Loading...
02/08/2011 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES February 8, 2011 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Steve Bernheim, Councilmember D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Carl Nelson, CIO Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Rob English, City Engineer Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Council President Peterson requested the addition of Audience Comment prior to Item 3. iii . i• �i� i�- iii_ 1 i 0 IN W.111011 l II 4114 13 oil 1 1 Lei y LIMILOY."I 1 i 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2011. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #123662 THROUGH #123782 DATED FEBRUARY 3, 2011 FOR $266,586.21. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #50197 THROUGH #50230 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 16, 2011 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2011 . FOR $641,995.1.8. D. CORRECTION AND APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 25, 2011 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ALY MEDINA ($762.13). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 1 3A. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, circulated material to the Council, commenting on how similarly the Utility in Shoreline thinks about bonds, that it is less expensive to pay off bonds now rather than invest due to low interest rates. Juliana Van Buskirk, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, commented the Chamber has been actively following the Council's discussions regarding options for the disposition of the $1.3 million received from the sale of capital and depreciable assets from the former Edmonds Fire Department. The Chamber believes the overall guideline should be fiscal responsibility, especially during recent challenging economic times. The Chamber is hopeful that any decision will focus on the most prudent and responsible use of the funds to help ensure the economic health of Edmonds and avoid earmarking for a specific project. The Chamber is not expressing disagreement with any project that may be proposed, but taking the position that the first step should be to examine the impact on the City's economic health of retaining the funds in the Public Safety Reserve or spending the money and reducing the reserve. The Chamber posed the following questions: 1. Is saving approximately $25,000 /year for the next 4 years worth spending $1.3 million of the City's reserves on any project, especially in light of the economic climate? 2. Is this what the majority of citizens of Edmonds want? If so, how was this determined? 3. What options can /cannot be considered if these funds are spent and who would make this decision? The Council has approved and budgeted for the creation of a Strategic Plan; she suggested it would be prudent to complete the plan prior to making any major decisions about the use of the funds. 3B. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE PUBLIC SAFETY RESERVE FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PAY OFF 1998 LTGO BONDS. Council President Peterson thanked the Chamber and Mr. Hertrich for their comments. This is an important issue for the City; $1.3 million is a significant amount of money. He was confident the conversation will be forthright and civil. Mayor Cooper advised no motion was made regarding this issue during the previous discussion. 1010110 01 I'm ftife] "'Cl I IN PM 111910111 Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Chamber for their questions, commenting the questions did not consider that the City has $1.927 million in an Act of God reserve that was changed two years ago from use in an economic downturn, a $3 million general operating reserve and the $1.3 million in the Public Safety Reserve, a total of approximately $6 million in reserves. Her research found Redmond and Edmonds use a one month reserve, Mukilteo uses a two month reserve, and Bothell has an 18% reserve which they believe is too high. She concluded the City has sufficient operating reserves, the economy is improving, and sales tax revenues are higher than projected. Paying off the City Hall bonds with the $1.3 million will free up REST funds that can then be used for street improvements. Councilmember Petso thanked the Chamber and Harry Gatjens for the citizen survey he conducted on the internet and the discussion it generated. As a result terms like fiscally irresponsible are no longer being used and the subject is being rationally discussed. She supported paying off the City Hall bonds. With regard to how she determined public opinion, it was primarily via talking to people. Most people she has Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 2 talked to do not object to using extra money to pay off a debt with a 4% interest rate rather than holding the money at 1% and refinancing for 4 years. She acknowledged the savings was only approximately $100,000 over the 4 year period but the benefit to the City was the potential creation through grants and debt issuance to leverage the $1.3 million up to as much as $8 million in projects for the City over time. With regard to projects, there are no projects specified at this time. The Council policy in the past was supposedly to use this REET fund for park acquisition; however, most of the projects funded via the REET fund are not park acquisition, indicating the policy has varied. She summarized the City has sufficient reserves, the funds in the Public Safety Reserve only earn 1% interest and paying off the City Hall bonds retires bonds at a much higher percentage, saves money and frees up money. Councilmember Petso referred to the Legislative Report the Council received today that includes a bill to free up REET funds for any purpose including operating expenses. The City has numerous capital projects and if the bill regarding the use of REET passes and the bonds are paid off, that revenue stream would also be available for operation and maintenance should the Council choose. She assured if the City needed to retain the Public Safety Reserve in order to maintain an appropriate level of reserves, that would be her first choice but that is not the case. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented she still did not have clear answers to her questions including what grants are available. She preferred the Council take action to expand the use of REET funds prior to spending this money. She did not support spending the money with the current restrictions on REET funds as it would not address the City's needs. Councilmember Plunkett agreed with the motion in general concept but had three issues. First, medical self insurance came up at the Council retreat. It was suggested the $1.3 million would be useful in that effort although he acknowledged there were other ways of accumulating upfront money for medical self- insurance. Second, he was interested in removing the restraints placed on the use of REET via Council ordinance. That would allow the Council to discuss the use of the approximately $300,000 in REET revenue for infrastructure. He noted it was appropriate to use the funds for infrastructure as they were the result of the sale of assets. Third, the Council needs a Financial Analyst. This project will require REET revenue forecasting and he refused to use the forecasts that have been provided. He has 15 reasons for that refusal; reasons he would prefer to share in executive session because it is a personnel matter. The Council will need a Financial Analyst to provide financial forecasts with regard to discussions related to forming a Regional Fire Authority, potential levy, medical self - insurance as well as the use of REET funds for infrastructure. He would be unable to take action on any of those topics unless the Council has its own Financial Analyst. In an attempt to persuade Councilmembers Fraley - Monillas, Wilson and Plunkett and Council President Peterson, Councilmember Bernheim explained his rationale did not involve REET. It was purely a fiscal decision to retire the bonds early to realize a savings to the City of approximately $100,000 over a 4 year period. He pointed out it was unusual to have an opportunity to save $100,000 over a 4 year period which makes this a fiscally prudent move. The interest the City pays if the bonds are not paid off is more than the interest that can be earned if the reserves are retained and bond payments continue. With regard to citizen support, he has not canvassed the neighborhoods but would tell them that paying this off saves $100,000 /year and over the next 2 -3 years the funds in the REET fund will be replenished. He summarized by the time the Council decided what they wanted to do with the REET funds, the City would have saved $100,000 and replenished the fund. When a City pays off bonds, it increases its credit rating and ensures it can borrow at lower rates in the future. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked if Councilmember Bernheim's intent was to pay off the bonds and bank the money that is saved over the next 3 years. Councilmember Bernheim responded the question of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 3 how the money that is saved would be used was not part of the motion. He did not have any specific plan for the funds that would be saved. Councilmember Wilson clarified the City already has a very high credit rating and low debt to equity ratio. At the retreat, the Council discussed medical self- insurance which had the potential to save the City far more than $100,000 over 4 years. In 2011 the budget for benefits is $4.2 million, increasing to $6.1 million in 2016, nearly a 50% increase in a 5 year period. The only way the City could effectively implement a self- insurance plan to give equal or better benefits to employees and save the City money is to have a reserve to begin. Without that reserve, the savings via self - insurance are not possible. Although it can be argued that reserves can be acquired in another manner or built up via higher premiums, he preferred to have an ongoing premium that was lower than existing premiums which will require having substantial reserves in place at the outset. The $1.3 million could be used for that purpose. One of the reasons medical self - insurance failed in Edmonds previously was the lack of a reserve. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Wilson's comments, noting self- insurance would likely require at least $1 million in reserves. If the Council did not pursue self- insurance, she favored paying off the City Hall bonds. Council President Peterson expressed his firm opposition to paying off the City Hall bonds, preferring that the Council make a decision on the REST allocation percentages before paying off the bonds. He supported the Council considering medical self- insurance, pointing out maximum flexibility via a significant amount of starting cash would be necessary. Other cities, including Kirkland, have moved to self - insurance and have realized significant savings. It would be difficult for the Council to pursue self - insurance without that start -up cash. He concluded there are too many unanswered questions for the Council to pay off the bonds at this time. To the Chamber's question about citizen support for paying off the bonds, the people he has talked with prefer to wait until questions are answered. Although the concept of paying off bonds can be good, he did not support the motion due to unanswered questions and possible opportunity to use the funds in a much more constructive manner with a longer vision. Councilmember Plunkett agreed in concept the motion was a good idea. With regard to the Chamber's question about who makes the decision regarding how the funds are spent, he answered the Council makes that decision. If the motion did not pass, he was hopeful the Council would consider changing the REST allocation as well as consider hiring a Financial Analyst. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City meets the 200 employee threshold for self- insurance via its 200 employees plus dependents which increases the number to approximately 400. Mayor Cooper reminded the City's bond counsel advised this action required a super majority (five votes) to pass. UPON ROLL CALL, MOVED FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WILSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND FRALEY- MONILLAS VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper advised further discussion regarding the use of the Public Safety Reserve would occur on future agendas. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION REGARDING THE APPLICATIONS FOR CITY ATTORNEY. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, liked that the Council interviewed the City Attorney applicants in public and wished the same had been done for the Hearing Examiner applicants. He recalled the Council has Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 4 discussed changing to an in -house attorney and one of the applicants referred to being an in -house attorney. He compared a medical plan that covered everything to an in -house attorney who could handle all the City's needs other than bonds. He suggested the Council have members of the public review the City Attorney applicants' resumes and provide a recommendation to the Council. Jan Bush, Edmonds, advocated for the retention of Ogden Murphy Wallace. As an attorney, she was familiar with establishing and operating a solo practice. She reviewed the candidates' resumes and could not imagine a solo practice trying to provide City Attorney services to the City due to the type and volume of work. Even an attorney with a satellite office or affiliates, there was economy of time and money in aggregating all legal services in one place. Due to her familiarity with working in a law firm, she knew how simple it was for an attorney to go down the hall and ask a question of, for example, the firm's tax expert. She assumed the City received a great deal of advice in that manner that was not reflected on the bill. That is an economy that is not available via an attorney with satellite or associate counsel. The fact that Ogden Murphy Wallace has been the City Attorney for a long time is another benefit. She cautioned the Council not to do the legislative equivalent of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face; the Council likely had the ability to negotiate further with Ogden Murphy Wallace. She suggested setting aside a contingency fund for litigation rather than not budgeting for litigation. She also suggested the City Attorney contract be reviewed periodically. Council President Peterson advised final deliberations regarding the selection of a City Attorney would occur at the February 22 Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas explained her interest in hiring a City Attorney had more to do with an in -house attorney due to her belief that an in -house attorney would be better for the City. She suggested the Council pursue a one -year contract with a City Attorney and during that year investigate the cost of attorney who is a staff member and accessible to "all of us all the time." Councilmember Plunkett asked whether changing to a one -year contract would require starting the process over. Mayor Cooper suggested checking the RFP with regard to the term of the contract. If the Council wished, they could abandon the process and extend Ogden Murphy Wallace's contract while an in -house legal department is explored. The Council may need to consult an attorney other than the City Attorney to answer that question. Councilmember Plunkett assumed a change to a one -year contract would complicate the process and require starting the process over. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas advised the RFP states the City anticipates a four year term of agreement for City Attorney services. It is anticipated that an agreement may be renewed for additional terms with the express written consent of the parties. Mayor Cooper commented because this is a legislative matter, it is up to the Council to make the decision regarding the term. If the Council wanted to offer a one year contract, it would be up to the law firm the Council selects whether they wished to accept a one year contract. Council President Peterson commented when this process began last year, an in -house attorney was discussed but there was not overwhelming support for pursuing that option and the Council agreed to move ahead with a process for hiring outside counsel. Unless a majority of the Council wished to consider in -house counsel, he preferred to move forward with the process of selecting a City Attorney. Mayor Cooper recalled when the Council last deliberated on this issue, options for tonight's discussion were to, 1) take public comment and move all four candidates forward, or 2) take public comment and narrow the list of candidates. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 5 Councilmember Wilson suggested a motion regarding whether to pursue contracting out City Attorney services or bring attorney services in- house. If the Council chose to contract, he suggested a motion regarding the selection of finalists. Council President Peterson agreed with Councilmember Wilson's suggestion to identify finalists. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she interviewed in -house attorneys in Bainbridge Island and Renton. Renton's legal department has 13 employees and a $1.6 million budget. Bainbridge Island has a $400,000 budget for 1 attorney and 1 paralegal. Lighthouse's flat fee proposal has seven employees at a rate similar to Bainbridge Island's in -house legal department. The City spent approximately $756,000 for Ogden Murphy Wallace last year. She agreed with the suggestion for an in -house attorney but Lighthouse Law Group proposes seven employees at a flat fee. Rather than reducing the number of candidates tonight, Councilmember Bernheim preferred a Councilmember make a motion to move a candidate forward. Candidates with four votes would move forward to further discussion on February 22 and the candidates that did not would not be considered further. He believed an in -house attorney was a good idea but was off topic tonight and further discussion could be scheduled on a future agenda. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether an in -house attorney could be pursued if the Council signed a four year agreement with a City Attorney. She was not opposed to moving forward with the selection of a City Attorney if an in -house attorney could be discussed and possibly implemented within the four year period. Mayor Cooper assumed the Council could offer a one -year contract to the candidate selected during final deliberations. The code does not specify the term of the City Attorney, unlike the Hearing Examiner which the code specifies is a four year term. He suggested Councilmember Fraley - Monillas make a motion that the Council planned to offer a one -year contract for the purpose of exploring an in -house attorney during the coming year or wait until clarification is provided on February 22. Councilmember Petso explained she was not prepared to eliminate any of the candidates tonight. When /if. the Council began voting on candidates to move forward, she would vote for all four, anticipating all four could do the job. She was uncomfortable limiting the selection to two firms, fearing she may learn something about one of the two finalists during the next two weeks, leaving her only one choice. She preferred not to limit the candidates as she continued her research. With regard to cost, Councilmember Petso commented one of the candidates' proposed costs is $100,000- $150,000 /year more expensive than the others. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that Lighthouse's proposal was financially unique. She was uncertain whether Ogden Murphy Wallace could make a different financial proposal and wanted time to investigate that as well as other contract terms during the next two weeks. Council President Peterson agreed Councilmembers could vote for as many candidates as they wished. He was uncomfortable with delaying a decision until February 22 whether to consider an in -house attorney. He suggested if there were four Councilmembers who seriously want to consider an in -house attorney, one of them propose a motion. It is unfair to the applicants to continue the process for two weeks and then decide to pursue a one -year contract. He anticipated some of the applicants may not be interested in a one -year contract. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO SET ASIDE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING AN IN -HOUSE ATTORNEY FOR THE NEAR TERM AND FOCUS ON THE FOUR APPLICANTS TO FILL THE POSITION FOR CITY ATTORNEY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 6 Councilmember Wilson acknowledged the pursuit of an in -house attorney could change in the future with four votes of the Council. His motion was related to this contract process. Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the motion but did not want to state he would not consider an in -house attorney or a one -year contract. He anticipated the contract had a termination clause that would allow the contract to be terminated if the Council made a decision to hire an in -house attorney. The motion did not prohibit those in favor of in -house attorney from convincing other Councilmembers to pursue that option in the future. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Peterson suggested Councilmembers nominate candidates. Councilmember Wilson proposed sending Ogden Murphy Wallace to the next round. If the motion passed, he would propose a motion not to advance one of the candidates to the next round because in his opinion they did not meet the threshold. The Council could then decide whether to select one finalist from the remaining two. He did not support a process of voting on each candidate because it was unlikely to result in winnowing down the list of the candidates. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO MOVE OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE FORWARD TO THE NEXT ROUND. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to move all four candidates forward because she has not yet had all her questions answered. Councilmember Plunkett recalled this was the process the Council agreed to, that the Council might winnow down the candidates tonight. Councilmember Bernheim explained the reason for his probable no vote; he prefers at least one of the other candidates and for procedural reasons does not want to support the applicants he does not want to have as the next City Attorney. However, if Ogden Murphy Wallace was selected as the City Attorney, he was confident he could work effectively with Mr. Snyder. 104[oyV[1361ra1117 7101 MUISE K11061[� Iad101\ 110301" aC391 :i►1so ID1 101 &Y171VI►`[1"l►`[�a COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THE LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP FORWARD TO THE NEXT ROUND. Councilmember Wilson respected Councilmember Petso and Buckshnis' preference to move all the candidates forward. He asked whether the Council preferred to move all the candidates forward or only select two. If the intent was to select two, he suggested the Council discuss the relative merits of the candidates rather than the absolute merits. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO NOT FORWARD WEED GRAAFSTRA ON TO THE NEXT ROUND. Councilmember Wilson commented if a majority of Councilmembers supported this motion, the Council could discuss whether to send both Gary McLean and Lighthouse Law Group forward or discuss those Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 7 two candidates relative to each other. He did not want to move both forward but was undecided about which of the two he wanted to move forward. Mayor Cooper commented he was inclined to rule the amendment out of order because it changed the intent of the original motion. He declared a brief recess. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Plunkett commented he planned to vote against the motion. His reason had nothing to do with the Lighthouse Law Group's professionalism; it was because they had only been in existence for five months. Councilmember Wilson explained he will vote against the motion because he wanted an opportunity to have a fuller conversation via deliberation. He would be happy to reconsider the Lighthouse Law Group after he had an opportunity to weigh them against the merits of other applicants. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas advised she will support the motion. They are a young, smart, sharp group although she has concerns with their longevity. Council President Peterson did not support the motion for the same reasons as Councilmember Wilson. He supported having a side -by -side discussion of the candidates' merits. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for the motion. She interviewed most of the members of the Lighthouse Law Group today and was impressed with the members of the firm including Chuck Wolfe, an environmental clean -up attorney. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY- MONILLAS, PETSO AND BERNHEIM VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND WILSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO MOVE FORWARD WEED GRAAFSTRA TO THE NEXT ROUND. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE GARY MCLEAN TO THE NEXT ROUND. Councilmember Bernheim liked a great deal of what Mr. McLean said as well as what he heard about him from others. He liked his willingness to keep time devoted to his learning curve within the retainer for the first couple months which demonstrated his billing practices would be reasonable. He liked Mr. McLean's willingness to support the Police Chief and Police Officers, noting the importance of the City Attorney working effectively with the Police Department to maximize public safety and minimize public risks. He also liked Mr. McLean's willingness to go on a ride- along. He liked Mr. McLean's philosophical approach to preventing problems before they arise. Further Mr. McLean has been a City Manager of a city much larger than Edmonds, giving him sensitivity and competence in problem solving. He noted it was not unusual for City Managers to be terminated when a City Council changed, it did not reflect on the effectiveness of the City Manager. Councilmember Wilson commented he thought highly of Mr. McLean and a mutual friend highly recommends him. Recognizing the Council's propensity to kick things down the road, he cared more about having two finalists than whether the Lighthouse Group or Mr. McLean should be one of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 8 finalists. He would not support the motion in spite of his esteem for Mr. McLean and full confidence he could do the job. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for Mr. McLean, remarking she has spoken with him as well as several of his references including Larry Warren, Renton's City Attorney. His experience as a City Manager and knowledge of self - insurance make him a good candidate. Council President Peterson did not support this applicant based on an overarching philosophy. He preferred the Lighthouse Law Group and Ogden Murphy Wallace model that includes a number of experts in various fields. That model has served the City well. The City has a number of complex issues including labor negotiations and some of the other candidates are better qualified particularly with regard to labor negotiations. Although Mr. McLean is an excellent attorney, he preferred the model of a larger firm with more resources. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, PETSO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, WILSON AND PLUNKETT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. Mayor Cooper summarized the Lighthouse Law Group and Ogden Murphy Wallace will advance for further consideration. Councilmember Wilson invited staff and the Mayor to provide their opinion regarding the two remaining candidates. Mayor Cooper responded because only Human Resources Director Debi Humann and he were present when the interviews were conducted, the only staff analysis that could be provided would be based on resumes. Recognizing that it was ultimately the Council's decision, he offered to discuss at the director's meeting what level of input staff would provide. Councilmember Wilson suggested inviting Lighthouse Law Group to a director's meeting. Mayor Cooper explained he attended the interviews, reviewed the resumes and reviewed the interviews again when the meeting was broadcast. He offered to talk to Councilmembers individually or in a group of up to three regarding the two firms. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas encouraged the department directors to meet the Lighthouse Law Group. She recognized the decision regarding who to hire was ultimately the Council's decision, but the directors will work more closely with whomever is hired and she appreciated their input. Council President Peterson advised final deliberations were scheduled on the February 22 agenda. He encouraged Councilmembers to contact either firm with any questions as well as meet with the Mayor and/or staff, recognizing that more information was always a good thing. He thanked all the applicants, particularly the final four, expressing his appreciation for their experience and willingness to participate in the process. 5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper encouraged the Council and the public to attend the 100`h birthday celebration of the Carnegie Library, now known as the Edmonds Museum, on Thursday, February 17 at 5:00 — 8:00 p.m. 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council affirm the discussion made at the retreat to change the existing Public Safety Committee to the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 9 COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO FORMALIZE THE COUNCIL'S DECISION TO CHANGE THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY & HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas, who was absent from the retreat when this topic was discussed, asked why Human Resources would be combined with Public Safety. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Council had a lengthy discussion regarding the need to consider the ongoing cost of medical benefits. Medical benefits represent 50% of ongoing growth in the City's budget. Human Resources was combined with Public Safety Committee because without the Fire Department, the Public Safety Committee has less to do. At the retreat, Councilmember Wilson was asked to begin the process of researching self- insurance and it should be formalized as part of a Council committee. Council President Peterson explained the Council discussed forming a special committee to discuss the self- insurance model and decided because the Public Safety Committee is not as busy, they would have time on their agenda. Rather than form another committee, it made sense to add it to the Public Safety Committee. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Human Resources & Public Safety Committee rather than the Finance Committee would also be discussing the Compensation Consultant and the L5 policies. Council President Peterson explained the Council President assigns tasks to committees. Recognizing that some recent Finance Committee agendas have been voluminous, this may be an opportunity to reduce the Finance Committee's workload. Council President Peterson clarified at this point the only additional topic the Human Resources & Public Safety Committee will be considering is self - insurance, other topics may be assigned in the future. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented her initial concern was creating a new committee to study self - insurance. She was satisfied with forming the committee if they would also be assigned the Compensation Study and the L5 policy. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Peterson highlighted the following items on the February 15 agenda: Ordinance regarding bond refunding Public hearing regarding reconsideration of an ordinance amending home occupation regulations Council President Peterson thanked the Council, staff and citizens who attended the 11/2 day retreat. The retreat was very successful and he will be sending out a report regarding the 2011 agenda. 7. ADJOURN TO CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned to Committee meetings at 7:38 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 8, 2011 Page 10