1, 0 4 6 , 7 4 9 91 4 , 4 8 9 93 2 , 6 4 3 38 7 , 7 8 2 64 4 , 4 3 2 65 4 , 1 2 7 66 4 , 0 6 4 674,249 684,689 695,390 T o t a l E x p e n s e s 32 , 9 5 3 , 0 9 1 34 , 5 4 5 , 9 6 4 33 , 7 6 6 , 8 5 6 32 , 3 2 0 , 8 9 7 32 , 4 1 8 , 5 7 7 33 , 1 9 4 , 0 2 6 34 , 1 4 4 , 6 6 6 35,196,683 36,142,709 37,253,645 Ex p e n s e G r o w t h / ( D e c l i n e ) 2. 5 % - 6 . 4 % - 4 . 0 % 2 . 4 % 2 . 9 % 3 . 1 % 2 . 7 % 3 . 1 % Wo r k i n g C a p i t a l Y e a r E n d A d j u s t m e n t 67 , 8 4 8 12 3 , 2 3 1 En d i n g W o r k i n g C a p i t a l B a l a n c e 2, 1 6 7 , 1 5 6 3 , 3 1 0 , 1 9 0 2 , 7 5 9 , 5 0 2 2 , 9 9 9 , 0 3 6 2 , 7 0 1 , 4 3 8 2 , 0 8 7 , 4 8 2 8 6 2 , 0 4 8 (996,324) ( 3 , 3 3 6 , 6 9 1 ) ( 6 , 3 1 5 , 8 6 2 ) - 0 - - 0 (0) - - Ta r g e t E n d i n g W o r k i n g C a p i t a l B a l a n c e (1 ) 2, 74 6 , 0 9 1 2, 8 7 8 , 8 3 0 2, 8 1 3 , 9 0 5 2, 6 9 3 , 4 0 8 2, 7 0 1 , 5 4 8 2, 7 6 6 , 1 6 9 2, 8 4 5 , 3 8 9 2,933,057 3,011,892 3,104,470 (1 ) G F O A r e c o m m e n d s t a r g e t e n d i n g w o r k i n g c a p i t a l s h o u l d b e 1 t o 2 m o n t h o f e x p e n d i t u r e s . A o n e m o n t h t a r g e t i s d i s p l a y e d . Ex e c u t i v e S u m m a r y - C u r r e n t F o r e c a s t Ch a n g e s i n W o r k i n g C a p i t a l Pa c k e t Pa g e 19 1 of 29 0 Packet Page 192 of 290 Packet Page 193 of 290 Packet Page 194 of 290 Packet Page 195 of 290 Packet Page 196 of 290 Packet Page 197 of 290 Packet Page 198 of 290 Packet Page 199 of 290 Packet Page 200 of 290 Packet Page 201 of 290 Packet Page 202 of 290 Packet Page 203 of 290 Packet Page 204 of 290 Packet Page 205 of 290 Packet Page 206 of 290 Packet Page 207 of 290 Packet Page 208 of 290 Packet Page 209 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 8 Councilmember Wilson commented he is particularly interested in public comment regarding the tradeoff between a wooden monopole and a tree-like pole. 5. DISCUSSION OF LEVY OPTIONS. (PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED) Mayor Cooper advised several staff members were present to answer Council questions. Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte will review the up-to-date forecast and Building Official Yarberry will address the question raised at the last Council meeting regarding staffing in the Planning & Building Departments. Public Comment Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, repeated the comments he made at the April 26, 2011 meeting as that meeting was not televised due to technical difficulties. Although $32.5 million is a lot of revenue to operate the City for one year, it is not enough when imprudently allocated. He expressed concern that staffing costs funded at boom year levels left little for street overlays or other infrastructure maintenance. He cited Development Services as an example of boom-year staffing; there were three times as many projects three years ago, Architectural Design Board meetings are frequently cancelled because there are no proposed projects to review and not a single project has been constructed in the five BD zones since they were created five years ago, yet staffing levels have not been reduced. Although other government bodies in the State have negotiated a variety of concessions from their workers to help alleviate revenue shortfalls, the Council has been unable to do the same. He acknowledged some staff took 9 furlough days in 2009; however due to the COLA increase, their total pay in 2009 was still above 2008. Because the Council has misallocated the use of City revenues, he urged voters not to support a levy in 2011. He suggested the 2012 budgeting process do what the Council or Mayor would not do, cut staffing costs and reduce expenses to bring them in line with revenue and reduced demand for certain services. He was hopeful after elections in November, concessions will be negotiated to allow restoration of some of the 2012 budget cuts before they are implemented. Citizens may then be more inclined to vote for a smaller levy in 2012. Don Hall, Edmonds, pointed out Mayor Cooper’s proposed levy will only fund half the amount needed for street overlays. If the Council supports a levy, he urged them not to do it halfway, fund the $1.5 million needed for overlays. Other items in Mayor Cooper’s proposal such as Yost Pool and the Flower Program in the General Fund are emotional issues that get people to vote. He did not support a levy unless concessions were made in employee contracts with regard to contribution to healthcare costs. The State and other cities ask for and receive concessions from their employees. Although the Council is working to stabilize costs, there will be increases over time and he supported the employees and employer sharing the increase. Although it will be a long time before the economy recovers, when it does, the City will need money to do the things it has not been able to do. Everyone needs to contribute, the taxpayers and employees, to solve the City’s long term budget problems. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the Mountlake Terrace May 2 City Council meeting where there was a presentation regarding Lake Ballinger. Mountlake Terrace is proposing funding for Lake Ballinger and they have indicated Edmonds is not involved. He suggested the Council, 1) include funds in a levy for Lake Ballinger, and 2) consider consolidating the Fire, Police and Parks departments to reduce expenses. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the Executive Summary – Current Forecast that indicates increases in salaries and wages and benefits through 2016 and substantial increases in supplies. He suggested salaries not be increased unless revenue was increased. There would be no need for a levy as long as wages are kept equal to revenue and the City held the line on wage negotiations. He commented on the cost of the survey initiated by Mayor Cooper, asserting the questions were designed to obtain the answers the survey wanted. He asked the survey taker who was behind the survey and was told the City of Edmonds. Mayor Cooper indicated he had hired a company to conduct the survey to find out whether Packet Page 210 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 9 citizens would support a levy. Mr. Hertrich suggested the $18,000 Mayor Cooper spent on the levy could have been used to explain the City’s financials to the Council and to determine whether the City needs more money. When he told Mayor Cooper the survey questions had little validity, Mayor Cooper responded the survey results will show the Council the need for a levy. Building Official Leonard Yarberry displayed Development Service staffing as presented during the 2011 budget discussion: 3 FTE Administration (including vacant Director) 6 FTE Planning 4 FTE Building 3 FTE Permitting 16 FTE Total Mr. Yarberry displayed a graph of staffing/1000 population and building permits issued 1985-2010. He noted staffing levels have fluctuated slightly but remain fairly consistent. The current 16 employees is not dissimilar to staffing in the early 90s, late 80s. During the peak periods in 2004-2006, the City used a lot of consultants. Expenditures for consultants in those years were fairly high, particularly in building and planning. That was due to projects sent out to plan review consultants rather than reviewed in-house. The City also had a part-time inspector during peak periods. With regard to staffing, the question is what service level the Council wishes to provide. Through April 2011, Building has issued 305 permits; the total construction valuation for those permits is $8.7 million. Through April 2005, Building issued 358 permits with a construction valuation of $26.8 million. Approximately 50 more permits were issued in 2005 but 3 times the construction valuation. He summarized there was not a decline in the number of permits but the size and type of permits. There are fewer bigger projects and more small projects. People are spending money on small projects to improve their homes, small additions, and maintenance. Those types of projects tend to take more staff time because the applicants are do-it-yourselfers who tend to have less expertise than professional contractors and developers doing larger projects. He offered to provide further details. Mayor Cooper asked how many building inspectors the City has and whether two were sent out on a project. Mr. Yarberry answered the City has one dedicated Building Inspector. On occasion two people do visit a project but that is unusual. For example, today the Building Inspector and Plan Reviewer visited a site that originally started under an old permit; the permit had elapsed, the bank took over the project, and a new contractor is working on the project. Typically only one inspector visits a site. Mayor Cooper assured staff continued to consider staffing levels during the budget process. Council President Peterson suggested Mr. Yarberry provide a comparison of expenditures in the boom years for outside consultants compared to now. Mr. Yarberry recalled when the 2011 budget was prepared, the consultant line item was reduced by 60-65%. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the fluctuation in the number of permits in the past five years. Mr. Yarberry reviewed the line graph illustrating building permits for 1985-2010, noting the peak years 2005-2006. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas noted the number of permits does not appear to fluctuate much. Mr. Yarberry commented the scope of the projects change, not the number of permits. That is illustrated by the valuation differences; this year the construction valuation of the permits through April was $8.7 million versus $26.8 million in 2005. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how many permits were issued in 2009. Mr. Yarberry estimated slightly over 900. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the number of permits issued in 1985. Mr. Yarberry answered 600. Packet Page 211 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 10 To Mr. Wambolt’s comment that citizens should not support a levy, Councilmember Wilson noted if he claimed citizens should support a levy, he would be accused of electioneering from the podium. He suggested there be less of that in the future. There have been considerable employee give-backs in healthcare; at the bargaining table they are being moved to a new health plan with higher co-pays and a different benefit design that saves the City $30,000/month. That is a considerable give-back. He disagreed the Council was not looking at expenses; consideration is given to expenses all the time. During the levy review process two years ago, it was clear to all participants that the problem was not an expense problem but a revenue problem. There have been some very aggressive, animated, enthusiastic conversations at the bargaining table with unions. He assured the Council was trying its best and would not ask the public to consider a levy had they not bent over backward to reduce expenses. For example a Development Services Director has not been hired due to reduced activity and the City laid off a cop last year. He summarized he wanted to counter the claim that the Council was doing nothing to reduce expenses. Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte explained he has been the Interim Director for six weeks. Mayor Cooper and he applied the 2010 unaudited actuals to the forecast; the forecast previously contained an estimate of 2010. The ending working capital was $2,815,000; applying the actual 2010 numbers reduced that to $2,759,000, dropping the balance by a mere $56,000. The Finance Department reports the numbers, the individual directors are responsible for following the budget. In his private industry experience, he had not seen actuals that close to the estimate. Mr. Tarte referred to the 2011 budget and 2011 outlook on the Executive Summary – Current Forecast, explaining the 2011 outlook incorporates the 2010 actuals and projected revenues and expenses. The revised forecast incorporates the following changes: • $100,000 budgeted in 2011 for the ECA payment was increased to $200,000 • $350,000 deduction due to implementation of a new healthcare plan January 1, 2012 Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Tarte if he planned to attend the May 10 Finance Committee meeting as she has several questions. Mr. Tarte advised he will attend the meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the mid-year amendment that balanced all fund balances was the reason the actuals are so close to the budget. She asked whether $2,759,000 was the General Fund ending cash balance. Mr. Tarte explained that was the City’s working capital balance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether he was still using the modified working capital approach. Mr. Tarte answered yes, the City has always used a modified working capital approach. Councilmember Buckshnis advised that would be discussed at the Finance Committee meeting as there is interest in moving toward a modified accrual accounting standard, which is a cash basis. Councilmember Bernheim asked Mr. Tarte if he was aware of any other city that used the beginning working capital accounting methodology. Mr. Tarte answered he had not researched any other cities’ approach. He will research that in the week before the Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether he was aware of the accounting methodologies used by other cities in Washington. Mr. Tarte answered no, his background is in private industry. Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Hertrich’s comment regarding the substantial increase in the supply line item, an increase of over $100,000 between 2011 and 2012. She asked the reason for the increase. Mr. Tarte suggested he research that for the Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Petso suggested the Executive Summary – Current Forecast be scheduled as an agenda item for the Finance Committee. Mayor Cooper answered it was presented tonight in response to the Council’s request for long term projections and how that related to the one month reserve target. With regard to the increase in the supply line item, that had not been changed and was the same number shown in the budget approved by the Council. He agreed the reason for the increase needed to be explained. Packet Page 212 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 11 Mayor Cooper commented there are varying opinions regarding a modified accrual accounting system versus a cash based accounting system. He asked whether changing to a different accounting system would affect how far in the red the City was in 2013. Mr. Tarte answered no, changing from one accounting method to another did not miraculously add cash to the bank account. It basically changes how revenues and expenses are recognized; the bottom line does not change by a material amount and leaves more subjective reporting of accruals in the hands of the accountants which can be problematic if the accruals are wrong. Mr. Tarte pointed out the ending working capital balance is approximately $700,000 below the target in 2012, significantly below the target in 2013 and the ending working capital balance is a negative amount in years 2014 and beyond. Mr. Tarte commented as he reviewed the numbers, he noticed miscellaneous revenues in 2010 of $1.9 million compared with $531,000 in 2009 and dropping again in 2011 and beyond. The $1.9 million includes the sale of a significant asset, the City’s Fire Department. If the City had not done that, the ending working capital balance would be significantly less. As the Council considers a levy and the citizens consider whether to approve it, he pointed out without a levy or cuts in core services, the City will need to consider what assets it can sell. He noted that was simply his observation. Recognizing Mr. Tarte as someone who is here on a short term basis and does not have a dog in the fight, Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation for Mr. Tarte’s observations, his frankness and the matter of fact that the City is where it is financially due to the sale of an asset. It’s not rocket science, the City either needs to raise revenue, make cuts or sell assets. Mr. Tarte commented he had experienced this situation with private industry; when a company was in financial turmoil, costs can be cut but only so much before it cut into the ability to generate revenue. Councilmember Wilson viewed the City as an undercapitalized municipal corporation with depreciating assets and depreciating human capital due to poor morale. He was glad the City was able to buy a year via the contact with FD1. The City cannot continue to fund basic services without some additional revenue. He suggested anyone who doubted that to consider Mr. Tarte’s objective perspective. The City will always be able to make the numbers look better but will not be able to keep the lights on unless a levy is passed. He urged the Council not to make perfect the enemy of good. Mr. Tarte can be considered an outside consultant who took a fresh look at the City’s financials and has said the City needs to find more money, sell assets or make cuts. As the levy committees determined, the City has a revenue problem. The City has made cuts but at the end of the day, it is a revenue problem. The City can sell assets which cut into core services and/or the City’s identity or the City can make a good presentation to the voters regarding why a levy is needed. Councilmember Plunkett thanked Mr. Tarte for his presentation, commenting it was a pleasure to have someone from the private sector review the City’s finances. He also expressed the Council’s appreciation for Mr. Tarte’s confidence and his soothing approach. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to send Mr. Tarte her questions, noting the CAFR shows a $5,188,520 fund balance compared to the working capital balance which results in a lot of unanswered questions. Mr. Tarte agreed there was a great deal the City could do to make their finances more clear. Councilmember Buckshnis commented on her research of other cities’ financial reports. Mayor Cooper relayed preliminary findings of the polling. He clarified he told Mr. Hertrich that he thought the polling information would be helpful to the Council as they deliberated their decision. He hired a very reputable company who he has worked with in the past. He hired this company without consulting with the City Council because he is authorized to execute professional services contracts in his position as CEO of the City and within certain guidelines established in City Code and State law. Some of the findings support the proposal he made to the City Council and some of details the polling company Packet Page 213 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 12 will present in more detail at next week’s meeting support some of the things that have been proposed by Councilmembers. The polling consultant, Alison Peters, reviewed preliminary information with the directors and him today. Generally speaking, the voters are open to some form of a property tax levy and increasing their taxes; approximately 48% are willing to modestly increase their property taxes. A modest increase is the amount of his levy proposal, $130/year on the average home in Edmonds. There are also a lot of red flags in the polling that staff and the Council will need to consider. One of those is the voters’ highest priority was to use the money to shore up the budget to continue the City’s current level of core services. Another clear message in the polling was support for maintenance rather than capital projects; taking care of what we have and not raising taxes to build new things. Respondents also placed a high priority on streets, parks and public safety. Nearly 3/4th of the respondents placed the highest priority on the need for the City Council to gain unanimous approval and put forward a united package to the voters. The respondents asked the City to be specific about how the money would be spent. He summarized it was encouraging that a higher than average number of voters recognized that some type of levy was necessary as long as it was modest, took care of existing infrastructure and continued core services rather than capital projects. Ms. Peters will provide more details regarding the polling at the May 10 Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she will not base her decision for a levy on a poll; responses can be influenced based on how questions are asked. She did not believe a poll would convince her to do one thing or another. A poll can give an indication of how voters are leaning but she would not base her decision regarding a levy on a poll. Having been involved in politics for the past 25 years, she is aware that polling questions can manipulate the answer. She summarized the citizens deserved a greater thought process from an elected official than just a decision based on a poll. She advised she would be absent from the May 10 meeting. Mayor Cooper agreed Councilmembers should not base their decision solely on the information from the poll. The poll was written to collect statistically valid information and give the Council information regarding the voters’ feelings to assist in their decision. After reviewing the polling information, he may suggest a different approach to a levy. There are two reputable polling companies in Seattle; the person he hired is one of the two. He encouraged Council to keep an open mind when reviewing the polling information. He assured the pollster would not tell the Council what to put on the ballot; they will simply relay what voters are thinking. That information will be very helpful to the Council as they package a levy. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Mayor Cooper’s indication that one of the respondents’ priorities was unanimous support by the Council. She questioned how that response had been elicited. Mayor Cooper explained there was a long list of questions for respondents to prioritize; unanimous Council support was prioritized very high by over 3/4th of the respondents. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the Council will be provided the polling questions. Mayor Cooper answered the Council will be provided a presentation regarding the polling results and when the work is complete, the questions will be provided. He cautioned about looking at the raw questions without hearing the polling company’s description of the statistics and how the questions fit together. He explained it was a question about what is important to the person; of the list of 10-12 items, respondents rated the Council reaching unanimous consensus on a levy the highest. He acknowledged the Council did not have to reach unanimity but not doing so affected the ability of a levy to pass. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas looked forward to seeing the presentation, report and polling questions. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council will be provided the questions that were asked in the poll. Mayor Cooper answered when the pollster provides the City a finished product, the questions will be a public document. Packet Page 214 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 13 Councilmember Buckshnis advised during presentations to the Citizen Levy Committee, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline and the Edmonds School District agreed unanimously that a levy was important. Shoreline had one Councilmember who did not support the levy. The cities agreed Council and staff unanimity was also important. Mayor Cooper supported the Council working to get to a unanimous vote; if they cannot, that they continue working until a levy is developed that the entire Council can support. The more agreement there is on the Council, the more likely a levy is to pass. He referred to the 4-3 decision to place the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) vehicle license fee on the ballot that the voters ultimately did not support. He recalled Edmonds School District Superintendent Nick Brossoit saying before the School District places a levy or bond issue on the ballot, they work on it until the entire Board supports it. That should be an important consideration for the Council. Councilmember Wilson disclosed Alison Peters is a friend of his and he has hired her on two occasions in the past ten years. He did not have any input into her selection to conduct this poll. Observing that Councilmembers will be absent from upcoming meetings, he asked whether they can participate by telephone. City Clerk Sandy Chase answered yes, that has been done in the past. Because May 24 is the deadline to communicate to the County Auditor, Councilmember Wilson asked whether the May 24 Council meeting could be rescheduled to May 23. Council President Peterson answered yes. Councilmember Wilson commented that would give the Council three more meetings after tonight to make a decision regarding a levy. He wants to have a levy on the August ballot and asked Councilmembers to comment on whether his suggestion last week regarding a $700,000 street maintenance levy and $400,000-$500,000 in parks maintenance was something they could support. He would also like to add funding for the uniformed officer that was cut and for Crime Prevention. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the article in the Edmonds Patch from Chief of Police Al Compaan regarding the decrease in crime in Edmonds last year, relaying her concern with spending $200,000+ on a crime analyst. She recognized the Police Department’s efforts in reducing crime but that article does not support a request for additional Police Department staff. Councilmember Wilson asked whether she supported funding for street and parks maintenance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she supported the TBD vehicle license fee increase and believes the City’s streets need to be repaired. It was unfortunate that fee increase was not supported by the entire Council. Mayor Cooper commented if the Council makes its decision regarding a levy on May 23, the City Clerk needs to submit the following to the Auditor by the next day: • Resolution/ordinance • Explanatory statement for the ballot title • Appointments of the pro and con committees (pro and con statements due seven days later) Councilmember Bernheim commented it is interesting to compare the current levy proposal with the July 2009 proposal. The proposal that Councilmember Wilson and he developed in 2009 had funding for fire, police, parks, information systems infrastructure, a part-time Human Resources assistant and an additional employee in the City Clerk’s office which is very different than the current levy discussions. He believed the voters were responsible citizens and would support a levy if they think about it rather than listening to positions they wish they could support. He acknowledged no one wanted to pay taxes but part of being a patriotic American was paying one’s fair share of the social costs; it is un-American to say we must cut government spending and that mindset did a great disservice to society. He supported including funds in the levy dedicated to road maintenance, possibly along with other items. Repaving of roads cost $1.5 million/year; he supported including that in a levy along with a promise that maintenance would be deferred unless the funds were provided. If the citizens do not want to pay higher taxes for Packet Page 215 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 14 roads, the roads will continue to deteriorate. He summarized he was willing to start with $1 million - $1.5 million/year for roads. If the voters do not approve it, he was happy to stop resurfacing roads for a year. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out in the Tim Eyman era, government must bring proposals for tax increases to voters. Without requests for increases, revenues will continue to decline relative to government costs. It is completely unrealistic to demand the City not pay any more for labor this year when the cost of health insurance is increasing 10-15%. He summarized government would never be less expensive in subsequent years. He favored a $1.5 million levy for road overlays; if the voters did not approve it, the City saved $1.5 million. Mayor Cooper reminded there would be no savings as there are currently no funds in the budget for overlays. Council President Peterson commented the Council appears to be in general agreement on the need for revenue but there appears to be some stumbling blocks such as the lack of financial clarity. As Mr. Tarte stated, even if the methodology is changed, the numbers remain the same. If the method needs to be changed to achieve unanimity for a levy, there is a very tight timeline. He described the upcoming schedule: • May 10 – Special City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. with Committee meetings at 6:00 p.m. Community Services/Development Services Committee may be cancelled as Councilmembers Plunkett and Fraley-Monillas are not available. Finance Committee meeting starting at 5:00 p.m. Some items on the Finance Committee agenda may be deferred to a future meeting. • May 17 – Decision regarding a levy so there is time to get the pro/con committees established, etc. • May 23 – Special City Council meeting (in lieu of May 24 meeting) if a decision is not made May 17 Council President Peterson expressed support for including funding in a levy for road maintenance and deferred maintenance. He suggested the Council agree on those two items and then begin discussing more contentious items such as funding for public safety. Councilmember Buckshnis explained in June 2010 there was a financial statement where an amendment was embedded that was not approved by the City Council which resulted in the General Fund being overstated by $735,000; in September the amendment was not changed or footnoted in the quarterly; in December there were no reports other than a data dump; and there are no reports for March. She expressed concern with the Council making a decision about operating based on nothing other than the updated projection which again used a modified working capital approach that is not sanctioned by GFOA and is not used by any other City and the CAFR reports a $6 million fund balance. She could support $1.5 million for streets, $500,000 for Public Works maintenance, and $300,000 for parks maintenance. With regard to operating, she preferred to wait for a November levy due to the numerous unanswered questions. Council President Peterson commented if Councilmembers cannot get beyond the City’s financial reporting methodology, he needs to know that before calling a special meeting on May 23. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated her willingness to support for $1.5 million for streets, $500,000 for Public Works maintenance, and $300,000 for parks maintenance. Council President Peterson referred to the updated forecast that illustrates the City will be in the red within the next couple years. Everyone supports road maintenance but that does nothing to the ending working capital balance because funding for road maintenance is new money. He did not expect that Mr. Tarte would be able to answer all the Council’s questions at the Finance Committee meeting, but questioned whether enough progress could be made to reach a happy medium. He agreed with Councilmember Wilson’s suggestion not to let perfection be the enemy of the good. Packet Page 216 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 15 Councilmember Buckshnis assured the goal was not perfection; she was interested in citizen-friendly reports. Two years ago the forecast showed the City would be in the red by 2012. The projection has been changed, without any increase in revenue, and suddenly the City is not in the red until 2014. Her goal is citizen-friendly reports that allow citizens to see that there is $1.962 million in the Emergency Reserve, $3 million in the General Fund, and $1.3 million in the Public Safety Reserve. None of that is explained and citizens are questioning why they should support a levy when they cannot see the City’s financial condition on the City’s website. She did not agree with the forecast provided tonight. Council President Peterson asked if the reports needed to be changed before a levy was placed on the ballot. The Council has a great opportunity to make progress next week with a fresh, unbiased set of eyes, basically a consultant who has no vested interest in the levy. If the Council continues to have this conversation at every Council meeting for the next three weeks and until the election, the levy will not pass. He was hopeful that holding the Finance Committee meeting prior to the Council meeting would allow the finance questions to be answered or at least get the process moving. Councilmember Wilson commended Councilmember Buckshnis for her determination on the reporting issue and recognized the reason she continually brings it up is because she has not gotten answers to basic questions. He anticipated that was changing as evidenced by a new approach in the Mayor’s office and a new Finance Director. He appreciated her support for $1.5 million for streets, $500,000 for Public Works maintenance, and $300,000 for Parks maintenance. He reminded the Council that the City also needed enough in reserves to maintain the other core services for 3-4 years. He did not support placing a $1.5 million levy on the ballot for streets and spending all that money without funds to cover the shortfall. He fundamentally believed the City needed more uniformed police officers and no one could change his mind. However, he was willing to set that aside, one of the reasons he ran for City Council in the first place, to get something on the ballot. If the Council placed a levy on the ballot in August and the voters approved it, the Mayor can provide a much better 2012 budget. If the voters do not approve a levy, then the next Council can make a decision regarding a spring 2012 levy. He did not anticipate the same kind of support for a November ballot. Councilmember Wilson observed most Councilmembers, with the exception of Councilmember Petso, were supportive of funding for streets in an amount ranging from $700,000 to $1.5 million. Most also support some funding for parks. He was willing to support funding for Public Works maintenance. He was willing to set aside funding for police if the Council could agree on other items. He asked whether the Council could support a levy with $700,000 for streets, $300,000 for Parks maintenance and $300,000 for Public Works for a total of $1.3 million plus an additional $1.2 million for the reserves, the approximate amount needed to get through 4 years. This is a total of a $2.5 million levy versus Mayor Cooper’s proposed $2.26 levy. A $2.5 million levy is approximately $0.40/$1000 AV versus Mayor Cooper’s proposal of $0.35/$1000 AV. He suggested staff be asked to prepare that in a formal draft for Council consideration and public comment next week. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she needed more information such as what $700,000 for streets, $300,000 for Parks and $300,000 for Public Works would pay for. Although those amounts were recommended by the Citizen Levy Committee, she wanted to know how the funds would be used. Mayor Cooper commented there was approximately $285,000/year in deferred parks maintenance. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite reviewed a list of deferred maintenance she prepared after a tour of the City’s parks that includes: • $50,000 subsidy for Yost Pool • $35,000 for the Flower Program • Citywide restroom improvements • Gateway signs and entrances Packet Page 217 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 16 • Turf and drainage • Citywide parking lot asphalt and pathway improvements • Replace downtown trash containers • Downtown street pruning • Rehabilitating tennis and basketball courts Mayor Cooper offered to provide the Council the list of deferred park maintenance projects. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested further detail also be provided by Public Works. Mayor Cooper encouraged the Council to review the PowerPoint that lists deferred building maintenance. He reminded deferred maintenance was not funded currently so funding for those items does not address the operating deficit. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Petso requested the Council differentiate between capital expenditures, maintenance expenditures and operating expense. Although Mayor Cooper stated the list of parks deferred maintenance would not address operations, there are operating items on the list in addition to deferred maintenance. If financial issues cannot be resolved to a certain level, she feared the degree of unanimity on the Council will be very different. If there is unanimity to propose a levy for $700,000 for street overlays, she suggested the Council agree on that and consider it step one. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO PUT A $700,000 LEVY ON THE BALLOT FOR STREET MAINTENANCE. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO $1.5 MILLION/YEAR FOR THE NEXT 3 YEARS. Councilmember Petso commented unanimity had been lost with that amendment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented $700,000 does not cover street overlays. In order to justify the $1.5 million, she would prefer to know first what it would pay for, whether it would fund more than citywide overlays. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ request for further information, not only for the Council’s benefit but for the public’s benefit. He would not support the amendment because he preferred a 4 year levy rather than 3. He could support $1.5 million for streets, but a levy must at least also cover the operating deficit for the next few years. He summarized new money was good but the operating deficit also needs to be covered. He was not currently willing to use the Public Safety Reserve Fund or the Emergency Reserve Fund. Unless funds are included in a levy to cover the operating deficit, the $1.5 million for overlays would not be a great deal of help; the City could buy asphalt but not pay staff to fix the streets. Councilmember Bernheim commented it is the City’s responsibility to fix the streets. He reiterated perfect should not be the enemy of the good; if the City needs to raise money to fix the streets, that should be done while other problems are addressed. With regard to the amount, the impact of $1.5 million/year for 3 years on an average household in Edmonds was approximately $75/year. He reiterated citizens did not deserve to drive on the City’s roads for free just because they paid for their car, gas, car tabs, insurance, etc. Citizens have to expect to pay the public portion of the cost. Everyone is focusing on their own selfish expenses such as gas and forgetting the social cost to keep qualified people in the Public Works, Police Department, Engineering, etc. He preferred to start with $700,000 for the first year in order to earn Packet Page 218 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 17 public trust. He noted unanimity was not necessary on specific proposals; the Council can be unanimous in their support for a final levy proposal. Councilmember Wilson did not envision a levy for streets alone would pass and he would not support the motion. He could support a levy with $1.5 million for streets if it also included at least $1 million for reserves to cover the one month balance over 4 years and at least $300,000 for parks. He reiterated the City had a revenue problem regardless of the numbers in the CAFR; revenues do not keep pace with expenses. Councilmember Petso commented she did not want to go to $1.5 million yet, she may consider that later. There may be other sources of funding for roads such as via the TBD; there are other maintenance needs, and she recognized that these are tough times. She suggested the City begin showing citizens it is responsible by doing overlays and increasing the amount when times are better. Mayor Cooper relayed $1.5 million would cost the property owner of a $400,000 house approximately $93/year, slightly less for the average Edmonds home valued at $375,000. Councilmember Bernheim advised he would opposed $1.5 million as he favors $700,000. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the $1.5 million would become a ballot measure if the amendment and motion are approved by the Council. Councilmember Wilson clarified the motion directs staff to prepare a resolution. Mayor Cooper suggested Public Works Director Phil Williams provide details regarding what $700,000 versus $1.5 million buys. AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES. Councilmember Wilson restated the main motion as follows: DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION COMMUNICATING TO THE AUDITOR THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS WANTS TO GO TO THE BALLOT WITH A $700,000 STREET LEVY. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE $400,000 FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE. Councilmember Wilson suggested starting with $400,000, advising he was willing to lower the amount. His intent was to have staff identify what that amount would fund such as the Senior Center, Yost Pool, general parks maintenance, etc. He urged the Council to approve the amendment, noting the amount could be lowered to $300,000 next week. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Edmonds Center for the Arts is funded by the Parks Department. Mayor Cooper answered that debt is primarily a General Fund expenditure and one of the reasons for the deficit. Councilmember Wilson explained his next amendment would be $1 million-$1.2 million for reserves for the levy period to fund all the deficits. Councilmember Plunkett commented Mayor Cooper’s memo references $102,000/year for parks and $285,000 in deferred maintenance. He asked for clarification regarding maintenance versus deferred maintenance. Ms. Hite answered Mayor Cooper’s proposal included $100,000 for parks to cover the Yost Pool operations subsidy and the Flower Program. The $285,000 covers citywide restroom improvements, gateway signs, parking lot asphalt and pathway improvements, turf and drainage, and play structure Packet Page 219 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 18 maintenance, replace trash containers, street tree pruning, and tennis and basketball court upgrades. The City does not currently have an ongoing play structure maintenance program and some of the maintenance has been deferred. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the line item for parks maintenance. Ms. Hite answered it was $1.379 million. Councilmember Wilson wanted to ensure some of that came from a dedicated funding source. Councilmember Petso advised she had gone as far as she could tonight and could not entertain any levy items until after next week’s Finance Committee meeting. She was concerned with adding operating expenses such as Yost Pool, advising she fully expected Ms. Hite to operate Yost Pool in a revenue neutral manner like was done previously and was not inclined to ask the voters for money to subsidize pool operations. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas that the ECA was a recreation facility and anticipated it may even be REET eligible. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Petso, finding it difficult to make decisions at 10:30 p.m. She suggested the Council continue this discussion next week. Council President Peterson expressed his support for this amendment and likely the next amendment. He emphasized these votes are not set in stone; the Council was directing staff to return with further information. The votes on these items direct staff to provide information for a more detailed discussion at a future meeting. The votes on these items did not mean that a Councilmember would support placing a levy on the ballot as evidenced by his support seven times two years ago for a levy and then he ultimately did not support a levy. Councilmember Plunkett explained his concern with the amendment was the difference between operating and maintenance. He requested staff provide an amount strictly for maintenance that did not include the Flower Program or Yost Pool operations. He was concerned with including funds for operating in a levy due to the lack of transparency. In spite of Mr. Tarte’s review, he did not agree that the City had a revenue problem; there is also an expenditure problem. When one line item, medical benefits, increases by 30% over 5 years, that is an expenditure problem, not a revenue problem. Labor and wages increase 11% over 5 years. He summarized $2.6 million of the $4.8 million increase in expenditures over the next 5 years is in those two line items. He does not support $400,000, $300,000 or even $250,000 for parks unless he could be assured it was strictly for maintenance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised she would not support the amendment or any further amendments tonight with the information that has been provided. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING. Councilmember Wilson explained discussion on the motion and the amendment will be continued at the May 10 meeting. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY PLUNK TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WILSON, BUCKSHNIS AND PETSO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Packet Page 220 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 3, 2011 Page 19 Mayor Cooper explained Mr. Williams and Ms. Hite will prepare additional information in advance of the May 10 meeting regarding what maintenance means, how the money might be spent, etc. Councilmember Plunkett suggested staff also comment on deferred Public Works maintenance. Mayor Cooper advised there is a list of deferred building maintenance. He explained $1.5 million/year forever is needed to restore the City’s overlay cycle. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, was astounded by Councilmember Bernheim’s statement that it was un- American to cut government spending. He referred to the Council and Mayor’s reaction to his comments regarding the levy and offered the following rebuttal: in response to his claim that Development Services was overstaffed, he was reminded that Edmonds has far fewer employees relative to population than a city such as Lynnwood. To that he urged the City to benchmark itself with the best rather than the worst. In the boom years, Lynnwood’s sale tax was five times Edmonds’ and they employed a massive number of people and are clearly suffering in the current economy and have had to do severe downsizing. In response to his lament that the Council has done nothing to gain concessions from employees or reduce their numbers, he was reminded the Mayor has responsibility for managing staff. While true, during the 2011 budget process the Council could have questioned positions such as the Development Services Director, pressuring the Mayor to reduce staff and seek employee concessions. The issue he raised regarding concessions has not been addressed. His suggestion to reduce staff was countered with it is unwise to let staff go due to costly training when the economy improves. While a consideration, it is only prudent to maintain full staff if the surplus is expected to be short term. He hoped citizens would join him in urging the Mayor and City Council to make cuts before raising taxes. He acknowledged a levy increase is needed but cuts need to be made first. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, expressed concern that $1.5 million for street overlays equated to a $40 TBD vehicle license fee. Darrol Haug, Edmonds, explained earlier this year Mayor Cooper invited him to join Council President Peterson, Councilmember Bernheim and him to consider how report generation could be improved for the public. The City of Redmond’s reports have been proposed as a good example; they are easy to read and available on Redmond’s website. The Citizen Levy Committee visited Redmond to learn about their levy and met with Redmond’s Finance Director and other finance staff. He contacted Redmond’s Finance Director and obtained their entire report generator in Excel files. Today he entered Edmonds data and created six reports that he provided to the Mayor, Council President Peterson and Councilmember Bernheim as examples of how Edmonds’ data might appear in a different format. He suggested the Council immediately begin creating a few of the reports to clarify the City’s financial position. He urged the Council not to let hiring a new Finance Director slow the effort to create reports. He volunteered his time to assist the City in creating the reports. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper commented on Mr. Wambolt’s statements. He assured staff expenditures were reduced in the 2011. In 2010, wages including merit pay were frozen for non-union staff and in 2011 the budget reduced the authorization for merit pay from 3% to 1.5%. Concessions have been made and unions are working cooperatively with the City. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Wilson commented in 2008, his first year on the Council, $1 million was cut from expenses during the budget process. Expenses in 2009, the year $1 million in cuts were made, were $32.9 Packet Page 221 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 2 3. DISCUSSION OF LEVY OPTIONS. Mayor Cooper advised the PowerPoint regarding the community survey will be posted on the City’s website tomorrow. Councilmember Wilson disclosed that Ms. Peters is a friend and he has worked with her in a professional capacity in the past. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION (MADE AT THE MAY 3, 2011 COUNCIL MEETING) WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Alison Peters, Alison Peters Consulting, suggested Council questions be held until following her presentation. She provided the City Clerk a binder with additional data. Ms. Peters described her background, explaining she has been a pollster for approximately 15 years. She is from Washington State, done work in California and has owned her own business in the Puget Sound area for the past 9 years. She works almost exclusively in the public sector with cities, counties and special districts preparing to place measures on the ballot or assessing the feasibility of projects like this. She explained the main questions the survey sought to answer were: • How are residents feeling about the quality of life in Edmonds and the current pace of economic recovery? • Are residents satisfied with City services and programs? • What are the program and service priorities for residents in this economic climate? • What is the reaction to hearing about a proposal for new operations revenue for the City? She described the survey methodology: • Research Technique: Telephone Interviewing • Sample Type: All 7500+ registered voter households in Edmonds • Field Dates: April 25-28, 2011 • Sample Size: N=400 • Survey Length: 14 minutes Ms. Peters described the survey Demographics: Gender Aware of 2009 Public Male 45% Yes, aware 32% Female 55% No, not aware 45% Unsure 23% Age Geography 18-34 12% NW region (Perrinville) 28% 35-44 11% NE region (Meadowdale) 19% 45-59 29% SW Region (City Center, Esperance 39% 60+ 46% SE region (SR99, Puget Drive 13% Local Quality of Life and Economy Q: Do things in Edmonds seem to be going in the right direction or does it feel things are off on the wrong track? Packet Page 222 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 3 Right Direction 59% Wrong Track 24% Don’t Know 17% Edmonds residents are happy with the way things are going and their overall quality of life. 18-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-59 yrs 60+ yrs Aware of 2009 Public Process Unaware of 2009 Public Process Right Direction 89% 48% 53% 57% 72% 45% Wrong Track 9% 34% 30% 23% 16% 39% Don’t Know 2% 18% 17% 20% 12% 17% The poll shows a correlation between age and perception of quality of life; informed residents are also more likely to indicate their satisfaction with how things are going Perrinville Meadowda le City Center SR99/Puget Drive Right Direction 54% 59% 60% 63% Wrong Track 25% 30% 25% 13% Don’t Know 21% 10% 15% 24% The results show some differences by neighborhood and some places where residents may be less engaged on local issues. The Don’t Know results show residents in Perrinville and SR99/Puget Drive need to be engaged. Q: Overall would you say the economy in this area is getting better, staying about the same, getting worse, don’t know? Getting Better 21% Staying About the Same 56% Getting Worse 20% Don’t Know 3% Residents are neither very optimistic nor very pessimistic. Their answers reflect uncertainty. A greater percentage of people under 45 responded “staying the same” as they may be more affected by the economy. Q: We want you to evaluate the City Council, city leaders and city staff in several areas. Please respond to the following items using a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). Overall Rating (1-5) The job the Edmonds Police Department is doing to maintain public safety 4.19 The job the City is doing maintaining parks, trails, etc. 3.99 The job the City is doing maintaining public facilities and local streets 3.42 The communications you receive from the City 2.90 The job the City is doing spending tax dollars wisely and being transparent 2.88 Packet Page 223 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 4 Over 70% of residents offer ratings of 4 or 5 to both the Police and Parks Departments. Perrinville Meadowdale Downtown SR99/ Puget Dr The job the Edmonds Police Department is doing to maintain public safety 4.11 4.16 4.20 4.30 The job the City is doing maintaining parks, trails, etc 3.98 3.82 4.04 4.10 The job the City is doing maintaining public facilities and local streets 3.45 3.32 3.38 3.66 The communications you receive from the City 3.00 2.55 3.06 2.80 The job the City is doing spending tax dollars wisely and being transparent 2.92 2.70 2.85 3.08 Residents in the SE neighborhoods were noteworthy for the high ratings they gave to Public Works and Finance; Meadowdale residents gave low scores to Communications and Finance. Ms. Peters referred to the Executive Summary that includes key findings. She pointed out one of the key findings: residents hold different beliefs about the state of the local economy and the quality of life in Edmonds. It is possible to have a very high perception of the quality of services and still feel the economy is poor. Awareness of City Finances and Past Public Involvement Efforts: Ms. Peters urged the Council to pay the most attention to this section of questions. Q: Have City leaders engage community leaders and members of the public to address the revenue shortfall over the past two years and move forward toward a solution? Yes 32% No 45% Don’t Know 23% The key to analyzing this question is seeing who knew of the 2009 process and what impact that has on their attitudes. Aware of Process Unaware of Process Unsure 18-34 years = 42% SE region = 55% Women = 28% Men under 45 = 39% 35 to 44 yrs = 63% Women over 45 = 28% Men over 45 = 38% Women under 45 = 52% The largest population in Edmonds, including residents over 60, women over 45 and residents living in the downtown core, were not proportionately engaged in 2009 or perhaps don’t recall what impact the process made on them. Packet Page 224 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 5 Q: Based on what you know, do you think the City is able to fund all city services and programs with its current revenue? Yes 36% No 50% Don’t Know 14% Slightly more than a third (36%) of residents said the City can fund all programs and services with exciting revenue; 50% disagree. Subgroups that think the City’s revenue can fund all services: • Overall 36% • SE region 40% • Men 44% • 35 to 44 yrs 50% • 18 to 34 yrs 51% • Men < 45 62% Q: Do you think the City has a “revenue problem” and needs new sources of funding or a “spending problem” and can still do ore to become more efficient? Revenue Problem 35% Spending Problem 51% Don’t Know 14% A bigger problem: The perception that overspending is the issue, not the tax system or the economy. In response to the previous question, 36% said the City is able to fund all City services and programs with its current revenue; in this question 51% say the City has a “spending problem.” Subgroups that think the City has a “spending problem:” • Overall 51% • 45-59 yrs 56% • Women Under 45 56% • Unaware of 2009 process 58% • Men under 45 65% Service Priorities Q: Which of the following is more important to you right now? Keep taxes as they are 19% 42% Keep tax as they are even if services are cut 23% Shore up the budget and maintain services 29% 52% Get going on maintenance projects 23% Don’t know 5% A majority of residents want to ensure a stable City budget and better funded basic services. Packet Page 225 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 6 Ms. Peters clarified at this point in the survey the concept of a levy had not yet been introduced. Subgroups expressing a priority for “shoring up the budget:” • Women over 45 38% • SW region 36% • Women 35% • Overall 29% Keep Rates as they are Move Forward Women under 45 23% 66% 18-34 yrs 32% 67% Women 35% 59% Downtown 36% 57% Women over 45 37% 58% SR99/Puget Drive 38% 57% Meadowdale 41% 57% Men Over 45 50% 44% Men 51% 42% Men under 45 57% 43% 35 to 44 yrs 52% 38% Perrinville 55% 40% The gender gap is the most significant reason for the overall split in public opinion on this issue. Q: Later this year the City is considering an operations levy…” Do you think this proposal is a good idea or a bad idea? Good Idea 52% Bad Idea 43% Don’t Know 5% 52% of residents have an early positive response to the proposal. This mirrors the response to a previous question regarding what is important to you. Men <45 Men >45 Women <45 Women >45 Aware Unaware DK Good Idea 43% 50% 63% 53% 60% 41% 62% Bad Idea 48% 45% 37% 42% 34% 56% 32% Move Forward 43% 44% 66% 58% 57% 49% 51% Keep Rates 57% 50% 23% 37% 40% 46% 39% % Change 0 + 6 pts -3 pts -5 pts +3pts -8 pts +11 pts Q: I’m going to describe five ongoing needs within the City and I’d like you to tell me which one is your top priority area for funding. Need 2nd priority Top priority $700,000 would pay for local street maintenance projects 27% 26% Packet Page 226 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 7 $1.1 million per year would shore up the budget 19% 29% $100,000 per year would pay for maintenance of city parks, etc. 21% 24% $210,000 per year would pay for public safety 24% 20% $150,000 per year would pay for arts program 8% 1% Budget stability and Public Works are top priorities Perrinville Meadowdale Downtown SR99/ Puget Dr $700k for Public Works 54% 62% 48% 45% $1.1M for budget 44% 42% 55% 44% $100k for parks 42% 43% 49% 47% $210k for public safety 51% 45% 38% 50% Neighborhood priorities vary widely – both in terms of projects and the intensity expressed by residents. Evaluating the Options Ms. Peters relayed a statement from a real estate website regarding Edmonds: “The number of adults working in math and technology in Edmonds is higher than in 95% of US cities.” This reflects the amount of thought, logic and the methodical approach to assessing the survey information. Residents react to well-reasoned information, not emotion. Q: I’d like to know if these statements are important to you or not in evaluating this project. More Important City acknowledged people are worried about economy City completes its strategic plan Levy creates a cash reserve The cost of delaying street maintenance ($5M per year) Economy is tough Council needs to unify around the package Levy should be fore maintenance needs only Less Important Parks, pool and Flower Program deserve stable funding City employees have been cutting back Other revenue (casinos, retail) doesn’t fit our values Delaying projects will make them more expensive Perhaps if we wait, the economy will bounce back making the levy unnecessary Somewhat important Very Important City should complete Strategic Plan first 18% 70% City leaders understand that many people are worried about economy 26% 64% City must stay true to its values 20% 56% City Council needs to support the levy 25% 53% Doesn’t make sense to raise taxes in this economy 29% 51% The levy creates a cash reserve 33% 48% Packet Page 227 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 8 The parks system deserves secure funding 30% 47% Projects should be maintenance only 30% 47% City has been cutting back 34% 43% Wait until economy rebounds 24% 41% Street projects will be 3x to complete later 35% 40% The current need to repair streets will grow if we delay 42% 39% Ms. Peters commented on four pieces of information that work well together when considering next steps: appreciate, vision, plan and stand with us. Q: We would like to know what you think about various options. Should a measure combine projects into a single package or separate projects into individual ballot measure? Residents prefer separate measures to a single package (62% to 31%) -35 to 44 yrs old (78% separate) -People unaware of 2009 public process (73% separate) - SE region (39% single) -18 to 34 yrs old (46% single) - Women under 45 (36% single) Should a measure be focused mostly on maintenance projects or include both maintenance as well as capital improvement? Residents prefer a focus on maintenance over capital projects (62% to 32%) -18 to 34 yrs old (79% maint.) -Men under 45 (74% maint.) -Women under 45 (69% maint.) -45-59 yrs old (39% capital) Should a measure earmark money for specific projects or direct money into a general fund? Residents prefer to earmark money to specific projects so they have stable funding (66% to 30%) -18 to 34 yrs old (78% earmark) -Women under 45 (73% earmark) -35 to 44 yrs old (36% general) There was a preference for maintenance over capital projects and ensuring specific projects are funded. Q: There are a number of factors that affect the plans we’ve been discussing. I’d like to ask you about the cost of the plan and what projects are included. Costs less, $130/year 48% 51% Lean to costs less 3% Costs more, $210/year 37% 40% Lean to costs more 3% Neither 7% Don’t Know 1% Every large subgroup (except men) favors the less costly plan by a significant margin. The biggest subgroups: • Women 56% to 35% • Seniors 53% to 36% • SW Region 52% to 42% • People Unaware of Public Process 54% to 35% % Favoring Less Costly Plan Favor $130 Favors $230 Packet Page 228 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 9 Plan Plan Women Over 40 57% 32% NE region 57% 35% 35 to 44 yrs old 56% 36% Women 56% 35% NW region 54% 36% People Unaware of Public Process 54% 35% Overall 51% 40% % Favoring More Costly Plan Favor $130 Plan Favors $230 Plan SE region 36% 53% People Aware of Public Process 48% 49% Women under 45 53% 48% Men over 45 45% 48% Men 46% 47% Overall 51% 40% Ms. Peters provided the following points for thinking ahead to next steps: • Trend in local levies and bonds in Snohomish County since 2008: fewer measures on the ballot and a lower winning percentage. • Edmonds’ last revenue measure (Transportation Benefit District) was just recently on the ballot (November 2010) and lost by a large margin. • Elections for Council and Mayor in November 2011. • Not much time between now and August or November 2011. • High gas prices, local economic conditions not likely to improve significantly. • Women are increasingly cost sensitive since the recession began and they are 55% of your households. • Polling indicates support from a small majority…within the margin of error. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Ms. Peters focused on the 2009 Levy Committee when there was a 2010 Levy Committee and the Economic Development Commission (EDC). Ms. Peters answered when the questionnaire was written, 2009 was recognized as the starting point of the levy discussions. Staff indicated more significant outreach had occurred in 2009 compared to the work sessions in 2010. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the EDC was an outreach group and had done a tremendous amount of work. Ms. Peters answered the focus was on City-sponsored activities. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the length of a levy was discussed. Ms. Peters answered there are restrictions on what can be discussed in such a poll; polling regarding specifics such as timing, amount, ballot language, etc. cannot be paid for with City funds. In other polls, she has not found that citizens have a strong reaction to the length of a measure; they have stronger opinions about what is funded, cost, etc. Many citizens also do not have an opinion about the timing of a measure and prefer the governing body make that decision. Mayor Cooper explained he told Ms. Peters the levy discussions began in 2009. She was not provided information regarding the EDC because the poll was specifically regarding the levy. Packet Page 229 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 10 Council President Peterson explained Councilmember Wilson and he met last week to develop a concept using comments from the public, Council and staff. He reviewed how the Council got to this point: • Dec 2008: Budget includes a note committing to levy in 2009 • Council forms 2009 levy committee with 60 participants o All 8 groups support a levy, ranging in size from $2.75m to $4.5m o All 8 groups support making economic development a priority • 2009: Council votes 7 times to support a levy o Each vote unanimous o Changes direction based on Eyman initiative, FD1 talks, general concern about timing on Nov ballot • 2010: New levy committee created • Feb 2011: Council discusses levy at retreat, citizen Darrol Haug outlines possible levy options • Mar 2011: Mayor announces levy proposal • April 2011: Levy committee provides mixed feedback • Public comment: April 26, May 3 • Council deliberations: April 5, 19, 26, May 3 He relayed what the Council has heard from staff: • Streets: 97% of our streets need repair of some level • Parks: In last 15 years, added one FTE and decreased seasonal labor, while adding maintenance for 20 new sites • Buildings: Deferred maintenance, debt payments to ECA • Police: Item of greatest interest to the citizens He relayed comments made by the Mayor and Council: • Mayor: “Critically important to keep our city on a stable financial footing” • Councilmember Plunkett: “I can support a levy focused on capital and/or maintenance.” • Councilmember Buckshnis: “I’m ready to vote for those things right now (streets, parks, and the ECA).” • Councilmember Petso: “I think there is unanimous support for some level of funding for streets.” • Councilmember Bernheim: “I’m ready to support putting a levy to the voters, of some size, right now.” • Councilmember Fraley-Monillas: “I supported the TBD because I think our streets need more investment than we currently provide.” • Council President Peterson “We’ve been talking about a levy for a long time, and all of us agree there is a revenue shortfall. Now it’s time to let the voters decide.” • Councilmember Wilson: “I care deeply about getting more cops on the street here, but I am willing to set that aside in order to get broader support for a levy package.” Council President Peterson relayed their proposal: • Maintenance and Safety Levy • $2.75 million • 4 years • 2.5% annual increase Councilmember Wilson explained their proposal was developed after listening to input from the Council and the public in an effort to build as much support from the Council and the public at large as possible. Packet Page 230 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 11 He assured it was neither his nor Council President Peterson’s perfect proposal but it was their attempt at developing a proposal the Council could support. Their proposal would provide: • $800,000 – Street Maintenance • $900,000 – Parks Maintenance • $800,000 – Building Maintenance • $250,000 – Police • $2.75M – Total He provided specifics with regard to the funding: Street Maintenance • $800,000 per year • 100% to street overlays o $15 per square yard, 2” thick (grind and overlay) o Goals: Every 15-20 years for arterials Every 30-35 years for residential streets • This investment level means your street is overlaid every 55 years: o Arterials every 28-38 years o Residential every 56-65 years Parks Maintenance • $900,000 is a dedicated funding stream for parks maintenance o Maintains one of our most important capital assets: our park system o Makes investments like: Replaces oldest and most dangerous playground equipment Reestablishes turf integrity for parks so we aren’t playing on dirt or dangerous surfaces Yost Pool capital needs are increased and dramatic Fishing pier updates to support tourism: electric, lighting, cleaning station Building Maintenance • $800,000 in dedicated funding • $300,000 ECA debt o Worst case scenario o More information provided at May 17 meeting by ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain • Deferred maintenance: $500,000 o Frances Anderson Center asbestos abatement - $50,000 o Frances Anderson Center radiator replacement - $110,000 o Wade James Theater roof replacement - $50,000 Police • 1 Uniformed Officer o Buys back the officer cut in 2011 budget o Cuts since 2008: Lost 2 uniformed officers Lost 1 animal control officer Lost 1 part-time office assistant Lost DARE program Lost School Resource Officer Lost Crime Prevention Unit Packet Page 231 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 12 • Buys back Crime Prevention Unit o Allows for one uniformed officer/analyst o Allows for one civilian FTE Councilmember Wilson summarized their proposal: • $2.75 million levy • $0.43 per $1000 of assessed property • $161.25/year or $13.44/month on average home value at $375,000 • Maintenance and Safety Levy addresses concerns: o Mayor: Moves us to a stable financial footing o Council: Parks and streets maintenance a priority o Public: Buys back public safety cuts • Most importantly, this is a smart, frugal investing in our capital assets and our community safety Councilmember Petso commented the parks maintenance amount far exceeded the amount indicated in the information provided by staff in the packet. She asked whether the amount in Councilmember Wilson and Council President Peterson’s proposal included wages and benefits for parks maintenance staff. Councilmember Wilson answered there is a parks maintenance budget line item of $1.45 million. Their proposal would create a dedicated funding source of $900,000 for parks maintenance. It would increase capital maintenance projects for playground equipment, turf replacement, Yost Pool, etc. Yost Pool is also included in the $1.45 million line item. The $900,000 funds capital projects and the difference between $1.45 million can cover salaries and benefits. Councilmember Petso asked the same question regarding building maintenance. Councilmember Wilson answered of the $500,000, $200,000 is for new projects such as Frances Anderson Center asbestos abatement; the other $300,000 is for projects identified by Public Works. She asked whether there were funds in that amount allocated to wages and benefits. Councilmember Wilson commented a Councilmember did not control how every dime was spent because that was the Executive’s authority; because asphalt did not lay itself and roofs were not put on by themselves, the amount may include wages and benefits. His intent was to focus as much as possible on capital projects. Mayor Cooper asked staff to clarify how much of the maintenance is performed by City staff versus contracted out. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the information she included in the packet contains a list of park maintenance items; out of the $1.4 million budget, she estimated $1.25-1.3 million was labor – benefits and wages. There is a very small budget for supplies and repairs. Many of the projects on the maintenance list are on the list due to limited staffing levels over the past 15 years. Those items total approximately $330,000. That work can be done by adding one FTE or contracting it out. It is less expensive to add one FTE than contract out the work. Public Works Director Phil Williams advised overlays would be contracted out to a private sector company, stimulating the economy. There may be minimal City labor for planning and organizing activities. The $500,000 in building maintenance would be projects like roofs, siding, mechanical systems which are typically contracted out. There would also be some City staff time in building maintenance activities such as painting, small flooring jobs, minor building modifications. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the ECA will need $300,000 for 4 years and how the funds would be used if the economy improves or the ECA sells the naming rights. Councilmember Petso suggested that be answered during next week’s presentation by ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain. She acknowledged the ECA obligation is approximately $300,000/year. How that is budgeted and how much the ECA can provide is still being worked out. Mayor Cooper advised the $300,000 is worst case Packet Page 232 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 13 scenario. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether citizens would support an expenditure for which the City did not have exact numbers. Mayor Cooper reiterated the May 17 presentation will provide further information. As a result of discussions with Mr. Tarte regarding Finance Department staffing, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding one FTE to the Finance Department rather than the Police Department. Councilmember Wilson explained the intent of this proposal is to allow the Council and public to speak to it. They intend to move this proposal next week unless there is a different proposal; their proposal can then be amended. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if consideration had been given to separating the proposals as the survey suggested citizens prefer. Councilmember Wilson answered that is not their proposal; their proposal is 4 years, $2.75 million with a 2.5%/year increase. He invited Councilmembers to make alternate proposals or amend Council President Peterson’s and his proposal. He preferred any significant modifications be done via an independent proposal. Councilmember Petso expressed her preference for an individual item proposal. She asked whether the plan was to place a levy on the August ballot versus November. She recalled a newspaper article that said there was a cost for an August ballot but no cost for a November ballot. City Clerk Sandy Chase clarified the cost depends on what is on the ballot; the cost is shared by entities with items on the ballot. Both the primary and the general election are a better choice than a special election with regard to cost. Councilmember Petso asked whether the general election was less expensive than the primary. Ms. Chase answered it would depend on the number of issues on the ballot. Council President Peterson commented the primary driver for putting a levy on the August ballot rather than November is to provide clarity to the budgeting process. If the results of the levy are known before the budget is prepared and presented to the Council the first week of October, the projections can be much more accurate. Councilmember Wilson commented he is deeply committed to more cops on the street for personal reasons. He is willing to set that aside in an effort to achieve broader support from the Council for a levy proposal. He asked that other Councilmembers have that same open mind. He is unlikely to support 2-5 different ballot propositions because he does not want to pit one line of service against another in this economy. He preferred to have one combined levy. Councilmember Buckshnis emphasized the City will not run out of money next year; the City does not run out of money until 2014. She knows a lot of people who are unemployed and many seniors have called her to say they do will not support a levy. The Finance Committee met with the Finance Director who agreed the City needs to make its reports more citizen friendly. She anticipated a levy on the August ballot would not provide enough time to educate the public. She preferred 2-3 separate measures to provide citizens a choice. Councilmember Wilson asked when Councilmember Buckshnis would get to a point that she had enough confidence in the reporting of the numbers that she could ask voters to support a levy. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the December 31, 2010 quarterly report that has titles not found and overspending on Haines Wharf, emphasizing those issues needed to be resolved because they reflect poorly on the City Council and administration. She did not believe a levy would pass until citizens were provided information. The December 31, 2010 quarterly report on the City’s website is a “data dump” that includes amounts with titles not found. The report is an embarrassment and she has asked that it be removed from the City’s website. The March 30, 2011 quarterly report is the first report since June 2010that has made sense. Packet Page 233 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 14 Council President Peterson recognized that if Councilmember Buckshnis’ questions could be answered, the finances would be clearer to everyone. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis’ suggestion for one FTE in the Finance Department versus a Police Officer, he pointed out the need for additional Finance staff to provide clarity before a levy was placed on the ballot. He recalled a motion he made that was not supported by the Council to use funds from the Emergency Reserve to hire a finance person. His primary concern with numerous propositions, a smorgasbord approach, is the high percentage of people that the survey indicated are aware the City needs to shore up its budget. He did not support placing a “shore up the budget” proposition on the ballot that would compete with road, parks and public safety. He expressed concern with waiting to hire a person in Finance until after a levy was approved when that person was needed now to improve financial reporting in preparation for a levy. Councilmember Bernheim was confident there was no question regarding the accuracy of the reports. He agreed the City needed more user friendly reports which Darrol Haug and Councilmember Buckshnis have made progress toward. At the Finance Committee meeting tonight, Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte explained the City does not have the staff to provide the reports. He preferred not to have new employees included in the levy. Police is not his highest priority; there have been indications that crime is going down and Edmonds is not a high crime area. He preferred to discuss adding police officers during the budget discussions. He supported hiring additional staff for the Finance Department, whether via decreases in other departments or increases in the budget. Councilmember Bernheim noted the Council came close to placing a levy on the ballot a couple years ago and has made great strides with regard to economic development. The Council established the EDC who has made recommendations to the Council including hiring a consultant to study Westgate and Five Corners. Dick’s plans to locate in Edmonds and restaurants and businesses are returning to downtown. He recognized that economic development would not cure the City’s or the United States’ deficit problem. He was willing to place several propositions on the ballot, explaining that was how government compromised with the citizens. He was also amenable to a combined levy. With regard to the August or November election, Councilmember Bernheim preferred to place a levy on the November ballot because he believed the City needed a levy. He feared the voters would not approve a levy on the August ballot because the City was not prepared. He preferred to place 2-3 propositions on the November ballot and allow the candidates to talk about it and educate the voters. He feared there would be a small turnout for the August election and then it would be too late to place a levy on the November ballot. A November election will provide time to develop reports which he noted Darrol Haug is in the process of producing because City staff does not have the time to do because they are busy with revenue and expenses and required State reports. If the Council placed a combined levy on the ballot and it failed, Student Representative Gibson pointed out the City would not receive any money. However, with multiple levy options on the ballot, there is the possibility some will pass. He concluded some money was better than no money. Councilmember Wilson disagreed with Student Representative Gibson’s logic. If he asked Student Representative Gibson for $100, he might give it to him. If he asked 20 times for $5, he was guaranteed not to get $100 from Student Representative Gibson. If the Council needs to ask voters for $2.75 million for safe streets and playgrounds, the voters should not be asked 2.75 million times. The City needs more staff in Finance, Parks and the Police Department because the Council has not asked the voters for money for years and has underfunded City operations for decades. Now the Council is unable to get the reports they want because there is insufficient staff to prepare them. Citizens cannot get their phone calls answered because there is no staff to take their calls. There will always be a better time and a better way to go to the ballot but at some point the City simply needs to do it. There was a measure on the ballot in Packet Page 234 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 15 2003 and then it was decided a levy was not needed that year. An EMS levy in 2008 was passed overwhelmingly with 70% approval. A subsequent TBD ballot measure failed miserably. The City has done a stellar job putting off what can be imaged tomorrow. He summarized if not now, when? Councilmember Petso inquired about her motion last week for $700,000 for roads. Mayor Cooper recalled that motion was tabled. A subsequent motion by Councilmember Wilson to add $400,000 for parks maintenance was deferred and then withdrawn at the beginning of tonight’s levy discussion. Council President Peterson explained Councilmember Wilson and his intent was to have staff draft an ordinance with the aforementioned numbers for Council consideration at the May 17 meeting rather than the random motions the Council has made at previous meetings. Mayor Cooper reported an Everett Herald article today stated sales tax in unincorporated Snohomish County is projected to be over $2 million dollars lower at the end of 2011 than budgeted. Edmonds is on target with 25% collections at the end of the first quarter. Although Councilmember Buckshnis is correct that the City does not use up its reserves until 2014, unless the Council chooses to pass a budget for 2012 that uses more of the reserves, that doesn’t keep a one month reserve, the City will be into the one month reserve by $700,000 in 2012. He urged the Council to consider that as well as declining sales tax and home values when deciding whether to place a levy on the August or November ballot. If the levy is on the November ballot, the 2012 budget he provides the Council in October will reflect the projected shortfall. Following discussion on action taken on the motions made at last week’s meeting, Ms. Chase clarified action taken on motions last week as follows: • Motion by Councilmember Petso to put a $700,000 levy on the ballot for street maintenance. • Amendment by Councilmember Buckshnis to change the amount to $1.5 million failed. • Councilmember Wilson restated Councilmember Petso’s motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution communicating to the auditor that the City of Edmonds wants to go to the ballot with a $700,000 Street Levy. • Amendment by Councilmember Wilson to include $400,000 for parks maintenance. • Motion by Councilmember Wilson to postpone amendment to the next meeting approved. • The motion to amend was withdrawn at the beginning of the discussion of the levy this evening. Ms. Chase concluded no action was taken on Councilmember Petso’s original motion. Mayor Cooper ruled Councilmember Petso’s motion was now on the floor for discussion: COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO PUT A $700,000 LEVY ON THE BALLOT FOR STREET MAINTENANCE. Councilmember Bernheim expressed his support for the motion and his preference for the November ballot. He preferred the November ballot because it allowed additional time to enhance the public’s understanding. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO ADD THAT IT WOULD BE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. Councilmember Petso commented because this levy funded streets and would not impact the budget process, there was less difficulty with postponing it to November. Packet Page 235 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 16 Observing there were only five Councilmembers present, Mayor Cooper asked whether four votes, a majority of the Council, or only three votes, a majority of Councilmembers present, were required to pass a motion. City Attorney Jeff Taraday offered to research. Councilmember Wilson recalled when Councilmember Petso made this motion, it was in an effort to find common ground on which the Council could agree. He asked whether it was her intent to only put a levy for $700,000 on the ballot or if she had a vision for a more comprehensive strategy. Councilmember Petso recalled the Council stopped last week because it got too late to identify other common grounds. Councilmember Wilson asked if it was Councilmember Petso’s intent to have additional elements as part of a levy package. Councilmember Petso answered she preferred not to add elements to this proposal. She assumed if her proposal passed, other proposals could be made that could be combined or be placed separately on the same or a different ballot. Councilmember Wilson asked if a package could be developed that was a little bigger than Councilmember Petso wanted and smaller than he wanted if they both compromised. Councilmember Petso responded she was unwilling to begin bartering; the survey supports $700,000 for roads and the Council appeared to agree on that at the previous meeting. Nothing that happened tonight has changed her perspective. She was unable to commit to funding a police officer in an August ballot. Councilmember Wilson answered he was not asking her to do that. This is her motion and he assumed she had a plan. Councilmember Petso assumed other Councilmembers would propose items of importance to them. With regard to the number of votes to pass a motion, Mr. Taraday explained the vote was not on an ordinance; the votes were on motions that would later be returned to the Council in an ordinance. His understanding is that because it is a motion, a majority of those present, three of the five, is sufficient to pass a motion. Official action to place a levy on the ballot via adoption of a resolution or ordinance would require four votes. Councilmember Wilson observed the Council had never done that. Mr. Taraday read from an unidentified source, “the basic requirement for adoption of a motion by an assembly with a quorum is a majority vote. Majority is more than half the votes cast by persons legally entitled to vote.” THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper advised he would allow the motion to pass although he had misgivings about whether the Council could pass a motion with a 3-2 vote. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD PARKS MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $900,000. Using Councilmember Petso’s feedback where she invited other Councilmembers to add to the underlying proposition, Councilmember Wilson felt it appropriate to build toward a proposal like Mayor Cooper’s and his and Council President Peterson’s proposals. Councilmember Petso opposed the amendment because there was not yet Council consensus on the parks maintenance item particularly since it includes a variety of items currently funded by REET as well as salaries, wages and benefits. She was uncertain what the parks component should look like but she did not support park maintenance as proposed by Council President Peterson and Councilmember Wilson. Councilmember Bernheim was supportive of including parks maintenance in a levy proposal but was uncertain what the parks component should look like. He was glad to have the additional time provided Packet Page 236 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 17 by a November ballot measure to make that determination. By voting no on this proposal tonight, he was not necessarily voting no in the future. He was happy to have items combined in one levy or as separate propositions. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FAILED (2-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING YES. Councilmember Wilson understood a deficit to be when expenses exceed revenues. His understanding was the City would have a deficit of approximately $683,000 in 2012. He asked what portion of the $700,000 in the motion would be used to cover that shortfall. Mr. Tarte answered zero, there would still be an approximately $700,000 deficit because the $700,000 in the motion would be used to fund street overlays. It would have no effect on the 2012 deficit and the 2012 budget would still have an approximately $700,000 deficit. If the Council chose to fully fund street overlays at $1.5 million, Councilmember Wilson asked whether any of that new money would cover the shortfall. Mr. Tarte answered no, $1.5 million would fund street overlays, not shore up the City’s finances. Funds need to be included in a levy to shore up the budget in order to cover the deficit. The most recent projection shows the City effectively out of money December 2013. He clarified the end of 2013 shows a balance of $880,000; that amount would be spent in the first week in January 2014. Councilmember Wilson commented that scenario would likely never happen because the Mayor will make dramatic cuts to services such as the Yost Pool, senior center programs, and other programs, to ensure the City does not run out of money. If a levy is not placed on the August ballot and approved by the voters, those cuts will begin to be made this summer. Mr. Tarte explained if funds from a levy are not available in August, severe cuts will need to be made in services. In his opinion, from a purely financial point of view, the City would be better off liquidating assets rather than severely cutting services. He cited the City’s liquidation of the Fire Department equipment as an example. He summarized the City could get more for its assets if it was not gutted first. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD BUILDING MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $800,000. Councilmember Petso advised she would oppose the amendment for the same reason she opposed the prior amendment. She was hopeful that some of the building maintenance deficit would be REET eligible. Councilmember Buckshnis stated she will also vote against the amendment. The City will not actually be out of money because there is $1.9 million in the Emergency Reserve and $1.3 in the Public Safety Reserve and the City has historically been 3% under budget in salaries and benefits which is not reflected in the forecast. The Council needs to get its hands around the current numbers and forecast accordingly. Councilmember Wilson explained the $1.9 million Councilmember Buckshnis referred to is money set aside in the event of a catastrophe such as an earthquake. It is the Council’s policy not to spend that on anything other than a tsunami, earthquake, etc. The $1.3 million was almost spent on a park and the Council is now considering spending it to mitigate medical benefit inflation. None of that money goes to abating asbestos in the Frances Anderson Center as proposed by the amendment. He recognized no other Councilmembers had children that utilized the recreation services provided in the Frances Anderson Center but other families do. He recommended the Council determine a way to fund basic building maintenance by November if they did not choose to do so via this amendment. Packet Page 237 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 18 Council President Peterson asked how long $3 million, the $1.9 million plus $1.3 million Councilmember Buckshnis referred to, would last if it were moved into the General Fund to support operations. Mr. Tarte answered the levy under consideration is $2.75 million; $3 million would take the City through 2015 or 2016. The result of passing a $2.75 million levy or unrestricting $3 million was basically the same. It would not address the City’s revenue issue; in effect it would be utilizing a $3 million asset for operations and delaying the current conversation to 2015. Council President Peterson objected to simply “kicking the can down the road.” Council President Peterson recalled he drafted the ordinance restricting the $1.9 Emergency Reserve Fund. In light of the numerous disasters that have occurred around the world recently, that is a good fund for the City to have. This Council has been adamant that the $1.3 million in the Public Safety Reserve be used for capital improvements. Unless there was a drastic change in Council policy, he did not understand why those funds were being considered to cover the deficit. If the Council wanted to change that policy and liquidate that asset, that should be discussed prior to a levy. That option has not been raised at the retreat or during any other discussions. Councilmember Bernheim asked what the $800,000 would fund. Councilmember Wilson explained the $800,000 included $300,000, a worse case scenario funding for the ECA. That amount is likely to be slightly less but not a lot less. The remaining $500,000 is a dedicated funding source for building maintenance. It secures the existing $300,000 already in the General Fund for building maintenance and adds $200,000 for items there is not enough money in REET to cover. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her preference for separate ballot propositions rather than bundling levy items. She was unwilling to support $800,000 until she had more information regarding the ECA debt. She was willing to support $500,000. Councilmember Bernheim advised he would support the motion with the understanding he may change some of the details later. In principle he supports putting the ECA debt to the voters whether in a bundled proposition or separate propositions. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE $250,000 FOR POLICE. Councilmember Wilson explained these funds would buy back one police officer. The City currently has 53 uniformed officers and had 56 in 2008. It will also buy back the Crime Prevention Unit that was cut from the budget by funding one uniformed and one civilian personnel. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION FAILED (2-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCREASE THE LEVY AMOUNT BY $1 MILLION TO FUND THE DEFICIT AND SHORE UP THE BUDGET FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS. Councilmember Bernheim advised he will support the amendment because it allows the voters to decide. He viewed this as a good topic for a levy. He was open to a combined levy or separate levy propositions. Councilmember Petso advised she will vote against the amendment as well as her original motion as it appears the items are being bundled into one levy. Packet Page 238 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 19 UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper restated the motion with amendments as follows: TO PUT A LEVY ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT WITH $700,000 FOR STREET OVERLAYS, $800,000 FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND $1 MILLION TO FUND THE DEFICIT. Councilmember Wilson hated that there was no funds for cops in the motion, that it would be on the November ballot, that there were no funds for park maintenance but he was willing to support the motion because at a bare minimum it adds some investments and shores up the budget. This is far from a perfect levy proposal and is a bitter, painful pill but he argued it was as bitter for him as anyone else. If the Council was unable to get consensus on this compromise, he was doubtful the Council would reach consensus on anything. He pointed out this meets Councilmember Petso more than halfway, funds what Councilmember Buckshnis has said she wants to fund and funds a few of the things he wants to fund. He urged the Council to support the motion and bring this levy proposal back for public comment next week. Councilmember Petso did not support the motion. There was no way that within an hour of hearing about asbestos in the Frances Anderson Center that she would support funds for building maintenance. She noted there would be public comment next week and an opportunity to vote on a final ordinance, providing the Council time to make improvements. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the ECA debt had increased from $100,000 to $300,000 and she has no details. She reiterated the need to shore up the City’s financials to improve citizens’ understanding. Councilmember Bernheim commented it was not his objective to sour the basic roads proposal. He also did not want to be pigeon holed into maintaining the positions he supported tonight in a final ordinance. He would support the motion with the understanding there would be further public comment and opportunity for additional modifications. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND PETSO VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper advised he will work with staff and Mr. Taraday to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration next week. The ordinance will be drafted so that it can be amended. He suggested Councilmembers with amendments provide them to Mr. Taraday to allow him to draft appropriate language. It is not as critical to have the ordinance perfected next week as the motion directed the levy be placed on the November ballot. He acknowledged the ordinance could be amended to place the levy on the August ballot. Council President Peterson advised ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain will make a presentation to the Council at next week’s meeting. Also at the May 17 meeting, Councilmember Wilson will provide a summary of the self-insurance process. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, relayed a news report regarding a shooting at Edmonds-Woodway High School today and the subsequent lock down of five schools as a precaution. Next, he encouraged the public to visit the Farmers Market on Saturday. He agreed with plans to make cuts if voters did not approve a levy. Packet Page 239 of 290 Levy Considerations for Parks May 5, 2011 At the request of Council, I have prepared the following information to clarify the cost of park maintenance issues in the city. As Council considers various levy proposals, please use this as a guide to clarify park maintenance, deferred maintenance, REET funded items, Yost Pool, and the Flower Program. 1. Current Level of Service, Parks Maintenance: To the extent Council wants to leverage levy funds to pay for current levels of service, here is the current parks maintenance budget and what it includes. The 2011 ongoing general fund budget for parks maintenance is $1,385,853, plus $38,499 for the flower program, for a total of $1,424,352. This includes 11 FTE’s, 7-8 seasonals, a minimal supply and repair fund, utilities, fleet interfund, insurance, contracted service for Meadowdale playfield, and porta potty rentals. The 11 FTE’s and seasonal provide service to maintain 47 sites and perform the following duties: 1. Restroom maintenance and repair at Bracketts North, Olympic Beach, Mini Park, City Park, Seaview Park. 2. Trash and litter: All parks and downtown area 3. Turf mowing, trimming, edging, aerating, fertilizing, and filling in holes due to heavy use 4. Baseball, soccer field & track maintenance. Dragging infields & soccer fields 5. Flower program and greenhouse maintenance 6. Leaf maintenance which includes all parks and downtown area. 7. Playground inspection and repairs on monthly schedule as needed. 8. Landscaping, bed maintenance and pruning year around. 9. Sprinkler installation and repair which includes parks plumbing & drinking fountains. 10. Yost Pool maintenance. 11. Parks equipment repair, such as various types of lawnmowers, weed eaters and chain saws and other small gasoline and diesel equipment. 12. Parks Department also maintains Public Works small equipment such as plate whackers, weed eaters and chain saws. 13. Picnic table & bench repairs. 14. Walkways & pathways cleaning. 15. Park and city building parking lot maintenance 16. Park Sign maintenance 17. Vandalism. 18. Street Tree pruning & maintenance 19. 5th & Main fountain maintenance 20. City wide park trail & pedestrian foot bridge maintenance 21. Community events: various duties including park preparation, extra garbage and litter pick up, decorating and lighting for the holiday season, etc. With the additions of Hickman Park, Haines Wharf Park last year, and Interurban Trail, Milltown, and additional beds and flower baskets this year, we have added quantity without increasing staffing, which sacrifices quality and adds to an ongoing list of deferred maintenance items. Our current staff capacity allows us to provide maintenance standards at, and sometimes below average. In addition, we have been experiencing increased usage of the parks in all seasons over the past 2-3 years. This can possibly be attributed to citizens staying in town, weathering the economic downturn. This has resulted in the Packet Page 240 of 290 need for increased maintenance of our parks with the same staff capacity, which again, has resulted in some deferred maintenance items. 2. Parks Deferred Maintenance Issues: To the extent Council wants to add levels of service to take care of items that have been deferred, and curbing future capital costs, below is a list of issues that need to be addressed. Because the Park Maintenance budget has minimal supply/repair funds and we have limited staff capacity, there have been maintenance issues in our parks that have been continually deferred, thus leading to the degradation of the park system. These currently are not being addressed in the current level of services. These items include: 1. Play structure maintenance: We need to start replacing at least one park play structure per year on a rotating cycle. These cost approx. 100,000 to 200,000 depending on the park. If we build this into the budget on a rotating basis, that will increase the integrity and safety of the parks and reduce the amount of staff time used to repair, fabricate parts, reacting to failures of equipment, replacing boards, bolts, chips, sanding, etc. We have at least seven currently that are costing more to maintain than if we just rolled them into a replacement program. For example, City Park, Marina Beach, Yost Park, Ballinger Park, Meadowdale Clubhouse, Sierra Park and Maplewood Park all should be replaced soon. Currently, this comes out of the REET, but relying on these funds for an ongoing park issues isn’t effective. These tend to get de-prioritized in the CIP, and have been delayed too long. Dedicated funds every year just for playgrounds would be a much more effective strategy to ensure efficient use of staff time and playground safety. Total cost: $150,000 per year. 2. City wide restroom improvements. All park restrooms have been deferred in maintenance items, including plumbing, toilets, tp holders, toilet seats, sinks, drainage, interior painting, etc. This item would need to include supplies and a portion of an FTE, or seasonal labor. Total cost: $25,000 per year. 3. Update gateway signs and entrances. Most of these haven’t been replaced in years. A lot of the neighborhood parks entrances are rusted old bent gates that are barely functional. We have started to replace the signs, one by one, and it is a slow process. Total cost: 15,000 per year. 4. City wide Parking lot and asphalt pathway improvements 10,000 plus fte year. Again, another item that if we had the funds, we would be able to fix holes, protrusions, tripping hazards more efficiently and ensure the safety of the parks system on a regular maintenance schedule. Labor would be needed to perform asphalt pathway improvements and connection pathways throughout the entire park system. This item would need to include supplies and a portion of an FTE or seasonal labor to complete work in house. Total Cost: $30,000 per year 5. City wide turf and drainage issues. Seaview, Sierra Park, City Park and Anderson Center ballfields. Our ballfields are below standard, and they don’t have the root integrity they need to withstand more use. Regular mowing, weeding, moss control happens, but not the more in depth turf building due to lack of funds and staff capacity. This would include upgrades to turf and soil at Seaview Park and portions of Sierra Park along with drainage improvements to Sierra and City Park ballfields. We would be able to apply top dressing and field repair to Anderson Packet Page 241 of 290 Center ballfield which is heavily used by youth sports and events. This would also include improvement of Civic Field turf and upgrades to the track drainage issues. This would include a portion of an FTE or seasonal labor, and supplies. Major replacements would be considered in the CIP. Total Cost: $90,000 per year. 6. Replace and upgrade downtown trash containers: Total Cost: $24,000 , one time only. 7. Tree pruning. This is a continual issue and takes a tremendous amount of staff time. Tree pruning and park tree pruning to ensure safe and well shaped trees for everyone to enjoy. This cost would include a labor only. . Total Cost: $ 10,000 8. City wide tennis and basketball court upgrades. This is also something that needs to be yearly and on a rotating schedule. Due to lack of funds and staff capacity, these get literally no attention. Total Cost: $10,000 9. One additional vehicle: If we add these items to a regular maintenance schedule, the above items could be accomplished with either 1 FTE, or backfill of seasonals. In any case, we would need an additional vehicle. Total Cost: $ 30,000 one time only. Total Cost, deferred maintenance items: $330,000 per year, plus $54,000 one time only. ( The ongoing total includes approx 95,000 labor costs, or equivalent to one full time parks maintenance person ) 3. REET funded general maintenance items. There are several items that would be considered yearly maintenance items that have continually been paid for each year out of the REET 125 fund. These could be considered in a levy, so as to free up capacity in the 125 fund for larger capital projects. City wide beautification ( includes flower program and general landscaping ) : $35,000 per year Misc. Paving projects: $5000 per year ( allocated at $10,000 every two years) Citywide park improvements: $35,000 per year Sportsfield upgrades: $12,500 ( allocated at $25,000 every two years ) 4. Yost Pool Current funding allocated to pool: Park Maintenance, utilities, chemicals: $ 78,000 Recreation staff and supplies: $ 130,000 Total cost to operate pool: $208,000 Projected revenues: $ 140,000 Total subsidy: $ 68,000 Additional needs: We just completed a capital repair at Yost pool that should last for the next 7-8 years. There are additional upgrades that need to happen in the next 1-4 year, including a new boiler ( $ 80,000 – 100,000), deferred maintenance items including upgrades and ongoing Packet Page 242 of 290 maintenance to the building, tiles, surrounding pool deck ( $ 32,000 per year ). We have reprogrammed the pool for this summer, hoping to bring the operations closer to zero subsidy. However, this will depend on the demand for service, and weathering the competition from the new Lynnwood pool. Total cost of additional needs: $25,000 per year, plus $80,000-100,000 one time. Total cost of subsidy with additional needs: $100,000 per year, plus up to $100,000 one time. 5. Flower program: Currently, this program costs about $ 175,000 to operate at the current level. This includes $ 148,000 labor costs. The supply budget is currently covered from the REET funds and some ongoing general fund. If Council has an interest of supporting this with the levy, it may be worth considering covering $90,000 of the FTE cost and reallocate that for the deferred maintenance items listed above. Total Cost: $175,000 per year. Packet Page 243 of 290 1 Packet Page 244 of 290 2 Packet Page 245 of 290 3 Packet Page 246 of 290 4 Packet Page 247 of 290 5 Packet Page 248 of 290 6 Packet Page 249 of 290 7 Packet Page 250 of 290 8 Packet Page 251 of 290 9 Packet Page 252 of 290 10 Packet Page 253 of 290 11 Packet Page 254 of 290 12 Packet Page 255 of 290 13 Packet Page 256 of 290 14 Packet Page 257 of 290 15 Packet Page 258 of 290 16 Packet Page 259 of 290 17 Packet Page 260 of 290 18 Packet Page 261 of 290 19 Packet Page 262 of 290 20 Packet Page 263 of 290 21 Packet Page 264 of 290 22 Packet Page 265 of 290 23 Packet Page 266 of 290 24 Packet Page 267 of 290 25 Packet Page 268 of 290 26 Packet Page 269 of 290 27 Packet Page 270 of 290 28 Packet Page 271 of 290 29 Packet Page 272 of 290 30 Packet Page 273 of 290 31 Packet Page 274 of 290 32 Packet Page 275 of 290 33 Packet Page 276 of 290 34 Packet Page 277 of 290 35 Packet Page 278 of 290 36 Packet Page 279 of 290 37 Packet Page 280 of 290 AM-3958   Item #: 10. City Council Meeting Date: 05/17/2011 Time:15 Minutes   Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information  Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings of May 10, 2010. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached are copies of the minutes for the following City Council Committee meetings: 05-10-11 Community Services/Development Services Committee 05-10-11 Finance Committee 05-10-11 Public Safety/Human Resources Committee Attachments 05-10-11 CSDS Committee Minutes 05-10-11 Finance Committee Minutes 05-10-11 PSHR Committee Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 05/12/2011 03:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 05/12/2011 04:08 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 05/12/2011 02:37 PM Final Approval Date: 05/12/2011  Packet Page 281 of 290 M I N U T E S Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting May 10, 2011 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member Strom Peterson Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer The committee convened at 6:30 p.m. A. Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Project. Mr. English discussed how this project will rehabilitate nine existing sewer lift stations within the City’s sewer service area. The existing mechanical and electrical equipment that operate the stations are obsolete and need to be replaced to reduce maintenance costs and the potential for pump failures. The estimated construction cost for this project is $3.5M and the costs will be paid by the City’s 412 Sewer Utility Fund. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. B. Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the 2011 Waterline Replacement Project Mr. English reviewed the waterlines that are programmed for the 2011 Waterline Replacement project. He also discussed that the project would include an overlay of Dayton Street between SR104 and the BNSF tracks. The estimated project cost is $1.7M and the costs will be paid by the 412 Utility Fund, 112 Street Fund (portion of Dayton Street overlay) and the General Fund (fire hydrant cost). ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. C. Report on final construction costs for Caspers Street/Ninth Avenue N/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project. Mr. English reviewed the final construction costs for the SR524 Walkway project and highlighted the improvements that were made with the project. The project was funded by a WSDOT grant, TIB grant, 412 Water Utility Fund and the 112 Street Fund. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. Packet Page 282 of 290 CS/DS Committee Minutes May 10, 2011 Page 2 2 D. Report on final construction costs for the Five Corners Booster Pump Station Improvements and Council acceptance of project. Mr. English discussed the improvements that were completed on the City’s three water system reservoirs including seismic and security upgrades. The final project costs were reviewed and the costs were paid by the City’s 412 Water Utility Fund. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. E. Discussion on needed repair to the Treatment Plant’s outfall pipe and the process for obtaining bids and awarding project. Mr. Williams outlined why the project was needed and how it should be completed prior to the planned overlay of Dayton Street between SR104 and the BNSF tracks. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. F. Report on final construction costs for the Odor Control Improvement Project and Council acceptance of project. Mr. Williams discussed the improvements that were completed with this project and how it reduced odors at the Waste Water Treatment Plant. The project was funded by the City’s Sewer Utility Fund. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. G. Report on final construction costs for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project. Mr. English explained that during the billing process for the federal grant in February, staff determined that $5,843 in staff costs had not been included in the final cost reported to Council in January. This update on staff costs will match the grant paperwork submitted to WSDOT for reimbursement. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. H. Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code (ECC) 8.64.060 Parking Provisions in the Downtown Edmonds area. Mr. English reviewed the proposed parking change on 4th Ave N from Daley St. to 3rd Ave N. He clarified that the change will add a 3-hour parking limitation between the hours of 12 midnight to 6pm. He also added that an existing 1-hour parking limitation on the west side of 4th Ave N north of Daley Street would change to the proposed 3-hour restriction. The Downtown Parking Committee reviewed the item and recommended the parking change be made. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval. The meeting adjourned at 7:00p.m. Packet Page 283 of 290 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 10, 2011 Present: Councilmember Petso Councilmember Bernstein Councilmember Buckshnis Staff: Jim Tarte, Interim Finance Director Deb Sharp, Accountant Carl Nelson, CIO Sandy Chase, City Clerk Public: Ron Wambolt Bob Rinehart Roger Hertrich Councilmember Petso called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A. Quarterly Budget Report Councilmember Petso asked if a monthly budget report through April was available. Mr. Tarte advised there was not. Councilmember Petso requested it be provided on next week’s Consent Agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about changing from modified working capital to a modified accrual accounting method. Mr. Tarte explained that would be a very significant change in the way the City recognizes revenue and expenses; it is not necessarily more accurate, both are accurate, it depends on how the readers wants to see information. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the modified working capital approach is not recognized in CPA or GFOA standards. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with using $2.176 million, the beginning 2010 working capital, throughout the year, reiterating her preference for a cash flow account like Lynnwood, Mukilteo and other cities use. Ms. Sharp responded to several questions from Councilmembers Buckshnis and Councilmember Petso regarding specific expenditures in the quarterly report related to REET, City Attorney, ECA debt, and plan check fees. With regard to the City Attorney, Mr. Tarte explained the $509,000 is comprised of $156,000 for the Prosecutor and $350,000 for the City Attorney (established before the final contract was negotiated with the Lighthouse Group, actual contract is $32,000/month or $384,000/year). He estimated the yearend City Attorney expense will be $425,000 rather than $350,000 due to ten months with Lighthouse and two months with Ogden Murphy Wallace. There is also a $13,000/month charge for the Prosecutor, raising the total City Attorney expense to approximately $575,000. Mr. Tarte reported sales tax revenue as of March is 26% of the budgeted amount. Councilmember Petso observed overtime is over 25% for the quarter. B. Update on Financial Policies and Reporting Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the number of “title not found” entries in the December 31, 2010 report. She is also interested in the amount spent on Haines Wharf Park. Councilmember Petso inquired whether Council approval was required if expenditures exceeded the amount appropriated for a project. Ms. Sharp recalled a budget amendment was done for Haines Packet Page 284 of 290 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 Wharf. Councilmember Petso inquired about a $25,000 expenditure from the Parks Trust Fund. Ms. Sharp explained the Park Trust Fund is for the Flower Program, Yost Pool and Beach Rangers. There was a $25,000 budget amendment in September for Yost Pool from the funds donated to the pool. Councilmember Petso commented it was her understanding the use of the Park Trust Fund was interest only. Ms. Sharp recalled the funds were restricted for the use the donors intended. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ordinance 3466 that states the Council will deliberate on the reasons for using the Park Trust Fund. Councilmember Petso inquired about “title not found” on the December 31, 2010 “data dump” report. Ms. Sharp explained it is the result of how the report is sorted and coded; those items need to be titled in Eden. In the past the data in that report has been manually entered into an Excel spreadsheet. She assured it was a reporting issue only. Mr. Tarte explained the first quarter 2011 report represents approximately 10-12 man hours; the data dump is raw data generated by Eden and takes approximately 20 minutes. He asked whether the Finance Committee wanted staff to dedicate the time to prepare the December 31, 2010 report. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested staff provide an explanation of the 15 irregularities she identified. She suggested the December 31, 2010 data dump report be removed from the City’s website. Councilmember Petso inquired about the $800,000-$900,000 expenditure for benefits in non- departmental where there are no wages. Ms. Sharp answered that was the Fire Department payout for vacation and sick leave. When employees retire, it is also budgeted in that account and transferred to the appropriate department when they actually retire. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested all fund balances be included in the report including the reserve funds. She inquired about the balance in the Council Contingency Reserve. Ms. Sharp explained Council-authorized expenditures draw down the $93,000 balance. When the Council budgeted $25,000 in 2011, that authorized $25,000 in expenditures but did not add that amount to the fund. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the Council Contingency Reserve was replenished. With regard to policies, Councilmember Petso invited Mr. Tarte to comment on the type of policies the Council should implement. She suggested a policy requiring a quarterly reporting of interfund loans and intergovernmental loans. Mr. Tarte observed the Council was interested in citizen friendly reports which he agreed was a great idea. He suggested the City mirror the citizen-friendly reports provided by other cities. He suggested getting the reports prepared to the Council and citizens’ satisfaction first before discussing a change in the accounting method. A change in the way the numbers are reported is not something to be taken lightly and may require the State’s permission. In response to a question asked at a previous Council meeting regarding an increase in supplies shown in the forecast, Mr. Tarte advised that was a coding error. It was the consensus of the Finance Committee that all funds and revenues be listed in the report. Mr. Tarte provided a diagram of how the Finance Department’s operates, explaining there are two primary functions, 1) collection and payments, and 2) financial reporting and analysis. He acknowledged there is room for improvement in financial reporting and analysis and the Finance Department is not keeping up with what has been provided historically. There is also room for improvement in the separation of duties. Mr. Tarte identified the employees in the Finance Department, four Accounting Technicians, one Accountant/CPA and one Finance Director, and described how they are allocated to each function. He summarized it would be difficult to accomplish the reporting the Council desires with six FTEs and when only two of the FTEs are accountants. The reason the Council does not receive reports is not because the Finance Department does not want to prepare them, it is because they are focused on Packet Page 285 of 290 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3 the collection and payment functions and reports required by the State. In 2007 there were 8-9 employees in the Finance Department; employees who left were not replaced. He recommended the City fund three additional positions in the Finance Department: an Accountant/CPA, an Assistant Finance Director and an Accounting Technician. Mr. Tarte relayed the City receives the most complaints about customer service on utility accounts; there is only one person sending out 13,000 utility bills, handling shut off notices and customer service. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the additional Accounting Technician allocated to utilities could be funded from the Utility Fund. (Councilmember Buckshnis left the meeting at 6:18 p.m.) Councilmember Petso asked whether operational changes could be made to improve segregation of duties without hiring more employees. Mr. Tarte said no; segregation of duties requires additional employees as tasks then take more time. Another issue is there is no backup for the person who processes payroll. Councilmember Petso asked why the auditor does not comment on the segregation of duties. Mr. Tarte explained the auditor has a materiality level; they do not look at things less than a certain amount. Cash handling amounts may be below that materiality level. Councilmember Petso summarized the Council can adopt all the policies they want regarding reporting but it cannot be accomplished without additional staff. Mr. Tarte agreed it is an operational issue, not an ordinance issue. Mr. Tarte pointed out the annual report to the State is due on May 31 and the City can be fined if that is not provided. Although he would like to prepare the 4th quarter 2010 report, prepare the month report for April and answer Councilmember Buckshnis’ questions regarding titles not found, the annual report takes priority. He will attempt to prepare the April monthly report for the May 17 Consent Agenda. In June he plans to have staff begin preparing reports and other data for the auditors who arrive in July. The budget process also begins in July. Councilmember Bernheim asked how long it would take to see positive results if one additional full- time person were hired in the Finance Department. Mr. Tarte estimated approximately two months. Councilmember Bernheim suggested reducing staff in Planning and replacing them with staff in Finance. Councilmember Petso suggested the Utility Fund could also fund a position in the Finance Department. Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern that without reports there was no comprehensive view of the City’s finances. Mr. Tarte commented the Annual Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Statement and Audit Report and the City’s receipt of the GFOA Certificate of Achievement in Excellence in Financial Reporting for the past several years validates that the City is meeting the minimum expectations of Washington State as well as the elevated expectations of the GFOA. He agreed with the Council’s desire for improved reporting and information but felt there was sufficient financial reporting for the Council to make a decision regarding whether the City needs a levy. Councilmember Bernheim clarified the City’s financial reporting, if a person knows how to read it, is accurate and meaningful. Councilmember Petso asked for a copy of the Annual Washington State Auditor’s Office Financial Statement and Audit Report. Councilmember Petso relayed Councilmember Buckshnis’ request that she draft a revised policy on the use of the Emergency Reserve to broaden its use to include any financial emergency. Councilmember Bernheim commented the Council could revise the definition if the funds were Packet Page 286 of 290 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 4 needed. He supported changing the definition but preferred not to distract the Council on that issue now. Councilmember Bernheim found Mr. Tarte’s comments refreshing. He recognized that changing the policies would accomplish little unless the Finance Department was adequately staffed. C. Public Comments Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation for Mr. Tarte’s involvement. He understood that the Finance Department needs 2-3 more employees and suggested the Utility Fund pay for one of the employees and another position be funded from the Planning budget. Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, commented the Finance Committee has done a wonderful job and has worked hard at communicating with the public. Mr. Tarte advised that a Finance Department staff member will attend future Finance Committee meetings. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Packet Page 287 of 290 1 CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 10, 2011 Committee Members Present: Council Member D.J. Wilson Council Member Diane Buckshnis Others present: Police Chief Al Compaan, HR Director Debi Humann, Assistant Chief of Police Gerry Gannon, Recreation Services Manager Renee McRae, Parks Maintenance Worker Jesse Curran, Dawn Curran, Engineering Technician JoAnne Zulauf, Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz and Building Maintenance Operator Larry LaFave The meeting was advertised to start at 5:00 pm. Since the Committee Council Members were not present at that time, those present for the meeting (noted as “Others Present” as listed above) disassembled at 5:37 p.m. The PS/HR Committee re-convened at approximately 6:20 pm at the request of Council Member(s) D.J. Wilson and Diane Buckshnis. Other attendees included Evelyn Wellington and HR Director Debi Humann. Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force, 2011-2012 Interlocal Agreement Chief Compaan explained that this item seeks authorization for the Mayor to sign the FY 2011-2012 interlocal agreement with the Snohomish Regional Drug and Gang Task Force. Since January 1988, the City of Edmonds and other Snohomish County cities have been participants in the Snohomish Regional Drug Gang Task Force (SRDGTF) with offices in Everett. The SRDGTF receives the majority of its funding through a U.S. Department of Justice grant. The grant amount is based on the number and population of municipalities that participate. The required matching funds for the federal grant come from Snohomish County and the participating municipalities. Edmonds’ share for July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 is $9,998, an increase of $197 over last year’s share. Funding for this item is included in the 2011 Edmonds Police budget. The interlocal agreement and the funding received from participating entities, sets forth the operational framework for the SRDGTF, and has done so since 1988. Action: Forward to the City Council consent agenda with a recommendation to approve. Self-Insurance There was some discussion by Council Member D.J. Wilson and Council Member Diane Buckshnis as to the meeting start time. Council Member Wilson stated that he had requested that the meeting time be changed to 6:00 pm due to a schedule conflict. Council Member Wilson requested that another meeting time be scheduled to discuss the health insurance agenda item and he requested that HR Director Humann provide him with the names of the attendees who were present earlier. There was some discussion between HR Director Debi Humann and Council Member(s) Wilson and Buckshnis as to whether or not rescheduling an additional meeting would be feasible (as some of those present were spouses of employees) with a possible meeting date of Monday, 5/16/11 @ 5:00 pm. Council Member Buckshnis asked Council Member Wilson to explain/clarify his cost estimates with regard to his projection of the approximate $3M cost for health insurance premiums from AWC along with an additional $1.4M for reserves. Council Member Wilson explained that he had worked closely with Volunteer Consultant Jack Loos for his projected cost estimates on a self-insured model [as precise figures based on claims experience rating/history are only projections due to the inavailability of our claims experience/history from the Association of Washington Cities (AWC)]. Council Member Buckshnis pointed out that the model provided by Council Member Wilson detailed a total projected cost of approximately $4.4M (including reserves). There was some discussion between Council Member Packet Page 288 of 290 2 Buckshnis and Council Member Wilson that the $4.4 million would be comprised of the current monthly premium accrual in addition to the $1.4 million the City currently had in reserves. HR Director Humann stated that she recalled having a discussion with Wells Fargo (who was the City’s health insurance consultant) and Jack Loos as to the new (upcoming) health care reform legislation. Her recollection was that the State required that each self-insured organization had to be fully funded within a specified period of time. HR Director Humann asked if Council Member Wilson knew what that period of time was. He responded he did not. Council Member Wilson stated that as long as our total City’s insurance costs (under a self-insured plan) did not exceed $3M each year (the current cost of our premiums with AWC), the additional $1.5M reserve fund would continue to grow. HR Director Humann pointed out that this would also have to include the cost of the third party administrator, stop loss coverage provider(s), and any other costs associated with self-insurance. Council Member Wilson affirmed that this was correct. HR Director Humann inquired as to whether the council meeting on 5/17/11 was to ascertain Council approval to go to market in order to ascertain hard data that could be brought back to council [for further consideration of a self- insurance plan]. Council Member Wilson responded that he wasn’t sure as to the direction (from council at this point) and was open to suggestion. Council Member Buckshnis stated that the City does not have the money to fund the self-insurance plan, unless the safety reserve was used. There was some discussion between Council Member Buckshnis and Council Member Wilson to further clarify the breakdown of costs in his self-insurance model [between the reserve fund amount and the cost of claims for the benefit of council]. HR Director Humann stated that it seemed reasonable to ascertain more information [on actual plan costs for a self- insured plan]. She explained that with knowledge of the particular plan/benefits desired, and with the help of HR to put together a census, it would make sense to go to market and find out what the actual costs would be for self- insurance. HR Director Humann stated that when the Heath Benefits Committee went to market with Wells Fargo, they encountered some problems that included being blocked by AWC from obtaining meaningful quotes, not having the claims history/experience available to us, needing AWC to release information on all of the retirees and COBRA individuals currently on AWC plans, and finding reasonable quotes for our LEOFF 1 retirees. Council Member Wilson suggested putting together a resolution to bring forth to council for approval (within the next three months) that includes preparing a census of information [based on our AWC-insured employee pool, retiree pool and LEOFF 1 retiree pool] and sending it out to the market to obtain [self] insurance provider quotes. HR Director Humann also pointed out that approval for a budget [for the consultant going out to the market] should also be included in the resolution. Evelyn Wellington inquired as to whether the insurance provider quotes would be for fully funded or self-funded (self-insured) plans only and whether or not the intent was to transition over to a self- insured plan in the next three months. Council Member Buckshnis stated that it would take longer than three months, but that it would [in her opinion] lower the largest cost (which is the administrative cost portion of the total premiums cost) for our health insurance benefits if we went to a self-insured plan. HR Director Humann stated that she believes there are still a lot of concerns about the viability of self-insurance: 1) due to the size of the employee group at the City [to be insured]; 2) if the City does not pass a levy and there are resultant layoffs, the employee group size could be reduced even further and; 3) due to the impending impacts of healthcare reform legislation. Council Member Wilson stated that his concerns are that the “right” questions have not been asked and the “right” answers have not been ascertained with regard to finding out all the information possible on self-insurance [before making a final determination to not look further into the City pursuing self- insurance]. HR Director Humann explained that there was another healthcare consortium, Clearpoint [which the City Health Benefits Committee had explored] that offers a platform for self-insured plans that may be viable at some point in the future for possible estimated plans savings. There are a handful of cities that have chosen to use Clearpoint (such as Kirkland and DesMoines) and it will be of benefit to the City to see how these cities’ plans perform to determine if a cost-savings was realized and to consider whether they may be a good provider choice. Packet Page 289 of 290 3 There was some discussion that followed by the committee and an audience member regarding why organizations (such as AWC) withhold risk pool and claims experience/history information and other possible cost-savings measures. Council Member Wilson explained that as benefits such as health insurance are a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, there are some issues involving contract agreements that must be considered that could lead to arbitration and that there are political impacts. In his opinion, creating a culture in the City of “ownership” regarding healthcare [through self-insurance] is a goal. There was some additional discussion that followed by an audience member and the Council Members regarding collective bargaining agreements within the City. Non-Represented Compensation Policy HR Director Humann distributed copies of the City’s Non-Represented Compensation Policy to the Committee dated 12/16/10 (which was also provided to council) as well as additional background information in a memo on the scope of work to be performed by a compensation consultant (as requested by Council Member Michael Plunkett). This draft scope of work includes a three part RFQ/RFP process. According to HR Director Humann, it seemed to make sense to separate out the scope of work into three sections since the council may determine that it would like to have some of the survey work done “in house” [by HR staff with the help of temporary employees, not the consultant]. Council Member Wilson inquired as to whether other cities handle their compensation surveys in the same manner. HR Director Humann stated that she had discussed with our comparable cities how they handle their compensation surveys and only a few had used consultants (such as the City of Lynnwood) and that these surveys were almost always handled primarily “in house” by HR staff as the City traditionally has for a number of years. HR Director Humann stated that her draft scope of work included: 1) an analysis and review of the current compensation policy; 2) a review and update of all employee job descriptions (which has not been performed since 1997 and is also mandated by WCIA through a personnel audit that requires this work to be completed by October of 2011 or a monetary penalty will likely be imposed) and; 3) conducting a comprehensive compensation market- based survey using comparable cities. HR Director Humann further stated that she was unclear as to the direction Council wanted to take as the scope of work had been left to her to bring back to Council and that she understood her draft scope was a starting point. Council Member Buckshnis inquired as to whether or not HR Director Humann could recall if she had provided this information packet to the levy committee. HR Director Humann responded that she did not believe it had been included in that process because nothing had been decided yet but that she had sent it in February as an agenda memo for the March 2011 HR Committee Meeting. Council Member Buckshnis stated that she would look to see if she had the information and would let HR Director Humann know if she needed another copy. Furthermore, Council Member Buckshnis stated that she believed that this compensation survey is a good idea as she is regularly asked question by the public about our compensation policy and about how it compares to the state and other comparables. Council Member Wilson stated that he also believes that having a compensation consultant review the policies, etc. is a good idea. Additionally, as Council Member Wilson pointed out, the HR Department is minimally staffed [as are many departments in the City], therefore, the review and update of all job descriptions should be handled by the consultant so that HR Director Humann can focus on other HR workload items. Council Member Wilson further suggested that HR Director Humann create an RFQ/RFP for the second defined item in the scope of work (update of job descriptions) and bring that forward to council. In response to some comments made about comparables, HR Director Humann stated that, in her opinion, if the appropriate market comparables are not selected for the compensation survey, it could greatly alter [skew] salary figures. She further added that if comparables do not include the market from which we lose our employees or recruit from, they are not generally useful for retention and recruitment. Financial Analyst Position Council Member Wilson suggested that the financial analyst may best serve the City’s needs by being an employee of the City opposed to a contractor for the Council. There was some discussion that followed about the financial analyst position as a contract versus full time or part time employee position to be further discussed in the future. Council Member Buckshnis suggested that this topic be put on hold until the Finance Director vacancy is filled. The meeting adjourned at 6:58 pm. Packet Page 290 of 290