The URL can be used to link to this page

2012.07.24 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds JULY 24, 2012 Work Session 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda 2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.Roll Call B.AM-4982 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2012. C.AM-4985 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012. D.AM-4983 Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #51499 through #51530 for $475,138.99 and benefit checks #51531 through #51539 & wire payments for $201,262.04 for the period July 1, 2012 through July 15, 2012. E.AM-4984 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Britta Holmberg ($2,486.94), and Mary Jane Kielman (amount undetermined). 3.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 4.AM-4981 Nonrepresented Employee Compensation Study and Policy Report. 5.(60 Minutes) AM-4918 Discussion regarding taking minutes/notes during executive sessions. 6.(15 Minutes)Report on outside committee/board meetings. 7.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments Packet Page 1 of 214 8.(15 Minutes)Council Comments ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 214 AM-4982 2. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/24/2012 Time: Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2012. Recommendation Approve the draft minutes that includes a "verbatim transcript" of the sentence that was requested be corrected (see Exhibit B). Previous Council Action At the July 17, 2012 City Councl Meeting, Councilmember Johnson requested a correction be made to the draft minutes on page 7, top of page, 2nd sentence, that reads: "She looked forward to compiling all the information for the Council's consideration in making a decision on this project." The City Clerk was requested to listen to the audio recording of the meeting, and place the minutes on the July 24, 2012 Agenda. Narrative A verbatim transcript of the sentence under question reads as follows: “I just wanted to share that information with all of you. And I think if we can just get all these facts together in one document, get it presented to the Council, then that would be one step closer to making this decision. It may not be necessary to wait a year, if we can move forward and get this information compiled, then it can either go to your subcommittee for review or it could go to the whole Council, I’ll leave that up to your decision.” I have replaced the sentence under question with the verbatim transcript in the copy of the minutes found in the attached Exhibit B (underlined in the draft minutes for easy reference). Attachments Exhibit A: 06-26-12 Draft City Council Minutes included in the 07-17-12 Agenda Packet Exhibit B: 06-26-12 Draft City Council Minutes with Correction Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 07/20/2012 05:51 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/20/2012 08:39 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/18/2012 02:02 PM Final Approval Date: 07/20/2012 Packet Page 3 of 214 Packet Page 4 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 26, 2012 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Carl Nelson, CIO Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, 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 JUNE 19, 2012. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #132695 THROUGH #132841 DATED JUNE 21, 2012 FOR $605,691.24 (REPLACEMENT CHECK #132800 FOR $313.83). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #51411 THROUGH #51442 FOR $449,154.89 AND BENEFIT CHECKS #51443 THROUGH #51450 AND WIRE PAYMENTS FOR $192,762.58 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2012. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SULAMMITE POLEVOY ($3,090.39). 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Thomas Sawtell, Edmonds, referred to comments he submitted regarding the Talbot Road Storm Drainage Improvement Project dated June 24, 2012. He stated comments 1-3 in his email were technical points that he assumed staff would review tonight. If the project is approved tonight and then challenged, the assertions he has made will be heard. His assertion was that under the project, untreated stormwater that was never on the property in the past will be added to the point source discharge into Browns Bay Packet Page 5 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 2 from the discharge pipe at 8229 Talbot Road. He pointed out the property owner’s representatives have objected to the design of the project and he asked for time to allow their ideas to be reviewed by staff and Council committee. He requested the Council not vote tonight and take the issue back to Council committee. He suggested Council ask staff for a pre-1970 aerial of the 8200 block of Talbot Road; the shoreline side of the road south of the project site will show a wetland and pond. In the 1970s the City permitted residential development in the hilltops and the shoreline in the 8200 block of Talbot Road on top of the wetland. The wetland and pond was obliterated and drains installed to take water into Browns Bay. The failure of those drains is in part driving this project. He questioned whether the City would proceed with this project if they had plans for a proper rehabilitation of Perrinville Creek including a new wetland on the property. Staff has said no, and the property owner’s representatives have said they would design the project differently. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, thanked Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and Finance Director Shawn Hunstock for their presentation to the Kiwanis Club regarding the Metropolitan Park District. They also described the $1 million budget shortfall and budget reductions that will be necessary. Next, Mr. Rutledge provided a reminder of the Classic Car Show at Top Foods on July 14, a fundraiser for the food bank. Further information is available from Jerry Katcher (206 819-7737) or him (425-776-7130). Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled he expressed concern to the Council in the past regarding the balance between the environment, wetlands, and critical areas and development. When wetlands and critical areas are developed, in the case of Talbot Road, the result is a high cost to the City for extra facilities and loss of fish habitat. The way to address that is not to proceed until all the answers are known and the problems have been studied. He agreed with Mr. Sawtell that it may be too early for a decision if the Council still had unanswered questions. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, recalled when he was on the Council in 2008 he advocated for hiring a compensation consultant but a majority of the Council did not agree, primarily because City staff did not feel a compensation consultant was needed. In later years the Council realized a compensation consultant was needed and $50,000 was allocated in the 2011 budget to retain a compensation consultant. It then took until June 2011 for staff to request authorization to hire a consultant. A consultant was retained and a presentation was made to the Council in fall 2011, but then nothing else happened. A presentation and report from the compensation consultant has been scheduled on the extended agenda for last week, tonight and now for a meeting in July. The Council owes citizens an explanation about what is happening with regard to the compensation study. Mayor Earling responded he spoke with Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Director Carrie Hite on several occasions concerning this matter; some details are still being worked out. He anticipated a presentation would be made at the end of July. He assured there was no evil or conspiracy occurring; staff wants to ensure all the details are worked out before the presentation is made. Mr. Wambolt responded he has been involved in compensation studies; they do not take this long. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, a resident across the street from the Talbot Road Storm Drainage Improvement Project, posed the following questions: • What is the root cause that the project will solve? • When did the problems start? • What alternatives have been explored in developing this solution? • What is the potential collateral impact of implementing the proposed solution? 4. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 7, 2012 FOR THE TALBOT ROAD STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO KAMINS CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $317,178.62. Public Works Director Phil Williams commented there has been a great deal of conversation over the past 2-3 days between staff, Council, and citizens as well as regulatory agencies visiting the City. He Packet Page 6 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 3 displayed a GIS photograph of the project area. He explained obtaining hydrology approval from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) often involves agreeing to do mitigation for the project to offset impact on the environment. In this case, the City agreed to a package of mitigation that will cost approximately $60,000 and will be implemented in the upper Perrinville Creek Basin in the vicinity of the post office where major erosion occurs. As this basin grew and developed over the years and more hard surface, roads, rooftops, driveways, parking lots, commercial development were constructed, the result was a situation where stormwater is produced more quickly and in higher quantities which results in higher creek flows, more erosion, and more sediment. The result is not good for any biota in the stream, certainly not fish, but also not aquatic insects, plant life, etc. That is not unique to Perrinville Creek; it is true of many urban drainages in Edmonds. It is a long range problem and the solutions will be robust and expensive. This project will address some of that in Perrinville Creek in the upper portion of the basin. Councilmember Petso referred to the request to delay a decision on the project. She asked whether the project could be completed this year if a decision were delayed until July 17. Mr. Williams answered he believed so noting the sooner the better in order to accomplish the project within the fish window, July 1 to September 30. He hoped any delay would be for a reason and that an explicit plan be developed with regard to what would happen during the delay period and the questions that remain to be answered. Staff will do everything possible to get those questions answered during that time. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Williams to review the GIS photograph. Mr. Williams identified the existing stormwater collection system in Talbot Road (depicted in orange on the photograph) that merges with the Perrinville Creek channel. He also identified the natural channel of Perrinville Creek (depicted in green on the photograph). He explained the existing pipe is a small, 12-inch line throughout much of its length, it suffers from root intrusion, dips and sags and does not convey much water. The models suggest the pipe can only handle 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) or 448 gallons/minute. The calculations for the part of the drainage area indicate a ten year storm could produce 25 cfs through a pipe that handles only 1 cfs. He identified where in that circumstance several locations are surcharged, manhole covers blown off and the water flows out, down a driveway and into a garage and home. This has been a slowly building problem as the drainage basin continues to develop. This project will address that serious flooding problem. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about another orange line on the photograph, labeled “existing diversion structure.” Mr. Williams answered the diversion structure/splitter box was installed in 1994. Its purpose is to not allow the channel to be surcharged and flood during high flows but split off a portion of the high flow and send it out a specifically constructed diversion pipe under the railroad tracks that discharges to Puget Sound. It functions but staff acknowledges the diversion structure is not exactly the right tool for this purpose. That is a bigger project for discussion on a later date. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Williams to explain the originally permitted route (depicted in red on the photograph). Mr. Williams explained when this project began four years ago, the obvious solution was to replace the existing pipe on the existing alignment with a bigger pipe. However, there are homes close together, landscaping, mature trees, fencing, berms, etc. and that would have been very impactful to the two property owners. Option 2 was the originally permitted route. The intent was to run the pipe down an existing easement to a sewer pump station, across the lower part of two parcels, both owned by the same property owner and enter the Perrinville Creek channel. That alignment went through design and permit; the property owner signed the application for the permits but declined to sign the property easement to construct the line. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the property owner would not sign the easement. Mr. Williams answered the property owner seemed to support the project but decided not to give the City an easement. Councilmember Buckshnis commented that seemed like a more direct route than the route currently under consideration. Packet Page 7 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 4 Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the currently permitted route (depicted in blue on the photograph). Mr. Williams answered that line is less expensive although that is not the primary driver. Some of the advantages include a portion that is entirely in City right-of-way and there is an easement for another portion. One of the problems with this alignment is the road goes uphill at that point and the pipe will need to be approximately 20 feet deep at the road. The currently permitted route will connect to the existing outfall pipe and will carry stormwater, not creek water. Mr. Williams identified the location of a weir, explaining a weir is an opening through which water flows. If there is a constant head and a certain sized orifice, the flow of water can be predicted. The purpose of the weir is to limit the amount of water that can flow into the lower channel. Anything in excess of that amount such as in a major storm event, would go out the diversion pipe. In a high water event, water will build up behind the weir and overflow into the splitter box and go out the pipe. The size of the weir regulates the amount of water that goes down the channel; since additional flow is being introduced, there will be flow matching at high flow by changing the size of the weir so that the same amount goes out the outfall pipe. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the change will create more stormwater due to bigger pipes and make water flow faster out the existing pipe at the diversion structure. Mr. Williams answered no; if there is 25 cfs coming down the pipe in a 10-year storm event, the hydrologic calculations that have been done to size the weir would allow 25 more cfs to go down the channel, resulting in the same amount of water going out the pipe in a high flow event. If there was previously a smaller pipe and now there is a larger pipe and not as many manholes, Councilmember Buckshnis assumed there would be more water flowing; in the current configuration water gets backed up. Mr. Williams explained water does not backup and create a lake; it comes out in various places and eventually reaches the same location, just not in the pipe. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the impact of the additional stormwater on fish had been determined. Mr. Williams qualified his answer, saying he is a biologist but not a fisheries biologist; the City does not have a fisheries biologist on staff and must rely on consultants or agencies. In this case the City needed a hydrology project approval permit from WDFW, the responsible agency to implement that section of state code. The City applied for the permit, had many discussions with WDFW regarding the originally permitted route and the currently permitted route. WDFW reviewed the City’s plans and specifications, considered the impacts to fish, reviewed the pros and cons of the project and issued the City a permit. He referred to a recent email from WDFW that states they are aware of the project, understand the intent and support the project. He acknowledged there may be impact to fish but in the opinion of WDFW this was a meritorious project that deserved to be permitted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what Mr. Williams would do if the City had unlimited resources. Mr. Williams answered he liked the idea that has been discussed of daylighting the entire creek. That is not a simple project to permit or execute. If the City had access to the property where the existing diversion structure is located, Perrinville Creek could be rerouted and a fish-passable open bottom culvert/arch created under the railroad tracks. He acknowledged that would be a great project and would eliminate the diversion box. Now that the City has WDFW’s approval to do maintenance on the diversion structure as often as is necessary, it will be better for fish and better for Perrinville Creek. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether daylighting Perrinville Creek would be the City’s eventual plan if resources became available. Mr. Williams answered there would need to be more conversations before he could say that was the plan. Even if a major reworking of the Perrinville Creek channel occurred, the currently permitted route would still be useful as a stormwater outfall. Packet Page 8 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 5 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the currently permitted route, observing that neither staff nor WDFW believed it would have an impact on fish or habitat. Mr. Williams stated any project has impacts particularly during the construction phase. With regard to whether it will have a lasting or measurable impact on fish, he would take the word of WDFW. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said WDFW is only stating they would assure adequate protection of fish life. She was unsure what that meant. Mr. Williams said WDFW feels the project has done what it needs to do to adequately protect the fishery resource in Perrinville Creek. He acknowledged that was not saying the project would have absolutely no impact; he did not believe that was possible. He acknowledged there is a lot of confusion with regard to what fish are in this part of Perrinville Creek. He described how the diversion structure would be cleaned: staff will seek approval from WDFW, put fish-catching nets above and below the diversion box, electroshock the fish and gently move them outside the zone to be returned later. A valve will be opened to briefly run the creek through a pipe. Staff will then excavate the rocks, sand and gravel that have accumulated as a result of erosion above and restore the function of the diversion box. The fish would then be returned to the creek, nets removed, etc. That process would be repeated in a few months after rain storms fill the diversion box again. He summarized that will not be a trivial commitment of City resources. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if the existing pipe is no longer used, the stormwater flow will be increased via a larger pipe. Mr. Williams stated the same amount of water is flowing downhill out of the basin; it will either be in the pipe because there is room in the pipe or it will find a way out of the pipe and bubble up somewhere else. With the existing pipe, it overflows the pipe, goes down a driveway, around and through the house and ends up at the same place. The amount of stormwater is dictated by the amount of rain and impervious surface. A larger pipe will retain more of the water rather than flooding property. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the existing pipe will be shut down. Mr. Williams agreed it will be. Councilmember Bloom noted one of Mr. Sawtell’s concerns is the diversion pipe does not clean the water before it reaches Puget Sound as Perrinville Creek does. She asked whether that would create more impact to Puget Sound and fish and wildlife. Mr. Williams answered in a natural channel with all the right features some sediment may settle in the channel rather than reach Puget Sound. He noted sediment in the stream channel will be moved out in the next big storm event. He referred to the alluvial fan at the bottom of Perrinville Creek, assuming there would have been less evidence of that 100 years ago. Councilmember Bloom stated vegetation in the creek provides some cleansing compared to a stormwater pipe. Mr. Williams agreed, acknowledging there were some biological processes occurring in an open channel that would not occur in an enclosed pipe carrying the same flow. He agreed better treatment would occur in an open channel versus a pipe although a biofilm does form on the inside of pipes. Mayor Earling asked if the City would need to seek another permit if the project were delayed a year. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster answered no; the current permit is good through 2013. Mayor Earling asked how much money and time had been invested in this project to date. Mr. Williams answered approximately $125,000 for design and putting the project out to bid. Mayor Earling asked how long the project had been under development. Mr. Williams answered approximately four years. There was evidence in the file that the function of this pipe has been identified as a problem since 1989. Mayor Earling asked if it could be assumed that construction costs would increase if the project were delayed a year. Mr. Williams answered that was a fair assumption. Any delay of more than a month would kill the project for 2012. He could only see doing that if there was something that could be expected to happen between now and next year. Otherwise this area will go through another winter with the possibility of additional storms causing additional damage. The focus has been on the biological resources in Perrinville Creek but there was also a life safety issue for the property owner impacted by flooding. He did not view this project as inconsistent with future plans or plans that may yet be developed Packet Page 9 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 6 for Perrinville Creek. The proposed pipe would still have value from a public safety and property damage perspective. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in getting WDFW’s perspective with regard to the project’s impact on fish. The letter from WDFW does not address it other than the comment that they assure adequate protection of fish. She recalled at least one citizen has been putting fish into the creek over the years. She asked whether a WDFW representative could come and talk to the Council. Mr. Williams suggested developing a list of questions and have WDFW provide written responses. He suggested Councilmembers forward their questions to him and he would forward them to WDFW. Council President Peterson asked whether the City has paid claims due to the inadequate storm drainage. Mr. Williams answered yes. Council President Peterson asked how the claims were paid. Mr. Williams answered they were paid by WCIA; if the City has a major claim, the premiums increase so ultimately it is the stormwater rate payers who pay the claims. Council President Peterson explained his concern with delaying the project is that the number of severe storm events is increasing. He asked if the City is more financially exposed if the project is delayed and future severe storm events cause further damage. Mr. Taraday answered it was difficult to respond because he was not familiar with the claims that have been paid. It was his understanding none had led to litigation. In addition, there are so many unknowable factors such as how big next winter’s storms will be, what kind of damage will they cause, etc. Council President Peterson pointed out the genesis of this project was to alleviate flooding on private property due to inadequate infrastructure. If it is not fixed, it will not get better. He urged Council to take the financial risk of a delay and future damage into consideration. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with Council President Peterson. The main impetus for this project was to prevent flooding on one property. Mr. Williams agreed that was the purpose of this project. Councilmember Yamamoto commented effects on the creek can be considered in the future; the current issue is to prevent flooding. He pointed out Perrinville Creek originates in Lynnwood; the City needs to work with Lynnwood to improve the entire creek channel. He was in favor of proceeding with the proposed project. Councilmember Petso commented it was premature to discuss the results of delaying the project for a year. The Council can delay its decision for a few weeks, gather information, have more communication and make a decision whether to proceed or delay the project at that point. That decision would then be made with more information and understanding than the Council has tonight. She supported rescheduling this item for action on the July 10 or 17 meeting, noting she has learned a great deal during the past 24 hours. The only way the Council can fail is if nothing is done during the intervening weeks. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was less concerned with the route of the pipe but wanted some questions answered with regard to fish. In addition to protecting the City’s funds, Councilmembers are responsible for protecting the environment in Edmonds. This flooding has been occurring for 20 years; a 2 week delay was not unreasonable in order to get questions answered by WDFW. Councilmember Johnson shared what she had learned over the past week. She thanked Diane and Robert Bernhoft for organizing a walkabout on this project last Saturday. She met with ten other people including Tom Sawtell; Robert Cofferlot, Sierra Club; Jim and Beth Ogonowski; Nancy and Dick Harrison; and Birch and Stacey Ingers. She also met with members of the Public Works Department including Phil Williams, Jerry Shuster, and Rob English. She learned there is a sediment removal scheduled on July 9. At that time the fish will be stunned, netted and removed. It will be possible to determine what species are in Perrinville Creek. Bob Shepard at Seaview Elementary has been doing fish release in Perrinville Creek for several years. She suggested learning more about that effort. She also learned there is a stream keepers Packet Page 10 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 7 group that has walked and photographed Perrinville Creek from the head to the outlet; the photographs are available on their website. In the next few weeks there are plans to discuss Perrinville Creek drainage and sediment with Lynnwood. She looked forward to compiling all the information for the Council’s consideration in making a decision on this project. She agreed additional time was needed to study the issue. Councilmember Buckshnis, a member of WRIA 8, explained WRIA 8 received grant funding for the Edmonds Marsh last year. Staff plans to bring some of the smaller watersheds to WRIA 8’s attention. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON JULY 10 AND FULL COUNCIL ON JULY 17. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to have it come to full Council. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE MATTER COME TO COUNCIL ON JULY 17. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 5. UPDATING THE CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 4.12 AND PORTIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TITLE 16 TO ALLOW MOTORIZED MOBILE VENDORS. (FILE NO. AMD20100012) Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained the City continues to receive requests from persons who wish to operate motorized mobile food vending services within the City. There is confusing and conflicting language within the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as to whether motorized mobile vendors are an allowed activity within the City. ECC 4.12 provides the framework for licensing Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors. ECC 4.12.010 defines these different types of activities as: A. “Solicitor” or “peddler” means any person who shall sell, offer for or expose for sale, or who shall trade, deal or traffic in any goods or services in the city by going from house to house or from place to place or by indiscriminately approaching individuals. B. “Street vendor” means any person who shall sell food, flowers, nonalcoholic beverages only, and/or other goods or services from a nonmotorized mobile vending unit, in the commercially zoned areas of the city of Edmonds. Motorized mobile vendors fit within the broad definition of solicitor in that they sell “goods” from “place to place”. However, motorized mobile vendors do not fit into the more narrow definition of street vendor which refers to “nonmotorized mobile vending unit” such as hot dog carts. Under these definitions, motorized mobile vendors may operate as a solicitor under a solicitors license obtained from the City Clerk. However, where they could operate is limited by the zoning code. Within Title 16 of the ECDC, many of the commercial zones (Downtown Business, Neighborhood Business, Community Business, General Commercial, and Commercial Waterfront) have operating restrictions which state that, “All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building…” and vehicles do not fit that definition. While a motorized mobile vendor may be allowed to operate under a solicitors license, the areas they would most likely locate restrict uses to buildings, which Packet Page 11 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 8 would exclude motorized mobile vendors. As the code currently exists, it appears that motorized mobile vendors may be permitted, but their operation is restricted to certain zones which include the residential zones, Public, and Planned Business. At the July 19 Council meeting, the Council directed staff to update relevant sections of ECC and ECDC to make it clear that motorized mobile vending units are permitted in the City. In addition to amending ECC 4.12, Title 16 of the ECDC also needed to be updated; therefore this was taken to the Planning Board for their consideration. While the Planning Board would not normally review changes to ECC, there is significant overlap between allowing motorized mobile vending units in ECC 4.12 and how that use relates to other provisions within ECDC, therefore, the Planning Board reviewed proposed amendments to ECC 4.12 and ECDC Title 16 and forwarded a recommendation to the Council. The Planning Board discussed possible amendments to allow motorized mobile vending units during four meetings – two workshops, a public hearing and a continued public hearing. The Planning Board highlighted two items for discussion before City Council, 1) what zones motorized mobile vending units should be allowed to operate in, and 2) whether only mobile food trucks should be permitted, or could other goods and services be sold out of motorized mobile vending units. Mr. Lien reviewed proposed changes to ECC 4.12: • Added definition for motorized mobile vending units o In its current form would allow more than just food trucks • Zones where vending units were allowed to operate were removed from the definition of street vendor and moved into ECC 4.12.055 • Removed requirement for Architectural Design Board (ADB) review o No criteria was associated with requirement • Section 4.12.055 o Subsection B.1 – details zones vending units would be allowed to operate in o Subsection I – states vending units may operate in parks with a concessions agreement o Subsection L – requires written permission from property owner when locating on private property or permission from the City when locating on or next to City property o New subsection M – requires a circulation plan when mobile vending units locate in parking lots to ensure mobile vending units do not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety. If locating in a parking lot, the business still is required to have sufficient parking to meet their parking requirements per the code o New Subsection O – requires mobile vending units be ¼ mile away from special events such as Taste of Edmonds or Edmonds Arts Festival • 4.12.065 o New Subsection D, mobile vending units hours of operation (correlate with outdoor dining) Mr. Lien reviewed revisions to Title 16: • Added exceptions that would allow motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units to operate within the operating restrictions of the BD, BC, CW and CG zones. Mr. Lien explained after reading the Council agenda memo, Finance Director Shawn Hunstock suggested the following amendment (this was not reviewed by the Planning Board): • Add a new subsection to ECC 4.12.020 that specifies that vendors must report any sales made within the City to the Department of Revenue as sales that occur in the City to ensure the City receives sales tax from vending unit sales. Mr. Lien referred to one of the items highlighted by the Planning Board regarding which zones motorized mobile vending units should be allowed to operate in. He referred to an email from Randy and Brooke Packet Page 12 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 9 Baker, Chanterelle Restaurant, who were opposed to allowing mobile vending units to operate in the downtown area. He explained earlier drafts of ECC 4.12 had different operating restrictions for nonmotorized units versus motorized units. As the Planning Board discussed it further, they broadened the areas that should be allowed and ultimately recommended allowing them nearly everywhere and to allow the market to determine where food trucks would be located. Mr. Lien reviewed the second item the Planning Board highlighted, whether only mobile food trucks should be permitted, or could other goods and services be sold out of motorized mobile vending units, explaining there have been some inquires about operating other types of business from mobile units such as a mobile boutique. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the only requirement other than reporting sales tax would be a $200 annual fee. Mr. Lien advised each mobile vending unit would be required to pay a $200 annual fee. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained a solicitor is different than a street vendor. There is currently a $25 fee plus a $10 investigation fee for a solicitor plus $8 per individual. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about health code inspections. Mr. Lien explained the food trucks would be required to obtain health permits from Snohomish County. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the $200 annual fee was the proposed fee or the current fee. Mr. Lien answered that was in the existing code. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that was in addition to a business license. Ms. Chase answered it was in lieu of a business license. A business license is generally for a business in an established location. Councilmember Bloom asked the cost of a business license. Ms. Chase answered a new commercial business license is $125; a home business license is $100; renewals are $50. Councilmember Bloom asked why the annual fee for a mobile vending unit was higher than the business license. Ms. Chase answered the $200 fee is for a street vendor which is quite different than a solicitor. Mr. Lien read the proposed language, for each mobile vending unit there shall also be an annual fee of $200. Ms. Chase explained the one mobile vending unit in the City, Here and There, only has a solicitor’s license ($25 annual fee plus $8 per employee) and does not have a street vendor’s license. The $200 fee was previously for a use such as an espresso cart in front of a business which would have required ADB review. Mr. Lien explained the ADB review was removed; one of the reviews that would be required under the proposed amendments would be in regard to parking, ECC 4.12.055.M.1, “…The location and circulation plan shall require approval by the city traffic engineer to ensure the vending unit will not interfere in any way with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety.” Councilmember Bloom asked about Public zoned property. Mr. Lien identified Public zoned properties downtown which include the wastewater treatment plant, the old Public Works site, Brackett’s Landing, and Olympic Beach. In order to locate in a Public zoned property, most of which are parks, the mobile vending unit would also need a concessions agreement. This issue was initially considered along with the concessions agreement but required Planning Board review. Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board thought the high school which is also Public zoned may want to allow mobile vending units. A new section L.2 was added that addresses public-owned properties. Councilmember Petso asked about the protection of existing businesses. For example she envisioned Burger King and Dairy Queen near the high school would not be interested in having food trucks at the high school property. She asked whether there was any language that would prevent food trucks from locating within a certain distance of a competing establishment. Mr. Lien answered that was not specifically addressed. There is language that requires nonmotorized vending units locating in the right- of-way to get permission of the abutting property owner. A vending unit locating on private property would only be required to get permission from the property owner. In accordance with Planning Board Packet Page 13 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 10 direction, the first draft of the zones where motorized vending units would be allowed would have prohibited them within the BD1 zone to prevent competition with restaurants. Initially motorized vending units were only allowed in the BD2 and BD3 zones. As the Planning Board discussed this further, they decided to allow motorized vending units in all commercial zones and allow the market place to decide where they would locate. Councilmember Petso observed one option would be to limit motorized vending units to certain zones. She asked if the Council could establish a distance from a competing establishment. Mr. Lien answered that could be done; Seattle’s code has language regarding the distance from a restaurant. Councilmember Petso observed that would be subject to interpretation with regard to what was a competing restaurant. Mr. Lien suggested a distance would be easier; it would be measured from the outside parcel line. Councilmember Petso pointed out many of the City’s commercial areas are adjacent to residential. She suggested establishing a distance requirement so that a motorized vending unit did not park outside a residence. Mr. Lien agreed that could be added. The hours of operation differ if a motorized vending unit is located next to residential property. If surrounded by commercial property, the hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m.; next to residential zoned property the hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Petso cited Firdale Village as an example where a distance from a residence requirement would be appropriate. Councilmember Petso referred to the elimination of the requirement for ADB review. She asked if that eliminated any ability to regulate how the trucks look. Mr. Lien displayed several photographs of motorized vending units. He explained there were no criteria associated with the ADB review. One of the initial requirements that accompanied removal of the ADB review was to require motorized vending units be manufactured for that purpose. However, one of the characteristics of the food trucks is their artistic value. Many are conversions of utility trucks or RVs. One of the people who testified before the Planning Board had an RV that was converted by a company that specializes in converting RVs to food trucks. The Planning Board recognized the artistic value of the trucks and decided not to have any criteria with regard to their appearance. Councilmember Petso observed standards would need to be established if the ADB review were reinstated. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Petso inquired about tables, chairs, awnings, etc. around food trucks. Mr. Lien answered that was addressed by the parking requirement; a food truck could not occupy so much space that the business no longer met its parking requirements. The regulations also require motorized vending units to pick everything up each evening. He noted motorized vending units operate in different ways, some move around to different locations throughout the day and some establish themselves in one place. The Planning Board envisioned a temporary location where the motorized vending unit would park for a few hours and move on to another site. Councilmember Petso commented she was familiar with one of the parking lots used by Here and There. She asked if motorized vending units, tables, chairs, etc. could occupy half the parking lot if the building only needed the other half to meet its parking requirement. Mr. Lien answered yes; as long as they met the parking requirements and received circulation approval from the traffic engineer. They would still be required to pick up everything when they leave each day. Councilmember Yamamoto expressed concern with a food truck locating next to an established business. Although he supported entrepreneurship, it is important to recognize that people are establishing their businesses and paying rent. He was aware of only one motorized vending unit, Here and There, and asked if there had been an influx of requests. Mr. Lien answered Here and There was the first one and that was Packet Page 14 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 11 when the conflicts were discovered. There have been 3-4 additional inquiries from food trucks and a mobile boutique. Councilmember Yamamoto asked about the agreement to locate on private property. Mr. Lien answered the agreement with the property owner is outside the City’s permitting process. A signed letter of approval would need to accompany their application. Councilmember Yamamoto reiterated his primary concern was a mobile vending unit locating close to an established business. For example, if he had a restaurant, he would not want a sandwich truck locating across the street. Mr. Lien explained there is currently no requirement for separation from a business. The only separation requirement is for special events downtown; similar language could be drafted to establish distance from a restaurant. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Petso regarding distance from residential areas, commenting motorized vending units would be inappropriate in neighborhoods. She urged caution with determining where a motorized vending units could locate, citing free competition. Using Councilmember Yamamoto’s example, she pointed out a competing business could locate across the street. She commented Edmonds is more than downtown restaurants; there are motorized vending units on Highway 99. Mr. Lien pointed out the motorized vending unit on Highway 99 is in Esperance, not Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested a separation of 1 mile from a special event. She also suggested scheduling a public hearing. She cited the very different dining experience at a motorized vending unit. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. Council President Peterson asked whether a food truck could park on a City street. Mr. Lien answered under the proposed language, a food truck could not park in right-of-way designed for traffic or parking. Council President Peterson relayed the concern that there would be a line of food trucks down 5th. Mr. Lien responded that would not be allowed. Council President Peterson suggested Councilmembers submit their proposed changes in writing to Mr. Lien and Mr. Lien present the revisions at a public hearing the first week of August. Councilmember Bloom referred to ECC 4.12.055.1.B, “In addition to the licensing requirements of this chapter, any street vendor shall be required to obtain a street use permit. Application fees for street use permits are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion…” She asked if the Council could discuss the fees. Mr. Taraday answered the City Council can always amend its fees and the Council approves its fees annually via resolution. Mr. Lien advised the last update was in 2009. The license fees for solicitors, peddlers or street vendors are established in ECC 4.12.030 and not the fee schedule. That section was last updated in 1996. Ms. Chase advised the Council could consider the fees listed in the code as part of this review. Mr. Lien advised street use permit fees are contained in the fee resolution. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. REPORT ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Councilmember Bloom reported the SeaShore meeting on the first Friday included a presentation by Climate Solutions and SSA Marine regarding coal trains and environmental impact studies that many Packet Page 15 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 12 municipalities are requesting. In response to that presentation, she wrote a letter to SSA Marine commending them for looking at all environmental impacts along the proposed coal train route. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported whooping cough has become an epidemic, particularly in Snohomish County. She urged everyone to get vaccinated. Councilmember Yamamoto reported at yesterday’s Port Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously approved moving forward with the Harbor Square Plan. He also reported on SnoCom, relaying they paid off their loan for NewWorld, a savings of $122,000. With those savings, SnoCom plans to reduce the amount they charge each participating jurisdiction. Councilmember Petso reported the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) planning group has more or less approved the plan that will come to Councils in the fall. She relayed an effort by Council President Peterson, Mayor Earling and she to get a review of the RFA work to date by an outside professional to ensure when assumptions are made or changed about operational issues in the RFA plan, an outside expert has determined whether they are reasonable. Mayor Earling reported Sound Transit is discussing how the Northgate station will operate. He was successful in getting a provisional station at 220th & 1-5 studied for the potential alignment between Northgate and Lynnwood. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)(iii). At 9:06 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)(iii). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. He stated action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 9:44 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:45 p.m. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he attended the AWC conference in Vancouver where the City received a Municipal Excellence Award for its Going Green Plan. Snohomish County Tomorrow was also recognized for their work. The conference included a very interesting presentation with 30-35 cities interested in the coal trail issue. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson reported there will be a presentation on Wednesday, June 27 at the Planning Board meeting in Council Chambers regarding form based codes. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the presentation regarding form based codes will be televised. She next reported Snohomish County Tomorrow received a Governor’s Special Merit Award for their work on Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). She recognized Rob Chave for his involvement in developing the CPPs. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmember Johnson and Mr. Shuster for taking her on a tour of Perrinville Creek. Packet Page 16 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 13 10. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Packet Page 17 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 26, 2012 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Carl Nelson, CIO Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, 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 JUNE 19, 2012. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #132695 THROUGH #132841 DATED JUNE 21, 2012 FOR $605,691.24 (REPLACEMENT CHECK #132800 FOR $313.83). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #51411 THROUGH #51442 FOR $449,154.89 AND BENEFIT CHECKS #51443 THROUGH #51450 AND WIRE PAYMENTS FOR $192,762.58 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2012. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SULAMMITE POLEVOY ($3,090.39). 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Thomas Sawtell, Edmonds, referred to comments he submitted regarding the Talbot Road Storm Drainage Improvement Project dated June 24, 2012. He stated comments 1-3 in his email were technical points that he assumed staff would review tonight. If the project is approved tonight and then challenged, the assertions he has made will be heard. His assertion was that under the project, untreated stormwater that was never on the property in the past will be added to the point source discharge into Browns Bay Packet Page 18 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 2 from the discharge pipe at 8229 Talbot Road. He pointed out the property owner’s representatives have objected to the design of the project and he asked for time to allow their ideas to be reviewed by staff and Council committee. He requested the Council not vote tonight and take the issue back to Council committee. He suggested Council ask staff for a pre-1970 aerial of the 8200 block of Talbot Road; the shoreline side of the road south of the project site will show a wetland and pond. In the 1970s the City permitted residential development in the hilltops and the shoreline in the 8200 block of Talbot Road on top of the wetland. The wetland and pond was obliterated and drains installed to take water into Browns Bay. The failure of those drains is in part driving this project. He questioned whether the City would proceed with this project if they had plans for a proper rehabilitation of Perrinville Creek including a new wetland on the property. Staff has said no, and the property owner’s representatives have said they would design the project differently. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, thanked Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and Finance Director Shawn Hunstock for their presentation to the Kiwanis Club regarding the Metropolitan Park District. They also described the $1 million budget shortfall and budget reductions that will be necessary. Next, Mr. Rutledge provided a reminder of the Classic Car Show at Top Foods on July 14, a fundraiser for the food bank. Further information is available from Jerry Katcher (206 819-7737) or him (425-776-7130). Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled he expressed concern to the Council in the past regarding the balance between the environment, wetlands, and critical areas and development. When wetlands and critical areas are developed, in the case of Talbot Road, the result is a high cost to the City for extra facilities and loss of fish habitat. The way to address that is not to proceed until all the answers are known and the problems have been studied. He agreed with Mr. Sawtell that it may be too early for a decision if the Council still had unanswered questions. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, recalled when he was on the Council in 2008 he advocated for hiring a compensation consultant but a majority of the Council did not agree, primarily because City staff did not feel a compensation consultant was needed. In later years the Council realized a compensation consultant was needed and $50,000 was allocated in the 2011 budget to retain a compensation consultant. It then took until June 2011 for staff to request authorization to hire a consultant. A consultant was retained and a presentation was made to the Council in fall 2011, but then nothing else happened. A presentation and report from the compensation consultant has been scheduled on the extended agenda for last week, tonight and now for a meeting in July. The Council owes citizens an explanation about what is happening with regard to the compensation study. Mayor Earling responded he spoke with Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Director Carrie Hite on several occasions concerning this matter; some details are still being worked out. He anticipated a presentation would be made at the end of July. He assured there was no evil or conspiracy occurring; staff wants to ensure all the details are worked out before the presentation is made. Mr. Wambolt responded he has been involved in compensation studies; they do not take this long. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, a resident across the street from the Talbot Road Storm Drainage Improvement Project, posed the following questions: • What is the root cause that the project will solve? • When did the problems start? • What alternatives have been explored in developing this solution? • What is the potential collateral impact of implementing the proposed solution? 4. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 7, 2012 FOR THE TALBOT ROAD STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO KAMINS CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $317,178.62. Public Works Director Phil Williams commented there has been a great deal of conversation over the past 2-3 days between staff, Council, and citizens as well as regulatory agencies visiting the City. He Packet Page 19 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 3 displayed a GIS photograph of the project area. He explained obtaining hydrology approval from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) often involves agreeing to do mitigation for the project to offset impact on the environment. In this case, the City agreed to a package of mitigation that will cost approximately $60,000 and will be implemented in the upper Perrinville Creek Basin in the vicinity of the post office where major erosion occurs. As this basin grew and developed over the years and more hard surface, roads, rooftops, driveways, parking lots, commercial development were constructed, the result was a situation where stormwater is produced more quickly and in higher quantities which results in higher creek flows, more erosion, and more sediment. The result is not good for any biota in the stream, certainly not fish, but also not aquatic insects, plant life, etc. That is not unique to Perrinville Creek; it is true of many urban drainages in Edmonds. It is a long range problem and the solutions will be robust and expensive. This project will address some of that in Perrinville Creek in the upper portion of the basin. Councilmember Petso referred to the request to delay a decision on the project. She asked whether the project could be completed this year if a decision were delayed until July 17. Mr. Williams answered he believed so noting the sooner the better in order to accomplish the project within the fish window, July 1 to September 30. He hoped any delay would be for a reason and that an explicit plan be developed with regard to what would happen during the delay period and the questions that remain to be answered. Staff will do everything possible to get those questions answered during that time. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Williams to review the GIS photograph. Mr. Williams identified the existing stormwater collection system in Talbot Road (depicted in orange on the photograph) that merges with the Perrinville Creek channel. He also identified the natural channel of Perrinville Creek (depicted in green on the photograph). He explained the existing pipe is a small, 12-inch line throughout much of its length, it suffers from root intrusion, dips and sags and does not convey much water. The models suggest the pipe can only handle 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) or 448 gallons/minute. The calculations for the part of the drainage area indicate a ten year storm could produce 25 cfs through a pipe that handles only 1 cfs. He identified where in that circumstance several locations are surcharged, manhole covers blown off and the water flows out, down a driveway and into a garage and home. This has been a slowly building problem as the drainage basin continues to develop. This project will address that serious flooding problem. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about another orange line on the photograph, labeled “existing diversion structure.” Mr. Williams answered the diversion structure/splitter box was installed in 1994. Its purpose is to not allow the channel to be surcharged and flood during high flows but split off a portion of the high flow and send it out a specifically constructed diversion pipe under the railroad tracks that discharges to Puget Sound. It functions but staff acknowledges the diversion structure is not exactly the right tool for this purpose. That is a bigger project for discussion on a later date. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Williams to explain the originally permitted route (depicted in red on the photograph). Mr. Williams explained when this project began four years ago, the obvious solution was to replace the existing pipe on the existing alignment with a bigger pipe. However, there are homes close together, landscaping, mature trees, fencing, berms, etc. and that would have been very impactful to the two property owners. Option 2 was the originally permitted route. The intent was to run the pipe down an existing easement to a sewer pump station, across the lower part of two parcels, both owned by the same property owner and enter the Perrinville Creek channel. That alignment went through design and permit; the property owner signed the application for the permits but declined to sign the property easement to construct the line. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the property owner would not sign the easement. Mr. Williams answered the property owner seemed to support the project but decided not to give the City an easement. Councilmember Buckshnis commented that seemed like a more direct route than the route currently under consideration. Packet Page 20 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 4 Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the currently permitted route (depicted in blue on the photograph). Mr. Williams answered that line is less expensive although that is not the primary driver. Some of the advantages include a portion that is entirely in City right-of-way and there is an easement for another portion. One of the problems with this alignment is the road goes uphill at that point and the pipe will need to be approximately 20 feet deep at the road. The currently permitted route will connect to the existing outfall pipe and will carry stormwater, not creek water. Mr. Williams identified the location of a weir, explaining a weir is an opening through which water flows. If there is a constant head and a certain sized orifice, the flow of water can be predicted. The purpose of the weir is to limit the amount of water that can flow into the lower channel. Anything in excess of that amount such as in a major storm event, would go out the diversion pipe. In a high water event, water will build up behind the weir and overflow into the splitter box and go out the pipe. The size of the weir regulates the amount of water that goes down the channel; since additional flow is being introduced, there will be flow matching at high flow by changing the size of the weir so that the same amount goes out the outfall pipe. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the change will create more stormwater due to bigger pipes and make water flow faster out the existing pipe at the diversion structure. Mr. Williams answered no; if there is 25 cfs coming down the pipe in a 10-year storm event, the hydrologic calculations that have been done to size the weir would allow 25 more cfs to go down the channel, resulting in the same amount of water going out the pipe in a high flow event. If there was previously a smaller pipe and now there is a larger pipe and not as many manholes, Councilmember Buckshnis assumed there would be more water flowing; in the current configuration water gets backed up. Mr. Williams explained water does not backup and create a lake; it comes out in various places and eventually reaches the same location, just not in the pipe. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the impact of the additional stormwater on fish had been determined. Mr. Williams qualified his answer, saying he is a biologist but not a fisheries biologist; the City does not have a fisheries biologist on staff and must rely on consultants or agencies. In this case the City needed a hydrology project approval permit from WDFW, the responsible agency to implement that section of state code. The City applied for the permit, had many discussions with WDFW regarding the originally permitted route and the currently permitted route. WDFW reviewed the City’s plans and specifications, considered the impacts to fish, reviewed the pros and cons of the project and issued the City a permit. He referred to a recent email from WDFW that states they are aware of the project, understand the intent and support the project. He acknowledged there may be impact to fish but in the opinion of WDFW this was a meritorious project that deserved to be permitted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what Mr. Williams would do if the City had unlimited resources. Mr. Williams answered he liked the idea that has been discussed of daylighting the entire creek. That is not a simple project to permit or execute. If the City had access to the property where the existing diversion structure is located, Perrinville Creek could be rerouted and a fish-passable open bottom culvert/arch created under the railroad tracks. He acknowledged that would be a great project and would eliminate the diversion box. Now that the City has WDFW’s approval to do maintenance on the diversion structure as often as is necessary, it will be better for fish and better for Perrinville Creek. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether daylighting Perrinville Creek would be the City’s eventual plan if resources became available. Mr. Williams answered there would need to be more conversations before he could say that was the plan. Even if a major reworking of the Perrinville Creek channel occurred, the currently permitted route would still be useful as a stormwater outfall. Packet Page 21 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 5 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the currently permitted route, observing that neither staff nor WDFW believed it would have an impact on fish or habitat. Mr. Williams stated any project has impacts particularly during the construction phase. With regard to whether it will have a lasting or measurable impact on fish, he would take the word of WDFW. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said WDFW is only stating they would assure adequate protection of fish life. She was unsure what that meant. Mr. Williams said WDFW feels the project has done what it needs to do to adequately protect the fishery resource in Perrinville Creek. He acknowledged that was not saying the project would have absolutely no impact; he did not believe that was possible. He acknowledged there is a lot of confusion with regard to what fish are in this part of Perrinville Creek. He described how the diversion structure would be cleaned: staff will seek approval from WDFW, put fish-catching nets above and below the diversion box, electroshock the fish and gently move them outside the zone to be returned later. A valve will be opened to briefly run the creek through a pipe. Staff will then excavate the rocks, sand and gravel that have accumulated as a result of erosion above and restore the function of the diversion box. The fish would then be returned to the creek, nets removed, etc. That process would be repeated in a few months after rain storms fill the diversion box again. He summarized that will not be a trivial commitment of City resources. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if the existing pipe is no longer used, the stormwater flow will be increased via a larger pipe. Mr. Williams stated the same amount of water is flowing downhill out of the basin; it will either be in the pipe because there is room in the pipe or it will find a way out of the pipe and bubble up somewhere else. With the existing pipe, it overflows the pipe, goes down a driveway, around and through the house and ends up at the same place. The amount of stormwater is dictated by the amount of rain and impervious surface. A larger pipe will retain more of the water rather than flooding property. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the existing pipe will be shut down. Mr. Williams agreed it will be. Councilmember Bloom noted one of Mr. Sawtell’s concerns is the diversion pipe does not clean the water before it reaches Puget Sound as Perrinville Creek does. She asked whether that would create more impact to Puget Sound and fish and wildlife. Mr. Williams answered in a natural channel with all the right features some sediment may settle in the channel rather than reach Puget Sound. He noted sediment in the stream channel will be moved out in the next big storm event. He referred to the alluvial fan at the bottom of Perrinville Creek, assuming there would have been less evidence of that 100 years ago. Councilmember Bloom stated vegetation in the creek provides some cleansing compared to a stormwater pipe. Mr. Williams agreed, acknowledging there were some biological processes occurring in an open channel that would not occur in an enclosed pipe carrying the same flow. He agreed better treatment would occur in an open channel versus a pipe although a biofilm does form on the inside of pipes. Mayor Earling asked if the City would need to seek another permit if the project were delayed a year. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster answered no; the current permit is good through 2013. Mayor Earling asked how much money and time had been invested in this project to date. Mr. Williams answered approximately $125,000 for design and putting the project out to bid. Mayor Earling asked how long the project had been under development. Mr. Williams answered approximately four years. There was evidence in the file that the function of this pipe has been identified as a problem since 1989. Mayor Earling asked if it could be assumed that construction costs would increase if the project were delayed a year. Mr. Williams answered that was a fair assumption. Any delay of more than a month would kill the project for 2012. He could only see doing that if there was something that could be expected to happen between now and next year. Otherwise this area will go through another winter with the possibility of additional storms causing additional damage. The focus has been on the biological resources in Perrinville Creek but there was also a life safety issue for the property owner impacted by flooding. He did not view this project as inconsistent with future plans or plans that may yet be developed Packet Page 22 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 6 for Perrinville Creek. The proposed pipe would still have value from a public safety and property damage perspective. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in getting WDFW’s perspective with regard to the project’s impact on fish. The letter from WDFW does not address it other than the comment that they assure adequate protection of fish. She recalled at least one citizen has been putting fish into the creek over the years. She asked whether a WDFW representative could come and talk to the Council. Mr. Williams suggested developing a list of questions and have WDFW provide written responses. He suggested Councilmembers forward their questions to him and he would forward them to WDFW. Council President Peterson asked whether the City has paid claims due to the inadequate storm drainage. Mr. Williams answered yes. Council President Peterson asked how the claims were paid. Mr. Williams answered they were paid by WCIA; if the City has a major claim, the premiums increase so ultimately it is the stormwater rate payers who pay the claims. Council President Peterson explained his concern with delaying the project is that the number of severe storm events is increasing. He asked if the City is more financially exposed if the project is delayed and future severe storm events cause further damage. Mr. Taraday answered it was difficult to respond because he was not familiar with the claims that have been paid. It was his understanding none had led to litigation. In addition, there are so many unknowable factors such as how big next winter’s storms will be, what kind of damage will they cause, etc. Council President Peterson pointed out the genesis of this project was to alleviate flooding on private property due to inadequate infrastructure. If it is not fixed, it will not get better. He urged Council to take the financial risk of a delay and future damage into consideration. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with Council President Peterson. The main impetus for this project was to prevent flooding on one property. Mr. Williams agreed that was the purpose of this project. Councilmember Yamamoto commented effects on the creek can be considered in the future; the current issue is to prevent flooding. He pointed out Perrinville Creek originates in Lynnwood; the City needs to work with Lynnwood to improve the entire creek channel. He was in favor of proceeding with the proposed project. Councilmember Petso commented it was premature to discuss the results of delaying the project for a year. The Council can delay its decision for a few weeks, gather information, have more communication and make a decision whether to proceed or delay the project at that point. That decision would then be made with more information and understanding than the Council has tonight. She supported rescheduling this item for action on the July 10 or 17 meeting, noting she has learned a great deal during the past 24 hours. The only way the Council can fail is if nothing is done during the intervening weeks. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was less concerned with the route of the pipe but wanted some questions answered with regard to fish. In addition to protecting the City’s funds, Councilmembers are responsible for protecting the environment in Edmonds. This flooding has been occurring for 20 years; a 2 week delay was not unreasonable in order to get questions answered by WDFW. Councilmember Johnson shared what she had learned over the past week. She thanked Diane and Robert Bernhoft for organizing a walkabout on this project last Saturday. She met with ten other people including Tom Sawtell; Robert Cofferlot, Sierra Club; Jim and Beth Ogonowski; Nancy and Dick Harrison; and Birch and Stacey Ingers. She also met with members of the Public Works Department including Phil Williams, Jerry Shuster, and Rob English. She learned there is a sediment removal scheduled on July 9. At that time the fish will be stunned, netted and removed. It will be possible to determine what species are in Perrinville Creek. Bob Shepard at Seaview Elementary has been doing fish release in Perrinville Creek for several years. She suggested learning more about that effort. She also learned there is a stream keepers Packet Page 23 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 7 group that has walked and photographed Perrinville Creek from the head to the outlet; the photographs are available on their website. In the next few weeks there are plans to discuss Perrinville Creek drainage and sediment with Lynnwood. I just wanted to share that information with all of you. And I think if we can just get all these facts together in one document, get it presented to the Council, then that would be one step closer to making this decision. It may not be necessary to wait a year, if we can move forward and get this information compiled, then it can either go to your subcommittee for review or it could go to the whole Council, I’ll leave that up to your decision. She agreed additional time was needed to study the issue. Councilmember Buckshnis, a member of WRIA 8, explained WRIA 8 received grant funding for the Edmonds Marsh last year. Staff plans to bring some of the smaller watersheds to WRIA 8’s attention. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REFER THIS MATTER TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON JULY 10 AND FULL COUNCIL ON JULY 17. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to have it come to full Council. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE MATTER COME TO COUNCIL ON JULY 17. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 5. UPDATING THE CITY OF EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 4.12 AND PORTIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TITLE 16 TO ALLOW MOTORIZED MOBILE VENDORS. (FILE NO. AMD20100012) Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained the City continues to receive requests from persons who wish to operate motorized mobile food vending services within the City. There is confusing and conflicting language within the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) as to whether motorized mobile vendors are an allowed activity within the City. ECC 4.12 provides the framework for licensing Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors. ECC 4.12.010 defines these different types of activities as: A. “Solicitor” or “peddler” means any person who shall sell, offer for or expose for sale, or who shall trade, deal or traffic in any goods or services in the city by going from house to house or from place to place or by indiscriminately approaching individuals. B. “Street vendor” means any person who shall sell food, flowers, nonalcoholic beverages only, and/or other goods or services from a nonmotorized mobile vending unit, in the commercially zoned areas of the city of Edmonds. Motorized mobile vendors fit within the broad definition of solicitor in that they sell “goods” from “place to place”. However, motorized mobile vendors do not fit into the more narrow definition of street vendor which refers to “nonmotorized mobile vending unit” such as hot dog carts. Under these definitions, motorized mobile vendors may operate as a solicitor under a solicitors license obtained from the City Clerk. However, where they could operate is limited by the zoning code. Within Title 16 of the ECDC, many of the commercial zones (Downtown Business, Neighborhood Business, Community Business, General Commercial, and Commercial Waterfront) have operating Packet Page 24 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 8 restrictions which state that, “All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building…” and vehicles do not fit that definition. While a motorized mobile vendor may be allowed to operate under a solicitors license, the areas they would most likely locate restrict uses to buildings, which would exclude motorized mobile vendors. As the code currently exists, it appears that motorized mobile vendors may be permitted, but their operation is restricted to certain zones which include the residential zones, Public, and Planned Business. At the July 19 Council meeting, the Council directed staff to update relevant sections of ECC and ECDC to make it clear that motorized mobile vending units are permitted in the City. In addition to amending ECC 4.12, Title 16 of the ECDC also needed to be updated; therefore this was taken to the Planning Board for their consideration. While the Planning Board would not normally review changes to ECC, there is significant overlap between allowing motorized mobile vending units in ECC 4.12 and how that use relates to other provisions within ECDC, therefore, the Planning Board reviewed proposed amendments to ECC 4.12 and ECDC Title 16 and forwarded a recommendation to the Council. The Planning Board discussed possible amendments to allow motorized mobile vending units during four meetings – two workshops, a public hearing and a continued public hearing. The Planning Board highlighted two items for discussion before City Council, 1) what zones motorized mobile vending units should be allowed to operate in, and 2) whether only mobile food trucks should be permitted, or could other goods and services be sold out of motorized mobile vending units. Mr. Lien reviewed proposed changes to ECC 4.12: • Added definition for motorized mobile vending units o In its current form would allow more than just food trucks • Zones where vending units were allowed to operate were removed from the definition of street vendor and moved into ECC 4.12.055 • Removed requirement for Architectural Design Board (ADB) review o No criteria was associated with requirement • Section 4.12.055 o Subsection B.1 – details zones vending units would be allowed to operate in o Subsection I – states vending units may operate in parks with a concessions agreement o Subsection L – requires written permission from property owner when locating on private property or permission from the City when locating on or next to City property o New subsection M – requires a circulation plan when mobile vending units locate in parking lots to ensure mobile vending units do not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety. If locating in a parking lot, the business still is required to have sufficient parking to meet their parking requirements per the code o New Subsection O – requires mobile vending units be ¼ mile away from special events such as Taste of Edmonds or Edmonds Arts Festival • 4.12.065 o New Subsection D, mobile vending units hours of operation (correlate with outdoor dining) Mr. Lien reviewed revisions to Title 16: • Added exceptions that would allow motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units to operate within the operating restrictions of the BD, BC, CW and CG zones. Mr. Lien explained after reading the Council agenda memo, Finance Director Shawn Hunstock suggested the following amendment (this was not reviewed by the Planning Board): • Add a new subsection to ECC 4.12.020 that specifies that vendors must report any sales made within the City to the Department of Revenue as sales that occur in the City to ensure the City receives sales tax from vending unit sales. Packet Page 25 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 9 Mr. Lien referred to one of the items highlighted by the Planning Board regarding which zones motorized mobile vending units should be allowed to operate in. He referred to an email from Randy and Brooke Baker, Chanterelle Restaurant, who were opposed to allowing mobile vending units to operate in the downtown area. He explained earlier drafts of ECC 4.12 had different operating restrictions for nonmotorized units versus motorized units. As the Planning Board discussed it further, they broadened the areas that should be allowed and ultimately recommended allowing them nearly everywhere and to allow the market to determine where food trucks would be located. Mr. Lien reviewed the second item the Planning Board highlighted, whether only mobile food trucks should be permitted, or could other goods and services be sold out of motorized mobile vending units, explaining there have been some inquires about operating other types of business from mobile units such as a mobile boutique. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the only requirement other than reporting sales tax would be a $200 annual fee. Mr. Lien advised each mobile vending unit would be required to pay a $200 annual fee. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained a solicitor is different than a street vendor. There is currently a $25 fee plus a $10 investigation fee for a solicitor plus $8 per individual. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about health code inspections. Mr. Lien explained the food trucks would be required to obtain health permits from Snohomish County. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the $200 annual fee was the proposed fee or the current fee. Mr. Lien answered that was in the existing code. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that was in addition to a business license. Ms. Chase answered it was in lieu of a business license. A business license is generally for a business in an established location. Councilmember Bloom asked the cost of a business license. Ms. Chase answered a new commercial business license is $125; a home business license is $100; renewals are $50. Councilmember Bloom asked why the annual fee for a mobile vending unit was higher than the business license. Ms. Chase answered the $200 fee is for a street vendor which is quite different than a solicitor. Mr. Lien read the proposed language, for each mobile vending unit there shall also be an annual fee of $200. Ms. Chase explained the one mobile vending unit in the City, Here and There, only has a solicitor’s license ($25 annual fee plus $8 per employee) and does not have a street vendor’s license. The $200 fee was previously for a use such as an espresso cart in front of a business which would have required ADB review. Mr. Lien explained the ADB review was removed; one of the reviews that would be required under the proposed amendments would be in regard to parking, ECC 4.12.055.M.1, “…The location and circulation plan shall require approval by the city traffic engineer to ensure the vending unit will not interfere in any way with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety.” Councilmember Bloom asked about Public zoned property. Mr. Lien identified Public zoned properties downtown which include the wastewater treatment plant, the old Public Works site, Brackett’s Landing, and Olympic Beach. In order to locate in a Public zoned property, most of which are parks, the mobile vending unit would also need a concessions agreement. This issue was initially considered along with the concessions agreement but required Planning Board review. Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board thought the high school which is also Public zoned may want to allow mobile vending units. A new section L.2 was added that addresses public-owned properties. Councilmember Petso asked about the protection of existing businesses. For example she envisioned Burger King and Dairy Queen near the high school would not be interested in having food trucks at the high school property. She asked whether there was any language that would prevent food trucks from locating within a certain distance of a competing establishment. Mr. Lien answered that was not Packet Page 26 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 10 specifically addressed. There is language that requires nonmotorized vending units locating in the right- of-way to get permission of the abutting property owner. A vending unit locating on private property would only be required to get permission from the property owner. In accordance with Planning Board direction, the first draft of the zones where motorized vending units would be allowed would have prohibited them within the BD1 zone to prevent competition with restaurants. Initially motorized vending units were only allowed in the BD2 and BD3 zones. As the Planning Board discussed this further, they decided to allow motorized vending units in all commercial zones and allow the market place to decide where they would locate. Councilmember Petso observed one option would be to limit motorized vending units to certain zones. She asked if the Council could establish a distance from a competing establishment. Mr. Lien answered that could be done; Seattle’s code has language regarding the distance from a restaurant. Councilmember Petso observed that would be subject to interpretation with regard to what was a competing restaurant. Mr. Lien suggested a distance would be easier; it would be measured from the outside parcel line. Councilmember Petso pointed out many of the City’s commercial areas are adjacent to residential. She suggested establishing a distance requirement so that a motorized vending unit did not park outside a residence. Mr. Lien agreed that could be added. The hours of operation differ if a motorized vending unit is located next to residential property. If surrounded by commercial property, the hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m.; next to residential zoned property the hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Petso cited Firdale Village as an example where a distance from a residence requirement would be appropriate. Councilmember Petso referred to the elimination of the requirement for ADB review. She asked if that eliminated any ability to regulate how the trucks look. Mr. Lien displayed several photographs of motorized vending units. He explained there were no criteria associated with the ADB review. One of the initial requirements that accompanied removal of the ADB review was to require motorized vending units be manufactured for that purpose. However, one of the characteristics of the food trucks is their artistic value. Many are conversions of utility trucks or RVs. One of the people who testified before the Planning Board had an RV that was converted by a company that specializes in converting RVs to food trucks. The Planning Board recognized the artistic value of the trucks and decided not to have any criteria with regard to their appearance. Councilmember Petso observed standards would need to be established if the ADB review were reinstated. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Petso inquired about tables, chairs, awnings, etc. around food trucks. Mr. Lien answered that was addressed by the parking requirement; a food truck could not occupy so much space that the business no longer met its parking requirements. The regulations also require motorized vending units to pick everything up each evening. He noted motorized vending units operate in different ways, some move around to different locations throughout the day and some establish themselves in one place. The Planning Board envisioned a temporary location where the motorized vending unit would park for a few hours and move on to another site. Councilmember Petso commented she was familiar with one of the parking lots used by Here and There. She asked if motorized vending units, tables, chairs, etc. could occupy half the parking lot if the building only needed the other half to meet its parking requirement. Mr. Lien answered yes; as long as they met the parking requirements and received circulation approval from the traffic engineer. They would still be required to pick up everything when they leave each day. Councilmember Yamamoto expressed concern with a food truck locating next to an established business. Although he supported entrepreneurship, it is important to recognize that people are establishing their Packet Page 27 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 11 businesses and paying rent. He was aware of only one motorized vending unit, Here and There, and asked if there had been an influx of requests. Mr. Lien answered Here and There was the first one and that was when the conflicts were discovered. There have been 3-4 additional inquiries from food trucks and a mobile boutique. Councilmember Yamamoto asked about the agreement to locate on private property. Mr. Lien answered the agreement with the property owner is outside the City’s permitting process. A signed letter of approval would need to accompany their application. Councilmember Yamamoto reiterated his primary concern was a mobile vending unit locating close to an established business. For example, if he had a restaurant, he would not want a sandwich truck locating across the street. Mr. Lien explained there is currently no requirement for separation from a business. The only separation requirement is for special events downtown; similar language could be drafted to establish distance from a restaurant. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Petso regarding distance from residential areas, commenting motorized vending units would be inappropriate in neighborhoods. She urged caution with determining where a motorized vending units could locate, citing free competition. Using Councilmember Yamamoto’s example, she pointed out a competing business could locate across the street. She commented Edmonds is more than downtown restaurants; there are motorized vending units on Highway 99. Mr. Lien pointed out the motorized vending unit on Highway 99 is in Esperance, not Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested a separation of 1 mile from a special event. She also suggested scheduling a public hearing. She cited the very different dining experience at a motorized vending unit. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. Council President Peterson asked whether a food truck could park on a City street. Mr. Lien answered under the proposed language, a food truck could not park in right-of-way designed for traffic or parking. Council President Peterson relayed the concern that there would be a line of food trucks down 5th. Mr. Lien responded that would not be allowed. Council President Peterson suggested Councilmembers submit their proposed changes in writing to Mr. Lien and Mr. Lien present the revisions at a public hearing the first week of August. Councilmember Bloom referred to ECC 4.12.055.1.B, “In addition to the licensing requirements of this chapter, any street vendor shall be required to obtain a street use permit. Application fees for street use permits are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion…” She asked if the Council could discuss the fees. Mr. Taraday answered the City Council can always amend its fees and the Council approves its fees annually via resolution. Mr. Lien advised the last update was in 2009. The license fees for solicitors, peddlers or street vendors are established in ECC 4.12.030 and not the fee schedule. That section was last updated in 1996. Ms. Chase advised the Council could consider the fees listed in the code as part of this review. Mr. Lien advised street use permit fees are contained in the fee resolution. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. REPORT ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Packet Page 28 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 12 Councilmember Bloom reported the SeaShore meeting on the first Friday included a presentation by Climate Solutions and SSA Marine regarding coal trains and environmental impact studies that many municipalities are requesting. In response to that presentation, she wrote a letter to SSA Marine commending them for looking at all environmental impacts along the proposed coal train route. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported whooping cough has become an epidemic, particularly in Snohomish County. She urged everyone to get vaccinated. Councilmember Yamamoto reported at yesterday’s Port Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously approved moving forward with the Harbor Square Plan. He also reported on SnoCom, relaying they paid off their loan for NewWorld, a savings of $122,000. With those savings, SnoCom plans to reduce the amount they charge each participating jurisdiction. Councilmember Petso reported the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) planning group has more or less approved the plan that will come to Councils in the fall. She relayed an effort by Council President Peterson, Mayor Earling and she to get a review of the RFA work to date by an outside professional to ensure when assumptions are made or changed about operational issues in the RFA plan, an outside expert has determined whether they are reasonable. Mayor Earling reported Sound Transit is discussing how the Northgate station will operate. He was successful in getting a provisional station at 220th & 1-5 studied for the potential alignment between Northgate and Lynnwood. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)(iii). At 9:06 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)(iii). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. He stated action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 9:44 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:45 p.m. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he attended the AWC conference in Vancouver where the City received a Municipal Excellence Award for its Going Green Plan. Snohomish County Tomorrow was also recognized for their work. The conference included a very interesting presentation with 30-35 cities interested in the coal trail issue. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Johnson reported there will be a presentation on Wednesday, June 27 at the Planning Board meeting in Council Chambers regarding form based codes. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the presentation regarding form based codes will be televised. She next reported Snohomish County Tomorrow received a Governor’s Special Merit Award for their work on Countywide Planning Policies (CPP). She recognized Rob Chave for his involvement in developing the CPPs. Packet Page 29 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2012 Page 13 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmember Johnson and Mr. Shuster for taking her on a tour of Perrinville Creek. 10. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Packet Page 30 of 214 AM-4985 2. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/24/2012 Time: Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2012. Recommendation Review and approval of the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Attachments 07-17-12 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 07/20/2012 11:45 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/20/2012 12:26 PM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/19/2012 10:33 AM Final Approval Date: 07/20/2012 Packet Page 31 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 17, 2012 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Development Services Director Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Debra Sharp, Accountant Michael Clugston, Planner Sharon Cates, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Sharon Cates, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Police Chief Al Compaan, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:44 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 6:45 p.m. He stated that the City Council will next meet with candidates for appointment to the Sister City Commission and Historic Preservation Commission in the Jury Meeting Room. The meeting is open to the public. 2. MEET WITH CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION At 6:45 p.m., the Council met with Jill Van Berkom, a candidate for the Sister City Commission, and Emily Rose Scott, a candidate for the Historic Preservation Commission. Packet Page 32 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 2 Mayor Earling reconvened the City Council meeting in the Council Chambers at 7:02 p.m. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Johnson asked that Item B, Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2012, be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #132842 THROUGH #132973 DATED JUNE 28, 2012 FOR $1,948,476.05, AND CLAIM CHECKS #132974 THROUGH #133203 DATED JULY 12, 2012 FOR $588,797.37. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #51451 THROUGH #51485 FOR $522,892.24, BENEFIT CHECKS #51486 THROUGH #51498 AND WIRE PAYMENTS FOR $226,180.98 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 16, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2012. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GAYLE D. HANKS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). E. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, JUNE 2012. F. PARK IMPACT FEE STUDY. G. QUARTERLY REPORT REGARDING FIBER OPTIC OPPORTUNITIES H. UTILITY PENALTY WAIVER POLICY. I. MAY 2012 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT. J. QUARTERLY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REPORT. K. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING OF PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT AND PUBLIC WATER UTILITY EASEMENT. L. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #3 WITH DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES FOR UTILITY WORK ON THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT. M. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SUMMIT LAW GROUP TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO A FORTHCOMING MEDIATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. Packet Page 33 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 3 N. ORDINANCE NO. 3890 – ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES ON THE CITY'S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. O. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF JILL VAN BERKOM TO THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION AND EMILY ROSE SCOTT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2012. Councilmember Johnson referred to the second sentence on page 7, questioning the sentence, “She looked forward to compiling all the information for the Council’s consideration in making a decision on this project.” She did not recall saying that she would compile the information. The Council agreed to have City Clerk Sandy Chase listen to the audio recording of the meeting to determine the accuracy of the statement in the minutes and schedule approval of the minutes on the July 24 Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO TABLE ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT - EDMONDS CEMETERY BOARD ANNUAL WALK BACK IN TIME. Dale Hoggins, Edmonds Cemetery Board Member, invited the public to the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium for a Walk Back In Time, a guided tour of the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, on Thursday, July 19. Tour guides dressed in period costumes will ask visitors to pretend they are listening to a voice from the past as they relate the early history. Actor John Hartquist will play the part of George Brackett, Edmonds founder and first mayor. Mr. Hoggins explained the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium is an active cemetery; sites are available and burials are not restricted to Edmonds residents. Prices are based on lot size, site location and services rendered. Further information is available by contacting the Cemetery Sexton Cliff Edwards or the City’s website. The Edmonds Cemetery Board is seeking two board members. He invited anyone interest in serving to contact the Mayor’s office, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, or Cemetery Board Chair Melissa Johnson. 6. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF JAN STEVES' PARTICIPATION AND COMPLETION OF THE 2012 IDITAROD TRAIL SLED DOG RACE. Mayor Earling read a proclamation in honor of Jan Steves’ participation and completion of the 2012 Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race and urged all citizens of Edmonds to join him in congratulating her on this very impressive accomplishment and to thank her for representing Edmonds with courage, grace and fortitude. He presented the proclamation to Ms. Steves. Ms. Steves thanked the Council for the proclamation, commenting it was an incredible opportunity to represent Washington State. It had been her dream to be the first woman from Washington State; but a 27-year old woman from Port Townsend did it first. Ms. Steves introduced Tok, her lead dog in every race in Alaska. 7. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF PARKS & RECREATION MONTH Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring July 2012 as Recreation and Parks Month in Edmonds and presented the proclamation to Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite. Ms. Hite thanked the community for their support of parks and recreation, from the off-leash area, to the flower basket program, the Frances Anderson Center, the Cemetery Board, and the Sister City Packet Page 34 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 4 Commission. A calendar of events during July is available on the City’s website. She encouraged everyone to enjoy the programs. 8. SWEARING IN CEREMONY - CORPORAL SHANE HAWLEY. Police Chief Al Compaan commented an oath is an important public recognition of personal achievement and a personal pledge to the highest legal, ethical and professional standards critical to the law enforcement mission. Chief Compaan described Corporal Hawley’s background: he began his career as a police explorer, was hired as a reserve officer in 1999 and a full-time officer in 2001. He has degrees in criminal justice and law enforcement administration from Shoreline Community College and City University. He spent seven years as a canine handler with his partner Rocky and in 2011 received a meritorious service citation for his partnership with Rocky that included 102 apprehensions and the location of countless pieces of evidence. During the last year, Corporal Hawley has been working as fraud detective. He has been honored with several letters of commendation and was the 2008 Chief Stern Memorial Officer of the Year. He is committed to the training and well-being of the department’s officers. He has mentored and trained new canine teams, is presently working on implementation of a peer support program, has been a field training officer for new officers, and last year rewrote the departments’ field training officer manual. Chief Compaan relayed an email he received today from the department’s new fraud detective thanking Corporal Hawley for taking the time to ensure the new detective had a firm orientation and the necessary tools to start a new assignment. Chief Compaan introduced Corporal Hawley’s family, his wife Shelly and children Alison, Colt and Megan, his father Alvin, his in-laws Barb and Jack Bloomfield, and nephew Douglas. Chief Compaan administered the oath of office to Corporal Hawley. Corporal Hawley’s wife pinned his badge. Chief Compaan presented Corporal Hawley with a framed Certificate of Promotion. Corporal Hawley thanked his wife and his family for their support. He also thanked the members of the department for their support. 9. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CLARIFYING EXISTING CODE LANGUAGE AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 20.23 - BED & BREAKFASTS (FILE NO. AMD20120001). Planner Michael Clugston explained several months ago a citizen asked how to permit a bed and breakfast (B&B) in the City. Upon researching the code, he found the applicable regulations were not easy to find, understand or apply. The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee asked the Planning Board and staff to clarify the code. The Planning Board held two work sessions and a public hearing and developed the proposed draft code included in Exhibit 6. Mr. Clugston explained the intent was to streamline and clarify the existing regulations to make them easier to use and administer and hopefully create additional options for tourist lodging. Mr. Clugston reviewed Exhibit 6, draft language for code section 20.23, Bed and Breakfasts: 20.23.000 Purpose and intent Purpose 20.23.010 Business license required 20.23.020 The use, by zone A. Residential zones. 1. B&Bs with two rental bedrooms or less are a permitted secondary use. Packet Page 35 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 5 2. B&Bs with three or more rental bedrooms are a secondary use which require a Type II conditional use permit (CUP). B. In business and commercial zones, B&Bs containing any number of rooms are a permitted primary use as long as all of the development standards in ECDC 20.23.030 are met. 20.23.030 Development standards The following standards apply to all bed and breakfast establishments: A. Bed and breakfasts must meet all applicable health, fire and building codes. B. Bed and breakfasts may only be located in detached single-family homes. C. The operator of the bed and breakfast must own and maintain full-time residence in the home. The operator of the bed and breakfast may maintain full-time residence in the home. D. Nonresident employees cannot work at a bed and breakfast. A bed and breakfast may employ non-resident employees. E. In all zones except BD, one parking space must be provided for each rental room. Where legal on-street parking is available adjacent to the site, those space(s) may be counted toward the total number of spaces required. Where legal on-street parking is not available adjacent to the site or the number of on-street spaces is insufficient to meet the parking requirement, one off-street parking space must be provided for each rental room in addition to the parking required in ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.a. In the BD zones, no additional off-street parking is required for a bed and breakfast. F. Kitchens are not allowed in individual guest rooms. G. Breakfast is the only meal that may be served to paying B&B guests. H. Signage is regulated in ECDC 20.60. I. Guests cannot stay at a bed and breakfast for more than 30 consecutive calendar days. J. Weddings, conferences, and similar large group gatherings are not permitted at a bed and breakfast. Mr. Clugston referred to development standard C, explaining a number of other cities’ regulations such as Mercer Island, Bellingham, and Bainbridge Island required the owner of the B&B to maintain full-time residence in the home. The Planning Board wanted the Council to consider a situation where the owner of a B&B hired an operator to run the facility. He referred to development standard D, explaining the initial proposal was not to allow non-resident employees work at the B&B similar to home occupations; the Planning Board preferred to allow non-resident employees such as persons who would cook, clean, do landscaping, etc. Councilmember Petso asked how many non-resident employees a home occupation was allowed to have. Mr. Clugston answered the default for a home occupation is no off-site employees; with a Type II CUP a home occupation can have one off-site employee. Councilmember Petso asked how much parking was required on a home occupation site. Mr. Clugston was not certain but assumed two were required in a residential zone plus one for employees or visitors. He believed the parking regulations were contained in Section 17.60. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the transient accommodation license 212-52 WAC that is referenced in Mukilteo and Friday Harbor’s regulations. Mr. Clugston explained one of the proposed amendments was to delete section 4.72.023 regarding registration of transient accommodations and to add transient accommodations to the definition chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to development regulation C which states the operator of the bed and breakfast may maintain full-time residence in the home. She asked what would happen if an emergency occurred and no one was on site. Mr. Clugston answered the intent was to have the operator be on site. He acknowledged other municipalities required the owner to maintain full-time residence in the home. Packet Page 36 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 6 Councilmember Buckshnis suggested changing the proposed language to require a responsible party live on site. Mr. Clugston responded the Planning Board wanted the Council to consider both options, an owner or an operator. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented someone responsible should be on site but did not want to require the owner to be on site at all times. She asked how many B&Bs were in the City now. Mr. Clugston answered there currently was one registered B&B; the Fire Marshal indicated there were 8 in 1995. He was uncertain why the number decreased, whether it was because people sold their homes or the difficulty permitting a B&B. Councilmember Bloom inquired about the number of non-resident employees a B&B could have compared to a home occupation. Mr. Clugston answered with a CUP a home occupation could have one additional employee. The initial proposal considered by the Planning Board was that non-resident employees would not be permitted. The Planning Board wanted to open discussion with regard to employees and offered the language, “A bed and breakfast may employ non-resident employees.” He commented if the owner was required to maintain full-time residence, development standard D may not be necessary as the owner could utilize contract employees to cook, clean, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to development standard D, A bed and breakfast may employ non-resident employees, which would allow a B&B in a residential neighborhood to have multiple employees. She compared this to home occupations which are allowed only one employee with a CUP. She next referred to development standard G, Breakfast is the only meal that may be served to paying B&B guests, noting she has stayed at B&Bs where breakfast and dinner are served. She asked why the City wanted to limit meals to only breakfast. She preferred to eliminate development standard G. Mr. Clugston answered B&Bs traditionally serve breakfast; the more important part of that development standard is “served to paying B&B guests” to prevent a commercial restaurant. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas suggested revising G to read, “meals may only be served to paying B&B guests.” Council President Peterson suggested referencing language in the home occupation code regarding employee parking. Councilmember Yamamoto referred to development condition J, Weddings, conferences, and similar large group gatherings are not permitted at a bed and breakfast, commenting a couple may want to get married at a B&B. Mr. Clugston agreed that would be difficult to police but the intent was to prevent large groups from attending a wedding or other event at a B&B in a residential area. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, commented bed and breakfasts on Vashon Island outnumber hotels/motels. He suggested regulations regarding catering be referenced. He reported there has been a B&B on Lake Ballinger for over 40 years. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented when he traveled through Europe, he and his wife stayed exclusively in bed and breakfasts, getting off the train and walking to the bed and breakfast. Bed and breakfasts create a feeling of community for the traveler. He relayed an experience in Austria where the owner of the bed and breakfast had a relative in Lynnwood. He viewed bed and breakfasts as an opportunity for tourism; visitors could take the train or ferry and walk to their bed and breakfast. He preferred small bed and breakfasts to limit impacts to neighborhoods and limiting stays to 3-4 days. With regard to non-resident employees, in his experience most bed and breakfasts were run by families. He suggested bed and breakfasts located farther out in an area without restaurants may want the ability to provide dinner. Visitors staying in bed and breakfasts close to town likely would visit local restaurants. With regard to weddings, they can be held at the Senior Center. Packet Page 37 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 7 Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CODE SECTION. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION C TO READ, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE BED AND BREAKFAST MUST MAINTAIN FULL-TIME RESIDENCE IN THE HOME. Councilmember Johnson explained this was discussed by the Planning Board. In her experience, the owner may live in a building adjacent to the B&B. That situation would be allowed under the existing language. Council President Peterson offered the following friendly amendment which was accepted by Councilmember Buckshnis: THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A BED AND BREAKFAST MUST MAINTAIN FULL-TIME RESIDENCE ON THE PREMISES. Councilmember Bloom questioned why the Council wanted to require one person maintain full-time residence. She preferred to be more flexible. Councilmember Buckshnis explained a full-time resident would prevent theft and would be present in the event of an emergency. Councilmember Petso commented it was absolutely essential if B&Bs were located in residential neighborhoods that the owner or operator live on the premises and experience whatever their guests do. She did not want the owner or operator of a B&B to cook the guests breakfast and go home and let the guests run wild the rest of the time. Councilmember Bloom assumed someone operating a B&B would have someone on site at all times. She questioned why permanent residence by an operator or owner would be required. She suggested language that requires a responsible party be available at all times. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION G TO READ, BREAKFAST IS THE ONLY REQUIRED MEAL. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT CONDITION G TO READ, “BREAKFAST IS THE ONLY MEALS THAT MAY BE SERVED TO PAYING B&B GUESTS. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO LIMIT A BED AND BREAKFAST TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE NON- RESIDENT EMPLOYEE. Council President Peterson did not support the amendment as a B&B may have two part-time employees rather than one full-time employee. He assumed the intent was not to have multiple employees on site at the same time. Packet Page 38 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 8 Councilmember Johnson commented the home occupation code assumes an employee would be working at the business eight hours/day. In a B&B, there may be someone that comes in for two hours to cook breakfast and someone else that comes in for two hours to make beds. It may be appropriate to have one employee at a time but the owner/operator may not be able to find someone that will cook and make beds. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested that referencing the home occupation code regarding parking would address the number of vehicles. She anticipated a B&B would have more than one employee and preferred to allow that flexibility. She acknowledged Councilmember Petso’s concern with parking. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. Councilmember Petso explained her intent is not to prevent a B&B owner or operator from contracting for services like a homeowner does. The intent of the amendment was to make the B&B ordinance consistent with the home occupation ordinance which limits non-resident employees in a residential area to one. She agreed there would not be a need to limit the number of employees employed by a B&B in a downtown zone. She emphasized some B&Bs would be located in neighborhoods; that was her motivation for making them consistent with the home occupation ordinance. Councilmember Petso restated the motion as follows: A BED AND BREAKFAST IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE EQUIVALENT OF ONE NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEE. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, BLOOM, YAMAMOTO AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUIRE BED AND BREAKFASTS LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA TO PROVIDE ONSITE PARKING FOR THREE VEHICLES. At Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ request, Councilmember Petso explained the intent of this amendment was to be consistent with the home occupation ordinance that requires onsite parking for three vehicles for customers or employees. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the three parking spaces would be for employees and guests of the B&B but not the homeowner. Councilmember Petso answered the home occupation ordinance required three total parking spaces. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized her understanding that three parking spaces would only accommodate the owner/operator, one guest and one employee. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO STATE THAT A BED AND BREAKFAST LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE ALLOW OFF-SITE PARKING ONLY WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. At Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ request, Councilmember Petso explained the intent of this amendment was to be more consistent with the home occupation ordinance which requires a CUP for off- site parking. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether she was referring to a downtown parking permit. She explained in some areas, a resident or visitor parking permit was required to use off-street parking. Councilmember Petso answered no and provided the hypothetical situation where the house next door is renting out rooms and the location in the cul-de-sac does not have convenient on-street parking, Packet Page 39 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 9 the B&B should be required to obtain a CUP that identifies the location of the on-street parking. She anticipated some homes would not have suitable on-street parking for B&B guests. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to revisit the B&B regulations in a year and determine whether any changes are needed. She was concerned that too many stipulations would prohibit residents from opening a B&B. If the Council revisited the B&B regulations in a year because a problem arose with a B&B, Councilmember Petso asked whether the use would be grandfathered or subject to changes in the regulations. Mr. Clugston answered all property uses are subject to performance standards. If a resident established a B&B within the next year, the use would be vested and could continue. Councilmember Petso asked whether she would have any recourse if a next door neighbor opened a B&B with three employees whose cars were always in her way. Mr. Clugston answered she would have the same recourse she has today with regard to a car blocking her access such as contacting the police. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. 10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Marsha Fisher, Edmonds, commended the City on the new park at Old Milltown. She suggested having a display and holiday music similar to Bellevue’s Snowflake Lane in the park. She suggested the City raise funds and pledged that her family would provide the first donation. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, relayed that four trees were cut at 18704 94th Avenue West and no fines were levied. Next, he reported the car show at Top Foods to benefit the Edmonds Food Bank was very successful; a report on funds raised will be available next week. Tom Sawtell, Edmonds, expressed his opposition to the Talbot Road storm drain improvement project. He provided the following points: 1) Although he was critical of the handling of the fish survey and sent a letter to the Council, he wants to donate a fish holding box. The box is a way to resuscitate fish after being shocked. 2) He apologized to the Council, the Mayor, stakeholders and Laura Spehar for being overly aggressive in his handling of a meeting regarding the project. 3) In addition to the 29 points he submitted in his brief to the Council, he opposes the project because the original project in the Comprehensive Plan discharged to Perrinville Creek. The project was then changed to discharge directed to Browns Bay. As a result, the public did not have an opportunity to comment on the revised project. 4) He favored delaying the project for a year, taking further public comment, and involving the ecology department to review impacts on the wetlands and Browns Bay. Robert Bernhoft, Edmonds, strongly objected to the Talbot Road storm drain improvement project and did not see any improvement as a result of the project. He relayed information provided to him by Mrs. Ohanley the property owner at 8229 Talbot Road in an email that was also sent to the Council. Ms. Ohanley requested the project contract not be approved and that the project be delayed for a year as she believes the project will create new and very harmful impacts to the marine life on her tidal property. She also has concerns with human safety and terms of the easement. Mr. Bernhoft relayed that both he and Ms. Ohanley were resolute that the facts clearly support her concerns and request to delay the project. Packet Page 40 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 10 With regard to the letter from Edmonds Backyard Wildlife regarding the project, they disagreed with the findings in the letter, specifically that Ms. Spehar found no significant evidence that the proposed project will harm fish and wildlife. He requested the project be reevaluated and given another year of thought. Laura Spehar, Edmonds, a property owner along Perrinville Creek, the lead of the Friends of Perrinville Creek Streamkeepers for the Northwest Adopt a Stream Foundation, and the team lead for the Edmonds Wildlife Habitat project, expressed support for City staff’s proposed storm drainage improvement project. She supported the project because after much exhaustive research with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Northwest Stream Center Foundation, NOAA, and the City’s Public Works Department, she had found no reason to postpone or cancel the project. She suggested in order to meet various habitat and stormwater restorative needs along Perrinville Creek that have recently been brought to the Council’s attention, the Council add Perrinville Creek projects to the CIP and fund those projects with stormwater utility funds and/or other available funds. She also provided written comments. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to tapes of an Architectural Design Board (ADB) meeting regarding Old Milltown. The minutes of the meeting have been “washed” and the only way to hear what really happened was to listen to the tapes of the meeting. He recalled former Mayor Haakenson did not reappoint Richard Utt to the ADB at the end of four years due to the public uproar over his performance. Mr. Utt, the Chair of the ADB, had a very negative tone at the meeting and he recalled Mr. Utt stating the ADB was not interested in listening to the public because the ADB served the developer. Although Mr. Utt’s credentials are very good, he feared the public would be ignored if Mr. Utt were appointed to the ADB. Diane Bernhoft, Edmonds, thanked the Council and staff for listening to the residents regarding the Talbot Road storm drain improvement project. She trusted the Council’s judgment and trusted that whatever they did would be for the good of the environment and the community. Beth McKinnon, a resident across the street from the currently permitted Talbot Road storm drain route, asked if the originally permitted route could be used. That route seemed to be the most direct, least expensive and requires an easement on the property most affected and that was the impetus for this project. 11. EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin introduced Edmonds Arts Commission Chair Joanne Otness. Ms. Otness explained the Arts Commission is a group of seven volunteer members who work with the Cultural Services Division on various projects. The Commission has existed since 1975 with the ongoing mission to promote the arts as a part of the central identity of Edmonds and as an integral part of the quality of life and the economy of the City. Ms. Otness reported 2011 was a successful year. The Arts Commission contributes to cultural tourism in a number of ways. For example for the past 26 years the Arts Commission has presented the Write on the Sound Conference, promoting literary arts with a variety of workshops. The 2½ day event in October brings in local residents as well as attendees from all over the country. In 2011 the conference sold out with 200 participants who generated about 50 hotel night stays as well as local restaurants and shopping opportunities. The Arts Commission facilitates the tourism promotional awards; in 2011 $8500 from the Lodging Tax Fund was awarded to local non-profit organizations including the Olympic Ballet, the Cascade Symphony Orchestra, Driftwood Players, Edmonds Art Studio Tour, and SnoKing Community Chorale. Packet Page 41 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 11 Visual, performing and literary arts projects enhance the quality of life in Edmonds. A popular program is the free summer concerts in the park series. An average of 400 people enjoy the family-friendly concerts, drawing out of town guests as well as local residents. This weekend’s performance is Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night. The Arts Commission handles the rotating exhibits in the Edmonds Library and Frances Anderson Center. The Commission was involved in planning the recently opened Hazel Miller Plaza and the future SR 99 enhancements. As mandated by the Council, the Commission oversees acquisition and upkeep of publicly owned artwork. The City’s collection includes over 150 original pieces with 30 permanently sited pieces such as the Cedar Dreams Fountain. Another recent project was the art-enhanced flower basket poles. These are partially funded by donations and intended as an opportunity for honoring or commemorating someone. With regard to arts education, last year the Arts Commission co-sponsored five workshop sessions at College Place Middle School with guest poet Daemond Arrindell. The Commission hosts a Best Book Poster Contest for third grade students. Education is supported by scholarships to local students. The Commission also organized the Essentially Edmonds Photo Contest in 2011. The Commission has a limited budget but the community supports the arts through volunteers, grants and community partnerships. She thanked the Edmonds Arts Foundation, Edmonds Library, Friends of the Edmonds Library, Edmonds School District, and Edmonds Community College. Concerts in the Park are sponsored by Lynnwood Honda and Acura of Lynnwood. Windermere Edmonds and Royal Bank Wealth Management sponsor Write on the Sound. A variety of other local businesses also provide support. Ms. Otness thanked the City Council and the Edmonds community for their continued support of arts and culture as an important component in the economic vitality and identity of Edmonds. Councilmember Yamamoto reported he was the host at the recent Concert in the Park where a Brazilian group performed. Even with the rain, a lot of people attended. He encouraged the public to come to future concerts. Ms. Chapin identified two Arts Commissioners in the audience, Todd Timmcke and Lois Rathvon. Mayor Earling commented he has had the satisfaction of seeing the work of the Arts Commission grow over the years. They have broadened their scope to include various art forms that enrich the community. He thanked the Commissioners for their work and Ms. Chapin for her leadership. 12. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF RICHARD UTT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD. Mayor Earling reported he had an opportunity to interview two applicants. Mr. Utt is highly qualified. He is familiar with the conflict that existed at one time but due to his credentials and his attitude toward working with the community, Mayor Earling was pleased to recommend Mr. Utt’s appointment to the Architectural Design Board (ADB). COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR’S APPOINTMENT OF RICHARD UTT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how many people applied. Mayor Earling answered there was one other applicant. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council was provided that application. Mayor Earling answered no, the process is for him to review applications, conduct interviews Packet Page 42 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 12 and make a recommendation to the Council. The other applicant had some credentials but he felt Mr. Utt was the best choice for appointment to the ADB. Councilmember Bloom explained she had questions about Mr. Utt. She reviewed minutes, listened to citizen input and also met with Mr. Utt. She was very impressed with Mr. Utt and felt all her concerns had been addressed. She supported his appointment to the ADB. UPON ROLL CALL, VOTE ON THE MOTION TIED (3-3-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND YAMAMOTO VOTING YES, COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON ABSTAINING. MAYOR EARLING VOTED YES AND THE MOTION CARRIED. 13. METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. Councilmember Yamamoto explained in March 2012 the City Council received a presentation on the formation of a Metropolitan Park District (MPD). The Council requested the Finance Committee work with staff to formulate a plan to explore a MPD. Councilmember Buckshnis and he took a lead role along with Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and Finance Director Shawn Hunstock. They invited all interested community members to serve on the exploratory committee. The first meeting was attended by over 40 people. Two meetings were held in May and one in June and presentations were made to the Rotary Club, Exchange Club and Senior Center Board. Information was also provided to the media. The exploratory committee recommends the City Council consider placing an MPD on a future ballot for an Edmonds only service area, and governed by the City Council. The committee also recommends that they continue to explore this and return to the Council with a recommendation on the timing and level of a ballot measure. The committee thought it was too soon to put it on the November ballot. Council President Peterson thanked Councilmembers Yamamoto and Buckshnis, staff and citizens. He remarked on how quickly this idea gained traction in the community, evidence of the hard work that went into the exploration of an MPD. He requested the committee continue to explore this and return to the Council with a recommendation on the timing and level of a ballot measure. 14. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 7, 2012 FOR THE TALBOT ROAD STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO KAMINS CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $317,178.62. Mayor Earling advised the Council received a letter from Mr. Bernhoft today. The City also received two petitions signed by several people, one entitled Dear Friends of Talbot Park and Perrinville Creek and the second entitled Stop This Project. The Council also received a communication from Ms. Spehar today. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained it was not his intent to make another presentation regarding this project; the Council has discussed it at length on two previous occasions. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster, City Engineer Rob English and he are present to answer questions. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Williams for the extensive, understandable email he provided the Council earlier today and requested it be included as a part of the record. Mr. Williams advised it was a joint effort by Mr. Shuster, Mike Delila, Mr. English and himself. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan indicated the discharge would be to Perrinville Creek rather than Browns Bay. Mr. Williams explained the original concept was a Packet Page 43 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 13 different route than the current proposal. The original route would have crossed the Robinson property and entered at the very lower end of Perrinville Creek, then leaving private property and onto BNSF property and through the culvert. The City was unable to proceed with that alignment because the easement was not available and is still not available. That route was more expensive but that was not why it was rejected. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Williams explained all the outfall ends up in Browns Bay and Puget Sound whether it is first blended with the flow in Perrinville Creek before entering the culvert and into Browns Bay or via the proposed project in a stormwater pipe to the diversion box, meeting up with the existing stormwater outfall line and then flowing into Browns Bay. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized it was her understanding there was no change. Mr. Williams agreed there was no change in the ultimate destination of the water. Councilmember Petso referred to a citizen’s inquiry whether the originally permitted route could be used. She asked if that route could be used if an easement were condemned. Mr. Williams answered staff considered whether condemnation would be available. In staff’s view condemnation is very difficult if there is any other alternative that can meet the needs. In this case the City has another very viable alternative, the proposed project. In his opinion it would be difficult to condemn private property when there is a readily available alternative. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City could condemn if the environmental impact of one route was different than the other or was mitigation required instead of condemnation. City Attorney Sharon Cates answered the primary aspects of condemnation is that there is a public use and necessity for the required easement. It could be argued that the environmental impact was such that it would be preferable to condemn the private property. Councilmember Petso asked if a public hearing had been held on the project since it was changed from the original plans. Mr. Williams answered the project has been included in the Stormwater Capital Improvement Program and that entire document including this project and other projects for the Perrinville Creek drainage have been the subject of public testimony. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Stormwater CIP included the map of the pipe location or only a matrix with the project name. Mr. Williams answered the original project, across the Robinson property, was in the CIP and included a picture of that alignment and a description of the project benefits. When it became necessary to change the alignment, staff put out new announcements to the public in December 2011 and information was made available to the neighborhood. Councilmember Petso asked about the relationship between this project and project 15, which she understood has also changed. Mr. Williams answered they are mutually independent projects; neither project depends on or prevents the other. Project 15 in the CIP originally anticipated building a very large diameter diversion pipe, beginning in the vicinity of the post office in Perrinville and taking a large amount of high flow storm events directly into Puget Sound to prevent flash storm flows in the Perrinville Creek drainage basin that erode the channel. Project 15 was changed to broaden the alternatives to include a project that would address the hydraulic problem in Perrinville Creek. A diversion pipe would be one way but there are other ways such as upstream detention to blunt peak flows that cause water quality and habitat problems in the upper and middle Perrinville Creek drainage channel. Councilmember Petso asked whether the original concept of a pipe straight to the splitter box was still one of the possibilities. Mr. Williams answered not really because the pipe in the proposed project would be connected to the splitter box. Project 15 has not yet been designed; it is only a concept at this time. Councilmember Petso commented the ultimate designation of water in the current pipe, which is partially street runoff and partially spring water, will be Browns Bay. Her understanding was in the first plan water Packet Page 44 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 14 would be dumped in the creek and mitigation would occur on Perrinville Creek; under the new plan, the water is dumped straight into Browns Bay and mitigation still occurs on Perrinville Creek. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Sawtell’s assertion that citizens have not had an opportunity to comment on the changed project. She asked whether a change in the Comprehensive Plan required a public hearing. Ms. Cate answered the Planning Board is required to hold at least one public hearing on an amendment, extension or addition to the Comprehensive Plan. She was uncertain when the proposed change rose to the level of an amendment, extension or addition to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Williams answered staff redid SEPA as a result of changing the project alignment. Neither the goals nor the basic concept for the project changed; the alignment changed and different properties were involved. The revised SEPA was advertised and a public comment period occurred in December 2011. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that was related to this project. Mr. Williams answered yes, the original project went across the Robinson property; when that was not available, the new alignment was identified and the SEPA was redone and advertised. Councilmember Bloom asked whether a public hearing was held. Mr. William answered no; citizens had an opportunity to provide comment during the public comment period. Councilmember Bloom asked whether a public hearing was required when a change of that nature occurred. Mr. Williams answered no; individual hearings are not required for any of the projects on the CIP. A public hearing is held on the entire list. He acknowledged the alignment changed but it was not felt to be significant enough to hold a public hearing. SEPA addressed how the changes would positively and negatively impact the environment. Ms. Cates explained it did not appear to rise to the level that a public hearing would be required by statute. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed under the Robinson alignment, water would discharge in to the bottom of Perrinville Creek. She asked whether the discharge is straight into Browns Bay under the new project. Mr. Williams agreed water comes into the diversion box, runs underneath, hooks up with the existing pipe and runs under the railroad tracks and onto the beach. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the new route actually has less interaction with Perrinville Creek. Mr. Williams agreed, it does not affect Perrinville Creek because it does not discharge to the creek. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled concern expressed by the Bernhofts and Mr. Sawtell regarding a tide gate to prevent fish from swimming up the stormwater outlet. She asked if tide gates had been considered. Mr. Williams answered they had been discussed in the past two weeks but further study would be required to determine their feasibility. Staff’s recommendation is to award the contract as well as inspect the 42 in diameter steel pipe under the BNSF tracks, approach BNSF about inspecting the 36 inch concrete culvert under the tracks and investigate the feasibility of installing a tide gate on the existing 42 in diameter steel pipe under the BNSF tracks. Staff also proposes to include a project in the Stormwater CIP in the 2013 budget cycle to do a hydraulic study of Perrinville Creek basin to analyze opportunities to flatten peak flows. The nature of flows in Perrinville Creek is the biggest problem in this basin. Other projects will have limited benefit until the hydraulic problem in the stream is addressed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the CIP includes future projects on Perrinville Creek. Mr. Williams explained there are three projects in the CIP that address Perrinville Creek: this project, Talbot Road culvert replacement project, and project 15. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether there was a CIP project to remove the diversion box. Mr. Williams answered that is not currently included in the CIP. The diversion box provides a useful service. He explained it is not an ideal situation and it is not particularly fish friendly but there are no plans to remove it until there is another method to protect downstream property owners from flooding. The diversion box does not work well now because until recently staff was not able to maintain it properly. Maintenance will be much easier in the future. Packet Page 45 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO KAMINS CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $317,178.62 FOR THE TALBOT ROAD STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: CITY STAFF INSPECT THE 42 INCH DIAMETER STEEL PIPE UNDER THE BNSF TRACKS, CITY APPROACH BNSF ABOUT INSPECTING THE 36 INCH CONCRETE CULVERT UNDER THE TRACKS AND CITY STAFF INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF INSTALLING A TIDE GATE ON THE EXISTING 42 INCH DIAMETER STEEL PIPE UNDER THE BNSF TRACKS. Councilmember Johnson identified three additional issues that have not been discussed: 1) Water quality – a suggestion by Laura Spehar to include sand traps or other devices to clean the water prior to discharge into Browns Bay. There is concern with regard to water quality and the Black Brant. 2) The Bernhofts’ question regarding the outfall and whether hardening the beach at the outfall location was a possibility. 3) Ms. Spehar’s suggestion for a culvert monitoring device to monitor the storm drainage and Perrinville Creek. With regard to treatment of stormwater prior to discharge, Mr. Williams agreed there were some approaches that could be taken to accomplish that. There is a capital cost and more significantly long term operations and maintenance costs. The City is already facing a sizable responsibility to maintain the diversion box. If one had to pick a discrete area where stormwater is generated and discharged in the City, this is probably the best one in terms of a stormwater drainage basin. It is 126 acres and is part of the 900 acre Perrinville Creek basin, 54 acres is County park, second growth forest and much of the rest lightly developed. The Creek also carries a lot of clean groundwater from the area of Fredrick Road. All those things combined keep the stormwater very diluted and clean compared to stormwater in many other places in Edmonds. Although he appreciated the concern with stormwater quality, in this case it is already fairly high quality. He acknowledged there may be benefit to further treatment and if the Council desires, staff could investigate those strategies and costs. He estimated installing devices in three catch basins would have a capital cost of $20,000-$25,000 and $3,000-$5,000/year in maintenance operation. He suggested it only be done if it would provide a commensurate benefit. With regard to hardening the beach, Mr. Williams explained he was not opposed to it but the regulatory agencies are opposed to it. In this case the City is being asked to reestablish the larger rocks that used to be at the point where the stormwater outfall discharges onto the beach and prevent sand erosion that creates a plunge pool. After high flow events the sand is eroded at the end of the pipe but after a number of tide cycles, the pool fills in until the next large storm event. Most regulatory agencies prefer to have that occur rather than hardening a particular location. When a location is hardened, erosion tends to occur on either side, creating other unintended consequences. He has not yet asked the regulatory agency whether hardening the beach would be permitted. With regard to culvert monitoring, Mr. Williams answered there were many strategies for monitoring, such as recording flow levels, levels during events, etc. Mayor Earling suggested staff research the three issues Councilmember Johnson raised and report to the Council at a future meeting which would allow the project contract to move forward. Councilmember Johnson was agreeable to that suggestion and clarified these were not her issues but issues the community has raised. Councilmember Petso said she will vote against the main motion; if a majority of the Council voted against the motion, she suggested asking staff to somehow keep the residence that floods dry next winter, to schedule a public hearing, and consider options over the next year including condemnation to utilize Packet Page 46 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 16 the original route. She was hopeful the cost to rebid this project would not be significant and that it could be constructed next year during the fish window, noting the City’s permit would still be valid. Her primary concern was she has been told there are environmental concerns with the new discharge directly to Browns Bay rather than to Perrinville Creek as well as potential loss in not discharging to Perrinville Creek. Although staff informed Council that a new SEPA was done, she has not seen it. If the changes were significant enough to require a new SEPA, they probably are significant enough to hold another public hearing. Given the level of interest she preferred to delay the project and hold a public hearing. She assured she was not questioning the work done on this project; it was simply the public did not provide input until quite recently. She summarized her request was to delay the project for a year; the cost of doing so seems modest. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was very impressed with the work everyone has done. The latest email from Mr. Williams changed her earlier opinion. If this project does not proceed she will not get any work done on Perrinville Creek by WRIA 8. There are grant funds available for this watershed. She supported the proposed motion, finding the concerns have been adequately researched. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed the report from Mr. Williams was very clear and understandable. The purpose of this project is to prevent flooding on a citizen’s property. He expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her appreciation for staff’s work. She also appreciated Ms. Spehar’s comments regarding this project. She will support the motion and expected staff will alleviate problems and concerns. She urged staff to listen to input from the Bernhofts and Mr. Sawtell. Councilmember Bloom was impressed with how staff has integrated citizens’ input and the amount of time spent on changes to make the project more acceptable to citizens. She referred to an email she received from Mr. Shuster related to project 15 and review of that project this fall that may include greener alternatives to clean water before it reaches Puget Sound. Staff has addressed many of her concerns and she felt the process has been very transparent. She also expressed her appreciation to the citizens for bringing their concerns to the Council. Councilmember Johnson commented she was not completely satisfied and regretted that the project has been reviewed so intensely for a short period of time when it has been in the Comprehensive Plan and CIP. She did not have a clear understanding of whether it was better to discharge the stormwater into Perrinville Creek or directly into Browns Bay. She was also concerned that the proposed alignment would necessitate a 20-foot hole. She summarized she did not have all the answers to her questions, was uncomfortable with making a decision at this time and preferred to delay the decision for a week. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING NO. 15. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 22, 2012 FOR THE SR99 INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO TOTEM ELECTRIC IN THE AMOUNT OF $277,207.73. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained this is an economic development project. It was initiated in 2006 to create a gateway for the International District and enhancements such as illumination, signage and other elements. Total federal funding for this project is $662,000. A planning process for Highway 99 began in 2004; the Highway 99 Taskforce divided Highway 99 into districts, one of them being the International District. In 2006 the City’s streetscape plan included an appendix devoted to creating an identity for the International District, to improve pedestrian safety, enhance visibility and contribute to economic development. The project includes 14 overhead light poles on the east side of Packet Page 47 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 17 Highway 99, 7 in the center portion have artist-made pedestrian level lights, and banner signage identifying the Edmonds International District. The island on the west side of the street includes a solar lit sculptural element and 8 new pedestrian level lights south of the island. City Engineer Rob English reported bids were opened on May 22; the City received two bids, the low bid was provided by Totem Electric for $277,208, approximately 10% under the engineer’s estimate. The bidder’s qualifications were checked and found to be positive. Staff recommends Council award the bid to Totem Electric. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO ACCEPT THE BID AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO TOTEM ELECTRIC IN THE AMOUNT OF $277,207.73. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) 16. 2012 JULY BUDGET AMENDMENT. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock reviewed the amendment: • Changes the estimated 2012 beginning fund balance to the actual beginning fund balance. When the 2012 budget was adopted in December 2011, the exact fund balances were unknown. Now that the financial statement audit is complete for fiscal year 2011, the actual fund balances are known. • A bond sale in late December to refinance all the utility fund bonds occurred after the 2012 budget was adopted. The amendment recognizes the savings to the utility funds as a result of the bond refinancing. • Historically 25% of the hotel/motel tax has been budgeted as a transfer into the Tourism Promotional Arts Fund 123. Due to new accounting guidelines, the majority of revenue for a fund cannot be a transfer in and if so, it no longer exists as its own fund and is comingled as part of the General Fund. The state auditor recommended instead of a transfer in from the hotel/motel fund, 25% of hotel/motel taxes go directly into the Tourism Promotional Arts Fund. • The transfer of funds from the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Fund 631 to the Street Fund has been recorded as an intergovernmental payment. The state auditor recommended those funds be recorded as a transfer rather than an intergovernmental payment. • Administration and the Finance Committee recommended excess funds in the Local Improvement District Fund be transferred into a new Risk Management Reserve Fund. • There was previously no ordinance creating the Public Safety Reserve fund, it was created as part of the 2010 year-end budget amendment. This budget amendment includes creation of Public Safety Emergency Reserve Fund 010 and identifies it as reserve fund. (Reserve funds will be addressed in the following agenda item.) Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Accountant Deb Sharp and Mr. Hunstock. The next agenda item will address a reserve policy. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3891, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3886 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17. RESERVE POLICY Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained the reserve policy creates a reserve of 16% of total General Fund expenditures. The reserve fund would be titled Contingency Reserve Fund. The policy also creates the Risk Management Reserve Fund with a target of 2%. The 16% target for the Contingency Reserve Fund would be approximately $5.3 million. The City currently exceeds that by a significant amount; the Packet Page 48 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 18 December 31, 2011 ending General Fund balance was $5.7 million, the 010 Reserve Fund contains $1.3 million and the Emergency Financial Reserve Fund contains $1.9 million for a total of approximately $8.9 million which represents 27% of total General Fund expenditures. This policy creates one reserve fund, Contingency Reserve Fund, with a target of 16% and a Risk Management Reserve with a target of 2% or approximately $660,000. If the reserve policy is adopted as drafted, the City would have 16% plus 2% in reserves. The recommended practice by the Government Finance Officers Association best practices is a minimum of 16%; a lot of cities target 16-20%. If the reserve policy is approved, a budget amendment would follow moving the $1.9 million and $1.3 million into the new Contingency Reserve Fund. He also suggested moving a portion of the $5.7 million in the General Fund ending fund balance into the Contingency Reserve Fund so that the 16% exists in one location. Councilmember Petso thanked Mr. Hunstock and Councilmember Buckshnis and Yamamoto for accepting her input on the reserve policies. She observed a 16% minimum plus 2% in the Risk Management Reserve was really an 18% minimum. Mr. Hunstock answered yes, in total. He pointed out the 2% in the Risk Management Reserve Fund would be approximately $660,000, a small dollar amount for that purpose. There is currently one claim against the City that exceeds that amount. He summarized an 18% combined reserve is a good target. Councilmember Petso asked whether the policy could be changed if the Council decided a 2% Risk Management Reserve and a 14% Contingency Reserve for a total of 16% was acceptable. Mr. Hunstock answered the policy could be amended at any time. Councilmember Petso asked whether the amount was sustainable given increases in the General Fund and whether staff had determined a revenue source for the annual increase. Mr. Hunstock answered the Contingency Reserve Fund would receive investment income. In addition, if expenditures are less than budget, 5% of the surplus would be transferred into the Contingency Reserve Fund; that amount in 2011 was $39,000. The fund would also receive 5% of sales tax from new construction; that amount in 2011 was $31,000. If those sources are not increasing the funds to the amount necessary, there would likely need to be a budgeted transfer from the General Fund to the Contingency Reserve Fund. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED RESERVE POLICY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 18. RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE SSA MARINE GATEWAY PACIFIC RAIL TERMINAL PROJECT Mayor Earling explained the proposed resolution was not intended to supersede the resolution the Council adopted in November 2011, but to further describe the community’s concerns. Councilmember Petso expressed her appreciation to Mr. Clifton for cleaning up the resolution. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1280 EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT IMPACTS FROM INCREASED RAIL TRAFFIC IN EDMONDS RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED SSA MARINE GATEWAY PACIFIC RAIL TERMINAL PROJECT LOCATED IN WHATCOM COUNTY AND REQUESTING THE PRINCIPAL AGENCIES REVIEWING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) FOR SAID PROJECT, INCLUDING WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, AND THE UNITED STATES CORPS OF ENGINEERS, STUDY AND IDENTIFY THE IMPACTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE EIS SCOPING HEARINGS BE HELD IN EDMONDS. Packet Page 49 of 214 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 17, 2012 Page 19 Council President Peterson thanked Mayor Earling for his leadership on this resolution. He referred to a coalition of elected officials and other interested individuals that met regarding access to the waterfront due to the large projected increase in rail traffic. This is an opportunity for Edmonds to be a leader on issues that are important to the environment, the City and the region. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 19. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 10, 2012. Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported staff provided the quarterly fiber project report. A business plan will be created next year. The committee also reviewed the July 2012 budget amendment, discussed a utility penalty waiver (approved on Consent Agenda), discussed the reserve policy, and reviewed the May monthly report (approved on Consent Agenda). Public comment referenced the creation of monthly budgets and having a presentation by WCIA on the City’s insurance coverage. Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported a number of items were approved on the Consent Agenda. The committee requested staff present the SR 99 International Enhancements to inform the public regarding that project. Mr. Williams advised the Main Street project is ready to go to bid; award of the bid will be scheduled on a future agenda. Public Safety and Personnel Councilmember Bloom reported the committee discussed an ordinance regarding the appointment of student representatives to all boards and commissions which was approved on the Consent Agenda. Boards and commissions can now seek a student representative. 20. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling appreciated the Council’s compliments of staff including in regard to the Talbot Road project. Staff does great work and he is very proud of their efforts. He recognized Mr. Clifton for his assistance with drafting the resolution regarding SSA Marine Gateway Pacific Rail Terminal Project. Mayor Earling reported he attended a Korean community event at Benaroya Hall where he had an opportunity to talk to members of the Korean business community. They are very excited about the artwork that will be installed as part of the SR 99 International District project. Mayor Earling expressed appreciation to Councilmembers who were attended the gathering on Thursday regarding concern with waterfront access due to increased train traffic through Edmonds. Over 250 people attended including several legislators, City Councilmembers and the director of the ferry system. 21. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who adopted a flower basket; all 133 flower baskets have been adopted. She reported the 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is now available. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas praised the Farmers Market, commenting it is a phenomenal place to go. She thanked Ms. Fisher for her suggestion for a holiday lane at Old Milltown this winter and her offer to make a donation. 22. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Packet Page 50 of 214 AM-4983 2. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/24/2012 Time:Consent Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #51499 through #51530 for $475,138.99 and benefit checks #51531 through #51539 & wire payments for $201,262.04 for the period July 1, 2012 through July 15, 2012. Recommendation Approval of payroll direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2012 Revenue: Expenditure:676,401.03 Fiscal Impact: Attachments Payroll Benefit Payments 07-20-12 Payroll Summary 07-20-12 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Debra Sharp 07/18/2012 03:47 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/19/2012 08:51 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/19/2012 08:54 AM Packet Page 51 of 214 Mayor Dave Earling 07/19/2012 08:54 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/19/2012 08:56 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 07/18/2012 03:12 PM Final Approval Date: 07/19/2012 Packet Page 52 of 214 Packet Page 53 of 214 Packet Page 54 of 214 Packet Page 55 of 214 AM-4984 2. E. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/24/2012 Time:Consent Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Britta Holmberg ($2,486.94), and Mary Jane Kielman (amount undetermined). Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A Claim for Damages has been received from the following: Britta Holmberg 7416 176th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98026 ($2,486.94) Mary Jane Kielman 3434 25th Avenue West #201 Seattle, WA 98199 (amount undetermined) Attachments Holmberg Claim for Damages Kielman Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 07/19/2012 08:39 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/19/2012 08:56 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 07/18/2012 04:13 PM Final Approval Date: 07/19/2012 Packet Page 56 of 214 Final Approval Date: 07/19/2012 Packet Page 57 of 214 Packet Page 58 of 214 Packet Page 59 of 214 Packet Page 60 of 214 Packet Page 61 of 214 Packet Page 62 of 214 Packet Page 63 of 214 Packet Page 64 of 214 Packet Page 65 of 214 Packet Page 66 of 214 Packet Page 67 of 214 Packet Page 68 of 214 Packet Page 69 of 214 Packet Page 70 of 214 Packet Page 71 of 214 Packet Page 72 of 214 Packet Page 73 of 214 Packet Page 74 of 214 Packet Page 75 of 214 Packet Page 76 of 214 Packet Page 77 of 214 Packet Page 78 of 214 Packet Page 79 of 214 Packet Page 80 of 214 Packet Page 81 of 214 Packet Page 82 of 214 AM-4981 4. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/24/2012 Time: Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Committee Action: Recommend Review by Full Council Type: Action Information Subject Title Nonrepresented Employee Compensation Study and Policy Report. Recommendation Receive and review final report and recommendations from Public Sector Personnel Consultants. Discuss recommendations and policy, and either adopt or give staff guidance on next steps for approval and implementation of the nonrepresented compensation policy. Previous Council Action December 7, 2010: Council voted to authorize $50,000 to hire a Compensation Consultant to complete a nonrepresented compensensation survey and policy review, and a complete job description update. March/April/May 2011: There were various discussions with the Public safety and HR Committee, who forwarded to Council the RFP/RFQ for approval. June 21, 2011: Council voted to advertise an RFQ/RFP for a Compensation study and job description update to be completed. August 10-Sept 2, 2011: RFP was published. October 10th, 2011: Council President Peterson and Council member Fraley-Monillas and staff interviewed three firms and forwarded a reccomendation to Council. October 18th, 2011: Council awarded a contract to Public Sector Personnel Consultants ( PSPC ). October 25th, 2011: PSPC briefed Council on the process of performing a job description update and nonrepresented compensation study and policy review. December 6, 2011: Council discussed comparator cities and reqeusted staff to bring back alternatives. December 20, 2011: Council adopted comparator cities for the study. Packet Page 83 of 214 Narrative Public Sector Personnel Consultants has completed its work on the nonrepresented compensation study and policy review and will be presenting their final report and recommendations. PSPC first completed the job description updates, which are currently pending union discussions and will be presented to Council soon. The consultant then started work on the compensation study and policy review. The Consultant had a difficult time obtaining information from our comparator cities, even after repeated requests. After some persistence and assitance from the HR staff, we finally were able to obtain all the information requested, including salaries, ranges, benfits, and compensation policies. Because of this difficulty, this delayed the process. Attached for Council review is: 1. PSPC's Final Report 2. Appendix I: Salary survey worksheets by job class 3. Appendix II: Benefits data by comparator city 4. Appendix III: Draft Non-Represented Compensation Policy 5. Proposed Salary Ranges chart 6. Comparison Current/Proposed Salary Ranges chart 7. 2011-2012 External COLA comparison 8. Historical internal COLA comparison Attachments PSPC Final Report Appendix I: Salary Survey Worksheets by job class Appendix II: Benefits Data by comparator city Appendix III: Draft Nonrepresented Compensation Policy Proposed salary ranges chart Comparison Current/Proposed Salary Ranges chart 2011-2012 External COLA comparison Historical internal COLA comparison Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/19/2012 03:44 PM Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 07/19/2012 05:09 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/19/2012 05:40 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/20/2012 05:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/20/2012 08:39 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 07/18/2012 01:32 PM Final Approval Date: 07/20/2012 Packet Page 84 of 214 Packet Page 85 of 214 Packet Page 86 of 214 Packet Page 87 of 214 Packet Page 88 of 214 Packet Page 89 of 214 Packet Page 90 of 214 Packet Page 91 of 214 Packet Page 92 of 214 Packet Page 93 of 214 Packet Page 94 of 214 Packet Page 95 of 214 Packet Page 96 of 214 Packet Page 97 of 214 Packet Page 98 of 214 Packet Page 99 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 1 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL $61,212 $69,133 $75,854 $86,221 $6,251 $22,124 $89,587 $97,508 $104,229 -1%-$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$95,212 $103,212 $110,001 LIMITED DATA range width Assistant Bldg Official Puyallup, City of $61,212 $70,392 $79,572 30%$61,212 $70,392 $79,572 Asst Bldg Of/Ld Inspec Des Moines, City of $62,412 $69,133 $75,854 21%$62,412 $69,133 $75,854 Assistant Bldg Official Lacey, City of $59,907 $65,574 $71,241 19%1%1%$60,506 $66,230 $71,953 no comparable match Lynnwood, City of no comparable match Bothell, City of no comparable match Bremerton, City of no comparable match Burien, City of no comparable match Issaquah, City of no comparable match Kirkland, City of no comparable match Olympia, City of no comparable match Sammamish, City of no comparable match University Place, City of Median:$61,212 $69,133 $75,854 Median:$61,212 $69,133 $75,854 Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance:-8.5%-17.3%-24.4%Current Base Variance:-8.5%-17.3%-24.4% 0.91 0.83 0.76 0.91 0.83 0.76 Proposed Base Range:$62,701 $73,363 $84,025 35% Range 10 Bldg Svcs. Supervisor King County - INFO ONLY $78,108 $88,566 $99,024 27% Building Insp Supervisor Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 21% no comparable match Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match Shoreline - INFO ONLY Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 100 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 2 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $108,012 $115,698 $125,352 $121,314 $8,795 $22,124 $138,931 $146,617 $156,271 5%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+DCP $141,400 $149,086 $165,008 range width Police Commander Olympia, City of $128,268 $132,528 $136,788 7%$128,268 $132,528 $136,788 Deputy Police Chief Bothell, City of $108,012 $122,664 $137,316 27%$108,012 $122,664 $137,316 Deputy Police Chief Issaquah, City of $102,480 $116,640 $130,800 28%5%$300 $300 $102,780 $116,940 $137,640 Commander Des Moines, City of $110,052 $115,698 $121,344 10%$110,052 $115,698 $121,344 Deputy Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $122,304 $127,296 $132,288 27%5%$122,304 $127,296 $132,288 Police Commander Lacey, City of $121,908 $115,048 $125,352 1%1%$123,127 $116,198 $126,606 Deputy Police Chief Puyallup, City of $88,800 $102,126 $115,452 30%4%4%$92,352 $106,211 $120,070 Police Captain Bremerton, City of $107,907 $112,929 $117,951 4%4%$112,223 $117,446 $122,669 Police Captain Kirkland, City of $91,644 $104,952 $118,260 $91,644 $104,952 $118,260 no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of Pierce County no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$108,012 $115,698 $125,352 Median:$110,052 $116,940 $126,606 Current Edmonds Base Range:$94,402 $118,003 $141,604 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$94,402 $118,003 $141,604 Current Base Variance:14.4%-2.0%-11.5%Current Base Variance:16.6%-0.9%-10.6% 1.14 0.98 0.89 1.17 0.99 0.89 Proposed Base Range:$97,270 $113,811 $130,351 34% Range 19 Undersheriff Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $118,631 $133,811 $148,990 26% Chief Deputy Sheriff King County - INFO ONLY $113,724 $128,940 $144,156 27% Assistant Police Chief Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $94,644 $103,002 $111,360 18% no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 101 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 3 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization ASSOCIATE PLANNER $58,500 $65,580 $71,256 $73,169 $5,305 $22,124 $85,928 $93,008 $98,684 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$92,473 $99,624 $105,357 range width Planner, Associate Issaquah, City of $62,928 $71,610 $80,292 28%5%5%$62,928 $71,610 $84,307 Associate Planner Kirkland, City of $65,892 $71,706 $77,520 18%$65,892 $71,706 $77,520 Associate Planner Sammamish, City of $57,886 $68,554 $79,221 37%$57,886 $68,554 $79,221 Planner II Bremerton, City of $62,150 $67,808 $73,466 18%$62,150 $67,808 $73,466 Associate Planner Puyallup, City of $52,308 $60,156 $68,004 30%$52,308 $60,156 $68,004 Associate Planner Olympia, City of $58,500 $64,776 $71,052 22%$58,500 $64,776 $71,052 Planner Burien, City of $58,020 $64,278 $70,536 22%$58,020 $64,278 $70,536 Associate Planner Lacey, City of $59,904 $65,580 $71,256 19%1%1%$60,503 $66,236 $71,969 Associate Planner Lynnwood, City of $52,499 $59,478 $66,456 27%$52,499 $59,478 $66,456 no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of no comparable match reported Bothell, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$58,500 $65,580 $71,256 Median:$58,500 $66,236 $71,969 Urban Planner (Journey)ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $56,088 $66,969 $77,849 Private Sector Median:$56,088 $66,969 $77,849 Private Sector Median:$56,088 $66,969 $77,849 Unweighted Average:$57,294 $66,274 $74,553 Unweighted Average:$57,294 $66,602 $74,909 Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610 Current Base Variance:-0.8%-8.2%-13.9%Current Base Variance:-0.8%-7.7%-13.5% 0.99227572 $1 0.86078397 0.99227572 0.92278698 86.49% Proposed Base Range:$59,715 $69,870 $80,024 34% Range 9 Transp or WQ Planner II King County - INFO ONLY $63,888 $72,432 $80,976 26% Associate Planner Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $53,904 $63,180 $72,456 34% Associate Planner Shoreline - INFO ONLY $59,520 $65,970 $72,420 22% Associate Planner Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $42,445 $46,996 $51,546 21% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 102 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 4 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization BUILDING OFFICIAL $82,281 $93,345 $103,851 $92,718 $6,722 $22,124 $111,126 $122,190 $132,697 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$116,491 $127,666 $138,278 range width Director, Building & Permitting Issaquah, City of $107,616 $122,484 $137,352 28%5%5%$107,616 $122,484 $144,220 Dep Com Dev Dir/Bldg Off Bothell, City of $97,848 $111,126 $124,404 27%$97,848 $111,126 $124,404 Building Services Manager Kirkland, City of $88,956 $99,390 $109,824 23%$88,956 $99,390 $109,824 Building Official Sammamish, City of $80,432 $95,254 $110,076 37%$80,432 $95,254 $110,076 Building Official Lynnwood, City of $84,760 $96,013 $107,266 27%$221.52 $221.52 $84,760 $96,013 $107,487 Building Official Des Moines, City of $82,128 $90,972 $99,816 21%$82,128 $90,972 $99,816 Building Official University Place, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%$82,433 $91,435 $100,437 Building Code Official Puyallup, City of $72,480 $83,358 $94,236 30%$72,480 $83,358 $94,236 Building Official Burien, City of $76,284 $84,504 $92,724 21%$76,284 $84,504 $92,724 Building Official/Fire Marshal Lacey, City of $81,552 $81,552 $81,552 flat rate 1%1%$82,368 $82,368 $82,368 no comparable match reported Bremerton, City of no comparable match reported Olympia, City of Median:$82,281 $93,345 $103,851 Median:$82,400 $93,345 $103,962 Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance:-3.47%-12.39%-18.77%Current Base Variance:-3.33%-12.39%-18.69% 0.96531436 0.8761 0.81225842 0.96671938 0.87609577 81.31% Proposed Base Range:$80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34% Range 15 Building Official Shoreline - INFO ONLY $84,084 $93,198 $102,312 22% Building Manager Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $72,579 $80,387 $88,194 22% Building Official Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $65,964 $74,208 $82,452 25% Div Dir, Building Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $95,618 $108,410 $121,202 27% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 103 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 5 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required $70,159 $77,712 $85,824 $75,506 $5,474 $22,124 $97,757 $105,310 $113,422 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $103,547 $111,100 $119,212 (2 positions - salary averaged) range width PE req'd Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $67,498 $76,661 $85,824 27%$67,498 $76,661 $85,824 Capital Project Supervisor Kirkland, City of $63,418 $72,634 $81,850 29%$63,418 $72,634 $81,850 CIP Management Coordinator Issaquah, City of $76,476 $87,048 $97,620 28%5%5%$76,476 $87,048 $102,501 Project Manager Bremerton, City of $78,461 $87,029 $95,597 22%$78,461 $87,029 $95,597 No PE CIP Project Manager Des Moines, City of $75,936 $84,114 $92,292 22%$75,936 $84,114 $92,292 Project Manager Sammamish, City of $70,516 $83,511 $96,505 37%$70,516 $83,511 $96,505 No PE Engineering Project Manager Olympia, City of $70,159 $77,712 $85,265 22%$70,159 $77,712 $85,265 Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $70,644 $78,252 $85,860 22%$70,644 $78,252 $85,860 Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $66,123 $74,901 $83,678 27%$221.52 $221.52 $66,123 $74,901 $83,900 Project Engineer University Place, City of $59,700 $67,638 $75,576 27%$59,700 $67,638 $75,576 Project Manager Puyallup, City of $61,212 $70,392 $79,572 30%$61,212 $70,392 $79,572 no comparable match reported Lacey, City of Median:$70,159 $77,712 $85,824 Median:$70,159 $77,712 $85,824 Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610 Current Base Variance:21.5%7.7%-0.9%Current Base Variance:21.5%7.7%-0.9% 1.21508486 $1 0.99092484 1.21508486 1.07671631 0.99092484 Proposed Base Range:$65,836 $77,032 $88,227 34% Range 11 Capital Proj Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY $72,480 $80,328 $88,176 22% Capital Projects Manager II King County - INFO ONLY $63,096 $71,544 $79,992 27% Capital Proj Coord Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $60,768 $68,352 $75,936 25% Project Spec II Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $53,469 $59,216 $64,962 21% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 104 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 6 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (we suggest title change to IS Manager)$82,090 $92,189 $103,252 $93,872 $6,806 $22,124 111,019$ 121,118$ 132,181$ 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$116,299 $126,499 $137,673 range width Info Systems Manager Bothell, City of $84,372 $95,826 $107,280 27%$84,372 $95,826 $107,280 Ntwk & Ops Division Manager Kirkland, City of $85,320 $97,704 $110,088 29%$85,320 $97,704 $110,088 Info Systems Manager Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997 Info Services Manager Lacey, City of $103,227 $103,227 $103,227 flat rate 1%1%$104,259 $104,259 $104,259 20% reduction (+)Info Tech & Comm Cntr Dir Puyallup, City of $79,440 $91,358 $103,277 30%$79,440 $91,358 $103,277 Info Systems Manager Sammamish, City of $80,432 $95,254 $110,076 37%$80,432 $95,254 $110,076 Comm/IT Manager University Place, City of $78,828 $90,834 $102,840 30%$78,828 $90,834 $102,840 20% reduction (+)Asst Fin Dir - Info Services Lynnwood, City of X $82,052 $92,943 $103,834 26%$221.52 $221.52 $82,052 $92,943 $104,055 Info Systems Manager Bremerton, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%4%4%$85,730 $95,092 $104,454 Info Systems Manager Des Moines, City of $82,128 $90,972 $99,816 22%$82,128 $90,972 $99,816 Info Systems Manager Burien, City of $75,744 $83,904 $92,064 22%$75,744 $83,904 $92,064 Assoc. Director LOB Olympia, City of $79,913 $88,513 $97,124 22%$79,913 $88,513 $97,124 Median:$82,090 $92,189 $103,252 Median:$82,090 $95,173 $104,157 Level 1 Systems & Prog Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $75,990 $104,766 $133,542 Private Sector Median:$75,990 $104,766 $133,542 Private Sector Median:$75,990 $104,766 $133,542 Unweighted Average:$79,040 $98,477 $118,397 Unweighted Average:$79,040 $99,970 $118,850 Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance:3.9%3.6%3.8%Current Base Variance:3.9%5.1%4.2% 1.0390288 $1 1.03759585 1.0390288 1.051327 1.04156272 Proposed Base Range:$84,025 $98,314 $112,602 34% Range 16 no comparable match reported King County - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Snohomish County - INFO ONLY Information Syst Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY $95,112 $105,420 $115,728 22% IT Systems Admin Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $65,964 $74,208 $82,452 25% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 105 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 7 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization CITY CLERK $67,800 $78,194 $88,116 $106,022 $7,687 $22,124 $97,610 $108,004 $117,926 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$101,866 $112,364 $122,385 range width City Clerk Kirkland, City of $73,656 $84,348 $95,040 29%$73,656 $84,348 $95,040 City Clerk Issaquah, City of $72,828 $82,896 $92,964 28%5%5%$72,828 $82,896 $97,612 City Clerk Bothell, City of $69,252 $78,648 $88,044 27%$69,252 $78,648 $88,044 City Clerk Bremerton, City of $74,680 $82,836 $90,991 22%4%4%$77,667 $86,149 $94,631 City Clerk Puyallup, City of $67,800 $77,958 $88,116 30%$67,800 $77,958 $88,116 City Clerk Sammamish, City of $66,026 $78,194 $90,361 37%$66,026 $78,194 $90,361 City Clerk Des Moines, City of $67,500 $74,772 $82,044 22%$67,500 $74,772 $82,044 City Clerk University Place, City of $64,296 $74,478 $84,660 32%$64,296 $74,478 $84,660 City Clerk Burien, City of $62,388 $69,114 $75,840 22%$62,388 $69,114 $75,840 City Clerk Lacey, City of $64,512 $69,672 $74,832 16%1%1%$65,157 $70,369 $75,580 Associate Line of Business Director Olympia, City of $80,712 $89,404 $98,095 22% no comparable match reported Lynnwood, City of Median:$67,800 $78,194 $88,116 Median:$67,650 $78,076 $88,080 Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance:-20.5%-26.6%-31.1%Current Base Variance:-20.6%-26.7%-31.1% 0.79542922 $1 0.68918697 0.79366942 0.73278912 0.6889054 Proposed Base Range:$76,214 $89,174 $102,133 34% Range 14 Div Dir, Rec & Lic Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $121,200 $137,412 $153,624 Comm Rel Dir/City Clerk Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 County Clerk Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $98,789 $98,789 $98,789 City Clerk Shoreline - INFO ONLY $72,480 $80,328 $88,176 PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 106 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 8 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization CITY ENGINEER $85,237 $93,982 $102,133 $123,024 $8,919 $22,124 116,280$ 125,024$ 133,176$ 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$119,478 $128,309 $136,542 range width Deputy PW Dir/City Eng Bothell, City of $97,848 $111,126 $124,404 27%$97,848 $111,126 $124,404 City Engineer Bremerton, City of $100,437 $111,405 $122,372 22%4%4%$104,454 $115,861 $127,267 City Engineer Lacey, City of $115,308 $115,308 $115,308 flat rate 1%1%$116,461 $116,461 $116,461 Assistant Director - Trans & Eng Des Moines, City of $96,084 $106,428 $116,772 22%$96,084 $106,428 $116,772 City Engineer Puyallup, City of $88,800 $102,126 $115,452 30%$88,800 $102,126 $115,452 City Engineer University Place, City of $88,440 $102,930 $117,420 33%$88,440 $102,930 $117,420 Engineering Manager Issaquah, City of $88,536 $101,094 $113,652 28%5%5%$88,536 $101,094 $119,335 City Engineer Sammamish, City of $85,901 $101,732 $117,562 37%$85,901 $101,732 $117,562 City Engineer Olympia, City of $83,772 $92,811 $101,851 21%$83,772 $92,811 $101,851 Pub. Wks Dir./City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $114,297 $129,546 $144,615 26%$221.52 $221.52 $114,297 $129,546 $144,837 no comparable match reported Burien, City of - no comparable match reported Kirkland, City of - Median:$92,442 $104,679 $117,096 Median:$92,442 $104,679 $117,491 Level 2 Engineering Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $105,520 $129,781 $154,041 Private Sector Median:$105,520 $129,781 $154,041 Private Sector Median:$105,520 $129,781 $154,041 Unweighted Average:$98,981 $117,230 $135,569 Unweighted Average:$98,981 $117,230 $135,766 Current Edmonds Base Range:$94,402 $118,003 $141,604 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$94,402 $118,003 $141,604 Current Base Variance:4.9%-0.7%-4.3%Current Base Variance:4.9%-0.7%-4.1% 1.04850533 0.993447 0.95737762 1.04850533 0.9934472 0.95877235 Proposed Base Range:$97,270 $113,811 $130,351 34% Range 19 Engineering Svcs Director Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 23% Data Not Reported Snohomish County - INFO ONLY Data Not Reported King County - INFO ONLY City Engineer Shoreline - INFO ONLY $107,625 $119,284 $130,942 22% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 107 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 9 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR $101,196 $115,412 $128,214 $136,979 $9,931 $22,124 $133,250 $147,466 $160,269 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $134,584 $148,800 $161,602 range width Asst City Manager/Econ Dev ManagerBothell, City of $110,712 $125,736 $140,760 27%$110,712 $125,736 $140,760 20% Increase (+)Economic Development Manager Kirkland, City of $111,082 $127,217 $143,352 29%$111,082 $127,217 $143,352 Dir Comm Planning & Development Olympia, City of $127,332 $127,332 $127,332 flat rate $127,332 $127,332 $127,332 Exec Dir Com & Econ Development University Place, City of $104,064 $119,520 $134,976 30%$104,064 $119,520 $134,976 Economic Development Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096 Economic Development Director Lynnwood, City of $102,959 $116,625 $130,291 27%$221.52 $221.52 $102,959 $116,625 $130,513 20% Increase (+)Economic Development Manager Bremerton, City of $99,432 $110,153 $120,874 22%4%4%$103,409 $114,559 $125,709 20% Increase (+)Economic Development Manager Burien, City of $97,891 $108,439 $118,987 21%$97,891 $108,439 $118,987 20% Increase (+)Economic Development Manager Issaquah, City of $91,771 $104,458 $117,144 28%5%5%$91,771 $104,458 $123,001 Economic Development Mgr Des Moines, City of $82,128 $90,972 $99,816 21%$82,128 $90,972 $99,816 no comparable match reported Lacey, City of no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of Median:$101,196 $115,412 $128,214 Median:$103,184 $115,592 $128,214 Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance:-2.3%-10.9%-17.5%Current Base Variance:-0.4%-10.7%-17.5% 0.97709235 0.891484 0.82531284 0.99629364 0.89287777 0.82531284 Proposed Base Range:$102,133 $119,501 $136,869 34% Range 20 Comm & Econ Dev Dir Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 23% Econ Dev Prog Manager Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $78,919 $95,219 $111,518 41% Econ Dev Prog Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22% Ast Div Dr Comm Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $84,926 $96,283 $107,640 27% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 108 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 10 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization COURT ADMINISTRATOR $76,059 $85,689 $95,319 $96,131 $6,970 $22,124 $105,152 $114,782 $124,412 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $109,447 $119,077 $128,707 range width Court Administrator Lynnwood, City of $93,605 $106,018 $118,431 27%$221.52 $221.52 $93,605 $106,018 $118,653 Municipal Court Admin Issaquah, City of $80,292 $91,386 $102,480 28%5%5%$80,292 $91,386 $107,604 Court Administrator Des Moines, City of $79,740 $88,332 $96,924 21%$79,740 $88,332 $96,924 Court Services Admin Bremerton, City of $78,461 $87,029 $95,597 22%4%4%$81,599 $90,510 $99,421 Court Administrator Kirkland, City of $73,656 $84,348 $95,040 29%$73,656 $84,348 $95,040 Court Administrator Bothell, City of $69,252 $78,648 $88,044 27%$69,252 $78,648 $88,044 Court Administrator Olympia, City of $70,164 $77,712 $85,260 22%$70,164 $77,712 $85,260 Court Administrator Puyallup, City of $59,136 $68,010 $76,884 30%$59,136 $68,010 $76,884 no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported Lacey, City of no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$76,059 $85,689 $95,319 Median:$76,698 $86,340 $95,982 Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance:0.0%-9.9%-16.5%Current Base Variance:0.8%-9.2%-15.9% 0.99983568 0.9011400 0.83534314 1.0082423 0.907991 0.84115786 Proposed Salary Range $72,584 $89,174 $97,270 34% Range 13 Court Svcs Admin Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $78,919 $97,219 $115,518 46% Court Ops Manager - Sup Ct Crim DivKing County - INFO ONLY $66,096 $75,108 $84,120 27% no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 109 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 11 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR unfilled $106,122 $118,963 $129,444 VACANT $9,385 $22,124 $137,630 $150,471 $160,952 2%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $141,633 $154,730 $165,421 range width Director, Planning Issaquah, City of $113,004 $128,610 $144,216 28%5%5%$113,004 $128,610 $151,427 Community Development Director Bothell, City of $110,712 $125,736 $140,760 27%$110,712 $125,736 $140,760 Director of Community DevelopmentSammamish, City of $104,644 $128,797 $152,950 46%$104,644 $128,797 $152,950 Dir Com Planning & Dev Olympia, City of $127,332 $127,332 $127,332 flat rate $127,332 $127,332 $127,332 Planning Director Kirkland, City of $107,040 $122,580 $138,120 29%$107,040 $122,580 $138,120 Planning, Bldg & PW Dir Des Moines, City of $109,128 $120,882 $132,636 22%$109,128 $120,882 $132,636 Development Svcs Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096 Director of Community DevelopmentBremerton, City of $105,521 $117,044 $128,567 22%4%4%$109,742 $121,726 $133,710 Community Development Director Lynnwood, City of $102,565 $116,178 $129,792 27%$221.52 $221.52 $102,565 $116,178 $130,014 Community Development Director Burien, City of $97,764 $108,300 $118,836 22%$97,764 $108,300 $118,836 Planning & Dev Svcs Dir University Place, City of $88,440 $102,930 $117,420 33%$88,440 $102,930 $117,420 Community Development Director Lacey, City of $106,723 $106,723 $106,723 flat rate 2%2%$108,857 $108,857 $108,857 Median:$106,122 $118,963 $129,444 Median:$107,949 $121,304 $131,325 Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance:2.5%-8.1%-16.7%Current Base Variance:4.2%-6.3%-15.5% 1.02466013 0.918917 0.83323034 1.0422981 0.93699892 0.84533678 Proposed Base Range:$102,133 $119,501 $136,869 34% Range 20 Plan & Com Dev Dir Shoreline - INFO ONLY $115,908 $128,466 $141,024 22% Planning & Dev Svc Dir Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $105,672 $127,499 $149,325 41% Dir Dev & Env Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $127,088 $144,082 $161,075 27% no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 110 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 12 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 2 PE may be required $69,228 $76,993 $84,702 VACANT $6,141 $22,124 $97,493 $105,257 $112,967 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $102,616 $110,381 $118,090 range width Civil Engineer Puyallup, City of $69,096 $79,458 $89,820 30%$69,096 $79,458 $89,820 Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $75,480 $82,134 $88,788 17%$75,480 $82,134 $88,788 Associate Engineer Sammamish, City of $70,516 $83,511 $96,506 37%$70,516 $83,511 $96,506 Engineer II Issaquah, City of $69,360 $78,948 $88,536 28%5%5%$69,360 $78,948 $92,963 Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $70,644 $78,252 $85,860 22%$70,644 $78,252 $85,860 PE may be req'd Civil Engineer Bothell, City of $62,652 $71,154 $79,656 27%$62,652 $71,154 $79,656 Civil Engineer II Bremerton, City of $69,493 $75,733 $81,973 18%4%4%$72,273 $78,762 $85,252 PE req'd Project Manager Lynnwood, City of $66,024 $74,784 $83,544 27%$221.52 $221.52 $66,024 $74,784 $83,766 PE may be req'd Project Engineer II Olympia, City of $66,252 $73,392 $80,532 22%$66,252 $73,392 $80,532 Project Engineer University Place, City of $59,700 $67,638 $75,576 27%$59,700 $67,638 $75,576 no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of Data Not Reported Lacey, City of Median:$69,228 $76,993 $84,702 Median:$69,228 $78,507 $85,556 Engineer ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $72,468 $87,514 $102,560 Private Sector Median:$72,468 $87,514 $102,560 Private Sector Median:$72,468 $87,514 $102,560 Unweighted Average:$70,848 $82,253 $93,631 Unweighted Average:$70,848 $83,011 $94,058 Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance:5.9%-1.6%-6.7%Current Base Variance:5.9%-0.7%-6.3% 1.05893431 0.98352 0.93296997 1.05893431 0.99257552 0.93722454 Proposed Base Range:$69,128 $80,883 $92,638 34% Range 12 Cap Proj Manager II Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22% Cap Proj Manager III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 27% Prog Eng - Cap Projects Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 22% no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 111 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 13 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGER 3 PE may be required $76,336 $88,406 $97,777 VACANT $7,089 $22,124 $105,548 $117,619 $126,989 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $109,724 $121,794 $131,165 range width Engineer, Senior Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997 Civil Engineer Senior Puyallup, City of $77,568 $89,202 $100,836 30%$77,568 $89,202 $100,836 Senior Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $83,016 $90,342 $97,668 18%$83,016 $90,342 $97,668 Senior Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $75,311 $89,190 $103,068 37%$75,311 $89,190 $103,068 PE req'd Civil Engineer, Senior Bothell, City of $72,660 $82,518 $92,376 27%$72,660 $82,518 $92,376 PE req'd Development Services Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $77,360 $87,623 $97,885 27%$221.52 $221.52 $77,360 $87,623 $98,107 Civil Engineer III Bremerton, City of $73,466 $79,831 $86,195 17%4%4%$76,405 $83,024 $89,643 PE Req'd Engineering Program Manager Olympia, City of $73,466 $79,831 $86,195 17%$73,466 $79,831 $86,195 no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of no comparable match reported Lacey, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$76,336 $88,406 $97,777 Median:$76,882 $88,406 $97,887 Project Engineer ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $91,728 $111,722 $131,715 Private Sector Median:$91,728 $111,722 $131,715 Private Sector Median:$91,728 $111,722 $131,715 Unweighted Average:$84,032 $100,064 $114,746 Unweighted Average:$84,305 $100,064 $114,801 Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance:25.6%19.6%14.3%Current Base Variance:26.0%19.6%14.4% 1.2559861 1.196485 1.14336426 1.26007264 1.19648547 1.14391608 Proposed Base Range:$76,214 $89,174 $102,133 34% Range 14 Cap Proj Manager II Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22% Cap Proj Manager III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 27% Prog Eng - Cap Projects Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 22% no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 112 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 14 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT - CONFIDENTIAL $52,776 $59,940 $67,104 $52,507 $4,865 $22,124 $79,765 $86,929 $94,093 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $86,164 $93,328 $100,492 range width Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $64,397 $71,429 $78,461 22%$64,397 $71,429 $78,461 Admin Asst Sr Non-Rep Bothell, City of $52,776 $59,940 $67,104 27%$52,776 $59,940 $67,104 Executive Assistant University Place, City of $53,664 $62,136 $70,608 32%$53,664 $62,136 $70,608 Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $55,488 $61,470 $67,452 22%$55,488 $61,470 $67,452 PD Admin Secretary Puyallup, City of $43,488 $50,004 $56,520 30%$49,476 $56,898 $64,320 Executive Assistant PC Kirkland, City of $57,744 $66,126 $74,508 18%$43,044 $49,290 $55,536 Executive Assistant Burien, City of $52,464 $58,122 $63,780 22%$52,464 $58,122 $63,780 PD Admin Office Supervisor Issaquah, City of $54,348 $61,854 $69,360 27%5%$300 5% + $300 $54,648 $62,154 $73,128 Administrative Assistant Sammamish, City of $47,518 $56,275 $65,032 37%$47,518 $56,275 $65,032 Administrative Secretary Olympia, City of $52,776 $59,940 $67,104 27%$52,776 $59,940 $67,104 Executive Assistant Lynnwood, City of $48,024 $54,403 $60,782 25%$221.52 $221.52 $48,024 $54,403 $61,004 no comparable match reported Lacey, City of Median:$52,776 $59,940 $67,104 Median:$53,556 $59,031 $66,068 Executive Sec to VP ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $49,598 $59,904 $70,210 Private Sector Median:$49,598 $59,904 $70,210 Private Sector Median:$49,598 $59,904 $70,210 Unweighted Average:$51,187 $59,922 $68,657 Unweighted Average:$51,577 $59,468 $68,139 Current Edmonds Base Range:$48,574 $60,718 $72,861 50%$48,574 $60,718 $72,861 Current Base Variance:-5.1%1.3%6.1%Current Base Variance:-5.8%2.1%6.9% 0.948952 1.013276 1.061232 0.941776 1.021020 1.069300 Proposed salary range:$54,164 $63,374 $72,584 34% Range 7 Admin Asst II King County - INFO ONLY $62,856 $71,268 $79,680 27% Admin Asst - HR (Confid)Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $56,120 $62,198 $68,276 22% Exec Assistant Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $52,824 $59,430 $66,036 25% Admin Asst III Shoreline - INFO ONLY $48,792 $54,090 $59,388 22% Current Edmonds Base Range: PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 113 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 15 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE MAYOR $54,300 $62,178 $70,608 $64,500 $5,119 $22,124 $81,543 $89,421 $97,851 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $87,688 $95,566 $103,996 range width Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $64,397 $71,429 $78,461 22%$64,397 $71,429 $78,461 Executive Asst (To City Manager)Bothell, City of $58,260 $66,162 $74,064 27%$58,260 $66,162 $74,064 Executive Asst to Mayor Issaquah, City of $57,072 $64,950 $72,828 28%5%5%$57,072 $64,950 $76,469 Executive Asst to Mayor Lynnwood, City of $58,128 $65,832 $73,536 27%$221.52 $221.52 $58,128 $65,832 $73,758 Executive Secretary Sammamish, City of $54,200 $64,189 $74,177 37%$54,200 $64,189 $74,177 Executive Assistant - CMO I Kirkland, City of $54,300 $62,178 $70,056 29%$54,300 $62,178 $70,056 Executive Assistant University Place, City of $53,664 $62,136 $70,608 32%$53,664 $62,136 $70,608 Executive Assistant Des Moines, City of $55,488 $61,470 $67,452 22%$55,488 $61,470 $67,452 Executive Assistant Puyallup, City of $49,476 $56,898 $64,320 30%$49,476 $56,898 $64,320 Executive Assistant Burien, City of $52,464 $58,122 $63,780 22%$52,464 $58,122 $63,780 City Manager Executive Secretary Olympia, City of $50,628 $56,112 $61,596 22%$50,628 $56,112 $61,596 no comparable match reported Lacey, City of Median:$54,300 $62,178 $70,608 Median:$54,300 $62,178 $70,608 Executive Sec to CEO ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $59,041 $71,668 $84,294 Private Sector Median:$59,041 $71,668 $84,294 Private Sector Median:$59,041 $71,668 $84,294 Unweighted Average:$56,671 $66,923 $77,451 Unweighted Average:$56,671 $66,923 $77,451 Current Edmonds Base Range:$57,740 $72,175 $86,610 50%$57,740 $72,175 $86,610 Current Base Variance:-1.9%-7.3%-10.6%Current Base Variance:-1.9%-7.3%-10.6% 0.98147731 $1 0.89425009 0.98147731 0.92722896 0.89425009 Proposed Salary Range $56,872 $66,543 $76,214 34% Range 8 County Exec Asst II King County - INFO ONLY $95,616 $108,402 $121,188 27% Exec Asst to County Exec Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $58,934 $71,109 $83,283 41% Exec Asst To City Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY $56,616 $62,748 $68,880 22% Executive Assistant Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $52,824 $59,430 $66,036 25% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 114 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 16 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization FINANCE DIRECTOR $110,788 $124,353 $133,856 $137,800 $9,705 $22,124 $142,616 $156,181 $165,684 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2%$146,391 $160,228 $169,921 range width no IT Director, Finance Issaquah, City of $118,644 $135,030 $151,416 28%5%5%$118,644 $135,030 $158,987 includes IT Director, Admin Services Olympia, City of $131,376 $131,376 $131,376 flat rate $131,376 $131,376 $131,376 no IT Finance Director Kirkland, City of $112,452 $128,772 $145,092 29%$112,452 $128,772 $145,092 no IT Finance Director Bothell, City of $110,712 $125,736 $140,760 27%$110,712 $125,736 $140,760 includes IT Director & Asst City Manager Sammamish, City of $104,644 $128,797 $152,950 46%$104,644 $128,797 $152,950 includes IT Finance Director Lynnwood, City of $114,297 $129,456 $144,615 27%$221.52 $221.52 $114,297 $129,456 $144,837 includes IT Director of Financial Services Bremerton, City of $110,863 $122,970 $135,076 22%4%4%$115,298 $127,888 $140,479 includes IT Finance Director Des Moines, City of $109,128 $120,882 $132,636 22%$109,128 $120,882 $132,636 no IT Finance Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096 no IT Finance Director Lacey, City of $122,556 $122,556 $122,556 flat rate 2%2%$125,007 $125,007 $125,007 includes IT Finance Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,872 $123,852 21%$101,892 $112,872 $123,852 includes IT Finance Director University Place, City of $88,440 $102,930 $117,420 33%$88,440 $102,930 $117,420 Median:$110,788 $124,353 $133,856 Median:$111,582 $127,254 $136,558 Accounting Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $95,956 $117,008 $138,059 Private Sector Median:$95,956 $117,008 $138,059 Private Sector Median:$95,956 $117,008 $138,059 Unweighted Average:$103,372 $120,680 $135,958 Unweighted Average:$103,769 $122,131 $137,308 Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance:-0.2%-6.8%-12.5%0.2%-5.7%-11.6% 0.99810511 0.9321808 0.87515771 1.00194075 0.94339 0.88385254 Proposed Base Range:$102,133 $119,501 $136,869 34% Range 20 Div Dir Fin & Bus Ops King County - INFO ONLY $127,088 $144,092 $161,096 27% Fin & Risk Mgmt Dir Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $105,672 $127,499 $149,325 41% Finance Director Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 23% no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 115 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 17 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization FLEET MANAGER $75,042 $85,575 $96,049 $87,125 $6,964 $22,124 $104,129 $114,662 $125,136 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$109,181 $119,819 $130,398 range width Fleet and Facilities Manager Bothell, City of $76,440 $86,814 $97,188 27%$76,440 $86,814 $97,188 Fleet Manager Issaquah, City of $76,476 $87,048 $97,620 28%5%5%$76,476 $87,048 $102,501 Fleet Manager Kirkland, City of $73,644 $84,336 $95,028 29%$73,644 $84,336 $95,028 Data Increased 20%(-)Auto Shop Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $76,723 $86,897 $97,070 27%$221.52 $221.52 $76,723 $86,897 $97,292 PW Supervisor II Puyallup, City of $69,096 $79,458 $89,820 30%$69,096 $79,458 $89,820 Fleet Manager Bremerton, City of $71,082 $78,844 $86,606 22%4%4%$73,925 $81,998 $90,070 no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of no comparable match reported Lacey, City of no comparable match reported Olympia, City of no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$75,042 $85,575 $96,049 Median:$75,183 $85,575 $96,108 Fleet Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $64,310 $78,342 $92,373 Private Sector Median:$64,310 $78,342 $92,373 Private Sector Median:$64,310 $78,342 $92,373 Unweighted Average:$69,676 $81,958 $94,211 Unweighted Average:$69,746 $81,958 $94,241 Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance:4.1%-2.0%-6.1%Current Base Variance:4.2%-2.0%-6.1% 1.04141693 0.97999 0.93875027 1.04246798 0.97999259 0.93904323 Proposed Base Range:$69,128 $80,883 $92,638 34% Range 12 Vehicle Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $101,400 $114,966 $128,532 27% Fleet Equip Manager Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $86,982 $104,948 $122,914 41% Fleet, Fac & Prop Mgmt Supervisor Shoreline - INFO ONLY $67,332 $74,622 $81,912 22% Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 116 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 18 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST $58,248 $66,162 $73,539 VACANT $5,332 $22,124 $85,703 $93,617 $100,994 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $91,636 $99,550 $106,927 range width Human Resources Analyst Bothell, City of $58,260 $66,162 $74,064 27%$58,260 $66,162 $74,064 Human Resources Analyst Kirkland, City of $58,248 $66,708 $75,168 29%$58,248 $66,708 $75,168 Human Resources Analyst Bremerton, City of $61,293 $67,987 $74,681 22%$61,293 $67,987 $74,681 Human Resources Analyst Lacey, City of $71,520 $71,520 $71,520 flat rate 1%1%$72,235 $72,235 $72,235 Human Resources Analyst Puyallup, City of $52,308 $60,156 $68,004 30%$52,308 $60,156 $68,004 Human Resources Analyst Lynnwood, City of $58,130 $65,834 $73,539 27%$58,130 $65,834 $73,539 Personnel Analyst Olympia, City of $54,552 $60,432 $66,312 22% $54,552 $60,432 $66,312 no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported Issaquah, City of no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$58,248 $66,162 $73,539 Median:$58,248 $66,162 $73,539 Current Edmonds Base Range:$48,574 $60,718 $72,861 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$48,574 $60,718 $72,861 Current Base Variance:19.9%9.0%0.9%Current Base Variance:19.9%9.0%0.9% 1.19916004 1.08967 1.00930539 1.19916 1.08967 1.00931 Proposed Base Range:$56,872 $65,836 $76,214 34% Range 8 Human Res Analyst King County - INFO ONLY $62,388 $70,734 $79,080 27%$5,128 $18,401 $94,263 Human Res Analyst Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 21%$4,350 $16,440 $80,791 no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 117 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 19 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER $81,883 $96,010 $110,269 $85,237 $7,994 $22,124 $112,001 $126,128 $140,387 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$116,089 $130,358 $144,759 NOTE: Most agencies have HR Directors & HR Analysts, but not HR Manager positions; the HR Director position range width was factored down when used in this survey comparison Data reduced -Human Resources Director Bothell, City of $99,641 $113,162 $126,684 27%$99,641 $113,162 $126,684 Human Resources Manager Bremerton, City of $78,461 $87,029 $95,597 22%4%4%$81,599 $90,510 $99,421 Data reduced -Human Resources Director Kirkland, City of $96,336 $110,322 $124,308 29%$96,336 $110,322 $124,308 Data reduced -Human Resources Director Puyallup, City of $89,370 $102,778 $116,186 30%$89,370 $102,778 $116,186 Data reduced -Human Resources Director Lynnwood, City of $92,308 $104,561 $116,813 26%$221.52 $221.52 $92,308 $104,561 $117,034 Human Resources Manager Issaquah, City of $88,536 $100,770 $113,004 28%5%5%$88,536 $100,770 $118,654 Data reduced -Human Resources Director Lacey, City of $101,056 $101,056 $101,056 flat rate 1%1%$102,066 $102,066 $102,066 Human Resources Manager Burien, City of $79,572 $88,152 $96,732 22%$79,572 $88,152 $96,732 HR Manager Puyallup, City of $63,264 $72,762 $82,260 30%$63,264 $72,762 $82,260 Manager, HR University Place, City of $64,296 $74,478 $84,660 32%$64,296 $74,478 $84,660 no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of no comparable match reported Olympia, City of Adm Svcs includes:no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of HR, City Clerks, Courts, Risk, Facilities Median:$88,953 $100,913 $107,030 Median:$88,953 $101,418 $109,126 HR Manager ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $74,395 $90,964 $107,533 Private Sector Median:$74,395 $90,964 $107,533 Private Sector Median:$74,395 $90,964 $107,533 Unweighted Average:$81,674 $95,938 $107,281 Unweighted Average:$81,674 $96,191 $108,330 Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance:-4.2%-10.0%-16.1%Current Base Variance:-4.2%-9.7%-15.3% (-) DATA ADJUSTED DOWN 10%0.95820 0.90044 0.83909 0.958199 0.902812 0.847285 Proposed Base Range:$80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34% Range 15 Human Resources Manager King County - INFO ONLY $79,092 $89,670 $100,248 27%` (+)Human Resources Director Shoreline - INFO ONLY $94,500 $104,733 $114,966 22% Human Resources Director Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $86,289 $104,109 $121,929 41% (+)Division Dir - HR Mgmt King County - INFO ONLY $109,119 $123,692 $138,266 27% no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 118 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 20 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR $105,990 $118,614 $128,322 $123,900 $9,303 $22,124 $137,417 $150,041 $159,749 2%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $141,498 $154,374 $164,277 range width Director Parks & Recreation Issaquah, City of $113,004 $128,610 $144,216 28%5%5%$113,004 $128,610 $151,427 Director Parks & Recreation Sammamish, City of $104,644 $128,797 $152,950 46%$104,644 $128,797 $152,950 Pks, Rec & Cultural Arts Dir Lynnwood, City of $114,297 $129,456 $144,615 27%$221.52 $221.52 $114,297 $129,456 $144,837 Parks & Comm Svcs Dir Kirkland, City of $107,040 $122,580 $138,120 29%$107,040 $122,580 $138,120 Parks & Rec Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096 Parks, Rec & Sr. Svc Dir Des Moines, City of $104,940 $116,244 $127,548 22%$104,940 $116,244 $127,548 Director Parks & Recreation Olympia, City of $118,500 $118,500 $118,500 flat rate $118,500 $118,500 $118,500 Parks & Recreation Director Lacey, City of $118,728 $118,728 $118,728 flat rate 2%2%$121,103 $121,103 $121,103 Director Parks & Recreation Bremerton, City of $100,437 $111,405 $122,372 22%4%4%$104,454 $115,861 $127,267 Parks & Recreation Director Burien, City of $97,236 $107,712 $118,188 22%$97,236 $107,712 $118,188 no comparable match reported University Place, City of no comparable match reported Bothell, City of Median:$105,990 $118,614 $128,322 Median:$105,990 $118,673 $128,322 Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance:2.3%-8.4%-17.4%Current Base Variance:2.3%-8.3%-17.4% 1.0233856 0.916221 0.82600803 1.0233856 0.91667913 0.82600803 Proposed Base Range:$102,133 $119,501 $136,869 34% Range 20 Pks, Rec & Cult Svc Dir Shoreline - INFO ONLY $115,908 $128,466 $141,024 22% Parks & Rec, Director Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $95,877 $115,677 $135,477 41% Rec & Parks Director Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $104,040 $113,220 $122,400 18% Dir., Nat'l Resources & Parks King County - INFO ONLY $133,266 $151,091 $168,917 27% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 119 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 21 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER $69,726 $79,053 $90,091 $89,709 $6,532 $22,124 $98,381 $107,708 $118,746 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$103,811 $113,232 $124,380 range width Parks Division Manager Issaquah, City of $80,292 $91,386 $102,480 28%5%5%$80,292 $91,386 $107,604 Parks Ops Manager Kirkland, City of $77,796 $89,094 $100,392 29%$77,796 $89,094 $100,392 Parks Maint Superintendent Lynnwood, City of $77,360 $87,622 $97,885 27%$221.52 $221.52 $77,360 $87,622 $98,107 Parks & Facilities Manager Puyallup, City of $69,096 $79,458 $89,820 30%$69,096 $79,458 $89,820 Maintenance Supervisor Bothell, City of $69,252 $78,648 $88,044 27%$69,252 $78,648 $88,044 PW & Pks Maint Superintendent Des Moines, City of $70,200 $77,772 $85,344 22%$70,200 $77,772 $85,344 Parks Project Manager Sammamish, City of $66,026 $78,194 $90,361 37%$66,026 $78,194 $90,361 Data Increased 20%(+)Parks Maintenance Supervisor Lacey, City of $73,052 $83,285 $93,517 28%1%1%$73,783 $84,117 $94,452 Parks Maint Manager Bremerton, City of $67,657 $75,045 $82,433 22%4%4%$70,363 $78,047 $85,730 Data Increased 20%(+)Supervisor, Park Maint University Place, City of $64,037 $72,562 $81,086 27%$64,037 $72,562 $81,086 Parks Dev & Ops Manager Burien, City of $67,296 $74,544 $81,792 22%$67,296 $74,544 $81,792 Associate Director LOB Olympia, City of $79,918 $88,521 $97,124 22%$79,918 $88,521 $97,124 Median:$69,726 $79,053 $90,091 Median:$70,282 $79,053 $90,091 Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance:4.2%-5.5%-10.2%Current Base Variance:5.0%-5.5%-10.2% 1.04216426 0.9453 0.89769127 1.05046917 0.94525388 0.89769127 Proposed Base Range:$69,128 $80,883 $92,638 34% Range 12 Parts Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $89,040 $100,956 $112,872 27% Parks Superintendent Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,878 $97,728 22% Parks & Facilities Superintendent Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $67,944 $76,434 $84,924 25% Park Ops Supervisor Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $51,546 $57,113 $62,679 22% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 120 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 22 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization PLANNING MANAGER $84,729 $96,179 $107,647 $111,981 $7,804 $22,124 $114,657 $126,107 $137,575 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $118,117 $129,567 $141,035 range width Deputy Director Community DevelopmentSammamish, City of $91,742 $108,649 $125,556 37%$91,742 $108,649 $125,556 Planning Manager Bothell, City of $84,372 $95,826 $107,280 27%$84,372 $95,826 $107,280 Deputy Planning Director Kirkland, City of $85,572 $97,998 $110,424 29%$85,572 $97,998 $110,424 Planning Manager Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997 Data Increased 20%+Project & Planning Supervisor Olympia, City of $84,191 $93,254 $102,318 22%$84,191 $93,254 $102,318 Planning Manager Lynnwood, City of $85,086 $96,382 $107,678 27%$221.52 $221.52 $85,086 $96,382 $107,900 no comparable match reported Lacey, City of no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of no comparable match reported Bremerton, City of no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported Puyallup, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$84,729 $96,179 $107,647 Median:$84,729 $96,179 $109,162 Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance:-0.6%-9.7%-15.8%Current Base Variance:-0.6%-9.7%-14.6% 0.99404015 $1 0.84194595 0.99404015 $1 0.85379344 Proposed Base Range:$84,025 $98,314 $112,602 Range 16 34% Real Est, Lnd Use & Env Plan SupervisorKing County - INFO ONLY $85,872 $97,362 $108,852 27% Ast Dir Plan & Dev Svc Shoreline - INFO ONLY $86,184 $95,526 $104,868 22% Principal Planner III Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $76,297 $84,444 $92,590 21% Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 121 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 23 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization POLICE CHIEF $116,475 $130,780 $141,914 $148,859 $10,289 $22,124 $148,887 $163,192 $174,326 2%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $152,193 $166,784 $178,140 range width Police Chief Olympia, City of $145,728 $145,728 $145,728 flat rate $145,728 $145,728 $145,728 Police Chief Bothell, City of $119,220 $135,396 $151,572 27%$119,220 $135,396 $151,572 Director, Police (Chief)Issaquah, City of $118,644 $135,030 $151,416 28%5%3.5%$123,997 $140,956 $165,486 Police Chief Bremerton, City of $116,475 $129,195 $141,914 22%4%4%$121,134 $134,362 $147,591 Police Chief Lynnwood, City of $115,905 $131,283 $146,661 27%$221.52 $221.52 $115,461 $130,780 $146,883 Chief of Police Kirkland, City of $112,104 $128,376 $144,648 29%$109,368 $125,244 $141,120 Police Chief Lacey, City of $142,404 $142,404 $142,404 0%2%2%$145,252 $145,252 $145,252 Chief of Police Des Moines, City of $109,128 $120,882 $132,636 22%$109,128 $120,882 $132,636 Chief of Police Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%4%4%$103,272 $118,766 $134,260 no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of Pierce County no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$116,475 $131,283 $144,648 Median:$119,220 $134,362 $145,728 Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance:12.5%1.4%-6.9%Current Base Variance:15.1%3.8%-6.2% 1.12462344 1.01408 0.93109841 1.15112776 1.03786714 93.81% Proposed Base Range:$112,602 $131,750 $150,898 34% Range 22 County Sheriff Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $121,061 $121,061 $121,061 0%$8,777 $16,440 $146,278 Police Chief Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $104,040 $113,220 $122,400 18%$8,208 $24,459 $145,887 Sheriff King County - INFO ONLY $170,144 $170,144 $170,144 0%$12,335 $18,401 $200,880 no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 122 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 24 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (propose title modification PW/UTILITIES Director)$110,040 $125,490 $134,600 $138,050 $9,759 $22,124 $141,922 $157,372 $166,482 2%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $145,629 $161,388 $170,680 range width Also a Dir PW Ops Dir, PW Engineering Issaquah, City of $118,644 $135,030 $151,416 28%5%5%$118,644 $135,030 $158,987 Director, Public Works Olympia, City of $134,124 $134,124 $134,124 flat rate $134,124 $134,124 $134,124 Public Works Director Bothell, City of $110,712 $125,736 $140,760 27%$110,712 $125,736 $140,760 Director Public Works Sammamish, City of $104,644 $128,797 $152,950 46%$104,644 $128,797 $152,950 Director, Public Works Kirkland, City of $109,368 $125,244 $141,120 29%$221.52 $221.52 $109,368 $125,244 $141,342 PW Dir/City Engineer Lynnwood, City of $113,859 $128,960 $144,061 27%$113,859 $128,960 $144,061 Public Works Director Lacey, City of $130,656 $130,656 $130,656 flat rate 2%2%$133,269 $133,269 $133,269 Dir of PW & Utilities Bremerton, City of $110,863 $122,970 $135,076 22%4%4%$115,298 $127,888 $140,479 Planning, Bldg & PW Dir Des Moines, City of $109,128 $120,882 $132,636 22%$109,128 $120,882 $132,636 Public Works Director Puyallup, City of $99,300 $114,198 $129,096 30%$99,300 $114,198 $129,096 no utilities - incr. 10%(-)Public Works Director University Place, City of $97,284 $113,223 $129,162 33%$97,284 $113,223 $129,162 Public Works Director Burien, City of $101,892 $112,872 $123,852 22%$101,892 $112,872 $123,852 no comparable match reported Lynnwood, City of Median:$110,040 $125,490 $134,600 Median:$110,040 $126,812 $137,302 Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance:6.2%-3.1%-13.4%Current Base Variance:6.2%-2.0%-11.6% 1.06249034 0.96933 0.86641949 1.06249034 0.97954689 0.88380916 Proposed Base Range:$107,240 $125,476 $143,712 34% Range 21 Public Works, Dir of Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $116,475 $140,532 $164,589 41%$10,189 $16,440 $167,161 Public Works Dir Shoreline - INFO ONLY $115,908 $128,466 $141,024 22%$9,314 $16,440 $154,220 Public Works Dir Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 23%$7,747 $24,459 $139,066 no comparable match reported King County - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 123 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 25 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization RECREATION MANAGER $68,900 $75,906 $84,025 $90,057 $6,092 $22,124 $97,115 $104,121 $112,241 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$102,977 $110,053 $118,254 range width Recreation Div Manager Issaquah, City of $80,292 $91,386 $102,480 28%5%5%$80,292 $91,386 $107,604 Recreation (and Park Planning) ManagerBothell, City of $76,440 $86,814 $97,188 27%$76,440 $86,814 $97,188 Recreation Superintendent Lynnwood, City of $77,360 $87,622 $97,885 26%$221.52 $221.52 $77,360 $87,622 $98,107 Recreation Manager Kirkland, City of $71,040 $81,348 $91,656 29%$71,040 $81,348 $91,656 Recreation Manager Puyallup, City of $63,264 $72,762 $82,260 30%$63,264 $72,762 $82,260 Senior Services Recreation Manager Des Moines, City of $67,500 $74,772 $82,044 22%$67,500 $74,772 $82,044 Manager, Recreation University Place, City of $64,296 $74,478 $84,660 32%$64,296 $74,478 $84,660 Athletics/Rec Manager Bremerton, City of $67,657 $75,045 $82,433 22%4%4%$70,363 $78,047 $85,730 Recreation Manager Burien, City of $67,296 $74,544 $81,792 22%$67,296 $74,544 $81,792 Data Increased 20%(+)Recreation Supervisor II Lacey, City of $70,142 $76,766 $83,390 19%1%1%$70,844 $77,534 $84,224 no comparable match reported Olympia, City of no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of Median:$68,900 $75,906 $84,025 Median:$70,604 $77,790 $85,195 Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance:3.0%-9.2%-16.3%Current Base Variance:5.5%-7.0%-15.1% 1.02981392 0.907621 0.83725463 1.05528065 0.93015708 0.84891249 Proposed Base Range:$69,128 $80,883 $92,638 34% Range 12 Recreation Progs Manager King County - INFO ONLY $89,040 $100,956 $112,872 27% Recreation Superintendent Shoreline - INFO ONLY $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22% Data Increased 20%(-)Recreation Supervisor Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $74,707 $84,139 $93,571 25% Level not a match Snohomish County - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 124 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 26 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization SENIOR HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST UNFILLED $67,002 $76,488 $85,974 VACANT $6,233 $22,124 $95,359 $104,845 $114,331 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $100,390 $109,876 $119,362 range width HR Analyst, Senior Issaquah, City of $68,004 $77,400 $86,796 27%5%5%$68,004 $77,400 $91,136 Personnel Analyst, Sr Olympia, City of $72,108 $79,878 $87,648 22%$72,108 $79,878 $87,648 Senior HR Analyst Kirkland, City of $66,000 $75,576 $85,152 25%$66,000 $75,576 $85,152 HR Analyst, Senior Bothell, City of $60,504 $68,712 $76,920 26%$60,504 $68,712 $76,920 no comparable match Bremerton, City of --- no comparable match Burien, City of --- no comparable match Des Moines, City of --- no comparable match Lacey, City of --- no comparable match Lynnwood, City of --- no comparable match Puyallup, City of --- no comparable match Sammamish, City of --- no comparable match University Place, City of --- Median:$67,002 $76,488 $85,974 Median:$67,002 $76,488 $86,400 Current Edmonds Base Range:___50%Current Edmonds Base Range:___ Current Base Variance:___Current Base Variance:___ Private Sector Median:$67,146 $75,315 $83,484 Unweighted Average:$65,734 $76,365 $86,963 Current Edmonds Base Range:___ Proposed Base Range:$62,106 $73,066 $84,025 34% Range 10 HR Analyst Senior King County - FOR INFO ONLY $70,236 $79,638 $89,040 27% Sr HR Analyst Shoreline - FOR INFO ONLY $64,056 $70,992 $77,928 21% no comparable match Snohomish County - FOR INFO ONLY --- no comparable match Mountlake Terrace - FOR INFO ONLY --- PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 125 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 27 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization SENIOR PLANNER unfilled $63,678 $72,180 $80,610 VACANT $5,844 $22,124 $91,646 $100,147 $108,578 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $97,066 $105,568 $113,998 range width Planner, Senior Issaquah, City of $69,360 $78,948 $88,536 28%5%5%$69,360 $78,948 $92,963 Senior Planner Kirkland, City of $72,936 $79,374 $85,812 17%$72,936 $79,374 $85,812 Planner, Senior Bothell, City of $64,212 $72,930 $81,648 27%$64,212 $72,930 $81,648 Senior Planner Des Moines, City of $67,500 $74,772 $82,044 22%$67,500 $74,772 $82,044 Senior Planner University Place, City of $64,296 $74,478 $84,660 32%$64,296 $74,478 $84,660 Senior Planner Puyallup, City of $61,212 $70,392 $79,572 30%$61,212 $70,392 $79,572 Senior Planner Sammamish, City of $61,822 $73,215 $84,608 37%$61,822 $73,215 $84,608 Senior Planner Bremerton, City of $64,397 $71,429 $78,461 22%$64,397 $71,429 $78,461 Planner, Senior Olympia, City of $62,364 $69,090 $75,816 21%$62,364 $69,090 $75,816 Senior Planner Lynnwood, City of $61,235 $69,358 $77,480 27%$221.52 $221.52 $61,235 $69,358 $77,702 Senior Planner Burien, City of $63,144 $69,948 $76,752 21%$63,144 $69,948 $76,752 Senior Planner Lacey, City of $62,928 $68,880 $74,832 19%$62,928 $68,880 $74,832 Median:$63,678 $72,180 $80,610 Median:$63,678 $72,180 $80,610 Urban Planner (Advanced)ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $67,789 $80,550 $93,310 Private Sector Median:$67,789 $80,550 $93,310 Private Sector Median:$67,789 $80,550 $93,310 Unweighted Average:$65,734 $76,365 $86,963 Unweighted Average:$65,734 $76,365 $86,960 Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance:-1.8%-8.7%-13.3%Current Base Variance:-1.8%-8.7%-13.4% 0.9824901 0.91311 0.86652783 0.9824901 0.9131069 0.86649794 Proposed Base Range:$65,836 $77,031 $88,227 34% Range 11 Transp or WQ Planner III King County - INFO ONLY $71,928 $81,552 $91,176 27% Senior Planner Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $65,964 $74,208 $82,452 25% Senior Planner Shoreline - INFO ONLY $65,640 $72,762 $79,884 22% Senior Planner Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 21% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 126 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 28 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER $83,016 $91,435 $100,824 $85,000 $7,310 $22,124 $112,449 $120,868 $130,257 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $116,404 $124,823 $134,212 range width Supervising Engineer Bothell, City of $84,372 $95,826 $107,280 27%$84,372 $95,826 $107,280 Engineer, Senior Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997 Civil Engineer, Sr.Puyallup, City of $77,568 $89,196 $100,824 30%$77,568 $89,196 $100,824 Managing Engineer Bremerton, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%$82,433 $91,435 $100,437 Sr. Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $75,311 $89,190 $103,068 37%$75,311 $89,190 $103,068 Sr. Engineer - Utilities Lacey, City of $94,140 $94,140 $94,140 flat rate $94,140 $94,140 $94,140 Sr. Project Engineer Kirkland, City of $83,016 $90,342 $97,668 17%$83,016 $90,342 $97,668 no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of no comparable match reported Lynnwood, City of no comparable match reported Olympia, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$83,016 $91,435 $100,824 Median:$83,016 $91,435 $100,824 Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance:24.08%9.33%0.46%Current Base Variance:24.1%9.3%0.5% 1.24080413 1.09331 1.00464338 1.24080413 1.09330814 100.46% Proposed Base Range:$76,214 $89,174 $102,133 34% Range 14 Engineer III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 27% Engineer IV Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 22% no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 127 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 29 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization STORMWATER ENGINEER $75,114 $85,857 $95,022 $99,548 $6,889 $22,124 $104,127 $114,870 $124,035 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $108,502 $119,245 $128,410 range width Engineer, Senior Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997 Sr. Stormwater Prog Engineer Sammamish, City of $80,432 $95,254 $110,076 37%$80,432 $95,254 $110,076 Civil Engineer, Senior Puyallup, City of $77,568 $89,196 $100,824 30%$77,568 $89,196 $100,824 Civil Engineer, Senior Bothell, City of $72,660 $82,518 $92,376 27%$72,660 $82,518 $92,376 Surface Water Systems Engineer Kirkland, City of $66,240 $72,090 $77,940 18%$66,240 $72,090 $77,940 Project Engineer II Olympia, City of $66,252 $73,392 $80,532 22%$66,252 $73,392 $80,532 Civil Engineer II Burien, City of $70,644 $78,252 $85,860 21%$70,644 $78,252 $85,860 Sr. Surface Water Engineer Lynnwood, City of $83,016 $90,342 $97,668 18%$83,016 $90,342 $97,668 no comparable match reported Bremerton, City of no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of no comparable match reported Lacey, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$75,114 $85,857 $95,022 Median:$75,114 $85,857 $95,022 Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance:12.3%2.7%-5.3%Current Base Variance:12.3%2.7%-5.3% 1.12269636 1.02661 0.94683035 1.12269636 1.02661079 94.68% Proposed Base Range:$72,584 $84,927 $97,270 34% Range 13 Engineer III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 27% Engineer IV Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 22% no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 128 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 30 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization STREET/STORMWATER MANAGER $69,270 $79,416 $90,279 $81,214 $6,545 $22,124 $97,938 $108,084 $118,947 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$103,350 $113,598 $124,569 range width Water Resource Manager Lacey, City of $107,400 $107,400 $107,400 flat rate 1%1%$108,474 $108,474 $108,474 Data Increased 20%(+)PW Supervisor II Puyallup, City of $82,915 $95,350 $107,784 30%$82,915 $95,350 $107,784 PW Superintendent Bothell, City of $82,320 $93,492 $104,664 27%$82,320 $93,492 $104,664 Data Increased 20%(+)Streets Maint Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $84,065 $95,222 $106,380 27%$221.52 $221.52 $84,065 $95,222 $106,601 Water Resource Manager Bremerton, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%4%4%$85,730 $95,092 $104,454 Street Division Manager Kirkland, City of $78,384 $89,766 $101,148 29%$78,384 $89,766 $101,148 PW Operations Manager Issaquah, City of $76,476 $87,048 $97,620 28%5%5%$76,476 $87,048 $102,501 PW Infas Ops & Maint Manager Sammamish, City of $70,516 $83,511 $96,505 37%$70,516 $83,511 $96,505 Streets/Storm Wat Maint Manager Burien, City of $72,096 $79,860 $87,624 22%$72,096 $79,860 $87,624 no comparable match reported Des Moines, City of no comparable match reported Olympia, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$82,320 $91,435 $101,148 Median:$82,320 $93,492 $104,454 Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance:8.2%-3.8%-11.4%Current Base Variance:8.2%-1.7%-8.5% 1.08214694 0.9616 0.88643116 1.08214694 0.9832 0.91540817 Proposed Base Range:$80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34% Range 15 Road Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $100,260 $113,670 $127,080 27% Roads Maint Ops Manager Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $78,919 $95,219 $111,518 41% Storm Water Prog Manager Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $71,412 $80,346 $89,280 25% Data Increased 20%(-)PW Maint Spv Shoreline - INFO ONLY $84,859 $94,054 $103,248 22% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 129 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 31 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $75,012 $85,854 $96,600 $82,380 $7,004 $22,124 $104,139 $114,981 $125,727 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $108,400 $119,242 $129,988 range width Engineer, Traffic Issaquah, City of $84,336 $95,976 $107,616 28%5%5%$84,336 $95,976 $112,997 Assoc Transp Engineer Des Moines, City of $86,064 $95,340 $104,616 22%$86,064 $95,340 $104,616 Traffic Engineer Puyallup, City of $77,568 $89,196 $100,824 30%$77,568 $89,196 $100,824 Sr. Project Engineer Sammamish, City of $75,311 $89,190 $103,068 37%$75,311 $89,190 $103,068 Transportation Engineer Bothell, City of $72,660 $82,518 $92,376 27%$72,660 $82,518 $92,376 Transportation Engineer Kirkland, City of $74,712 $81,306 $87,900 18%$74,712 $81,306 $87,900 Project Manager - Traffic EngineeringLynnwood, City of $62,244 $70,500 $78,756 26%$221.52 $221.52 $62,244 $70,500 $78,978 Transportation Mgr Lacey, City of $68,880 $78,528 $88,176 29%$68,880 $78,528 $88,176 no comparable match reported Bremerton, City of no comparable match reported Olympia, City of no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$75,012 $85,854 $96,600 Median:$75,012 $85,854 $96,600 Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance:-1.4%-9.7%-15.3%Current Base Variance:-1.4%-9.7%-15.3% 0.98607222 0.90288 0.84657383 0.98607222 0.90287783 84.66% Proposed Base Range:$72,584 $84,927 $97,270 34% Range 13 Ast Rds Maint Manager & Traffic EngKing County - INFO ONLY $93,372 $105,864 $118,356 27% Traffic Engineer Shoreline - INFO ONLY $88,308 $97,884 $107,460 22% Traffic Engineer Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $75,221 $83,345 $91,468 22% no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 130 of 214 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 32 of 32 MIN MID MAX Retiree (7.25% PERS) Health Insurance* (family of four) MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Allowance Market Retiree Market Health Insurance MIN MID MAX Edmonds Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits & Total Cash Compensation TOTAL Additional Cash Compensation (Comparator Cities) TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes medical and cash compensation from comparator cities) ANNUAL Edmonds Current Actual Pay Edmonds Job Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization WATER/SEWER MANAGER $82,377 $92,464 $100,415 $98,944 $7,280 $22,124 $111,780 $121,867 $129,818 1%$8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1%$116,588 $126,776 $134,807 range width Data Increased 20%(+)PW Supervisor II Puyallup, City of $82,915 $95,350 $107,784 30%$82,915 $95,350 $107,784 PW Superintendent Bothell, City of $82,320 $93,492 $104,664 27%$82,320 $93,492 $104,664 Data Increased 20%(+)Util Maint Supervisor Lynnwood, City of $84,065 $95,229 $106,392 27%$221.52 $221.52 $84,065 $95,229 $106,614 Water Resource Manager Bremerton, City of $82,433 $91,435 $100,437 22%4%4%$85,730 $95,092 $104,454 PW Operations Manager Issaquah, City of $76,476 $87,048 $97,620 28%5%5%$76,476 $87,048 $102,501 W/WW Maint Supervisor Lacey, City of $93,876 $93,876 $93,876 flat rate 1%1%$94,815 $94,815 $94,815 Stormwater/sewer Div Mgr Kirkland, City of $77,796 $89,094 $100,392 29%$77,796 $89,094 $100,392 Supervisor IV Olympia, City of $74,039 $82,031 $90,023 22%$74,039 $82,031 $90,023 no comparable match reported Sammamish, City of no comparable match reported Burien, City of no comparable match reported University Place, City of Median:$82,377 $92,464 $100,415 Median:$82,618 $94,153 $103,478 Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50%Current Edmonds Base Range:$76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance:8.3%-2.8%-12.0%Current Base Variance:8.6%-1.0%-9.3% 1.08288967 0.97239 0.88000298 1.08605908 0.99016059 90.68% Proposed Base Range:$80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34% Range 15 Road Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $100,260 $113,670 $127,080 27% Data Increased 20%(-)PW Maint Supervisor Shoreline - INFO ONLY $84,859 $94,054 $103,248 22% no comparable match reported Snohomish County - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 Packet Page 131 of 214 City of Edmonds Prevailing Benefits Practices Comparison Page 1 of 57 Benefit Offering Less than Average Average Better than Average Medical Premium % Paid by ER Employee Only  Employee plus Family  Dental Premium % Paid by ER Employee Only  Employee plus Family  Vision Premium % Paid by ER Employee Only  Employee plus Family  Employee Life  Spouse Life Children's Life AD&D Premium % Paid by ER Employee AD&D Spouse AD&D Child/Children AD&D Disability STD LTD Pension Retirement General  Police  Wage Replacement Benefits Vacation  Sick  Admin or Management Leave  Comp Time  Holiday  Fringe Benefits Vehicle Allowance Take Home Vehicle Management Leave Deferred Comp  Transportation (Transit, parking) Life Insurance Premium % Paid by ER Not widely offered Not widely offered   PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 132 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 2 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Plan Option 1 Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only Regence $651.95 $586.77 90%$65.18 10% Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse Regence $1,291.40 $1,162.28 90%$129.14 10% Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & One Child Regence $944.05 $849.66 90%$94.38 10% Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence $1,842.65 $1,658.41 90%$184.26 10% Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only Regence HealthFirst $617.87 $617.87 100%$0.00 0% Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse Regence HealthFirst $1,239.98 $1,115.56 90%$124.42 10% Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children Regence HealthFirst $1,174.82 $1,063.43 91%$111.39 9% Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HealthFirst $1,796.94 $1,561.12 87%$235.81 13% Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $902.38 $857.64 95%$44.74 5% Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $908.35 $863.02 95%$45.33 5% Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $1,355.72 $1,265.65 93%$90.07 7% Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 1 Employee Only KPS Plan B $559.13 $559.13 100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 2 Employee & Spouse KPS Plan B $1,185.46 $1,122.83 95%$62.63 5% Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 3 Employee & Children KPS Plan B $1,065.78 $1,015.12 95%$50.67 5% Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family KPS Plan B $1,692.11 $1,578.81 93%$113.30 7% Burien 1 Employee Only Group Health, $10 Co-pay $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0% Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health, $10 Co-pay $902.38 $857.64 90%$44.74 10% Burien 3 Employee & Children Group Health, $10 Co-pay $908.35 $863.01 90%$45.34 10% Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health, $10 Co-pay $1,355.72 $1,265.67 90%$90.08 10% Des Moines 1 Employee Only POS Medical $493.43 $493.43 100%$0.00 0% Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse POS Medical $986.85 $937.51 95%$49.34 5% Des Moines 3 Employee & Children POS Medical $993.18 $943.20 95%$49.98 5% Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family POS Medical $1,486.60 $1,387.28 93%$99.32 7% Des Moines 1 Employee Only Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $3,100.00 $2,250.00 73%$850.00 27% Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $6,250.00 $4,500.00 72%$1,750.00 28% Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $6,250.00 $4,500.00 72%$1,750.00 28% Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $6,250.00 $4,500.00 72%$1,750.00 28% nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 133 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 3 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Plan Option 1 Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only Regence PPO $617.88 $617.88 100%$0.00 0% Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Regence PPO $1,240.00 $1,177.79 95%$62.21 5% Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children Regence PPO $1,174.84 $1,119.14 95%$55.70 5% Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence PPO $1,796.96 $1,679.05 93%$117.91 7% Issaquah - Exempt Employees Annual contribution to Health Retirement Account $1,550.00 100% King County 1 Employee Only Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $639.27 $639.27 100%$0.00 0% King County 2 Employee & Spouse Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $1,242.39 $1,242.39 100%$0.00 0% King County 3 Employee & Children Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $1,121.76 $1,121.76 100%$0.00 0% King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $1,324.88 $1,324.88 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 1 Employee Only Kirkland PRIME $610.61 $610.61 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Kirkland PRIME $1,234.49 $1,234.49 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 2 Employee, Spouse, 1 dep Kirkland PRIME $1,489.71 $1,489.71 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 2 Employee & 1 dep Kirkland PRIME $922.55 $922.55 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Kirkland PRIME $1,234.49 $1,234.49 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Kirkland PRIME $1,830.00 $1,830.00 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only Regence HealthFirst $630.48 $630.48 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Regence HealthFirst $1,265.29 $1,265.29 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Regence HealthFirst $1,198.80 $1,198.80 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HealthFirst $1,833.61 $1,833.61 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only Regence/Willamette/Vision $712.83 $712.83 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Regence/Willamette/Vision $1,401.19 $1,332.35 95%$68.84 5% Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Regence/Willamette/Vision $1,403.40 $1,334.34 95%$69.06 5% Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence/Willamette/Vision $2,038.21 $1,905.67 93%$134.54 7% Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Regence HealthFirst $630.48 $630.48 100%$0.00 0% Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Regence HealthFirst $1,265.29 $1,170.07 92%$95.22 8% Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Regence HealthFirst $1,198.80 $1,113.56 93%$85.24 7% Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HealthFirst $1,833.61 $1,653.15 90%$180.46 10% Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only AWC HealthFirst $630.48 $630.48 100%$1.89 0% Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse AWC HealthFirst $1,265.29 $1,138.33 90%$130.16 10% Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children AWC HealthFirst $1,198.80 $1,085.14 91%$117.34 10% Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family AWC HealthFirst $1,833.61 $1,592.98 87%$244.31 13% nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 134 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 4 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Plan Option 1 Olympia 1 Employee Only AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO)$630.48 $630.48 100%$0.00 0% Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO)$1,265.29 $1,170.07 92%$95.22 8% Olympia 3 Employee & Children AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO)$1,198.80 $1,113.55 93%$85.25 7% Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO)$1,833.61 $1,653.14 90%$180.47 10% Puyallup 1 Employee Only City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $602.00 $602.00 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $1,201.00 $1,201.00 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 3 Employee & Children City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $1,761.00 $1,761.00 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $1,129.00 $1,129.00 100%$0.00 0% Sammamish 1 Employee Only Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A nr*nr*100%$0.00 0% Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A nr*nr*90%nr*10% Sammamish 3 Employee & Children Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A nr*nr*90%nr*10% Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A 1796.93 1702.61 95%94.32 5% Shoreline 1 Employee Only Regence Blue Shield PPO $568.00 $568.00 100%$0.00 0% Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse Regence Blue Shield PPO $571.90 $571.90 100%$0.00 0% Shoreline 3 Employee & Children Regence Blue Shield PPO $852.10 $852.10 100%$0.00 0% Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence Blue Shield PPO $1,083.90 $1,083.90 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 1 Employee Only Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 3 Employee & Children Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 1 Employee Only Group Health #6177 $970.59 $939.59 97%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health #6177 $1,077.59 $939.59 87%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 3 Employee & Children Group Health #6177 $1,058.59 $939.59 89%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health #6177 $1,124.59 $939.59 84%$0.00 0% nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 135 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 5 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Plan Option 1 Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 1 Employee Only Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 3 Employee & Children Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100%$0.00 0% University Place 1 Employee Only HealthFirst nr*nr*100%$0.00 0% University Place 2 Employee & Spouse HealthFirst nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* University Place 3 Employee & Children HealthFirst nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family HealthFirst nr*$1,733.50 $94.32 nr* nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 136 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 6 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & One Child Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 1 Employee Only Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 3 Employee & Children Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Burien 1 Employee Only Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Burien 3 Employee & Children Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family Des Moines 1 Employee Only Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Des Moines 1 Employee Only Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 2 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Group Health $499.32 $449.40 90%$49.92 10% Group Health $989.51 $890.57 90%$98.94 10% Group Health $747.66 $672.90 90%$74.76 10% Group Health $1,486.19 $1,337.57 90%$148.62 10% GH $10 co-pay Plan $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0% GH $10 co-pay Plan $902.38 $812.91 100%$89.47 10% GH $10 co-pay Plan $908.35 $817.69 100%$90.66 10% GH $10 co-pay Plan $1,355.72 $1,175.58 100%$180.14 13% KPS Plan B nr*nr*100%$0.00 0% KPS Plan B nr*nr*90%nr*10% KPS Plan B nr*nr*90%nr*10% KPS Plan B nr*nr*90%nr*10% No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $565.00 $565.00 100%$0.00 0% Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $1,134.30 $1,077.37 95%$56.93 5% Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $1,074.58 $1,023.62 95%$107.89 10% Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $1,643.88 $1,535.99 93%$107.89 7% HSA Medical $346.40 $346.40 100%$0.00 0% HSA Medical $692.80 $658.16 95%$34.64 5% HSA Medical $697.24 $662.16 95%$35.08 5% HSA Medical $1,043.65 $973.92 93%$69.73 7% Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $550.00 Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $1,100.00 Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $1,100.00 Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $1,100.00 nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 137 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 7 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Issaquah - Exempt Employees King County 1 Employee Only King County 2 Employee & Spouse King County 3 Employee & Children King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Kirkland 1 Employee Only Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Kirkland 2 Employee, Spouse, 1 dep Kirkland 2 Employee & 1 dep Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 2 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Group Health - $10 co-Pay $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0% Group Health - $10 co-Pay $902.38 $902.38 100%$0.00 0% Group Health - $10 co-Pay $908.35 $908.35 100%$0.00 0% Group Health - $10 co-Pay $1,355.72 $1,355.72 100%$0.00 0% KingCare Silver $603.09 $603.09 100%$0.00 0% KingCare Silver $1,170.02 $1,170.02 100%$0.00 0% KingCare Silver $1,056.63 $1,056.63 100%$0.00 0% KingCare Silver $1,523.56 $1,523.56 100%$0.00 0% Group Health $489.95 $489.95 100%$0.00 0% Group Health $936.46 $936.46 100%$0.00 0% Group Health $1,162.59 $1,162.59 100%$0.00 0% Group Health $716.08 $716.08 100%$0.00 0% Group Health $942.21 $942.21 100%$0.00 0% Group Health $1,388.72 $1,388.72 100%$0.00 0% Group Health Premiums $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0% Group Health Premiums $902.38 $902.38 100%$0.00 0% Group Health Premiums $908.35 $908.35 100%$0.00 0% Group Health Premiums $1,355.72 $1,355.72 100%$0.00 0% Regenc/WDS/Vision $702.12 $702.12 100%$0.00 0% Regenc/WDS/Vision $1,382.23 $1,314.22 95%$68.01 5% Regenc/WDS/Vision $1,371.44 $1,304.51 95%$66.93 5% Regenc/WDS/Vision $2,006.25 $1,875.84 93%$130.41 7% Group Health $10 Copay Plan $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0% Group Health $10 Copay Plan $842.38 $835.28 99%$7.10 1% Group Health $10 Copay Plan $908.35 $840.35 93%$68.00 7% Group Health $10 Copay Plan $1,355.72 $1,220.62 90%$135.10 10% Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co-pay $10)$455.01 $455.01 100%$1.89 0% Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co-pay $10)$902.38 $812.91 90%$92.67 10% Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co-pay $10)$908.35 $817.68 90%$94.35 10% Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co-pay $10)$1,355.72 $1,175.58 87%$183.82 14% nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 138 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 8 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Olympia 1 Employee Only Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse Olympia 3 Employee & Children Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family Puyallup 1 Employee Only Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse Puyallup 3 Employee & Children Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family Sammamish 1 Employee Only Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse Sammamish 3 Employee & Children Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family Shoreline 1 Employee Only Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse Shoreline 3 Employee & Children Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 1 Employee Only Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 2 Employee & Spouse Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 3 Employee & Children Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 4 Other: Employee plus Family Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 1 Employee Only Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 2 Employee & Spouse Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 3 Employee & Children Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 2 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Group Health Cooperative $10 Co-pay Plan 2 $455.01 $455.01 100%$0.00 0% Group Health Cooperative $10 Co-pay Plan 2 $902.38 $835.27 93%$67.11 7% Group Health Cooperative $10 Co-pay Plan 2 $908.35 $840.35 93%$68.00 7% Group Health Cooperative $10 Co-pay Plan 2 $1,355.72 $1,220.61 90%$135.11 10% No additional plans offered. No additional plans offered. No additional plans offered. No additional plans offered. Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*100%nr*0% Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*90%nr*10% Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*90%nr*10% Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*90%nr*10% Group Health Co Pay Plan 2 $423.92 $423.92 100%$0.00 0% Group Health Co Pay Plan 2 $840.20 $840.20 100%$0.00 0% Group Health Co Pay Plan 2 $1,051.13 $1,051.13 100%$0.00 0% Group Health Co Pay Plan 2 $1,262.06 $1,262.06 100%$0.00 0% PPO #1008695 $1,124.13 $1,059.13 94%$65.00 6% PPO #1008695 $1,276.13 $1,059.13 83%$217.00 17% PPO #1008695 $1,168.13 $1,059.13 91%$109.00 9% PPO #1008695 $1,321.13 $1,059.13 80%$262.00 20% Regence PPO (Traditional)$969.59 $939.59 97%$30.00 3% Regence PPO (Traditional)$1,073.59 $939.59 88%$134.00 12% Regence PPO (Traditional)$1,054.59 $939.59 89%$115.00 11% Regence PPO (Traditional)$1,119.59 $939.59 84%$180.00 16% nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 139 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 9 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 1 Employee Only Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 2 Employee & Spouse Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 3 Employee & Children Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 4 Other: Employee plus Family University Place 1 Employee Only University Place 2 Employee & Spouse University Place 3 Employee & Children University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 2 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. PPO #1008695 $1,124.13 $1,059.13 94%$65.00 6% PPO #1008695 $1,276.13 $1,059.13 83%$217.00 17% PPO #1008695 $1,168.13 $1,059.13 91%$109.00 9% PPO #1008695 $1,321.13 $1,059.13 80%$262.00 20% Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Group Health Cooperative nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 140 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 10 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & One Child Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 1 Employee Only Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 3 Employee & Children Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Burien 1 Employee Only Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Burien 3 Employee & Children Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family Des Moines 1 Employee Only Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Des Moines 1 Employee Only Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 3 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered Regence HDHP $329.93 $329.93 100%$0.00 0% Regence HDHP $663.50 $596.78 90%$66.71 10% Regence HDHP $631.41 $571.12 90%$60.30 10% Regence HDHP $964.99 $837.97 87%$127.01 13% No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered AWC RBS HDHP $329.93 $329.93 100%$0.00 0% AWC RBS HDHP $663.50 $630.14 95%$33.36 5% AWC RBS HDHP $631.42 $601.27 95%$30.15 5% AWC RBS HDHP $964.99 $901.48 93%$63.51 7% No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 141 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 11 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Issaquah - Exempt Employees King County 1 Employee Only King County 2 Employee & Spouse King County 3 Employee & Children King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Kirkland 1 Employee Only Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Kirkland 2 Employee, Spouse, 1 dep Kirkland 2 Employee & 1 dep Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 3 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered KingCare Bronze $572.93 $572.93 100%$0.00 0% KingCare Bronze $1,109.71 $1,109.71 100%$0.00 0% KingCare Bronze $1,002.35 $1,002.35 100%$0.00 0% KingCare Bronze $1,539.13 $1,539.13 100%$0.00 0% #DIV/0!##### #DIV/0!##### #DIV/0!##### #DIV/0!##### #DIV/0!##### #DIV/0!##### No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!##### No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!##### No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!##### No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!##### Group Health/WDS/Vision $526.65 $526.65 100%$0.00 0% Group Health/WDS/Vision $1,019.32 $970.05 95%$49.27 5% Group Health/WDS/Vision $1,080.99 $1,025.57 95%$55.42 5% Group Health/WDS/Vision $1,528.36 $1,428.20 93%$100.16 7% No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!##### No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!##### No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!##### No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!##### No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 142 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 12 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Olympia 1 Employee Only Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse Olympia 3 Employee & Children Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family Puyallup 1 Employee Only Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse Puyallup 3 Employee & Children Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family Sammamish 1 Employee Only Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse Sammamish 3 Employee & Children Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family Shoreline 1 Employee Only Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse Shoreline 3 Employee & Children Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 1 Employee Only Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 2 Employee & Spouse Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 3 Employee & Children Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and Elected 4 Other: Employee plus Family Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 1 Employee Only Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 2 Employee & Spouse Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 3 Employee & Children Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 3 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No additional plans offered. No additional plans offered. No additional plans offered. No additional plans offered. No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered #DIV/0!##### #DIV/0!##### #DIV/0!##### #DIV/0!##### SC Select #10008695 $1,105.13 $1,059.13 96%$46.00 4% SC Select #10008695 $1,237.13 $1,059.13 86%$178.00 14% SC Select #10008695 $1,138.13 $1,059.13 93%$79.00 7% SC Select #10008695 $1,269.13 $1,059.13 83%$210.00 17% SC Select #10008695 $939.59 $939.59 100%$0.00 0% SC Select #10008695 $1,014.59 $939.59 93%$75.00 7% SC Select #10008695 $1,004.59 $939.59 94%$65.00 6% SC Select #10008695 $1,039.59 $939.59 90%$100.00 10% nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 143 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 13 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 1 Employee Only Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 2 Employee & Spouse Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 3 Employee & Children Snohomish County - Clerk's Association 4 Other: Employee plus Family University Place 1 Employee Only University Place 2 Employee & Spouse University Place 3 Employee & Children University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 3 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. SC Select #10008695 $1,105.13 $1,059.13 96%$46.00 4% SC Select #10008695 $1,237.13 $1,059.13 86%$178.00 14% SC Select #10008695 $1,138.13 $1,059.13 93%$79.00 7% SC Select #10008695 $1,269.13 $1,059.13 83%$210.00 17% No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 144 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Ins Notes Page 14 of 57 Employer Comments Bothell, City of Employee contributions vary by bargaining unit. City pays 100% of the employee's premium and a percentage of the additional premium for spouse, first dependent, and second dependent. Bremerton, City of Employee pays 10% of dependent premium Burien, City of Both medical plans sponsored by Association of Washington Cities Benefit Trust Burien, City of Employer pays 100% of the employee's premium and 90% of the dependents premium. Issaquah, City of Employer pays 100% of the employee's medical premium and 90% of the premiums for spouse, dependents, and/or domestic partner. Kirkland, City of Medical premiums include a $43.45 per month "Program Fee" previously included in premium rate but now shown as a separate fee. Lacey, City of Management Exempt I benefits are an allowance of $1906.52. ME II Premium amounts paid by City for Dental and Vision are included in the premiums listed on the Medical Insurance tab. City pays 100% of employee and 90% of dependents. Shoreline, City of Benefit Allowance - The City allocates to each full-time regular employee $865 (Tier I) per month to buy benefits. If the employee does not use the entire $865, the remaining amount goes into a deferred compensation plan. If the cost is greater than $865, the employee moves to Tier II, and is able to receive an additional contribution from the City of up to a total of $1,370. The employee pays the costs that exceed $1,370. University Place, City of Employer pays 100% of the employee's medical premium and 75% of the dependents' medical premium. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 145 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Page 15 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 1 Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $56.33 $50.70 90%$5.64 10% Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $107.19 $96.47 90%$10.72 10% Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & Children Level not offered Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $186.47 $167.84 90%$18.66 10% Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$53.18 $53.18 100%$0.00 0% Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$101.53 $91.86 90%$0.00 0% Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$188.52 $130.54 69%$0.00 0% Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5)$188.52 $161.45 86%$0.00 0% Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service $50.89 $0.00 0%$50.89 100% Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service $96.19 $0.00 0%$96.19 100% Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service $151.89 $0.00 0%$151.89 100% Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service $151.89 $0.00 0%$151.89 100% Burien 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay 100%$45.16 $45.16 100%$0.00 0% Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay 100%$83.90 $83.90 100%$0.00 0% Burien 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay 100%$139.37 $139.37 100%$0.00 0% Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay 100%$139.37 $139.37 100%$0.00 0% Des Moines 1 Employee Only Dental $62.49 $62.49 100%$0.00 0% Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Dental $118.56 $118.56 100%$0.00 0% Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Dental $207.33 $207.33 100%$0.00 0% Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Dental $207.33 $207.33 100%$0.00 0% Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service (Plan F)$50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0% Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service (Plan F)$96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0% Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service (Plan F)$151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0% Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service (Plan F)$151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0% King County 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service $68.48 $68.48 100%$0.00 0% King County 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service $129.96 $129.96 100%$0.00 0% King County 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service $117.66 $117.66 100%$0.00 0% King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service $179.14 $179.14 100%$0.00 0% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 146 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Page 16 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 1 Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Kirkland 1 Employee Only Washington Dental $58.71 $58.71 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental $110.84 $110.84 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental $175.08 $175.08 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental $175.08 $175.08 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 1 Employee Only Teamsters (available to Teamsters only)$127.79 $127.79 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Teamsters (available to Teamsters only)$127.79 $127.79 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Washington Dental $50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0% Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental $96.19 $89.39 85%$6.80 15% Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental $151.89 $136.73 85%$15.16 15% Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental $151.89 $136.73 85%$15.16 15% Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $61.10 $61.10 100%$0.00 0% Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $115.15 $107.11 85%$8.04 15% Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $183.85 $165.51 85%$18.34 15% Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $183.85 $165.51 85%$18.34 15% Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service (WDS) Plan F $50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0% Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service (WDS) Plan F $96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0% Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service (WDS) Plan F $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service (WDS) Plan F $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Olympia 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Ortho Plan 3$46.32 $46.32 100%$0.00 0% Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Ortho Plan 3$86.76 $86.76 100%$0.00 0% Olympia 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Ortho Plan 3$159.82 $159.82 100%$0.00 0% Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Ortho Plan 3$159.82 $159.82 100%$0.00 0% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 147 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Page 17 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 1 Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Puyallup 1 Employee Only Self insured $106.00 $106.00 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse Self insured $212.00 $212.00 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 3 Employee & Children Self insured $195.00 $195.00 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family Self insured $301.00 $301.00 100%$0.00 0% Sammamish 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia Plan V nr*nr*#VALUE!nr*####### Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia Plan V nr*nr*#VALUE!nr*####### Sammamish 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia Plan V nr*nr*#VALUE!nr*####### Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia Plan V nr*nr*#VALUE!nr*####### Shoreline 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service Plan F $55.07 See Medical Note Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service Plan F $104.08 See Medical Note Shoreline 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service Plan F $164.27 See Medical Note Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service Plan F $164.27 See Medical Note Snohomish County 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100%$0.00 0% University Place 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0% University Place 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0% University Place 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $10 Co-pay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 148 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Page 18 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & Children Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Burien 1 Employee Only Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Burien 3 Employee & Children Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family Des Moines 1 Employee Only Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family King County 1 Employee Only King County 2 Employee & Spouse King County 3 Employee & Children King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Plan Option 2 Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental of WA $10 copay $183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 149 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Page 19 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Kirkland 1 Employee Only Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Kirkland 1 Employee Only Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Only Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 1 Employee Only Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 2 Employee & Spouse Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 3 Employee & Children Lynnwood - Non-Rep & Council 4 Other: Employee plus Family Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family Olympia 1 Employee Only Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse Olympia 3 Employee & Children Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Plan Option 2 Willamette Dental $58.50 $58.50 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental $109.30 $109.30 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental $174.70 $174.70 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental $174.70 $174.70 100%$0.00 0% Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Washington Dental Services $50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services $96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services $50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services $96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0% Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Willamette Dental ($10 Copay)$61.60 $61.60 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental ($10 Copay)$115.15 $115.15 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental ($10 Copay)$183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Willamette Dental ($10 Copay)$183.85 $183.85 100%$0.00 0% Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 150 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Page 20 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Puyallup 1 Employee Only Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse Puyallup 3 Employee & Children Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family Sammamish 1 Employee Only Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse Sammamish 3 Employee & Children Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family Shoreline 1 Employee Only Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse Shoreline 3 Employee & Children Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family Snohomish County 1 Employee Only Snohomish County 2 Employee & Spouse Snohomish County 3 Employee & Children Snohomish County 4 Other: Employee plus Family University Place 1 Employee Only University Place 2 Employee & Spouse University Place 3 Employee & Children University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Amt. Employee Pays/Mo.Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Plan Option 2 Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Willamette Dental - $10 Copay $56.90 See Medical Note Willamette Dental - $10 Copay $106.40 See Medical Note Willamette Dental - $10 Copay $169.85 See Medical Note Willamette Dental - $10 Copay $169.85 See Medical Note Cigna Dental $116.92 $116.92 100%$0.00 0% Cigna Dental $116.92 $116.92 100%$0.00 0% Cigna Dental $116.92 $116.92 100%$0.00 0% Cigna Dental $116.92 $116.92 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services Plan F with ortho rider$50.89 $50.89 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services Plan F with ortho rider$96.19 $96.19 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services Plan F with ortho rider$151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0% Washington Dental Services Plan F with ortho rider$151.89 $151.89 100%$0.00 0% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 151 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance Notes Page 21 of 57 Employer Comments Snohomish County Dental Plan Option 3 - Total premium $102.90 all levels of enrollment, 100% paid by County. Shoreline, City of Benefit Allowance - The City allocates to each full-time regular employee $865 (Tier I) per month to buy benefits. If the employee does not use the entire $865, the remaining amount goes into a deferred compensation plan. If the cost is greater than $865, the employee moves to Tier II, and is able to receive an additional contribution from the City of up to a total of $1,370. The employee pays the costs that exceed $1,370.Bothell, City of Employee contributions vary by bargaining unit. City pays 100% of the employee's premium and a percentage of the additional premium for spouse, first dependent, and second dependent. Lacey, City of Premium amounts paid by City for Dental and Vision are included in the premiums listed on the Medical Insurance tab. City pays 100% of employee and 90% of dependents. Issaquah, City of Orthodontia - The Employer shall provide eight thousand five hundred dollars ($8,500) each calendar year for use by regular employees and part-time employees to help offset the cost of orthodontic care. A reimbursement form along with supporting documentation as to expenses paid must be submitted to Human Resources by November 20th of each year. Reimbursements will then be disbursed by mid December. Costs not reimbursed to any employee during one calendar year may be reimbursed in subsequent calendar years. Any funds not utilized in a calendar year will be rolled over to the following year. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 152 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Vision Insurance - by Employer Page 22 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Plan Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only $10.00 Deductible $19.33 $17.39 90%$1.94 10% Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse Level not offered Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & Children Level not offered Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family $10.00 Deductible $19.33 $17.39 90%$1.94 10% Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only VSP $26.18 $26.18 100%$0.00 0% Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse VSP $26.18 $26.18 100%$0.00 0% Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children VSP $26.18 $26.18 100%$0.00 0% Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family VSP $26.18 $26.18 100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee Only Association of Washington Cities nr*nr*100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse Association of Washington Cities nr*nr*100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children Association of Washington Cities nr*nr*100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family Association of Washington Cities nr*nr*100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 1 Employee Only VSP Vision Plan $16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 2 Employee & Spouse VSP Vision Plan $16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 3 Employee & Children VSP Vision Plan $16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family VSP Vision Plan $16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% Burien 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair option rider$23.04 $23.04 100%$0.00 0% Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair option rider$23.04 $23.04 100%$0.00 0% Burien 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair option rider$23.04 $23.04 100%$0.00 0% Burien 4 Other: Employee plus FamilyVision Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair option rider$23.04 $23.04 100%$0.00 0% Des Moines 1 Employee Only Vision $6.22 $6.22 100%$0.00 0% Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse Vision $9.95 $9.95 100%$0.00 0% Des Moines 3 Employee & Children Vision $10.16 $10.16 100%$0.00 0% Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision $16.37 $16.37 100%$0.00 0% Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Only Not offered Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Employee & Spouse Not offered Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Employee & Children Not offered Issaquah - Exempt Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family Not offered King County 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan $11.54 $11.54 100%$0.00 0% King County 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan $21.44 $21.44 100%$0.00 0% King County 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan $19.47 $19.47 100%$0.00 0% King County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan $29.37 $29.37 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP)$9.51 $9.51 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.19 $15.19 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.52 $15.52 100%$0.00 0% Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP)$25.01 $25.01 100%$0.00 0% Plan Option 1 Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 153 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Vision Insurance - by Employer Page 23 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Plan Name Monthly Cost of Coverage Plan Option 1 Amt. Employer Pays/Mo.Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co-pay $20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co-pay $20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co-pay $20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co-pay $20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0% Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP)$7.56 $7.56 100%$0.00 0% Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP)$9.27 $7.56 82%$1.71 18% Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP)$18.94 $7.56 40%$11.38 60% Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP)$18.94 $7.56 40%$11.38 60% Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1)$20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0% Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1)$20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0% Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1)$20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0% Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1)$20.75 $20.75 100%$0.00 0% Olympia 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% Olympia 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 1 Employee Only Self-insured $28.00 $28.00 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 2 Employee & Spouse Self-insured $56.00 $56.00 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 3 Employee & Children Self-insured $53.00 $53.00 100%$0.00 0% Puyallup 4 Other: Employee plus Family Self-insured $81.00 $81.00 100%$0.00 0% Sammamish 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP)nr*nr*100%nr*0% Sammamish 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP)nr*nr*90%nr*10% Sammamish 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP)nr*nr*90%nr*10% Sammamish 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP)nr*nr*90%nr*10% Shoreline 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.67 See Medical Note Shoreline 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.67 See Medical Note Shoreline 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.67 See Medical Note Shoreline 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP)$15.67 See Medical Note Snohomish County 1 Employee Only Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County 2 Employee & Spouse Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County 3 Employee & Children Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100%$0.00 0% Snohomish County 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100%$0.00 0% University Place 1 Employee Only Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% University Place 2 Employee & Spouse Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% University Place 3 Employee & Children Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% University Place 4 Other: Employee plus Family Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible)$16.82 $16.82 100%$0.00 0% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 154 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Vision Insurance Notes Page 24 of 57 Employer Comments Shoreline, City of Benefit Allowance - The City allocates to each full-time regular employee $865 (Tier I) per month to buy benefits. If the employee does not use the entire $865, the remaining amount goes into a deferred compensation plan. If the cost is greater than $865, the employee moves to Tier II, and is able to receive an additional contribution from the City of up to a total of $1,370. The employee pays the costs Lacey, City of Premium amounts paid by City for Dental and Vision are included in the premiums listed on the Medical Insurance tab. City pays 100% of employee and 90% of dependents. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 155 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Life Insurance - by Employer Page 25 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage % Employer Pays/Mo. % Employee Pays/Mo.Amount of Coverage Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Life Insurance - Other non-reps 100%0%50% of salary; $150k for duty related death Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Life Insurance - Directors/Manager 100%0%1x annual salary; $150k for duty related death Edmonds, City of 2 Spouse's Life Insurance 100%0%$1,000 for dependents Edmonds, City of 3 Children's Life Insurance 100%0%$1,000 for dependents Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Life Insurance $24.00 100%0%$100k Bothell - Non Rep 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bothell - Non Rep 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee Life Insurance voluntary Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Spouse's Life Insurance x Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Children's Life Insurance x Bremerton - Non Rep Employee + 1 x Bremerton - Non Rep Family x Burien 1 Employee Life Insurance $0.200 per $1,000 100%0%1x annual salary Burien 2 Spouse's Life Insurance x Burien 3 Children's Life Insurance x Des Moines 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*100%0%$5,000 Des Moines 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Des Moines 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Life Insurance 100%$50k Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Spouse's Life Insurance Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Children's Life Insurance King County 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*100%0%1x annual salary King County 2 Spouse's Life Insurance voluntary King County 3 Children's Life Insurance voluntary Kirkland 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Kirkland 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Kirkland 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 156 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Life Insurance - by Employer Page 26 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage % Employer Pays/Mo. % Employee Pays/Mo.Amount of Coverage Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Life Insurance $0.198 per $1,00 of benefit 100%0%1x annual salary Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Spouse's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of benefit 100%0%$1,000 Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Children's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of benefit 100%0%$1,000 Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Life Insurance $0.198 per $1,00 of benefit 100%0%1x annual salary Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Spouse's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of benefit 100%0%$1,000 Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Children's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of benefit 100%0%$1,000 Lynnwood 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*1x salary to max of $50k Lynnwood 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*$1,000 Lynnwood 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*$1,000 Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*3x annual to $250k Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Mountlake Terrace 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Olympia 1 Employee Life Insurance $0.14 per $1,000 (per $1,000 of benefit or base payroll)nr*nr*nr* Olympia 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*$0.38 nr*nr*nr* Olympia 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*$0.38 nr*nr*nr* Puyallup 1 Employee Life Insurance $10.98 100%0%Life, AD&D and LTD (Unum) included in premium Puyallup 2 Spouse's Life Insurance x Puyallup 3 Children's Life Insurance x Sammamish 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*2x annual salary Sammamish 2 Spouse's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Sammamish 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Shoreline 1 Employee Life Insurance $10.50 Mandatory coverage, $50k cap based on salary (annual salary/1000x .21); supplemental coverage to additional $100k available, based on age. Shoreline 2 Spouse's Life Insurance Spouse can purchase up to equvalent of half of employee's supplementa amount. Shoreline 3 Children's Life Insurance nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Snohomish County 1 Employee Life Insurance nr*100%0%$40k plus $40k AD&D Snohomish County 2 Spouse's Life Insurance voluntary Snohomish County 3 Children's Life Insurance voluntary PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 157 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Life Insurance - by Employer Page 27 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage % Employer Pays/Mo. % Employee Pays/Mo.Amount of Coverage University Place 1 Employee Life Insurance $6.50 100%0%$25k University Place 2 Spouse's Life Insurance x University Place 3 Children's Life Insurance x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 158 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Life Insurance Notes Page 28 of 57 Employer Comments King County Additional life insurance available on a voluntary basis. Bremerton - IAFF City pays each employee $35 per month toward the cost of Short Term Disabilitye, Long Term Disability, and Life insurance. Life insurance is available through payroll deduction in amounts form $10,000 to $500,000. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 159 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary AD&D Page 29 of 57 Employer Policy Type Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in payroll Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage Edmonds, City of 1 Employee x Edmonds, City of 2 Spouse x Edmonds, City of 3 Child/Children x Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bothell - Non Rep 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bothell - Non Rep 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Spouse Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Child/Children Burien 1 Employee $0.05 per $1,000 100%0%1 x annual salary Burien 2 Spouse x Burien 3 Child/Children x Des Moines 1 Employee nr*100%0%$5,000 Des Moines 2 Spouse x Des Moines 3 Child/Children x Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Spouse Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Child/Children King County 1 Employee nr*100%0%Basic paid by employer enhanced offered on voluntary basis King County 2 Spouse voluntary King County 3 Child/Children voluntary Kirkland 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Kirkland 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Kirkland 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Child/Children Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Included in life Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Spouse x Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Child/Children x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 160 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary AD&D Page 30 of 57 Employer Policy Type Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in payroll Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage Lynnwood 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Lynnwood 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Lynnwood 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Mountlake Terrace 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Olympia 1 Employee $0.04 per $1,000 (per $1,000 of benefit or of payroll?)nr*nr*nr* Olympia 2 Spouse x Olympia 3 Child/Children x Puyallup 1 Employee included in Life Puyallup 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Puyallup 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Sammamish 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Sammamish 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Sammamish 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Shoreline 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Shoreline 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Shoreline 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Snohomish County 1 Employee Included in Life $40k Snohomish County 2 Spouse voluntary Snohomish County 3 Child/Children voluntary University Place 1 Employee $1.00 100%0%$25k University Place 2 Spouse x University Place 3 Child/Children x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 161 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary AD&D Notes Page 31 of 57 Employer Comments No comments. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 162 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 32 of 57 STD Employer Policy Type Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in payroll Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage Edmonds, City of 1 Employee x Edmonds, City of 2 Spouse x Edmonds, City of 3 Child/Children x Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee 1.154% of base salary 100%0%nr* Bothell - Non Rep 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bothell - Non Rep 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee voluntary Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)1 Employee Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 1 Employee voluntary Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 2 Spouse voluntary Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 3 Child/Children voluntary Burien 1 Employee x Burien 2 Spouse x Burien 3 Child/Children x Des Moines 1 Employee x Des Moines 2 Spouse x Des Moines 3 Child/Children x Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee x Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Spouse x Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Child/Children x King County 1 Employee x King County 2 Spouse x King County 3 Child/Children x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 163 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 33 of 57 STD Employer Policy Type Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in payroll Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage Kirkland 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Kirkland 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Kirkland 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee x Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Spouse x Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Child/Children x Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee x Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Spouse x Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Child/Children x Lacey - Police 1 Employee x Lacey - Police 2 Spouse x Lacey - Police 3 Child/Children x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 164 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 34 of 57 STD Employer Policy Type Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in payroll Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage Lynnwood 1 Employee nr*$0.00 voluntary Lynnwood 2 Spouse x Lynnwood 3 Child/Children x Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Mountlake Terrace 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Olympia 1 Employee voluntary 0%100% Olympia 2 Spouse voluntary 0%100% Olympia 3 Child/Children voluntary 0%100% Puyallup 1 Employee voluntary 0%100% Puyallup 2 Spouse voluntary 0%100% Puyallup 3 Child/Children voluntary 0%100% Sammamish 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Sammamish 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Sammamish 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Shoreline 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Shoreline 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Shoreline 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Snohomish County 1 Employee nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Snohomish County 2 Spouse nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Snohomish County 3 Child/Children nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* University Place 1 Employee x University Place 2 Spouse x University Place 3 Child/Children x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 165 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 35 of 57 Employer Policy Type Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Edmonds, City of 2 Spouse Edmonds, City of 3 Child/Children Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Bothell - Non Rep 2 Spouse Bothell - Non Rep 3 Child/Children Bremerton - Non Rep 1 Employee Bremerton - Non Rep 2 Spouse Bremerton - Non Rep 3 Child/Children Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)1 Employee Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)2 Spouse Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)3 Child/Children Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 1 Employee Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 2 Spouse Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees 3 Child/Children Burien 1 Employee Burien 2 Spouse Burien 3 Child/Children Des Moines 1 Employee Des Moines 2 Spouse Des Moines 3 Child/Children Issaquah - Exempt Employees 1 Employee Issaquah - Exempt Employees 2 Spouse Issaquah - Exempt Employees 3 Child/Children King County 1 Employee King County 2 Spouse King County 3 Child/Children LTD Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in payroll Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage 6.2% of payroll 6.2% of payroll MEBT included LTD and $75k life insurance x x Included in STD nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* $20.00 Available to Ee's enrolled in LEOFF2, employee selects coverage amounts. nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* voluntary voluntary voluntary $0.330 per $100 of covered payroll 100%0% x x nr*100%0%60% of basic monthly income; max benefit $5,00/mo. x x nr*100%0% x x nr*nr*100%0%60% of earnings after 180 day wait; enhanced LTD voluntary nr*nr*100%0%nr* nr*nr*100%0%nr* PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 166 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 36 of 57 Employer Policy Type Kirkland 1 Employee Kirkland 2 Spouse Kirkland 3 Child/Children Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1 Employee Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)2 Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)3 Child/Children Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)1 Employee Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)2 Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rep)3 Child/Children Lacey - Police 1 Employee Lacey - Police 2 Spouse Lacey - Police 3 Child/Children LTD Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in payroll Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* $0.35 per $100 of covered payroll 100%0%66.66% max $7,500 per month. x x 100%0%66.66% max $7,500 per month. x x $0.55 per $100 of covered payroll 100%0%66.66% max $7,500 per month. x x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 167 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 37 of 57 Employer Policy Type Lynnwood 1 Employee Lynnwood 2 Spouse Lynnwood 3 Child/Children Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse Mountlake Terrace 3 Child/Children Olympia 1 Employee Olympia 2 Spouse Olympia 3 Child/Children Puyallup 1 Employee Puyallup 2 Spouse Puyallup 3 Child/Children Sammamish 1 Employee Sammamish 2 Spouse Sammamish 3 Child/Children Shoreline 1 Employee Shoreline 2 Spouse Shoreline 3 Child/Children Snohomish County 1 Employee Snohomish County 2 Spouse Snohomish County 3 Child/Children University Place 1 Employee University Place 2 Spouse University Place 3 Child/Children LTD Not Offered Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in payroll Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr*for staff working 30 hours + per week nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* $0.403 per $100 of payroll nr*nr*nr* x x $0.90 per $100 of salary 100%0% x x nr*nr*nr*67% Benefit level nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Mandatory coverage, rate based on salary Annual salary /12/100x.21 (no change) nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* $100.00 100%0%60% of pre-disability gross wages to max of $3,000 per month. $0.58 per $100 of salary 100%0% x x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 168 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary STD & LTD Notes Page 38 of 57 Employer Comments Snohomish County LTD - For employees in the management and exempt disability plan, disability payment wil be 66.66% of your pre-disability gross wages (maximum $5,00 per month). King County Basic long term disability is employer paid. Enhanced long term disability - reduced waiting period/increased monthly benefit available at employee's expense. Bremerton - Police Officer's Guild Employees enrolled in LEOFF Plan 2 may enroll in Long Term Disability through Standard Insurance Company with the City paying a maximum of $20 toward the premium costs. Bremerton - Police Mgmt Association Employees enrolled in LEOFF Plan 2 may enroll in Long Term Disability through Standard Insurance Company with the City paying a maximum of $20 toward the premium costs. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 169 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Pension-Retirement - by Employer Page 39 of 57 Employer Employee Group Employer Contribution Employee Contribution Formula Defined Benefit Employee Contribution Paid by Employer Edmonds, City of PERS Plan 1 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%6.00%nr* Edmonds, City of PERS Plan 2 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%4.64%nr* Edmonds, City of PERS Plan 3 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%See notes page nr*Combination Db and Dc; Employee chooses from 6 plans Edmonds, City of LEOFF (eff. 9/1/11)5.24%8.46%nr* Edmonds, City of PSERS (eff. 9/1/11)8.86%6.36%nr* Bothell - Non Rep PERS Plan 1 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%6.00%nr* Bothell - Non Rep PERS Plan 2 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%4.64%nr* Bothell - Non Rep PERS Plan 3 (eff. 9/1/11)7.25%See notes page nr*Combination Db and Dc; Employee chooses from 6 plans Bothell - Non Rep LEOFF (eff. 9/1/11)5.24%8.46%nr* Bothell - Non Rep PSERS (eff. 9/1/11)8.86%6.36%nr* Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees PERS Plan 1 5.290%6.000%nr*Defined benefit plan Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees PERS Plan 2 (after 10/1/77)5.290%3.890%nr*Defined benefit plan Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees PERS Plan 3 (after 10/1/77)8.310%Empoyee's decision nr*Combination of a defined benefit and defined contribution plan Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees PSERS Plan 2 9.430%6.570%nr* Bremerton - Non Rep Misc/General nr* Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)LEOFF II (after 10/1/77)5.24%8.46%nr* Burien PERS Plan 1 7.250%6.000%0.000% Burien PERS Plan 2 7.250%4.640%0.000% Burien PSERS Plan 2 8.860%6.360%0.000% Des Moines PERS Plan 2 7.250%4.640%0.000% Issaquah - Exempt Employees PERS Plan 2 7.250%4.640%0.000% King County Regular or Local 587 employee 7.250%6.000%nr*PERS I (membership before 10/1/77) King County Regular or Local 587 employee 7.250%4.640%nr*PERS 2 King County Deputy Sheriff or paramedic 5.240%8.460%nr*LEOFF 2 King County Public Safety employee 8.860%6.360%nr*PSERS King County Former City of Seattle employee nr*10.030%nr*SCERS Kirkland Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr* Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)General 7.250%6.000%0.000% Lynnwood Misc/General Mountlake Terrace Misc/General Olympia PERS 1 7.250%6.000%0.000% Olympia PERS 2 7.250%4.640%0.000% Olympia PERS 3 7.250%varies 0.000% Olympia PSERS 8.860%6.360%0.000% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 170 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Pension-Retirement - by Employer Page 40 of 57 Employer Employee Group Employer Contribution Employee Contribution Formula Defined Benefit Employee Contribution Paid by Employer Puyallup Misc/General 7.250%4.640%0.000%PERS 2 Puyallup Misc/General 7.250%Options 0.000%PERS 3 Puyallup Police & Fire 5.240%8.460%0.000%LEOFF 2 Sammamish Misc/General Shoreline Misc/General 8.480%6.000%0.0000%Plan I Shoreline Misc/General 8.480%4.430%0.0000%Plan II Shoreline Misc/General 8.480%Choice of 5 - 15%0.0000%Plan III Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%6.000%0.0000%PERS 1 Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%4.640%0.0000%PERS 2 Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%Options 0.0000%PERS 3 Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%12.260%0.0000%PERS JBM Plan 1 (Judicial) Snohomish County Misc/General 7.250%11.600%0.0000%PERS JBM Plan 2 (Judicial) Snohomish County Misc/General 8.860%6.360%0.0000%PSERS 2 Snohomish County Misc/General 0.160%0.000%0.0000%LEOFF 1 Snohomish County Misc/General 5.240%8.460%0.0000%LEOFF 2 University Place Misc/General 5.310%per calculations from budget cost University Place PERS 1 7.250%6.000%0.000% University Place PERS 2 7.250%4.640%0.000% University Place PERS 3 7.250%varies 0.000% University Place PSERS 8.860%6.360%0.000% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 171 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Pension & Retirement Notes Page 41 of 57 Employer Comments PERS Plan 3 Member Contribution Rate OptionsOption A - 5 percent of pay at all ages Option B - 5 percent of pay until age 35; 6 percent of pay from age 35 until 44; 8.5 percent age 45 and above Option C - 6 percent of pay until age 35; 7.5 percent of pay from age 35 until 44; 8.5% age 45 and above Option D - 7 percent of pay at all ages Option E - 10 percent of pay at all ages Option F - 15 percent of pay at all ages Employer Contribution Rate is the same as the PERS Plan 2 rate. www.drs.wa.gov/employer/employerhandbook/pdf/combinedlist.pdf PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 172 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary DC-SS-Medicare - by Employer Page 42 of 57 Employer Employee Group Employer Contribution Employee Contribution Employer Contribution Employee Contribution Employer Contribution Employee Contribution Formula or Plan Name Other Employee Contribution Paid by Employer Employee Contribution Paid by Social Security Medicare Employee Contribution Paid by Employer Edmonds, City of Misc/General nr*nr*nr*1.450%1.450%1 0.000%6.200%6.200%MEBT - Retirement program in lieu of Social Security Bothell - Non Rep Non Represented 6.200%6.200%0.000%1.450%1.450%0.000% Bremerton - Non Rep Misc/General 6.200%6.200%1.450%1.450%4.0000%See note page. Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)Police nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*4.0000%See note page. Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Management and Professional nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*4.0000%See note page. Burien Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*401a social security replacement plan; If employee enrolls in HDHP, the employee can choose to have the HDHP incentive contributed into a deferred comp fund or a H.S.A. City pays: Single - $1,500/yer; Family $3,000/year, otherwise deferred comp is funed entirely by the employee. Des Moines Non-Union 5.000%401a social security replacement plan, also 457 with 1.52% of gross wages. Des Moines Union - Local No. 763 5.000%401a social security replacement plan Des Moines Police Guild 6.520%401a social security replacement plan Issaquah - Exempt Employees Misc/General 6.200%6.200%0.0000%Match up to $300 457 ICMA Deferred Comp Plan Issaquah - Exempt Employees Directors Only 6.200%6.200%0.0000%$1,200 457 ICMA Deferred Comp Plan Issaquah - Exempt Employees Directors Only 6.200%6.200%0.0000%3.5% match Min 5%457 ICMA Deferred Comp Plan King County Misc/General 6.200%6.200%0.000%0.000%voluntary 0.000%IRS 457 Plan Kirkland Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*0.000%voluntary 0.000%MEBT or ICMA voluntary plans Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)Misc/General Lynnwood Misc/General 0.000%voluntary 0.000%457 Deferred Compensation Plan (Voluntary) Mountlake Terrace Misc/General Match 80%6.2% of salary MEBT Olympia Misc/General Deferred comp offered on a voluntary basis. No employer contribution. Puyallup Misc/General Sammamish Misc/General 0.000%0.000%0.0000%0.000%0.000%0.0000%6.200%6.200%0.0000%401(A) Plan in lieu of social security. The City and employees each contributie 6.2% to this fund. Shoreline Misc/General 6.200%6.200%0.0000%Social Security replacement (Mandatory 401a) Shoreline Misc/General - Deferred Compensation Balance of allotmentVoluntary Mandatory for any remaing funds from $831 monthly allocation. Snohomish County All other eligible employees 50.000%voluntary Deferred Compensation NACO; County matches 50% of employees contribution to a max of 1% of employee's monthly base. Snohomish County Airport Fire Fighter 3.000%voluntary Deferred Compensation NACO; Dollar for dollar match to max of 3% of monthly base wage. Snohomish County Sheriff's Lt and Captains (SOMA)$105 voluntary Deferred Compensation NACO; County matches 20% of employee's contribution to a max of $105 per month. University Place Misc/General 6.200%6.200%401a match at 6.2% 1 - Employee hired after 4/86 pays 1.45% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 173 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Pension & Retirement Notes Page 43 of 57 Employer Comments Edmonds, City of MEBT - retirement program in lieu of Social Security; contribution rate City and Employee 6.2% each, includes LTD & $75,000 life insurance. Sammamish, City of 457 Deferred Compensation Plan - Voluntary employee contribution. Snohomish County All regular Snohomish County employees working 20 hours or more in a budgeted position, except: Elected Officials, Sheriff's Deputies and Sergeants, Sheriff's Law Enforcement Support, Corrections Guild (Corrections Deputies), Corrections Support. Issaquah, City of 401 (a) Plan (Directors Only) - Department Directors are eligible to receive matching contributions form the City towards the ICMA 401(a) Deferred Compensation Plan. The Director must contribute a minimum of 5% of their monthly base pay and the City will provide a match of 3.5% of their monthly base pay (for 2011 the City match will be 2.5% as part of its budget reduction efforts). This is an annual election so Directors may change their percentage contribution rate during the annual open enrollment period in December. Bremerton, City of Deferred Comp - City match up to 4% of monthly pay rate, max combined (employer and employee) contribution of $16,500. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 174 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Retiree Health - by Employer Page 44 of 57 Employer Employee Group Employer Contribution Employee Contribution Employee Contribution Paid by Employer Formula/Plan Edmonds, City of Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr* Bothell - Non Rep All groups 0.0000%0.0000%0.0000%Retiree Health Savings Account Bremerton - Non Rep Misc/General Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)Police Mgmt 30.00$ Retirement Medical Savigns Account Burien Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr* Des Moines Misc/General Issaquah - Exempt Employees Misc/General 1.0000%Mandatory ICMA Retirement Health Savings Account (RHS) King County Misc/General Kirkland Misc/General nr*nr*nr*nr* Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)Misc/General Lynnwood Misc/General Mountlake Terrace Misc/General Olympia Misc/General Puyallup Misc/General Sammamish Misc/General Shoreline Misc/General Snohomish County Misc/General University Place Misc/General Retiree Health Plan PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 175 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Retiree Healthcare Notes Page 45 of 57 Employer Comments Bremerton, City of - Police Mgmt Assoc Retirement Medical Savings Account - on 2/2/09 City contributed $825 into each employee's HRSA in addition to the $30/mo. Per MOU. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 176 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO-Paid Leave - by Employer Page 46 of 57 @ 1 Year @5 Years @10 Years @15 Years @20 Years 20+ Years Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr VACATION LEAVE Employer PTO Bank Comments Employee Group Bothell - Non Rep General Bremerton - Non Rep General 120 160 200 Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)Police 105 104 152 192 208 208 Max carry-over 160 hrs <5yrs; 300 hrs >5 yrs Bremerton - Management & Professional EmployeesPolice 120 200 200 200 200 200 Burien General 96 168 8 to 14 hrs/mo based on service Des Moines General Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 1 w/12 sick days per years 96 128 160 176 192 192 See Notes page Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 2 w/8 sick days per years 128 160 192 208 224 224 See Notes page King County General 96 96 128 160 192 200 Kirkland General nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)General Lynnwood General Mountlake Terrace General 96 nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*Increases over time Olympia General 96 nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Puyallup Unaffiliated 96 nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*Increases over time Sammamish General 96 128 168 168 168 168 Shoreline General 96 Shoreline FLSA Exempt staff 96 PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 177 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO-Paid Leave - by Employer Page 47 of 57 @ 1 Year @5 Years @10 Years @15 Years @20 Years 20+ Years Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr Hours/yr VACATION LEAVE Employer PTO Bank Comments Employee Group Snohomish County AFSCME 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours Snohomish County Clerks Association 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours Snohomish County Correction's Captains 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours Snohomish County Correction's Guild 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours Snohomish County Correction's Support 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours Snohomish County Deputy Sheriff's Association 80 120 168 184 200 200 Max 320 hours Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (24hr shift)84 126 176 193 210 210 Max 280 hours Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (40hr week)84 126 176 193 210 210 Max 280 hours Snohomish County Human Services Supervisors 80 121 169 185 201 201 Max 240 hours Snohomish County Local 763 80 121 185 201 201 201 Max 240 hours Snohomish County Sheriff's Office Management Team 0 0 168 184 200 200 Max 320 hours Snohomish County SOMT 80 121 144 168 200 200 Max 240 hours University Place General nr*nr*nr*nr*nr*nr* Averages #DIV/0!96 124 172 192 209 209 Edmonds, City of Director 176 176 176 176 176 176 Edmonds, City of Other 40 88 128 176 200 Max @ 25+ years = 27 days/year PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 178 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO-Paid Leave - by Employer Page 48 of 57 Employer Employee Group Bothell - Non Rep General Bremerton - Non Rep General Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)Police Bremerton - Management & Professional EmployeesPolice Burien General Des Moines General Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 1 w/12 sick days per years Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 2 w/8 sick days per years King County General Kirkland General Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)General Lynnwood General Mountlake Terrace General Olympia General Puyallup Unaffiliated Sammamish General Shoreline General Shoreline FLSA Exempt staff Sick Personal Holidays Mgmt or Admin Hours/Yr Days/yr Days/yr Days/yr Comments OTHER LEAVE 5 to 10 42 merit leave hours, can carry up to 84, 40 hours professional leave. Upper mgmt: 80 hrs 0 10 96 1 10 Max sick accrual is 1200 hrs 96 1 10 Max sick accrual 125 days 96 1 10 4 Admin leave offered 96 11 comp time up to 100 hrs 64 11 96 2 10 nr*nr*nr*3 to 5 Directors - 50 hrs; Managers- 40 hrs; Supervisors- 30hrs 8 96 1 10 96 nr*11 96 12 96 11 96 2 10 96 5 10 PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 179 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO-Paid Leave - by Employer Page 49 of 57 Employer Employee Group Snohomish County AFSCME Snohomish County Clerks Association Snohomish County Correction's Captains Snohomish County Correction's Guild Snohomish County Correction's Support Snohomish County Deputy Sheriff's Association Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (24hr shift) Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (40hr week) Snohomish County Human Services Supervisors Snohomish County Local 763 Snohomish County Sheriff's Office Management Team Snohomish County SOMT University Place General Averages Edmonds, City of Director Edmonds, City of Other Sick Personal Holidays Mgmt or Admin Hours/Yr Days/yr Days/yr Days/yr Comments OTHER LEAVE 96 2 10 96 2 10 96 2 10 96 2 10 96 2 10 96 2 11 164 Holiday-in-lieu 5% of annual base 126 10 or Holiday-in-lieu 5% of annual base 96 2 10 96 2 10 96 2 10 96 2 10 nr*nr*nr* 98 2 10 PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 180 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO Notes Page 50 of 57 Employer Comments Bremerton, City of Fire Benefit sheet - Sick Leave Shift employees sick leave is accreued at a rate of 8 hours each pay period for the first five years of employment. Sick leave is accrued at a rate of 4 hours (5.25 for shift personnel after 5 years) each pay period. The maximum accrual is 960 hours (1440 for shift personnel). [exact language] Des Moines, City of Deferred Compensation (457) - The City cashes and deposits 1 or 2 hours of sick leave, depending on sick leave balances, to a 457 Deferred Compensation plan for Teamsters Union employees. Police Guild 457 - The City cashes and deposits 2 or 3 hours of sick leave, depending on sick leave balances, to a 457 Deferred Compensation plan for Police Guild employees. Police Patrol - Patorl schedule consists of an 8 day work week, with 4 days on and 4 days off. Each workday is 12 hours in duration, resulting in a total of 2,190 hours scheduled per year. Because of this, each employee assigned to a 12 hour schedule receives an additional 55 hours of leave (Kelly time) every 6 months (Jan 1 - Jun 30 and Jul 1- Dec 31).Issaquah, City of Exempt Vacation - At the time of hire and annually thereafter, employees shall have the option of selecting from two vacation/sick leave schedules based on years of service. Once a selection is made, it will remain intact until such time as the employee requests a different schedule. This change can only be done during the annual open enrollment period at the end of each year. If no selection is made at the time of hire, then Schedule 1 will be assigned. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 181 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO Notes Page 51 of 57 Employer Comments PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 182 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Other Benefits - by Employer Page 52 of 57 Employer Bi l i n g u a l P a y De f e r r e d C o m p Di s c r e t i o n a r y Bo n u s EA P Ed u c a t i o n : A A Ed u c a t i o n : B A Fl e x i b l e B e n e f i t s (S e c . 1 2 5 P l a n ) Lo n g e v i t y On C a l l P a y o r Ca l l O u t P a y Ta k e H o m e Ve h i c l e s Tr a n s i t Al l o w / R e i m b Tu i t i o n Re i m b u r s e m e n t Ve h i c l e Al l o w a n c e Comments Bothell - Non Rep Bremerton - Non Rep 4%Managers and above Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA)4%2%4%x Middle Mgmt Cert pay 1.75%; Exec Cert pay 2.5% Burien x Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sount Transit Des Moines x N/A Issaquah - Exempt Employees see note 5% longevity after 5 years of employment King County x x x Bus pass and other alternative transportation incentives offered. Kirkland Lacey - Management Exempt I (non-rep)1-2%Def Comp 1% for Managers & 2% for Directors Lynnwood see note 5 years = $221.52/yr;8 years = $443.04/yr; 11 years = $664.56/yr; 15 years = $941.52/yr Mountlake Terrace Choice of 2; voluntary x x Olympia see note $450 longevity after 15 years of employment Puyallup N/A Sammamish x Shoreline N/A Snohomish County x x University Place N/A Edmonds, City of PD Mgmt 2%-7% PD mgmt 2%-3% PD Mgmt 2.5%-5% PD Mgmt 2%-3% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 183 of 214 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Other Benefits Program Notes Page 53 of 57 Employer Longevity Pay Length of Continuous Service Rate per Hour 0 through 5 years continuous employment 0% 6 through 10 years continuous employment 1.25% Commencing 11 through 15 years continuous employment 2.25% Commencing 16 through 20 years continuous employment 3.50% Commencing 21 through 25 years continuous employment 7.75% Commencing 26 years and over continuous employment 9.00% Burien, City of King County HRA Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) offered on voluntary basis. Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit. Comments Bremerton - Police Mgmt Assoc. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 184 of 214 Non-Rep Total Compensation - Police Chief Police Chief - Elements of Compensation City Education Incentive Longevity Incentive Deferred Comp Admin Leave Comp Time Overtime Certification Pay Merit Pay Clothing Allowance as salary Holiday Buy- Back Min Hourly Rate Salary Min - all compensation Max Hourly Rate Salary Max - all compensation Bothell 88 hrs/yr 57.32$ 124,264$ 72.87$ 157,985$ Bremerton 4%121,134$ 147,591$ Des Moines 2.5% AA 32 hrs/yr 1%80 hrs/yr 52.47$ 116,096$ 66.96$ 148,094$ 4% BA 5% MA Edmonds Issaquah 2% $100/mo plus 3.5%150 hrs/yr 59.61$ 132,939$ 79.35$ 183,446$ Kirkland 50 hrs/yr 53.90$ 114,799$ 69.54$ 148,125$ Lacey 2%145,252$ 145,252$ Lynnwood 1.95% 45 hrs 2% - 5 yrs 64 hrs/yr 75 hrs/yr @ 1.5x 55.51$ 125,703$ 79.97$ 181,088$ 4% AA 3% - 10 yrs 5.4% BA 5% - 15 yrs 6.85% MA 7% - 20 yrs Olympia 40 hrs/yr 70.06$ 148,530$ 70.06$ 148,530$ Puyallup 2% AA 1% - 5 yrs 4%103,272$ 151,042$ 3% BA 3% - 10 yrs 5% - 15 yrs 7% - 20 yrs 10% - 25 yrs Packet Page 185 of 214 Non-Rep Total Compensation - Police Chief Police Chief Calculation of Minimum and Maximum Salaries - all compensation City Base Annual Hourly Education Incentive Longevity Incentive Deferred Comp Admin Leave Comp Time Overtime Certification Pay Merit Pay Clothing Allowance as salary Holiday Buy-Back Salary - all compensation Bothell Min 119,220$ 57.32$ 5,044$ 124,264$ Max 151,572$ 72.87$ 6,413$ 157,985$ Bremerton Min 116,475$ 4,659$ 121,134$ Max 141,914$ 5,677$ 147,591$ Des Moines Min 109,128$ 52.47$ -$ 1,679$ 1,091$ 4,198$ 116,096$ Max 132,636$ 66.96$ 6,632$ 2,143$ 1,326$ 5,357$ 148,094$ Edmonds Issaquah Min 118,644$ 59.61$ 5,353$ 8,942$ -$ 132,938$ Max 151,416$ 79.35$ 3,028$ 6,500$ 11,903$ 10,599$ 183,446$ Kirkland Min 112,104$ 53.90$ 2,695$ 114,799$ Max 144,648$ 69.54$ 3,477$ 148,125$ Lacey Min 142,404$ 2,848$ 145,252$ Max 142,404$ 2,848$ 145,252$ Lynnwood Min 115,905$ 55.51$ -$ -$ 3,553$ 6,245$ 125,703$ Max 146,661$ 79.97$ 10,046$ 10,266$ 5,118$ 8,997$ 181,088$ Olympia Min 145,728$ 70.06$ 2,802.40$ 148,530$ Max 145,728$ 70.06$ 2,802.40$ 148,530$ Puyallup Min 99,300$ -$ -$ 3,972$ 103,272$ Max 129,096$ 3,873$ 12,910$ 5,164$ 151,042$ Packet Page 186 of 214 Non-Rep Total Compensation - Assistant Police Chief Assistant Police Chief - Elements of Compensation City Education Incentive Longevity Incentive Deferred Comp Admin Leave Comp Time Overtime Certification Pay Merit Pay Clothing Allowance as salary Holiday Buy- Back Accreditation Incentive Retiree Medical Account Min Hourly Rate Salary Min - all compensation Max Hourly Rate Salary Max - all compensation Bothell 88 hrs/yr 51.93$ 112,582$ 66.02$ 143,126$ Bremerton 2% AA 1.25% 6-10 yrs 4%1.75% Mid Mgmt 51.88$ 112,223$ 66.49$ 143,016$ 4% BA 2.25% 11-15 yrs 2.5% Exec 3.5% 16-20 yrs 4.25% Max 7.75% 21-25 yrs 9% 26+ yrs Des Moines 2.5% AA 32 hrs/yr 1%80 hrs/yr 52.91$ 117,078$ 61.26$ 135,486$ 4% BA 5% MA Edmonds Issaquah 2%$300/yr 100 hrs/yr 0-4 yrs 5%49.27$ 107,707$ 68.54$ 149,726$ 5+ yrs 7% Kirkland 2% BA 1.5% 5-10 yrs 40 hrs/yr 1%$75/mo 44.06$ 95,222$ 64.82$ 138,309$ 3% MA 3% 11-15 yrs 3% Command School 5% 16-19 yrs 6% 20-25 yrs 7% 26+ yrs Lacey 1%123,127$ 126,606$ Lynnwood 1.95% 45 hrs 2% 5 yrs 64 hrs/yr 75 hrs/yr @ 1.5x 58.80$ 132,682$ 72.41$ 163,390$ 4% AA 3% 10 yrs 5.4% BA 5% 15 yrs 6.85% MA 7% 20 yrs Olympia 1% 7-10 yrs 128,268$ 150,467$ 3% 11-14 yrs 5% 15-18 yrs 7% 19-22 yrs 8.5% 23-26 yrs 10% 27+ yrs Puyallup 2% AA 1% 5 yrs 4%92,352$ 135,079$ 3% BA 3% 10 yrs 5% 15 yrs 7% 20 yrs 10% 25+ yrs Packet Page 187 of 214 Non-Rep Total Compensation - Assistant Police Chief Assistant Police Chief Calculation of Minimum and Maximum Salaries City Base Annual Hourly Education Incentive Longevity Incentive Deferred Comp Admin Leave Comp Time Overtime Certification Pay Merit Pay Clothing Allowance as salary Holiday Buy-Back Accreditation Incentive Retiree Medical Account Salary - all compensation Bothell Min 108,012$ 51.93$ 4,570$ 112,582$ Max 137,316$ 66.02$ 5,810$ 143,126$ Bremerton Min 107,907$ 51.88$ -$ 4,316$ 112,223$ Max 117,951$ 66.49$ 4,718$ 10,616$ 4,718$ 5,013$ 143,016$ Des Moines Min 110,052$ 52.91$ -$ 1,693$ 1,101$ 4,233$ 117,078$ Max 121,344$ 61.26$ 6,067$ 1,960$ 1,213$ 4,901$ 135,486$ Edmonds Issaquah Min 102,480$ 49.27$ 300$ 4,927$ -$ 107,707$ Max 130,800$ 68.54$ 2,616$ 300$ 6,854$ 9,156$ 149,726$ Kirkland Min 91,644$ 44.06$ -$ -$ 1,762$ 916$ 900 95,223$ Max 118,260$ 64.82$ 7,096$ 8,278$ 2,593$ 1,183$ 900 138,309$ Lacey Min 121,908$ 1,219$ 123,127$ Max 125,352$ 1,254$ 126,606$ Lynnwood Min 122,304$ 58.80$ -$ -$ 3,763$ $ 6,615 132,682$ Max 132,288$ 72.41$ 9,062$ 9,260$ 4,634$ $ 8,146 163,390$ Olympia Min 128,268$ -$ 128,268$ Max 136,788$ 13,679$ 150,467$ Puyallup Min 88,800$ -$ -$ 3,552$ 92,352$ Max 115,452$ 3,464$ 11,545$ 4,618$ 135,079$ Packet Page 188 of 214 D R A F T Proposal PERSONNEL POLICY NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION The City’s non-represented compensation policy strives to maintain equity in pay for all employees, offers competitive salaries to attract high level applicants, offers internal equity to foster long-term retention of valuable employees, and rewards meritorious job performance. It is the policy of the City for the classification and compensation plan to provide salaries that compare favorably with other similar cities in the region for comparable jobs, and within budget limitations. It is also the policy of the City to ensure that salaries are internally equitable, in proper relationship to all other jobs within the City. SALARY RANGE PROGRESSION Salary ranges for non-represented positions will have a 35% spread from the bottom to the top of each salary range, and will include a seven-step scale with 5% between each of the steps. All new employees will generally be hired at the first step of their salary range; however, an entry level rate of pay above the minimum may be offered to an applicant whose education and experience exceed the minimum qualifications for the classification, or when external labor market pay practices impact recruitment. Initial step placement at higher than Step 3 of the salary range, is subject to approval by the Mayor prior to the offer of employment. Employees are generally advanced to the next salary step increment after six months of satisfactory job performance, and each succeeding year, after a concurrent performance evaluation has been completed by their supervisor, until reaching the maximum step. An employee who fails to achieve at least a satisfactory overall rating on their annual performance evaluation shall not be eligible for a step increase until their next performance evaluation rating period. In the event of promotion of a non-represented employee to another non-represented job classification in a higher pay range, the employee will receive a salary increase of not less than 5% or will be adjusted to the minimum salary level of the new position’s salary range, whichever is greater. To ensure internal equity, employees promoted from a represented position to a non- represented position in a higher pay range, will receive a gross salary increase of not less than 5% or the minimum salary level of the new position’s salary range, whichever is greater, including consideration of other cash compensation being received in the former position. In the event of a lateral placement of a non-represented employee to another non-represented job classification in the same pay range, the employee will not receive a salary increase. Packet Page 189 of 214 ANNUAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS The Mayor will recommend the adjustment of salary ranges for non-represented employees to the City Council for approval as part of the budget process, effective January 1 of each year. Salary ranges for non-represented employees will be adjusted at a rate not less than the average adjustment negotiated and approved for represented employee groups. Each employee will maintain the same step within the newly approved salary range that they held prior to the adjustment. To maintain internal equity and to prevent compression within the ranks, the City will maintain the minimum of a 10% increment between the salary ranges at midpoint of supervisor classifications and those supervised. Additionally, the City will ensure that salary ranges of non- represented positions are equal to or exceed salary ranges for comparable represented positions. The City will attempt to mitigate compression issues as they may arise. MARKET ANALYSIS The Human Resources Department will conduct compensation surveys for each non- represented benchmark position no later than September 1, every three years. The following criteria will be used for determining which cities are comparable for the purposes of analyzing and comparing compensation (“Qualified Comparable Cities”): Comparable cities must be located in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, or Kitsap counties; and Comparable cities will include all cities with a population that is no more than 10,000 over or no more than 10,000 under the population of the City of Edmonds according to the most recent population figures published by the Washington State Office of Financial Management or a similar successor government agency; and The application of the above criteria will be utilized to select a minimum of eight agencies that are closest in population to the City of Edmonds. If this process yields fewer than eight comparable cities (not counting Edmonds) for analysis during a particular year, additional cities shall be selected for analysis by adding an additional city or cities, up to eight, with agencies that are outside the 10,000 over/under criteria, but that are the next closest in population to the City of Edmonds, with the goal of having 50% of the cities with a higher population and 50% with a lower population than Edmonds. Additionally, private sector data will be gathered and considered where it is a significant factor in the City’s competitiveness. Benchmark positions are those which are assigned clearly recognizable work at a well-defined level of responsibility, and for which comparable classifications are easily identified to ensure that sufficient data can be collected. Classifications that are selected as comparable for survey purposes must match the benchmark position by 80% in level of work and responsibility. Salaries for comparable positions that are not a complete match may be leveled up or down by a maximum of 20%, to adjust for differences in the level or scope of responsibility in work duties. Packet Page 190 of 214 Non-benchmark classifications (those for which there are not adequate comparable classifications) will be indexed to a corresponding City benchmark position, which is comparable in required qualifications, scope of work, and level of responsibility. Salary ranges for benchmarks will be determined by using the prevailing rates in the identified comparator cities. The City will be competitive within the defined market, but will not assume the position of a lead pay policy compared to the market; therefore the median or 50th percentile of the mid-range of salary data collected will be used to determine competitiveness. Every three years, based upon the survey data, salary ranges for non-represented positions will be realigned, to maintain the mid-point of each salary range between 5% high/low of the mid- point of the comparator city median. Positions requiring adjustment will be assigned to the new salary range within the salary range table that places the position closest to the comparator city median. Any employee whose actual salary falls below the newly adopted pay range minimum, shall be adjusted up to the new minimum upon adoption of the new pay ranges. Any employee whose actual salary exceeds the top of the approved salary range, will have their salary frozen until such time that market rates support pay range adjustment for their job classification. EXTERNAL/INTERNAL EQUITY To be more competitive in the market place, the City will provide a deferred compensation contribution of 2% for non-represented employees. If the City is financially unable to offer the deferred compensation contribution, the City will provide non-represented employees with 40 hours of Administrative Leave annually. Administrative Leave will have no cash-out value and will not be carried over at the end of the calendar year. To address internal equity issues among all employees, Non-represented employees will be eligible for receipt of Longevity Incentive Pay, consistent with that provided by SEIU, Teamsters, and the Edmonds Police Officers’ Association represented employees. In addition, to avoid inequity between supervisory ranks, and to eliminate disincentive for promotion within the Department, Commissioned Police management personnel will be eligible for receipt of an Educational Incentive Pay, consistent with that provided to Edmonds Police Officers’ Association represented employees. Non-represented at-will employees will be provided with an employment contract that articulates all compensation and benefits, as well as severance provisions that will be imposed in the event that their employment is involuntarily terminated. Packet Page 191 of 214 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 Proposed Salary Ranges Compared to Existing Non-Represented Salaries Proposed Salary Range (solid line) Current Salary (red dot) Note: Current salary (red dot) is the 'average' salary of all employees holding that position title. Packet Page 192 of 214 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 Proposed Salary Ranges Compared to Existing Salaries and Ranges Proposed Salary Range (solid line) Current Salary (red dot) Current Salary Range (two horizontal markers) Note: Current salary (red dot) is the 'average' salary of all employees holding that position title. Packet Page 193 of 214 CITY POPULATION NO N - R E P R E S E N T E D PO L I C E LA W S U P P O R T PO L I C E M G M T AS S O C . AF S C M E / A S A / S E I U TE A M S T E R S OT H E R NO N - R E P R E S E N T E D PO L I C E LA W S U P P O R T PO L I C E M G M T AS S O C . AF S C M E / A S A / S E I U TE A M S T E R S OT H E R 1 Kirkland 49,020 0%1.2%0%0%0%0%0%2.5%2.5%3.7%0%0%0%0% 2 Burien 47,660 3 Sammamish 46,940 -0.5%3.2% 4 Olympia 46,780 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%1%1%0%1%1% 5 Lacey 42,830 0%1%1%0%0%2%2.34%1%2%2.34% EDMONDS 39,800 0%0%0%0.0%0%NS NS 1.5%1.5% 6 Bremerton 38,790 2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2% 7 Puyallup 37,240 0%2%2%0%0%0%2%2%2%2%2% & NS 2% 8 Lynnwood 35,860 0%NS NS 0%0%0%NS NS 9 Bothell 33,720 2%3.7%3.7%NS 5.22% 10 University Place 31,170 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 11 Issaquah 30,690 2%2%2%2%2%2%2.5% 12 Des Moines 29,680 2%2%2%2%2%3.2%3.2%3.2%3.2%3.2% NS = not settled 2011 COLA 2012 COLA 1% - all employees non-represented 0% - all employees non-represented Packet Page 194 of 214 NON- REPRESENTED 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Non-Represented 2 2.7 3 3.5 5.8%*( -3.5%)0 0 **1.5% Budgeted Non-Represented 0-5%0-5%0-3%0-3%0 0-3%1.5%***1.5% Budgeted Total Increase 2-7%2.7-7.7%3-6%3.5-6.5%2.30%0-3%0-1.5%0 * COLA's in 2009 were offset by 9 mandated furlough days, which is equivalent to a 3.5% reduction ** COLA has not been implented; wage study currently being performed by a consultant ***Mayor has not yet made a determination REPRESENTED 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2.5*2* 1*1* SEIU 2 2.5 3 3.5 5.8*( -3.5%)2.5 0 1.5 Teamsters 2 2.5 3 3.5 5.5*( -3.5%)2.5 0 1.5 Non- Commissioned (Law Support) 2 2.5 3 3.5 6.2 0 0 0** All Represented 5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5% Total Increase 7-8%7.5-8.5%6-8%9%7-11.2%5-7.5%5%5-6.5% **Contract not settled * Awarded for first and second half of year All represented groups receive a guaranteed step increase of 5% per year until they reach the top step. All represented groups are eligible for longevity pay All represented groups have certification pay eligibility and/or other incentive pay such as educational pay (PD). CITY OF EDMONDS History of Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) & Merit Increases for Non-Represented Employees (2005-2012) 0** STEP INCREASES COLAS COLAS MERIT INCREASES 3 3.5 6.2 0 0Commissioned Police (EPOA) V:\HR Transition Plan\Compensation Consultant\Non-Represented COLA History.xlsxPacket Page 195 of 214 AM-4918 5. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/24/2012 Time:60 Minutes Submitted For:Councilwoman Bloom Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding taking minutes/notes during executive sessions. Recommendation Previous Council Action During the July 17, 2007 Council Meeting there was a discussion regarding Executive Sessions (minutes attached). During that meeting Resolution 1150 (attached) was approved and placed on the August 8, 2007 consent agenda and approved. This agenda item was discussed during the 2012 City Council Retreat (minutes attached). It was discussed again at the March 20, 2012 Council Meeting (minutes attached). It was then discussed during the Public Safety and Personnel Committee on June 12, 2012 (minutes attached). Narrative The purpose of the discussion on March 20, 2012 was to determine if there are changes that are desired with regard to City Council Resolution No. 853 which established the procedure for keeping and retaining minutes of City Council executive sessions. A copy of the Resolution is attached. This has been placed on tonight's agenda for further discussion. Attachments 7-17-2007 Approved Council Minutes 2012 Council Retreat Minutes 3-20-12 Approved Council Minutes 6-12-2012 Public Safety/Personnel Committee Minutes Resolution No. 853 Resolution 1150 Form Review Packet Page 196 of 214 Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/19/2012 10:20 AM City Council Jana Spellman 07/19/2012 04:28 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/19/2012 04:51 PM Mayor Dave Earling 07/20/2012 08:01 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 07/20/2012 08:39 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 06/14/2012 09:39 AM Final Approval Date: 07/20/2012 Packet Page 197 of 214 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 17, 2007 Page 15 proposal adhered to GMA policies, met the GMA housing goals, fit within the surrounding uses, was suitable and met the value criteria. Councilmember Orvis spoke against the motion, commenting if allowing additional units on a site was required to get buildings upgraded, the entire City would be rezoned eventually which was contradictory to the changes, suitability and surrounding area criteria. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, noting there were many requirements a developer must meet currently. He supported having the Planning Board consider the multi family zoning but cautioned against requiring sustainability as he was hesitant to mandate sustainability in private buildings. Councilmember Wambolt spoke in support of the motion. In response to Mr. Bernheim, he noted the benefit of the rezone and subsequent new construction which would be more energy efficient than the existing homes that were constructed in 1946 and 1966. Councilmember Plunkett commented in a quasi judicial hearing the Council could not consider what should be, only whether the applicant met the criteria with their proposal. He found the applicant met the criteria under the existing code, zoning and Comprehensive Plan. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. 10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, requested the Council consider term limits for Boards and Commissions as well as the City Council and the Mayor. Council President Olson cautioned him to avoid campaign issues. Next, Mr. Hertrich commented he could not recall a Council meeting being cancelled when he was on the Council and he objected to giving the Council President that power. 11. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE INCLUDING: (1) CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, (2) EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, (3) GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 21, AND (4) COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. Council President Olson explained these issues were discussed at the recent Council retreat. Cancellation of Meetings Council President Olson did not envision this occurring very often, noting it occurred in the past due to the loss of the Police Chief. As it was not possible to talk to each Councilmember because that was considered a rolling quorum, there needed to be a way to cancel Council meetings. Councilmember Marin was satisfied with delegating that authority to the Council President. Councilmember Plunkett agreed. Councilmember Dawson envisioned it would be a rare occurrence for the Council President to exercise his/her authority to cancel a meeting. She acknowledged two meetings were cancelled earlier this year due to Police Chief Stern’s sudden illness and subsequent memorial service. She found it inappropriate to require staff and/or Council to attend a meeting under those circumstances. She remarked it was a waste of public resources to schedule a meeting if there was no business as each Councilmember was paid, some staff members were paid, etc. She concluded it was appropriate to delegate that authority to the Council President. Councilmember Moore commented the proposed method was more efficient. She noted a Council President who cancelled meetings that the Council did not want to have cancelled would answer to the Council. Term Limits Meeting Cancellations Council Rules of Procedure Packet Page 198 of 214 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 17, 2007 Page 16 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3656. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance reads as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, CHAPTER 1.04 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO ADD A NEW SECTION 1.04.140 CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Executive Session Councilmember Plunkett advised he requested a resolution be prepared regarding Executive Sessions. He recalled during the discussions of the park in south Edmonds over the past year, there was some confusion regarding what information was and was not Executive Session, whether the Council should discuss certain issues in Executive Session and in at least one instance the confidentially of an Executive Session was broken. The intent of the resolution was to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session. He advised this resolution would accomplish two purposes, 1) if a Councilmember believed an Executive Session was taking place that should not, they could propose a motion to end the Executive Session and the Council could have discussion and make a determination during the public meeting, and 2) prevent any one member from revealing information that other Councilmembers believed was protected by Executive Session. Councilmember Dawson commented the resolution did not appear to address Councilmembers questioning whether the Council should be in Executive Session; she agreed it was appropriate for Councilmembers to have the ability to question whether a topic should be discussed in Executive Session. She noted the draft resolution also addressed the dissatisfaction expressed at the retreat with the way meetings were handled, the way Councilmembers were recognized and the number of times each Councilmembers could speak. Councilmember Moore agreed the resolution did not appear to provide Councilmembers a way to question an inappropriate Executive Session. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised a Councilmember could always leave an Executive Session that they felt was inappropriate. He noted the City kept minutes of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council discussed the appropriate issue. He explained the Council could reach consensus in Executive Session. If the Council agreed to discuss an issue in the open meeting, they could come out of Executive Session and make a motion to have the issue placed on a future agenda and/or request information be released. In the absence of a motion, the confidence of the Executive Session would be observed. He noted the resolution did not address the appropriateness of a subject for Executive Session because that was addressed in state law. Councilmember Plunkett recalled there were Councilmembers who revealed information that the Council had agreed should not be disclosed. His intent was to develop rules so that all Councilmembers had the same understanding. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting release of confidential Executive Session information was a crime and a potential basis for forfeiture of office. The resolution was intended to establish an orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. He concluded Executive Session information remained confidential as long as the Council felt it should remain confidential. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO SCHEDULE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1150 ON A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Committee Assignments Council President Olson explained in the past some Council committee meetings were paid and others were not; in assigning committees, it seemed more prudent to simply pay Councilmembers for a Ord# 3656 Cancellation of Council Meetings Packet Page 199 of 214 Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 2-3, 2012 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT APPROVED MINUTES February 2-3, 2012 The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 10:04 a.m. on Thursday, February 2, 2012 in the Brackett Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Thursday, February 2 Dave Earling, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember PUBLIC PRESENT Thursday, February 2 Bruce Witenberg Darrol Haug Ron Wambolt Harry Gatjens Al Rutledge Roger Hertrich Evan Pierce Ken Reidy Bruce Faires Jim Orvis STAFF PRESENT Thursday, February 2 Al Compaan, Police Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director/Interim Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Carl Nelson, CIO Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Leonard Yarberry, Building Official Rob English, City Engineer Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Tod Moles, Street Operations Manager Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Kody McConnell, Executive Assistant Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 – CALL TO ORDER Council President Peterson called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. • Introduction/Brief Preview of Retreat Agenda Council President Peterson explained in preparation for the retreat he asked the Council, Mayor and staff to identify issues important for 2012. Most of the issues were included on the retreat agenda; some will be on future Council agendas throughout the year. Mike Bailey, Redmond’s Finance Director, is ill and unable to make the presentation regarding budgeting by priorities. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock will introduce the topic today. Mr. Bailey will be invited to provide a workshop to the Council in the next few weeks to explore the concept in detail. Packet Page 200 of 214 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2010 Page 2 Council President Peterson explained because this is a relatively young City Council with the majority of Councilmembers in their first term, roles and responsibilities of the Council was a topic that many identified. A consultant recommended by AWC will make a presentation tomorrow to review the relationship between City Council and Mayor in a strong Mayor/Council form of government. Council President Peterson briefly reviewed other topics on the retreat agenda. Councilmembers and staff introduced themselves. Audience Comments Darrol Haug, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their efforts. This is the third retreat he has attended and he enjoys the open, candid dialogue that occurs at retreats that does not happen at City Council meetings. Today is Groundhog Day; in this case the shadow looming is the budget issue. Because 2012 is not an election year, he suggested it would be a good time for the Council to continue the spirit of the retreat and establish a policy to solve the budget gap. Budgeting by priorities was studied by the levy committee and he urged the Council to consider that concept as a way to help the City. He looked forward to a concerted effort to identify policies early in the process and was hopeful the shadow of the budget gap would not be quite as looming next year. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, acknowledged the City did its best during the snow. He reported there was no mail delivery on SR 104/205th or on 76th for four days due to snow which could have been a problem for someone expecting medical supplies via mail. On the fifth day of the snow, a car hit a pole causing a power outage in the Lake Ballinger area. He suggested the situation be reviewed by the Police Chief. Next, he suggested the Council discuss the sale of Robin Hood Lanes and hold a public hearing. Council President Peterson referred to an email from Ken Reidy, Edmonds, regarding executive sessions. Mr. Reidy’s email cited the preamble to the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) which states in part, the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. In Mr. Reidy’s opinion, state law requires the eventual release of executive session meeting minutes to the citizens such as after real estate has been purchased, after publically bid contracts are finalized or after pending litigation has been settled and/or all appeal rights related to the litigation have been exhausted. He supported the keeping of detailed minutes of all executive sessions and offered to work with elected officials to clearly establish the point in time that executive session meeting minutes will be made available to the citizens. Discussion about Executive Sessions and the Consequences of Minutes/Notes Council President Peterson explained there has been some question about what other cities in Washington do/not do with regard to executive session minutes/notes, when those minutes/notes are made available to public, pros and cons regarding attorney/client privilege and the concept of executive sessions. City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided the following introductory comments: first, there is a clear distinction between notes and minutes. Minutes may begin as notes but become minutes when the City Council has an opportunity to review and vote to approve their accuracy and in some cases make revisions which may include reviewing the audio of the meeting. Currently in executive session the City Clerk takes notes but those notes are never reviewed/approved by the City Council so they do not have the status of minutes. Second, Mr. Taraday was not aware of any other city in Washington that keeps notes of executive session. Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC) recommends against that practice. Edmonds began keeping notes of executive sessions in 1996 when Resolution 853 was adopted. Mr. Taraday read Resolution 853, Establishing a Procedure for Keeping and Retaining Minutes of City Council Executive Sessions. Packet Page 201 of 214 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Taraday pointed out that although the resolution uses the term “minutes,” he does not consider the Council’s practice to be generating minutes. To the extent the Council deems that there is a public interest for making a record of what takes place in executive session, that record should be as accurate as possible. If there is a desire for a record, there should be an audio recording of executive sessions. Alternatively, the Council goes into executive session for a reason; the reason is stated before the Council goes into executive session and it is an executive session because it is a discussion that should not be public and no record should be made. Mr. Taraday recommended the Council either make a full record or make no record; to do what the Council is doing now is potentially misleading in that it is not possible to take down on paper everything that takes place in executive session. The Council raised the following suggestions/questions/topics (City Attorney’s response in italics): • As an alternative to recording, keep notes of executive sessions and the Council review the notes and possibly in the future call them minutes. The resolution seems to state the Council wants to ensure there is a record stating the Council was in executive session for the right reason. There is no way to know that an accurate record exists unless there is a recording to back up the notes. The Council also needs to vote to approve minutes; the Council cannot vote in executive session. The Council could review the minutes privately and then vote in open session to approve them. If there is an interest in a fully accurate record of what takes place in executive session, the only way to ensure that is to record it. • Why not record executive sessions? The City has always asserted that if the executive session is for the purpose of discussing pending/potential litigation and the City Attorney is present, the notes taken during executive session are attorney/client privilege protected and therefore are not subject to public disclosure. However, there is no case law and there is no guarantee the court would rule that way. Therefore in the absence of a more clear statute about note taking/minute taking/recording of executive sessions, there is some risk that a court could rule that whatever record was made should be made public. He would, of course, vehemently object to that effort and would argue that any record of a discussion regarding pending/potential litigation should be treated as attorney work product or attorney/client privilege and not subject to public disclosure. • What topics are permissible for Executive Session and why don’t other cities take notes? The reason other cities do not take notes is out of concern that the record cannot be protected from public disclosure. Mr. Taraday reviewed the permissible bases for executive sessions contained in RCW 42.30.1101(1). • The Council could continue its current practice but revise the resolution to conform to the current practice. If the current practice is continued, Councilmembers have some protection because they do not review or approve the notes taken of executive sessions. Mr. Taraday did not recommend continuing the current practice because if the goal is an accurate, complete record, it should be a record that can be verified later. • There are some issues on the list of bases for an executive session that should not have any record kept; the philosophy behind an executive session is to have an open discussion about sensitive issues such as personnel, potential litigation, and those should never be revealed to the public. The Council could record discussions regarding real estate matters; the Council could review and approve minutes in open session and possibly release them in the future. The Council would not record or take notes of all other executive session topics. The City Council could establish a policy to record certain types of executive sessions. With regard to the approval of minutes, there is no exemption from the OPMA for approval of executive session minutes; the City Council cannot go into executive session to discuss a change to executive session minutes. MRSC recommends that minutes not be kept of executive sessions because a public records request could be made for the minutes and there is no automatic exemption from disclosure that applies. • RCW 42.30.010 cited by Mr. Reidy states that the people of the state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The Council should take full and complete minutes and record executive sessions and determine what can/cannot be revealed in the future. The risk of that approach is the Packet Page 202 of 214 Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes February 2-3, 2010 Page 4 executive session list of topics does not clearly say that a record of the executive session is not disclosable under the Public Records Act. • Why does Edmonds keep notes of executive sessions? MRSC recommends notes not be kept and most cities do not. There is no legal need to takes notes to comply with state law; it is up to the Council whether to preserve a record of executive sessions. It can be helpful in the future to check on topics the Council has discussed in the past. • Executive sessions give the Council an opportunity to have an open dialogue with staff. The philosophy of executive sessions is to have a frank dialogue, a recording would minimize that. • There may be short term reasons not to disclose executive session notes but not in the long term. If Councilmembers know what they say could eventually be disclosed, they may be more thoughtful in their questions and discussion. All executive session conversations should be disclosed in the future. The public has a right to know the information unless it is confidential and private. • Need to determine why other cities are not taking notes of executive sessions. The reason other cities do not take notes is clear in the statement on MRSC’s website; there is no automatic exemption from disclosure. There is the possibility even in the short term that a court could require disclosure of a record the City Council thought would not be disclosed. A potential option would be to have the City Attorney take notes. His notes would be easier to protect as they are an attorney work product. • It would be unpractical to have discussion in executive session if Councilmembers have to think about what could be released. Recording or taking minutes for only some topics would also be difficult. There is the potential for a lawsuit with regard to any executive session topic and the Council has the fiduciary responsibility to limit/reduce lawsuits. Prefer no minutes be kept of executive sessions. It was the consensus of the Council to clarify, revise, rewrite the resolution. Council President Peterson will schedule it for consideration by the full Council during the first half of the year and take public comment. He asked Councilmembers to provide him their suggestions. Budgeting by Priorities Presentation (working lunch) Community Services/Economic Development Director Clifton explained one of the topics at an Association of Washington Cities budget workshop was budgeting by priorities/budgeting for outcomes. Councilmember Buckshnis, Citizen Darrol Haug and he and a few others then met with Redmond Finance Director Mike Bailey who reinforced their interest in the concept and determining whether it would be an appropriate budgeting process for Edmonds. Mr. Bailey, who is ill today, will be invited to conduct a workshop with the Council in the future to describe what it was like for Redmond to implement budgeting by priorities, and how it was received by the directors, elected officials and citizens. Mr. Hunstock explained Redmond spent 1-2 years and $160,000 on consultants to put a budgeting by priorities process in place. He referred to a handout from the Government Finance Officers Association regarding a priority-driven budget process that is similar to budgeting by priorities. He provided an overview of budgeting for outcomes: 1. Determine the “price of government” (total resources) 2. Determine priorities a) Example: one of Redmond’s priorities was a safe place to work, play and live 3. Assign a portion of the “price” to each priority 4. Determine best way to delivery results by priority a) Results Team develop strategies/RFOs b) Program staff submits “offer (attempt to address goal), may be multi-department offer c) Results teams rank/scale offers 5. Results budgeting is focused on strategies to accomplish priorities Packet Page 203 of 214 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2012 Page 7 Association of Washington Cities and the District Municipal Court Judges Association are also working on this. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Judge Fair’s opinion about the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the use of red light cameras. Judge Fair answered he was not surprised because the legislature gave that authority to the governing bodies in their enacting legislation. The dissenting opinion was that it was a moot point because it has been resolved by the City Councils. In reality it was a good issue to resolve because it has become a concern in many cities. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no members of the public who wished to provide comment. 9. FLOWER BASKET DONATION PROGRAM Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite announced a new program, Adopt a Flower Basket. She thanked Councilmember Buckshnis for her assistance with launching the program and credited Jack Bevan for the idea. Ms. Hite distributed an Adopt a Flower Basket brochure. The program allows community members to donate $100 in support of each of the City’s flower baskets. Each basket will have a name tag stating who this basket was donated by or in memory of. Councilmember Buckshnis donated the first $100 in memory of her dog, Buddy. Ms. Hite also thanked Recreation Manager Renee McRae who worked closely with Councilmember Buckshnis on this program. 10. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. Council President Peterson explained this issue was discussed at the Council retreat. He explained there are limited reasons under RCW for the Council to meet in executive session. There is legislation under consideration regarding the recording of executive sessions and limiting what must be provided via a Public Records Request. City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided an overview of the issue. The Council adopted Resolution 853 in 1996 which is when the Council began taking notes during executive sessions. He emphasized the notes that are currently taken are notes, rather than minutes. The distinction is minutes are reviewed and approved at a subsequent meeting by the body conducting the meeting. While the notes taken of executive sessions are generally accurate, they do not have a review and approval process. That is significant because it does not provide an opportunity for a Councilmember to review them or request a change. Mr. Taraday explained he has been uncomfortable with the current practice because in his opinion if the Council records the meeting, it should be recorded completely with an audio recording so there would not be any question regarding what really happened. The Council could then discontinue the practice of note taking. He pointed out Edmonds is one of the few if not the only city in Washington who keeps notes of executive sessions. It is up to the Council to decide whether to continue or change the current practice. Council President Peterson commented his intent was to have a discussion; he did not foresee any action tonight other than scheduling it on a future meeting agenda for public comment/public hearing and potential action. Packet Page 204 of 214 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2012 Page 8 Councilmember Bloom referred to SB 6109, recently passed by the Senate 39-9, exempting video and audio recordings of executive sessions. She recognized the bill had not yet been finalized. Mr. Taraday offered to research the progress of SB 6109 and comment later in the discussion. His understanding of SB 6109 was it may give Public Records Act protection from disclosure of executive session records. One of his concerns with taking notes is that although an argument can be made that the notes are attorney-client privileged or work product protected or both, there is not a clear exemption in the Public Records Act for executive session notes. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested amending Resolution 853 because the current practice creates notes, not minutes. Mr. Taraday agreed the Council either needed to change its practices to conform with the resolution or change the resolution to conform to the practice. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she was ready to do that tonight. Councilmember Bloom advised she was ready to begin recording executive sessions now. Mayor Earling pointed out Council President Peterson’s intent that this item was for discussion only. Council President Peterson commented his discomfort with note taking, minute taking or recording executive sessions was because an executive session was an opportunity for the Council and Mayor with the City Attorney and preferably not the City Clerk to have a free flow of ideas and discussion on a limited number of sensitive topics including litigation, personnel, and real estate. He understood citizens’ concerns that things might happen behind closed doors or that deals are being struck; the Council, Mayor and City Attorney keep each other in check should the discussion drift off topic. He recognized there is distrust in government, pointing out Washington was one of the first states to have a Public Records Act. The topics that can be discussed in executive session are not intended for the public and that is one of the reasons Councilmembers are elected. The ability for Councilmembers, Mayor and City Attorney to keep each other in check ensures the system works. Councilmember Bloom pointed out the RCWs address everything Council President Peterson said. The RCW identifies when the Council can have an executive session rather than a public meeting. The advantage of recording executive sessions is it would provide proof in the event of challenge. A judge would then review the recording and determine whether the Open Public Meetings Act was violated. It was her opinion that recording executive sessions would instill more trust. She concluded it was very important for the Council to “show our work.” Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was undecided about this issue but in light of the personnel issues that occurred last year, feels note taking is the appropriate way to proceed in the future as they provide a record. Audio recording may be problematic because some Councilmembers prefer to speak less professionally in an executive session; that candor would not be possible if executive sessions are recorded. She did not support recording executive sessions unless only notes could be taken for executive session regarding personnel matters. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed recording executive sessions would reflect positively on Councilmembers for the purposes of openness and transparency. Conversely, she questioned why Edmonds is the only city currently taking notes. This may be a moot point depending on what the legislature does. Mr. Taraday explained SB 6109 has not yet passed the House. If it were signed into law it would exempt video and audio recordings of executive sessions from disclosure under the Public Records Act. If someone made a request for an audio recording of an executive session, under this exemption the City would not be required to provide it. Currently if someone requests notes of an executive session, a roundabout argument has to be made regarding why the notes should be exempt from disclosure. The bill would provide an exemption for audio recordings but not for notes. Packet Page 205 of 214 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 20, 2012 Page 9 Councilmember Yamamoto commented for each executive session he has attended, Councilmembers know the topic in advance. The Council discusses only that topic and if anyone gets off track, another Councilmember, the Mayor or the City Attorney brings them in check. He appreciated the opportunity for Councilmembers to have a frank discussion; recording executive sessions could hamper that ability. He clarified the Council only has discussions in executive session and does not make decisions. Council President Peterson suggested the Council wait to see what the legislature does. There is currently no hard and fast laws regarding what can be exempted under the Public Records Act with regard to executive sessions. Until protection was provided, he was concerned that a Public Records Request could require release of sensitive information. If SB 6109 is not passed into law, the Council can consider amendments to the resolution. 11. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 10.75.030(A)(2), EXTENSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION SUNSET DATE, AND OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the Council packet contains a draft ordinance and attachment which, if approved by the City Council, would amend ECC Chapter 10.75 regarding the Economic Development Commission (EDC). The Council discussed potential amendments on December 20, 2011, January 23, 2012 and March 6, 2012. During the March 6 meeting, the Council discussed four amendments: • Section 10.75.030(A)(2): insert language that the EDC would focus primarily on economic development related activities • Section 10.75.030(A): extension of the sunset date of the EDC approximately 4 years to December 31, 2015 • Section 10.75.010(B)(d): elected officials shall not be allowed to serve on the EDC but may serve as non-voting ex-officio members. This would also apply to elected Port Commissioners. • 10.750.030(C): staggering commission terms. Existing Commission members would be allowed to serve through the end of the year. Commissioners have indicated their interest in continuing to serve; approximately two-thirds expressed interest in remaining on the Commission. This will ensure some continuity and institutional memory on the EDC. Staff will advertise immediately to fill the remaining positions; terms filled this year would expire in 2014. Staff would re-advertise at the end of the year and either new Commissioners or existing Commissioners could be appointed. Appointments made in 2013 would expire at the end of 2015. Mr. Clifton explained another option related to staggering is to have terms expire at the end of the Councilmember’s term who appointed the Commissioner. City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified in addition to the ordinance, the Council needs to provide direction regarding staggering of Commissioners’ terms. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Clifton explained approximately 5-6 Commissioners have stated they do not plan to continue serving on the EDC. Upon confirming existing members’ desire to continue serving on the Commission, staff will advertise to fill the vacant positions. As the former Council liaison on the EDC, Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are often less than a handful of Commissioner present at EDC meetings. She suggested each Councilmember have an opportunity to appoint at least one Commissioner. As Chair of the former EDC, Councilmember Yamamoto clarified there was always a quorum present at EDC meetings. Most Commissioners informed staff when they would be absent and the absences were for legitimate reasons. He agreed there were a couple Commissioners who did not attend meetings regularly or notify of their absence. He agreed with the proposal to stagger terms. Packet Page 206 of 214 Minutes Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting June 12, 2012 Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Joan Bloom Councilmember Kristiana Johnson Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder The meeting was called to order at 6:06 p.m. by Councilmember Bloom. A. Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force, 2012 – 2013 Interlocal Agreement Assistant Police Chief Gannon described the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force (SRDGTF) Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the SRDGTF, he pointed out that Edmonds also participates in the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force with the cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. The two task forces work closely and assist each other with staffing and equipment. Mr. Gannon requested that the committee approve the placement of the Interlocal Agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda. Responding to questions from Councilmember Bloom concerning how the fees are calculated for the Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Gannon stated the fees are based on population. Edmonds fee is $9,939 for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 (a decrease of $59 over last year’s fee). Councilmember Johnson had specific questions regarding the agreement which Mr. Gannon responded to. In particular Councilmember Johnson asked questions pertaining to the participation of certain cities/entities and why they were listed in the agreement. Mr. Gannon clarified that the interlocal agreement originates from the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office. Edmonds’ participation is just the funding. He stated that he would provide additional information following this meeting to further respond to Councilmember Johnson’s questions. Action: Assistant Chief of Police Gannon to provide additional information to the Committee. The Committee approved placing the agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda. B. Discussion Regarding Taking Minutes/Notes During Executive Session Councilmember Bloom suggested in addition to discussing whether to take minutes/notes during executive session, the discussion include whether executive sessions should be recorded. She acknowledged there may be some executive sessions that should never be recorded such as those regarding personnel. Councilmember Bloom explained Resolution 853 states the Council takes minutes of executive sessions and at some point the minutes will be available to the public if the reason for the Packet Page 207 of 214 executive session has expired. The issue is staff takes summary notes which are not approved by Council so they are not technically minutes. A discussion with the residents who were present ensued. Their comments included the following: Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, asked whether Councilmembers Bloom and Johnson had reviewed the materials from the Council retreat. Councilmember Johnson said she had and Councilmember Bloom said she was present at the retreat. Mr. Wambolt pointed out Mr. Reidy has done a great deal of research regarding this issue. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, acknowledged this was a complicated issue; taking minutes/notes was important to him because he believes citizens would get better representation by their elected officials and more honest government if the City Council and Mayor knew eventually the minutes of Executive Sessions could be released to the public in certain situations. Resolution 853 requires minutes be kept; if minutes require an audio or video recording, executive sessions should be recorded. Resolution 853 also addresses the concept of minutes being subject to release when the reason for the executive session expires. He acknowledged Edmonds is unique; he was not aware of any other cities that keep executive session minutes. This is an opportunity to build trust in local governance and for Edmonds to be a leader in transparency. He hoped the Council would go in that direction rather than to discontinue keeping minutes/notes. Diane Talmadge, Edmonds, commented a resolution was non-binding, she preferred the requirement be contained in an ordinance. She felt tensions build when elected officials know what occurs in executive sessions and citizens do not. Recording or minutes of executive sessions would bring tensions into balance and elected officials would be aware that the minutes could be released at a later date. If there are no recording/notes, executive sessions seem like secret meetings. The people’s right to know is of greater importance than elected officials’ right to discuss it without anyone looking. Ms. Talmadge said executive session minutes would also allow Councilmembers to refresh their memory if necessary regarding what was discussed in executive session. She wanted the public and the Council protected because it ultimately saved the City money. Damon Pistulka, Edmonds, commented a Councilmember could be presented information in an executive session that is later contradicted. Without documentation, there is nothing to substantiate the information provided in executive session. It was beneficial for all parties to have notes/minutes of executive sessions, especially in litigation. Current and future Councilmembers could also review notes/minutes of an executive session. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, suggested the City Attorney make a presentation at a Council meeting similar to the presentation at the retreat, including addressing public comments that have been made since that presentation. With regard to release of executive session minutes/notes, he commented that although a litigation or real estate matter may have been concluded, the City may use the same tactics and strategies in future negotiations/litigation; having that information made public could be a disadvantage to the City. The reason for the executive session and the passage of time are not the only criterion for releasing information. Other issues to consider include preserving the attorney/client privilege in an executive session and inadvertent disclosure if notes/minutes/recordings are kept of executive sessions. He suggested the City Attorney’s presentation also clarify who is the client in executive sessions. Packet Page 208 of 214 Mr. Reidy suggested also having a proponent of open government address the City Council in addition to the City Attorney to provide a balanced viewpoint. Even if executive session minutes are never released to the public, it is important to have executive sessions recorded and detailed minutes kept. Councilmember Bloom asked whether other cities record their executive session. City Clerk Sandy Chase said Edmonds is the only city she knows of that takes minutes/notes of executive sessions. Mr. Reidy noted Resolution 853 was passed on September 16, 1996 on the Consent Agenda; he asked whether there was any previous discussion. Ms. Chase recalled the City Council was holding a number of executive sessions at the time and there were similar concerns expressed; Resolution 853 was a response to the concerns at that time. Councilmember Bloom referred to SB 6109 which would have required a judge to review the audio recording if there was a public record request of an executive session to determine if it was truly necessary to hold an executive session. She asked why the Senate proposed that bill if other cities do not document their executive session. Ms. Chase stated her understanding that it may be due to efforts by Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG) and others. Mr. Pistulka commented executive session notes would be helpful regardless of whether they are released. He cited the example of business board meeting notes that provide useful information. Councilmember Johnson observed there is a balance between the public’s right/need/desire to know, risk assessment and the attorney/client privilege. Resolution 853 was a compromise in an attempt to appease all parties. However, the language in the resolution does not necessarily reflect the practice. Minutes require approval, notes do not. She suggested determining whether to modify the resolution or the practice. She supported having a presentation from the City Attorney on this subject at the full Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested having a presentation from AWC and WCOG as well. Councilmember Johnson suggested MRSC as an additional resource. Other topics discussed included increased frequency of executive sessions this year, redaction of information in executive session minutes, the City Attorney’s presence at executive session, and assessing risk. Action: At next week’s meeting the City Attorney make a presentation, to be followed by Council discussion with the goal of a future public hearing and further input from AWC, WCOG, etc. C. Public Comments Public comment occurred during Agenda Item B. Adjourn: 8:21 p.m. Packet Page 209 of 214 Packet Page 210 of 214 Packet Page 211 of 214 Packet Page 212 of 214 Packet Page 213 of 214 Packet Page 214 of 214