Loading...
05/24/2005 City CouncilMay 24, 2005 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding pending litigation and labor negotiations, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Richard Marin, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Noel Miller, Public Works Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL s ppi05e (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2005 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #79643 THROUGH #79807 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve MAY 16, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $421,396.27. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT Claim Checks DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #40729 THROUGH #40804 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1 THROUGH MAY 15, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $747,556.01. EpoA (support (D) APPROVAL OF THE LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS Service) AND EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION Labor (SUPPORT SERVICE Agreement MEMBERS). Arts 3. PRESENTATION OF PERFORMING AND LITERARY ARTS SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS Commission Scholarships Rick Bader, Chair, Edmonds Art Commission, explained the Arts Commission conducted an annual scholarship competition and awarded $3,000 in scholarships. Funding for the scholarships came from Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 1 Arts Commission program revenues and the Arts Commission also accepts contributions to the Scholarship Program. He reviewed the two criteria for participation in the scholarship competition, 1) the student must be a resident of Edmonds and 2) he /she must be planning a career in performing or literary arts. The two recipients who were unable to attend tonight's presentation are Sophie Lippert, who attends Seattle Prep High School, who received $1,500 to further her studies in piano and cello performance at the Shepard School of Music at Rice University in preparation for a career in performing and conducting; and Elizabeth Koehn, a senior at Edmonds Woodway High School, who received $500 to assist in her studies at Overland College in Ohio in preparation for a career in acting and teaching drama. Mr. Bader introduced the additional scholarship winners, Sara Adams and Kris Kraakmo, who were present. He explained Sara Adams, a student at Edmonds Woodway High School, received $500 to study writing at the University of Redland in California in preparation for a career as a novelist /poet. Kris Kraakmo, a student at Meadowdale High School, received $500 toward his studies in vocal performance and trombone as well as business at Trinity Western University in British Columbia. Mr. Bader thanked the Council and Mayor and the Edmonds community for their support of the Arts Commission's programs. Sara Adams and Kris Kraakmo both thanked the Arts Commission for the funds to pursue studies in subjects they loved. Councilmembers congratulated the scholarship recipients and thanked the Arts Commission members for their efforts. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS U s salary Dave Gebert, City Engineer, expressed concern with the way the L -5 salary policy was proposed to be eoli�y implemented. His first concern was regarding the concept of limiting the maximum annual salary to the median of supposedly comparable positions. He questioned whether the City wanted median, average or middle -of -the -road employees, pointing out likely the City wanted top quality people who enjoyed their work and would remain in Edmonds. He noted the City certainly expected top quality performance from their employees. He suggested instead of limiting the maximum salary to the median, consideration be given to requiring salaries be within a certain range such as 5 -10% of the median. His second concern was with the positions used for comparables and whether the methodology used for the comparables resulted in comparable positions. His understanding was a job synopsis was sent to other cities who then determined which of their positions were comparable to Edmonds' positions and Edmonds did not review the other cities' job descriptions, duties, responsibilities or organizational structure to determine comparability. He noted some of the positions used as comparables in the Engineering Division did not appear to be comparable, for example, at least one city did not have water and sewer utilities, another did not do capital projects and in the case of the Assistant City Engineer, one city had two Assistant City Engineers. He urged the Council to ensure the data was accurate before making decisions that affected employees' salaries, especially decisions that include freezing salaries. His third concern was with the questionable L -5 salary range data used, recalling in prior years the salary range was based on a L -5 comparability analysis, yet in the 2005 L -5 salary ranges, there were nine positions with a proposed salary range lower than 2004, pointing out three positions had a proposed salary range lower than 2003 and two had a salary range lower than 2002. He supported the Council considering a L -5 salary policy, however, if the proposed salary ranges were adopted, 15 employees would have their salaries frozen. Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer, referred to the proposed L -5 compensation policy for non - represented IL -5 salary employees, explaining Edmonds had one of the lowest employee to citizen ratios in the region. He Policy commented most non - represented employees were self - motivated and frequently work long hours for the community. Critical government functions must be accomplished regardless of staffing levels; he asserted that further erosion of staffing levels and compensation would have a negative affect on the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 2 ability to deliver on promises made to the community. He urged the Council not to allow the private sector to lure away the City's talented workforce. As an example of why the proposed L -5 policy could be a detriment to the City, he noted two years ago the City Clerk was named Edmonds Employee of the Year. While she embodies all the positive attributes of a public servant, the proposed policy would place a 7 -year freeze on her compensation assuming a 3% COLA. Commenting it was an honor to work for the citizens of Edmonds, he hoped personal family commitments did not draw non - represented employees to other opportunities. Bnilaing Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, pointed out the Planning Board worked for a full year xecghts producing the Comprehensive Plan and several months ago the Plan was forwarded to the City Council for approval and implementation, however, progress was halted when building heights were discussed. The Planning Board's recommendation for a 33 -foot height in the BC zone was supported by three Councilmembers and opposed by three Councilmembers and Councilmember Wilson advocated not having specific heights in the Comprehensive Plan. The stalemate was resolved temporarily by the Council retaining consultant Mark Hinshaw, LMN Architects, who provided information regarding land use and building design standards, arming the Council with the knowledge needed to establish rationale building heights and other building standards. He was disappointed some Councilmembers favored returning the issue to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. He pointed out the Council received the benefit of Mr. Hinshaw's input, not the Planning Board. He pointed out not only was the Council better able to address the issue, they were elected to make these type of decisions. Memorial nay Al Rutledge, 7101. Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, reminded the Council and community of the n ceremony Memorial Day ceremony at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery on May 30 at 11:00 a.m. He reported on the Sno -Isle Regional Library meeting, advising their next meeting would be on May 31 at 1:00 p.m. due to the holiday on May 30. He encouraged the community to support the Kiwanis berry sale, providing telephone numbers to order berries, (206) 542 -6351 or 776 -7130. He reported on a Brightwater meeting he attended, advising some Edmonds residents were concerned about the possibility of Brightwater returning to Edmonds. L -5 salary Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer, 2031192 d Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the L -5 salary study, Study noting his comments were similar to comments he made regarding the policy in 2003 because the serious flaws had not yet been addressed. He cited flaws in the study that included no formal consultation of affected employees, comparisons appear to have been done largely by job title and not by job duties, no research was performed of actual job duties, representatives from other municipalities determined comparability, and comparisons were made with cities outside the Seattle Metro area that have lower costs of living. With regard to the City Engineer and Assistant City Engineer position, three of the cities compared have separate water and sewer districts and do not deal with water and sewer related issues; he wrote the sewer and water Comprehensive Plan. Another city had two Assistant City Engineers, one who does only storm work and the other does transportation. In two other cities, the Assistant City Engineer deals only with development issues, no capital projects. He concluded the L -5 study, if done properly, achieves median salary and quality; however, the L -5 study conducted did not achieve this. He noted even if the L -5 salary study were conducted properly, it would not allow the City to hire or retain exceptional employees. He cited the City Clerk as an example, pointing out her exceptional qualities, noting if the L -5 salary policy were adopted, her salary would be frozen for several years. He summarized the L -5 salary study was flawed and all recommendations made using that data were questionable. He suggested a study be conducted by an outside consultant every 6 -8 years that included analysis of job descriptions as was done 6 -8 years ago. L -5 salary Sandy Chase, City Clerk, expressed her appreciation to the engineering staff for their concern regarding Study her position. She agreed with their comments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 3 Duane Bowman, Development Services Director, explained the City had a lower number of employees L -s salary Policy P er ca p ita than surrounding cities and the City expected and demanded a great deal of its employees which in his experience the employees delivered. He commented he did not care if his salary was frozen but he was concerned with the impact the L -5 salary policy would have on non - represented employees who were a key group of employees. Acknowledging that Human Resources Manager Debi Humann had done a yeoman's job considering the limited resources available to her, he urged the Council to carefully consider the ramification of the proposed L -5 policy. L -5 Policy 5. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE L -5 POLICY AS WELL AS THE ANNUAL SALARY and Annual SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NON - REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES FOR 2005 Salary Survey Mayor Haakenson explained this was being presented to the Council due to staff's frustration with the lack of a written L -5 policy although it was implemented approximately five years ago as a result of Council action and to the best of his knowledge, the policy was being implemented in the manner the Council directed. He recalled when the L -5 policy was approved by the Council seated at that time, they indicated they did not want to pay the highest or the lowest salaries but wanted to pay in the middle. He disagreed with the comments by staff that this resulted in median employees, finding it to be a fiscally responsible approach. Mayor Haakenson recalled in the five years the L -5 salary policy had been in place there had been numerous times when the salary for an employee has increased or decreased depending on a number of factors. He noted the cities that Edmonds compared with were the cities the Council chose and everything Human Resources Manager Debi Humann had done was consistent with the policy as he understood it. He explained for Ms. Humann to do any more would require another full -time employee to investigate the comparability of positions. He noted this year the survey also included special benefits in an effort to make the comparisons as equitable as possible. He referred to comments that this L -5 salary study was flawed, noting the possibility that the last four years' studies may have been flawed and this year's was correct. With regard to the suggestion that a comprehensive salary study be conducted, he noted it had been at least eight years since a salary study was conducted. He noted such a study that considered job descriptions and salaries was very expensive, costing approximately $60,000 - $65,000. He recalled at the time that study was conducted in 1997, there were serious problems in the Police and Fire Departments where non - represented Assistant Chiefs were earning less than firefighters or police officers. He concluded the L -5 policy that was enacted as a result increased salaries for most City employees and possibly that was the problem — salaries have increased and the market has softened somewhat. Mayor Haakenson pointed out this L -5 study was done very late in the process for 2005; a plan has been instituted whereby the L -5 study will be done in advance of the budget process. When the 2006 budget is prepared, the 2006 salary study information will be included. Mayor Haakenson explained the L -5 policy as presented was, as Ms. Humann and he understood it, the same as the Council approved approximately five years ago with the exception of one item he added that requires Council approval. He explained the policy states an employee earning above L -5 salary was not eligible for a merit increase and there were several employees who had not received a merit increase in recent years due to that policy but continued to receive COLA causing their salaries to continually increase even though their salary was outside the L -5 salary range. He recommended employees whose salaries were outside the salary range not receive either a merit increase or COLA. Human Resources Manager Debi Humann explained her goal was to present a formal L -5 policy as well as present the findings of the L -5 survey for review and possible approval. She explained the current L -5 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 4 compensation policy was implemented by the Council in 2000. At that time, the Council requested the Human Resources Department conduct an annual salary survey comparing all non - represented positions with like positions in comparable cities. She explained the non - represented salary ranges were based on eight cities comparable to Edmonds in Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties. Four cities with populations greater than Edmonds and four cities with populations less than Edmonds were used for comparison of each non - represented position. The median salary or L -5 for each position was determined by ranging the results of the eight cities including Edmonds from the highest to the lowest salary. Comparability of each position was based on sufficient function similarity; the L -5 takes into consideration top based salary, longevity pay, paid administrative leave, car allowance, and employer paid deferred compensation. She pointed out the worksheets for each position included additional information including the top pay range for each survey position, additional benefits, associated cost of additional benefits, range for each position and additional salary information detailed on each sheet. She explained the goal of the detailed worksheet was to provide Council as well as staff with a clear visual regarding compensation issues. Ms. Humann explained that although the L -5 survey had been conducted for several years and a majority of the policy had been approved by various committees, a formal L -5 policy had not been approved by Council. To correct that oversight, an L -5 policy was drafted that reflected what was perceived to be the Council's intent with regard to L -5 and the historic administration of the non - represented employee compensation policy. She explained the intent of the L -5 policy was to recognize and maintain the median salary level for non - represented positions. Historically when a salary range was found to be below the L -5 range, the range was increased to the L -5 /median level. However, a method was not approved by the Council for addressing salary levels that exceed the median range. This year Mayor Haakenson recommended a change and as stated in the proposed L -5 policy, positions that exceed the L -5 range will not receive a merit increase or a COLA until their salary was within the L -5 range. Ms. Humann referred to a handout entitled "Non- Represented Employee Schedule" that contains the job title, the updated L -5 salary range for each position as determined by the L -5 survey, and the current salary for each non - represented position. She concluded this year's L -5 survey resulted in 15 positions that exceeded the L -5 range, 12 positions that required adjustment upward to L -5, and 10 positions that required no L -5 adjustment. Approximately $25,300 is needed to make the salary adjustments as determined by the L -5 salary survey. She explained the L -5 draft policy and survey results were approved by the Finance Committee on April 12 who recommended they be forwarded to the Council for review. Following review of the materials and discussion, she requested Council approval of the draft L -5 policy and non - represented employee pay schedule. Councilmember Plunkett observed Ms. Humann's efforts with regard to the L -5 policy and salary survey were based on Council policy. Ms. Humann agreed. Councilmember Orvis observed when a new employee was hired, he /she was typically hired below the maximum range established by L -5 and as they progressed, merit increases and COLA increased the salary to the L -5 range. Ms. Humann explained the L -5 range had a minimum and maximum; many supervisors hired new employees at the minimum of the range. Councilmember Moore inquired about salary policies used by other municipalities. Ms. Humann answered there were many compensation policies, all with good and bad aspects and unless a comparison was done on job descriptions that were exactly the same, there would be issues. She noted some cities used the top of the pay scale and did not consider benefits, others used only an internal weighting system that did not consider salaries in other cities. She concluded there were many different compensation policies. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 5 Councilmember Moore inquired about the methodology for other cities who use L -5. Mayor Haakenson advised there were no other cities that used L -5; that policy was created by the Edmonds City Council. Ms. Humann agreed the L -5 policy was unique; however, the methodology for salary comparisons was very similar to the methodology used by other cities. She recalled replying to several salary surveys from other cities in the recent past, noting although other cities may have different ways of accumulating information or different weighting systems, similar to Edmonds they sent out a thumbnail job description, request the responding city compare the job and make a job match. Although a review of the job descriptions to determine the degree of match was more accurate, significantly more staff time would be required. Due to the difficulty of using the L -5 policy to compare jobs that did not have a match, an alternative market value based comparable was used for jobs that did not have a match in other cities. Councilmember Moore noted if Ms. Humann was asking the Council to approve the L -5 policy, she obviously felt it was working. Ms. Humann answered it was better than what the City had before, no compensation policy and it was better than what some cities used although there were policies in some cities that were better. She commented the downside of the L -5 policy was it did not consider the minimalistic staffing culture in Edmonds. She found Edmonds employees to be very hardworking, noting one of the biggest issues in working L &I claims preventing employees from returning before they should because they wanted to return to their jobs. She pointed out it was nearly impossible to achieve perfect job matches because every job in every city was customized to that city's needs. She noted the other deficiency in the L -5 policy was it did not consider the internal value of positions. She concluded the L -5 policy was understandable and did not require a full -time person to administer it. Councilmember Moore asked how the internal value of an employee could be considered, noting this was similar to her previous comments about establishing a policy regarding qualifications. Councilmember Moore observed Edmonds did not have any additional compensation for employees and other cities did. Ms. Humann agreed Edmonds did not provide management leave, a car allowance or employer -paid deferred compensation. Councilmember Moore commented additional compensation could be considered, especially for internal value. Ms. Humann agreed there were several approaches but all were governed by the availability of funds. She noted one approach would be to increase the L -5 to L -4; it was ultimately the Council's decision. Councilmember Orvis recalled the L -5 policy was developed by the Comprehensive Human Resources Committee, now the Finance Committee, comprised of former Councilmembers Miller and Davis and himself. He recalled the committee discussed several proposals including L -3 and the committee ultimately settled on L -5. He recalled his reluctance at the time to approve L -5 due to his concern that too many salaries would be increased. Prior to L -5, the Council received individual requests for reclassification and there was concern that salaries were not being addressed in a comprehensive manner. Councilmember Dawson acknowledged Ms. Humann's efforts to carry out the Council's past policy with regard to L -5 given the current Human Resources Department staffing level. She referred to comments regarding whether the survey yielded comparable salaries and asked for further information regarding how jobs titles /duties were compared. Ms. Humann explained the survey requested the Human Resources Department in each city consider a thumbnail sketch of each job description that included the first 3 -4 essential functions of that position. She noted if the request was not concise, Human Resources Departments tended not to respond. The survey requested the Human Resources Department match the job description based on a 1 -3 rating, with 1 being a great match, 2 being a somewhat match, and 3 not matching at all. She explained the responses rated as a 3 were not included in the salary survey. Based on comments and additional data, staff contacted cities to discuss the 2 ratings to determine whether they were enough of a match to be included in the survey. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 6 Councilmember Dawson referred to the number of employees a person supervised, noting in Edmonds having fewer employees may make the employee more deserving of increased salary as they were doing the job of more than one person. She asked whether there was any way to consider that in the L -5 policy. Ms. Humann advised the survey did not address the staffing component as that was not contained in the L -5 policy. Councilmember Dawson observed there was no perfect match between cities to any job descriptions. She commented it appeared the intent of the policy when first adopted was to take some of the personality /internal value out of the process. She asked whether there had been much discussion by the Finance Committee regarding review of the L -5 policy. She noted it seemed appropriate to review the policy periodically to determine whether some tweaking was necessary. Ms. Humann recalled the Finance Committee did mention looking at the L -5 policy again. She noted the Council had some time to address the L -5 policy prior to staff beginning the process of surveying for the 2006 L -5 pay schedule in July. Councilmember Dawson suggested consideration be given to having a formal appeal process in the L -5 policy for employees who felt their job description was not adequately addressed by the L -5 policy such as an appeal to the Mayor's office and possibly the employee conducting some research to support their position. Mayor Haakenson noted there was an appeal process already. He explained the speakers had gone through the process and received increases approved by the City Council. Councilmember Dawson acknowledged that had occurred and emphasized the importance of outlining a formal process in the L -5 policy. She acknowledged that was why some of these salaries were outside of L -5 and it would be a shift in policy not to deviate from L -5. Mayor Haakenson advised Ms. Humann could add that to the L -5 policy. Council President Marin suggested delaying action two weeks and having staff provide information regarding the impact of implementing either L -4.5 or L -4. He found L -5 took away incentive for good employees to stay and he had witnessed other organizations where good people who did not have an opportunity to grow within their position left. Mayor Haakenson commented the Council had all the information and could calculate the impact of a L -4.5 or L -4 policy. He noted in many positions even an L -3 would only be a slight increase. Councilmember Wilson observed there were differences in job descriptions between cities that were not factored into the survey. He asked whether a matrix could be created that considered the differences between positions to create a more equitable comparison such as staff to citizen ratio. He agreed the problem was not necessarily the L -5 policy itself, noting the Council could choose L -3 or L -4 and be in the same position in the future. Councilmember Wilson recalled prior to the L -5 policy, the way increases were provided was very haphazard. Although L -5 may not be perfect, it created the same playing field for all employees. Whatever policy the Council adopted, he agreed with the concept of freezing the salary of an employee who exceeded the range. He favored some mechanism to allow some merit increase, such as at a reduced percentage, to recognize employees who worked hard. Ms. Humann noted the feedback from employees who were at L -5 was that it was unfair to hold them to L -5 and provide merit increases to others that exceed L -5. She pointed out the importance of considering both sides of the L -5 policy. Councilmember Olson advised the Finance Committee had a long conversation about the L -5 policy and that was why it was forwarded to the full Council rather than as a Consent Agenda item. She recalled one of the issues the Finance Committee discussed was employees' unhappiness with the concept of freezing salaries that exceeded the L -5 range. She pointed out delaying a decision also affected employees who were below L -5 and were awaiting an increase. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 7 Councilmember Orvis requested staff email him the spreadsheets. Councilmember Dawson noted the spreadsheets illustrated the City was close to L -5 in most positions although there were several that were below. She noted employees who were making more than a comparable job in other cities were the ones critical of the L -5 policy. She noted these employees may have unique abilities that were taken into consideration by the Council in the past, thus the reason they were above L -5. The Council could decide not to freeze salaries, however, given the City's financial situation and because there were several employees substantially over the median range, it may be appropriate to freeze those salaries. She did not favor a change to L -4 or L -3 as the change was likely to be quite minor. She reiterated her support for detailing an appeal process in the L -5 policy. For Councilmember Moore, Ms. Humann advised 15 positions exceeded the L -5 range, 12 required an adjustment upward to L -5, and 10 positions required no L -5 adjustment. Councilmember Moore noted the goal was to be within the median range. Mayor Haakenson noted that was Ms. Humann's and his understanding of the Council's policy. Councilmember Moore observed if the Council adopted the proposed L -5 policy and pay schedule, it would increase payroll by $23,400. Ms. Humann answered that was the amount calculated earlier this year; as it was already May, that amount likely would be less. Councilmember Moore recalled the Council approved the Economic Development Director position based on not having a Human Resources Director and Ms. Humann was promoted to Human Resources Manager. Mayor Haakenson explained the Human Resources Manager had a lower salary range than the former Human Resources Director position. The Economic Development Director was hired at the low end of the range he was provided for that position, however, the range was now different. He anticipated due to flux in the marketplace, there was always the possibility that ranges would always increase and decrease each year. Councilmember Moore commented the key seemed to be identifying a reliable methodology for comparing jobs. Council President Marin suggested the Council adopt an L -4 policy, noting although it would not change salaries a great deal, it would send a philosophical message to employees that the Council placed a higher value on its employees. Councilmember Plunkett asked what staff was asking the Council to do, to amend the proposed L -5 policy or reject the policy and write another policy now or in the future. Mr. Bowman responded in his opinion, the City needed to conduct a comprehensive salary study to set a baseline. If the Council chose not to conduct a comprehensive salary survey and chose to adopt the proposed L -5 policy, some consideration should be providing increases to employees who exceeded L -5 and were doing exceptional work. He noted there were risks to employees via a comprehensive salary study as it could reveal the L -5 policy was correct. Councilmember Plunkett observed one alternative was a comprehensive salary study, another was to amend the proposed L -5 policy. Mr. Bowman explained if an appeal process were incorporated into the L -5 policy, possibly the Mayor would have the authority to review requests from departments for employees whose salaries exceeded L -5 to determine whether they were deserving of a one -time merit increase for outstanding work. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council could do nothing at this time and do a complete study and rewrite in the future. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council must approve the pay schedule. With regard to the salary policy, there was no written policy in place at this time. If the Council wanted to conduct a comprehensive salary study, a consultant would need to be hired at a cost of approximately Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 8 $65,000. If that was the direction the Council wanted to take, he suggested the Council provide a policy for staff to following in the interim. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mayor Haakenson advised this pay schedule was for 2005 salaries, in a few months, staff would begin developing the pay schedule for the 2006 budget. Ms. Chase advised the pay schedule needed to be adopted by ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether Mr. Bowman's suggestion was that the Council reject the proposed L -5 policy. Mr. Bowman reiterated his suggestion that a comprehensive salary study be conducted. In the interim, he suggested the Council approve the proposed L -5 with the amendment regarding an appeal process and during the budget process consider funding a comprehensive salary study. Councilmember Wilson commented the proposed L -5 policy was not exactly as it was in the past as it contained the concept of freezing salaries above L -5. Mayor Haakenson clarified since the L -5 policy had been in effect, any employee over the L -5 range was not eligible for a merit increase. The only new concept was freezing COLA for employees over the L -5 salary range. He noted that provision had not yet been implemented and if approved, would affect 2006 increases not 2005. Councilmember Wilson clarified past practice has been to provide a COLA but not a merit increase for employees whose salaries exceed the L -5 salary range. Mayor Haakenson agreed. Councilmember Wilson noted because the policy would only affect 2006 salaries, the Council had time to consider the policy as long it was completed in time for the survey for the 2006 budget. Ms. Humann anticipated beginning the process for the 2006 survey in July. Mayor Haakenson clarified if the Council adopted the L -5 policy as proposed, nothing would change until 2006 when COLA increases were provided in January, giving the Council until January to address the COLA freeze issue. Ms. Humann noted if the Council wanted to change any other aspect of the L -5 policy such as considering benefits, etc. that would need to be identified before staff began the process for 2006. Hearing no further questions for staff, Mayor Haakenson remanded the issue to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE L -5 POLICY AND SALARY RANGES AS WRITTEN WITH THE ADDED AMENDMENT COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON SUGGESTED REGARDING THE MAYOR CONSIDERING APPEALS. Councilmember Moore suggested the Council review the L -5 policy. Councilmember Dawson spoke in favor of the motion, agreeing it was time for the Council to look at the policy but this action would put a salary policy in place in the interim and allow employees below L -5 to receive the appropriate increase. She supported adding language to the policy for consideration of exception circumstances such as performance above and beyond or when the job description did not capture everything the employee did. She noted there also may be occasions when the duties of a particular position were less than the comparable position in another city. When the Council considered conducting a comprehensive salary survey, she suggested staff provide input regarding whether additional Human Resources staff would be more advantageous. Mayor Haakenson commented adding Human Resources staff could not be compared to conducting a comprehensive salary survey as the benefits of a salary study would far outweigh the benefit of additional Human Resources staff. Councilmember Dawson acknowledged the two were not equivalent, however, additional resources in Human Resources could improve staff's ability to investigate the differences between job descriptions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 9 Council President Marin expressed support for the motion, suggesting as the 2006 budget was prepared, that consideration be given to changing the salary policy to L -4. He noted although the salary study would provide valuable information, it did not provide a statement by the Council regarding the range. He found an L -4 policy would send a better message to the City's employees. Councilmember Orvis spoke in favor of the motion, suggesting language be added that a salary study be conducted periodically. Councilmember Plunkett thanked the employees for their input; however, he did not hear a compelling reason not to pass the policy and schedule in light of the fact that the Council could improve it in the future. He expressed his support for the motion as well as his support to rework the policy in the future. Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the motion, pointing out the importance of reevaluating benchmarks periodically via a comprehensive salary study. He noted the Council would still need to establish criteria for the analysis to be conducted in a salary study. He acknowledged it may be necessary to freeze some salaries to avoid continual escalation. Although he did not want to lose staff, he also did not want to have to eliminate staff because the City could not afford to pay their salaries. Mayor Haakenson suggested staff return to the Council with an estimate for conducting a comprehensive salary study. He asked whether the intent with the appeal process was for the Mayor to make the final decision or provide a recommendation to the Council. Councilmember Dawson recommended the Council make the final decision. Councilmember Olson thanked staff for their input. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Memorial Day Mayor Haakenson reminded the community of the Memorial Day event at the Edmonds Memorial Event Cemetery on May 30 at 11:00 a.m. 7. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS Council President Marin reported he attended the outstanding Cascade Symphony Orchestra concert at cemmunity Benaroya Hall last night. He also reminded the public of the Council's Community Outreach Meeting on outreach Tuesday, May 31 at the Seaview Elementary library. Meeting Councilmember Dawson reported SnoCom had not met this month. Before the next SnoCom meeting, SnoCom she planned to schedule a meeting of the past Chairs of SnoCom to develop suggestions to be presented to the Snohomish County Council regarding the future of dispatch. At her request, Mayor Haakenson indicated he could be available by telephone for a meeting next Wednesday. cities & Councilmember Dawson reported on the Cities and Towns meeting that Councilmembers Olson and T °Wns Marin, Mayor Haakenson and she attended. She explained this month rather than a guest speaker, there Meeting was an open discussion regarding topics of interest; the primary discussion topic was Paine Field. The discussion was particularly informative for cities not in the south county area. She was pleased to find that many Councilmembers and Mayors from outside the affected area were supportive of joining the effort to oppose expansion of Paine Field. A resolution that will be presented to the Snohomish County Council is being drafted on behalf of Cities and Towns stating their opposition. She thanked the Mayors and Councilmembers, particularly Mayor Walty of Lake Stevens, for their support. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 10 Councilmember Moore reported the Seashore Transportation Forum that Councilmember Olson and she seashore attended included included discussion of Sound Transit's long range p lan and the proposed light rail route. Forum SeaShore expressed their support for a light rail route on I -5 rather than Hwy. 99. Sound Transit also requested the subregion provide their top regional, subarea and local requests. Europe Councilmember Moore advised Rick Steves' Europe through the Backdoor would be featured on 60 Through the Backdoor Minutes on Wednesday, May 25. Councilmember Wilson reported he also attended the Cascade Symphony concert last night, admitting this was his first time attending the symphony and it was an incredible experience. Histortc Councilmember Plunkett reported the historic architect hired by the Historic Preservation Commission preservation has identified approximately 75 properties that are eligible for the Edmonds Historic Register. Those commission property owners were invited to a Historic Preservation Commission meeting on June 9 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall. He assured the property owners that nothing was being done to their property and the meeting was only describing incentives available to them if their property was included on the Edmonds Historic Register. Port of Councilmember Orvis reported on the Destination Port of Edmonds' program, advising the Port had Edmonds received good press on the program recently and had also done some advertising. He displayed an advertisement that included a coupon book available to boaters to encourage them to shop in downtown. Councilmember Orvis thanked Edmonds businesses and Mayor Haakenson for meeting with students from Westgate Elementary. Mayor Haakenson described his experience responding to Westgate Elementary students' inquiries regarding his job description. Mayor Haakenson also attended the Cascade Symphony concert at Benaroya Hall last night, agreeing it was a great celebration of Edmonds. He looked forward to attending the symphony at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Esperance Mayor Haakenson referred to a letter sent to property owners in the Esperance area providing answers to Annexation i the questions they asked at a community meeting. Anyone asking a question was provided an answer to their question via mail or email; the letter was to provide the responses to the entire Esperance area as promised. He advised the June 14 Committee meetings would include a report from staff with regard to their annexation findings and the Council would be asked at the June 21 meeting to make a decision regarding whether and how to proceed with annexation. 8. WORK SESSION ON CODE REVISIONS TO SUPPORT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Code Revisions to Support the Comprehensive Council President Marin suggested the Council review the proposed Downtown Regulations and Plan Guidelines page by page and take an informal vote. The Council could then direct staff to write the appropriate code language for review by the Council and referral to the Planning Board. He explained any change to the code must be reviewed by the Planning Board and a public hearing held followed by a recommendation to the Council. He noted the Council could take action on design guidelines without referring them to the Planning Board. Councilmember Dawson disagreed with Council President Marin's suggestion, pointing out the Council only received the proposed Downtown Regulations and Guidelines this evening. She was not prepared to take any kind of vote on the materials without having time to carefully review the materials, digest the proposed regulations and guidelines and touch base with the community about the proposal as well as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page I I drive the areas depicted on the maps. She concluded this was an important enough issue that it deserved adequate time for consideration. Councilmember Plunkett was uncertain whether he would be willing to give a head nod to any of materials due to how late the materials were provided to the Council. Councilmember Wilson agreed it would have been beneficial for the Council to review the materials prior to tonight's meeting. He needed time to review the materials with staff with regard to any potential conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan, noting some of the proposals may require a Comprehensive Plan amendment which would need to be done via next year's Comprehensive Plan process. He suggested Mr. Hinshaw review the materials and address the Council's questions for future action. Councilmember Dawson noted one issue in particular that she wanted to discuss with staff was the indication in the materials that residential would be allowed on the ground floor, a radical departure that may require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. She needed further information regarding that issue including pros and cons and how ground floor residential might look as there was little in the materials that addressed that issue. Council President Marin commented because of the Council's schedule, it may be until the third Tuesday in June before the Council could provide direction to staff with regard to draft code language. He suggested the Council provide direction to staff on any issues where there was consensus. Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council review the materials and ask questions tonight and then consider the regulations and guidelines again at the June 7 meeting. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Dawson's comments that the Council needed time to research the concepts further. She recalled an alternate concept was mentioned by Councilmembers Plunkett and Orvis at the retreat but that concept had not yet been fully described to the Council. Mark Hinshaw, LMN Architects, provided an overview of the proposed Downtown Regulations and Guidelines. He suggested three actions: developing design standards, determining how building heights were measured and determining actual building heights. With regard to developing design standards, Mr. Hinshaw suggested replacing the existing design standards with a better, more effective set that would eliminate some of the problematic issues such as modulation requirements and instead focus on the ground level. He displayed proposed design guideline language for orientation to street, ground level details, and treating blank walls that included a drawing and a picture illustrating appropriate design. In response to a Council question regarding a term used in the guidelines, Mr. Hinshaw explained the guidelines would contain a glossary of terms. He defined some of the terms in the guidelines including a belt course, a horizontal band created by masonry or other element to break down the scale of the building. He displayed guidelines for massing and articulation that would be used instead of modulation. With regard to measuring building height, Mr. Hinshaw explained Bellingham was also struggling with this issue. He described a method he developed whereby the site was divided into quarters along the length of the site to allow variation in the heights in each section and allowing the building to stair -step down the slope. He noted this could be applicable to lots over 10,000 square feet. Councilmember Wilson questioned the result of applying that method to a deep lot that was over 10,000 square feet but had a small street frontage. He suggested that method be based on the linear frontage as well as give consideration to the orientation of the building. Mr. Hinshaw acknowledged this method would require further tweaking. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 12 Councilmember Dawson commented the result of that method would be a taller building at the sidewalk level than the current method allowed. She suggested giving consideration to the average of the slope within each of the four sections. Mr. Hinshaw cautioned the method should not be overly complex and acknowledged the City may need to sacrifice the occasional oddball building in exchange for a more simple method. Councilmember Dawson also suggested consideration be given to the grade of the slope. Council President Marin reminded the Council of the picture of the stair - stepping affect versus what might be constructed on a sloped site using the city's current code, a straight - across roofline and large, massive building. He agreed that some tweaking may be necessary to accomplish the stair -step affect; the result was a much better looking, less massive building. Councilmember Orvis recalled the picture illustrated each step was approximately the height of one floor. Based on the typical lot size in Edmonds, the result would be approximately one extra floor as the building progressed up the hill. He did not object to the current method for measuring height and suggested stepping back the upper floors as an alternative. Councilmember Wilson commented much would depend on the building's orientation and the intent. The current code resulted in a horizontal roofline, an alternative approach would allow the roofline to follow the topography of the slope. He noted the current method also impacted views more than an approach that stair - stepped the building down the slope. With regard to building heights and overlay districts, Mr. Hinshaw explained overlay districts could be used to establish different heights in different areas in an effort to preserve the scale /bulk of the retail core, possibly establishing a conservation district, and would allow development in some areas of buildings up to 33 feet with ground floor retail. He displayed a photograph of a new 2 -story commercial building in the retail core of Gresham, Oregon, a city similar to Edmonds' size, scale and history. He pointed out characteristics of the building including the cornice, vertical windows, masonry, and 12+ foot first floor spaces with offices above. He noted outside the retail core in Gresham, there were three and four story buildings that fueled the demand for shops and services within the retail area. He pointed out Gresham had taken a similar approach to maintain the continuity of scale in their older, traditional main street and was experiencing redevelopment. Mr. Hinshaw displayed a photograph of a commercial area in Vancouver, Washington, that had ground level, mixed income residential with stoops and steps as well as some ground floor home -based businesses. On the corner of the development, there was a 32 -35 foot building with retail on the ground floor. He noted even national chains must adhere to Vancouver's very strict design standards. He commented all parking for the development was underground and it was a very lively district. He concluded either of the projects he illustrated would be nice additions to Edmonds. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether there were any ADA issues associated with residential units with stoops. Mr. Hinshaw replied not every unit had to be accessible, as long as some percentage of units were accessible. He concluded the goal was to balance maintaining the long standing scale and character while allowing for redevelopment and new investment. Mr. Hinshaw displayed a map of his effort to establish overlay districts, noting the exact boundaries would be subject to Council discussion and debate. His intent was to keep the overlay districts fairly simple and use streets and property lines as boundaries as well as reflect the drop in the topography, possibly having taller buildings on the downhill side of the slope. He displayed another map, staff's effort at establishing overlay districts and briefly described differences between his and staff's map. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 13 Community Services Director Stephen Clifton reviewed the map that Development Services Director Duane Bowman, Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend and he developed, describing district boundaries, heights and first floor uses. He explained they found Mr. Hinshaw's map to be a reasonable concept, however, some areas needed tweaking. He emphasized staff s map was the roughest of concepts and would need further discussion. Mr. Bowman noted the old Safeway /Antique Mall site was designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Master Plan area and he recommended it not be included in this discussion as the area had unique issues such as the inability to do underground parking because of the high water table. He noted this area was somewhat linked to potential redevelopment of Harbor Square. Mr. Clifton pointed out staffs map looked ahead to when Edmonds Crossing was built, the ferry terminal relocated and Brackett Landings North and South were connected by a hardscape park. Their map suggests creating a main retail corridor along Main Street from the waterfront to the fountain and beyond, an incredible shopping area that could become a strong tourist attraction. Councilmember Moore noted ground floor retail would be important in that area. Councilmember Wilson commented a Master Plan for the former Safeway /Antique Mall property should consider linkage with downtown. He inquired whether in the areas where 30 -33 foot heights were indicated, would ground floor residential limit the building height to 30 feet. Mr. Hinshaw answered yes. Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with allowing residential in areas where retail expansion was expected in 25, 50 or 100 years, commenting that would greatly reduce the possibility of those areas transitioning into retail. He was concerned that a developer would attempt to squeeze four stories of residential within a 30 foot height limit. Mr. Hinshaw suggested the map identified far more retail area than the city would need for decades because the quality of the retail was equally as important as the amount of space for retail. He commented there would need to be a substantial population density to support that much retail. He concluded the City could be over -zoned for retail which diminished the quality of retail as was evident in some of the retail downtown. Councilmember Dawson noted the focus has been on the retail areas, however, if residential use was allowed on the ground floor, consideration would need to be given to design guidelines for that use as well. She struggled with the concept of ground floor retail in the BC zone, noting this was a radical departure from what was currently allowed in the BC zone. Councilmember Wilson agreed design guidelines would be needed if residential uses were allowed on the ground floor in the BC zone to avoid destroying the storefront experience. Mr. Hinshaw agreed design guidelines for ground floor residential would be important. He suggested the BC zone was an insufficient tool to deal with a mixed use downtown. Councilmember Olson commented the City would need residential density to support retail and there was currently not enough residential to support a healthy retail core. Mr. Hinshaw agreed, noting the City could have a strong retail core without residential density, but it was a different type of retail that attracted visitors, it was not local retail. If the Council was interested in citizens having their own downtown, a lot of people, thousands, needed to live within walking distance to support locally owned shops and services. Council President Marin asked Mr. Hinshaw to comment on the concept of mixed use. Mr. Hinshaw explained planners have oversold the idea of mixed use, creating the idea that every building must be mixed use. He explained what was more desirable was a mixed use district that might have single use buildings within the district but not every building was mixed use. He noted it was easier to develop single use buildings as developers usually did either commercial or residential and only a few did both well. He preferred leaving it to the marketplace to determine the appropriate percentage, noting a totally residential building may be appropriate in some areas of a commercial district. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 14 Council President Marin asked whether there was consensus to eliminate the modulation requirements in the existing code. Councilmember Plunkett answered before he could agree, he would need to hear from staff, the Planning Board and the City Attorney. Mr. Hinshaw clarified that section contained more than modulation requirements, noting the list of criteria was similar to the list the Supreme Court threw out in the Issaquah court case. Councilmember Wilson asked whether Section 20.10.70 pertained only to the downtown design guidelines or all design guidelines. Mr. Bowman answered all design guidelines. Councilmember Wilson noted this was a start on rewriting the entire section. Mr. Bowman recalled the Planning Board provided a recommendation with regard to design guidelines although he agreed some tweaking may be necessary. The design guidelines developed by Mr. Hinshaw were tailored to the downtown retail core. Councilmember Wilson asked whether this concept could be applied to all design guidelines. Mr. Bowman answered the format Mr. Hinshaw suggested was similar to the previously proposed design guidelines such as using illustrations and options. The goal of the Planning Board, staff and the ADB was to provide flexibility as well as predictability. He advised the design guidelines did not need to be returned to the Planning Board; the Planning Board has made a recommendation with regard to design guidelines. Only specific zoning regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan policies needed to be referred to the Planning Board. He recommended providing the Planning Board clear and specific direction on anything that was returned to the Planning Board. Councilmember Dawson commented the point of this process was to update the design guidelines. She needed to compare Mr. Hinshaw's suggestions to the Planning Board's recommendation and determine what worked for downtown and other areas. There may be a need for additional design guidelines if overlay districts were approved. Mr. Bowman commented changing /eliminating modulation requirements would require a zoning code amendment. Council President Marin commented three pages of the design guidelines referred to storefronts. He asked whether the same concepts would apply to development on Hwy. 99, Five Corners or Westgate. Mr. Hinshaw answered the design guidelines for those areas would not necessarily be the same as the design guidelines for downtown. The design guidelines would be different for areas where there were parking lots in front and buildings were not as related to the sidewalk. Mr. Bowman emphasized Hwy 99 was very auto - oriented. Council President Marin asked Mr. Hinshaw whether he could craft design guidelines for these other areas. Mr. Hinshaw answered they often worked with cities to develop design guidelines for various areas of the city. He recommended taking everything related to design out of the code and placing it in a separate document that was adopted by reference. He recommended the code contain only the basics related to height, parking, etc. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HALF HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to the method for building heights, Mr. Hinshaw summarized the Council was interested in further analysis /tweaking. The method for measuring building heights may be an appropriate issue to refer to the Planning Board. He concluded it was not an emergency that necessarily needed to be changed immediately, the code was okay although it sometimes produced awkward results. If the Council favored having buildings follow the topography, Mr. Bowman recommended the Council provide specific direction to the Planning Board and ask them to provide a recommendation. Councilmember Dawson noted another issue was whether the Council wanted to consider a different method for measuring building heights only in the downtown or also in residential areas. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 15 Council President Marin inquired whether the Council was agreeable to asking the Planning Board to consider alternative methods of measuring building heights. Mr. Bowman emphasized the need for the Council to provide specific direction to the Planning Board regarding a concept for measuring building heights. Councilmember Dawson reiterated she needed further information before she could provide that direction. Councilmember Moore inquired how Councilmember Dawson intended to gather additional information. Councilmember Dawson responded she planned to do her own due diligence including talking with staff and other cities as well as considering how the proposal would affect downtown. Council President Marin commented some people may object to buildings on a slope being too tall and massive on the downhill side; having buildings follow the topography would address that. He recalled an example in Fairhaven of a building that following the topography down the hill and eliminated the mass. Mr. Clifton recommended staff explore options such as how other cities measured height to minimize the mass on the downhill side. He also suggested staff look at building lots in downtown, assume a 2 -3 story building would be constructed and illustrate the building mass that would result under the current code and using different methods. Councilmember Wilson agreed with staff providing examples, suggesting the scenarios include lots with east -west as well as north -south orientation. Mr. Bowman concluded the Council was interested in discussing different ways to measure building height on a slope. Mr. Clifton suggested staff do the ground work such as collect codes and select downtown lots and hire Mr. Hinshaw to work with staff to consider the affects of various methods of measuring building height on those lots. Councilmember Orvis suggested consideration also be given to stepping back upper floors. Mr. Hinshaw agreed that was an option but did not recommend doing both, having a building follow the slope as well as stepping back upper floors. He pointed out the dilemma was that although stepping back upper floors helped somewhat, really deep step -backs were not effective. Councilmember Wilson agreed the use of an upper floor stepback was not an appropriate design solution on a 25 -foot tall structure and likely would play havoc on the return on investment. Mr. Hinshaw explained normally step -backs were used in communities with height limits of 55 feet to step back the top floor. Council President Marin summarized staff would provide options to support the concepts proposed by Mr. Hinshaw and Councilmembers would do their own homework in preparation for further discussion at the June 7 meeting. Councilmember Dawson encouraged staff to provide the materials to Council as soon as they were available. Mr. Bowman advised the pictures displayed at the May 10 Council meeting were available on the City's website. Given ownership patterns downtown, Councilmember Moore commented no matter what the City did with regard to design guidelines or building heights, it was unlikely redevelopment would occur in the area of 5th and Main as owners of smaller lots could not redevelop due to the City's parking codes and the owners of large lots did not have any incentive to redevelop. Although she supported adopting Downtown Regulations and Guidelines, the City would also need to determine how to address ownership patterns either by revising parking requirements or consolidating parcels. Mr. Bowman pointed out that was a separate issue; first the Council needed to determine how they wanted downtown to look and then consider how other issues affected the vision. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24, 2005 Page 16 Mr. Bowman explained the City's contract with.Mr. Hinshaw covered his work through tonight's meeting and additional work would require supplementing his contract. The Council concurred with staff's suggestion for staff to do the research and have Mr. Hinshaw assist with comparing different scenarios. Mr. Bowman offered to identify funds for Mr. Hinshaw's assistance in his budget. For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Hinshaw explained he did not consider parking ratios. If the City was requiring parking in the retail core, that was counter productive. He noted if the City wanted a better downtown, adopting only Downtown Regulations and Guidelines would not be enough, other issues would also need to be addressed. With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. Arm Zig G;/'Y L`. ENSON,MAYOR 'SANDRA S. CHASE,CITY CLERK • Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 24,2005 Page 17 Revised 05/20/05 at Noon AGENDA �" EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL P. Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. MAY 24, 2005 6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding Pending Litigation and Labor Negotiations 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2005. (C) Approval of claim checks #79643 through #79807 for the week of May 16, 2005, in the amount of $421,396.27. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #40729 through #40804 for the period May 1 through May 15, 2005, in the amount of$747,556.01.* *Information regarding claim checks maybe viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (D) Approval of the Labor Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Edmonds Police Officers' Association (support service members). 3. (10 Min.) Presentation of performing and literary arts scholarship recipients. 4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 5. (30 Min.) Review and approval of the L-5 Policy as well as the annual salary survey recommendations for non-represented employees for 2005. 6. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 7. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings. 8. (2 Hours) Work Session on Code revisions to support the Comprehensive Plan. ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television-Government Access Channel 21.