The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-09-03 City Council - Public Agenda-1513'4- Z 90� AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-6075 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 27, 2013. B. AM-6068 Approval of claim checks #204020 through #204118 dated August 29, 2013 for $521,419.08 (reissued check #204104 $3,898.20). C. AM-6069 Authorization for Mayor to sign contract with artist for Five Corners Roundabout Public Art. 4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. (5 Minutes) Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Scarecrow Festival AM-6073 6. (30 Minutes) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3935 — An Interim Zoning Ordinance to amend the AM-6070 Critical Areas Ordinance, specifically Sections ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, and 23.90.040, to allow development within legally established impervious areas and within buffer areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from an associated critical area. 7. (45 Minutes) Discussion regarding I-502 and city options regarding marijuana. AM-6077 Packet Page 1 of 346 8. (30 Minutes) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3938 — Relating to collective gardens and the AM-6076 recreational uses of marijuana, establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the siting, establishment and operation of any structures or uses relating to collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing, or marijuana retailing, to be in effect until the City of Edmonds adopts zoning regulations addressing such marijuana uses, and establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the submission of any business license applications for such uses, setting six months as the effective period of the moratorium, to allow the Washington State Liquor Control Board an opportunity to complete its rule making for the licensing of such uses and to allow the city to study the secondary land use impacts of such uses, establishing the date of the Public Hearing on the moratorium and declaring an emergency. 9. (15 Minutes) Reconsideration of the Mayor's veto of Ordinance No. 3940 — Repealing Interim AM-6078 Ordinance No. 3935, which amended the Critical Areas Ordinance, specifically Sections ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, and 23.90.040, to allow development within legally established impervious areas and within buffer areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from an associated critical area. 10. (30 Minutes) Action Item: Adoption of longevity pay for non -represented employees. AM-6071 11. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 12. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 13. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 14. (15 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 346 AM-6075 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 09/03/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 27, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 08-27-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 08/29/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 08/29/2013 02:46 PM Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 03:00 PM Started On: 08/29/2013 11:06 AM 3. A. Packet Page 3 of 346 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 27, 2013 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. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Sharon Cates, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Executive Council Assistant Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present. Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would next meet with candidates for appointment to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and the Architectural Design Board. He noted that both meetings with the candidates would be held in the Jury Meeting Room adjoining the Council Chambers, and the public was invited to attend. 2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE At 6:31 p.m., the City Council met with Lodging Tax Advisory Committee candidate Patricia Moriarty. The meeting took place in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Councilmembers were present for the meeting with Ms. Moriarty. 3. MEET WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD CANDIDATE BRIAN BOROFKA FOR CONFIRMATION TO THE ADB Following the above interview, the City Council met with Architectural Design Board (ADB) candidate Brian Borofka. The meeting took place in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Councilmembers were present for the meeting with Mr. Borofka. The Council meeting was reconvened in Council Chambers at 6:53 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 346 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEMS 12 AND 13 TO FOLLOW AGENDA ITEM 8. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #203919 THROUGH #204019 DATED AUGUST 22, 2013 FOR $717,430.19. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60391 THROUGH #60419 FOR $476,995.48, BENEFIT CHECKS #60420 THROUGH #60427 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $203,443.33 FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2013 THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF PATRICIA MORIARTY TO THE LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE. D. CONFIRMATION OF BRIAN BOROFKA TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD. E. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3941— AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.75.120 - CHANGE OF DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled the Edmonds Cemetery at 15th Street SW & 100`h Avenue W was vandalized 10 years ago on Halloween. He feared that could happen again and suggested staff be present on Halloween. Next, he thanked the sponsors of the car show, noting some businesses were unable to sponsor due to numerous other donation requests they have received. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on the Mayor's veto of the ordinance the Council passed last week repealing Interim Ordinance No. 3935. He questioned the definition of impervious, relaying many surfaces such as gravel, dirt, etc. are considered impervious as well as cement and asphalt. His understanding of impervious was a surface through which liquid could not pass; for example a roof. It was his understanding that an impervious surface required water retention. He was uncertain whether the City was using the correct formula to determine appropriate water retention for impervious surfaces. He suggested impervious be clearly defined. Donna Breske, Snohomish, explained she has been trying for six years to get a building permit to construct a house on property located at 9330 218`h Place SW. She referred to a City review letter dated July 22, 2013 in which staff concluded as a condition of acquiring a building permit for her lot, the City has a right to have her lot as the stormwater repository for the stormwater runoff for the surrounding City streets. Per the letter, the City concludes that a previous Hearing Examiner determination which was not overturned was somehow still binding. The previous Hearing Examiner determination occurred in August 2008 and was related to a previous application for this lot; the binding effect of that decision expired when the City updated the drainage code. She asserted the City can no longer use the previous decision as a basis for their conclusion. When she spoke to the Council three weeks ago, Public Works Director Phil Williams stated four staff members agreed with the information in the letter and that they relied on a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 346 previous court decision. She explained the previous court decision is affirmation of the 2008 Hearing Examiner decision which states the appellants did not satisfy their burden of proof by successfully showing that the administrative determination of Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30.060 by City staff was erroneous. The Hearing Examiner concluded the City had the right to have her lot be the stormwater repository based on a previous code. She requested her current permit application be reviewed per the current City code and that any conclusions be based on the current code, not a previous decision that utilized the previous code. 7. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT - YELLOW DOG PROJECT Councilmember Buckshnis explained in 2005 four women formed the non-profit organization Off Leash \ Area Edmonds (OLAE) and received 501(c)3 tax exempt status in 2006. The dog park is maintained by numerous volunteers and has over 200 financial donors and members. Shay Hastler, OLAE, Vice President, and Assistant Scout Master Troop 312, provided OLAE's mission, to steward the park in cooperation with the City of Edmonds Parks & Recreation Department, educate park users on becoming responsible users and promote off -leash dog recreation and usage. Their secondary mission is fundraising that will be directed to sustain daily park maintenance and provide funds for future projects such as the seventh Eagle Scout project that will be done next year. She introduced her son, Kyle Hastler, a Star Scout, about to move to Life Scout which is one merit badge away from an Eagle Scout. Next year's Eagle Scout project will build on the very popular agility course. Judy Bailey, OLAE, President, explained the Yellow Dog Project is a global initiative to educate the public. She explained a yellow ribbon is placed on a dog's leash, identifying a dog that, for a variety of reasons, needs a 6+ foot space between them and people or animals. She assured a Yellow Dog is not a waiver of the owner's responsibility to train, not an excuse for the owner to avoid proper training, not an owner's admission of guilt or confession that their dog is a handful; it is a dog that needs to continue to experience the world safely. Yellow ribbons will be available at several locations in Edmonds on Saturday, August 31 or dog owners can contact OLEA at o.l.a.e@comcast.net. Ms. Bailey further explained the Edmonds Police Department is seeking a new K9 dog. On behalf of OLAE, she presented Police Foundation President David Jones a check for $2,000 toward the purchase of a new K9. She thanked the Mayor and Council for allowing them to make this presentation and for their support of the off -leash dog area. She also thanked the Edmonds Parks & Recreation Department, with special thanks to Parks Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay. 8. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 8, 2013 HARBOR SEAL DAY IN EDMONDS Mayor Earling read a proclamation designating September 8, 2013 as Harbor Seal Day in Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to Susan Morrow, Edmonds Seal Sitters. Ms. Morrow recognized several Edmonds Seal Sitters in the audience and thanked them for their work. She commented harbor seals are part of a much larger resource, marine mammals in the Puget Sound; Edmonds Seal Sitters' goal is to protect this resource for all to enjoy. She invited the public to demonstrations and children's games on the beach on September 8. 12. PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVAL OF FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PUBLIC ART SELECTION Mayor Earling explained this is a public hearing regarding the Five Corners roundabout public art, not the roundabout. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 346 Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained when capital construction projects are initiated by the City, there is sometimes an opportunity to include artwork in the project. The Five Corners roundabout project presented an opportunity for public art. Although the roundabout is a Public Works project, facilitation of the public art process for a site falls under the purview of the Edmonds Arts Commission and the Parks & Recreation and Cultural Services Department. Funding for public art comes from the City's 1% for Art program, established by ordinance in 1975. This public hearing is on the selection of artwork for the Five Corners site which the Arts Commission has recommended to the City Council for approval. The public art process defined by the City includes the following steps: • Arts Commission recommends that public art be part of a project and prepares a Call for Artists with a recommended budget, $25,000 in this case. • Call for Artists is reviewed and approved by City Council • Call for Artists is advertised Selection committee is formed that by ordinance includes representatives from the City Council, Arts Commission, the community, the engineering division if the project pertains to transportation, and an outside arts professional o Councilmember Johnson — City Council o Marni Muir — Arts Commission o Billie Swengel — College Place Optical o JoAnne Zulauf — Engineering o Mary Pat Bern — Arts professional Ms. Chapin explained 22 northwest artists responded to the Call for Artists. The selection committee reviewed all submissions and selected three artists to develop site specific proposal concepts. The three proposals were presented at an advertised meeting of the selection committee on July 25, 2013. Twelve members of the public attended and opportunity was provided for verbal and written comments to the committee. A majority of the comments were in favor of the proposal provided by Chris Rench. Following the presentations, the selection committee met to review the presentations and public comments and selected the proposal by Chris Rench to forward to the Edmonds Arts Commission. At their August 5 meeting, the Edmonds Art Commission recommended the Rench proposal be forwarded to City Council for a public hearing and final approval. Ms. Chapin reviewed the criteria included in the RFQ approved by Council: provide greater visual identity, a distinctive sense of place and a unique signature for the Five Corners neighborhood. Edmonds' reputation as a vibrant arts community is anchored in the downtown and adjoining waterfront where artworks by prominent artists are featured in the public art collection. The Five Corners project presented an opportunity to provide a visual gateway to the downtown, leading from the more urban area on Highway 99. Artists were asked to address the following: • Create a visual gateway • Connect Five Corners and the downtown • Provide appropriate scale • Vertical height and visual impact • Hold its own from a distance • Coordinate with the landscape design including Corten steel spirals to hold plantings • Reflect the spirit and values of the neighborhood • Nighttime illumination • Minimal maintenance • Resistance to vandalism • Safety Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 346 In reviewing the Call for Artists, the engineering consultants emphasized the importance of height in the circle to discourage motorists from looking at the traffic on the opposite of the circle. This provides better safety and traffic flow. Pedestrians do not have access to the center. Ms. Chapin introduced Chris Rench, a professional artist from Hood River, Oregon, who designs and fabricates primarily large scale, abstract sculptures. His work, primarily in stainless steel and mild steel is diverse, ranging from small hand -painted sculptures to monumental public installations. He has worked with public art programs and numerous community committees and has created 20 large scale public art sculptures across the country in addition to work for individuals and developers. In reviewing his past work and his proposal, the selection committee was confident he had the professional background in both design and fabrication combined with skills in working with the community as part of the public art process. The committee was impressed by his thoughtfulness in creating a design that reflects Edmonds while meeting the stated criteria with regard to scale, creating a gateway connecting Five Corners to downtown, working with materials and design to minimize maintenance and providing nighttime illumination. Mr. Rench displayed a model of his proposed sculpture, Drawn to the Water - Connected by Community. When viewing the site, he realized Edmonds' connection to the forest, streams and waterfront. The design symbolizes four trees surrounding a stainless steel column that is textured and lit with blue glass to represent the water. The piece is proposed to be 13 feet, big enough to create the visual, iconic impact but not oversized for the space. The 13 foot height is approximately the level of the existing wires at the intersection. The five columns were also chosen to symbolize Five Corners as well as tree and water aspects. He noted the tops of the columns are illuminated; the four surrounding columns are white clear glass and the center column is blue glass. He also suggested the piece be illuminated from the outside. Mr. Rench explained the materials, stainless steel and mild steel, were chosen for specific reasons. The mild steel was chosen because it will rust and weather and change color throughout the year. The textured stainless steel center piece, symbolizing water, will not rust. The piece reflects the spirit of Edmonds, connecting the water, forest and streams and reflecting downtown and the waterfront. He displayed a drawing of the sculpture imposed on the roundabout, noting the rusted mild steel also coordinates with the circular Corten steel in the landscaping. Mr. Rench summarized the sculpture met all the criteria of the RFQ including providing a visual gateway, the scale, the spirit of Edmonds and its tie to the waterfront, and being as maintenance free as possible. Mayor Earling advised an email was provided by Billie Swengel, a member of the selection committee, expressing her support for the proposal. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Joanne Otness, Edmonds Arts Commission, spoke in favor of the Council's approval of the proposed sculpture as public art for the Five Corners project. Although not a member of the selection committee, the process as described by Ms. Chapin and the artist was very public and thoughtful. Many factors were considered in selecting this artwork including the artist's experience, the scale of the sculpture to the site, and most importantly the theme of drawing Five Corners, downtown Edmonds and the waterfront together and making the Five Corners roundabout a significant gateway to the City. The Arts Commission approved the sculpture and recommends approval by the Council as public art. Julaine Fleetwood, Edmonds, spoke in support of Mr. Rench's artwork for the roundabout. She moved to Edmonds because of its art and waterfront personality. She works in Seattle and commutes by train. Her involvement in the community includes serving as Director of the Edmonds Arts Festival, Art Festival Foundation, Arts Flash, Edmonds Art Studio Tour, guest instructor at Edmonds Community College, and coach/mentor at Scriber Lake High School. She was thrilled a significant piece of art would Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 346 be installed in Five Corners, finding it a great addition to the neighborhood. She often feels she is leaving the Edmonds community when driving from the Edmonds bowl to Five Corners; the sculpture will tie Five Corners to the rest of Edmonds. She liked the height and bulk, found the materials varied and visually appealing. It will be clearly visible to cars and will elevate the perception of the Five Corners neighborhood. She liked the lighted element and felt it would be a nice piece for Edmonds and a great piece for Five Corners. Darlene McLellan, Edmonds, commented over the last several years, the Edmonds Arts Commission has looked for opportunities to expand public art beyond downtown and waterfront areas. The Highway 99 International District Enhancement project and now Five Corners make a connection to what has been successfully accomplished downtown. CJ Rench's design is a well -thought out addition to art in Edmonds, creating a visual gateway to connect Five Corners with downtown and the waterfront. He successfully reflected the historical spirit of the neighborhood with his use of materials, finishes and interplay with seasonal plantings. Lighting elements speak to the need for neighborhood safety, making the boundaries clear, defining the textures and subtly conveying messages of reflection and water. It is an exceptionally well thought out design for the center of a traffic circle and will not be a distraction for drivers. This sculpture and the roundabout may encourage her to use this intersection which she has avoided for years. Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, (Esperance), commented when he first learned to drive he was instructed to be aware of traffic as much as possible including opposing traffic. When entering a roundabout, he wanted to be able to see oncoming traffic. He also noted that he did not see notification of the selection committee's meeting. He suggested public input could have been gathered by displaying the proposed sculptures at one of the summer festivals. At this point the recommended artwork was being displayed and the Council was encouraged to approve it; it was too late for public comment to make any difference. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with the suggestion that the other sculptures should be presented to the public. He commented on the selection process for the fountain at 5t'' & Main. He did not like the sculpture proposed for the Five Corners roundabout; it made him think of the movie, "2001", and landing of aliens. He had difficulty visualizing square trees and said he will wait and see how the lights look. He summarized the public had not been involved and had not seen the other options. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, was surprised only 12 people attended the selection committee's meeting, recalling 150-200 people had attended previous art selection committee meetings. He encouraged the City to adequately notify the public. Councilmember Johnson thanked Ms. Chapin for organizing the process. She thanked the members of the selection committee, the Arts Commission, and the 12 people who attended the selection committee meeting. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE ARTWORK PROPOSED BY CJR DESIGN FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she grew up with roundabouts and was familiar with the reason for a tall installation in the center. She asked Public Works Director Phil Williams to describe the logic. Mr. Williams explained when approaching a circular intersection drivers are looking for a "target value" in the center of the roundabout. It is desirable to have something very visible and easily seen when approaching so drivers know to slow down. Paint on the ground or a lower installation would not provide that visual. When stopped at the existing intersection, a driver is faced with four cars approaching from a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 346 variety of directions as well as four pedestrian crosswalks. It is confusing and a great deal of negotiating occurs with cars starting, stopping and hesitating. That is avoided with a roundabout; a driver only has one place to look, just to their left to see if there is any traffic. There is also only one crosswalk for the driver to consider. What is happening on the other side of the roundabout is irrelevant and screening that view reduces confusion for the driver. Councilmember Johnson thanked Chris Rench for his design, Drawn to the Water — Connected to Community. She was impressed with his experience with design, fabrication and installation. This will be a very good installation of public art for Five Corners. Councilmember Peterson also thanked the artist and the members of the selection committee including Councilmember Johnson. Although members of the public have questioned the process, the selection committee's meeting was noticed. The committee is comprised of members of the community who are interested, knowledgeable and passionate about arts in the community. That is the process that can be expected in a representative democracy; not all 40,000 residents can make a decision on this or any issue other than during elections. He expressed his appreciation for the dedication of the Arts Commission, staff, the artist who was selected and the artists who were not selected. He was excited about bringing public art to other neighborhoods and felt this would be an iconic statement for the Five Corners neighborhood. Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the sculpture. She asked Ms. Chapin to explain the 1% for Arts program. Ms. Chapin explained in 1975 by ordinance the City Council established the 1% for Arts with the goal of accumulating funds that could be used to create artwork in the public realm. Artwork is not inexpensive; this is a modest budget for a large scale sculpture. Since 1975, 1% of capital construction projects funded by the City have been set aside in a special fund. Allocations from the fund are recommended by the Edmonds Arts Commission. To accumulate enough for a significant project takes many years because the 1% is not provided by projects funded primarily through grants. She noted the entirely grant funded International District project on Highway 99 included artist -made lanterns. Some years no funds are placed into the 1% for Arts Fund. Councilmember Bloom observed the 1% for Arts funds can only be used for public art. Ms. Chapin agreed, noting any expenditures must follow the well- defined process. Councilmember Bloom relayed suggestions she had heard that it would have been less expensive to plant trees or construct a rain garden in the roundabout. Mr. Williams answered trees could have been planted in the roundabout. There was a desire to put something more iconic and related to Five Corners. With regard to a rain garden, he explained it would have been very difficult to direct much of the stormwater runoff within the project limits to the center of the intersection due to the limited grade. In addition, there is a great deal of infrastructure under the intersection and a rain garden requires excavation of a depression. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Ms. Chapin for bringing this lovely sculpture to the City and thanked the artist for proposing such a beautiful piece of art. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY RCW 36.70A.390 ON INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3931 WHICH AMENDED THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320, TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE AND REFERENCES THERETO. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained this is a required public hearing following adoption of the interim zoning ordinance. The interim ordinance was adopted by the Council in early July Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 346 to correct what the City Attorney and staff felt were problems with the critical areas ordinance with regard to reasonable use exceptions. The ordinance removes a definition that partially removed some of the discretion that the City would otherwise have in reviewing and approving reasonable use exceptions. The Planning Board will be reviewing the issue; they had intended to discuss it tomorrow but due to the City Attorney's absence, it will be delayed until September. A recommendation will be provided to the Council before the interim ordinance expires. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Jordan Shank commented that basing the definition of reasonable economic use on state and federal case law, variances now require input from the City Attorney. He asked whether applicants are now required to have legal representation or legal resources to investigate case law prior to a submittal. Citing the success in Seattle, Redmond, Kirkland and King County, he asked how this implementation affected City resources or the general timeframe for approval of a variance. Steve Schroeder, Edmonds, said he appeared before the Council in opposition to a variance granted by the Hearing Examiner that would have allowed construction of a house on a wetland and its buffers. During that proceeding, it became apparent to the City Council's attorney and the City Attorney that the ordinance was flawed. The ordinance includes an example regarding what constituted a reasonable economic use. Taken literally by staff and the Hearing Examiner, it resulted in a drastic change in takings law in Edmonds, taking it out of step with surrounding communities, state and federal law. He urged the enactment of the amendment which will put citizens of Edmonds back on par with other state residents with regard to reasonable use of property and not tie the hands of staff and the Hearing Examiner. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he attended the meeting that Mr. Schroeder referred to. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented Edmonds has more critical areas than most cities due to the topography. He was not aware that the City could prevent a property owner from building on their land; it was his understanding that an access must be provided and some reasonable use must be allowed. He suggested creating criteria and definitions in order to prevent a taking. He questioned whether a property owner could be prevented from building anything on their property. Lynn Hillman, Edmonds, commented she and her husband were disturbed by the City Council's hasty adoption of an ordinance that suddenly changed a portion of the critical areas code without any environmental emergency. The existing critical areas code has been in place many years; a code that was written and adopted via a carefully considered process, not in a sudden and reactionary manner. The goals of critical areas regulations under the State GMA include balancing environmental preservation with urban growth encouragement and protection of individual property rights. A variance process in the code provides for this in cases where strict interpretation denies reasonable economic use which would otherwise leave the City open to an unlawful taking of private property without compensation in violation of state and federal constitutions. Removing definitions such as reasonable use make the code less clear. More definitive code language helps citizens and staff determine whether a proposal meets City code. Other local jurisdictions have reasonable use provisions that are more definitive and specific than Edmonds'; she provided written materials containing excerpts from King County, Kirkland, Mukilteo and Lake Forest Park's critical area regulations. She requested the City Council and Planning Board consider adding similar, more precise provisions to the Edmonds code during its next regular code update cycle such as a limit on allowed site disturbance, a square foot limit on a house in a critical area, or other similarly restrictive by clear language. She recommended the interim ordinance be either rescinded or repealed until a fully thought out, more carefully drafted critical area code was presented for review Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 346 Mr. Chave thanked Ms. Hillman for the material she provided and assured he would forward it to the City Attorney. In response to Mr. Shank's comment, Mr. Chave explained the interim ordinance removes the definition that the City Attorney felt conflicted with case law. He noted decisions on variances and exceptions must be made carefully because they are considered on a case -by -case basis. Broadening rules to the extent they conflict with case law unnecessarily handcuffs the City in doing its due diligence review. The interim ordinance did not impose new requirements on applicants; it does not require an applicant to have an attorney. The comments regarding standards will be considered by the Planning Board during its review. Council President Petso explained no action was required; this was a required public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the definition of reasonable economic use was determined to be incorrect due to the example. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining it could not always be assumed a single family house on a lot was a reasonable use. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled attorney Carol Morris' example of a property that was underwater. Mr. Chave pointed out a property's assessment may also be part of determining reasonable use; for example a lot that seems to be buildable but if it is assessed at $1000, clearly the assessor does not feel it is buildable. 9. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR INTER -JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN SNOHOMISH COUNTY. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave advised this was forwarded to full Council by the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee with a recommendation for approval. Edmonds entered into a memorandum of understanding with several other cities in 2011 to pursue an agreement. The Interlocal Cooperation Agreement establishes a multi jurisdiction workgroup in Snohomish County. The workgroup obtained a $50,000 Gates Foundation grant for the first year, reducing the cost for the City's participation in the first year to $2,385. The intent of pooling resources is to provide assistance to each city. More importantly the agreement provides for a coalition that can leverage grants to move affordable housing forward. If the Council agrees, the recommended action is to, 1) authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement and 2) authorize the related expenditure of $2,385 from the Council Contingency Fund. Council President Petso clarified taking this action did not necessarily obligate the City to participate in anything the organization develops. Mr. Chave responded the organization, comprised of participant cities, Snohomish County and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, is not a regulatory body. The intent is to leverage funds and technical expertise. He referred to ARCH (A Regional Housing Coalition) in King County as a successful example. This is a voluntary participatory agency; any jurisdiction can withdraw with 90 days' notice. Councilmember Buckshnis read from ARCH's website, ARCH assists member governments in developing housing policies, strategies, programs and development regulations and coordinates with the city's financial support for groups in creating affordable housing for low to moderate income housing. Mr. Chave advised the amount of $2,385 is money well spent to obtain expertise regarding affordable housing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE RELATED EXPENDITURE OF $2,385 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 346 Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a presentation two years ago by Shane Hope, Mountlake Terrace. She said Snohomish County Tomorrow has been working on this for a long time and received a Gates Foundation grant. Council President Petso referred to a comment on ARCH's website regarding developer incentives for low income and/or affordable housing, recalling that was not supported by respondents to the Strategic Plan survey. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. to. ADOPTION OF LONGEVITY PAY FOR NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite reported this is the fifth time this issue has been before the Council. She provided background, explaining a nonrepresented compensation consultant worked with the City in 2011/2012 and presented a formal recommendation to the Council in August and September 2012. The Council adopted some items related to a nonrepresented compensation policy and directed staff to return to Council with further information regarding this item. Staff returned to Council in November 2012; the Council asked for further review by the Finance Committee. Following the Finance Committee's review in February 2013, it was forwarded to full Council for review. Staff discussed this issue with Council in April and Council requested staff return during the budget process. Ms. Hite explained the compensation consultant recommended longevity compensation for non - represented employees. She referred to information in the Council packet regarding cities that provide longevity compensation for nonrepresented employees. The compensation consultant recommended providing longevity compensation due to, 1) the commitment of the tenure of City staff working for the City, 2) comparison of comparable cities as well as internal comparisons (all SEIU, Teamsters, and Police receive longevity compensation), and 3) earning potential of nonrepresented employees was considerably reduced with the adoption of the compensation policy. The packet includes a revised policy that incorporates the more conservative SEIU schedule. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if nonrepresented employees received a COLA in 2013. Ms. Hite answered they did. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled nonrepresented employees at the top of their pay scale received a step increase. Ms. Hite answered no; employees at the top of their salary range are frozen and did not receive a step increase. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if nonrepresented employees receive the same medical as SIEU, Teamsters and Police. Ms. Hite answered all employees have the same medical package with the exception of the Police; Police have 100% of their premium paid, all others have 90% of their premiums paid and 10% is paid by the employee. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked if nonrepresented employees received any other benefits as part of the nonrepresented compensation policy. Ms. Hite answered the Council added, at the recommendation of the compensation consultant, management leave for nonrepresented employees who cannot accrue comp time. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the Council planned to take action on this item tonight. Council President Petso answered the Council did not need to take action tonight. This item had been on the extended agenda as a discussion item; she learned Thursday it was changed to an action item because it would assist staff in developing the preliminary budget. She assumed whatever decision the Council made tonight could be changed in the budget process. However, because it was listed on the agenda as an action item tonight, Council could take action if they wished. She indicated she will likely vote against any action as she had not had enough time since learning it was an action item to review all the materials. Mayor Earling explained staff was actively engaged in assembling the 2014 budget; this will impact the budget. It would be of great assistance to know whether or not the Council wanted to adopt longevity compensation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 346 Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Lynnwood and Olympia provide monetary amounts rather than a percentage. She assumed that was done to avoid impacting pensions. Ms. Hite answered any compensation is added to an employee's salary base. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council previously approved providing a flat amount to nonrepresented employees. She asked whether that would be done again this year. Ms. Hite recalled the Council did that in 2012 when the compensation policy was adopted. A percentage COLA for nonrepresented employees was included in the 2013 budget. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she would not support longevity compensation, primarily because nonrepresented employees would then receive nearly the same package that represented employees receive. She was satisfied with providing a COLA, step increases and medical but not longevity compensation. She relayed a great deal of time and money was expended negotiating with unions over these same issues; nonrepresented employees receiving the same benefits as represented employees did not "pass the smell test" for her. Councilmember Bloom observed the materials provided indicate five jurisdictions have longevity compensation, five do not, and five did not respond. Ms. Hite agreed, noting King County and Snohomish County were included for information only at the request of Council; they are not used in salary comparisons. With regard to a percentage versus a flat amount, Councilmember Bloom assumed staff who have been employed longer earn more. She asked about the average salary of the 7 employees who have been employed 19+ years. Ms. Hite responded she did not have an average. Nonrepresented staff are managers, directors and professional staff who oversee programs. They are in leadership roles, are part of the City's executive management team and are typically paid more than union employees. She explained in Parks & Recreation there are three managers with 40, 25 and 22 years of service whose salaries are frozen. Councilmember Yamamoto asked what timeframe was contemplated for calculating longevity compensation. Ms. Hite answered that was also a topic for Council consideration. She suggested including it in the 2014 budget and beginning it January 1, 2014. The Council could also decide to provide longevity compensation retroactively from July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. Council President Petso asked whether nonrepresented employees would receive a COLA in 2014. Ms. Hite answered a 1.4% COLA would be included in the budget for nonrepresented employees similar to Teamster and SEIU. Negotiations have begun on the 2014 Police contract. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a flat amount was ever researched. Ms. Hite answered that had not been researched based on the compensation consultant's recommendation that considered internal and external comparisons. She explained internal equity issues were one of the key issues the consultant raised. This year two union employees chose not to apply for promotional opportunities that would result in their becoming nonrepresented employees due to the compensation difference. Providing longevity compensation at a flat rate would add to that compression issue. Councilmember Buckshnis noted it would also be more quantifiable as employees who know the amount they will receive. Councilmember Peterson expressed support for longevity compensation. Because tonight was a fourth Tuesday and Council President Petso did not want to take action tonight, he supported scheduling it for action as soon as possible. In addition to considering comparator cities, he agreed with considering internal equity. The inability to promote from within because employees promoted from a union to nonrepresented position do not make as much money is a disservice to staff and the City. He pointed out the knowledge that employees with 10-15 years of service have. He also supporting having longevity compensation retroactive to July 1, 2013. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 346 Councilmember Johnson said longevity compensation makes sense for employees who are at the top of their scale and have no opportunity for further advancement. She expressed interest in further information about the fiscal impact of longevity compensation retroactive to 2013 as well as the fiscal impact for outlying years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the pay scale for nonrepresented employees is a separate issue and should be addressed separately rather than piecemealed via longevity pay. She noted longevity pay would not motivate employees to seek promotion or to remain in the City's employment. Longevity pay is part of a compensation package that was negotiated with the other groups. She preferred to consider longevity pay for nonrepresented employees as part of a compensation package. Ms. Hite pointed out longevity compensation was part of a package for nonrepresented employees that the compensation consultant presented to the Council. The Council asked to have it pulled out for continued discussion. Councilmember Peterson agreed the Council was provided a compensation package for nonrepresented that was similar to represented employees. It was the Council's decision to separate out some items. He suggested the next agenda memo include the complete compensation package that was presented by the compensation consultant. Ms. Hite summarized the information the Council was requesting in addition to the original compensation package includes, 1) the fiscal impact for retroactivity in 2013, 2) fiscal impact for outlying years, 3) a flat rate approach and the fiscal impact. Due to the absence of 3 Councilmembers from the September 17 and 24 meetings, Mayor Earling suggested information be provided at next week's meeting or a full Council meeting be held on September 10. Council President Petso suggested either staff return with the information soon or it be addressed as a decision package in the 2014 budget. 11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite explained the Personnel Committee has been comparing and contrasting Codes of Ethics for cities throughout the Puget Sound region. Two documents the committee has been considering include Kirkland and Bellevue's Code of Ethics. The committee has also discussed Bainbridge Island's code. Kirkland adopted a Code of Conduct in addition to a Code of Ethics. She explained a Code of Conduct describes professional responsibilities; a Code of Ethics describes legal responsibilities. A Code of Ethics would apply to the Council, boards and commissions; staff is guided by a Code of Conduct in the City's personnel policies. The Personnel Committee has also expressed interest in identifying an Ethics Officer. Some of the comparable models reviewed by the Personnel Committee identify an Ethics Officer outside the organization in order to have an objective, non -vested perspective in researching a Code of Ethics issues. For example Kirkland and Bellevue contract with an Ethics Officer on an as needed basis who is only paid when a Code of Ethics issue needs to be investigated. Neither Kirkland nor Bellevue had incurred any expenses for outside review of a Code of Ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted the attachments are in the August 20, 2013 packet. She clarified in addition to Councilmembers, boards and commissions, the Code of Ethics would cover all elected officials including the Mayor. Kirkland and Bellevue's Codes of Ethics do not include a Mayor because they have a City Manager form of government. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with including the requirement in 3.14.040 of Kirkland's policy related to financial disclosure for all officials. Officials are defined as all members of boards and commissions. Kirkland's policy excludes the Mayor and Council because elected officials must present Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 346 all financial information on a yearly basis. She did not support requiring all members of boards and commissions to disclose their financial information and suggested that be excluded that from Edmonds' Code of Ethics; Bellevue's Code of Ethics does not have that requirement. She also suggested consideration be given to the complaint process and who handles complaints. For example Kirkland involves the Hearing Examiner and the City Council in the event of a complaint regarding a Councilmember. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Bloom's concern about requiring members of boards and commissions to disclose financial information. He agreed with the Council considering a Code of Ethics in a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. He supported the City having a Code of Ethics for elected officials and boards and commissions, anticipating a Code of Ethics would make the Council's work easier if an ethical issue arose. As Councilmember Buckshnis indicated, a Code of Ethics can be subjective, but responding to an ethical complaint would be even more subjective without a Code of Ethics. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised Snohomish County adopted a Code of Conduct for all boards and commissions and every commission and board member must acknowledge they have read and understand the Code of Conduct. She encouraged Councilmembers to review Snohomish County's Code of Conduct for elected and appointed officials. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Snohomish County's Code of Conduct was similar to Kirkland's. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded Snohomish County may be more thorough and straightforward. Council President Petso said she was pleased to see Kirkland's Code of Conduct in the packet and was interested in pursuing a Code of Conduct. She was concerned about the Code of Ethics and Ethics Officer and complaint enforcement. She feared a person who did not agree with an official's position on an issue could file an ethics complaint. She indicated she was unlikely to support a Code of Ethics that included a complaint process, an Ethics Officer and enforcement. She found Bellevue's Code of Ethics less objectionable; the statement of intent is to not to limit people who could serve on boards and commissions and elected officials. She agreed the financial disclosure in Kirkland's Code of Ethics would likely deter citizens from volunteering for a board or commission. Council President Petso noted there are other aspects, particularly in Kirkland's Code of Ethics that would deter citizens from volunteering to serve on a board or commission. There are events that do not constitute an ethics issue but might under a poorly drafted policy. For example when she was appointed to Council, a relative was serving on the Sister City Commission; that did not create an issue for her or him. It would have been unfortunate if the Code of Ethics forced one of them to resign their position. One of Kirkland's policies indicated it would be a conflict if a person serving on a board of commission lived in your household. In the example she provided, the person did live in her household for a period of time but it had no impact on his ability to serve on the Sister City Commission. Council President Petso relayed the City Attorney wanted the Council to discuss whether they were interested in developing a Code of Ethics for Edmonds because it will take him a great deal of time to develop it. Less legal time would be involved in drafting a Code of Conduct. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred the Bainbridge Island Code of Ethics. She agreed with not requiring boards and commissions to disclose financial information, commenting Councilmembers file with the Public Disclosure Commission. She liked the Code of Conduct although she feared it could be subjective. She recalled recent emotionally charged conversations with a fellow Councilmember that could have been interpreted as an argument. She preferred to start with a Code of Conduct using Snohomish County as an example. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 346 Councilmember Bloom also liked Bainbridge Island's Code of Ethics policy the best. She recalled Councilmember Peterson's concern with Bainbridge Island's creation of an Ethics Board and the need for staff support for such a board. She supported adopting a Code of Ethics for the Council, boards and commissions. She explained an ethics violation was not related to conduct but rather conflicts of interest. She asked the City Attorney to describe an ethics violation. City Attorney Sharon Cates answered Code of Ethics are related to conflict of interest issues, not interpersonal interaction. Councilmember Bloom commented Bainbridge Island's policy allows citizens to ask questions about potential ethics violations and the Ethics Board decides whether to pursue a complaint. Bainbridge Island's policy also has consequences for bringing a frivolous or unsubstantiated complaint. She asked if that was typical of ethics policies. Ms. Cates answered a solid ethics code includes a process for determining whether a complaint is an ethics violation. Councilmember Bloom noted an ethics complaint is required to be notarized and to include information about the violation. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the Personnel Committee working on a Code of Conduct similar to Kirkland's. Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with the Committee continuing to consider a Code of Conduct and a Code of Ethics. He encouraged Councilmembers to submit suggestions/comments/concerns to the committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested scheduling further discussion on either the September 17 or 24 Council meetings. Council President Petso agreed it could be scheduled with the understanding it would be discussion only due to the absence of three Councilmembers. Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers review Bainbridge Island's ethics policy on their website. He agreed there were good ideas in the policy; he was opposed to creating an Ethics Board. Councilmember Bloom agreed with first establishing a Code of Conduct but did not want to abandon the idea of a Code of Ethics. The Personnel Committee has discussed it at length and the community would like the City to have an ethics policy. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Peterson's concern with creating an Ethics Board. She preferred to use a professional Ethics Officer. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Johnson reported on her participation on the review of arts and cultural aspects of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She described efforts to gather input from the public including a survey at the recent concert in the park. There is also an online survey available. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed definitions in the Tree Code including hazardous trees, nuisance trees and trees. Councilmember Bloom reported the Council interviewed a new member for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee tonight. Councilmember Bloom reported on her first meeting as the Council liaison to the Port of Edmonds liaison. The Commission discussed budget issues and promotional efforts. The Commission was also provided a project update including expansion of Anthony's Beach Cafe as well as the roof on Harbor Square building 2 which is $30,000 under budget and will last 20-30 years. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 17 of 346 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling thanked Councilmembers Johnson and Fraley-Monillas for organizing the volunteer picnic. Three Councilmembers attended, there was a good turnout and it was well organized. Mayor Earling reported City Clerk interviews have been completed. He anticipated a decision will be made in the next couple weeks. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso reported the Mayor vetoed the Council's action to repeal the most recent interim ordinance related to critical areas. That typically triggers a Council review and determination whether to override the veto; that will be scheduled on the Council agenda as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Planning Board is working on the matter. She encouraged anyone interested in the topic to participate at the Planning Board. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Mayor Earling and Council President Petso for attending the volunteer picnic and Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman for assisting with the picnic. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Snohomish County Councilmember Stephanie Wright who garnered $500,000 from Conservation Futures to purchase property in Edmonds. Councilmember Bloom thanked Council President Petso for her summary of the ordinance the Council repealed last week that was vetoed by Mayor Earling. She agreed the discussion has raised a number of issues and she hoped citizens would follow the issue at the Planning Board. Councilmember Bloom announced she appointed Doug Schwartz to the Edmonds Development Commission. Councilmember Johnson thanked everyone involved in making the first annual volunteer picnic a success. She looked forward to next year's picnics. She thanked everyone who attended. She has volunteered to assist Councilmember Fraley-Monillas in organizing next year's picnic. Councilmember Buckshnis announced she made an appointment to the Economic Development Commission. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the volunteers from OLAE and encouraged dog owners to obtain a yellow ribbon for their dog as part of the Yellow Dog Project. 17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). The executive session was not necessary. 18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 27, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 18 of 346 AM-6068 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 09/03/2013 Time• Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Tnfnrm.Q+inn Submitted By: 3. B. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim checks #204020 through #204118 dated August 29, 2013 for $521,419.08 (reissued check #204104 $3,898.20). Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2013 Revenue• Expenditure: 521,419.08 Fiscal Impact: Claims $521,419.08 Replacement claim check #204104 $3,898.20 Attachments Claim Checks 08-29-13 Proiect Numbers 08-29-13 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Roger Neumaier 08/29/2013 08:21 AM Packet Page 19 of 346 City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 08/29/2013 Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 08:55 AM 08/29/2013 02:45 PM 08/29/2013 03:00 PM Started On: 08/28/2013 04:51 PM Packet Page 20 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204020 8/23/2013 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 7/1/13 Standard LTD Premium Standard LTD Premium 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 107.33 Total: 107.33 204021 8/29/2013 068863 A. DASHEN & ASSOCIATES 08142013 2013 WATER & SEWER REVENUE I Financial Advisory Services 2013 Wa 424.000.71.592.38.84.00 23,510.00 Total: 23,510.00 204022 8/29/2013 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 323268 WWTP - MONTHLY PEST CONTROL WWTP - MONTHLY PEST CONTROL 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 6.94 Total: 79.94 204023 8/29/2013 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND SEPT 2013 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 9/13 EDM( ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 09/13 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,097.71 Total: 2,097.71 204024 8/29/2013 074473 AHERN, RACHEL AHERN OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDAI OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDAI 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 80.00 Total: 80.00 204025 8/29/2013 001634 AQUA QUIP 769374-1 CHEMICALS FOR YOST POOL POOL SUPPLIES: REAGENT CHLO 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 37.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.59 Total: 41.29 204026 8/29/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6975355 UNIFORM SERVICES FOR PARKS h PARKS MAINTENANCE UNIFORMS Page: 1 Packet Page 21 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204026 8/29/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 30.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 2.88 Total: 33.15 204027 8/29/2013 074506 ATLAS SALES & RENTALS INC 83706-005 COOLING SYSTEM RENTAL Cooling system rental 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 295.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 28.03 Total: 323.03 204028 8/29/2013 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST Sept 2013 AWC SEPTEMBER 2013 AWC PREMIUM September 2013 AWC Premiums 811.000.231.510 55,743.35 Total: 55,743.35 204029 8/29/2013 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 17290 INV#17290 - EDMONDS PD - MORR BLACK BDU PANTS (DETECTIVES) 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 69.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 6.65 Total: 76.64 204030 8/29/2013 070483 BREWER, MARTY BREWER 08272013 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 7 GAM SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 7 GAM 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 140.00 Total: 140.00 204031 8/29/2013 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN PILATES YOGA FUSION 17448 PILATES YOGA FUSION 17448 AND 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 288.90 YOGA 17110 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 343.69 YOGA 17121 AND DROP -IN Page: 2 Packet Page 22 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204031 8/29/2013 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY (Continued) 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 75.94 YOGA 17115 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 444.15 YOGA 17118 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 232.65 YOGA 17107 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 133.65 YOGA 17113 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 277.60 Total: 1,796.58 204032 8/29/2013 074560 BRYON, KIMBERLY BRYON 08202013 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 500.00 Total: 500.00 204033 8/29/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13007944 MONTHLY RENTAL OF PARKS SHOI MONTHLY RENTAL OF PARKS COP 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 3.14 Total: 36.16 204034 8/29/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 13022766 WWTP - CONTRACT FOR 001-0601 WWTP - CONTRACT FOR 001-0601 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 85.80 Total: 85.80 204035 8/29/2013 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA CARLSON16877 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING MINI C ADVENTURES IN DRAWING MINI C 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 381.88 Total: 381.88 204036 8/29/2013 067446 CEM CORPORATION 460161 WWTP - DRYING PADS WWTP - DRYING PADS Page: 3 Packet Page 23 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204036 8/29/2013 067446 CEM CORPORATION (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 712.80 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 34.86 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 67.72 Total: 815.38 204037 8/29/2013 063615 CH MURPHY CLARK-ULLMAN INC 1307012C WWTP -ANNUAL SHUTDOWN REP WWTP -ANNUAL SHUTDOWN REP 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 21,165.66 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 2,010.74 Tota I : 23,176.40 204038 8/29/2013 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 38894568 INV#38894568 ACCT#7898305185 - FUEL FOR NARC UNIT - ROSSI 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 181.57 FUEL FOR NARC UNIT - POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 257.60 TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 4.39 Tota I : 443.56 204039 8/29/2013 072278 CUETER, THAYER CUETER17451 FUN WITH FROGS 17451 FUN WITH FROGS 17451 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 79.20 Total: 79.20 204040 8/29/2013 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 334535 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 8/3/13 E1AA.Services thru 8/3/13 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 6,503.00 Total: 6,503.00 204041 8/29/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3385 MINUTE TAKING 8/13, 8/19 & 8/20 Council Minutes Page: 4 Packet Page 24 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204041 8/29/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE (Continued) 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 474.00 Total: 474.00 204042 8/29/2013 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 26437 4-WAY METRIC 4-WAY METRIC 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 14.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1.42 Total: 16.41 204043 8/29/2013 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER 08202013 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 1,500.00 Total: 1,500.00 204044 8/29/2013 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC 6-2013 Police Preemployment testing Police Preemployment testing 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 68.00 Total: 68.00 204045 8/29/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&RYOUTH SCHOLARSHIP VELO 17856 VELOABYGAIL, MEADOW DALE 17£ VELOABYGAIL, MEADOW DALE 17i 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00 Total: 75.00 204046 8/29/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTEI 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTEI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 34.52 2-25175 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 42.71 2-28275 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 59.09 2-37180 MINI PARK MINI PARK Page: 5 Packet Page 25 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204046 8/29/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 44.48 7-05276 820 15TH ST SW 820 15TH ST SW 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 133.70 Total: 314.50 204047 8/29/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/ LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/ 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 64.70 2-29118 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 34.52 2-29119 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN - LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN - 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 64.70 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 31.79 Total: 195.71 204048 8/29/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 090606 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTEN. Maintenance for printers 08/21/13 - 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 327.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 31.12 Total: 358.72 204049 8/29/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0906481 C1030 PRINTER CHARGES C1030 PRINTER CHARGES 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 22.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 2.18 Total: 25.15 204050 8/29/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 090578 METER READING Page: 6 Packet Page 26 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204050 8/29/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 7/21 to 8/21 meter reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 12.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.22 Total: 14.10 204051 8/29/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 090559 WWTP COPIER MONTHLY MAINTEI WWTP COPIER MONTHLY MAINTEI 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 17.71 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 1.68 Total: 19.39 204052 8/29/2013 073936 ENDURO COMPOSITES INC 47225 Freight Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 440.99 47246 WWTP - MEDIA ODORSORB WWTP - MEDIA ODORSORB 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 7,150.00 Total: 7,590.99 204053 8/29/2013 009880 FEDEX 2-378-98104 WWTP - RETURN SAFETY TRAININ WWTP - RETURN SAFETY TRAININ 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 4.76 Total: 4.76 204054 8/29/2013 065704 FOLSOM, ROB FOLSOM 082813 2ND PAYMENT FOR SUMMER CONi 2ND PAYMENT FOR SUMMER CONi 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 975.00 Total: 975.00 204055 8/29/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 29.02 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES Page: 7 Packet Page 27 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204055 8/29/2013 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 151.72 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 281.76 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 18.53 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 34.42 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 43.86 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 81.46 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 56.25 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 168.75 425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 51.11 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL, FRANCESANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 113.16 Total: 1,030.04 204056 8/29/2013 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER17067 QIGONG 17067 QIGONG 17067 AND DROP -IN 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 192.00 QIGONG 17069 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 155.00 TAI CHI 17061 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 677.76 Page: 8 Packet Page 28 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204056 8/29/2013 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA (Continued) TAI CHI 17065 AND DROP -IN 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 197.00 TAI CHI 17062 AND DROP -IN 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 99.00 Total: 1,320.76 204057 8/29/2013 074164 HARDY, JOHN HARDY 08272013 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 16 GAI SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 16 GAI 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 320.00 Total: 320.00 204058 8/29/2013 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00097278-B WWTP - ENGINEERING SERVICES WWTP - ENGINEERING SERVICES 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,325.35 Total: 1,325.35 204059 8/29/2013 070489 HETZEL, BOB HETZEL 08272013 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 12 GAI SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 12 GAI 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 240.00 Total: 240.00 204060 8/29/2013 071609 I -DEAL LLC 10024828 2013 WATER & SEWER REVENUE 1 2013 series Water & Sewer Revenue 424.000.71.592.38.84.00 1,250.00 Total: 1,250.00 204061 8/29/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2325208 WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 12.90 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 1.23 2325724 WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES WWTP - OFFICE SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 72.53 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 9 Packet Page 29 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204061 8/29/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 6.89 Total: 93.55 204062 8/29/2013 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KIDZLOVESOCCER16960 KLS CLASS 16960 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASS 16960 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 247.80 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASS 16961 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 495.60 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASS 16962 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 778.80 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASS 16963 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 424.80 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASS 16954 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 814.20 Total: 2,761.20 204063 8/29/2013 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 8013-134 FUEL TANK FUEL TANK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 63.20 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.04 8013-224 24" BLADE ASSEMBLY 24" BLADE ASSEMBLY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 150.79 Freight 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.37 Total : 258.30 204064 8/29/2013 073874 LIFE LINE SCREENING LIFE SCREENING 82213 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 200.00 Page: 10 Packet Page 30 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204064 8/29/2013 073874 073874 LIFE LINE SCREENING (Continued) Total: 200.00 204065 8/29/2013 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 135923 WWTP - HVAC MAINTENANCE COI\ WWTP - HVAC MAINTENANCE COI\ 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 438.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 41.61 Total: 479.61 204066 8/29/2013 074099 MARTIN, GARY MARTIN YOGA SUB 8/8/13 YOGA SUBSTITUTE INSTRUCTOR F 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 92.53 Total: 92.53 204067 8/29/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 57823224 WWTP - VALVES, GASKET WWTP - VALVES, GASKET 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 431.81 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 11.46 57870095 WWTP - PIPE FITTINGS, ELECTRIC WWTP - PIPE FITTINGS, ELECTRIC 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 185.39 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7.76 58000484 WWTP - GUAGES, PIPE FITTING, S WWTP - GUAGES, PIPE FITTING, S 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 280.48 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7.33 Total: 924.23 204068 8/29/2013 074561 MICELI, KAREN MICELI 08202013 REFUND -TRANSFER REFUND -TRANSFER 001.000.239.200 47.00 Total : 47.00 204069 8/29/2013 022009 MOTOROLA INC 13971637 1NV#13971637 ACCT#1 0 11249259 0 Page: 11 Packet Page 31 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204069 8/29/2013 022009 MOTOROLA INC (Continued) MOBILE RADIOS FOR PATROL CAR 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 5,697.00 REMOTE MOUNT MID POWER 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 891.00 APX 03 HANDHELD CH 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 2,838.00 2 YR SFS LITE 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 484.00 SMARTZONE OPERATION APX650C 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 3,600.00 ADVANCED SYSTEM KEY-HARDWF 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 15.00 ANT 3DB GAIN 762-870MHZ 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 114.00 AUXILARY SPKR 7.5 WATT 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 180.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.548.68.35.00 1,312.82 Total: 15,131.82 204070 8/29/2013 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 2911386 LEOFF Insurance Premium LEOFF Insurance Premium 617.000.51.522.20.23.00 1,148.97 LEOFF Insurance Premium 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 8,189.74 Total: 9,338.71 204071 8/29/2013 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 44261 WWTP- SODIUM BISULFITE WWTP- SODIUM BISULFITE 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,502.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 142.77 Total: 1,645.57 204072 8/29/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-725189 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD RENTAL Page: 12 Packet Page 32 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204072 8/29/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued) CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD RENTAL 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-726744 PINE STREET PARK RENTALS PINE STREET PARK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-727659 HUMMINGBIRD PARK RENTALS HUMMINGBIRD PARK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 Total: 337.05 204073 8/29/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-719759 MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 172.35 1-722189 MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-722190 MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-722620 MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,418.55 1-724576 HONEY BUCKET MONTHLY CHARG MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-724577 MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI MONTHLY CHARGE FOR HONEY BI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 102.50 Total: 2,030.45 204074 8/29/2013 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 406 8/14/13 Planning Board Minutetaker 8/14/13 Planning Board Minutetaker 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 480.00 Total: 480.00 Page: 13 Packet Page 33 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204075 8/29/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 023568 PAPER PAPER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 78.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 7.50 023912 BLUE PAPER BLUE PAPER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 8.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.82 235287 BATTERIES BATTERIES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 6.21 CARD STOCK, NAME BADGES, FOF 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 195.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.59 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 18.60 511945 DAYCAMP PAPER 50 PK DAYCAMP PAPER 50 PK 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 5.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 0.57 799818 LABELS LABELS 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 20.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.99 Total: 346.48 204076 8/29/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 921230 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 181.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 17.24 Page: 14 Packet Page 34 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204076 8/29/2013 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) Total: 198.76 204077 8/29/2013 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 13-012 El GA.CONSTRUCTION AND ENGIN E1GA.Construction and Engineering 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 43,282.99 E1GA.Retainage Pmt 2 423.000.223.400 -1,976.39 ElGA.Consultant Charges thru 7/31P 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 313.68 Total: 41,620.28 204078 8/29/2013 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 5043 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 132.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.59 Total: 145.09 204079 8/29/2013 064070 PALMATIER, LISA PALMATIER SUMMER 13 SUMMER CONCERT COORDINATIC SUMMER CONCERT COORDINATIC 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 304.00 PALMTAIER HM CONCERT HMP CONCERT COORDINATION HMP CONCERT COORDINATION 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,000.00 Total: 1,304.00 204080 8/29/2013 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP DAYCAMP PC #4 MISC. SPORT ITEMS MISC. SPORT ITEMS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 2.98 COLDPACKS AND MARBLES 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 17.82 MISC. CRAFT ITEMS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 8.67 NATURAL TIEDIE ITEMS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 23.66 OTTERPOPS Page: 15 Packet Page 35 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204080 8/29/2013 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP (Continued) 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 4.37 BALLOONS 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 21.73 Total: 79.23 204081 8/29/2013 071222 PARKS, ELMER PARK 08272013 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 14 GAI SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 14 GAI 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 280.00 Total: 280.00 204082 8/29/2013 070003 PAXTON, LAUREL PAXTON16869 ACTING CAMP 16869 ACTING CAMP 16869 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 4,716.00 Total: 4,716.00 204083 8/29/2013 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 5510842 WWTP - UPS, BLDG 100 REPAIR/Rf WWTP - UPS, BLDG 100 REPAIR/RE 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 42.10 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 4.00 5515120 WWTP - UPS - SURGE STRIP, BREd WWTP - UPS - SURGE STRIP, BREd 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 113.05 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 10.74 Total: 169.89 204084 8/29/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200002411383 9535 BOWDOIN WAY 9535 BOWDOIN WAY 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,232.36 Total: 2,232.36 204085 8/29/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 647.60 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON Page: 16 Packet Page 36 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204085 8/29/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 35.25 200009595790 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 78.54 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 55.72 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 89.43 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 111.65 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 56.32 200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 1 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 1 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 45.17 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 38.23 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 3.87 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 14.71 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 14.71 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 14.71 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 14.71 Page: 17 Packet Page 37 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204085 8/29/2013 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 14.69 200021829581 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 00C WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 00C 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 41.88 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 35.25 Total: 1,312.44 204086 8/29/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC INV#000000138741 INSCRIPTION JARBOE INSCRIPTION JARBOE 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 INV#00000138738 INSCRIPTION DOWNEY INSCRIPTION DOWNEY 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 222.00 INV#00000138739 JOHNSON INSCRIPTION JOHNSON INSCRIPTION 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 INV#00000138740 CORMAICK INSCRIPTION CORMAICK INSCRIPTION 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 100.00 Total: 522.00 204087 8/29/2013 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000138607 INSCRIPTION - JULIUS L CRAWFOF INSCRIPTION - JULIUS L CRAWFOF 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 180.00 Total: 180.00 204088 8/29/2013 070480 RINALDI, MATT RINALDI 08272013 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 47 GAI SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 47 GAI 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 940.00 Total: 940.00 204089 8/29/2013 032666 ROTO ROOTER 21717247283 YOST POOL DRAINS Page: 18 Packet Page 38 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204089 8/29/2013 032666 ROTO ROOTER (Continued) YOST POOL DRAINS 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 487.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 46.36 Total: 534.33 204090 8/29/2013 036955 SKY NURSERY 179699 DEWITT WEED BARRIER DWITT WEED BARRIER 3X100 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 79.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.60 Total: 87.59 204091 8/29/2013 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST# 1 FIRE DISTRICT 17041 FIRSTAID/CPR 17041 FIRSTAID/CPR 17041 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 400.00 Total: 400.00 204092 8/29/2013 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 13-127 Q2-13 EMS BILLING & POSTAGE Q2-13 Ambulance billings & postage 001.000.39.522.70.41.00 12,906.10 Total: 12,906.10 204093 8/29/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9314-6 19827 89TH PL W 19827 89TH PL W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.27 2026-2041-5 24000 78TH AVE W 24000 78TH AVE W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.33 Total: 63.60 204094 8/29/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 2002-0256-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W Page: 19 Packet Page 39 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204094 8/29/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 32.33 2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 66.95 2003-9895-6 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,191.58 2006-1131-7 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 199.89 2007-0685-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21200 84TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 2007-2302-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 37.10 2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 121.76 2011-5141-2 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8400 219' 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 2011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.54 2014-3124-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC. PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 2015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,949.94 2015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 43.05 Page: 20 Packet Page 40 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204094 8/29/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 44.87 2019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 43.21 2019-4248-9 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.519.91.47.00 64.11 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 243.61 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 243.61 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 243.61 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 243.61 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 243.59 2020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 228.92 2022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 101.31 2022-9166-2 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION 17 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,102.95 2024-2780-3 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8602 188- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 2024-3924-6 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,204.34 2025-1986-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 1400 OLY Page: 21 Packet Page 41 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204094 8/29/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 1400 OL 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 31.27 2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 32.40 2036-5215-1 5-CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOA 5-CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOA 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 239.78 Total: 12,145.92 204095 8/29/2013 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE INMATE MED 07/13 EDMONDS PD INMATE MEDICATIOI INMATE MEDICATION - JULY 2013 001.000.41.523.60.31.00 2.12 Total: 2.12 204096 8/29/2013 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO Sept Standard SEPT STANDARD INSURANCE PRE September 2013 Standard Insurance 811.000.231.550 13,998.14 Total: 13,998.14 204097 8/29/2013 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC SUNSETBAY16769 BEACH CAMP 16769 BEACH CAMP 16769 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 12,000.00 Total: 12,000.00 204098 8/29/2013 070864 SUPERMEDIALLC 440011723124 C/A440001304654 Basic e-commerce hosting 08/02/13 - 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 440011723135 C/A 440001307733 08/2013 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.95 Total: 69.90 204099 8/29/2013 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER TALLMAN SOFTBALL ATTENDANT 8/1-8/22 TU SOFTBALL FIELDATTENDANT AT IV 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 400.00 Page: 22 Packet Page 42 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204099 8/29/2013 073970 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER (Continued) Total: 400.00 204100 8/29/2013 071666 TETRATECH INC 50704478 WWTP - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT C WWTP - DESIGN DEVELOPMENT C 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 3,465.94 50706483 WWTP - PLC REPLACEMENT STUE WWTP - PLC REPLACEMENT STUE 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 960.00 Total: 4,425.94 204101 8/29/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1829414 NEWSPAPER AD Ordinance 3935 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 30.96 1830270 NEWSPAPER AD Hrng Amend Critical Area Ord. 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 48.16 Total: 79.12 204102 8/29/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1830297' Legal Notice: PLN2013.0046 SPEE Legal Notice: PLN2013.0046 SPEE 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 99.76 Total: 99.76 204103 8/29/2013 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 46974 COUNTER SALE RECEIPT COUNTER SALE RECEIPT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.69 Total: 19.51 204104 8/29/2013 068322 TRANE US INC 32183135 PS - Repairs PS - Repairs 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,560.00 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 338.20 Total: 3,898.20 Page: 23 Packet Page 43 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204105 8/29/2013 070774 ULINE INC 53082735 INV#53082735 ACCT#2634605 - EDI ROLLS OF BUTCHER PAPER 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 132.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 32.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 15.62 Total: 180.03 204106 8/29/2013 073284 UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO Sept 2013 UHC SEPTEMBER 2013 UHC PREMIUMS September 2013 UHC Premiums 811.000.231.511 207,627.07 Greg Wean - Sept premiums 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 927.28 Total: 208,554.35 204107 8/29/2013 074470 VAN BERKOM, JILL 2305 7589 631221 SUPPLIES FOR SUMMER MARKET SUPPLIES FOR SUMMER MARKET 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 11.48 9.5% Sales Tax 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 1.09 319900774779 SUPPLIES FOR SUMMER MARKET SUPPLIES FOR SUMMER MARKET 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 26.53 9.5% Sales Tax 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 2.52 47070000472837 SUPPLIES FOR SUMMER MARKET SUPPLIES FOR SUMMER MARKET 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 44.93 9.5% Sales Tax 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 4.27 Total: 90.82 204108 8/29/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9709785682 C/A671247844-00001 Cell Service -Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 73.11 Page: 24 Packet Page 44 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 204108 8/29/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Invoice (Continued) 204109 8/29/2013 072312 VERSATILE MOBILE SYSTEMS INC 0000065416 0000065468 PO # Description/Account Amount Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 146.60 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 72.39 Cell Service -Parks Discovery Prograr 001.000.64.574.35.42.00 13.47 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 57.91 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 324.33 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.41 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 38.50 Cell Service-PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 15.35 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 40.67 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 40.67 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 140.94 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 55.20 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 40.55 Total : 1,248.10 INV#0000065416 CUST#EDMCIT - E HONEYWELL BARCODE SCANNER 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 916.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 87.02 INV#0000065468 CUST#EDMCIT - E Page: 25 Packet Page 45 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204109 8/29/2013 072312 VERSATILE MOBILE SYSTEMS INC (Continued) ZEBRA GX420T PRINTERS 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 1,020.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 96.90 Tota I : 2,119.92 204110 8/29/2013 074408 VILLEGAS, ALMA VILLEGAS 082913 HMP CONCERT HMP CONCERT 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 600.00 Total: 600.00 204111 8/29/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29700431 WWTP- ADMIN ASSISTANT WWTP- ADMIN ASSISTANT 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 537.50 Total: 537.50 204112 8/29/2013 074562 VOSTRAL, CHANDRA VOSTRAL 08222013 ENTRY ERROR, PARENTS WERE F ENTRY ERROR, PARENTS WERE F 001.000.239.200 18.00 Total: 18.00 204113 8/29/2013 074231 VPCI 00001131 LASERFICHE INSTALL, TRAINING, Laserfiche Installation, VPCI 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 15,665.15 Total: 15,665.15 204114 8/29/2013 045517 WACA WACA CONF SHOEMAKE EDMONDS PD WACA CONF FEE FC WACA CONF (MEMBER RATE) 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 204115 8/29/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6005 BUSINESS CARDS FOR MAYOR AN 250-00306 Business Cards -Dave Earling 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 23.00 250-00306 Stephen Clifton 001.000.61.519.70.31.00 23.00 Page: 26 Packet Page 46 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 204115 8/29/2013 073552 WELCO SALES LLC (Continued) 250-00306 Cindi Cruz 001.000.61.519.70.31.00 23.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 2.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.31.00 4.37 6006 BUSINESS CARDS FOR HR & PD 250-00305 Business Cards -Yvonne Chan 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 20.60 250-00305 Andrew Mehl 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60 250-00305 Josh McClure 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60 250-00305 Steve Harbinson 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60 250-00305 Linda Mack 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 1.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.83 Total: 188.35 204116 8/29/2013 070481 WHITE, DAN WHITE 082720136 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 15 GAI SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 15 GAI 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 300.00 Total: 300.00 204117 8/29/2013 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1019 AUG-13 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,390.00 Total: 13,390.00 204118 8/29/2013 070484 ZYLSTRA, JERRY ZYLSTRA 08272013 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 8 GAM SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE 8 GAM Page: 27 Packet Page 47 of 346 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 08/28/2013 3:28:57PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 204118 8/29/2013 070484 ZYLSTRA, JERRY 99 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 99 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers Amount 160.00 160.00 525,317.28 525,317.28 Page: 28 Packet Page 48 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 49 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 50 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WWTP N/A c385 WWTP Switchgear Upgrade EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support KWTR EOIA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program OLAr c32 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs S ers Roundabout (212th Street Sa@ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neiahborhood Traffic Calmina 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Wal SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FA c336 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1 FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects tormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives E1 FN rrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Upda nowSewer, WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with nwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study 1111�PRV Station 11 a Bandon WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program E1JK In Street Watermain STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program Pioneer Way Road Repa STIR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlav Proiect STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Draina SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 51 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Funding Number STM E2FE SWR E2GB EYA STM E3FB Project Accounting Number Project Title c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c369J&12 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update Am c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c406 1%013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects E3FC c408 ��reek Stor�v Reduction etrofit S udy STM EYD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) orthstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements dh WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Projec STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General JW6MA R99 Enhancement Progr STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements 228th St. SW Corrido provements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road E7FG PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza ift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01 /08) SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program 26th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E91MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 52 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STIR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STIR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STIR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STIR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 EBMA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 EBMB Marina Beach Additional Parking STIR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 EBGA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c300 EBGC BNSF Double Track Project SWR c301 EBGD City -Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STIR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 EOIA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 EOFC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 EOLA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STIR c329 EOAA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 EOLB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c336 E1 FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c339 E1 FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1 FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 53 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1 FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STIR c354 E1 DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 EOJA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STIR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 ElEA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1 FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1 FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E21FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E21FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WWTP c385 N/A WWTP Switchgear Upgrade WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STIR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STIR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STIR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STIR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 EYA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E31FE Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 54 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number STIR i005 E7AC STM m013 E7FG Project Title 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements NPDES Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 55 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 EYA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c409 E3FD WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 56 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E21FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 EYE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E31FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA WWTP WWTP Switchgear Upgrade c385 N/A STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 57 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Proiect Title STIR Transportation Plan Update Project Engineering Accounting Project Number Number c391 E2AA Revised 8/28/2013 Packet Page 58 of 346 PROJECT NUMBERS (Phase and Task Numbers) Phases and Tasks (Enaineerina Division Phase Title ct Construction ds Design pl Preliminary sa Site Acquisition & Prep st Study ro Right -of -Way Task Title 196 Traffic Engineering & Studies 197 MAIT 198 CTR 199 Engineering Plans & Services 950 Engineering Staff Time 970 Construction Management 981 Contract 990 Miscellaneous 991 Retainage stm Engineering Staff Time -Storm str Engineering Staff Time -Street swr Engineering Staff Time -Sewer wtr Engineering Staff Time -Water prk Engineering Staff Time -Park Packet Page 59 of 346 AM-6069 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 09/03/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Frances Chapin Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Type: Information Action 3. C. Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign contract with artist for Five Corners Roundabout Public Art. Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign contract with artist CJ Rench for the Five Corners roundabout Public Art. Previous Council Action March 19, 2013 City Council approved the Request for Qualifications for Artists for the Five Corners Roundabout project, with a project budget of $25,000. August 13, 2013 the PPP Committee approved sending the recommendation to the full Council with a public hearing. On August 27, 2013 a public hearing was held at City Council followed by Council approval of the proposed artwork project. Narrative The full Public Art process for the Five Corners roundabout project was completed with a public hearing and approval by Council on August 27, 2013 and the contract with the artist for $25,000 has been reviewed and is ready to be signed. The selected artist is CJ Rench whose proposal is titled Drawn to Water - Connected by Community. Five Corners Art Contract Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Frances Chapin Final Approval Date: 08/29/2013 Attnehmvntc Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 01:53 PM Dave Earling 08/29/2013 02:46 PM Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 03:00 PM Started On: 08/28/2013 05:30 PM Packet Page 60 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Edmonds Arts Commission Agreement for Commissioning Artwork: ARTIST: Chris J Rench ART WORK: Drawn to Water — Five Corners FEE: $25 000.00 (including sales tax) LOCATION: Five Corners Roundabout Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 1 - CDI224570.1 AGR/0006.900055 Packet Page 61 of 346 Revised 8_22_13 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI INDEX 1. Retention of Artist ................................................ 2. Scope of Art Work Project; Materials ................. 3. Ownership of Documents and Models ................ 4. Time Schedule...................................................... 5. No Assignment of Work ...................................... 6. Review of Work in Progress ................................ 7. Protection of Premises ......................................... 8. Payment................................................................ 9. Termination.......................................................... 10. Indemnity............................................................. 11. Risk of Loss and Insurance .................................. 12. Changes; Relocation; Resale ................................ 13. Repairs and Guarantee ......................................... 14. Public Notice........................................................ 15. Reproduction........................................................ 16. Employment......................................................... 17. Records................................................................. 18. Nondiscrimination................................................ 19. Entire Agreement / Modification or Amendment 20. Compliance with Statutes .................................... 21. Notices and Waiver .............................................. Page 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 2 - Revised 8_22_13 CD1224570.1AGR/0006.900055 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI Packet Page 62 of 346 AGREEMENT FOR ART WORK THIS AGREEMENT FOR ART WORK ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS ("Owner") and Chris J Rench dba CJRDesignstudio ("Artist") and is dated and effective as of the last date indicated on the signature page hereto ("Effective Date"). RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Owner desires to contract with Artist for the creation of a work of art ("Art Work") to be placed in Five Corners Roundabout as indicated on the Contract Drawing attached hereto as Exhibit A; and B. WHEREAS, Artist desires to be engaged to create the Art Work and to perform the work in an artistic, professional manner, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, conditions and performances set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows: Retention of Artist A. Owner retains Artist to perform the work and services hereinafter described. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. Artist will prepare the Art Work without direct, day-to-day supervision and shall produce the Art Work using Artist's resources and at Artist's studio. Artist shall furnish all supervision, labor, materials, supplies, equipment or use thereof, travel expenses and all other incidentals for the transport and installation of the Art Work, except as specifically provided below, and shall conduct and complete the work in a competent and professional manner. B. Nothing in this Agreement shall create an employment relationship between Artist and Owner. Artist shall not be entitled to any of the benefits Owner provides to its employees. 2. Scope of Art Work Project; Materials A. The work under this Agreement is to create, design, develop, complete, and install, in collaboration with Owner, the following Art Work: Title: Drawn to Water -Connected by Community Dimensions: VTrox. 13' x 10' diameter at base Media: stainless steel, mild steel, glass to be prepared by Artist and delivered to Owner at such time as requested by Owner for review, approval, and installation. Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 3 - Revised 8_22_13 CDI224570.1AGR/0006.900055 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI Packet Page 63 of 346 B. The Art Work shall be of proper overall size and aesthetic proportional relationship to the area in which it is to be installed. Changes may be made by Artist, such as changes in relative scale between the model or sketch previously submitted by Artist and that of the full-sized finished Art Work, but only after notification to Owner in advance of such changes and receipt of the prior approval of Owner for each such change. 3. Ownership of Documents and Models A. Drawings, specifications, and models of the Art Work, or which relate to the Art Work, including all preliminary studies (all items hereinafter referred to as the "Plans"), shall be the property of the Artist following completion of the Art Work under this Agreement or following termination by Owner under Section 9B. Under these circumstances, Owner shall not use the Plans on other projects or extensions of this project except pursuant to a subsequent agreement in writing between Artist and Owner. B. However, the Plans shall become and remain the property of Owner for its use without restriction should this Agreement be terminated by Owner under Section 9C. 4. Time Schedule. Artist shall begin work on the Art Work on the Effective Date, and shall complete the Art Work including final installation of the Art Work, within _three hundred sixty- five_ 365 calendar days from the Effective Date. Such time for completion shall be extended to the extent Artist is actually delayed in the progress of the Art Work due to strikes, unusually severe weather, impossibility of procurement of needed materials, or acts of God beyond the control of Artist. In addition, Owner agrees to reasonably extend the time for completion in the event that Artist is actually delayed in the progress, completion or installation of the Art Work for reasons that are within the Owner's reasonable control. 5. No Assignment of Work. The work and services required of Artist are personal and shall not be assigned, sublet or transferred without the prior written approval of Owner. This shall not prohibit Artist from employing qualified personnel who shall work under her/his direct supervision. 6. Review of Work in Pro_rg ess. Owner, or its representative, shall have the right to make reasonable inspection and review of the Art Work and progress of the Art Work upon request. Authorized representatives of Owner may review the Art Work at its location, and may submit questions and offer comments to Artist concerning the Art Work. Artist shall consider any comments offered by Owner's representatives, but Artist need not make modifications from the specification set forth in Section 2 above, unless Artist approves. 7. Protection of Premises. Artist must take all reasonable precautions to protect City property adjacent to the installation site of the Art Work. Artist will be responsible for securing adequate protection of the public during delivery and installation including cordoning off work area with cones and tape. Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 4 - Revised 8_22_13 CDI224570.1AGR/0006.900055 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI Packet Page 64 of 346 8. Payment. A. Artist shall be paid by Owner for completed work and/or services related to this Agreement, only as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for all work performed and/or services rendered, and for all supervision, labor, supplies, materials, travel expenses, equipment or use thereof, and for all other incidentals necessary to complete the Art Work. Payment shall be the total fee of $25 000.00 No/100 (including sales taxes) to be paid as follows: 20% ($ 5 000.00 on Effective Date upon Approval of Design 60% ($ 15,000.00 ) upon Completion of Construction Documents 20% ($ 5,000.00 upon Delivery and Installation B. Final payment will be made upon installation in the designated location and delivery of photographic documentation, as outlined in Sections 17 and 21, to the City of Edmonds Arts Commission. C. Artist is responsible for payment of required materials, foundation engineering, labor or assistants, insurance, communications, studio space, travel, transportation, storage, rentals and installation, and photographic documentation of the completed Art Work. D. Owner is responsible for payment of Washington State Sales Tax and local sales tax, applicable to where the Art Work is constructed or to where the Art Work is installed if the Art Work is constructed outside of Washington State. Owner shall pay such taxes to Artist. The sales tax is included in the total amount of the commission payment as quoted by Artist. Artist remits the sales tax to the State of Washington Department of Revenue. E. Preparation of the selected site and foundation will be the responsibility of Owner. F. Foundation specifications and any specialized attachments required, will be the responsibility of Artist. G. Artist shall submit a billing, including sales taxes, directed to Owner when s/he believes each stage outlined above has been reached. The determination that the stage has in fact been reached shall be solely that of Owner. Owner will promptly seek to determine whether or not the applicable stage has been reached and upon making that determination it will process the invoices and make payment to Artist. 9. Termination A. Owner reserves the right to terminate this Agreement for practical (non -aesthetic) reasons at any time upon not less than ten (10) days written notice to Artist. B. If Owner terminates this Agreement without fault on the part of Artist, Artist shall be entitled to a final payment or settlement as set forth in either of the following, at Artist's option: Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 5 - Revised 8_22_13 CDI224570.1AGR/0006.900055 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI Packet Page 65 of 346 (1) Artist shall be paid according to the schedule set out in Section 8, plus a proportionate part of the next installment that would have been due had the Art Work been completed, based upon the percentage of completion of that phase which has been reached at the time of termination. If payments previously made to Artist exceed the total amount due as computed above, then final payment shall be due and Artist shall refund that amount of the total previous payments which exceed the amount determined by applying the above formula. Artist shall deliver to Owner the Art Work in whatever form it exists at that time, which shall then become the property of Owner for use without restriction, exception that it shall not be represented to be the work of Artist. (2) Artist may refund all monies paid to her/him by Owner prior to the time of termination and retain the Art Work, together with any models, plans, drawings, and all materials and supplies purchased for the Art Work, for her/his own use without restriction. C. If this Agreement is terminated by Owner for fault on the part of Artist, or because of the disability of Artist; or is terminated automatically because of the death of Artist; or in the event of any breach of its terms by Artist, Owner may require either of the options that would have been available to Artist under 9B above (except that if 9B(1) is chosen, Section 3B shall also apply). Exercise of either of these options by Owner does not prevent Owner from pursuing a remedy otherwise available to it in law or equity. 10. Indemnity. Artist shall indemnify and hold Owner and the City of Edmonds Arts Commission, their members, officers, agents and employees, harmless from, and shall process and defend at her/his own expense, any and all causes of action, suits at law or equity, or claims or demands, or from any liability of any nature arising out of the performance of the work and obligations contained herein on the part of Artist, her/his agents, and/or employees. No liability shall attach to Owner by virtue of entering into this Agreement except as is expressly provided herein. No third party beneficiary rights are created by this Agreement. Artist shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. 11. Risk of Loss and Insurance. A. The risk of damage to or loss of the Art Work during development and through installation shall be solely that of Artist. This risk shall transfer to Owner only upon transfer of title to and ownership of the Art Work, which shall occur after installation is complete and the Art Work is finally approved by Owner. B. Artist may provide a policy of insurance, covering all risks and hazards against any damage to or loss of the Art Work while it is in the design phase or while the Art Work is being made in Artist's studio. Before beginning any on -site installation or fabrication, Artist and Artist's subcontractors shall purchase and maintain, for the duration of any on -site installation or fabrication, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from, or in connection with, the performance of work done by Artist or Artist's agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance coverage shall include: (a) worker's compensation and Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 6 - Revised 8_22_13 CDI224570.1AGR/0006.900055 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI Packet Page 66 of 346 employer's liability insurance as required by the State; (b) commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000); and (c) vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. All such insurance shall be obtained from companies authorized to do business in the State of Washington and approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. C. Artist and Artist's subcontractors are responsible for the costs of insurance. D. All insurance shall name Owner, its officers, officials, employees and agents as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Artist in connection with this Agreement. Artist shall submit a verification of insurance and endorsements required by this Agreement within fourteen days of the execution of the Agreement. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to Owner. 12. Changes; Relocation; Resale. A. If any material change occurs to the Art Work after it has been finally completed and installed by Artist (whether such change is intentional or accidental, and whether it is done by Owner or others), including any change in the interrelationship or relative locations of the parts of the Art Work, the Art Work will no longer be represented to be the work of Artist without Artist's consent. Owner agrees that it will not intentionally destroy, damage, alter, modify or change the Art Work in any way whatsoever. B. While recognizing that Owner does not currently have a legal mechanism permitting the sale of works of art, Owner agrees that if in the future Owner does sell the Art Work, during the life of Artist, Owner shall pay Artist a sum of fifteen percent (15%) of the appreciated value of the Art Work. The Art Work will be placed in the location for which it was selected. If any relocation of the Art Work is necessary Artist will be informed by Owner. 13. Repairs and Guarantee. A. If the Art Work is damaged, Owner may, at its option, hire a professional conservator to repair such damage. Owner shall consult the City of Edmonds Arts Commission before undertaking conservation, restoration or repairs. Where possible, Artist shall be consulted as to her/his recommendations with regard to all repairs and restorations that are made during the lifetime of Artist. To the extent practicable and in accord with accepted principles of professional conservation, Artist may be given the opportunity to accomplish said repairs and restorations. Artist shall guarantee to repair or replace any defects of material or workmanship in the Art Work for a period of up to one (1) year from installation. B. Owner shall give written notice, with reasonable promptness, to Artist regarding observed defects in materials or workmanship in the Art Work. Artist shall cure the defect within six 60 days after notice is sent by Owner. Artist's liability shall be limited to cost of Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 7 - Revised 8_22_13 CDI224570.1AGR/0006.900055 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI Packet Page 67 of 346 repairs. Artist shall be responsible for curing such defects for a period of one (1) year from the date of installation of the Art Work. 14. Public Notice. A public notice, including Artist's name and mention of the City of Edmonds' ownership shall be publicly displayed in the vicinity of the site and shall be supplied and installed by the Owner. 15. Reproduction. A. Artist hereby reserves all rights to graphically reproduce the Art Work, but shall not unreasonably refuse Owner permission to graphically reproduce the Art Work. Artist also reserves all rights under any copyright laws to which the Art Work maybe subject. B. Notwithstanding the above, Owner shall have the right to graphically reproduce the Art Work for brochure, newsletters, or other media as produced and distributed by Owner. 16. Employment. A. Any and all employees of Artist or other persons who engage in the performance of any work or services required by Artist under this Agreement shall be considered employees of Artist only and not of Owner, and any and all claims that may or might arise under Title 51 RCW, the Workmen's Compensation Act, on behalf of said employees or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of Artist's employees or other persons while so engaged on any of the work or service provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of Artist. B. Artist warrants by certification attached hereto, that s/he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee or established art agent of Artist, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and Artist has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than such employee or established agent, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other considerations, contingent upon, or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Owner shall have the right to terminate this contract without liability, or in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Records. A. Owner agrees to maintain in a permanent file a record of this Agreement and of the location and disposition of the Art Work. Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 8 - Revised 8_22_13 CDI224570.1AGR/0006.900055 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI Packet Page 68 of 346 B. All installed Art Work must be registered with the City of Edmonds Arts Commission. For documentation, Artist will furnish the City of Edmonds Arts Commission with the following records of the finished Art Work as installed: Two or more digital images of good quality of each piece A full description of each piece and detailed maintenance requirements 18. Nondiscrimination. A. Artist agrees not to discriminate against any client, employee, or applicant for employment or for services, because of race, creed, color, national origin, disability, sex, age or marital status with regard to but not limited to, the following: employment upgrading; demolition or transfer; recruitment or any recruitment advertising; layoffs or terminations; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; selection for training; rendition of services. B. Artist understands and agrees that if s/he violates this provision, not only may this Agreement be terminated under Section 9, but Artist shall also be barred from performing any services for Owner unless a showing is made, satisfactory to Owner, that discriminatory practices have terminated and that a recurrence of such action is unlikely. 19. Entire Agreement / Modification or Amendment This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. This Agreement may be amended only if in writing and signed by both parties. 20. Compliance with Statutes. In the performance of work on the Art Work, Artist shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. 21. Notices and Waiver. Notices required under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered if personally delivered or dispatched by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the parties as follows: Owner: City of Edmonds Arts Commission 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Artist: Chris J Rench 1457 Barker Rd. Hood River OR 97031 541-399-3830 Notice shall be deemed given on the date it is personally delivered or two days after it is deposited in the mail. Any party may change the address for notification by prior written notice in accordance with the foregoing. Artist agrees to notify Owner of changes in her/his address and failure to do so shall be deemed a waiver of Artist's rights in Sections 12 and 13. Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 9 - Revised 8_22_13 CDI224570.1AGR/0006.900055 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI Packet Page 69 of 346 The failure of Owner to insist upon strict adherence to any term of this Agreement on any occasion shall not be considered a waiver thereof or deprive Owner of the right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or any other term of this Agreement. EFFECTIVE this 4th day of _September, 2013. OWNER: CITY OF EDMONDS By: Title: Date: Attested to by: Title: Date: Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney ARTIST: [Signature] [Print Name] Date: Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work CDI224570. I AGR/0006.900055 Packet Page 70 of 346 -10- Revised 8_22_13 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI EXHIBIT A CONTRACT DRAWING (final design to be attached once approved) Edmonds/Agreement for Art Work - 1 l - Revised 8_22_13 CDI224570.1AGR/0006.900055 8/29/13 12:51PM CDI Packet Page 71 of 346 AM-6073 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 09/03/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Scarecrow Festival Recommendation For information only. Previous Council Action N/A Committee Action: 5. Narrative The Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society and Museum is planning a Scarecrow Festival. Family -friendly scarecrows will be displayed at homes and businesses from October 1 - 31. The following representatives of the Museum will be present at the City Council Meeting to provide details of the Scarecrow Festival: • William Lambert, Board President • Dave Buelow, Project Manager • Tarin Erickson, Museum Director Attached are copies of informational flyers concerning the festival. Attachments Scarecrow Festival Flyers Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 08/29/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 08/29/2013 02:46 PM Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 03:00 PM Started On: 08/29/2013 10:09 AM Packet Page 72 of 346 The Edmonds Museum presents E�The firSt Annual onds Scarecrow Festival October 1-31 WHAT? - Family -friendly scarecrow displays at homes and businesses - Winners will be announced at the historical society's fundraising dinner Nov. 8 at Holy Rosary WHERE? - Throughout City of Edmonds WHY? - Fun event for community - Foster ties between businesses, customers, arts and student groups - Decorate City for trick -or -treating and Sister City visitors WHO? - Sponsored by Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society & Museum - In partnership with DEMA, Chamber, schools and arts groups HOW? NEED HELP? -Application at Museum website www.historicedmonds.org - Apply September 15-30 - Voting by public at website - Paper applications and ballots available at Museum V& - "How to" sheet attached - Build Assisters on sheet attached - "Build for you" on sheet attached Questions? Ccrffl ae Scarecrow Kotllne at 425-774-6507 The public votes on best: Business in Edmonds Bowl Business outside of Bowl area Packet Page 73 of 346 Ak Edmonds Scarecrow Festival How To Build a Scarecrow There is no such thing as a bad handmade, family -friendly scarecrow, so let your imagination run wild. But, if you feel the need for a little guidance, here are ideas: What you need: • Two poles - one 5-6 feet long - one 2-3 feet long • Heavy twine • Pillowcase, sack, or nylon stocking • Permanent markers, or yarn or embroidery • Thread or needle • Straw, hay, dry leaves, or plastic bags for stuffing • Rag mop head or straw for hair • Shirt or blouse and overalls, jeans or skirt • Hat and hat pins • Gloves, scarf, shoes • Optional accessories — broom, rake or mop What to do: • Attach the shorter pole perpendicularly to longer pole about one foot from top of longer pole • Attachment can be made by lashing the two together with heavy twine, duct tape or wood screws • Pound the long pole into the ground or attach to a concrete block or other anchor • Draw a face on pillowcase, sack, or stocking • Go over it with permanent markers, or stitch the features with yarn or embroidery • Stuff the head with straw, hay, or dry leaves • Slide the head over the top of the long pole and secure with twine • Add a rag mop or straw for hair and pin on a hat • Dress the scarecrow in a shirt, blouse, overalls, jeans or skirt • Add Gloves, scarf, accessories, and whatever else you wish • Stuff with straw, plastic bags — newspaper is an option, but won't stand up to bad weather Last Steps: • Have fun and use imagination (remember, family friendly) • Enter your Scarecrow on the festival section of the museum website at www.historicedmonds.org Questions? Cell be Scarecrow Hotllne Calf, 425-774-6507 Packet Page 74 of 346 AM-6070 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 09/03/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted By: Kemen Lien Department: Planning Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title 71, Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3935 — An Interim Zoning Ordinance to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance, specifically Sections ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, and 23.90.040, to allow development within legally established impervious areas and within buffer areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from an associated critical area. Recommendation Take public comment on Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 3935 Previous Council Action The Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee reviewed the issue during it's July 9th meeting and asked the Planning Board to develop a recommendation. The full Council heard a presentation on the issue at the July 30th Council meeting and adopted Interim Ordinance No. 3935 on August 6th. The City Council voted to repeal Interim Ordinance No. 3935 on August 20th with Ordinance No. 3940, which was subsequently vetoed by the Mayor. Narrative There is an inconsistency in the City's critical areas best available science (BAS) report and the terminology used in the critical areas code regarding "allowed activities." The Council's Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee reviewed the issue on July 9th and asked the Planning Board to review the issue. This is an opportunity for the full Council to be briefed on the issue. This is also an opportunity for the Council to provide interim relief (via an interim zoning ordinance) if it chooses to do SO. A more detailed discussion is provided in the attached memo (Exhibit 1) and a technical memo from Kernen Lien is included as Exhibit 2. The minutes of the Council's PPP Committee and Council minute excerpts are contained in Exhibits 3 - 6. Interim Ordinance 3935 is included as Exhibit 7, and vetoed Ordinance 3940 is Exhibit 8. Attachments Exhibit 1: Issue Outline Memo Exhibit 2: Technical Memo Packet Page 75 of 346 Exhibit 3: July 9, 2013 PPP Committee Minutes Exhibit 4: July 30, 2013 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 5: August 6, 2013 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 6: August 20, 2013 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 7: Ordinance No. 3935 Exhibit 8: Vetoed Ordinance No. 3940 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Planning Department Rob Chave 08/29/2013 11:39 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 11:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/29/2013 02:46 PM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 03:00 PM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 08/29/2013 07:57 AM Final Approval Date: 08/29/2013 Packet Page 76 of 346 MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 2013 To: City Council From: I Rob Subject: I Allowed Activities within Critical Area Buffers The Problem. The problem is simply stated: the City's critical areas regulations, as written, are not completely consistent with the City's Best Available Science (BAS) report. Critical Areas Best Available Science. The City's critical areas ordinance (CAO) was developed based on `best available science' (BAS). The BAS assessment concluded that because the city was mostly developed, the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment to occur within the footprint of already -developed areas (see separate technical memo from Kernen Lien for further detailed discussion). It was intended that this approach would be reflected in the City's adopted CAO. The City's critical areas ordinance (CAO) addresses standards and enhancement strategies through a number of mechanisms, including the concept of "Allowed Activities." In the City's CAO, "Allowed Activities" are generally described as activities that can occur within critical area buffers. These allowed activities (sometimes referred to as `uses') can be conditioned, must use `Best Management Practices', and must be conducted so that there is no degradation of the associated critical area. Examples of "Allowed Activities" are generally what one would expect, including such things as utilities maintenance or replacement, maintenance of rights -of -way, and so forth. Also included are alteration of existing structures "...that does not increase the footprint of development or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer...." The relationship of an allowed activity to the "footprint of development" was directly related to the BAS discussion noted above, but the language also includes the key phrase "existing structures" which conflicts with the general concept of tying activity to the "footprint of development." This has had unfortunate consequences which are counter to the intent of the BAS. Two examples that have surfaced recently illustrate the problem. City Park Spray Park Project. A portion of the project being designed at City Park is located within a Class II wetland buffer, even though the project site is physically separated by a parking lot and access road from the associated wetland. As such, the project is located in an area that we would describe as "physically separated and functionally isolated" from the wetland. According the BAS report, this is the type of development the City should allow, in exchange for buffer enhancement. City of Edmonds c�q Planning Division Packet Page 77 of 346 Exhibit 1 American Brewing Company Project. An existing business is located within a developed area and wishes to add a silo to its site. The site is completely paved, so the added structure will have no impact on the critical area or its buffer. Again, this type of activity is envisioned in the Best Available Science analysis, but the restriction in the code to "alteration to a legally constructed structure" means that the project can't go forward. The business owner has already approached the City to seek a permit, and may need to relocate his business if he is unable to proceed. Solutions. The City Council's Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee reviewed the problem at its July 9, 2013 meeting and asked the Planning Board to review the issue. However, greater urgency may be called for. Regarding the spray park project, Parks Recreation and Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite notes, The current project area lies within the buffer of the wetland bordering City Park to the North. Steve Quarterman completed a wetland reconnaissance and determined that the northern portion of the play area falls within the boundaries. However, no in -water work or work in wetlands is planned for the project and the site work is focused on an area that is separated from the wetland and stream by an existing parking lot. This existing parking lot interrupts the vegetated wetland/stream buffer. We are on hold in the design phase of our project. We have completed 30% and in the process of working on 60% design, have been researching permit issues associated with this project. We are currently stalled until we can figure out how to 1. Mitigate the development within the buffer, which has been determined by Planning isn't legal. Or 2. Adopt an interim ordinance that clarifies the code, so that there is allowance to develop within already developed land within the buffer. Or 3. Move the project south into the park more, necessitating the removal of several large trees in City Park. Time is of the essence for this, as the design is on hold until we can resolve this issue. The more time we are at a standstill adds to the project time, scope, and budget. Our project timeline calls for 60% design to complete by August I st. We also need to be out to bid on the Spray equipment and the Play equipment by the end of July, which is on hold, pending the footprint and design. Given the clear intent expressed in the Best Available Science report, it appears to staff that it would be reasonable to consider adopting an interim zoning ordinance to provide immediate relief. The City Attorney has drafted an interim ordinance for Council consideration; this can be considered by Council at its August 6, 2013 meeting for further action while the Planning Board is considering a permanent fix. The interim ordinance would clarify the "footprint of development" concept, incorporate the language addressing "physically separated and functionally isolated" language, and also provide greater clarity regarding the expectation for buffer enhancement, all provisions consistent with the critical areas BAS report. Packet Page 78 of 346 OF EDA, O� ~� Edmonds City Council Agenda Memo Ib�. tg90 Meeting Date: July 3, 2013 Agenda Subject: Critical Areas `Allowed Uses' Provisions Staff Lead / Kernen Lien Author: Senior Planner Initiated By: ❑ City Council ❑ Planning Board 0 City Staff ❑Citizen Request ❑ Other: Port of Edmonds Allowed Uses within Critical Area Buffers In many instances critical area buffers engulf entire properties and may even extend across properties entirely separated from a stream or wetland. Often property within the critical area buffers has been developed. The City's critical regulations contain provisions for allowed activities within critical areas or their associated buffers. While the Best Available Science report prepared during the CAO update evaluated redevelopment with a developed footprint, the allowed use provisions of the critical area code allows additions to structures but seem to prohibit development within the previously developed footprint. Two proposals have been presented to the City recently that are impacted by strict interpretation of the critical areas allowed uses provisions. Staff wants to highlight this issue for the Council for a possible code amendment. Below is an analysis of the Best Available Science report and the critical areas allowed uses provisions. of Edmond Critical Areas Ordinance The Best Available Science (BAS) reports that were developed during the City's update of the critical area regulations also recognized that historical development exists within the critical area buffers and envisioned redevelopment within critical area buffers. The BAS report noted: The City of Edmonds is largely built -out with approximately 96% of the land previously developed. GMA density goals will be met through redevelopment. Instituting large buffers that would extend into residential yards that were previously developed would offer no additional protection for the resource. To ensure improvement in wetland buffer function over time the new CAO requires buffer enhancement for redevelopment that expands an existing structure footprint into a buffer. The CAO provides flexibility for City staff to work with landowners in developing a scientifically -based enhancement plan for such redevelopment. (pg. 31) A memorandum from the CAO update elaborates on this: City of Edmonds caR City Council Packet Page 79 of 346 Exhibit 2 The goal of the CAO is to protect public safety and the City's natural resources while providing for increases in urban density under the GMA guidelines. The CAO update reflects the City's particular needs regarding future growth and critical areas. The vast majority of the City (96%) is already developed, thus future growth will be concentrated in redevelopment of existing parcels. In addition, older residential neighborhoods are integrated with streams that have little or no native vegetation buffers. The challenge for the CAO is to provide opportunities to improve conditions along these streams in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. One of the challenges of updating the CAO was to balance projected growth to meet GMA goals and protection of natural resources using BAS in a city that is essentially built -out. Streams are a particular challenge in the city. Some streams flow through steep ravines with good native vegetation cover while many sections of streams flow through residential neighborhoods that have little or no native plant buffers. Streams often flow through areas dominated by lawn and suburban -type landscaping, within several feet of houses, under driveways, and through manipulated channels. Extending 200-foot-wide buffers throughout these areas was not practical and would offer no protection for most of the City, which is already developed. In addition to increase in buffers over the current code, the new CAO establishes a new requirement to provide buffer enhancement for new footprints from redevelopment, even if no native plant buffer currently exists. Given the vast majority of density increases will come from redevelopment this approach ensures incremental increases in wetland and stream habitat quality. While the Best Available Science reports addressed "development" and "redevelopment" within existing buffers, that terminology did not get transferred to the code. ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 — Allowed Activities (General) 3. Permitted Alteration to Structures Existing Within Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a critical area or buffer that does not increase the footprint of development or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement (additions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area or buffer that do increase the existing footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development standards of the associated critical area type (see ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This provision shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of a legal nonconforming building within its footprint; ECDC 23.50.020.E — Allowed Activities (Wetlands) E. Permitted alteration to a legally constructed structure existing within a wetland or wetland buffer that does not increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing or increase the impact to a wetland or wetland buffer. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004]. "Development" within the Best Available Science reports got transferred to "structure" within the language of the critical areas regulations. While "development" generally includes impervious surface with the "footprint of development", "structure" is more related to something that is "constructed and erected" on the ground and does not include impervious surface. So while the Best Available Science report envisioned redevelopment within an existing developed footprint as an opportunity for enhancement over current conditions, the current critical area regulations do not clearly reflect this concept. Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 80 of 346 The City is nearly 96% percent developed and a return to a predevelopment condition is unrealistic. Redevelopment of properties provides an opportunity for enhancement of critical area buffers and improving current conditions. As such, the Council may wish to consider an amendment to the critical area regulations allowed uses provisions that provides for some redevelopment with the previously developed footprint in association with enhancement opportunities. Page 3 of 3 Packet Page 81 of 346 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting July 9, 2013 Elected Officials Present: Council Member Kristiana Johnson Council Member Diane Buckshnis Mayor Dave Earling The committee convened at 6:00 p.m. Staff Present_ Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks & Rec Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Comm Srvs Econ Develop Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner A. Quarterly Public Works Project Report Mr. English reviewed the 2nd quarter public works project report. Staff responded to questions about project status and financial information. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for information. B. Authorization to advertise a Request for Bids for construction services for the 224th Street SW Waterline Replacement Project. Mr. English described the limits of the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project and how the project was necessary to eliminate the conflict with the new sewerline in 2241" St east of 761h Ave. The 224t" St. sewerline project is currently under construction and is a joint project between the City of Edmonds and Olympic View Water & Sewer District. The project will be funded by the Water Utility Fund. ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval. C. Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of easements for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project. Mr. English provided a summary of the right of way acquisition requirements to construct the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project. Staff will place right of way documents on the consent agenda for approval as the documents are signed by each of the nine property owners. Four property owners have signed the necessary documents and the information will be on the consent agenda for the July 16th City Council meeting. D. Discussion on critical areas `allowed uses' provisions. Staff discussed the relationship of the city's Best Available Science (BAS) report to the city's critical areas regulations, noting that the BAS concepts related to allowed activities were not correctly translated into the current code language. Two recent project proposals have highlighted the problem, showing that the current code language is not allowing common sense implementation of the BAS recommendations. The proposed `fix' would be to amend the code to be consistent with the BAS analysis and approach, reflecting situations where a developed portion of a buffer is physically separated and functionally isolated from the critical area. This Packet Page 82 of 346 Exhibit 3 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes July 9, 2013 Page 2 approach is also consistent with feedback staff received from the Department of Ecology during previous discussions on critical areas and the SMP. ACTION: Recommend Planning Board review and develop recommendations for full Council consideration. E. Continued discussion on Park Impact Fees. ACTION: Forwarded to full Council discussion and action on July 23rd. F. Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County regarding City Park Project. ACTION: Forwarded to consent agenda next week. G. Public Comments No Comments. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 pm. Packet Page 83 of 346 Burnstead closed record review. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether that attorney was paid from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Peterson answered he believed it was. Council President Petso intended to budget enough money in the professional services line item next year to cover the City Attorney's fee as well as 1-2 closed record reviews. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Council President Petso agreed professional services should be paid from the professional services line and not Council Contingency. Council President Petso answered yes, if it is budgeted. In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' question, Councilmember Buckshnis explained there was no Council approval to pay the outside attorney used for the Burnstead closed record review from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Peterson explained the Council directed that funds be allocated but did not identify the source. The Council Contingency Fund was the only available funding source without a budget amendment. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 8. PRESENTATION ON CRITICAL AREAS `ALLOWED ACTIVITIES' PROVISIONS. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained this issue was discussed with the Parks, Planning & Public Works (PPP) Committee on July 9, 2013. The issue is the critical area regulations are not completely consistent with the City's Best Available Science (BAS) report that was prepared as part of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update in 2004, particularly in regard to allowed activities. Allowed activities are activities that can occur within a critical area or critical area buffer. Allowed activities can be conditioned, must use "Best Management Practices" and must not degrade associated critical area. Examples include utility maintenance, activities within the improved right-of-way, and alterations to structures that do not increase the "footprint of development." This idea of development or redevelopment within the developed footprint was discussed in the BAS report. The BAS report noted that the vast majority of the City (96%) is already developed and that future growth will be concentrated in the redevelopment of existing parcels. The BAS report noted the challenge for the CAO is providing opportunities to improve conditions around critical areas in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. The BAS concluded the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment within the existing footprint of development. It was intended that this approach would be reflected in the City's adopted CAO. When the language was transferred to code in the critical area regulations, the language referred to "additions to existing structures" rather than "within the existing footprint of development." Two examples have come to light recently that illustrate this problem, the American Brewery silo and the City Park project. Mr. Lien identified the area where American Brewery would like to install a silo, the 200-foot CAO wetland buffer that projects onto the site. Strict interpretation of the critical area regulations that an existing structure within the critical area buffer can be altered, placing a silo is not an alteration to an existing structure, so technically cannot be allowed under the City's CAO regulations. He pointed out it is in a paved area and placing a silo in that location would not have any impact on the existing critical area. Mr. Lien explained the City Park project includes a proposal to extend the play area. He identified the remnant of Edmonds Marsh on the east side of SR 104, explaining the play area is separated by a parking lot. The proposed play area would expand within the buffer area; although not previously a developed area, it is separated from the wetland by a previously developed area. "Buffer" means the designated area Packet Page 84 of 346 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 8 Exhibit 4 immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. The developed area is physically separated and functionally isolated. The interpretation of the CAO has impacts throughout the City particularly due to streams through the bowl such as Shellabarger, Shell Creek and Henley Stream. The buffers on those streams can encompass more than one parcel. This issue was described to the PPP Committee on July 9 who recommended forwarding it to the Planning Board. The Council packet includes a potential interim ordinance for Council consideration at a future meeting while the Planning Board conducts their review. The Planning Board is scheduled to begin their review at their August 14 meeting. Council President Petso asked whether this proposal applied to all kinds of critical areas such as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or steep slopes or did it only apply to wetland. Mr. Lien answered the allowed activities provision is located in the general regulations of the CAO which apply to all critical areas. Other critical areas have their own allowed activities; there is similar language in the wetland section. Anything in the general regulations, 23.40, applies to all critical areas. With regard to the City Park project, Council President Petso asked how much additional encroachment into the buffer was proposed. She viewed it as a small area and envisioned a small redesign might solve the problem rather than a code change. Mr. Lien indicated he was unable to discuss the park design. He identified the 100 foot buffer from the wetland. In discussions with Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, she indicated any redesign would require moving the play area which would result in the loss of several large trees on the south side of the park. Council President Petso referred to the American Brewery silo, recalling there has been discussion about curing the sins of the past. She noted it was one thing to rip up a parking lot and reestablish a natural buffer; it was more difficult to remove a structure and reestablish a natural buffer. She asked whether the change from structure to developed footprint may make it more difficult to restore some critical areas. Mr. Lien answered additions and redevelopment provide an opportunity for enhancement. For allowing redevelopment within a previously developed footprint, there would be enhancement to improve the area around the wetland. Council President Petso asked if the change would allow redevelopment to occur wherever there was existing pavement. Mr. Lien answered allowed activities can happen as long as BAS are in place; these are generally things like erosion control, etc. The development must not degrade the associated critical areas. Development can be allowed within redevelopment areas but some contingents have to be met that would not impact the critical areas. He agreed it could extend to the edge of the existing parking lot if it met the other conditions. Council President Petso asked what constituted physically separated; whether a path along the edge of the wetland or a 4-foot brick wall along the edge of a steep slope would be sufficient to say it was physically separated and thus allowed to build to the existing separation. Mr. Lien answered in the draft interim ordinance, the decision regarding physically separated and functionally isolated is made by a qualified professional such as a wetland professional or stream biologist. Typically there is a road separating the property from a stream or in the case of the City Park project, the site is separated from Shellabarger from an apartment/condo complex. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the PPP Committee recommended this be reviewed by the Planning Board. She feared the Council was getting caught up in the examples when the real issue was BAS language translated to code was "additions to existing structures" rather than "within the existing footprint of development." Mr. Lien explained the interim ordinance brings the CAO into consistency with the BAS report. Responding to Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien explained the issue was scheduled for review by the Planning Board following the PPP Committee meeting; tonight's meeting did not delay the Planning Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 85 of 346 Board meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happened if the Planning Board wanted to amend the language in the interim ordinance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained it was entirely possible the Planning Board could make changes to the interim ordinance such as was done with the Farmers Market interim ordinance. In that case, the Council adopted the revised version of the regulations and repealed the interim ordinance. If the Planning Board returned with revisions to the interim ordinance and the Council approved the revisions, the Council would adopt the revisions and appeal the interim regulations. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave advised an interim ordinance was proposed primarily due to timing. Ms. Hite is concerned with a delay because the City Park project is at 30% design and it needs to be at 60% before it goes to bid. With regard to the City Park project Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested moving the play pad onto another section. Mr. Lien explained the real issue is BAS language translated to code was "additions to existing structures" rather than "within the existing footprint of development." The City Park project was an example of how that impacts potential development. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not understand the urgency. Mr. Chave relayed Ms. Hite's indication that because of the configuration of the park, if the proposed location was not allowed, it would need to be shifted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) affects critical areas. Mr. Lien answered the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Growth Management Act (GMA) are two different things. Within shoreline jurisdictions, the SMA rules; outside of shoreline jurisdictions, the GMA rules. The CAO is an outgrowth of the GMA. Portions of the CAO have been adopted within the updated SMP which would apply within shoreline jurisdictions. The Department of Ecology specifically excepts portions of the CAO that do not apply within shoreline areas. The allowed activities provisions within the CAO applies within shoreline areas. The buffers may be different in shoreline areas when the SMP is adopted; but the allowed activities provisions would still apply. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the interim ordinance was not discussed at the PPP Committee meeting. Her preference was an expedited review by the Planning Board; it was possible it could be completed in the next four weeks. Councilmember Bloom clarified her understanding of Mr. Lien's explanation was that BAS was not applied in the language of the CAO. Mr. Lien explained the BAS report talks about development and redevelopment within the developed footprint. The developed footprint can be considered the impervious area. When written into the critical area regulations, the language was changed to alterations to existing structures within the developed footprint. Councilmember Bloom asked if the State required the CAO to be consistent with other jurisdictions. Mr. Lien answered unlike the SMP which the State approves, the State does not approve critical area regulations. Critical area regulations must be developed in accordance with BAS. When the code language was drafted, "structures" was added which was not in the BAS report. Mr. Chave explained the Department of Ecology's general approach is with regard to existing development, there is little that can be expected to change, particularly in a city like Edmonds that is 96% developed. The approach in Snohomish County, where there are extensive areas that are undeveloped, is different than the approach in a city such as Edmonds. Edmonds' BAS report fits the circumstances in Edmonds; the focus in Edmonds is enhancement such as improving runoff control or improving the existing buffer area in exchange for allowing some additional development. Unfortunately, the code ultimately undermined that enhancement capability by being overly restrictive with regard to the existing footprint by the use of the word "structure." In response to Councilmember Johnson's comment, Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board has a public hearing scheduled on August 14. It is quite possible the Planning Board's recommendation will be returned to the Council in August. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 86 of 346 Councilmember Peterson was concerned with the impact on the City Park project and potential grant fund deadlines if design percentages are not met. Public Works Director Phil Williams commented he has talked with Ms. Hite about this issue. The concern is a consultant is actively working on the design; if that work was shut down for 1-2 months, it could have an impact on the project delivery date. Another issue Ms. Hite was concerned about was moving the project from its current location would result in the loss of mature trees which she wanted to avoid. The current location seemed to be the optimum location but this issue in the code arose. The sooner this issue is resolved, the better, in order to give the design consultant the information they need to proceed. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the aerial photograph on the City Park project example is the current pad. He envisioned the new project may encroach further and likely cannot be resolved by moving the footprint a few feet. Mr. Williams agreed the new feature will encroach into the buffer. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to have this reviewed by the Planning Board. As the project is in design, she suggested it be designed so that it does not encroach into the critical area. She was uncomfortable with unknown deadlines and rushing. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she has seen the plans, has talked with Ms. Hite, and this is the best location. She reiterated the issue is the language from the BAS report when it was transferred to the CAO. With regard to the American Brewery silo, she pointed out both structures are physically separated and functionally isolated from the marsh. Councilmember Bloom observed the Council could adopt an interim ordinance tonight or next week. She asked when the interim ordinance would be effective. Mr. Taraday answered it was up to the Council when/if they wished to adopt an interim ordinance. A public hearing is not contemplated in advance of the adoption of the interim ordinance; a public hearing is typically held within 60 days of the adoption of the interim ordinance. The Council could adopt the interim ordinance tonight; it would take effect within 5 days of publication, typically 10 days after passage. Councilmember Bloom observed the matter is already scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Board. Mayor Earling explained the intent was for the Council to adopt the interim ordinance next week as a safety net in the event there was a delay in the Planning Board's review and recommendation. He relayed concern that redesign would cost more time and money. Although Ms. Hite is on vacation, he suggested Councilmembers email her any outstanding questions. Councilmember Peterson referred to the interim ordinance the Council approved regarding the farmers market. The Planning Board reviewed the ordinance and forwarded revisions to the Council. The interim ordinance resulted in something better and without it, timing, contracts, etc. may not have been addressed. The interim ordinance would ensure funds for a park project were not lost. He was willing to delay approval of the interim ordinance until next week. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what funds would be lost and when they would be lost. Councilmember Peterson responded there was grant funding; if certain criteria are not met, the grant funds can be lost. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if grant funds were in jeopardy of being lost. Mr. Williams advised when a consultant is working on a design, if the location shifts, all the sheets must be redone. Out of caution, the design would be shut down until the issues are resolved, creating delay and there were costs associated with the delay. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what that had to do with grant funding. Mr. Williams advised any money spent on a design that has to be discarded and a new design created was not using grant funds effectively. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 87 of 346 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Peterson's comment that grant funding would be lost. She was concerned that was not accurate. Councilmember Peterson explained he asked if grant funds would be lost; Ms. Hite was not here to answer that question. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas agreed because Ms. Hite was not here, the Council did not have that information. Mr. Williams explained if the design, funded by a grant, has to be redone, the additional cost likely would come from City resources. He clarified grant funds would not be lost but they may need to be supplemented with additional City funds. With regard to BAS and physically separated and functionally isolated, Mr. Williams advised development can be physically separated by distance but still be functionally connected; in the case of the City Park project, the impervious parking lot and buildings functionally isolate the project environmentally. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Councilmembers are not park expects; Ms. Hite has worked on the City Park project for over a year. The Council is being distracted by the examples and issues such as moving the spray pad; the Council should not be micromanaging the project. She referred to revised language in paragraph 3 of the proposed interim ordinance (Attachment A). She was prepared to pass the interim ordinance next week. The goal was to ensure the language in the CAO was consistent with the BAS report. Councilmember Bloom supported voting on the interim ordinance next week. She asked for an opportunity to review one of the definitions with Mr. Taraday before next week. She relayed her understanding that it was not that grant funds were being lost, grant funds could be spent on a design that later needed to be changed. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Petso recalled this was discussed most recently at the Council mini retreat; Council direction at that time was to bring it back to the Council in July. At that time the options presented by City Attorney Jeff Taraday were to adopt the plan, change the plan or deny the plan; do nothing was not presented as an option. She sought Council direction so that the next agenda item on this topic could read Discussion and Potential Action on the Harbor Square Master Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a plan could not be adopted because a plan was in the process of being created based on Council input, Exhibit 2. The Council was in the process of reviewing Exhibit 3, the Planning Board recommendation and how the issues had been addressed in Exhibit 2. Before the Council moved on with their consideration of Exhibit 3, Council President Petso asked whether the Council can adopt the original Port Master Plan by majority vote or has that plan been denied. City Attorney Jeff Taraday's recollection of prior Council action was the plan had not been denied; none of the motions to approve or deny passed. Council President Petso relayed her understanding that the original Port Master Plan could be adopted by a majority vote of the Council. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Port Master Plan has been withdrawn so there is no plan. Mr. Taraday agreed the plan was withdrawn but the Port's withdrawal of the application does not prevent the Council from continuing to process the Harbor Square Master Plan; it also does not foreclose the possibility of the Council adopting exactly what the Port proposed. Even though the Port has withdrawn their application, the Port began a legislative process by applying for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 88 of 346 divisions did not previously meet on a regular basis to discuss projects; they do now. A group of staff members have held 12 meetings over the last 7-8 months to develop a series of recommendations. Mayor Earling distributed information that includes a memorandum from him with his recommendations, a memo from Mr. Williams regarding the process and a matrix with tasks, purpose/general information, and status. A series of improvements have been made by Planning, Building and Engineering in the past several months to improve the flow of work. There is a sense of camaraderie, working together and understanding of their common mission. At the forefront of that has been Rob Chave. Mr. Chave has done a fabulous job in his role as Acting Development Services Director. With the quality of Mr. Chave's work and interdisciplinary cooperation, Mayor Earling recommended a direct appointment of Mr. Chave as permanent Development Services Director. Mr. Chave is comfortable taking on the director position as well as a fair amount of the Planning Manager role. Mayor Earling relayed his recommendation also includes establishing a new position for Kernen Lien to assume a portion of the Planning Manager's work. Mr. Lien is comfortable and enthusiastic about the opportunity to explore a new responsibility. He provided the following cost comparison: Mayor's Recommendation • Salary increase costs: $23,000 - $27,000 (includes benefits) • Total cost: $23,000 - $27,000 Newly Created Director Position • Salary & benefits costs: $184,000 • Search costs: $20,000 • Total cost: $204,000 Mayor Earling explained initial projections indicate there may be an additional $600,000 for allocation; the $204,000 cost of a newly created director position would substantially reduce that amount. He explained his preliminary 2014 budget will include some one-time costs such as security issues in the IT department at a cost of $50,000 - $70,000. Mayor Earling reiterated Mr. Chave and Mr. Lien have done and will continue to do fabulous work. He looked forward to their direct appointments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked when Mayor Earling wanted the Council to approve/disapprove his proposal. Mayor Earling preferred to move it along as expeditiously as possible such as September or October. Because of the lower dollar amount, it would have considerably less impact on the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the senior planner's workload would be addressed. She noted Leif Bjorback had done a great job in the Building Official position. Mayor Earling responded Mr. Chave is comfortable with assuming the director position and a portion of the planning manager. Mr. Lien is comfortable with assuming a small amount of the planning manager's duties. In addition, a planner who was on maternity leave returned two weeks ago. Due to increased workloads, he likely will propose utilizing contract staff on an as -needed basis in the amount of $20,000 - $30,000. That will be included as part of the 2014 budget. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO REFER THIS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF THE NEW INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY MAYOR EARLING THIS EVENING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED INTERIM ORDINANCE / CRITICAL AREAS 'ALLOWED ACTIVITIES' PROVISIONS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the critical area regulations are not completely consistent with the Best Available Science (BAS) report that was prepared as part of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update in 2004, particularly in regard to allowed activities. Allowed activities are activities that can occur within a critical area or critical area buffer. Allowed activities can be conditioned, but must use best management practices and must not degrade associated critical area. Examples include utility Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 89 of 346 Exhibit 5 maintenance, activities within the improved right-of-way, and alterations to structures that do not increase the "footprint of development." The footprint of development is the inconsistency between the CAO and BAS report. The idea of development or redevelopment within the developed footprint was discussed in the BAS report. The BAS report noted the vast majority of the city (96%) is already developed and that future growth will be concentrated in the redevelopment of existing parcels. The BAS report noted the challenge for the CAO is providing opportunities to improve conditions around critical areas in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. The BAS concluded the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment within the existing footprint of development. When the critical areas regulations were written, the inclusion of "existing structures" in the allowed activities section has consequences counter to the BAS report which referred to development within the developed footprint. Mr. Lien recalled two projects that are impacted by this inconsistency were highlighted last week including the American Brewery Silo and the City Park project. He provided information in an email from Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite describing how the critical areas regulations impacted the City Park project: • Holding off on 60% design • Budget could be impacted by further delay • Shifting the project to the south would result in the removal of three large trees • Waiting for an expedited review pushes the project back further and would not open next summer • Grant requires the project be completed by August 2014 Mr. Lien highlighted the proposed changes to the CAO in the interim ordinance to bring the current CAO into compliance with BAS: • Development proposal within the footprint of development ECDC 23.40.220.C.3, ECDC 23.50.020.E • Definitions ECDC 23.40.320 impervious surface and footprint of development • Physically separated and functionally isolated ECDC 23.50.040.H, ECDC 23.90.040.D.4.c • Wetland enhancement ECDC 23.50.040.J He advised this is scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Board next Wednesday. Council President Petso referred to Mr. Lien's comments regarding the inconsistency with BAS with regard to structures. The interim ordinance also changes physically separated and functionally isolated; she asked whether there was any inconsistency with regard to that or was it simply an add -on. Mr. Lien answered it is not just an add -on; it is a continuation of the previously developed footprint. If a developed area is separated from the critical area and critical area buffer by development, allowing development on the opposite site is similar to allowing development in the previously developed footprint. Council President Petso observed it would allow development outside the previously developed footprint. Mr. Lien answered as proposed it would allow development in an area that is physically and functionally isolated; that would be determined by a critical areas expert. In the park example, there is a parking lot and a road between what is proposed in the critical area. That area does not provide any benefit to the critical area or enhancement to the buffer area as it is separated by previous development. Council President Petso pointed out that area is not currently 100% impervious surface; there is a lot of grass and trees. Mr. Lien explained it is physically and functionally separated by imperious surface. Council President Petso agreed but said it is not impervious surface, yet the proposed change would allow it to become 100% impervious surface. Mr. Lien answered yes, if a critical areas expert determines it is physically and functionally isolated and would not have any impact on the critical area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 90 of 346 Council President Petso referred to things that constitute physically and functionally isolated such as the railroad tracks between homes and Puget Sound or a road such as in City Park. She asked if something as small as a trail or a small rock retaining wall could constitute physically and functionally isolated. Mr. Lien reiterated that would be determined by a qualified professional. Something as small as a trail would not; trails are an allowed activity within a critical area buffer and generally are smaller and not impervious surfaces. Things that physically separate and functionally isolate are typically larger such as roads. Another example would be a house constructed in a stream buffer; if the homeowner wanted to add onto the house on the opposite site of the stream, the house would physically separate development from the critical area. Unlike the other examples that would be within the existing developed footprint, Council President Petso observed the City Park project could expand the existing impervious surface. Mr. Lien agreed it could if it was physically and functionally isolated. With regard to the developed footprint, Council President Petso recalled there was some discussion about attempting to cure the sins of the past. If the existing developed footprint was a parking lot, a parking lot could be reconstructed with pervious pavement to enhance the wetland; with the proposed change to allow structures, she asked if there would be any opportunity to reduce the effect of past development. Mr. Lien answered as the code is written, enhancement is still an important part. The BAS report and code language allow development within the previously developed area in exchange for enhancement. The code allows activity if it, a) does not increase the footprint of the development beyond the legally established footprint, b) does not increase the impact to the critical area and/or buffer, c) does not increase the total impervious surface area of the site, and d) does not increase the risk to life or property as a result of the development proposal, and e) includes measures to enhance the critical areas. The code allows development in this area in exchange for enhancement. Council President Petso asked who decides if the enhancement is proportionate to the expansion of impervious surface or structure. Mr. Lien answered within critical areas, a qualified professional makes that determination; a wetland expert for a wetland and a stream biologist for a stream. If the changes are not made, Council President Petso asked whether a variance process with a decision by the Hearing Examiner would be required. Mr. Lien answered people are not encouraged to pursue a variance because the variance criteria are very strict. The proposed changes are to bring the code into consistency with BAS. The variance process is a last resort when there is nothing that can be done to fit the code but the development should go forward. Council President Petso recalled a statement in last week's packet that it would be illegal to mitigate for the City Park project. Mr. Lien referred to the issue outline memo that contained an excerpt from an email from Ms. Hite, "Mitigate the development within the buffer, which has been determined by Planning isn't legal" which he felt was a "lost in translation comment." Staff informed Ms. Hite that it does not fall within allowed activities, in planning -speak, that becomes it is not legal. Council President Petso asked whether the spray pad could be constructed and the impacts mitigated. Mr. Lien answered as far as allowed activities, no. He did not anticipate the spray park would meet all the variance criteria; one of the criteria is "can it can be constructed someplace else." The project can be moved to the south and three large, healthy trees removed. Ms. Hite has also indicated there are time constraints; the standard time for a variance process is 3-4 months. He reiterated the proposed changes are to bring the code into consistency with the BAS report. Councilmember Peterson asked if the City was vulnerable to legal action if the CAO was in conflict with the BAS report. Mr. Taraday stated legally they are required to be consistent under the GMA. The time to challenge that would be at the time of adoption of the CAO; therefore, it may be too late for a challenge. Councilmember Peterson pointed out BAS is science and that does not change regardless of the CAO. Councilmember Buckshnis stated the proposed change is to bring the CAO into compliance with the BAS report. She noted Council President Petso is throwing in the issue of no net loss which has nothing to do Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 91 of 346 with this. Without the proposed change, the City Park project will be moved south and three healthy trees removed. She objected to the Council micromanaging staff's work, reiterating the City Park project is physically separated and functionally isolated. Council President Petso asked what part of the physically separated and functionally isolated criteria conflicts with BAS with regard to redevelopment in the existing footprint. Mr. Lien answered no net loss is one of the criteria in BAS as well. The idea behind allowing development in a previously developed area is it results in no net loss because it is already an area that has been developed and it allows an opportunity for enhancement. With regard to physically separated and functionally isolated, the tie to BAS is this area is separated from the critical area by an area that has been previously developed. That determination is made by a qualified professional. Council President Petso asked how this was not consistent with the current BAS. Mr. Lien answered it is not in the code at all; the concept is contained in BAS. Council President Petso recalled BAS allows development within the existing footprint. Mr. Lien explained the conflict between the CAO and BAS report is related to how BAS characterizes this issue with the city being developed and development within previously developed areas as an opportunity for enhancement. Councilmember Bloom asked whether adoption of an interim ordinance was necessary tonight when the Planning Board is holding a public hearing next week. Mr. Lien referred to the comments from Ms. Hite, pointing out even an expedited review process by the Planning Board pushes the City Park project out to the point it will not be completed by next summer and there are issues associated with the August 2014 grant deadline. Councilmember Bloom asked if that would be the case if the Planning Board returned it to the Council at the August 21 meeting. Mayor Earling pointed out although a public hearing is scheduled, the Planning Board may not reach a conclusion at next week's meeting. Mr. Lien pointed out a public hearing must also be held by the Council which requires notice. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3935, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Council President Petso pointed out the agenda memo states footprint of already developed areas; physically separated and functionally isolated allows a great deal more impervious surfaces to be added. If that happened for example upstream from Perrinville Creek where efforts are underway to control flows to protect habitat, it would be a problem. She did not support the motion as she did not find enough incentive to rush and she viewed the proposed change as an enormous expansion beyond the footprint of already developed areas. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. She was uncertain what part of Perrinville Council President Petso was referring to. She pointed out there are other avenues to protect critical areas. Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Lien's statement that if development occurs, there would need to be approval by a certified professional. The idea that the other side would be 100% impervious surface was a bit of a stretch. Councilmember Johnson did not support the motion. There was no mention of an interim ordinance when this issue was presented to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee in July. The committee recommended it be referred to the Planning Board; the last Planning Board meeting was canceled. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 92 of 346 was confident in the Planning Board's ability to review the matter and preferred an expedited review at the Planning Board. She suggested there would be time to consider an interim ordinance after learning more about the City Park project. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS, AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Yamamoto discontinued his participation in the Council meeting via telephone.) 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Petso recalled a majority of the Council approved a motion last week to continue discussion of Exhibit 3. Mr. Lien provided history regarding Exhibit 3: • February 5, 2013 Council asked staff to prepare a staff version of the Harbor Square Master Plan. • Staff drafted Exhibits 2 and Exhibit 3. o Exhibit 3 is an issue table outlining the issues raised by Council during and following the public hearing process and identifies how they are addressed in Exhibit 2. • March 19 and 26 City Council reviewed the issue table and planned to continue discussion of the Planning Board recommendations at the April 16 meeting. • Prior to April 16 meeting, Port withdrew their application • Council has been contemplating how to proceed • July 30 a motion was made to continue discussion on the issue table and how the Planning Board's recommendations were incorporated into Exhibit 2 Councilmember Johnson requested Mr. Lien provide a summary of the Planning Board's recommendations. Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board made 14 specific recommendations. Some did not carry over to the draft Master Plan (Exhibit 2) because they were no longer relevant. He reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations and how they were incorporated into Exhibit 2: 1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to 55 feet if the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum. Exhibit 2 no longer references specific building heights and 55 feet was removed. There is discussion regarding incentive zoning. 2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of the property. With a base height of 35 feet, the condition is less relevant. If during a subsequent rezone public amenities are provided and a height bonus granted, design and location of the taller building will be addressed at that time. 3. Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height. Exhibit 2 establishes a base height of 35 feet for the entire site. 4. Development plans shall ensure that the Public View Corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced. Language from that condition was added to page 3 of Exhibit 2. 5. On page 5 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "Circulation, Traffic and Parking", an additional sentence should be added to read: "The absence of available off -site parking requires that adequate parking allowance be made to accommodate all customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times. " This issue was not addressed in whole in Exhibit 2; the parking issue is driving by the development code and could be addressed via a development agreement. 6. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the exception to the 55 foot height limit for special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. should be deleted. The 55 foot height limit has been removed from Exhibit 2. 7. In the graphic "Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking West" on page 10, the annotation as to "setback" above 35 feet along Dayton Street should be revised to "building step back". The schematic was removed from Exhibit 2. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 93 of 346 Councilmember Peterson agreed with postponing this item. He was glad it had been scheduled on the agenda and materials included for Council review. He advised Councilmember Bloom, Ms. Hite and he found several excellent examples of Codes of Ethic and Codes of Conduct. Kirkland and Bellevue's code are nearly identical and likely will be used as a starting point. He suggested Councilmembers familiarize themselves with Kirkland and Bellevue's codes. Postponing this item was also acceptable to Councilmember Bloom. She requested Councilmembers review Kirkland and Bellevue's policies, noting there are a few significant differences. She pointed out the intent to have an Ethic's Officer. Councilmember Johnson asked about the fiscal impact of an Ethics Officer. Councilmember Peterson responded Kirkland has an Ethics Officer and they contact with a law firm. To date they have not had to utilize their services; the law firm is on standby in the event an issue arises. Councilmember Bloom noted Kirkland and Bellevue have a City Manager form of government. The references in their Code of Ethics to elected officials do not include the Mayor. Councilmember Buckshnis was concerned with the issue of subjectivity. She recalled former Councilmember Plunkett's concern about the subjectivity of some policies. She noted there are state laws related to ethics for Councilmembers. She commented on new behaviors she has seen this year, recognizing that people see things differently based on their backgrounds. It was agreed to postpone this to a future meeting. 13. PROPOSAL TO RESCIND ORDINANCE NO. 3935 - AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040 AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA Councilmember Bloom explained when she reviewed the issue more carefully, she apologized to the Planning Board for sending the matter to them prematurely. Her concerns are related to the structure language versus development footprint as well as physically separated and functionally isolated. The language defines legally established structures or similar circumstances and suggested if something was functionally isolated and physically separated it did not serve to protect the wetland from adverse impacts of development. The question then arises if it does not protect the wetland from adverse impacts of development, can enhancement be enforced. She pointed out physically separated and functionally isolated are not clearly defined and impervious surfaces are too broadly defined and include gravel roads as well as compacted surfaces. In addition the enhancements are not clearly defined. Mr. Chave indicated to her that he preferred to wait until 2015 to clarify the enhancements. Councilmember Bloom was concerned that rushing to pass the ordinance due to two projects could possibly result in unintended consequences. In particular functionally isolated and physically separated could affect numerous properties in the City, not just the spray park. For those reasons, she reconsidered her vote and asked for this to be scheduled on the agenda. She suggested the Council rescind the ordinance and bring back the amendments at a future meeting as soon as possible. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO RESCIND ORDINANCE NO.3935. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the lack of transparency on this item. When she left Friday, the packet did not include this item. The discussion occurred between two Councilmembers and Packet Page 94 of 346 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 14 Exhibit 6 the City Attorney. This was an issue for the Planning Board to consider. She emphasized the intent of the original ordinance was for the code to reflect Best Available Science as it relates to structures. Repealing the ordinance will potentially cost the City time and money and will affect the timing of the spray park. Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion. There were open and frank discussions previously and a great deal of information presented on two separate occasions. Sometimes Councilmembers may not be happy with the end result of the process but the Council followed the proper process. Unless there were extenuating circumstances that the Council had not been made aware of, he did not see a reason to rescind the ordinance. He suggested Councilmembers respect the process and even if they disagreed or wanted a redo, it was not always the best course of action. Council President Petso commented on the process, pointed out this was the Council's first opportunity under Roberts Rules to rescind a motion. She explained when Councilmember Bloom indicated her interest in changing her vote, she consulted Roberts Rules and followed the procedure. That procedure includes notice of the intent to rescind in the meeting notice which was done on Friday. There was still time to amend the agenda on Friday and City Clerk Sandy Chase created the amended agenda Friday afternoon. She has been working with Mr. Lien and Ms. Hite on the topic and Councilmember Bloom has been meeting with staff. She mentioned the topic to at least two other Councilmembers in conversation. Everyone is working hard to do this right without messing up the spray park project. It may be that the projects costs more money or needs to be redesigned or that the Council cannot wait for the Planning Board's expedited review and staff returns with a different proposal. The motion to rescind the interim ordinance does not stop the Council or staff from working on the issue or the Planning Board from working on a permanent ordinance. Rescinding the ordinance will stop applications and give the Council and Planning Board more time to work with staff. She noted paving within critical area buffers is a big deal and the City must proceed carefully. She was happy with the effort to follow the process under Robert Rules. She will support the motion to rescind the interim ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a motion to reconsider or rescind was appropriate. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there is a Roberts Rules process to place the matter on the agenda. To the question of how to repeal an ordinance, Mr. Taraday explained an ordinance is repealed via the adoption of another ordinance. To the extent a majority of the Council desires to repeal the ordinance, there is an ordinance on the City's Z drive that would accomplish that. The proper motion to undo the interim ordinance is a motion to approve the ordinance to repeal. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Councilmember Bloom's motion was to rescind the motion. Mr. Taraday explained rescind is the Roberts Rules term and repeal is the RCW term. He preferred the Council use the term repeal. He interpreted the motion to be to repeal the motion. If the motion is interpreted as a motion to adopt an ordinance that repeals the interim ordinance, that ordinance should be presented to the Council. Councilmember Bloom explained her intent was to repeal the ordinance that was passed two weeks ago and ask staff to return with an amended ordinance. Mr. Taraday summarized the options: 1. Do nothing 2. Repeal the interim ordinance adopted on August 6 3. Amend the interim ordinance adopted on August 6 (two versions available) Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the interim ordinance addressed making the critical areas ordinance consistent with BAS. The discussion now is adding more teeth to the new ordinance. Mr. Taraday clarified the motion on the floor is to repeal the August 6 interim ordinance. Council President Petso asked whether the preferred action would be a motion to adopt the ordinance in the packet that effectively repeals the interim ordinance. If the Council's intent is to repeal the August 6 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 95 of 346 interim ordinance, Mr. Taraday recommended a Councilmember move the ordinance displayed on the screen. He summarized repealing an ordinance requires adoption of an ordinance that repeals the original ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3940, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3935, WHICH AMENDED THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS EDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.040 AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Recognizing this may be the proper process in Roberts Rules, Councilmember Peterson pointed out the Council is voting on an ordinance that neither they nor the citizens of Edmonds have seen before now and that did not satisfy his desire for transparency and public process. Councilmember Bloom took issue with Councilmember Peterson's reference to transparency, relaying that this was a transparent process. Under Roberts Rules, a Councilmember has the option to change their mind which is what she did. She spent a great deal of time talking to staff as well as spoke to the Planning Board. She relayed Mr. Lien's indication that the interim ordinance could potentially allow an increase in impervious surface in wetland buffers in other parts of the City. She did not understand why Councilmember Peterson did not feel this was a transparent process when everything had been done to make it transparent. The interim ordinance came to the Council without approval of the Parks, Planning and Public Works (PPP) Committee; the committee recommended it go directly to the Planning Board. When it was presented to the Council, an interim ordinance was proposed. Her primary concern was making changes of this degree to the critical areas ordinance without fully considering the unintended consequences that may result. She found Councilmember Peterson's comments that it was not transparent very offensive, pointing out this is as transparent as it gets. Councilmember Peterson appreciated that it was transparent to Councilmember Bloom because she had been working on it for the last several days. He has not; this is the first time he has seen it. The interim ordinance was considered over two meetings so that staff could provide additional information. If this had not been done at the last minute, he still would not support it because he believed in the action the Council took previously. One of the reasons he did not support the motion was while Councilmember Bloom, Council President Petso and Mr. Taraday have done a lot of work and talked with staff, he was not briefed on it and there was nothing in the packet. The last minute nature of this item raised his concern with transparency. If this had been scheduled on the agenda and he had time to have his questions answered, that would be transparent. He summarized it has been transparent for a few but not all. Councilmember Bloom pointed out it had been on the agenda since Friday. Councilmember Peterson responded there was no supporting documentation in the packet. What the Council is voting on was not included in the packet. Councilmember Buckshnis explained after the PPP Committee meeting forwarded the issue to the Planning Board, President Petso decided to bring it to full Council. This is an interim ordinance; it is on a fast track for review by the Planning Board. She objected to repealing ordinances on the fly, preferring to wait for the Planning Board's review. She preferred to allow the spray park project to proceed, commenting this will impact the timing, budget and scope of that project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 96 of 346 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council President Petso said the PPP Committee forwarded this matter to the Planning Board without coming to full Council. The first the Council heard of it was during reports on committee meetings. Some people were uncomfortable with the two committee members making the decision to send it to the Planning Board so she made a decision to include it as a discussion item on a Council agenda. When it was scheduled, it was no longer a discussion item but included an interim ordinance. She asked the City Clerk to remove the interim ordinance from the agenda. During the discussion item, staff indicated they would present an interim ordinance the following week. At that meeting, the Council voted 4-3 to approve the interim ordinance. One member of the four person majority changed her mind and followed the correct procedure to bring it back to the Council. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS, AND PETERSON VOTING NO. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 13 AND 19, 2013 Finance Committee Councilmember Yamamoto reported on the following items considered by the committee: • Salary Increase to Remain Eligible for State Court Improvement Account Funds — addressed on tonight's agenda • Discussion regarding Authorization to Recruit for Development Services Director — will be scheduled for full Council discussion on a future agenda • Discussion and Recommendation on Proposed Utility Rate Adjustments — will be scheduled for presentation to full Council • June 2013 Budgetary Financial Report — approved on Consent Agenda • 2013 Budget Amendment — discussed on tonight's agenda • Sharing 2-14 Budget Approaches and Recommending Fund Balance — discussed on tonight's agenda • Bond Sale Report • Public comment from two citizens Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Johnson reported on the following items considered by the committee: Forwarded for approval on the Consent Agenda: • Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Inter jurisdictional Coordination Relating to Affordable Housing within Snohomish County • Additional Construction Funding for 76`" Avenue West Water Main Replacement Project • Report on bids opened July 30, 2013 for the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project • Report on bids opened August 1, 2013 for the 2013 Sewerline Rehabilitation Project • Acceptance of a Grant for Stormwater Planning and Design Referred following to future Council meeting • Utility Rate Adjustments • Five Corners Roundabout Art Selection Carried over for further discussion: • Harbor Square • Street Tree Management Policy Public comment Jamie Jensen regarding the Angler's Crossing PRD Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 97 of 346 ORDINANCE NO.3935 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. WHEREAS, the City's critical areas ordinance (CAO) was developed based on `best available science' (BAS); and WHEREAS, the BAS assessment concluded that because the city was mostly developed, the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment to occur within the footprint of already -developed areas; and and WHEREAS, it was intended that this approach would be reflected in the City's adopted CAO; WHEREAS, the relationship of an allowed activity to the "footprint of development" was directly related to the BAS discussion noted above, but the language also includes the phrase "existing structures" which conflicts with the general concept of connecting allowable development activity to the "footprint of development;" and and WHEREAS, this has had unfortunate consequences which are counter to the intent of the BAS; WHEREAS, two recent development proposals have raised awareness of the unintended limitations of the current code; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, Packet Page 98 of 346 Exhibit 7 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 23.40.220 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Allowed activites," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike through). Section 2. Section 23.40.320 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Definitions pertaining to critical areas," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike *h,.o Section 3. Section 23.50.020 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Allowed activities — Wetlands," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike through). Section 4. Section 23.50.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Development standards — Wetlands," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in st-Fike tbr^ti�'') Section 5. Section 23.90.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Development standards — specific habitats," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike +h,.o .i.) Section 6. Sunset. This ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date, after which point it shall have no further effect. Packet Page 99 of 346 Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. rr MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADA FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 08-02-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 08-06-2013 PUBLISHED: 08-11-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08-16-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3935 Packet Page 100 of 346 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3935 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 6th day of August, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3935. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 7th day of August, 2013. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 4 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 101 of 346 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 23.40.220 Allowed activities. A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a critical area report, unless such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this title to protect critical areas. B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense. C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed: 1. Permit Requests Subsequent to Previous Critical Areas Review. Development permits and approvals that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as subdivisions, rezones, or conditional use permits) and construction approvals (such as building permits) if all of the following conditions have been met: a. The provisions of this title have been previously addressed as part of another approval; b. There have been no material changes in the potential impact to the critical area or buffer since the prior review; c. The permit or approval has not expired or, if no expiration date, no more than five years have elapsed since the issuance of that permit or approval; and d. Compliance with any standards or conditions placed upon the prior permit or approval has been achieved or secured; 2. Modification to Structures Existing Outside of Critical Areas and/or Buffers. Structural modification of, addition to, or replacement of a legally constructed structure existing outside of a critical area or its buffer that does not further alter or increase the impact to the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modification or replacement; 3 Permitted n lterGtien to ctFucture Development proposals within footprint of development Existing Within Critical Areas and/or Buffers. PeF itted alteration Development proposals to a legally constructedstructure existing within a critical area er- buffer- in the footprint of dey"nnent within critical areas and /or buffers may be allowed as long as the proposed development; a. does not increase the footprint of development beyond the legally established footprint; a-r b. does not increase the impact to the critical area and or buffer; and there is Hoor c. does not increase the total impervious surface are F the site d, does not increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed modific tion er- replacement development proposal: and Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 102 of 346 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 e. itzcludes measures to enhance the critical area and/or buffer in a way that improves its function and value. (ads Additions or expansions to legally constructed structures existing within a critical area and or buffer that do increase the existin-g-legally established footprint of development shall be subject to and permitted in accordance with the development standards of the associated critical area type (see, era.. ECDC 23.50.040 and 23.90.040)). This provi subsection C.3 shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to nonconforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction and or redevelopment of a legal nonconforming building structure within its footprint; 4. Activities Within the Improved Right -of -Way. Replacement, modification, installation, or construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, when such facilities are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a city -authorized private roadway; S. Minor Utility Projects. Utility projects that have minor or short -duration impacts to critical areas, as determined by the director in accordance with the criteria below, and which do not significantly impact the function or values of a critical area(s); provided, that such projects are constructed with best management practices and additional restoration measures are provided. Minor activities shall not result in the transport of sediment or increased storm water. Such allowed minor utility projects shall meet the following criteria: a. There is no practical alternative to the proposed activity with less impact on critical areas; b. The activity involves the placement of utility pole(s), street sign(s), anchor(s), or vault(s) or other small component(s) of a utility facility; and c. The activity involves disturbance of an area less than 75 square feet; 6. Public and Private Pedestrian Trails. New public and private pedestrian trails subject to the following: a. The trail surface shall meet all other requirements, including water quality standards set forth in the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19; b. Critical area and/or buffer widths shall be increased, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor, including disturbed areas; and c. Trails proposed to be located in landslide or erosion hazard areas shall be constructed in a manner that does not increase the risk of landslide or erosion and in accordance with an approved geotechnical report; 7. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities: a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and light equipment: i. Invasive and noxious weeds; ii. English ivy (Hedera helix); iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus); iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus); v. Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius); and vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis); Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 103 of 346 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 b. The removal of trees from critical areas and buffers that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property; provided, that: i. The applicant submits a report from an ISA- or ASCA-certified arborist or registered landscape architect that documents the hazard and provides a replanting schedule for the replacement trees; ii. Tree cutting shall be limited to pruning and crown thinning, unless otherwise justified by a qualified professional. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees should be removed or converted to wildlife snags; iii. All vegetation cut (tree stems, branches, etc.) shall be left within the critical area or buffer unless removal is warranted due to the potential for disease or pest transmittal to other healthy vegetation or unless removal is warranted to improve slope stability; iv. The land owner shall replace any trees that are removed with new trees at a ratio of two replacement trees for each tree removed (two to one) within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. Replacement trees may be planted at a different, nearby location if it can be determined that planting in the same location would create a new hazard or potentially damage the critical area. Replacement trees shall be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one inch in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball; v. If a tree to be removed provides critical habitat, such as an eagle perch, a qualified wildlife biologist shall be consulted to determine timing and methods of removal that will minimize impacts; and vi. Hazard trees determined to pose an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, to public or private property, or of serious environmental degradation may be removed or pruned by the land owner prior to receiving written approval from the city; provided, that within 14 days following such action, the land owner shall submit a restoration plan that demonstrates compliance with the provisions of this title; c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that the removed vegetation shall be replaced in kind or with similar native species within one year in accordance with an approved restoration plan; and d. Unless otherwise provided, or as a necessary part of an approved alteration, removal of any vegetation or woody debris from a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or wetland shall be prohibited; 8. Minor Site Investigative Work. Work necessary for land use submittals, such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests, and other related activities, where such activities do not require construction of new roads or significant amounts of excavation. In every case, impacts to the critical area shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and 9. Navigational Aids and Boundary Markers. Construction or modification of navigational aids and boundary markers. [Ord. 3527 § 2, 20 1 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 104 of 346 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50. 23.60, 23.70.23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply: "Adjacent" means those areas located within 200 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel and those areas located within 800 feet of a documented bald eagle nest. "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. "Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics; 2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities; 3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and 4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas. "Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. "Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits. "City" means the city of Edmonds. "Class" or "wetland class" means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979). "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide. "Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project - induced critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 105 of 346 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 1. "Restoration" means actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. 4. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high -quality wetlands. "Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a site where one did not formerly exist. "Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50. 23.60. 23.70. 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively. "Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit; subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title. "Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee. "Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value. "Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow. Erosion Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(A). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. See Chapter 23.90 ECDC. "Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "One - hundred -year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Frequently Flooded Areas. See Chapter 23.70 ECDC. "Footprint of development" means thQ area of a site that contains legally establishd impervious surfaces. "Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and 1 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 106 of 346 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority. Geologically Hazardous Areas. See Chapter 23.80 ECDC. "Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of Washington who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university and has at least five years of experience as a practicing geologist or four years of experience and at least two years of postgraduate study, research or teaching. The practical experience shall include at least three years of work in applied geology and landslide evaluation in close association with qualified, practicing geologists and geotechnical/civil engineers. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation. "Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter. "Habitats of local importance" include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, shorelines, coastal beaches, mudflats, eel -grass beds, and wetlands. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] "Impervious surface" means a hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of -ter in o the it mantle as it occurs nd natural conditions prigr to developmentlting in storm water runoff from thg surf ce in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow compared to storm water runoff characteristics under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include (but are not limited o) roofto ps.walkwa atios driveways, arkin g to ts or sto rage areas. ❑utdoor swimming pools, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads packed earthen materials, and oiled macadam or other surfaces that similarly impedes natural infiltration of storm water. Landslide Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(B).] "Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods; Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 107 of 346 Attachment A to Ord. 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. "Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies. "Noxious weeds" means any plant which, when established, is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, as further listed in Chapter 16-750 WAC. "Planning staff' means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For areas of potential geologic instability, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or geotechnical engineer. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of two years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within the chapter on each critical area type. "Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re -development of a property or subject parcel. "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. Seismic Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(C).] "Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] "Storm Water Management Manual" means the Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin by the Washington State Department of Ecology (as included in Chapter 18.30 ECDC). "Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 108 of 346 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).] "Title" means all chapters of the City of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23. "Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel in the past. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. [See ECDC 23.50.010(B).] "Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows. Ord. 35227 § 20 23.50.020 Allowed activities - Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent with, the provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas report, except where such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include: A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland. B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources. C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column could be disturbed. chment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 109 of 346 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be restricted to hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after weed removal shall be revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding may also be done over the bare areas with native herbs. E. Per-mitted alteration to n legally eenstr-ueted structure exi tiRg Development proposals in the footprint of development within a wetland and or wetland buffer may be allowed as long as the proposed alteration: a. that -does not increase the footprint of development beyond the legally established footprint: b. does increase the impact to a wetland and or wetland buffer1 c. does not increase the total impervious surface area of the site: d. does not increase the risk to life or pi=opei:ty as a result of the proposed i❑ replacement or redevelopment: and e. includes measures to enhance the wetland and or we land buffer in a way that improves its function and value. 23.50.040 Development standards - Wetlands. A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas. B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title. C. Category 1 Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category 1 wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this title. D. Category 2 Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category 2 wetlands, the following standards shall apply: 1. Water -dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas. 2. Where non -water -dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that: a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer. 1 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 110 of 346 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 E. Category 3 and 4 Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category 3 and 4 wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan. F. Wetland Buffers. 1. Standard Buffer Widths. The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. If the vegetation is inadequate, then, at the discretion of the director, the buffer width may be increased or an applicant may be required to develop and implement a wetland buffer enhancement plan to maintain the standard width (see subsection (F) (3) of this section). Required standard wetland buffers, based on wetland category, are as follows: a. Category 1: 200 feet; b. Category 2: 100 feet; c. Category 3: 50 feet; d. Category 4: 35 feet. 2. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best available science on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site -specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria: a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas; b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with subsection (F) (3) of this section may substitute. 3. Buffer Width Reductions Through Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the Edmonds development services director, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category 3 and 4 wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow for wetland buffer width reductions to no less than 50 percent of the standard width; provided, that: a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be increased or retained through plan implementation to at least the level provided by a standard buffer or through additional mitigation; b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; i Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 111 of 346 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in wetland buffer functioning as related to: i. Water quality protection; ii. Provision of wildlife habitat; iii. Maintenance of wetland hydrology; and iv. Restricting wetland intrusion and disturbance. 4. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. The director may allow modification of a standard or reduced wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered the total standard or reduced buffer for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that: a. It will not reduce the function and value of wetlands or associated buffers; b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for wetlands extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a standard or reduced buffer; and d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 50 percent of the standard or reduced buffer width. 5. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. 6. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this chapter. 7. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond. 8. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland: a. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife. b. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that does not interfere with substrate permeability. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable; Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 112 of 346 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet. c. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25 percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category 3 or 4 wetlands only; provided, that: i. No other location is feasible; and ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category 1 or 2 wetlands. G. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands. 1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to the commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect wetlands from disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer. a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the director: Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Edmonds Regarding Uses and Restrictions b. The provisions of subsection (G) (2) (a) of this section maybe modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife. H. Additions to Structures Existing Within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this section. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and wetland buffer averaging require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: 1. Outside of the standard wetland buffer; 2. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through enhancement per subsection (17)(3) of this section; 3.Outside of a wetland buffer reduced through buffer averaging per subsection (F) (4) of this section; or Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 113 of 346 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 4. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width through the use of both buffer reduction and buffer averagingL 5. Within buffer areas that: a. are physically separated from the associated wetland due to public roads,legally established structures, or similar circumstances; b. are functionally isolated from the associated wetland: and c. as a result of a and b, above, do not serve to protect the wetland from adverse impacts of development. A critical area report prepared by a qualified professional is required to determine whether subsections a and b are satisfied. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. I. Exemptions. The director may allow isolated Category 3 or 4 wetlands under 500 square feet in area to be exempt from the provisions of this title. A wetland exemption shall only be granted if a submitted critical areas report, in the form of a critical areas reconnaissance or delineation, provides evidence that all of the following conditions are met: 1. The wetland is under 500 square feet in area; 2. The wetland is a low -quality Category 3 or 4 wetland; 3. The wetland does not provide significant habitat value for wildlife; and 4. Filling of the wetland can maintain equivalent or greater habitat functions and values over existing site conditions. j. Enhancement of Wetlands and Wetland Buffers. Where this chapter allows development within a w tland ❑r wetland buffer. the director sIiall eon ditinn proposals for development by requiring enhancement measures consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions of develo p ment approval shall be req ui red to enhance wetland and or w tland buffers in accordance with best available science and the recommendations of_an_approved critical areas report and may include without limitation: a. Planting of native vegetation: b. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species; c. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers: and d. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of r icular uses. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard wetland buffer widths of this section can accommodated b thepro-posed development. the a li ant hall be req uired to submit a wetland buffer enhancement V Ian or a wetland mitigation and buffer enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report. The 1)] an must demonstrate that p os t- p m iec site conditions will provide eq ulyg lent or greater protection of wetland Functions and wildlife habitat when compared to standard wetland buffer and existing site conditionsrd. -3527 § 2, 20 23.90.040 Development standards - Specific habitats. A. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species. I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 114 of 346 ' Attachment A to Ord. 3935 1. No development shall be allowed within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or buffer with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management plan established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency. 2. Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical areas report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the director. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for animal species, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for plant species, and other appropriate federal or state agencies. 3. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State bald eagle protection rules (WAC 232-12-292). Whenever activities are proposed within 800 feet of a verified nest territory or communal roost, a habitat management plan shall be developed by a qualified professional. The director shall verify the location of eagle management areas for each proposed activity. Approval of the activity shall not occur prior to approval of the habitat management plan by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. B. Anadromous Fish. 1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, adhering to the following standards: a. Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species; b. An alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible; c. The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; d. Shoreline erosion control measures shall be designed to use bioengineering methods or soft armoring techniques, according to an approved critical areas report; and e. Any impacts to the functions or values of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical areas report. 2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. 3. Fills, when authorized, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate any unavoidable impacts and shall only be allowed for a water -dependent use. I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 115 of 346 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 C. Retention of Vegetation on Subdividable, Undeveloped Parcels. As a provision of this title, the director shall require retention of a minimum of 30 percent of native vegetation on undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned as RS-12 or RS-20 per Chapter 16.10 ECDC. This standard for development shall apply to all undeveloped (or redeveloped), subdividable lands zoned RS-12 or RS-20 regardless of the potential for designation as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or other critical area. The goal of 30 percent native vegetation can be met through maintaining existing native vegetation, establishing native vegetation, or a combination of both. A vegetation management plan, subject to the approval of the director, is required for approval of the proposed development. This provision for native vegetation retention will provide increased protection of fish and wildlife habitat throughout the Edmonds jurisdiction. D. Streams. No alteration to a stream or stream buffer shall be permitted unless consistent with the provisions of this title and the specific standards for development outlined below. 1. Standard Stream Buffer Widths. Buffers for streams shall be measured on each side of the stream, from the ordinary high water mark. The following shall be the standard buffer widths for streams based upon the Washington State Department of Natural Resources water typing system and further classification based upon fish presence (fishbearing vs. nonfishbearing) for the Type F streams existing in the city of Edmonds: a. Type S: 150 feet; b. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access: 100 feet; c. Type F anadromous fishbearing stream adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access: 75 feet; d. Type F nonanadromous fishbearing stream: 75 feet; e. Type Np: 50 feet; f. Type Ns: 25 feet. General areas and stream reaches with access for anadromous fish are indicated on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. The potential for anadromous fish access shall be confirmed in the field by a qualified biologist as part of critical areas review and determination of standard stream buffer widths. 2. Reduced Stream Buffer Widths. Standard stream buffer widths may be reduced by no more than 50 percent of the standard stream buffer width concomitant to development and implementation of a stream buffer enhancement plan approved by the director. Reduced stream buffer widths shall only be approved by the director if a stream buffer enhancement plan conclusively demonstrates that enhancement of the reduced buffer area will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the buffer area in terms of fish and stream protection and the provision of wildlife habitat. Stream buffer enhancement plans must meet the specific requirements of ECDC 23.40.110. 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and: a. Provide evidence that the reduced buffer, through enhancement, will provide functions and values in terms of stream and wildlife protections equivalent to or greater than a standard buffer without enhancement; Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 116 of 346 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees; c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success for a minimum of three years in accordance with ECDC 23.40.130(D) and (E); and d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards for assessing increases in stream buffer functioning as related to: i. Water quality protection; ii. Provision of wildlife habitat; iii. Protection of anadromous fisheries; iv. Enhancement of fish habitat; and v. Restricting intrusion and disturbance. 3. Stream Buffer Width Averaging. The director may allow modification of a standard or reduced stream buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Only those portions of a stream buffer existing within the project area or subject parcel shall be considered in the total buffer area for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional demonstrates that: a. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for a stream extending off -site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; b. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced to less than 50 percent of the reduced or standard width; and c. The functions and values of the stream and associated buffer will not be diminished through the use of buffer averaging. 4. Additions to Structures Existing within Stream Buffers. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that increase the footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards of this chapter (ECDC 23.90.030 and this section). Provisions for standard stream buffers, buffer reductions through enhancement, and stream buffer averaging require applicants to locate such additions in accordance with the following sequencing: a. Outside of the standard stream buffer; b. Outside of a stream buffer reduced through enhancement per subsection (D)(2) of this section; c. Outside of a stream buffer reduced through buffer averaging per subsection (D)(3) of this section; or d. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard stream buffer width through the use of both buffer reduction and buffer averaging. e. Within buffer areas that: i. are physically separated from the associated_ stream due to public roads, legally established structures, or similar circumstances: ii. are functionally isolated from the associated stream: and f Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 117 of 346 f Attachment A to Ord. 3935 iii. as a result of i and ii. above, do not serve to protect the stream from adverse impacts of development.A critical area report prepared by a qualified -professional is required to determine whether subsections i and ii are satisfied. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within stream buffers that cannot be accommodated in accordance with the above sequencing (i.e., additions proposed within the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210. S. Stream Crossings. Stream crossings may be allowed only if all reasonable construction techniques and best management practices are used to avoid disturbance to the stream bed or bank. Upon completion of construction, the area affected shall be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted with native species and/or otherwise protected according to a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan approved by the director, and maintained and monitored per the requirements of ECDC 23.40.110. 23.40.120 and 23.40.130 and providing for buffer enhancement in accordance with the requirements of subsection (D) (2) of this section. In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that best management practices will be used during construction to provide the following: a. Fisheries protection, including no interference with fish migration or spawning; b. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow periods and shall be timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when stream use is critical to salmonids; c. Crossings shall not occur over salmonid spawning areas unless no other possible crossing site exists; d. Crossings and culverted portions of the stream shall be minimized to the extent feasible and serve multiple purposes and multiple lots whenever possible; e. Roads may cross streams only on previously approved rights -of -way, provided no practical alternative exists and adequate provision is made to protect and/or enhance the stream through appropriate mitigation. Roads shall be designed and located to conform to topography, and maintained to prevent erosion and restriction of the natural movement of ground water as it affects the stream; f. Roads and utilities shall be designed in conjunction to minimize the area of disturbance to the stream; and g. Roads shall be constructed so as to minimize adverse impacts on the hydrologic quality of the stream or associated habitat to a degree acceptable to the city. 6. Trails. After reviewing the proposed development and technical reports, the director may determine that a pedestrian -only trail may be allowed in a stream buffer; provided, nonimpervious surface materials are used, all appropriate provision is made to protect water quality, and all applicable permit requirements have been met. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed within a stream or its buffer except as required for necessary maintenance or security. Vegetative edges, structural barriers, signs or other measures must be provided wherever necessary to protect streams by limiting vehicular access to designated public use or interpretive areas. Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 118 of 346 I Attachment A to Ord. 3935 7. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within stream buffers; provided, that: a. No other location is feasible; and b. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the stream or stream buffer. 8. City Discretion in Protection, Enhancement and Preservation of Streams. The city of Edmonds is unique within the state of Washington as a built -out community with streams that have been incorporated within, and often located immediately adjacent to, residential development. This title allows the director full discretion to condition proposals for development on parcels containing, adjacent to, or potentially impacting streams to enhance conditions consistent with ECDC 23.40.050 and the purposes and objectives of this title. Conditions on development shall be required to enhance streams and stream buffers as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas to provide increased protection of anadromous fisheries and potential fish habitat in accordance with best available science and the recommendations of an approved critical areas report and may include: a. Removal of stream bank armoring; b. In -stream habitat modification; c. Native planting; d. Relocation of stream channel portions to create contiguous riparian corridors or wildlife habitat; e. Planting of stream bank native vegetation to increase stream shading; f. Removal and control of nonnative, invasive weed species; g. Requiring additional building setbacks or modified buffers; and h. Limiting or reducing the types or densities of particular uses. The right of discretion in provisioning development in regard to streams is maintained in order to provide for the creation of enhanced conditions over those currently existing around streams in the city of Edmonds. In all instances where an applicant cannot demonstrate that standard stream buffer widths as provided in subsection (D)(1) of this section can be accommodated by project development, the applicant shall be required to submit a stream buffer enhancement plan or a stream mitigation and buffer enhancement plan as part of a critical areas report indicating that postproject site conditions will provide equivalent or greater protection of stream functions and fish habitat over a standard stream buffer and existing site conditions. rn�92+ § 2, 20 Attachment A to Ord. 3935 Packet Page 119 of 346 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH S kUAg F DRDI ANCE O. 3M of the City at nda Wash"ton On the 6th day of August, 2R13. 111e City Council of the city of. Edmonds, passed 0rd1D1C4e No. 3935. A summary of d-m content of "ordinance. conalstlng oI the like. prrvkk¢ l 0 follOW AN ORDINANCE G THE CITY OF: EDMONDS, wASHmr.TON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM lo"8 i ORDINANCE . TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECII GAILY SECT{ONS ECDC 23.AO-220, 23,40.120, 23.50.020. 23,50.040. AND 2"S9 *40. TO ALLOW DEvELOPi�AENT wrrm LEGALLY ES RED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN SUFFER AREAS THAT ARE ISOLATEDCALLY SEPARATED AND FROM AN ASSM TEA CAMCAI AREA, A LATED F The lull teal of thts 0nlinanos vnll he rnaNed upon requesL DATED this 71h day of Au9LC 20CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Published: August 11.2013. 7 Account Name: City of Edmonds Affidavit of Publication S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Summary of Ordinance No. 3935 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: August 11, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and sworn to before me this dAugust, 2013 7 Notary Public in and for the State of County. Account Number: 101416 12th N PUBLIC 2-17-2016 0001829414 Packet Page 120 of 346 ORDINANCE NO.3940 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3935, WHICH AMENDED THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. WHEREAS, upon further consideration, the city council has determined that planning board study of the proposed changes to the critical areas ordinance is desirable prior to adopting those changes by ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 3935 is hereby repealed. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 121 of 346 APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING Exhibit 8 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 08-20-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 08-20-2013 PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.3940 Packet Page 122 of 346 AM-6077 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 09/03/2013 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: Type: 45 Minutes Jeff Taraday, City Attorney City Clerk's Office Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding I-502 and city options regarding marijuana. Recommendation Discussion item. Previous Council Action Submitted By: Committee Action: Sandy Chase Ordinance No. 3938 was adopted by the City Council on 08-20-13. The Ordinance is related to collective gardens and the recreational use of marijuana, establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the siting, establishment and operation of any structures or uses relating to collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing, or marijuana retailing, to be in effect until the City of Edmonds adopts zoning regulations addressing such marijuana uses, and establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the submission of any business license applications for such uses, setting six months as the effective period of the moratorium, to allow the Washington State Liquor Control Board an opportunity to complete its rule -making for the licensing of such uses and to allow the city to study the secondary land use impacts of such uses, establishing the date of the public hearing on the moratorium and declaring an emergency. A public hearing on Ordinance No. 3938 is scheduled on the September 3, 2013 City Council Agenda. Narrative Please refer to the attached memorandum from the City Attorney's Office entitled 1-502 - Options for Addressing State's Marijuana Facility Licensing Regime" (Exhibit 1). Also attached as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Liquor Control Board's I-502 Implementation Timeline. Attachments Exhibit 1: City Attorney's Office Memorandum - Range of Options Exhibit 2: Liquor Control Board I-502 Implementation Timeline Exhibit 3: Ordinance 3938 Exhibit 4: 08-20-13 City Council Minutes (Excerpt) Form Review Packet Page 123 of 346 Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 08/29/2013 Reviewed By Dave Earling Sandy Chase Date 08/29/2013 03:17 PM 08/29/2013 03:17 PM Started On: 08/29/2013 11:49 AM Packet Page 124 of 346 MEMORANDUM TO: Edmonds City Council FROM: Lighthouse Law Group, PLLC Susan Elizabeth Drummond, Special Counsel SUBJECT: I-502 - Options for Addressing State's Marijuana Facility Licensing Regime DATE: August 29, 2013 1. Introduction Washington State's Liquor Control Board will be adopting a program to license marijuana production, processing and retailing facilities by December 1. Local jurisdictions throughout Washington are considering a range of options in response, including the City of Edmonds. The City recently adopted a moratorium, and has scheduled a public hearing for September 3, 2013 to accept testimony on the moratorium. That same evening, the City Council will also meet to discuss alternative approaches for addressing the state's proposed licensing process. This memo summarizes four approaches to addressing the issue: (1) No Action. Defer to the state siting process to address impacts associated with state licensed marijuana facilities and to the statutory size limitations on collective gardens. (2) No Immediate Action; Further Assess Alternative Approaches. Local jurisdictions are operating with limited information on how the state licensing process will work. The City's existing moratorium provides for the City to further assess the issue before determining next steps. N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273 7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Page 125 of 346 (3) Ban. Some cities have adopted bans on marijuana facilities, although this approach is likely to lead to litigation. Washington's courts are just beginning to address this issue. (4) Zoning. Adopt zoning to further address secondary impacts and locational concerns. As set forth in the City's moratorium ordinance, the City has elected to further assess the issue before deciding on a course of action. 2. Legislative Background 2.1 I-502 — State Licensing of Marijuana Facilities Initiative 502 passed in 2012. I-502 directs the Washington State Liquor Control Board to regulate marijuana by licensing and taxing producers, processers, and retailers, and to adopt regulations by December 1, 2013. The Board's current schedule for adoption is attached. The Liquor Control Board will determine the maximum number of retail outlets it will license per county. The Board will consider population distribution, security and safety, and adequate access to licensed sources to discourage illegal purchase.' No licensed use may be located within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit center, or library, or any game arcade admission which is not restricted to persons aged 21 or older.2 Commercial marijuana advertising is similarly restricted, and is also prohibited on or in a public transit vehicle or shelter, and within publicly owned or operated property.3 Before a facility can be licensed, the host local jurisdiction must be notified of the license application, and provided at least 20 days to file written objections.4 The Board gives "substantial weight" to the jurisdiction's objections, if "based on chronic illegal activity associated with the applicant's operation of the premises" proposed for licensing or "the applicant's operations of any other licensed premises," or patron conduct inside or outside the premises.5 The host jurisdiction may request a hearing, and, if the Board denies a license based on the jurisdiction's objections, the applicant may request a hearing.6 1 RCW 69.50.345(2). 2 RCW 69.50.331 (8). 3 RCW 69.50.369. 4 RCW 69.50.331(7)(a) and (b). 5 RCW 69.50.331(9). 6 RCW 69.50.331(7)(c). N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273 7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Page 126 of 346 2.2 Medical Marijuana — Ch. 69.51A RCW, ESSSB 5073 (2011) Washington's medical marijuana law, passed in 2011, provides for medicinal marijuana use. Qualifying patients may participate in collective gardens for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting, and delivering cannabis for medicinal use involving: (a) no more than ten qualifying patients; (b) no more than fifteen plants per patient up to a total of forty-five plants; and (c) no more than twenty-four ounces of useable cannabis per patient up to a total of seventy-two ounces of useable cannabis.? Local jurisdictions have authority to adopt zoning restrictions addressing this use.g Some jurisdictions have completely prohibited collective gardens (see below). 2.3 Federal Law Under federal law, it remains a criminal offense to manufacture, distribute, or possess marijuana. The federal Controlled Substances Act "designates Schedule I drugs [including marijuana] as having no currently -accepted medical use and there are criminal penalties associated with production, distribution, and possession of these drugs."9 Compliance with state law is not a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Simply because an activity is legal under state law, does not mean it is legal under federal law.10 Having said that, on August 29, 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department has decided not to challenge state laws in Colorado and Washington that allow recreational marijuana use. According to the Journal, "Mr. Holder emphasized that marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act and said the department reserved the right to challenge the states' laws later if U.S. officials find that the states don't put appropriate regulatory controls in place to govern marijuana use and distribution." 3. Options 3.1 No Action There is no legal requirement for the City to take action. Following rule adoption later this year, depending on the application(s) submitted, and comments received from the public and from the City, the Liquor Control Board could license production, processing, and/or dispensaries within City limits. Such facilities would be required to comply with state laws and permit conditions. At present, it is difficult to predict how many recreational facilities, if any, 7 RCW 69.51A.085. 8 RCW 69.51A.140. 9 VHA Directive 2011-004, Department of Veterans Affairs, Access to Clinical Programs for Veterans Participating in State -Approved Marijuana Programs (January 31, 2011), p. 1 (the Directive expires January 31, 2016); see also 21 U.S.C. § 812, Schedule I(c)(10) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). 10 See e.g., United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 121 S.Ct. 1711, 149 L. Ed. 2d 722 (2001). N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273 7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Page 127 of 346 would ultimately be authorized within City limits. The City has the option of relying on the state's regulatory process, including the statutorily established setback requirements, and size limitations on collective gardens to address likely impacts, along with the specter of federal enforcement. Note, however, that collective gardens are not licensed by the state in the same way that the recreational facilities will be licensed. So, taking no zoning action regarding collective gardens has different consequences than taking no action regarding recreational marijuana. In the absence of the current moratorium, collective gardens may be authorized under current zoning without specific regulations concerning proximity to sensitive uses. 3.2 No Immediate Action; Further Assess Likely Impacts and Legal Concerns Under the present moratorium, the City's current plan is to gather additional analysis on likely impacts associated with the siting of marijuana facilities within the City, and further assess how the state will license the recreational facilities. This process may lead to the adoption of additional land use measures to address impacts of concern. 3.3 Ban Some cities have banned marijuana facilities entirely. For example, the City of Kent has a medical marijuana ban which was upheld in superior court, but the case is pending before the Court of Appeals. The adoption of a ban does heighten the chances of litigation, and further analysis is recommended before such an approach is taken. Edmonds may want to see whether Kent's ban is upheld by the Court of Appeals before adopting a permanent ban, but we think it more probable than not that such a ban would be upheld. 3.4 Zoning The City could utilize its zoning authority to: (1) require additional mitigation and siting limitations for state licensed marijuana facilities; (2) identify areas where marijuana facilities should not be located; and (3) further address mitigation and locational concerns regarding collective gardens operating to supply medicinal marijuana. Any code requirements adopted, or other measures, including policies, would likely be identified in written comment submitted to the Liquor Control Board during licensing proceedings. As such, it is preferable that any such measures be adopted before the Liquor Control Board adopts regulations providing for marijuana facility certification. N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273 7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Page 128 of 346 4. Conclusion The City of Edmonds has a range of options for addressing marijuana facility siting. Options include taking no action, engaging in further analysis and review to determine next steps, considering a ban (contingent on further legal review), and/or adopting zoning provisions to mitigate secondary impacts and address locational concerns. Attachment (Liquor Control Board Schedule for Adopting Regulations) N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273 7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Page 129 of 346 Washington State Liquor Control Board 1-502 Implementation Timeline The below timeline reflects the Washington State Liquor Control Board's official timeline for implementation of Initiative 502. The Board and staff are working from this timeline going forward.. By law, the WSLCB must have the rules written by December 1, 2013. The agency is on track to meet this deadline. If and/or when timeframes change we will communicate those changes via the WSLCB Listsery and our agency Twitter. Date (2013) Milestone September 4 File Supplemental CR 102 with revised proposed rules October 9 Public hearing on proposed rules October 16 Board adopts proposed rules (CR 103) November 16 Rules become effective November 18 WSLCB begins accepting applications for all license types December 1 Rules are complete (as mandated by law). Begin issuing Producer, Processor and Retail licenses to qualified applicants. For more information on the implementation of 1502 and to join our listsery to receive email updates, please visit our website at www.lig.wa.gov. Packet Page 130 of 346 ORDINANCE NO. 3938 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Washington State legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill (ESSSB) 5073, Medical Cannibas, to become effective on July 22, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Governor vetoed 36 of the 58 sections of this bill; and WHEREAS, Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of the State of Washington on November 3, 1998, and now codified as Chapter 69.51A RCW, created a limited affirmative defense to criminal marijuana charges under state (not federal) law if the person demonstrates that he or she is a qualifying patient or a designated provider as defined in Chapter 69.51A RCW; and WHEREAS, the state legislature has amended the law three times, with the most recent amendment occurring during the 2011 legislative session as set forth in ESSSB 5073; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Attorneys for Washington wrote a letter dated April 14, 2011 to Governor Gregoire that reiterated that marijuana possession, production and distribution is a federal criminal offense and that State workers would not be immune from prosecution under federal law even if state law decriminalized the use, possession and production for medical purposes; and 1 Packet Page 131 of 346 WHEREAS, Section 1102 of ESSSB 5073 provides that a city may adopt zoning requirements, business licensing requirements, health and safety requirements and business taxes as those requirements relate to the production, processing, or dispensing of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, the Washington voters approved Initiative 502 in 2012, which "authorizes the state liquor control board to regulate and tax marijuana for persons twenty-one years of age and older, and adds a new threshold for driving under the influence of marijuana"; and WHEREAS, 1-502 allows the Washington State Liquor Control Board to license marijuana producers "to produce marijuana for sale at wholesale to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers" (1-502, Sec. 4(1)); and WHEREAS, 1-502 allows the Washington State Liquor Control Board to license marijuana processors to "process, package and label usable marijuana and marijuana - infused products for sale at wholesale to marijuana retailers" (1-502, Sec. 4(2)); and WHEREAS, 1-502 allows the Washington State Liquor Control Board to license a marijuana retailer to "sell usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products at retail in retail outlets" (1-502, Sec. 4(3)); and WHEREAS, Under 1-502, before the Washington State Liquor Control Board issues a new or renewed license to an applicant, it must give notice of the application to the chief executive officer of the incorporated city, and the city has the right to file its written objections to such license within 20 days after transmittal of the notice of application, but the Board makes the final decision whether to issue a license (1-502, Sec. 7(a)); and WHEREAS, 1-502 establishes certain siting limitations on the Washington State Liquor Control Board's issuance of such licenses for any premises that are within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit center or library, or any game arcade, admission to which is not restricted to persons aged twenty-one years or older (1-502, Section 8); and WHEREAS, 1-502 contemplates that the Washington State Liquor Control Board will adopt rules to carry the provisions of 1-502 into effect, which includes the equipment and management of retail outlets and premises where marijuana is produced and processed, and the inspection of same; methods of producing, processing, and packaging the marijuana and marijuana products; security requirements at such establishments; retail outlet locations and hours of operation; labeling requirements and restrictions on advertising of such products; licensing and licensing renewal rules; the manner and method to be used by which licensees may transport and deliver marijuana and marijuana products (among other things), (1-502, Sec. 9); and 2 Packet Page 132 of 346 WHEREAS, 1-502 contemplates that the Washington State Liquor Control Board will adopt more rules on or before December 1, 2013 to determine the number of retail outlets that may be licensed in each county (among other things), (1-502, Sec. 10); and WHEREAS, 1-502 limits the number of retail outlets to be licensed in each county, for the purpose of making useable marijuana and marijuana -infused products available for sale to adults 21 years of age or over (1-502, Sec. 13); and WHEREAS, 1-502 decriminalizes, for purposes of state law, the production, manufacture, processing, packaging, delivery, distribution, sale or possession of marijuana, as long as such activities are in compliance with 1-502; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Liquor Control Board is required to establish rules necessary to implement 1-502 by December 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Liquor Control Board will begin accepting applications for the production, processing and retail sale of marijuana after the rules are implemented; and WHEREAS, at this time, no Washington legislative act reconciles Initiative Measure No. 502 and RCW 69.51A; and WHEREAS, federal law, as set forth in 21 U.S.C. S.841(a), makes it illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance and pursuant to 21 U.S.C. S.812, marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance; and WHEREAS, at this time, no Washington legislative act or court decision reconciles Washington law with applicable Federal law; and WHEREAS, at this point in time, the City of Edmonds does not have any regulations addressing the facilities or uses identified in 1-502, other than the requirement for a general business license; and WHEREAS, based on the licensing scheme in 1-502, which prohibits anyone from engaging in the activities identified in 1-502 without first obtaining a license from the Washington State Liquor Control Board, the City will not be issuing any business license for the purposes described in 1-502 unless the applicant demonstrates that he/she has first received the appropriate license from the State; and WHEREAS, the uses described in 1-502 have never been allowed in any state or city in the United States, and City needs time to study the secondary land use impacts of these marijuana uses and the various development standards that should be addressed to mitigate these impacts before adoption of any regulatory ordinance or issuance of any business licenses; and 3 Packet Page 133 of 346 WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council therefore believes a moratorium to preserve the status quo is necessary, until the State Liquor Control Board definitively acts to establish a complete set of rules for the licensing of all of the new marijuana facilities and uses identified in 1-502, and until the Edmonds City Council can study, draft, hold public hearings and adopt the appropriate regulations to address these new uses; and WHEREAS, at this time, the Edmonds City Council does not have sufficient information to consider the potential secondary impacts from collective gardens or recreational marijuana facilities, the regulations that should be enacted or the legal implications of taking pre -mature action; and WHEREAS, Section 36.70A.390 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes the City Council to adopt an immediate moratorium for a period of up to six months without holding a public hearing on the proposal provided that a public hearing is held within at least sixty days of its adoption, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to impose an immediate six month moratorium on the acceptance of any development permit application or business license application for the siting, location or operation of any collective garden, marijuana processor, marijuana producer, or marijuana retailer; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Marijuana Definitions. A. "Cannabis or Marijuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not, with a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. For the purposes of this Ordinance, "cannabis" or "marijuana" does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. 4 Packet Page 134 of 346 B. "Collective Garden" means a facility, building, use, access -point or other property, where qualifying patients share responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources required to produce and process cannabis for medical use as set forth in RCW 69.51A.085 and subject to the limitations therein. C. "Marijuana processer" means a person licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to process marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana -infused products, package and label usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products for sale in retail outlets, and sell usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products as wholesale to marijuana retailers. D."Marijuana producer" means a person licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to produce and sell marijuana at wholesale to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers. E. "Marijuana -infused products" means products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts and are intended for human use. The term "marijuana -infused products" does not include useable marijuana. F. "Marijuana retailer" means a person licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to sell usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products in a retail outlet. G. "Retail outlet" means a location licensed by the State Liquor Control Board for the retail sale of useable marijuana and marijuana -infused products. H. "Usable marijuana" means dried marijuana flowers. The term "usable marijuana" does not include marijuana -infused products. Section 2: General Definitions. 5 Packet Page 135 of 346 A. "Exempt development permits" shall include any permit application for a structure or use/operation of property for collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing, as defined in this Ordinance, that is subject to the vested rights doctrine, and that was submitted to the City and determined by the City staff to be complete on or before the effective date of this Ordinance. B. "Non -Exempt development permits or Non-exempt business license" shall include any permit or business license application for a structure or use/operation of property for collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing, as defined in this Ordinance, that is: 1. a permit application that is not subject to the vested rights doctrine and/or that was submitted to the City after the effective date of this Ordinance; and/or 2. a business license application for use/operation of property for a collective garden, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing, as defined in this Ordinance that was submitted to the City either before or after the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 3. Purpose. The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the City adequate time to study the secondary land use impacts associated with the location and siting of structures and uses in which collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing may take place. In addition, the moratorium will allow the City adequate time to study 1-502, and to await the administrative rules that the Liquor Control Board will develop by December of 2013. The City's goal is to ultimately draft zoning and business licensing regulations to address such 6 Packet Page 136 of 346 developments and uses, to hold public hearings on such draft regulations and to adopt such regulations. Section 4. Moratorium Imposed. The City Council imposes an immediate six- month moratorium on the acceptance of all non-exempt development permit and business license applications, as defined in this Ordinance. All such non-exempt development permit and business license applications shall be rejected and returned to the applicant. With regard to the City's acceptance of any exempt development permit applications, such acceptance shall only allow processing to proceed, but shall not constitute an assurance that the application will be approved. Section 5. Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as contemplated by Section 6 herein), the moratorium shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, or at the time all of the events described in Section 3 have been accomplished, whichever is sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred. Section 6. Public Hearinq on Moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption. During the next Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. Packet Page 137 of 346 7 Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate moratorium on the City's acceptance of non-exempt development applications, such applications could become vested, leading to development or a use of property that is incompatible with 1-502, the rules that will be adopted by the Liquor Control Board or the laws adopted by the City of Edmonds. Therefore, the moratorium must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the submission of a flood of applications to the City in an attempt to vest rights for an indefinite period of time. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Any use currently in operation as a collective garden, marijuana producer, marijuana processor or marijuana retailer without a valid City business license on the date of the passage of this Ordinance is not a legal non -conforming use. Section 9. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a 8 Packet Page 138 of 346 majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. PASSED by the City Council of Edmonds this 20t" day of August, 2013. L�a (��e"-' I - !�t� Dave Earling, Mayor AUTHENTICATED: 2"� &�� Sandy ClAse, City Clerk. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 08-20-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 08-20-2013 PUBLISHED: 08-25-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08-20-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3938 0 Packet Page 139 of 346 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3938 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 20th day of August, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3938. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 21 st day of August, 2013. `CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 10 Packet Page 140 of 346 court salary has not changed since 2008. In 2013 the State Salary Commission approved a 2% increase in 2013 and a 3% increase in 2014 for district court judges. In order for the City to be eligible to continue to receive the funds, approximately $12,000 - $13,000/year, his salary must be raised by the same amount. The annual cost is described in the agenda memo. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Citizens Salary Commission sets the compensation for all elected officials including the judge. While the Commission established the salary for the Council and Mayor, they did defer the judge's salary to the Council. The Commission meets in the spring of every even numbered year; they can address the 2014 increase at that time. He suggested when the Commission meets, they are asked to tie the judge's salary to this formula. Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite explained she was the staff liaison to the Citizens Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials in 2012. She referred to the May 1, 2012 Council minutes in which the Commission deferred the judge's salary to the 95% of the district court judge and that any changes in the state salary rate be reflected in the judge's compensation for 2013 and 2014. Mr. Taraday explained that means the Council does not need to take any action; it will happen automatically. He cited RCW 35.21.015 which states any change in salary shall be filed by the Commission with the City Clerk and shall become effective and incorporated into the city or town budget without further action of the city council or salary commission. He summarized in accordance with the RCW, it would be improper for the Council to take action on the judge's salary. 7A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES Mayor Earling read the title of the ordinance: An ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to collective gardens and the recreational use of marijuana, establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the siting, establishment and operation of any structures or uses relating to collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing, or marijuana retailing, to be in effect until the City of Edmonds adopts zoning regulations addressing such marijuana uses, and establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the submission of any business license applications for such uses, setting six months as the effective period of the moratorium, to allow the Washington State Liquor Control Board an opportunity to complete its rulemaking for the licensing of such uses and to allow the City to study the secondary land use impacts of such uses, establishing the date of the public hearing on the moratorium and declaring an emergency. Mayor Earling explained he asked the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance. With the passage of I-502, there is a series of new regulations. With the recent news that the Liquor Control Board extended 90 days for additional rulemaking consideration, it was appropriate for the City to take this action immediately. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed this was appropriate, noting the State of Washington needs time and the City needs time. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3938, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 141 of 346 LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember Buckshnis commented everyone will be looking at how Washington State handles this law. She personally preferred to "tax the heck out of it" to generate additional revenue. The State and the City need time to do things thoughtful because it has the potential to change the face of Edmonds. Councilmember Peterson did not support an emergency moratorium without notice to the public even though he understood the reasoning. If the ordinance passes, he hoped a public hearing would be scheduled as soon as possible. He viewed this as an opportunity to recruit businesses and move forward in a very progressive way as the State has. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the ordinance include an automatic repeal of the moratorium after six months. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the ordinance has a provision that requires the Council to take action to terminate the moratorium. He read Section 5 of the ordinance, "Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as contemplated by Section 6 herein), the moratorium shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, or at the time all of the events described in Section 3 have been accomplished, whichever is sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred." Mr. Taraday clarified as the ordinance is currently drafted, the Council would need to take subsequent action to terminate the moratorium but that sentence could be revised if the Council wished. If the Council wanted a permanent ban on marijuana facilities as some cities have done, he recommended that not be done by simply leaving the moratorium in place, but rather by adopting a permanent ban. Councilmember Bloom asked whether a public hearing was required. Mr. Taraday answered if the moratorium is adopted, a public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption. Council President Petso advised the date of the public hearing was unknown at this point, possibly September 3, 2013. Council President Petso asked whether the moratorium could be repealed following the public hearing if the Council chose. Mr. Taraday answered this is not an interim ordinance but a moratorium; the City is not required to leave the moratorium in place for six months. Like any ordinance, it can be repealed. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT ACCEPTANCE INTENT NOTICE AND GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR A MUNICIPAL STORMWATER CAPACITY GRANT FOR $50,000 AND A PROJECT SPECIFIC PLANNING AND DESIGN OF RETROFIT/LID PROJECT GRANT UP TO 120 000 Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster reviewed grants the City has received in the past (agenda items shown in italics): Period Type Amount 2007-2009 Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant $75,000 2010-2012 Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant and Stormwater Retrofit or LID Planning & Design $178,115 2012-2015 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program — Vactor Waste Facility Retrofit $259,745 2013-2014 Watershed Protection and Restoration Grant — Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Study and Pre -Design Report $188,772 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 142 of 346 AM-6076 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 09/03/2013 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: Type: Subject Title 30 Minutes Jeff Taraday, City Attorney City Clerk's Office Information Information Submitted By: Committee Action: Sandy Chase Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3938 — Relating to collective gardens and the recreational uses of marijuana, establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the siting, establishment and operation of any structures or uses relating to collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing, or marijuana retailing, to be in effect until the City of Edmonds adopts zoning regulations addressing such marijuana uses, and establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the submission of any business license applications for such uses, setting six months as the effective period of the moratorium, to allow the Washington State Liquor Control Board an opportunity to complete its rule making for the licensing of such uses and to allow the city to study the secondary land use impacts of such uses, establishing the date of the Public Hearing on the moratorium and declaring an emergency. Recommendation Hold the public hearing and receive comments. Previous Council Action On August 20, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3938; attached is a copy of Ordinance No. 3938 and a copy of the meeting minutes. Narrative Section 6 from Ordinance No. 3938 reads as follows: Section 6. Public Hearing on Moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption. During the next Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. Attachments Ordinance No. 3938 08-20-13 City Council Minutes (Excerpt) Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 08/29/2013 02:46 PM Packet Page 143 of 346 Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 08/29/2013 Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 03:00 PM Started On: 08/29/2013 11:17 AM Packet Page 144 of 346 ORDINANCE NO. 3938 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Washington State legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill (ESSSB) 5073, Medical Cannibas, to become effective on July 22, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Governor vetoed 36 of the 58 sections of this bill; and WHEREAS, Initiative Measure No. 692, approved by the voters of the State of Washington on November 3, 1998, and now codified as Chapter 69.51A RCW, created a limited affirmative defense to criminal marijuana charges under state (not federal) law if the person demonstrates that he or she is a qualifying patient or a designated provider as defined in Chapter 69.51A RCW; and WHEREAS, the state legislature has amended the law three times, with the most recent amendment occurring during the 2011 legislative session as set forth in ESSSB 5073; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Attorneys for Washington wrote a letter dated April 14, 2011 to Governor Gregoire that reiterated that marijuana possession, production and distribution is a federal criminal offense and that State workers would not be immune from prosecution under federal law even if state law decriminalized the use, possession and production for medical purposes; and 1 Packet Page 145 of 346 WHEREAS, Section 1102 of ESSSB 5073 provides that a city may adopt zoning requirements, business licensing requirements, health and safety requirements and business taxes as those requirements relate to the production, processing, or dispensing of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, the Washington voters approved Initiative 502 in 2012, which "authorizes the state liquor control board to regulate and tax marijuana for persons twenty-one years of age and older, and adds a new threshold for driving under the influence of marijuana"; and WHEREAS, 1-502 allows the Washington State Liquor Control Board to license marijuana producers "to produce marijuana for sale at wholesale to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers" (1-502, Sec. 4(1)); and WHEREAS, 1-502 allows the Washington State Liquor Control Board to license marijuana processors to "process, package and label usable marijuana and marijuana - infused products for sale at wholesale to marijuana retailers" (1-502, Sec. 4(2)); and WHEREAS, 1-502 allows the Washington State Liquor Control Board to license a marijuana retailer to "sell usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products at retail in retail outlets" (1-502, Sec. 4(3)); and WHEREAS, Under 1-502, before the Washington State Liquor Control Board issues a new or renewed license to an applicant, it must give notice of the application to the chief executive officer of the incorporated city, and the city has the right to file its written objections to such license within 20 days after transmittal of the notice of application, but the Board makes the final decision whether to issue a license (1-502, Sec. 7(a)); and WHEREAS, 1-502 establishes certain siting limitations on the Washington State Liquor Control Board's issuance of such licenses for any premises that are within 1,000 feet of the perimeter of the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care center, public park, public transit center or library, or any game arcade, admission to which is not restricted to persons aged twenty-one years or older (1-502, Section 8); and WHEREAS, 1-502 contemplates that the Washington State Liquor Control Board will adopt rules to carry the provisions of 1-502 into effect, which includes the equipment and management of retail outlets and premises where marijuana is produced and processed, and the inspection of same; methods of producing, processing, and packaging the marijuana and marijuana products; security requirements at such establishments; retail outlet locations and hours of operation; labeling requirements and restrictions on advertising of such products; licensing and licensing renewal rules; the manner and method to be used by which licensees may transport and deliver marijuana and marijuana products (among other things), (1-502, Sec. 9); and 2 Packet Page 146 of 346 WHEREAS, 1-502 contemplates that the Washington State Liquor Control Board will adopt more rules on or before December 1, 2013 to determine the number of retail outlets that may be licensed in each county (among other things), (1-502, Sec. 10); and WHEREAS, 1-502 limits the number of retail outlets to be licensed in each county, for the purpose of making useable marijuana and marijuana -infused products available for sale to adults 21 years of age or over (1-502, Sec. 13); and WHEREAS, 1-502 decriminalizes, for purposes of state law, the production, manufacture, processing, packaging, delivery, distribution, sale or possession of marijuana, as long as such activities are in compliance with 1-502; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Liquor Control Board is required to establish rules necessary to implement 1-502 by December 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Liquor Control Board will begin accepting applications for the production, processing and retail sale of marijuana after the rules are implemented; and WHEREAS, at this time, no Washington legislative act reconciles Initiative Measure No. 502 and RCW 69.51A; and WHEREAS, federal law, as set forth in 21 U.S.C. S.841(a), makes it illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute any controlled substance and pursuant to 21 U.S.C. S.812, marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance; and WHEREAS, at this time, no Washington legislative act or court decision reconciles Washington law with applicable Federal law; and WHEREAS, at this point in time, the City of Edmonds does not have any regulations addressing the facilities or uses identified in 1-502, other than the requirement for a general business license; and WHEREAS, based on the licensing scheme in 1-502, which prohibits anyone from engaging in the activities identified in 1-502 without first obtaining a license from the Washington State Liquor Control Board, the City will not be issuing any business license for the purposes described in 1-502 unless the applicant demonstrates that he/she has first received the appropriate license from the State; and WHEREAS, the uses described in 1-502 have never been allowed in any state or city in the United States, and City needs time to study the secondary land use impacts of these marijuana uses and the various development standards that should be addressed to mitigate these impacts before adoption of any regulatory ordinance or issuance of any business licenses; and 3 Packet Page 147 of 346 WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council therefore believes a moratorium to preserve the status quo is necessary, until the State Liquor Control Board definitively acts to establish a complete set of rules for the licensing of all of the new marijuana facilities and uses identified in 1-502, and until the Edmonds City Council can study, draft, hold public hearings and adopt the appropriate regulations to address these new uses; and WHEREAS, at this time, the Edmonds City Council does not have sufficient information to consider the potential secondary impacts from collective gardens or recreational marijuana facilities, the regulations that should be enacted or the legal implications of taking pre -mature action; and WHEREAS, Section 36.70A.390 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes the City Council to adopt an immediate moratorium for a period of up to six months without holding a public hearing on the proposal provided that a public hearing is held within at least sixty days of its adoption, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to impose an immediate six month moratorium on the acceptance of any development permit application or business license application for the siting, location or operation of any collective garden, marijuana processor, marijuana producer, or marijuana retailer; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Marijuana Definitions. A. "Cannabis or Marijuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not, with a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. For the purposes of this Ordinance, "cannabis" or "marijuana" does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. 4 Packet Page 148 of 346 B. "Collective Garden" means a facility, building, use, access -point or other property, where qualifying patients share responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources required to produce and process cannabis for medical use as set forth in RCW 69.51A.085 and subject to the limitations therein. C. "Marijuana processer" means a person licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to process marijuana into useable marijuana and marijuana -infused products, package and label usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products for sale in retail outlets, and sell usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products as wholesale to marijuana retailers. D."Marijuana producer" means a person licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to produce and sell marijuana at wholesale to marijuana processors and other marijuana producers. E. "Marijuana -infused products" means products that contain marijuana or marijuana extracts and are intended for human use. The term "marijuana -infused products" does not include useable marijuana. F. "Marijuana retailer" means a person licensed by the State Liquor Control Board to sell usable marijuana and marijuana -infused products in a retail outlet. G. "Retail outlet" means a location licensed by the State Liquor Control Board for the retail sale of useable marijuana and marijuana -infused products. H. "Usable marijuana" means dried marijuana flowers. The term "usable marijuana" does not include marijuana -infused products. Section 2: General Definitions. 5 Packet Page 149 of 346 A. "Exempt development permits" shall include any permit application for a structure or use/operation of property for collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing, as defined in this Ordinance, that is subject to the vested rights doctrine, and that was submitted to the City and determined by the City staff to be complete on or before the effective date of this Ordinance. B. "Non -Exempt development permits or Non-exempt business license" shall include any permit or business license application for a structure or use/operation of property for collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing, as defined in this Ordinance, that is: 1. a permit application that is not subject to the vested rights doctrine and/or that was submitted to the City after the effective date of this Ordinance; and/or 2. a business license application for use/operation of property for a collective garden, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing, as defined in this Ordinance that was submitted to the City either before or after the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 3. Purpose. The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the City adequate time to study the secondary land use impacts associated with the location and siting of structures and uses in which collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing or marijuana retailing may take place. In addition, the moratorium will allow the City adequate time to study 1-502, and to await the administrative rules that the Liquor Control Board will develop by December of 2013. The City's goal is to ultimately draft zoning and business licensing regulations to address such 6 Packet Page 150 of 346 developments and uses, to hold public hearings on such draft regulations and to adopt such regulations. Section 4. Moratorium Imposed. The City Council imposes an immediate six- month moratorium on the acceptance of all non-exempt development permit and business license applications, as defined in this Ordinance. All such non-exempt development permit and business license applications shall be rejected and returned to the applicant. With regard to the City's acceptance of any exempt development permit applications, such acceptance shall only allow processing to proceed, but shall not constitute an assurance that the application will be approved. Section 5. Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as contemplated by Section 6 herein), the moratorium shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, or at the time all of the events described in Section 3 have been accomplished, whichever is sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred. Section 6. Public Hearinq on Moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption. During the next Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. Packet Page 151 of 346 7 Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate moratorium on the City's acceptance of non-exempt development applications, such applications could become vested, leading to development or a use of property that is incompatible with 1-502, the rules that will be adopted by the Liquor Control Board or the laws adopted by the City of Edmonds. Therefore, the moratorium must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the submission of a flood of applications to the City in an attempt to vest rights for an indefinite period of time. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Any use currently in operation as a collective garden, marijuana producer, marijuana processor or marijuana retailer without a valid City business license on the date of the passage of this Ordinance is not a legal non -conforming use. Section 9. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a 8 Packet Page 152 of 346 majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. PASSED by the City Council of Edmonds this 20t" day of August, 2013. L�a (��e"-' I - !�t� Dave Earling, Mayor AUTHENTICATED: 2"� &�� Sandy ClAse, City Clerk. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney City Attorney FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 08-20-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 08-20-2013 PUBLISHED: 08-25-2013 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08-20-2013 ORDINANCE NO. 3938 0 Packet Page 153 of 346 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3938 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 20th day of August, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3938. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 21 st day of August, 2013. `CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 10 Packet Page 154 of 346 court salary has not changed since 2008. In 2013 the State Salary Commission approved a 2% increase in 2013 and a 3% increase in 2014 for district court judges. In order for the City to be eligible to continue to receive the funds, approximately $12,000 - $13,000/year, his salary must be raised by the same amount. The annual cost is described in the agenda memo. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Citizens Salary Commission sets the compensation for all elected officials including the judge. While the Commission established the salary for the Council and Mayor, they did defer the judge's salary to the Council. The Commission meets in the spring of every even numbered year; they can address the 2014 increase at that time. He suggested when the Commission meets, they are asked to tie the judge's salary to this formula. Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite explained she was the staff liaison to the Citizens Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials in 2012. She referred to the May 1, 2012 Council minutes in which the Commission deferred the judge's salary to the 95% of the district court judge and that any changes in the state salary rate be reflected in the judge's compensation for 2013 and 2014. Mr. Taraday explained that means the Council does not need to take any action; it will happen automatically. He cited RCW 35.21.015 which states any change in salary shall be filed by the Commission with the City Clerk and shall become effective and incorporated into the city or town budget without further action of the city council or salary commission. He summarized in accordance with the RCW, it would be improper for the Council to take action on the judge's salary. 7A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES Mayor Earling read the title of the ordinance: An ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to collective gardens and the recreational use of marijuana, establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the siting, establishment and operation of any structures or uses relating to collective gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing, or marijuana retailing, to be in effect until the City of Edmonds adopts zoning regulations addressing such marijuana uses, and establishing an immediate emergency moratorium on the submission of any business license applications for such uses, setting six months as the effective period of the moratorium, to allow the Washington State Liquor Control Board an opportunity to complete its rulemaking for the licensing of such uses and to allow the City to study the secondary land use impacts of such uses, establishing the date of the public hearing on the moratorium and declaring an emergency. Mayor Earling explained he asked the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance. With the passage of I-502, there is a series of new regulations. With the recent news that the Liquor Control Board extended 90 days for additional rulemaking consideration, it was appropriate for the City to take this action immediately. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed this was appropriate, noting the State of Washington needs time and the City needs time. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3938, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 155 of 346 LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember Buckshnis commented everyone will be looking at how Washington State handles this law. She personally preferred to "tax the heck out of it" to generate additional revenue. The State and the City need time to do things thoughtful because it has the potential to change the face of Edmonds. Councilmember Peterson did not support an emergency moratorium without notice to the public even though he understood the reasoning. If the ordinance passes, he hoped a public hearing would be scheduled as soon as possible. He viewed this as an opportunity to recruit businesses and move forward in a very progressive way as the State has. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the ordinance include an automatic repeal of the moratorium after six months. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the ordinance has a provision that requires the Council to take action to terminate the moratorium. He read Section 5 of the ordinance, "Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as contemplated by Section 6 herein), the moratorium shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, or at the time all of the events described in Section 3 have been accomplished, whichever is sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred." Mr. Taraday clarified as the ordinance is currently drafted, the Council would need to take subsequent action to terminate the moratorium but that sentence could be revised if the Council wished. If the Council wanted a permanent ban on marijuana facilities as some cities have done, he recommended that not be done by simply leaving the moratorium in place, but rather by adopting a permanent ban. Councilmember Bloom asked whether a public hearing was required. Mr. Taraday answered if the moratorium is adopted, a public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption. Council President Petso advised the date of the public hearing was unknown at this point, possibly September 3, 2013. Council President Petso asked whether the moratorium could be repealed following the public hearing if the Council chose. Mr. Taraday answered this is not an interim ordinance but a moratorium; the City is not required to leave the moratorium in place for six months. Like any ordinance, it can be repealed. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT ACCEPTANCE INTENT NOTICE AND GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR A MUNICIPAL STORMWATER CAPACITY GRANT FOR $50,000 AND A PROJECT SPECIFIC PLANNING AND DESIGN OF RETROFIT/LID PROJECT GRANT UP TO 120 000 Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster reviewed grants the City has received in the past (agenda items shown in italics): Period Type Amount 2007-2009 Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant $75,000 2010-2012 Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant and Stormwater Retrofit or LID Planning & Design $178,115 2012-2015 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program — Vactor Waste Facility Retrofit $259,745 2013-2014 Watershed Protection and Restoration Grant — Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Study and Pre -Design Report $188,772 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 156 of 346 AM-6078 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 09/03/2013 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: Type: Subject Title 15 Minutes Lora Petso, Council President City Clerk's Office Action Information Submitted By: Committee Action: 9. Sandy Chase Reconsideration of the Mayor's veto of Ordinance No. 3940 — Repealing Interim Ordinance No. 3935, which amended the Critical Areas Ordinance, specifically Sections ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, and 23.90.040, to allow development within legally established impervious areas and within buffer areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from an associated critical area. Recommendation Previous Council Action On August 20, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3940 (copy attached as Exhibit 1). Narrative On August 23, 2013, Mayor Earling vetoed Ordinance No. 3940; attached as Exhibit 2 is a copy of an email dated August 23, 2013 from Mayor Earling sent to the City Council providing notification of the veto. Below is a copy of RCW 35A.12.130; the last paragraph discusses reconsideration. Ordinances — Style — Requisites — Veto. The enacting clause of all ordinances shall be as follows: "The city council of the city of ...... do ordain as follows:" No ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must be clearly expressed in its title. No ordinance or any section or subsection thereof shall be revised or amended unless the new ordinance sets forth the revised ordinance or the amended section or subsection at full length. No ordinance shall take effect until five days after the date of its publication unless otherwise provided by statute or charter, except that an ordinance passed by a majority plus one of the whole membership of the council, designated therein as a public emergency ordinance necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public property or the public peace, may be made effective upon adoption, but such ordinance may not levy taxes, grant, renew, or extend a franchise, or authorize the borrowing of money. Every ordinance which passes the council in order to become valid must be presented to the mayor; if he or she approves it, he or she shall sign it, but if not, he or she shall return it with his or her written objections to the council and the council shall cause his or her objections to be entered at large upon the Packet Page 157 of 346 journal and proceed to a reconsideration thereof. If upon reconsideration a majority plus one of the whole membership, voting upon a call of ayes and nays, favor its passage, the ordinance shall become valid notwithstanding the mayor's veto. If the mayor fails for ten days to either approve or veto an ordinance, it shall become valid without his or her approval. Ordinances shall be signed by the mayor and attested by the clerk. Attachments Exhibit 1: Ordinance No. 3940 Exhibit 2: 08-23-13 Mayor Earling Email to Council Exhibit 3: 08-20-13 City Council Minutes Excerpt Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 08/30/2013 Reviewed By Dave Earling Sandy Chase Form Review Date 08/30/2013 08:42 AM 08/30/2013 08:49 AM Started On: 08/29/2013 04:10 PM Packet Page 158 of 346 ORDINANCE NO.3940 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3935, WHICH AMENDED THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. WHEREAS, upon further consideration, the city council has determined that planning board study of the proposed changes to the critical areas ordinance is desirable prior to adopting those changes by ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 3935 is hereby repealed. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 159 of 346 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 08-20-2013 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 08-20-2013 PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.3940 Packet Page 160 of 346 Chase, Sandy From: Earling, Dave Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 4:47 PM To: Council Cc: Taraday, Jeff, Directors; Hynd, Linda Subject: Ordinance No. 3940 Good Afternoon..... I want to let you know I have vetoed Ordinance No. 3940, dealing with the repeal of Ordinance No. 3935. 1 strongly support protection of Critical Areas throughout the City. However the City's critical areas regulations as written, are not consistent with the City's Best Available Science (BAS) Report. That is why I signed and support the action taken in Ordinance No. 3935 approved by Council. As explained in the technical memo from staff to the Council, the BAS assessment concluded that because the city is mostly developed, the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment to occur within the footprint of already developed areas. It was intended that this approach would be reflected in the City's adopted Critical Areas Ordinance. Beyond that, and as you know, the action in Ordinance No. 3940, jeopardizes the schedule for City Park improvements. The City has already assembled funding and begun design of the project which includes a substantial state grant as well as a major contribution from the Hazel Miller Foundation. The last thing we need to do is jeopardize this critical funding which would in essence collapse the project. Regards, Dave Packet Page 161 of 346 Councilmember Peterson agreed with postponing this item. He was glad it had been scheduled on the agenda and materials included for Council review. He advised Councilmember Bloom, Ms. Hite and he found several excellent examples of Codes of Ethic and Codes of Conduct. Kirkland and Bellevue's code are nearly identical and likely will be used as a starting point. He suggested Councilmembers familiarize themselves with Kirkland and Bellevue's codes. Postponing this item was also acceptable to Councilmember Bloom. She requested Councilmembers review Kirkland and Bellevue's policies, noting there are a few significant differences. She pointed out the intent to have an Ethic's Officer. Councilmember Johnson asked about the fiscal impact of an Ethics Officer. Councilmember Peterson responded Kirkland has an Ethics Officer and they contact with a law firm. To date they have not had to utilize their services; the law firm is on standby in the event an issue arises. Councilmember Bloom noted Kirkland and Bellevue have a City Manager form of government. The references in their Code of Ethics to elected officials do not include the Mayor. Councilmember Buckshnis was concerned with the issue of subjectivity. She recalled former Councilmember Plunkett's concern about the subjectivity of some policies. She noted there are state laws related to ethics for Councilmembers. She commented on new behaviors she has seen this year, recognizing that people see things differently based on their backgrounds. It was agreed to postpone this to a future meeting. 13. PROPOSAL TO RESCIND ORDINANCE NO. 3935 - AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040 AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA Councilmember Bloom explained when she reviewed the issue more carefully, she apologized to the Planning Board for sending the matter to them prematurely. Her concerns are related to the structure language versus development footprint as well as physically separated and functionally isolated. The language defines legally established structures or similar circumstances and suggested if something was functionally isolated and physically separated it did not serve to protect the wetland from adverse impacts of development. The question then arises if it does not protect the wetland from adverse impacts of development, can enhancement be enforced. She pointed out physically separated and functionally isolated are not clearly defined and impervious surfaces are too broadly defined and include gravel roads as well as compacted surfaces. In addition the enhancements are not clearly defined. Mr. Chave indicated to her that he preferred to wait until 2015 to clarify the enhancements. Councilmember Bloom was concerned that rushing to pass the ordinance due to two projects could possibly result in unintended consequences. In particular functionally isolated and physically separated could affect numerous properties in the City, not just the spray park. For those reasons, she reconsidered her vote and asked for this to be scheduled on the agenda. She suggested the Council rescind the ordinance and bring back the amendments at a future meeting as soon as possible. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO RESCIND ORDINANCE NO.3935. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the lack of transparency on this item. When she left Friday, the packet did not include this item. The discussion occurred between two Councilmembers and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 162 of 346 the City Attorney. This was an issue for the Planning Board to consider. She emphasized the intent of the original ordinance was for the code to reflect Best Available Science as it relates to structures. Repealing the ordinance will potentially cost the City time and money and will affect the timing of the spray park. Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion. There were open and frank discussions previously and a great deal of information presented on two separate occasions. Sometimes Councilmembers may not be happy with the end result of the process but the Council followed the proper process. Unless there were extenuating circumstances that the Council had not been made aware of, he did not see a reason to rescind the ordinance. He suggested Councilmembers respect the process and even if they disagreed or wanted a redo, it was not always the best course of action. Council President Petso commented on the process, pointed out this was the Council's first opportunity under Roberts Rules to rescind a motion. She explained when Councilmember Bloom indicated her interest in changing her vote, she consulted Roberts Rules and followed the procedure. That procedure includes notice of the intent to rescind in the meeting notice which was done on Friday. There was still time to amend the agenda on Friday and City Clerk Sandy Chase created the amended agenda Friday afternoon. She has been working with Mr. Lien and Ms. Hite on the topic and Councilmember Bloom has been meeting with staff. She mentioned the topic to at least two other Councilmembers in conversation. Everyone is working hard to do this right without messing up the spray park project. It may be that the projects costs more money or needs to be redesigned or that the Council cannot wait for the Planning Board's expedited review and staff returns with a different proposal. The motion to rescind the interim ordinance does not stop the Council or staff from working on the issue or the Planning Board from working on a permanent ordinance. Rescinding the ordinance will stop applications and give the Council and Planning Board more time to work with staff. She noted paving within critical area buffers is a big deal and the City must proceed carefully. She was happy with the effort to follow the process under Robert Rules. She will support the motion to rescind the interim ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a motion to reconsider or rescind was appropriate. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there is a Roberts Rules process to place the matter on the agenda. To the question of how to repeal an ordinance, Mr. Taraday explained an ordinance is repealed via the adoption of another ordinance. To the extent a majority of the Council desires to repeal the ordinance, there is an ordinance on the City's Z drive that would accomplish that. The proper motion to undo the interim ordinance is a motion to approve the ordinance to repeal. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Councilmember Bloom's motion was to rescind the motion. Mr. Taraday explained rescind is the Roberts Rules term and repeal is the RCW term. He preferred the Council use the term repeal. He interpreted the motion to be to repeal the motion. If the motion is interpreted as a motion to adopt an ordinance that repeals the interim ordinance, that ordinance should be presented to the Council. Councilmember Bloom explained her intent was to repeal the ordinance that was passed two weeks ago and ask staff to return with an amended ordinance. Mr. Taraday summarized the options: 1. Do nothing 2. Repeal the interim ordinance adopted on August 6 3. Amend the interim ordinance adopted on August 6 (two versions available) Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the interim ordinance addressed making the critical areas ordinance consistent with BAS. The discussion now is adding more teeth to the new ordinance. Mr. Taraday clarified the motion on the floor is to repeal the August 6 interim ordinance. Council President Petso asked whether the preferred action would be a motion to adopt the ordinance in the packet that effectively repeals the interim ordinance. If the Council's intent is to repeal the August 6 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 163 of 346 interim ordinance, Mr. Taraday recommended a Councilmember move the ordinance displayed on the screen. He summarized repealing an ordinance requires adoption of an ordinance that repeals the original ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3940, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3935, WHICH AMENDED THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS EDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.040 AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Recognizing this may be the proper process in Roberts Rules, Councilmember Peterson pointed out the Council is voting on an ordinance that neither they nor the citizens of Edmonds have seen before now and that did not satisfy his desire for transparency and public process. Councilmember Bloom took issue with Councilmember Peterson's reference to transparency, relaying that this was a transparent process. Under Roberts Rules, a Councilmember has the option to change their mind which is what she did. She spent a great deal of time talking to staff as well as spoke to the Planning Board. She relayed Mr. Lien's indication that the interim ordinance could potentially allow an increase in impervious surface in wetland buffers in other parts of the City. She did not understand why Councilmember Peterson did not feel this was a transparent process when everything had been done to make it transparent. The interim ordinance came to the Council without approval of the Parks, Planning and Public Works (PPP) Committee; the committee recommended it go directly to the Planning Board. When it was presented to the Council, an interim ordinance was proposed. Her primary concern was making changes of this degree to the critical areas ordinance without fully considering the unintended consequences that may result. She found Councilmember Peterson's comments that it was not transparent very offensive, pointing out this is as transparent as it gets. Councilmember Peterson appreciated that it was transparent to Councilmember Bloom because she had been working on it for the last several days. He has not; this is the first time he has seen it. The interim ordinance was considered over two meetings so that staff could provide additional information. If this had not been done at the last minute, he still would not support it because he believed in the action the Council took previously. One of the reasons he did not support the motion was while Councilmember Bloom, Council President Petso and Mr. Taraday have done a lot of work and talked with staff, he was not briefed on it and there was nothing in the packet. The last minute nature of this item raised his concern with transparency. If this had been scheduled on the agenda and he had time to have his questions answered, that would be transparent. He summarized it has been transparent for a few but not all. Councilmember Bloom pointed out it had been on the agenda since Friday. Councilmember Peterson responded there was no supporting documentation in the packet. What the Council is voting on was not included in the packet. Councilmember Buckshnis explained after the PPP Committee meeting forwarded the issue to the Planning Board, President Petso decided to bring it to full Council. This is an interim ordinance; it is on a fast track for review by the Planning Board. She objected to repealing ordinances on the fly, preferring to wait for the Planning Board's review. She preferred to allow the spray park project to proceed, commenting this will impact the timing, budget and scope of that project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 164 of 346 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council President Petso said the PPP Committee forwarded this matter to the Planning Board without coming to full Council. The first the Council heard of it was during reports on committee meetings. Some people were uncomfortable with the two committee members making the decision to send it to the Planning Board so she made a decision to include it as a discussion item on a Council agenda. When it was scheduled, it was no longer a discussion item but included an interim ordinance. She asked the City Clerk to remove the interim ordinance from the agenda. During the discussion item, staff indicated they would present an interim ordinance the following week. At that meeting, the Council voted 4-3 to approve the interim ordinance. One member of the four person majority changed her mind and followed the correct procedure to bring it back to the Council. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS, AND PETERSON VOTING NO. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 13 AND 19, 2013 Finance Committee Councilmember Yamamoto reported on the following items considered by the committee: • Salary Increase to Remain Eligible for State Court Improvement Account Funds — addressed on tonight's agenda • Discussion regarding Authorization to Recruit for Development Services Director — will be scheduled for full Council discussion on a future agenda • Discussion and Recommendation on Proposed Utility Rate Adjustments — will be scheduled for presentation to full Council • June 2013 Budgetary Financial Report — approved on Consent Agenda • 2013 Budget Amendment — discussed on tonight's agenda • Sharing 2-14 Budget Approaches and Recommending Fund Balance — discussed on tonight's agenda • Bond Sale Report • Public comment from two citizens Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee Councilmember Johnson reported on the following items considered by the committee: Forwarded for approval on the Consent Agenda: • Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Inter jurisdictional Coordination Relating to Affordable Housing within Snohomish County • Additional Construction Funding for 76`" Avenue West Water Main Replacement Project • Report on bids opened July 30, 2013 for the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project • Report on bids opened August 1, 2013 for the 2013 Sewerline Rehabilitation Project • Acceptance of a Grant for Stormwater Planning and Design Referred following to future Council meeting • Utility Rate Adjustments • Five Corners Roundabout Art Selection Carried over for further discussion: • Harbor Square • Street Tree Management Policy Public comment Jamie Jensen regarding the Angler's Crossing PRD Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 165 of 346 AM-6071 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 09/03/2013 Time: 30 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Committee: Finance Type: Action Information Subiect Title Action Item: Adoption of longevity pay for non -represented employees. Recommendation Council approve revised Nonrepresented Compensation Policy, and discuss effective date. Previous Council Action 10. During a discussion of non -represented compensation in general at the November 27, 2012 City Council meeting, Council declined to take action at that time regarding the topic of logevity pay for non -represented employees. It was suggested at the time that the issue of longevity pay be brought back to a future Finance Committee meeting in 2013 for further discussion. The Finance Committee discussed this at their committee meeting in February and forwarded this to back to full Council for discussion. Full Council discussed it in April, 2013, and requested that it come back as part of the budget process later in the year. Full Council discussed it again on August 27th, and asked for further information which will be presented. Narrative At the Council meeting on August 27th, Council requested additional information. In addition, because the employee count and amount of longevity that was presented from April has changed, staff revised the cost which is presented below. If the Council chose to apply longevity compensation commensurate with SEIU, the financial impact to the City would be $28,311 with the current tenure of staff: • 5 employed for 19+ years • 8 employed 14-19 years • 3 employed for 10-14 years • 8 employed for more than 5 years • 13 employed less than 5 years Below is the additional information that was requested: Packet Page 166 of 346 1. What is the fiscal impact if we started the longevity on July 1, 2013: This would cost the city $14,155.50. 2. What would it cost if we approved a flat rate instead of a percentage, i.e. $500 for every 5 years: If we apply $500 for every five years of service, and cap it at $2000 for 20 years+ of service, this would cost the city $29,000 with its current employee population. If we were to apply the SEIU percentages at a flat rate to the average salary, this would cost the city $26,842. 3. What is the average salary for the management employees that would recieve longevity: The average salary is $92,559. 4. How many employees that would receive longevity are at their top step? 9 5. What is the fiscal impact for the outlying years: This will vary depending on who leaves/retires, and new employees hired starting at year one. It will fluctuate from year to year. Because we have an older employee population, it most likely will be reduced as people retire and the workforce is replaced by new employees. It was also requested to attach all previous documents from the Compensation Consultant's recommendation to this packet. These are attached for your review. At the Council meeting in April 2013, Council requested this item to come back for dicussion and action as well. Two items were requested to further the discussion. The first request was to engage in a disucssion with the levy team, and how this might be perceived as the City decides to forward a levy to the voters. Since the previous discussion, and the updated budget forecast, the levy team has requested the Council not file for a ballot measure this year. Therefor this issue may no longer be a concern. The second request was to provide information about longevity compensation from our comparator cities. This is provided in the packet. This packet also includes a table of longevity compensation that represented employees receive. In September 2012, the compensation consultant's recommendation was to support some type of longevity compensation for nonrepresented employees in consideration of, 1) the commitment of the tenure of City staff, 2) comparison with comparable cities and internal comparisons, and 3) recognizing the reduction in earning potential with the new nonrepresented employee salary ranges. Attached is a revised Nonrepresented Compensation Policy that includes longevity, for Council's consideration and possible adoption tonight. If adopted, we will bring updates in the Personnel Policies, and City Code as needed to create consistency. Attachments Longevity Comparison Longevity Comps Other cities Council minutes from 4/13 Nonrep Comp Policy Final Report Compensation Consultant Salary Comparisons Proposed salary ranges Packet Page 167 of 346 Powerpoint presentation Appendix I Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 08/29/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 02:44 PM Dave Earling 08/29/2013 02:46 PM Sandy Chase 08/29/2013 03:00 PM Started On: 08/29/2013 08:46 AM Packet Page 168 of 346 City of Edmonds Longevity Comparison January 2, 2013 Years SEIU Teamsters Law Support Police 5 .5% .5% 1% 2% 10 1% 1% 2% 4% 14 1.5% 1.5% 3 15 6% 18 2% 4% 19 2% Packet Page 169 of 346 U c c m a Employer a a, — Comments U cu Q) W W ro p U Bothell - Non Rep Bremerton - 4% X Non Rep Bremerton - 4% Teamsters Bremerton - 4% Uniforms provided IAFF Local 437 Bremerton - 4% 2°% 4% X X Boot Allowance $250 for Police Officers motorcycle boots Guild (BPOG) Bremerton - 4% 2 % 4% X Middle Mgmt Cert 1.75°%; Police Exec Cert 2.5°% Management Assoc. (BPMA) Burien Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sount Des Moines X Unspecified Des Moines - 2.50% 4% for BA or Police Guild BS; 5%for Employees MA, MS or MPA Degree Issaquah- X 5% after five years Exempt Employees King County x Bus pass and other alternative transportation incentives offered. Kirkland Lacey- 2% Management Exempt I (non - rep) Lynnwood X $220 at 5 years, $942 at 15 ears Mountlake Choice of 2, X Terrace voluntary Olympia X $450 after 15 years Puyallup Sammamish x Shoreline Snohomish x County University Place Packet Page 170 of 346 Edmonds, City of Responses 1 7 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 7 1 1 Packet Page 171 of 346 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES April 23, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Walker Kasinadhuni, Student Representative 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jen Machuga, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso requested Agenda Items 17 and 18 be removed from the agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Petso requested Item H be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #201596 THROUGH #201717 DATED APRIL 18, 2013 FOR $1,226,036.24. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60137 THROUGH #60152 FOR $429,100.81, BENEFIT CHECKS #60153 THROUGH #60160 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $187,962.15 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2013 THROUGH APRIL 15, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS' BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, MARCH 2O13. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 172 of 346 D. COMMUNITY SERVICES / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT - APRIL, 2013. E. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED APRIL 16, 2013 FOR THE 2013 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO D&G BACKHOE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,304,457.70. F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE RELEASE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT & ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING OF NEW STORM UTILITY AND PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT. G. REQUEST TO AWARD THE WWTP STANDBY POWER DISTRIBUTION AND SWITCHGEAR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO EWING ELECTRIC, INC. ITEM H. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO APPLY DESIGN STANDARDS TO THE BD2, BD3 AND BD4 ZONES TO REPLACE THE REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDING STEP BACKS. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A PROVISION EXEMPTING SMALL DECORATIVE 'BLADE SIGNS' FROM SIGN CODE AREA CALCULATION LIMITATIONS. Council President Petso explained she supported removing the stepback from the BD2 — 4 zones and including a provision for exempting blade signs from sign code area calculation limitations. However, the ordinance also changes the base building height from 25 feet to 30 feet. She opposed the change in the building height at the public hearing and will vote against the ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM H, ORDINANCE NO. 3918, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTERS 16.43 AND 22.43 ECDC RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD) ZONES. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON, JOHNSON AND YAMAMOTO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. 4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF WHITE CANE DAYS Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring May 3-4, 2013 as Lions White Cane Days in Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to several members of the Edmonds Lions Club. Brian Evans, President, Edmonds Lions Club, explained the Lions Club has been in existence since 1917 and started with Helen Keller. Their focus is sight and hearing impairments but they also provide student scholarships, assist the Edmonds Food Bank, hold a raffle, and assist with Sierra Park for the Blind. They welcome assistance and new members. He presented Mayor Earling with a pen/flashlight. 5. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF LOYALTY DAY Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring May 1, 2013 as Loyalty Day in the City of Edmonds. He commented it is particularly important to acknowledge this day in light of recent events in Boston. He presented the proclamation to Jim Blossey. Mr. Blossey introduced Commander Fred Apgar, VFW Post 8870. On behalf of Post 8870 and the hundreds of combat veterans who reside in Edmonds, Mr. Blossey thanked the Council for the proclamation. He encouraged the public to pause on May 1 to remember those who have served and those who have given their lives. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, expressed her disappointment with the outcome of the Harbor Square Master Plan. She envisioned someone coming to the City with a permit application to build a new home within the limits of the existing zoning and development code, noting they would expect to receive a permit. If Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 173 of 346 the neighbor protested and went to the City Council, it would be wrong for the Council to tell the Planning Department not to issue the permit. There are codes and laws because the City functions under a rule of law; predictable rules carried out as uniformly as possible, no favorites, no enemies. The GMA and Comprehensive Plan are existing rules; if the Council does not like the Comprehensive Plan, there is a process for amending it but they cannot just reject a project that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan without stating it is not consistent or how it is not consistent. The Council has not stated how the Harbor Square Master Plan with the recommendations provided by the Planning Board is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The appropriate process would have been to work with the Port on amendments that were amenable to all. She requested answers to the questions she sent last week and again today: 1. How the choice not to accept the Port's Master Plan and begin developing a Council subarea plan was consistent with the State GMA, which required the City to prepare a non -project EIS along with two pages of other significant and costly requirements. If the Council had amended the Port's proposal, those would not have been required. 2. How the Council could have adopted a subarea plan that was potentially inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan such as no residential, no additional height, 150 foot buffers, and no mixed use. She referenced pages 51, 52 and 55 of the Comprehensive Plan that reference mixed use. Michael Schindler, Edmonds, commented he may have been rough on the Council last week, commenting this was a no -growth Council without a plan. He has yet to see a plan and expressed interest in seeing a plan. His business is located in Edmonds and three generations of his family live in Edmonds. Little can be accomplished without teamwork and partnership and work needs to be done with respect and with respect for people and process. In his view some processes were dropped. He pointed out a majority of the Council believe that major changes could be done to a vetted process and plan without consequences. The consequences are serious and if action is not taken to rectify the consequences, they will be long lasting. The consequences include public trust, health of the marsh, public enjoyment of the marsh, economic development, ability to comply with GMA and environmental goals, housing prices, downtown vibrancy, future development proposals by responsible developers, perception of government as wasteful and arrogant, and loss of revenue. He urged the Council to develop a plan for public review. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, explained tonight the Council passed an ordinance that raised building heights in Edmonds, an ordinance that is based on a public hearing that only advertised step -backs for the BD2 — 4 zones and blade signs with no reference to building heights. Neither tonight's agenda nor the public hearing referenced building heights. He explained the building height in Edmonds was established as 25 feet in Edmonds several years ago; anything above that is an incentive, not a standard height. With the passage of the ordinance, 30 feet is now the standard building height. He said the Council, 1) conducted an illegal hearing because it was not properly advertised and 2) did not include results of the ordinance on building heights in the description. He summarized Councilmembers Buckshnis, Yamamoto, Peterson and Johnson all voted to raise building heights. 7. ANNUAL REPORTS BY THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton introduced Amy Spain, Executive Director, Snohomish County Tourism Bureau. Ms. Spain described the importance of tourism to economic development. Visitors to Washington State spent $16.9 million in 2012; accounting for nearly $1.1 billion in local/state tax revenues. She described the impact of tourism on wages, salaries, profits and taxes. The Washington Tourism Alliance (WTA) was created when the State tourism office closed in 2011; as a membership organization, it is not a sustainable, competitive model. She highlighted competitor states' tourism budgets. WTA's long term funding principles include: • Privately governed • Possibly some state funding, but not control Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 174 of 346 • Broad -based responsibility • Inclusive of all sectors of the tourism industry • Currently evaluating alternative models and funding levels • Partnership with other tourism sectors (retail, transportation, hotels, recreation, attractions) • Critical long term funding issues include: o Dedicated funds o Industry sector balance o Sectors determine assessment method o Show return on Investment o Requested bridge funding from State Legislature Ms. Spain commented travel and tourism is one of the most important "export -oriented" industries in Washington. Spending by visitors generates sales in lodging, food services, recreation, transportation, and retail businesses — the "travel industry." These sales support jobs for Washington residents and contribute tax revenue to local and state governments. She provided several statistics regarding the impact of travel to the local economy: • Overnight travelers to Washington State: o Average 2.3 people per travel party o Stay 2.5 nights o Spend $458 per travel party per day o Totaling $16.9 billion • The economic impact of tourism in Snohomish County includes 9,340 jobs, $217.3 million in payroll, $16.6 million in local taxes, and $45.9 million in State taxes • Visitor spending in Snohomish County is $875.8 million per year; up 1% from previous year • The recovery in the travel industry is stabilizing: Washington State as a whole increased revenue 6.9% while room demand increased by just 3.3% • Snohomish County's recovery is being led by increased revenue: 10.7% increase in revenue and a 1.7% increase in demand over 2011 Ms. Spain also reported the following: • Generated 13,176 requests for information from ads; a slight decrease from 2011 • Web visitors for Snohomish.org, SnohomishCountyWeddings.com and RoomsAtPar.com; up 23.4 % over 2011 • SCTB visitor centers served 11,974 visitors. Countywide centers served 91,386 visitors. • Achieved $458,000 of free media coverage — up 4% • 7,415 definite and 6,150 tentative group and convention room nights were booked in 2012 representing $21 million in economic impact • Hotel occupancy levels were up 1.7% to 66.5%; ADR was up 8.8% leading to an increase in RevPar of 10.7% • Hotel motel tax collections were up 5.7%. She reported on convention and group tour sales and service: • Ads were placed in meeting and event planners, reunion and sports related publications generating requests for information • Conducted 16 familiarization tours for meeting, group tour and international tour and travel planners and domestic and international media in the communities of Edmonds, Everett, Lynnwood, Monroe, Mukilteo, Snohomish, Stanwood, Sultan and Tulalip • Conducted 4 sales missions to Vancouver BC, Olympia, Seattle, Boulder CO and Colorado Springs, resulting in 45 new leads for hotels and attractions in Snohomish County and distribution of 86 packets of information Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 175 of 346 • 19 trade shows generated 13,773 direct leads and distribution of 3,764 tourism guides in 2012 • Assisted 44 groups with conference services distributing 1,600 guides to attendees • Group tour, meeting and event planner bids were prepared which resulted in 7,415 total definite room nights with an economic impact of $17.3million • Additional pending bookings at year end totaled 6,150 room nights and an additional $3.7 million of economic impact. • Primary decrease in economic impact due to recording Pacific Rim Gymnastics Championships in 2011 The sports market continues to be a significant segment contributing $15.4 million in economic impact. Recognition and awards included: • Finalist for NASC Member of the Year • Sports Events Magazine Readers' Choice Award for the 3rd year Ms. Spain reported on tourism development: • Ads generated 13,176 total requests for information in 2012 • Additionally, there were over 8,000 visits to RoomsAtPar/StayShopAndSave websites as a result of advertising presence • Media buys were placed in a variety of media outlets including Alaska Airlines in-flight magazine, North Sound Living, Outdoors NW, National Geographic Traveler, Budget Travel, Westworld, Vancouver BC newspapers and online sources • Website visitation to primary site was up over 2012 by 23%. Weddings website was up by 19% • 85,000 copies of an official visitor guide including seasonal calendars of events, and seasonally oriented articles on communities and attractions • Six issues of StoryLine were mailed to over 1,400 travel writers with each issue • Conducted a media sales mission to Vancouver, BC • Attended Society of American Travel Writers and Travel Media Showcase • Conducted media fams for 17 travel writers — Snohomish, Mukilteo, Tulalip, Edmonds, Everett, Stanwood, Monroe and all points in between • Sent 16 press releases • Over 160 media pitches and responses to writers and travel publications requests • 50 articles were published • Efforts resulted in $458,000 of free media coverage — up 4% • Increased usage of Flickr, Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest Jennifer Bravo, Visitor Services Manager, Snohomish County Tourism Bureau (SCTB), described continued partnerships with City of Snohomish, Snohomish Chamber of Commerce, Historic Downtown Snohomish and the Historical Society of Snohomish, City of Lynnwood Tourism and Parks & Recreation, as well as Alderwood Manor Heritage Association and SnoIsle Genealogical Society. She reported the north county Visitor Information Center (VIC) was closed due to limited visitor traffic and SCTB now manages the VIC at the Future of Flight and Boeing Tour facility. She provided a snapshot of visitors: • 48% from more than 50 miles away 0 10% from other Washington counties 0 23% from other states 0 15% from other countries • 52% from local area (including surrounding counties) Ms. Bravo explained they have over 100 volunteers who work at VICs as well as events in the community. She described events that volunteers participate in, training provided to volunteers, and three Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 176 of 346 familiarization tours held in 2012 to Snohomish, Stanwood and Tulalip, and Lynwood and Edmonds that included tours of six lodging facilities from Edmonds to Arlington, Marysville and Mukilteo. Ms. Spain described industry education the Bureau provided: • Four countywide tourism related programs • Creation of two of six planned video training segments: o Aviation attractions o Shopping and gaming • Four additional video training segments planned in 2013 o Arts, Culture and History o Farms, Agriculture, Wineries and Distilleries o Outdoor Recreation o Spectator Sports • Creation of Tourism Bingo, a training program for frontline hospitality staff members • Two training familiarization tours held for frontline staff members at local hotels She reviewed 2013 initiatives: • Launch of the new destination brand • Launch new website • Four more training videos • Industry sector events/tours/tickets to train • frontline staff • New cyber tours • New itineraries, maps and promotions to assist visitors in exploring all of Snohomish County Jessica Voelker, Coordinator, Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area (TPA), thanked the City and Council for their continued support of the TPA, and Mr. Clifton who serves on the TPA Board. She explained the TPA is a funding source established by the lodging industry to increase overnight stays in Snohomish County. The grant is open to applications from non-profit and for -profit organizations as well as municipalities. The grants can fund a wide range of expenses outside marketing and promotion such as facilities costs, bid fees and transportation. Grant applications are available online and are accepted on an ongoing basis; applications are due on the first of each month. She displayed the TPA's website, www.snocotpa.com. The website includes information on previously funded projects and eligibility requirements. Fourteen projects were funded in 2012 and an additional 14 have been funded to date in 2013. Four projects in 2012 affected Edmonds directly and two took place in Edmonds; these included: • Triple Crown Sports Memorial Day Tournament — more than 160 teams competed in a youth baseball tournament over a 3-day period o Four of the fields were in the Edmonds School District • Snohomish County Sports and Marketing Program • Write on the Sound Writers Conference • Edmonds Half Marathon — TPA Board recommended funding but the event was ultimately not eligible for reimbursement In 2013 there has been only one applicant from Edmonds; that applicant was not recommended for a TPA grant but she directed them to alternative funding sources such as the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and the Hazel Miller grant. Three Edmonds programs were funded in 2012 via LTAC: Olympic Ballet, Edmonds Center for the Arts and Edmonds wayfinding signs. Ms. Voelker provided an educational flyer regarding applying for a financial grant via the TPA. Ideas for future funding in Edmonds from the TPA could include the development of new festivals, conventions, tech conferences, multi -day events and expos, a run or athletic event, state choir championship or multi - day sporting event. The TPA was designed to be flexible to provide resources to bring economic Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 177 of 346 development and overnight stays to the City. She considered herself an advocate for the lodging industry as well as the community and is always available to meet personally with prospective applicants to discuss their projects before and during the application process. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the 1% increase in visitor spending in Snohomish County and asked how that compared to other counties in the state and nation. Ms. Spain answered due to the closure of the State Tourism Office, any marketing in Washington State is done by individual destination marketing organizations. In 2012 the Seattle Visitor's Bureau was successful in creating a program similar to the TPA that generated $8 million that was used to advertise the region and Washington State. As a result, Seattle had a much higher increase in visitor spending. Tri-Cities received approximately $1 million in federal grants that was used for tourism promotion; they too saw an increase in visitors. She summarized the increase fluctuates by county. Snohomish County is typically in the top three in regard to visitor spending. She offered to provide the percentage for each county. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the SCTB interacted with the Economic Alliance Snohomish County. Ms. Spain answered Economic Alliance Snohomish County partners with SCTB on specific tourism -related projects. The Alliance's focus is on lobbying efforts and economic development. 8. DISCUSSION: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE TIME FRAME FOR VALIDITY OF PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT APPROVAL AS ESTABLISHED IN ECDC 20.75.100 (FILE NO. AMD20130002). Associate Planner Jen Machuga explained a subdivision into four lots or less is considered a short plat. Currently ECDC 20.75.100 limits the validity of preliminary short plat approval to 5 years. During that timeframe, the applicant would need to submit for civil review or provide the City with detailed engineering drawings showing proposed civil improvements associated with the subdivision. Following the City's review and approval of the civil plans, the applicant may either construct or bond for the civil improvements. At the end of that phase of the process, the applicant would then submit for final review where staff checks that all conditions of preliminary short plat approval have been met and the subdivision would be recorded with Snohomish County. In the past this process was completed by most applicants well under the five year time limit. However, the economic downturn caused unanticipated delays to several projects. Recognizing the impact of the economic downturn, State law was revised to increase the timeframe for the validity of formal plats, subdivisions into 5 lots or more, to 7 years for formal plats that received preliminary approval on or before December 31, 2014, after which the timeframe for formal plats will revert to 5 years. At the January 22, 2013 Council meeting a member of the public requested the City consider increasing the current 5 year timeframe for preliminary short plats to 7 years to provide applicants impacted by the economic downturn an opportunity to complete their projects. This was discussed with the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee on February 11, 2013; the committee was receptive to potentially increasing the timeframe and forwarded the item to the Planning Board. The Planning Board held a discussion and a public hearing and recommended approval of extending the current short plat timeframe. Ms. Machuga stated the draft code provides reference to State law requirements regarding the timeframe for formal plats as well as new language related to the timeframe for short plats to increase the timeframe to 7 years for short plats that obtained preliminary approval on or before December 31, 2013, and a 5 year time frame for short plats that obtained preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2014. The draft code establishes the provision to extend the time limit to 2 years from the effective date of the ordinance for short plats that obtained preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006 and would have expired prior to adoption of the ordinance. She pointed out a public hearing is scheduled on May 7; tonight is intended to provide the Council an overview prior to the public hearing and to answer any questions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 178 of 346 Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for providing examples she requested of timeframes established for short plat approval for other cities. She expressed her support for moving forward. Councilmember Bloom commented the draft ordinance references RCW 58.17.140 but does not reference the specific time limits established. She asked whether the time limits could be included in the ordinance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained that provision of the RCW has changed multiple times in the last few years due to the economic downturn. Rather than amend the City's code whenever the Legislature changes the timeline, it is preferable to reference the applicable RCW. Councilmember Bloom asked the current time limits. Mr. Taraday answered it is as long as 9 years in some cases. Ms. Machuga commented the Legislature made a recent change to the RCW. 9. APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR'S REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF APPOINTMENT OF ROB CHAVE AS ACTING DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO INCLUDE JANUARY 1, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013, AND CORRESPONDING OUT OF CLASS PAY. Councilmember Bloom commented her concerns are not related to Rob Chave as the Acting Director but with the process. She referred to the March 6, 2012 minutes in which Mayor Earling stated he understood the Council's interest in a policy change regarding a policy change regarding future appointments and pointing out this is an interim position to last no longer than the end of the year. Her concern was extending this again, relaying everyone dropped the ball by not funding the position in 2013. She recalled the Development Services Director position was vacated by Duane Bowman in 2007/2008. It is a key position that has been vacant for a long time; Mr. Chave has done the job of both the Planning Manager and the Development Services Director last year and was being asked to do it again this year. She wanted to ensure the Development Services Director position was funded during the 2014 budget process. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the out of class pay was included in the 2013 budget. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the Interim Development Services Director position was to end December 31, 2012. Therefore, the 2013 budget process should have included funds for a Development Services Director. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she was aware during the 2013 budget discussions that the position would not be filled due to budget constraints. She expressed support for appointing Mr. Chave to an additional period as the acting director. She suggested the Council discuss whether the Development Services Director position would continue as a vacant position or should be removed. Council President Petso agreed the action taken last year was to appoint an acting director temporarily through yearend and the action tonight is to appoint Mr. Chave to the position temporarily until the end of 2013. She was content to extend the appointment of Mr. Chave for the year and wait until the budget process to discuss the position further. At that time the Council may have levy results and the position could then be considered for restored funding. Council President Petso recalled when the Council discussed the appointment last year, there were questions about the process of appointing an interim director and revisions to Chapter 2. The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee discussed that for two months and were to review it again but did not. She will schedule it for the next Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee meeting. Mayor Earling explained during the budget process he made a conscious decision not to seek a full-time Development Services Director position and continue with an acting director. He anticipated with benefits, the cost for that position would be $135,000 - $160,000/year. Had that position been filled, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 179 of 346 another full time position would have been eliminated. He assured Mr. Chave has done a spectacular job fulfilling that role during the past year and is willing to do so again this year. Councilmember Bloom wanted to ensure this issue is addressed because it is a key position and has many oversight responsibilities. She suggested considering other options to make that position work. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MAYOR'S REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF APPOINTMENT OF ROB CHAVE AS ACTING DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO INCLUDE JANUARY 1, 2013 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013 AND THE CORRESPONDING OUT OF CLASS PAY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. DISCUSSION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES FOR NON -REPRESENTED LONGEVITY COMPENSATION. Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite explained this is a continued discussion from July and September 2012, and the November 2012 Finance Committee. The City hired a compensation consultant last year to complete a salary survey and recommend nonrepresented compensation policy language which the Council adopted in September 2012. At that time the Council requested staff present options regarding longevity compensation to the Finance Committee. The packet includes a table of longevity compensation that represented employees receive. The Finance Committee discussed longevity compensation in February 2013 and recommended it be presented to full Council for discussion. The consultant's recommendation was to support some type of longevity compensation in consideration of, 1) the commitment of the tenure of City staff, 2) comparison with comparable cities and internal comparisons, and 3) recognizing the reduction in earning potential with the new nonrepresented employee salary ranges. If the Council chose to apply longevity compensation commensurate with SEIU and/or Teamsters, the financial impact to the City would be $37,413 with the current tenure of staff: 0 7 employed for 19+ years 0 6 employed 14-19 years 0 4 employed for 10-14 years 0 9 employed for more than 5 years 0 13 employed less than 5 years Ms. Hite requested direction from the Council regarding longevity compensation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the longevity pay for the represented groups is based on a package of compensation that each group negotiates. She was concerned with considering only one of the package items, longevity pay, for nonrepresented employees. She was also concerned that this was not the best economic climate to present this to the citizens. Ms. Hite explained a full package was presented to the Council with the results of the salary survey conducted by the compensation consultant. The Council pulled longevity compensation from the package and asked to have it discussed separately. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Ms. Hite explained the compensation consultant made several recommendations. One was to place nonrepresented employees on a salary range progression as it was subjective when employees received steps or increases and the City was increasing its own liability without objectivity in the nonrepresented salary ranges. The salary ranges now mirror represented employees at 5%. Every nonrepresented employee was placed on a step and the steps are advanced by 5% subject to authorization of Council via the budget process. That recommendation was approved by Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 180 of 346 Another of the consultant's recommendations was cost of living adjustments (COLA) commensurate with union employees. The Council approved the Mayor including COLAs in the budget subject to Council approval/revision. In the salary comparisons with comparable cities, there were several compensation packages offered by other cities that Edmonds does not offer nonrepresented employees. For example, deferred compensation of 1% and 2%, which was not approved by the Council. Several cities offered 40 and 50 hours of management leave; the Council approved management leave of 24 hours. The consultant also recommended an educational incentive for commissioned police officers which was not approved by the Council. There was also discussion regarding employment contracts for director level positions and possibly other nonrepresented positions. She summarized the Council approved the 5% salary ranges/steps which reduced salary growth potential for nonrepresented employees by 50%, placed nonrepresented employees on steps and progressing through steps at 5% subject to Council approval via the budget process, Mayor -recommended COLA increases that are subject to Council approval, and management leave. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the longevity compensation would affect 26 nonrepresented employees. She observed the total impact on the budget was approximately $37,000 for the 26 employees on a percentage basis based on the table in the Council packet. She acknowledged these are trying times but some employees have been with the City for a long time. She expressed support for some type of longevity compensation due to the importance of a monetary reward for long time employees. Councilmember Peterson commented on the extra work done by staff due to the limited amount of staff. He supported longevity pay equal to SEIU, commenting that was a small price to pay for the loyalty, expertise and history of long time staff, an invaluable resource. This is especially an invaluable resource in an economy that is turning around; the City needs to retain its experienced staff as the job market becomes more competitive. Council President Petso inquired about the vacation benefit for nonrepresented employees, whether they received full vacation from day one. Ms. Hite answered directors start at one amount of vacation with no increase; other employees start at a low level that increases over time, commensurate with union employees. Council President Petso asked why would anyone want to be in a union if nonrepresented employees receive all the benefits given to union employees and even more for directors. Ms. Hite answered a union employee is a protected employee who can bump during layoffs; nonrepresented employees can be laid off at any time with no bumping rights. Union employees are able to earn comp time or overtime for hours over 40 hours/week which nonrepresented employees do not. In the past 1'/2 months there have been opportunities for 2 staff to promote within the organization from a union position to a non -union position and neither wanted to be a nonrepresented employee due to the vulnerability of those positions. As a result, recruitment was done outside the organization for those two positions. She summarized one of the advantages of considering the benefit package for nonrepresented employees is the ability to attract internal candidates. She expected that would continue to happen in the future. The Council had several discussions regarding nonrepresented compensation last year and there has been discussion by union employees who do not want to promote from within the organization. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that was their choice. She reiterated nonrepresented employees received 24 hours of management leave, a 5% step and a COLA. She supported paying people a decent salary and paying what they were worth. But when the Council may be considering the possibility of a levy, she was not interested in adding longevity pay in addition to management leave, the 5% step and COLA. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 181 of 346 Council President Petso summarized there seems to some interest in presenting a draft longevity compensation proposal to the Council. Ms. Hite suggested if the Council made a decision tonight, it could be incorporated into the policy with policy changes presented to the Council to reflect longevity compensation. She clarified not all nonrepresented employees received management leave, only managers and directors. The other nonrepresented employees can request approval for hour -for -hour comp time. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the recommendation was for this fiscal year and if so, how would it be funded, or is it a recommendation for the next fiscal year. Ms. Hite responded the recommendation is a policy change and the funding source is year-end balance. The Council can decide when it would be effective. There are four options: 1. Effective retroactively to January 2013 2. Start it July 1 3. Include it in 2014 budget 4. Do nothing Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the compensation study provided a comparison of other cities. Ms. Hite replied the survey provided information from cities that responded to the survey request. Councilmember Buckshnis asked staff to provide a comparison of what other cities do for their nonrepresented employees. Council President Petso preferred the Council not take action tonight so that the Council could receive the information Councilmember Buckshnis requested and because this item was scheduled on the agenda as a discussion item. Not taking action tonight would also give Ms. Hite an opportunity to discuss the issue and the timing with the levy team. Mayor Earling summarized this item will be scheduled on a future agenda with the information the Council requested. 11. PARK IMPACT STUDY RESULTS Mayor Earling reported he attended the Washington Recreation and Park Association (WRPA) Annual Conference in Vancouver, Washington, where Edmonds received three awards: • Edmonds Floretum Garden Club • Best Facility — Hazel Miller Plaza • Edmonds' partnership with Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood on 3`d grade swim lessons sponsored by Verdant Mayor Earling advised Ms. Hite is the President-elect of WRPA. Ms. Hite stated a press release will be issued to announce the awards. She explained the Floretum Garden Club received one of the highest awards that WRPA gives, a Citation of Merit — Organization. Ms. Hite explained the Council authorized the completion of a Park Impact Fee Study on March 6, 2012. The City hired a consultant, Randy Young, Henderson Young and Company, to prepare the study. Randy Young, Henderson Young and Company, explained a park impact fee is one way to augment funding of the capital cost of the City's park system and there are a number of options. He explained the initial mission was to identify the maximum defensible impact fee under Washington law that the City could choose to charge. Over 70 Washington cities have a park impact fee, many do not. His role was not as an advocate for a park impact fee but an expert resource in determining whether a park impact fee is appropriate for Edmonds. Mr. Young provided a definition of an impact fee: a one-time payment paid by new development for capital costs of facilities needed by new development. He identified reasons to charge impact fees: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 182 of 346 Revenue: for public facilities Policy: growth pays a portion of costs so taxpayers don't pay the whole cost Quality of life: public facilities keep up with growth To the question of why Edmonds needs an impact fee when Edmonds is built out, Mr. Young pointed out: • Conversions from single-family to multi -family, and/or construction of multi -family • Population growth next six years = 1,237 • Transportation impact fees collected in Edmonds for 2004 — 2010 = $ 571,872 Mr. Young reviewed the rules for impact fees: 1. Fair Share= growth only, not deficiencies 2. "Reasonably needed", "proportionate share" = fee proportional to impacts 3. Credits = no double charging (e.g. need to consider funding in CIP) 4. "Cannot rely solely on impact fees" = cannot charge 100% of growth's costs He reviewed what impact fees can/cannot pay for: • Can pay for "system improvements" in adopted CIP • Cannot pay for "project improvements" (i.e., common areas of the development) • Cannot pay for repair, replacement, renovation • Eligible land and facilities include parks, open space and recreation facilities Factors in the calculation of park impact fee include: 1) Growth forecast; 2) Cost per "person;" and 3) Impact fee rates Growth Forecast Mr. Young displayed and reviewed forecasts for population growth forecasts for 1940- 2025 (table 2, page 10 of study) from the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and employment growth forecasts (table 3, page 11) from the Puget Sound Regional Council for 2000-2025. He explained the proposed impact fee could be charged to residential as well as businesses. He displayed and reviewed a Growth of Equivalent Population and Employment by land use category. A coefficient is determined based on the number of hours an employee works, type of business, amount of time they work in the City and the number of customers they attract. He summarized the total 2011-2025 Growth Equivalent Population was 5,880. Cost per Person Asset Inventory and Capital Value (table 5, pages 14-15) Acres Land Value Improvement Value Total Value 210.4 1 $64,887,480 $15,486,982 $80,374,372 Value of Parks per equivalent Population (table 6, page 15) Total Value of Current (2011) Capital Value per Edmonds Parks Equivalent Population Equivalent Population $80,374,372 - 45,314 = $1,773.71 Value of Parks Needed for Growth (table 7, page 16) Capital Value per Growth of Value Needed Equivalent Population Equivalent Population for Growth $1,773.71 x 5,880 = $10,429,210 Investment Needed in Parks for Growth (table 8, page 17) Value Needed Value of Existing Investment Needed for Growth Reserve Capacity for Growth $10,429,210 0 $10,429,210 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 183 of 346 Investment in Parks to be Paid by Growth (table 9, page 18) Investment Needed City Investment for Investment to be For Growth Growth @ 30.33 % Paid by Growth $10,429,210 - $3,163,265 = $7,265,945 Growth Cost per Person (table 10, page 19) Investment to be Paid Growth of Equivalent Growth Cost Per by Growth Population Equivalent Population $7,265,945 - 5,880 = $1,235.73 Impact Fee Rates Impact Fee Der Unit (table 11. Dafie 19) Type of Development Growth Cost Per Equivalent Person Equivalent Population Coefficient Unit of Development Impact Fee Per Unit of Development Residential — single family $1,235.73 2.2125000 Dwelling unit $2,734.05 Residential — multi -family $1,235.73 1.8937500 Dwelling unit $2,340.16 Retail $1,235.73 0.0020038 Square foot $2.48 Office $1,235.73 0.0005056 Square foot $0.62 Manufacturing $1,235.73 0.0005814 Square foot $0.72 Construction $1,235.73 0.0001986 Square foot $0.25 Mr. Young referenced tables in the appendix that were used to create the Equivalent Population Coefficient: Employee Hours in Location (per employee) — Table A-1, page 21, Visitor Hours in Location (per employee) — Table A-2, page 22, and Table A-3, page 22. Mr. Young reviewed potential revenue from park impact fees: • Equivalent population population growth to 2025 = 5,880 • 5,880 growth - 12 years = 490/year • 490 x $1,235 = $605,000 / year Mr. Young provided a comparison of park impact fees for single family for Edmonds and peer cities: $ 6,404 Issaquah $ 2,438 Mukilteo 5,933 Mill Creek 2,329 Kenmore 4,579 Monroe 2,000 Bellevue 4,305 Duvall 2,000 Brier 4,150 Snohomish 1,879 Mountlake Terrace 3,845 Kirkland 1,726 Woodinville 3,175 Sultan 1,662 Arlington 3,100 Redmond 1,345 Bothell 2,734 Edmonds 1,251 Marysville 427 Mount Vernon Mr. Young explained the impact fee rate study provides sound basis for park impact fees, but Edmonds has options: 1. Residential only, not commercial • Removal all data about employment • Revise cost per person • Do the math to calculate new rates Example: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 184 of 346 Type of Housing Rate if both Residential and Business Rate if Only Residential $ Difference % Difference Single family $2,734 $3,320 $586 21.4% Multi -family $2,340 $2,842 $502 21.4% 2. Reduce rates across the board • Identify the rate that concerns the Council the most (i.e. multi -family at $2,340) • Identify the amount the Council is willing to charge (i.e. $1800) • Divide the "willing" rate by the full rate ($1,800 _ $2,340 = 77% • Apply the same % to all other rates Example: Type of Housing Unit Full Rate in Study Rate @ 77 % Single family Dwelling unit $2,734 $2,105 Multi -family Dwelling unit $2,340 $1,800 Retail Square foot 2.48 $1.91 Office Square foot 0.62 0.48 Manufacturing Square foot 0.72 0.55 Construction Square foot 0.25 0.19 3. Phase in rates over 2 or more years • Select the final rate when fully phased in • Select the beginning rate for the first year • Select the number of years for phase in • Do the math and create the phasing schedule Example: Type of Housing Unit Year 1 @ 80 % Year 2 @ 90 % Year 3 @ 100 % Single family Dwelling unit $2,187 $2,461 $2,734 Multi -family Dwelling unit 1,872 2,106 $2,340 Retail Square foot 1.98 2.23 2.48 Office Square foot 0.50 0.56 0.62 Manufacturing Square foot 0.58 0.65 0.72 Construction Square foot 0.20 0.23 0.25 4. Exempt low-income housing • Adopt definition of "low income housing" • Identify timing of paying for exempted fees • Identify source of paying for exempted fees Student Representative Walker Kasinadhuni referred to option 1 where businesses are exempt from paying impact fees and asked why the same could not be done for low income housing. Mr. Young answered choosing not to charge business is not an exemption under the statute. It would be a finding by the City Council that the impact of the business community on the parks systems is not enough to require they pay an impact fee. There is explicit authorization in the statute for exemptions for low income housing and other broad public purposes which has come to mean something like exempting the school district from the transportation impact fee. Mr. Young continued his review of options: 5. Increase revenue from other sources • Identify other sources that could be raised such as grants, local taxes, bonds • Determine the amount that can be raised • Revise the 30.33% city investment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 185 of 346 6. Do not adopt park impact fees • Raise other revenue o Consequence is growth pays less, taxpayers pay more • Reduce level of service o No new parks, quality of life is reduced Mr. Young explained the purpose of tonight's presentation was to take Council comments, questions. Next steps include finalizing the impact fee study and, if the Council is interested in proceeding, preparing a draft ordinance and holding a public hearing. City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented there are a lot of unknowns with regard to how the courts will treat impact fee assumptions in Mr. Young's presentation. His reaction was it was an extremely conservative approach to impact fees. For example, the 30% reduction for other funding, there is nothing in State law that requires all grant funds to be excluded from the impact fee calculation. He did not necessarily think the maximum fee Mr. Young stated the City could charge would be the maximum but it was a way of looking at it. Mr. Young concurred, suggesting if the 30% were not included in the calculation, the Council could indicate the grant funds would be used for repairs and maintenance that are not intended to serve new development. Councilmember Buckshnis requested a copy of Mr. Young's PowerPoint. She asked what other cities do not charge a commercial park impact fee. Mr. Young responded out of 74-75 cities that charge a park impact fee, only 10 charge a commercial impact fee (Redmond, Mountlake Terrace (only Town Center), Arlington, Tukwila, Poulsbo, Linden, Pasco, Burlington, Sumner, Ephrata, and Zillah). Councilmember Buckshnis asked what cities have a reduced rate. Mr. Young answered many cities discount the rate rather than phase it. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the rate was reduced. Mr. Young answered there was no law or case law about how to make a reduction but all the rate categories must be reduced by the same percentage. Councilmember Peterson observed Mountlake Terrace only charges a park impact fee for businesses in the Town Center. He asked if the City could be divided into residential zones where the park impact fee would not be charged. Mr. Young answered yes, referring to RCW 82.02 that states the city shall identify one or more service areas for its impact fees. For example many cities divide their city into zones for a transportation impact fee. Edmonds could be divided into zones; there would need to be a rational basis for calculating the different rates. Another unintended consequence of creating too many zones is no zone collects enough to build a park. When a city is divided into zones, the funds collected must be used in the zone where they are collected. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the park impact fee could be less if there were incentives in the City's code for small units such as 700 square feet. Mr. Young answered the square footage data set is pretty thin other than the annual American Housing Survey (AHS). His proposal is very conservative; the highest defensible. The smallest size increment available from AHS data set is 1400 square feet which would mean any construction 1400 square feet and below would not pay the park impact fee. Councilmember Peterson asked if it was appropriate to be doing the PROS Plan update concurrently with a park impact fee study. Ms. Hite stated it is ideal to do them concurrently. The current PROS Plan does not identify future growth needs, only deficiencies. The PROS Plan update can address the current and future level of service. Councilmember Peterson asked if funds collected from a park impact fee could be used for a park anywhere in the City. Mr. Young explained the value per capita approach allows the funds to be used for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 186 of 346 neighborhood, citywide or area -wide parks. Not adopting service area zones recognizes that residents/businesses use parks citywide. He summarized park impact fees are not based on actual use but accessibility/availability. Conversely transportation impact fees are based on actual use using data sets for individual land uses. Councilmember Peterson asked if a retail only zone could be exempted. Mr. Young replied the only way to exempt a zone is to never build another park in the zone or direct all grant funds to parks in that zone. Councilmember Johnson noted park impact fees could not address deficiencies. The Capital Facilities Plan includes approximately six projects with funding of $34 - 60 million in the 2019-2025 timeframe. She asked how that fit into a park impact fee. Mr. Young stated to meet the requirement to consider other funds, the City's short and long term planning documents and the funding mechanisms were considered. Councilmember Johnson advised all of the City's REET funds are dedicated to parks. She inquired the amount of capital funding that would be available if Parks Capital REET funds are excluded. Ms. Hite clarified REET 1 is not dedicated to parks; it is dedicated to City infrastructure and currently is paying for City Hall, Edmonds Center for the Arts, seismic upgrade at Frances Anderson Center, and debt service on Marina Beach. The remainder is used for City infrastructure. The first $750,000 of REET 2 is dedicated to parks; the remainder is dedicated to streets. Projects funded by the $750,000 Parks capital in the next six years include playground replacements, resurfacing basketball and tennis courts, trail improvements, tree removal and pruning, etc. In 2013, $500,000 is allocated to match a $500,000 State grant to revitalize City Park with a spray pad, playground equipment, etc. Cutting those capital funds would have a very large impact on parks. Park impact fees are not intended to supplant those funds; they are for future growth. Mr. Young explained the 30% was determined by a precise analysis; Ms. Hite reviewed projects on the capital projects list to identify projects that add capacity and would be eligible for a park impact fee. The projects that were not eligible and the associated funding were not included in the calculation. The 30% is funds for projects that are capacity -adding. Ms. Hite provided an example of a project in the CFP that was included in the 30%, the Woodway Fields project, which adds capacity for the current, future and regional population. The first phase of that project is $4 million. Council President Petso asked whether Esperance was taken into account as it is in Edmonds' GMA planning area. Mr. Young answered the study considered current city limits only. Councilmember Buckshnis commented many citizens think the Port is responsible for the Edmonds Marsh when it is actually the City. She asked if park impact fees could be utilized to daylight Willow Creek or restoring the marsh. Ms. Hite replied the marsh rehab has been identified as a deficiency in the current system but it will also benefit future residents. She recalled a 50% factor was used for the marsh rehabilitation. She noted there was not a great deal of funding in the CFP for the marsh at this time. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the marsh study needed to be completed first. Ms. Hite agreed it did. Councilmember Bloom asked if there were other housing types that could be exempted from park impact fees such as green buildings. Mr. Young advised there are two specific authorized exemptions in the statute, low income housing and other broad public purposes. There is no case law or Hearing Examiner rulings regarding broad public purposes. A few cities are pushing the envelope but because he was conservative and did not want to put his clients at risk, he suggested having that conversation with the City Attorney. Mr. Taraday said he would generally agree. As a practical matter, because the City has to pay itself the impact fee for anything it chooses to exempt, the City cannot afford to push the envelope too far. The Council has a great deal of discretion regarding what it chooses to exempt via other broad public purposes. With regard to Esperance, Mr. Young explained typically studies are done on existing city limits. Olympia negotiated with Thurston County for a reciprocal impact fee outside their city limits. Following a recent annexation that increased their population by 40%, he suggested Kirkland talk to their City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 187 of 346 Attorney about using the existing impact fee rates until a new study can be conducted. The other alternative would be a moratorium on building permits in the annexed area until a new study is conducted. Councilmember Johnson noted the Yost Pool project in the CFP has a range of $5 — 23 million and several other projects have ranges. There is also a $5 million placeholder in the CFP for an art museum. She asked how the lack of certainty in the CFP was considered. Mr. Young answered in the instances where there were ranges, he discussed with Ms. Hite whether to use the top or mid -point of the range. Councilmember Johnson suggested if the park impact fee is done concurrently with the PROS Plan, more certainty could be provided in those project estimates. Ms. Hite stated all the CFP projects will be reviewed including a public process to prioritize projects and to refine cost estimates. For example the aquatics study includes a range but the adopted preference is an $8 million project which was used in the park impact fee study. If the Council agreed a park impact fee had merit, Ms. Hite recommended scheduling a public hearing and she will prepare a draft ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested a Council committee review it first to discuss the six options. Council President Petso requested Councilmembers submit comments to Ms. Hite via email. If a consensus emerges from the comments, it can be scheduled for full Council. If there are conflicts, she will schedule review for Council committee. Mayor Earling announced Item 13 would be deferred to the May 7 meeting. He declared a brief recess. 12. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained his presentation tonight will focus on how the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update affects single family development and the Meadowdale Marina. He described the SMP's relationship to other plans and regulations: • 24.10.030 — Relationship to Other Plans or Regulations o SMP is adopted element in Edmonds Comprehensive Plan o SMP works in tandem with rest of ECDC ■ Uses, developments, and activities must comply with ECDC and SMP ■ SMP prevails where there are conflicts He explained the draft SMP includes 11 shoreline environmental designations; of those 11, 3 are shoreline residential development: • Shoreline Residential I o North Edmonds east of railroad, RS-12 & RS-20 zoning • Shoreline Residential II o East of railroad, RS-6 zoning • Shoreline Residential III o Lake Ballinger, RSW-12 The main permit for shoreline is Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. • Single family residences is a preferred shoreline use (RCW 58.17.020) • Most single family developments exempt for shoreline substantial development permit process; however, • Single family development must still comply with the regulations within the SMP Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 188 of 346 He identified shoreline exemptions: • Single family residence and associate appurtenance • Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences Construction of a dock o < $2,500 in salt water o < $10,000 in freshwater Mr. Lien reviewed the following: • Residential Development ECDC 24.60.070: o New residential development must be consistent with Comprehensive Plan, zoning restrictions, and shoreline area designations o Public access must be considered with subdivision of four or more lots o Shared docks with subdivision of two or more lots Docks ECDC 24.50.030: o Prohibited substances o Not more than five feet above water o Not to exceed 25% of lot width o Located 10 feet from side property line o Shared docks can be located on a property line o No more than 400 square feet Shore Stabilization (Bulkheads) ECDC 24.50.020 o New development designed so bulkheads are not needed o Locate landward of ordinary high water mark o Soft methods preferred over hard methods Mr. Lien reviewed CAO integration: • 24.40.020 — Critical Areas • GMA vs. SMA • SMA rules within shoreline jurisdiction, CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction • CAO Integration Options 1. Copy specific sections of CAO into SMP 2. Reference a specific CAO addition noting which CAO provisions will not apply to the SMP 3. Include portions of the CAO as an appendix to the SMP • City pursued options two and three • 24.40.020.D — CAO Exceptions o General provisions o Wetlands • 24.40.020.0 — CAO Provisions allowed with Shoreline variance Mr. Lien displayed and reviewed an image of Lake Ballinger. He provided the following information regarding wetlands: • Lake Ballinger ringed by wetlands • CAO Buffer (ECDC 23.50.040) o Category III = 50 feet o Category IV = 35 feet • SMP wetland buffers (ECDC 24.40.0201) o Category III = 60 feet base (+ 45 to 105 feet) o Category IV = 40 feet • Variance required to reduce buffer more than 25% Mr. Lien noted in addition to the above buffers, there is a 15-foot building setback. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 189 of 346 Councilmember Buckshnis asked how habitat is scoring. Mr. Lien advised it is contained in 24.40.020.F. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 1/2 HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien commented on the bluff setback: • Standard setback is 50 feet plus 15 feet building setback • Shoreline variance required to build closer For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained for a Category III wetland, the buffer would be a 60 foot base, and a habitat score of 20-30 would add another 45 feet for a total of a 105 foot wetland buffer. Councilmember Bloom asked how the habitat was scored. Mr. Lien answered it is done by a wetland biologist. The wetland biologist considers the hydrology, soils, and plants as well as the size of the wetland and the quality of the plant community to develop a habitat score. Councilmember Bloom asked how an applicant seeks a variance. Mr. Lien answered shoreline variances are approved by the Department of Ecology (DOE). The City would hold its process including review and decision by the Hearing Examiner which would be forwarded to the DOE. Shoreline substantial development permits do not require approval by DOE. Councilmember Bloom asked if that applied to only new construction. Mr. Lien answered staff's thinking was redevelopment within the developed footprint would be allowed such as in Harbor Square. If development is not allowed within the developed footprint and development must comply to adopted standards, that would apply to properties on Lake Ballinger as well as redevelopment at Harbor Square. When the SMP was drafted and staff consulted with DOE, the thought was and the way the SMP is drafted is redevelopment could occur within the developed footprint. Discussions with the City Attorney indicated the language in the SMP and COA may not be sufficient. Mr. Lien explained within the CAO, a buffer width reduction can be done without a variance process. Within the shoreline jurisdiction, the CAO does not rule, the SMP rules. Therefore a reduction of the buffer below 25% would require a variance process. When the regulations were drafted and the CAO was updated in 2004/2005, the intent was redevelopment could occur as long as it was in the developed permit. Best Available Science (BAS) for the CAO addresses development and developed footprint. When that language was transferred to code from BAS to CAO, it states additions to structures. If the interpretation is development cannot occur within the developed footprint, demolition and rebuilding would be required to meet the buffer setback. Councilmember Bloom asked if this was different or the same as Harbor Square. Mr. Lien replied with regard to development in the developed footprint, what applies here would apply to Harbor Square and vice versa. He clarified the intent was redevelopment could occur within the developed footprint. Mr. Taraday explained this is a policy question; staff is proposing a policy whereby redevelopment would be allowed in an existing footprint. He was uncertain the proposed language actually effectuates that policy choice. If that is the Council's policy choice, the language needs to be tightened. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained the standard in drafting the SMP is no net loss of ecological functions over the current conditions. Redevelopment within the previously developed footprint meets the standards of the SMA and the CAO. The intent when the SMP regulations were drafted was to allow redevelopment in the developed footprint. Some jurisdictions have used a straight setback and no buffers and DOE has indicated that meets the requirements of the SMA. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 190 of 346 Mr. Lien explained there was a change in the Shoreline designations from the existing SMP to the proposed SMP for Meadowdale Marina. The current shoreline designation of the Meadowdale Marina is Urban Mixed Use, the Comprehensive Plan designation is Mixed Use Commercial and the zoning is Commercial Waterfront, the same as the Port area. The proposed shoreline designation is Aquatic I. He provided the history of the shoreline designation: • Aquatic Environment — New environment consistent with SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26) • Shoreline designation reviewed by TAC • TAC notes mention designating upland area associated with Haines Wharf as Urban Mixed Use • There are no upland areas associate with the site He described the two aquatic designations and identified areas on the waterfront and Lake Ballinger: • Aquatic I (Low Intensity) • Aquatic II (High Intensity) Mr. Lien described Meadowdale Marina Permitting: • Shoreline substantial development permit issued in 2005 (SM-05-94) to reconstruct pier • Two years to start, five years to finish project • Time begins other permits have been obtained • Other required permits: HPA, Army Corps, Railroad Crossing, Building Permits • SM-05-94 still a valid permit • Proposed change to SMP: Applicants have 5 years to obtain other require permits Mr. Lien summarized he hoped tonight would be the last work session on the SMP and a public hearing could be scheduled. Hearing no further questions, Mayor Earling suggested Mr. Lien work with Council President Petso to schedule a public hearing. 13. POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE This item was deferred to the May 7 meeting. 14. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Peterson reported members of the Lake Ballinger Forum had a successful trip to Washington DC with the lobbyist. They met with Senator Cantwell and Congressman Larsen regarding funding from the Water Resource Development Act to address flooding and water quality issues in Lake Ballinger. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the main topic of the recent South County Cities meeting was outdoor recreation area plans for Monroe, Sultan and Gold Bar. In Monroe their stormwater runoff flows into manmade lakes; this summer wakeboarding will begin on the stormwater lakes. The meeting also included discussion regarding economic development in an industrial area in Monroe. She noted none of the buildings were over 35 feet; Monroe's City Manager indicated they did not find building heights over 35 feet necessary. Monroe's proposed City Hall will be taller and will combine offices for the city and the school district. Monroe is also attracting businesses; an electronic assembly business opening this summer will employ 350 people. Councilmember Buckshnis reported Snohomish County Tomorrow passed their GMA population targets for 2035. Woodway submitted a letter of objection because Pt. Wells which is within their MUGA was to provide a population of 1300. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 20 Packet Page 191 of 346 Councilmember Buckshnis reported Governor Inslee's budget includes $80 million for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration funding. WRIA 8 recommended a study of the marsh. WRIA 8 is meeting with the technical committee on May 1 to discuss funding. Councilmember Yamamoto reported SnoCom is still in a formal dispute regarding the New World System. If resolution is not reached by July, it will advance to step 2 of 3. Councilmember Bloom reported on the April 17 Economic Development Commission meeting: • Update from the Technology Committee o Harbor Square has been wired o Avertec on 5"' Avenue will be served o Europe through the Back Door is extending fiber to their other building. o Edmonds Conference is being wired o Working to attract tech businesses o Developing a marketing strategy o Not focusing on the home market at this time due to the cost of wiring individual homes o An RFP/RFQ is being prepared for the half-time position to market fiber optics Strategic Plan o Strategic action items where the Port, Chamber and Senior Center are the lead have been forwarded to them o The Strategic Action Planning Committee will review and prioritize the actions o Discussed the EDC's role in implementation of the Plan including the EDC championing, monitoring or tracking progress on implementation o Discussed narrowing the list of actions that are pertinent to the EDC's mission such as revenue generating items o The subcommittee will form a list of priorities to discuss at the next meeting. • Tourism Update o Discussed Bed & Breakfasts in Edmonds and why there are so few o A report was given regarding casino gambling and a decision was made not to pursue it due to State law that allows cities to allow/prohibit gambling but not zone for gambling • Land Use Update o The subcommittee discussed land use incentives o Snohomish indicated a waiver of hotel/motel tax was not effective • Coal Train o EDC will continue to monitor but will not take a position • Communications Subgroup o The next meeting will focus on disseminating research done by the EDC and getting information into the public domain. Councilmember Bloom advised she has been asked to make a more extensive report to the Council regarding the EDC's work. With regard to the Tree Board, she encouraged citizens to apply for the two vacancies on the Tree Board. The April 27 Arbor Day celebration will include tree benefit tags hung on trees in downtown Edmonds. The Tree Board also plans to have a booth at the May 4 Garden Market. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he went to Olympia last Friday along with Mayor Stephenson and Mayor Nearing in an attempt to get a broader array of Snohomish County transportation projects included in the House Transportation package. Representative Marko Liias was successful in passing an amendment that included several transportation projects including the $10 million Highway 99 Improvement project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 192 of 346 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Senior Center is holding its annual Health Fair on Friday, April 26 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The Lions Club will provide free vision, hearing, glaucoma and diabetes screening. With regard to Item 3H on tonight's agenda, Councilmember Buckshnis reported Mr. Hertrich hung up on her when she asked him what 25 + 5 equals. She emphasized 25 + 5 = 30 feet; the height limit in the BD zones in downtown Edmonds has not been raised. The only change was to remove the 15-foot step -back. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested Mr. Taraday address Ms. Fimia's questions. Mr. Taraday explained RCW 43.21.C.420 does not apply; it is an optional process that involves adoption of a subarea plan as well as adoption of development regulations. Development regulations were not proposed at the time the Council was considering the Harbor Square subarea plan. That statute is intended to create a streamlined process for permitting transit oriented development whereby a city adopts a subarea plan as part of its Comprehensive Plan, adopts development regulations, does an EIS and informs the public to bring any SEPA appeals. The process in RCW 43.21.C.420 is an optional process that the City was not utilizing although some in the public believe the Council was required to utilize it. Councilmember Johnson reported the Garden Market begins on Saturday, May 4. 17. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). This item was removed from the agenda via action under Agenda Item 1. 18. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. This item was removed from the agenda via action under Agenda Item 1. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2013 Page 22 Packet Page 193 of 346 FINAL December 4, 2012 PERSONNEL POLICY NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION The City's non -represented compensation policy strives to maintain equity, by offering competitive salaries and benefits in order to attract and retain high quality staff and an effective work force. 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 strive to maintain salaries that are internally equitable, in proper relationship to all other jobs within the City, within reasonable budget parameters. 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 advanced to the next salary step increment after satisfactorily completing the first six months of probation. After this, employees advance to the next step in the salary range on the January following their anniversary date and each succeeding January after a concurrent satisfactory 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 salary range, the employee will be placed on the first step of the new salary range or the lowest step in the new range that results in an increase to their current salary. After this, the employee would follow the salary range progression described above for new employees. To ensure internal equity, employees promoted from a represented position to a non - represented position in a higher pay range, will be placed on the first step of the new salary range, or the lowest step in the new range that results in an increase to their current salary, including consideration of other cash compensation being received in the former position. After this, the employee would follow the salary range progression described above for new employees. Non -represented Compensation Policy December 4. 2012 Packet Page 194 of 346 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. 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. The Mayor's recommendation will take into consideration 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. In addition, the City will attempt to mitigate compression issues as they arise. The Mayor will make appropriate and timely recommendations to City Council to maintain internal equity and prevent compression issues. 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. Non -represented Compensation Policy December 4. 2012 2 Packet Page 195 of 346 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 50t" percentile of the mid -range of salary data collected will be used to determine competitiveness. Every three years, based upon the survey data, the Mayor will recommend salary range market adjustments for non -represented positions to City Council. The Mayor will consider the following criteria in developing the recommendation: 1. Maintain the mid -point of each salary range between 5% high/low of the mid -point of the comparator city median. 2 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 non -represented employees who are ineligible for compensatory time with 24 hours of Management Leave annually. Management Leave will have no cash -out value and will not be carried over at the end of the calendar year. Non -represented Compensation Policy December 4. 2012 3 Packet Page 196 of 346 PROPOSED FY 2012 NON -REPRESENTED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS lWlKQ:L+�, PUBLIC SECTOR (888) 522.7772 www. comoensationconsulting.com PERSONNEL 00A$QLTANTS Packet Page 197 of 346 Proposed FY 2012 Non -Represented Compensation Plan For the City of Edmonds 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................A A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS...............................................................................................................1 B. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................2 2. EXTERNAL COMPETITIVENESS COMPARISONS..............................................................................3 A. SOURCES OF EXTERNAL DATA...................................................................................................3 1. Pay Plans of Individual Public Employers.. ..................................................... .................... 3 2. Private Employers in the Seattle Area.......................................................................................3 B. BENCHMARK OCCUPATIONS.......................................................................................................4 C. NON -BENCHMARK OCCUPATIONS...............................................................................................4 D. EXTERNAL PREVAILING RATE COMPARISONS...........................................................................5 3. RECOMMENDED SALARY RANGE STRUCTURE...............................................................................6 A, RECOMMENDED SALARY TABLE STRUCTURE..........................................................................6 B. SUBSEQUENT SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS........................................................................6 4. RECOMMENDED FY 2012 COMPENSATION PLAN............................................................................7 A. RECOMMENDED FLEXIBLE SALARY COMPETITIVENESS POLICY..........................................7 B. ASSIGNMENT OF JOB CLASSES TO SALARY RANGES.............................................................7 C. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT OF THE RECOMMENDED COMPENSATION PLAN... ............... - 7 Table 1 a — Base Pay Structure Prevailing Rates Comparison...................................................8 Table 1b— Base Plus Select Benefits External Prevailing Rates Comparison ..........................9 Permanent Salary Range Table...............................................................................................10 Table 2 — Salary Ranges Per Job Class (Job Class Order) .................................................... A l Table 3 — Salary Ranges per Job Class (Salary Grade Order)................................................13 Appendix I; Salary Survey Worksheets by Job Class Appendix II: Benefits Data by Comparator Appendix III: Draft Non -Represented Compensation Policy Packet Page 198 of 346 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is with substantial pleasure that we present this report describing the recommended FY 2012 Non - Represented Compensation Plan for the City of Edmonds. A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The City's current non -represented salary plan has pay band values significantly wider from Minimum to Maximum than the typical comparable salary plans found in the approved survey cities. While the average salary range width in the City's competitive marketplace is 25% from Minimum to Maximum, the City of Edmonds' current pay band width offers 50% in -band distance from Minimum to Maximum. 2. On paper, and due to the wider than average band width, the City of Edmonds' current pay band Minimum values appear artificially low (below Market Median) and the pay band Maximum values appear artificially high (above Market Median). In reality, the average non -represented employee actual salary rate is halfway between current pay band Minimum and Maximum, or 15%-20% below the current posted band Maximum (Table 1 a, page 8). 3. The City's historical method of aligning pay band Maximum values to Market Median Maximum values, and then building a pay band Minimum down 50% from Median Maximum, has resulted in low entry -rate pay values positions and unattainable top -out pay values. 4. The appropriate pay range values, and where the majority of Edmonds' non -represented employee salaries already currently fall, are nearer the calculated "Midpoint" values or roughly 10%-15% higher than current Minimums and 15%-20% lower than current Maximums. The City does not currently provide consistent salary administration for non -represented positions; in recent years represented union employees have received negotiated wage and/or step increases that out -pace non -represented employee merit adjustments which have been fixed, frozen, or moved a nominal amount. 6. A new salary range table has been designed and pay range assignments proposed for each non -represented job classification. The proposed pay range table has 7 equal steps of 5% within each pay range, and results in pay range widths, values, and structure design more closely aligned with or similar to the City's comparator cities, and internal equity specifications for all employees (pages 6 and 10). 7. The proposed pay ranges result in pay range Minimum and Maximum values within 10% of market median Minimum and Maximum base pay and total compensation values; compared to current Edmonds pay band and total compensation values, proposed Maximums and total compensation values are significantly lower on paper for many positions. There are currently no employees whose salary falls below the recommended Minimum value proposed for their job. 8. The City is currently offering a competitive and comparable number, type, and level of benefits in most areas. The City offers a slightly lower than average allowance for Medical, Dental, and Vision insurance premiums and a comparable pension contribution percentage. Multiple comparator cities offer 2%-4% deferred compensation, which Edmonds does not offer. Appendix II contains the detailed breakdown of benefits provided by each comparator agency. PSPC Packet Page 199 of 346 CITY or EDMONDS JULY 2012 B. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Modify the non -represented compensation policy (attachment Appendix III) to allow for market - based salary range assignment development (for FY 2012 and in future years) using Median Midpoints, which are the values typically paid in the market for journey -level experience and sustained job performance, (page 5). 2, Establish the City's non -represented total compensation competitiveness policy at 100% (median) of the estimated prevailing rates. Adopt the proposed pay ranges to result in "on paper" pay range values within 10% of market median Minimums and Maximums. (Tables 2 and 3, pages 11-13). 3. Utilize the proposed Salary Range Table (page 10). To avoid further compression between non -represented and union positions, provide for Cost of Living, step increase, and longevity pay adjustments for non -represented employees for FY 2012 and in each subsequent year, in an amount consistent with any similar total compensation or step and longevity adjustments provided to represented I Union employees. To avoid further compression specifically in the police department, it is recommended to add longevity and an educational incentive that is commensurate with the Police guild employees. This will help to alleviate compression issues. It is recommended that Council consider adding a deferred compensation benefit for non - represented employees, so as to be more competitive in the marketplace. If this is not financially feasible, Council could consider the option of adding management leave that is a use it or lose it benefit. Several cities offer this benefit to their exempt employees as a value and acknowledgement of the amount of evening and weekend hours they work to complete the scope of their job. Freeze the salaries of 5 employees whose current salary exceeds the Maximum of the salary range recommended for their position. 8, Review the FLSA status and possible Union eligibility of the Executive Assistant to the Mayor, Executive Assistant -Confidential, Associate Planner, Planner, and Recycling Coordinator. 9. Annually update the salary plan by reallocating job classes to different salary ranges from the Salary Range Table reflecting the varying prevailing rate movement of each job class in the marketplace (page 6).. See the enclosed non -represented compensation policy for additional information. PSPC Packet Page 200 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JULY 2012 2 2. EXTERNAL COMPETITIVENESS COMPARISONS The following paragraphs and tables compare the City's current salary structure values and total compensation values to those for similar occupations at other public employers with whom the City competes to obtain and retain high quality staff. A. SOURCES OF EXTERNAL. DATA 1. Pay Plans of Individual Employers: In order to maintain the statistical reliability of the external prevailing rate database, we obtained the complete salary plans from the following jurisdictions and extracted data on their job classes matching the City's salary survey benchmarks. Bothell, City of Bremerton, City of Burien, City of Des Moines, City of Issaquah, City of Kirkland, City of Lacey, City of Lynnwood, City of Olympia, City of Puyallup, City of Sammamish, City of University Place, City of Additionally, for information only and not included in the prevailing rate comparisons, we collected data from the following employers: King County Mountlake Terrace, City of Shoreline, City of Snohomish County 2. Private Employers in the Seattle Area; We extracted data on occupational job classes similar to those employed by the City by private employers from Economic Research Institute's Salary Assessor for Private Employers. PSPC Packet Page 201 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS 3 JULY 2012 B. BENCHMARK OCCUPATIONS The following job classifications were surveyed: Assistant Police Chief Associate Planner Building Official Capital Project Manager Chief Information Officer City Clerk City Engineer Community & Economic Development Director Court Administrator' Development Services Director C�i�f�)��0=3�►�C�l�li �I_�1:7:(�I+I�PL�7�YL�]i�y Engineering Program Manager II Engineering Program Manager II1 Executive Assistant - Confidential Executive Assistant to the Mayor Finance Director Fleet Manager Human Resources Analyst Parks & Recreation Director Parks Maintenance Manager Planning Manager Police Chief PW Director Recreation Manager Senior Planner Senior Utilities Engineer Storm Water Engineer Street/Storm Water Manager Transportation Engineer Water/Sewer Manager This table is to be utilized as a guide during annual salary plan updates, permitting non - benchmark job classes to be adjusted by the same number of salary ranges as the salary survey benchmark job class to which they have been linked, Non -Benchmark Job Class Benchmark Job Class Assistant Building Official Building Official Less 5 Ranges Cultural Services Manager Equal to Recreation Manager Engineering Program Manager i Engineering Program Manager 11 Less 3 Ranges Facilities Manager Fleet Manager Plus 1 Range Senior Human Resources Analyst Human Resources Analyst Plus 3 Ranges WWTP Manager Water/Sewer Manager Plus 2 Ranges WWTP Supervisor Water/Sewer Manager Less 2 Ranges Planner Associate Planner Less 3 Ranges Recycling Coordinator PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JULY 2012 Packet Page 202 of 346 4 D. EXTERNAL PREVAILING RATE COMPARISONS Tables 1a and 1b on pages 8 and 9 summarize the comparison of the City's current base pay salary structure values (Table 1a) and total compensation values (Table 1b) to the prevailing rates of all the comparator employers. Table 1a (page 8) illustrates the difficulty in comparing base pay range values externally at points other than calculated Midpoints (Minimum plus Maximum divided by 2). When comparing at base pay range Minimum, the City's pay bands on paper are below market by -10% or more for 7 of the 29 titles surveyed, or 24% of the sample. When comparing at base pay range Maximum, the City's pay bands on paper are above market by +10% or more for 18 of the titles, or 62% of the sample. It is important to note here that Edmonds employees are currently at an average of 102% of range Midpoint, or just above current pay band calculated Midpoint. When comparisons are made at Midpoint, to alleviate the dramatic inconsistencies that appear when comparing overly wide ranges (such as Edmonds) to much narrower pay ranges at other cities, 72% of Edmonds' current Midpoints are within 10% of market values. Table lb .(page 9) displays current Edmonds and external market values when base pay range and total cash compensation are added to the external comparisons. Since the City does not offer deferred compensation or other cash components beyond base pay, the City only appears above market due to the artificially inflated (wide) broad band pay structures. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JULY 2012 Packet Page 203 of 346 5 3. RECOMMENDED SALARY RANGE STRUCTURE The proposed salary range table on the page 10 is the recommended salary structure for the City's non - represented jobs, designed to be administered on the basis of each employee's objectively measured job performance. A. RECOMMENDED SINGLE SALARY TABLE STRUCTURE The recommended Salary Range Table provides equal in -range salary opportunity of approximately 35% from Minimum to Maximum. The salary ranges are separated by a uniform 5%, permitting job classes to be precisely linked to the external prevailing rates, the City's salary competitiveness policy, and internal job relationships, through their Midpoints. We have suggested the inclusion of 7 Step increments of 5% each to ensure similar salary administration to that provided for Union positions. This is the best practice for a market -based approach to non -represented compensation planning, and blends internal equity (compression with Union positions) and external competitiveness in a sustainable, competitive, and equitable manner. B. SUBSEQUENT SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENTS Job classes should be individually reassigned to different salary ranges every 3 years to reflect the varying movement in the external prevailing rate (if any) for each job class. While the Salary Range Table should not be adjusted by significant blanket percentages or flat dollar amounts, the table's values could be adjusted by COLA values to keep pace with Union increases. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JULY 2012 Packet Page 204 of 346 6 4. RECOMMENDED FY 2012 COMPENSATION PLAN The following narratives and tables describe the recommended FY 2012 salary plan for the City and its estimated fiscal impact. A. RECOMMENDED FLEXIBLE COMPENSATION COMPETITIVENESS POLICY Salary policy is the City's expression of where it will place its salary levels in relation to the prevailing rates, expressed as a percentage of the external prevailing rates. Permanent Prevailing, Rate Salary Policy We recommend that the City adopt a permanent policy to place its salary competitiveness policy at 100% of the prevailing rates. "At the prevailing rates" is defined as +1- 10% of the survey jobs' medians matching the City's benchmark job classes. An illustrative prevailing rate resolution wording is; "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 favorabiy 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." This flexible policy will permit the City to consider significant factors relating to internal occupational group relationships, supply and demand in the marketplace for specific occupations, and financial constraints. B. ASSIGNMENT OF JOB CLASSES TO SALARY RANGES Tables 2 and 3 on pages 11-13 are the recommended FY 2012 salary ranges for each of the non - represented job classes in occupational group order (Table 2) and salary range order(Table 3). Benchmark job classes (indicated by an asterisk) were placed as close to the prevailing rates for comparable job classes as was practical, by matching the salary range Midpoints to the survey benchmark rates. We .utilized our professional judgment to prevent illogical relationships that could result from survey data directly linked into salary ranges, as there is no automatic logical job content relationship among survey data collected from various employers. Non -benchmark job classes were linked to benchmark job classes by professional judgment, as detailed on page 4. C. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT OF THE RECOMMENDED SALARY PLAN A total of $61,683 would be needed to place all non -represented employees on a step within the pay range proposed for their job classification. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JULY 2012 Packet Page 205 of 346 7 City of Edmonds Table 1a - Base Pay Structure Prevailing Rate Comparisons Page 1 of 1 Edmonds Survey Range i Edmonds Survey Range Edmonds Survey Range Edmonds Job Class Range Range Minimum Range Range Midpoint Range Range Maximum Edmonds Actual Average Minimum Minimum Variance Midpoint Midpoint Variance Maximum Maximum Variance Base Pay Assistant Police Chief Associate Planner Building Official Capital Project Manager Chief Information Officer City Clerk City Engineer Community & Economic Development Director Court Administrator Development Services Director Engineering Program Manager II Engineering Program Manager III Executive Assistant - Confidential Executive Assistant to the Mayor Finance Director Fleet Manager Human Resources Analyst Parks & Recreation Director Parks Maintenance Manager Planning Manager Police Chief PW Director Recreation Manager Senior Planner Senior Utilities Engineer Storm Water Engineer Street/Storm Water Manager Transportation Engineer Water/Sewer Manager Now - For Information Human Resources Manager PSPC $94,402 $108,012-12.60% $57,740 $57,294 0.78% $85,237 $82,281 $57,740 $70,644 $76,071 $79,021 $85,237 $67,650 $94,402 $97,160 $103,568 $102,565 $76,071 $76,059 $103,568 $106,122 $66,905 $70,848 $66,905 $83,958 $48,574 $51,187 $57,740 $56,671 $103,568 $103,372 $66,905 $69,676 $48,574 $54,517 $103,568 $105,990 $66,905 $69,252 $85,237 $84,760 $103,568 $116,475 $103,568 $110,040 $66,905 $68,900 $66,905 $65,734 $66,905 $83,385 $66,905 $75,114 $76,071 $82,320 $76,071 $75,311 $76,071 $82,674 - $81,883 3.59% -18.27% -3.73% 26.00% -2.84% 0.98% 0.02% -2.41 % -5.57% -20.31 % -5.10% 1.89% 0.19% -3.98% -10.90% -2.29% -3.39% 0.56% -11.08% -5.88% -2.90% 1,78% -19.76% -10.93%° -7.59% 1.01 % $118,003 $116,640 1.17% $141,604 $125,352 12.97% $72,175 $66,274 8.90% $86,610 $74,553 16.17%° $106,546 $93,345 14.14% $127,855 $103,851 23.11% $72,175 $83,511 -13.57% $86,610 $92,292 -6.16% $95,089 $98,854 -3.81 % $114,107 $118,409 -3.63% $106,546 $78,076 36.46% $127,856 $88,080 45.16% $118,003 $116,355 1.42% $141,604 $135,407 4.58% $129,460 $116,178 11.43% $155,352 $129,096 20.34% $95,089 $85,689 10.97% $114,107 $95,319 19.71% $129,460 $118,963 8.82% $155,352 $129,444 20.01 % $83,632 $82,253 1.68% $100,358 $93,631 7.18% $83,632 $99,980 -16.35% $100,358 $114,652 -12.47% $60,718 $59,922 1.33% $72,861 $68,657 6.12% $72,175 $66,923 7.85% $86,610 $77,451 11.83% $129,460 $120,680 7.28% $155,352 $135,958 14.27% $83,632 $81,958 2.04% $100,358 $94,211 6.52% $60,718 $63,622 -4.57% $72,861 $72,318 0.75% $129,460 $118,614 9.14% $155,352 $128,322 21.06% $83,632 $78,648 6.34% $100,358 $89,820 11,73% $106,546 $96,013 10.97% $127,855 $107,616 18.81% $129,460 $130,780 -1.01% $155,352 $141,914 9.47% $129,460 $125,490 3.16% $155,352 $134,600 15.42% $83,632 $75,906 10.18% $100,358 $84,025 19.44% $83,632 $76,365 9.52% $100,358 $86,963 15.40% $83,632 $92,788 -9.87% $100,358 $101,946 -1.56% $83,632 $85,857 -2.59% $100,358 $96,600 3.89% $95,089 $91,435 4.00% $114,107 $101,148 12.81% $95,089 $89,190 6.61% $114,107 $100,824 13.17% $95,089 $93,684 1450%° $114,107 $102,551 11,27% - $96,010 - - $110,269 - CITY OF FDMONDS (2) $121,314; $131,344 (4) $65,682; $70,846; $73,996; $82,151 $91,800 (2) $70,869; $80,143 $93,872 $106,022 $123,024 $136,979 $96,131 $52,507 $137,800 $87,125 $123,900 $89,709 $111,981 $148,859 $136,010 $90, 057 $66,905 $85,000 $99, 548 $81,214 $81,564 $98,944 JULY 2012 F.- City of Edmonds Table I - Total Cash Compensation Prevailing Rate Comparisons Edmonds Total Market Total paper Total Edmonds Job Class Cash Comp Top Cash Comp Out Top Out Comp Variance Assistant Police Chief Associate Planner Building Official Capital Project Manager Chief Information Officer City Clerk City Engineer Community & Economic Development Director Court Administrator Development Services Director Engineering Program Manager I[ Engineering Program Manager [[I Executive Assistant - Confidential Executive Assistant to the Mayor Finance Director Fleet Manager Human Resources Analyst Parks & Recreation Director Parks Maintenance Manager Planning Manager Police Chief PW Director Recreation Manager Senior Planner Senior Utilities Engineer Storm Water Engineer Street(Storm Water Manager Transportation Engineer Water/Sewer Manager NOTE: Actual Salaries Vary PSPC $141,604 $86,610 $127,855 $86,610 $114,107 $127,855 $141,604 $155,352 $114,107 $155,352 $100,358 $100,358 $72,861 $86,610 $155,352 $100,358 $72,861 $155,352 $100,358 $127,855 $155,352 $155,352 $100,358 $100,358 $100,358 $100,358 $114,107 $114,107 $114,107 $126,606 $76,271 $103,851 $92,292 $121,238 $88,080 $138,426 $129,096 $95,982 $131,214 $95,853 $116,957 $69,886 $78,926 $139,724 $95,828 $73,567 $129,096 $89,820 $110,424 $145,728 $137,302 $85,195 $89,100 $103,761 $96,600 $104,454 $100,824 $104, 559 CITY OF EDMONDS 11.85% 13.56% 23.11% -6.16% -5.88% 45,16% 2.30% 20.34% 18.88% 18.40% 4.70% -14.19% 4.26% 9.74% 11.18% 4.73% -0.96% 20.34% 11.73% 15.79% 6.60 % 13.15% 17.80% 12.64% -3.28% 3.89% 9.24% 13.17% 9.13% Page 1 of 1 Actual Edmonds Total Compared to Market Total (2) $121,314; $131,344-4.36%1+3.61% (4) $65,682; $70,846;-16.12% 1-7.66% $73,996; $82,151 -3.07% 1 +7.16% $91,800 (2) $70,869; $80,143 $93,872 $106,022 $123,024 $136, 979 $96,131 vacant VACANT VACANT $52,507 $137,800 $87,125 VACANT $123,900 $89,709 $111,981 $148,859 $136,010 $90,057 VACANT $85,000 $99,548 $81, 214 $81, 564 $98,944 -11.60% -30.23% 1-15.16% -22.57% 20.37% -11.13% 6.11 % 0.16% -24,87% -1.38% -9.08% -4.02% -0.12% 1.41% 2.15% -0.94% 5.71 % -18.08% 3.05% -22.25% -19.10% -5.37% !l1�JAf��iJi(r: 5% Ranges 5% Steps City of Edmonds Proposed Non -Represented Salary Range Table Salary Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Range 1 2 3 4 $40,418 $42,439 $44,560 $46,789 $49,128 $51,584 $54.164 $42,439 $44,560 $46,789 $49,128 $51,584 $54,164 $56,872 $44,560 $46,789 $49,128 $51,584 $54,164 $56,872 $59,715 $46,789 $49,128 $51,584 $54,164 $56,872 $59,715 $62,701 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 $49,128 $51,584 $54,164 $56,872 $59,715 $62,701 $65,836 $51,584 $54,164 $56,872 $59,715 $62,701 $65,836 $69,128 $54,164 $56,872 $59,715 $62,701 $65,836 $69,128 $72,584 $56,872 $59,715 $62,701 $65,836 $69,128 $72,584 $76,214 $59,715 $62,701 $65,836 $69,128 $72,584 $76,214 $80,024 $62,701 $65,836 $69,128 $72,584 $76,214 $80,024 $84,025 $65,836 $69,128 $72,584 $76,214 $80,024 $84,025 $88,227 12 13 14 15 $69,128 $72,584 $76,214 $80,024 $84,025 $88,227 $92,638 $72,584 $76,214 $80,024 $84,025 $88,227 $92,638 $97,270 $76,214 $80,024 $84,025 $88,227 $92,638 $97,270 $1021133 $80,024 $84,026 $88,227 $92,638 $97,270 $102,133 $107,240 16 17 18 19 $84,025 $88,227 $92,638 $97,270 $102,133 $107,240 $112,602. $88,227 $92,638 $97,270 $102,133 $107,240 $112,602 $118,232 $92,638 $97,270 $102,133 $107,240 $112,602 $118,232 $124,144 $97,270 $102,133 $107.240 $112.602 $118,232 $124,144 $130,351 20 21 22 $102,133 $107,240 $112,602 $118,232 $124,144 $130,351 $136,869 $107,240 $112,602 $118,232 $124,144 $130,351 $136,869 $143,712 $112,602 $118,232 $124,144 $130,351 $136,869 $143,712 $150,898 PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS Packet Page 208 of 346 10 JULY 2012 DRAFT PROPOSED City of Edmonds FY 2012 Salary Plan Proposed Salary Ranges Per Job Class - (Job Class Order) Page 1 of 2 -- Recommended -- Current Occupational Job Families and Job Classes Salary Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range Finance * Finance Director 20 $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 Information Technoloci * Chief Information Officer 16 $84,025 $98,314 $112,602 Human Resources * Human Resources Manager (new) 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 Senior Human Resources Analyst (new) 10 $62,701 $73,363 $84,025 * Human Resources Analyst 7 $54,164 $63,374 $72,584 Municipal_Court * Court Administrator 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 City Clerk * City Clerk 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 Public Disclosure and Records Management Specialist (part time) 1 $19.43 $22.74 $26.04 Business Support * Executive Assistant to the Mayor 8 $56,872 $66,543 $76.214 * Executive Assistant - Confidential 7 $54,164 $63,374 $72,584 Planning, Development, and Building Safety * Community & Economic Development Director 20 $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 * Development Services Director 20 $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 * Planning Manager 16 $84,025 $98,314 $112,602 * Senior Planner 11 $65,836 $77,031 $88,227 Associate Planner 8 $56,872 $66,543 $76,214 Planner 5 $49,128 $57,482 $65,836 Building Official 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 Assistant Building Official 10 $62,701 $73,363 $84,025 Parks Recreation and Cultural Services * Parks & Recreation Director 20 $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 Cultural Services Manager 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 * Recreation Manager 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 * Parks Maintenance Manager 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 *Salary Survey Benchmark PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JULY 2012 Packet Page 209 of 346 11 DRAFT PROPOSED City of Edmonds Page 2 of 2 FY 2012 Salary Plan Proposed Salary Ranges Per Job Class - (Job Class Order) -- Recommended -- Current Occupational Job Families and Job Classes salary Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range Police * Police Chief 22 $112,602 $131,750 $150,898 * Assistant Police Chief 19 $97,270 $113,811 $130,351 Public Works * PW Director 21 $107,240 $125,476 $143,712 WWTP Manager 17 $88,227 $103,229 $118,232 WWTP Supervisor 13 $72,584 $84,927 $97,270 * Water/Sewer Manager 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 * Street/Storm Water Manager 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 Facilities Manager 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 w Fleet Manager 13 $72,684 $84,927 $97,270 Recycling Coordinator 6 $51,584 $60,356 $69,128 * City Engineer 19 $97,270 $113,811 $130,351 * Transportation Engineer 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 * Storm Water Engineer 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 " Senior Utilities Engineer 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 * Engineering Program Manager III 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 * Engineering Program Manager II 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 Engineering Program Manager 1 10 $62,701 $73,363 $84,025 * Capital Project Manager 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 *Salary Survey Benchmark PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JULY 2012 Packet Page 210 of 346 12 DRAFT PROPOSED City of Edmonds FY 2012 Salary Plan Proposed Salary Ranges Per Job Class - (Salary Range Order) Cage 1 of 1 -- Recommended -- Occupational Job Families and Job Classes Salary Minimum Midpoint Maximun Range • Police Chief 22 $112,602 $131,750 $160,898 • PW Director 21 $107,240 $125,476 $143,712 • Community & Economic Development Director 20 $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 • Development Services Director 20 $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 • Finance Director 20 $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 " Parks & Recreation Director 20 $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 " Assistant Police Chief 19 $97,270 $113,811 $130,351 • City Engineer 19 $97,270 $113,811 $130,351 WVVTP Manager 17 $88,227 $103,229 $118,232 • Chief Information Officer 16 $84,025 $98,314 $112,602 " Planning Manager 16 $84,025 $98,314 $112,602 " Building Official 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 • Engineering Program Manager Ill 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 • Human Resources Manager (new) 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 • Senior Utilities Engineer 14 $76,214 $89,174 $1C2,133 • Street/Storm Water Manager 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 • Water/Sewer Manager 15 $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 • City Clerk 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 • Court Administrator 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 Facilities Manager 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 • Transportation Engineer 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 • Fleet Manager 13 $72,684 $84,927 $97,270 • Storm Water Engineer 14 $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 WWTP Supervisor 13 $72,584 $84,927 $97,270 • Capital Project Manager 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 Cultural Services Manager 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 • Engineering Program Manager II 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 • Parks Maintenance Manager 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 • Recreation Manager 12 $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 " Senior Planner 11 $65,836 $77,031 $88,227 * Assistant Building Official 10 $62,701 $73,363 $84,025 Senior Human Resources Analyst (new) 10 $62,701 $73,363 $84,025 Engineering Program Manager 1 10 $62,701 $73,363 $84,025 * Associate Planner 8 $56,872 $66,543 $76,214 w Executive Assistant to the Mayor 8 $56,872 $66,543 $76,214 • Executive Assistant- Confidential 7 $54,164 $63,374 $72,584 * Human Resources Analyst 7 $54,164 $63,374 $72,584 Recycling Coordinator 6 $51,584 $60,356 $69,128 Planner 5 $49,128 $57,482 $65,836 Public Disclosure and Records Management Specialist (part time) 1 $19,43 $22.74 $2&04 "Salary Survey Benchmark PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS JULY 2012 Packet Page 211 of 346 13 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 1 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL $61,212 1 $69,133 1 $75,854 1 $86,221 1 $6,251 1 $22,124 1 $89,587 1 $97,508 1 $104,229 1 % $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 1 $95,212 1 $103,212 1 $110,00, LIMITED DATA ranae 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 Base Variance: -8.5% -17.3% -24.4% 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 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: -8.5% -17.3% -24.4% PSPC Packet Page 212 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 2 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $108,012 1 $115,698 1 $125,352 1 $121,314 1 $6,357 1 $22,124 1 $136,493 1 $144,179 1 $153,833 5°% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+DCP 1 $141,400 1 $149,086 1 $165,008 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% 2% $122,304 $127,296 $134,934 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% 1 % 4% 4% $92,352 $106,211 $121,225 Police Captain Bremerton, City of $107,907 $112,929 $117,951 1.25°% 4% 4% $109,256 $114,341 $124,143 Police Captain Kirkland, City of $91,644 $104,952 $118,260 1.5% $91,644 $104,952 $120,034 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: $109,256 $116,198 $126,606 Undersheriff Chief Deputy Sheriff Assistant Police Chief no comparable match reported Current Edmonds Base Range: $94,402 $118,003 $141,604 50 % Current Base Variance: 14.4% -2.0% -11.5% Proposed Base Range: $97,270 $113,811 $130,351 34% Range 19 Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $118,631 $133,811 $148,990 26 % King County - INFO ONLY $113,724 $128,940 $144,156 27% Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $94,644 $103,002 $111,360 18 % Shoreline - INFO ONLY Current Edmonds Base Range: $94,402 $118,003 $141,604 Current Base Variance: 15.7% 1.5% -10.6% PSPC Packet Page 213 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 3 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) ASSOCIATE PLANNER $58,500 1 $65,580 1 $71,256 1 $73,169 1 $5,305 1 $22,124 1 $85,928 1 $93,008 1 $98,684 1 1 1% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 1 $92,473 1 $99,624 1 $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: Current Edmonds Base Range: $57,740 $72,175 $86,610 50% Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: -0.8 % -8.2 % -13.9 % Current Base Variance: 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 % $57,294 $66,602 $74,909 $57,740 $72,175 $86,610 -0.8% -7.7% -13.5% PSPC Packet Page 214 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 4 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) BUILDING OFFICIAL $82,281 1 $93,345 1 $103,851 1 $92,718 1 $6,722 1 $22,124 1 $111,126 1 $122,190 1 $132,697 ' 1% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 1 $116,491 $127,666 $138,278 Director, Building & Permitting Issaquah, City of $107,616 $122,484 $137,352 28% 5% 5% $107,616 $122,484 $144,220 Dep Corn 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 Base Variance: -3.47%-12.39%-18.77% 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% Current Edmonds Base Range: $85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance: -3.33%-12.39%-18.69% PSPC Packet Page 215 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 5 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required $70,159 1 $77,712 1 $85,824 1 $75,506 1 $5,474 $22,124 $97,757 $105,310 $113,422 ' $8,456 1 $24,932 $33,388 $103,547 1 $111,100 1 $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 70% -0 9°% 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 Packet Page 216 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 6 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (we suggest title change tolSManager) 1 $82,090 1 $92,189 1 $103,252 1 $93,872 1 $6,806 $22,124 $111,019 $121,118 $132,181 1% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 1 $116,299 $126,499 $137,673 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 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 Unweighted Average: $79,040 $98,477 $118,397 Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,071 $95,089 $114,107 50% Current Base Variance: 3.9% 3.6% 3.8% 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% Private Sector Median: $75,990 $104,766 $133,542 Unweighted Average: $79,040 $99,970 $118,850 Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance: 3.9% 5.1% 4.2% PSPC Packet Page 217 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 7 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) CITY CLERK $67,800 1 $78,194 1 $88,116 1 $106,022 1 $7,687 $22,124 $97,610 $108,004 $117,926 E ' 1% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 1 $101,866 $112,364 ? $122,385 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 Div Dir, Rec & Lic Svcs Comm Rel Dir/City Clerk County Clerk City Clerk Current Edmonds Base Range: $85,237 $106,546 $127,855 50% Current Base Variance: -20.5% -26.6% -31.1 % Proposed Base Range: $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 34% Range 14 King County - INFO ONLY $121,200 $137,412 $153,624 Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $98,789 $98,789 $98,789 Shoreline - INFO ONLY $72,480 $80,328 $88,176 Current Edmonds Base Range: $85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance: -20.6% -26.7% -31.1 % PSPC Packet Page 218 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 8 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) CITY ENGINEER $85,237 1 $93,982 1 $102,133 1 $123,024 1 $8,919 $22,124 $ 116,280 $ 125,024 $ 133,176 1% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 1 $119,478 $128,309 i $136,542 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 Unweighted Average: $98,981 $117,230 $135,569 Current Edmonds Base Range: $94,402 $118,003 $141,604 50% Current Base Variance: 4.9% -0.7% -4.3% 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% Private Sector Median: $105,520 $129,781 $154,041 Unweighted Average: $98,981 $117,230 $135,766 Current Edmonds Base Range: $94,402 $118,003 $141,604 Current Base Variance: 4.9% -0.7% -4.1 % PSPC Packet Page 219 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 9 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1. $101,196 1 $115,412 1 $128,214 1 $136,979 1 $9,931 $22,124 $133,250 $147,466 $160,269 $8,456 1 $24,932 $33,388 $134,584 $148,800 E $161,602 Asst City Manager/Econ Dev Manac Bothell, 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: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: Proposed Base Range: $101,196 $103,568 -2.3% $102,133 Range $115,412 $129,460 -10.9% $119,501 20 $128,214 $155,352 -17.5% $136,869 50% 34% Median: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: $103,184 $103,568 -0.4% $115,592 $129,460 -10.7% $128,214 $155,352 -17.5% Comm & Econ Dev Dir Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY Econ Dev Prog Manager Snohomish County- INFO ONLY Econ Dev Prog Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY Ast Div Dr Comm Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $96,024 $78,919 $80,028 $84,926 $106,860 $95,219 $88,698 $96,283 $117,696 $111,518 $97,368 $107,640 23% 41% 22% 27% PSPC Packet Page 220 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 10 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) COURT ADMINISTRATOR $76,059 1 $85,689 1 $95,319 1 $96,131 1 $6,970 $22,124 $105,152 $114,782 $124,412 $8,456 E $24,932 $33,388 $109,447 $119,077 ? $128,707 Court Administrator Lynnwood, City of $93,605 $106,018 $118,431 27 % $221.52 $221.52 $93,605 $106,018 $118,653 Municipal CourtAdmin 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 Base Variance: 0.0% -9.9% -16.5% Proposed Salary Range $72,584 $89,174 $97,270 Range 13 Court Svcs Admin Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $78,919 $97,219 $115,518 Court Ops Manager - Sup Ct Crim C King County - INFO ONLY $66,096 $75,108 $84,120 no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY 34% 46% 27 % Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance: 0.8% -9.2% -15.9% PSPC Packet Page 221 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 11 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR unfilled 1. $106,122 1 $118,963 1 $129,444 1 VACANT $9,385 $22,124 $137,630 $150,471 $160,952 2 % $8,456 $24,932 $33,38812% 1 $141,633 1 $154,730 1 $165,421 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 Developmen Sammamish, 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 Developmen Bremerton, 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 Base Variance: 2.5% -8.1% -16.7% 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 Current Edmonds Base Range: $103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance: 4.2% -6.3% -15.5% PSPC Packet Page 222 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 12 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) 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 i $118,090 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 Unweighted Average: $70,848 $82,253 $93,631 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50% Current Base Variance: 5.9% -1.6% -6.7% 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 Private Sector Median: $72,468 $87,514 $102,560 Unweighted Average: $70,848 $83,011 $94,058 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 5.9% -0.7% -6.3% PSPC Packet Page 223 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 13 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) 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 i $131,165 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 Unweighted Average: $84,032 $100,064 $114,746 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50% Current Base Variance: 25.6% 19.6% 14.3% 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 Private Sector Median: $91,728 $111,722 $131,715 Unweighted Average: $84,305 $100,064 $114,801 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 26.0% 19.6% 14.4% PSPC Packet Page 224 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 14 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT -CONFIDENTIAL $52,776 1 $59,940 1 $67,104 1 $52,507 1 $4,865 $22,124 $79,765 $86,929 $94,093 ' $8,456 $24,932 ' $33,388 $86,164 $93,328 E $100,492 Executive Assistant Bremerton, City of $64,397 $71,429 $78,461 22% 4 % $64,397 $71,429 $81,599 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: $52,776 $59,940 $67,104 Executive Sec to VP ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $49,598 $59,904 $70,210 Private Sector Median: $49,598 $59,904 $70,210 UnweightedAverage: $51,187 $59,922 $68,657 Current Edmonds Base Range: $48,574 $60,718 $72,861 50% Current Base Variance: -5.1 % 1.3 % 6.1 % Proposed salary range: $54,164 $63,374 $72,584 Range 7 Admin Asst II King County - INFO ONLY $62,856 $71,268 $79,680 Admin Asst - HR (Confid) Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $56,120 $62,198 $68,276 Exec Assistant Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $52,824 $59,430 $66,036 Admin Asst III Shoreline - INFO ONLY $48,792 $54,090 $59,388 34 % 27% 22% 25% 22% Private Sector Median: $49,598 $59,904 $70,210 Unweighted Average: $51,187 $59,922 $68,657 Current Edmonds Base Range: $48,574 $60,718 $72,861 Current Base Variance: -5.1 % 1.3 % 6.1 % PSPC Packet Page 225 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 15 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay Retiree (Comparator (725% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) i 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 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 Unweighted Average: $56,671 $66,923 $77,451 Current Edmonds Base Range: $57,740 $72,175 $86,610 50% Current Base Variance: -1.9% -7.3% -10.6% Proposed Salary Range $56,872 $66,543 MqWW 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% Private Sector Median: $59,041 $71,668 $84,294 Unweighted Average: $56,671 $66,923 $77,451 $57,740 $72,175 $86,610 Current Base Variance: -1.9% -7.3% -10.6% PSPC Packet Page 226 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 16 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation from comparator cities) Edmonds Additional Cash Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PIERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) FINANCE DIRECTOR 1 $110,788 1 $124,353 1 $133,856 1 $137,800 1 $9,705 $22,124 $142,616 $156,181 $165,684 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% 1 $146,391 $160,228 $169,921 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: Current Edmonds Base Range: $103,568 $129,460 $155,352 50% Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: -0.2% -6.8% -12.5% 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 $103,769 $122,131 $137,308 $103,568 $129,460 $155,352 0.2% -5.7% -11.6% PSPC Packet Page 227 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 17 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) FLEET MANAGER $75,042 1 $85,575 1 $96,049 1 $87,125 1 $6,964 $22,124 $104,129 $114,662 $125,136 $8,456 $24,932 ' $33,388+1% 1 $109,181 $119,819 ? $130,398 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 Manaqer Kirkland, City of $73,644 $84,336 $95,028 29% $73,644 $84,336 $95,028 Data Increased 21 (-) 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 Unweighted Average: $69,676 $81,958 $94,211 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50% Current Base Variance: 4.1% -2.0% -6.1% Proposed Base Range: $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 Range 12 Vehicle Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $101,400 $114,966 $128,532 Fleet Equip Manager Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $86,982 $104,948 $122,914 Fleet, Fac & Prop Mgmt Supervisor Shoreline - INFO ONLY $67,332 $74,622 $81,912 Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY 34% 27 % 41% 22 % Private Sector Median: $64,310 $78,342 $92,373 Unweighted Average: $69,746 $81,958 $94,241 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 4.2% -2.0% -6.1 % PSPC Packet Page 228 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 18 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST $58,248 1 $66,162 1 $73,539 1 VACANT $5,332 $22,124 $85,703 $93,617 $100,994 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $91,636 $99,550 $106,927 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 Base Variance: 19.9% 9.0% 0.9% Proposed Base Range: $56,872 $65,836 $76,214 Range 8 Human Res Analyst King County - INFO ONLY $62,388 $70,734 $79,080 Human Res Analyst Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY 34% 27% 21% Current Edmonds Base Range: $48,574 $60,718 $72,861 Current Base Variance: 19.9% 9.0% 0.9% $5,128 $18,401 $94,263 $4,350 $16,440 $80,791 PSPC Packet Page 229 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds Page 19of32 FY 2012 Compensation Survey Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation from comparator cities) Edmonds Additional Cash Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (725% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PIERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (fatuity of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER I $81,883 1 $96,010 $110,269 $85,237 $7,994 $22,124 $112,001 $126,128 $140,387 1% $8,456 $24,932 E $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 was factored down when used in this survey comparison range width 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 (-) DATA ADJUSTED DOWN 10% Unweighted Average: $81,674 $95,938 $107,281 Current Edmonds Base Range: $85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance: -4.2% -10.0% -16.1 % 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 Packet Page 230 of 346 Private Sector Median: $74,395 $90,964 $107,533 Unweighted Average: $81,674 $96,191 $108,330 Current Edmonds Base Range: $85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance: -4.2% -9.7% -15.3% JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 20 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) PARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR 1 $105,990 1 $118,614 1 $128,322 1 $123,900 1 $9,303 $22,124 $137,417 $150,041 $159,749 2% $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $141,498 $154,374 i $164,277 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 Base Variance: 2.3% -8.4% -17.4% Proposed Base Range: $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 Range 20 Pks, Rec & Cult Svc Dir Shoreline - INFO ONLY $115,908 $128,466 $141,024 Parks & Rec, Director Snohomish County- INFO ONLY $95,877 $115,677 $135,477 Rec & Parks Director Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $104,040 $113,220 $122,400 Dir., Nafl Resources & Parks King County - INFO ONLY $133,266 $151,091 $168,917 34% 22% 41% 18% 27% Current Edmonds Base Range: $103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance: 2.3% -8.3% -17.4% PSPC Packet Page 231 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 21 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER $69,726 : $79,053 1 $90,091 $89,709 1 $6,532 $22,124 $98,381 $107,708 $118,746 1% $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1% 1 $103,811 $113,232 i $124,380 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 21 (+) 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 21 (+) 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 Base Variance: 4.2% -5.5% -10.2% 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% Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 5.0% -5.5% -10.2% PSPC Packet Page 232 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 22 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Additional Cash Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) PLANNING MANAGER 1 $84,729 1 $96,179 1 $107,647 1 $111,981 1 $7,804 $22,124 $114,657 $126,107 $137,575 $8,456 1 $24,932 $33,388 $118,117 $129,567 i $141,035 Deputy Director Community Develol Sammamish, 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 21 + 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, 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% Proposed Base Range: $84,025 $98,314 $112,602 Range 16 34% Real Est, Lnd Use & Env Plan Supe King 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 Current Base Variance: -0.6°% -9.7°% -14.6% PSPC Packet Page 233 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 23 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation from comparator cities) Edmonds Additional Cash Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (725% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PIERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) ) 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% 2% 2% $115,905 $131,283 $149,594 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% $142,404 $142,404 $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% 1 % 4% 5% $103,272 $118,766 $135,551 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 County Sheriff Police Chief Sheriff no comparable match reported Current Base Variance: 12.5% 1.4% -6.9% Proposed Base Range: $112,602 $131,750 $150,898 34% Range 22 Current Base Variance: 15.1°% 3.8% -6.2% Snohomish County- INFO ONLY $121,061 $121,061 $121,061 0% $8,777 $16,440 $146,278 Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $104,040 $113,220 $122,400 18% $8,208 $24,459 $145,887 King County - INFO ONLY $170,144 $170,144 $170,144 0% $12,335 $18,401 $200,880 Shoreline - INFO ONLY PSPC Packet Page 234 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 24 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25% Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (propose title modification PW/UTILITIES Director) 1 $110,040 1 $125,490 1 $134,600 1 $138,050 1 $9,759 $22,124 $141,922 $157,372 $166,482 2 % $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% $145,629 $161,388 E $170,680 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. 1 (-) 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: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: Proposed Base Range: $110,040 $103,568 6.2% $107,240 Range $125,490 $129,460 -3.1% $125,476 21 $134,600 $155,352 -13.4% $143,712 50% 34% Median: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: $110,040 $103,568 6.2% $126,812 $129,460 -2.0% $137,302 $155,352 -11.6% Public Works, Dir of Public Works Dir Public Works Dir no comparable match reported PSPC Packet Page 235 of 346 Snohomish County - INFO ONLY Shoreline - INFO ONLY Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY King County - INFO ONLY $116,475 $115,908 $96,024 $140,532 $128,466 $106,860 $164,589 $141,024 $117,696 41% 22% 23% CITY OF EDMONDS $10,189 $9,314 $7,747 $16,440 $16,440 $24,459 JUNE 2012 $167,161 $154,220 $139,066 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 25 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) RECREATION MANAGER $68,900 1 $75,906 1 $84,025 1 $90,057 1 $6,092 $22,124 $97,115 $104,121 $112,241 1% $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+1% 1 $102,977 $110,053 i $118,254 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) Mai Bothell, 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 21 (+) 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 Recreation Progs Manager Recreation Superintendent Data Increased 21 (-) Recreation Supervisor Level not a match Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50% Current Base Variance: 3.0% -9.2% -16.3% Proposed Base Range: $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 King County - INFO ONLY Shoreline - INFO ONLY Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY Snohomish County - INFO ONLY Range 12 34% $89,040 $100,956 $112,872 27% $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22% $74,707 $84,139 $93,571 25% Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 5.5% -7.0% -15.1 % PSPC Packet Page 236 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 26 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) 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 H R Analyst, Senior Issaquah, City of $68,004 $77,400 $86,796 range width 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 Current Edmonds Base Range: _ _ _ 50% 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 ON - - - no comparable match Mountlake Terrace - FOR INFO ON Median: $67,002 $76,488 $86,400 Current Edmonds Base Range: _ _ _ Current Base Variance: PSPC Packet Page 237 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 27 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) SENIOR PLANNER unfilled $63,678 1 $72,180 1 $80,610 1 VACANT $5,844 $22,124 $91,646 $100,147 $108,578 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $97,066 $105,568 j $113,998 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 Unweighted Average: $65,734 $76,365 $86,963 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50% Current Base Variance: -1.8% -8.7% -13.3% Proposed Base Range: $65,836 $77,031 $88,227 Range 11 Transp or WQ Planner III King County - INFO ONLY $71,928 $81,552 $91,176 Senior Planner Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $65,964 $74,208 $82,452 Senior Planner Shoreline - INFO ONLY $65,640 $72,762 $79,884 Senior Planner Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 34% 27% 25% 22% 21% Private Sector Median: $67,789 $80,550 $93,310 Unweighted Average: $65,734 $76,365 $86,960 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: -1.8% -8.7% -13.4% PSPC Packet Page 238 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 28 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER $83,016 1 $91,435 1 $100,824 1 $85,000 1 $7,310 $22,124 $112,449 $120,868 $130,257 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $116,404 $124,823 i $134,212 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 Base Variance: 24.08% 9.33% 0.46% 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 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 24.1 % 9.3% 0.5% PSPC Packet Page 239 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 29 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) STORMWATER ENGINEER $75,114 1 $85,857 1 $95,022 1 $99,548 1 $6,889 $22,124 $104,127 $114,870 $124,035 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $108,502 $119,245 E $128,410 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 Base Variance: 12.3% 2.7% -5.3% 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 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 12.3% 2.7% -5.3% PSPC Packet Page 240 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 30 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) STREET/STORMWATERMANAGER $69,270 $79,416 $90,279 $81,214 1 $6,545 $22,124 $97,938 $108,084 $118,947 ' 1% $8,456 $24,932 ' $33,388+1% 1 $103,350 $113,598 ? $124,569 Water Resource Manager Lacey, City of $107,400 $107,400 $107,400 flat rate 1 % 1 % $108,474 $108,474 $108,474 Data Increased 21 (+) 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 21 (+) 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: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: $82,320 $76,071 8.2% $91,435 $95,089 -3.8% $101,148 $114,107 -11.4°% 50% Median: $82,320 Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,071 Current Base Variance: 8.2% $93,492 $95,089 -1.7% $104,454 $114,107 -8.5% Road Maint Manager Roads Maint Ops Manager Storm Water Prog Manager Data Increased 21 (-) PW Maint Spv Proposed Base Range: $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34% Range 15 King County - INFO ONLY $100,260 $113,670 $127,080 27% Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $78,919 $95,219 $111,518 41% Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $71,412 $80,346 $89,280 25 % Shoreline - INFO ONLY $84,859 $94,054 $103,248 22% PSPC Packet Page 241 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 31 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER $75,012 1 $85,854 1 $96,600 1 $82,380 1 $7,004 $22,124 $104,139 $114,981 $125,727 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $108,400 $119,242 i $129,988 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 Engineerir Lynnwood, 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: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: $75,012 $76,071 -1.4% $85,854 $95,089 -9.7% $96,600 $114,107 -15.3°% 50% Median: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: $75,012 $76,071 -1.4°% $85,854 $95,089 -9.7% $96,600 $114,107 -15.3% Proposed Base Range: $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 Range 14 Ast Rds Maint Manager & Traffic En King County - INFO ONLY $93,372 $105,864 $118,356 Traffic Engineer Shoreline - INFO ONLY $88,308 $97,884 $107,460 Traffic Engineer Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $75,221 $83,345 $91,468 no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY 34% 27 % 22% 22% PSPC Packet Page 242 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 32 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total medical and cash compensation Cash Compensation Cash Compensation TOTAL from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Edmonds Additional Cash Class Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree (7 25°/ Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX PERS or Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX 5.24% (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance LEOFF 2) four) WATER/SEWER MANAGER $82,377 1 $92,464 1 $100,415 1 $98,944 1 $7,280 $22,124 $111,780 $121,867 $129,818 ' 1% $8,456 $24,932 ' $33,388+1% 1 $116,588 $126,776 ? $134,807 Data Increased 21 (+) 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 21 (+) 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 Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance: 8.3% -2.8% -12.0% Proposed Base Range: $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 Road Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY Data Increased 21 (-) PW Maint Supervisor Shoreline - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Snohomish County - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY Range 15 50% 34% $100,260 $113,670 $127,080 27% $84,859 $94,054 $103,248 22% Median: $82,618 $94,153 $103,478 Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance: 8.6% -1.0% -9.3% PSPC Packet Page 243 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 $160,000 $140, 000 $120, 000 $100, 000 $80,000 $ 60, 000 $40,000 Proposed Salary Ranges Co -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Cur ent alary ire do') .. • mpared to Existing Non-Represe ------------------------------------------------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------------------------------------------------- -------------- ntE !d ' >aL 3ries Pr pos d Salary an (so id li e) --- $160,000 - - $140,000 - - $120,000 - - $100,000 - - - - - - - - $80,000 - - - - - - - 4 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 --- --- --- --- - -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- $20,000 Note: Ctirrert salary (red(lot) s th 'average' salary fall employees h Idin th t po itio titl . $0 $0 o` et t °t Ph5� (,oo�`aa\.°Q��La°�o+�ae`o�Pa��o a�,��P�� y5°°O°`0Q��a�c`o�a�`� e°•5��a��`t�\e� ac��Fh��ac e `��at � `'t��t5� 0°tc� ��Q� �t�� `o ot c Zt�P ot`5� \a��,� •�e �� SeSt a�tz , �ote`�°A dQe�r` r� �\ OP°j�° e�f0e)m��oOQ t° � e�Ioo �Q�k, o° Ze\a\oe5 Q �r�e Packet Page 244 of 346 Idy ��r�J Pr�po��J F l 20'12 l�lon- Packet Page 245 of 346 PUBLIC SECTOR PERSONNEL CONSULTANTS R F J JI'] v e rl�f-,] 0 lPr ;Jrii �I ( �)rr);� �r]-r! rlI!.JrVE)y �'Jrll;� lrlr] J C]-rY' (�) t a 1 (.-� Orrj per) 1 o r] beriarl Offa rlr] J� jj�=�., �,: I \)\J-Pjj Updating J-r �'Jrrl;��r]��lrJJr] �J11�'1�� for Job rJ�r1a� �!r]�l �1 1�f�rr] rl r D�r upd �]-rp j p�l� rr!.1�'r!.1r� �� pr] !.Jr r] �J �' �rr];� ci r� �� p e-1 y J 1 �,r e rr] , Packet Page 246 of 346 ha C"Ity' 1rJc,,:I-dIV =) VIE)ra to the r�JJ��vir)� Buthell, City 0-r rerner or), C'jly Jr DE lriarJ, City J.r D S Nloin Cary Df IS'S acju arl, C'l ry of K 1ril siri , (--� J ry of L pa y, C'jty of � yr]r1�a�JJJ�J, �'jry Jr )JyrrlpJ 1, (City J,r pupallu p., C- ity of rlA J,arr marn I, C'J-ry Jr UriJver�s;J ry p1S1 C'J ry ur Pd v�, rJ �ec,tor darn from pubJJ�hed Jury ys)' for raany rJJr) , •f1 )a )J,J, IT, JJ )J)J JJJr)J JJ atc \J\J: 1J Packet Page 247 of 346 J�cJ' ��.Jrr r] r �J 1� J,- r]rJ � ��r J rrI! CF) ��l1 i�l�r rr akJn 1 r �pperar th--,Jr the City' rl rry rra.ce arp lv� ir] and rJ;�JJ! Jr r�]r�J 1\ 1 � 1 rz) ] r]. r r] �] 1 \jv1-1 be r Div e r] c � l rr r] r-1 Nliflifflum �lr��1 1`��1�_1rrl��Jrrl, f �� Jr rT�� r1rJ� I ifv yed ('�rrEM'tjy �� i (hirl 10 IA J�r rr1�1rIS��r 111��1� r1, ThL-jl a r Ears rr U (� h r] e ,--I rE)r to Nflid-po'J'at th lrj r�) pay -Irld )J�e-jlsjrr)Urr1, Packet Page 248 of 346 I F J 0 rr]e ('Jry 1 D.ffplrlrll- �1 'CoMpel'.rlVrl! lrrl fir, type, lr]�l level Jr rIorI-re,pre,SerI-ted r pjoyee berjewl S, 0 T ha C'lry 'IJ Slightly behind -for rr]edir ill 'jr]-j-, urar]c'ep premium arld err ent / -Sldmirl lave" r� r �� Orr]r �'irie ��rr✓r rar] �rrjpJOyer-.r!Jr) d de erred ��orr p r]Jra-rJorl pl�lrl, ,drri0rJd� r'urr a r)dy rjJeS not 0 The C'1-ry'� ppr]�1Jr] �'Jrj,trj 1 r1Jr]�, ;��lJ �l rl rrl J err, �lrl �1 J rr� er bar]ef r-�; are rho�-J-,e founrIl in r_he Packet Page 249 of 346 Fr��JTIJ �rJJr� =��a1 nary r�ri ;tri J�1r� Jr� h 1been ;�r��J �l rJ �jv p I a c az-j.� �,-Jjj norl-repras;ented po-"I" rJ,r �j\jji l 111 �l rl' r �� J1 u e , rrl�lr Jr] f-1 In The prJ;�JJ d ��rru _(�,t Jr �� rJ�arr��j�� r rrj�,-JrJ the JI_j rra rit Poe ��jrldl� Dnd silk)\j�l� for MerJr��l�_j �r � JrJ�'r��l��, The non-r pr n'c-P, d :-J4truct Jrp, :Irjd rjorJ-reprep�-:,)ent e jr :IrJE)J., JIIJ!.J1d d p, d -the -'a1^rle arirl ! --il a :pry dj,!J rrll rJr bud �� 1J J 1;�;�rJ�lpe�1 'Jr Jrj'ofj (! r(D �-�� lrl 1 rleg grjo, r d lrj�;r 1�-,)ez-:) c0 lv/ )Jrj Packet Page 250 of 346 r-r�� 1 -o Th e r) e vy gal �,S]ry ra r) i ri rrI e rI r -� � r )r �� r� j)r) pf-I y D�lll��rri�1 �ri�lr ��IIJJ�� r�rrl]JrlJrl rrl�lrlSr� c r ompe.,-.6-ti've at eri-try arid top-ou-tj r � �� N t^� �- r r �� r h e (ity � tota� � � r� �J �r� � -for � �� 1 �� r� J �� r� � re�jle ✓r� Sri r \J\Jjj11 be luiver Jr) .the ]Dng r �r�� rrh �Irj rl �� d rrj;�loy e,� bier) gable to �� r11�� 1 rr�� 'naerir 1 P�ay band rl)�flllll! llll �1� j IJ v- 1a�11r�rJrrlr Packet Page 251 of 346 qmE Jo ZSZ abed laloed a.PSIJe(JJ 'a.(1euip )rap, r5(j[j[[-f � ��JC�frrP,J(),(JJ(,-) Ga.F:�fAG(Ji (J(--)fa.(1Ga.P,J PJ1irrta-�i� r r Ga. I\rad-), P 3(1, .J—(.If P(Jf� GAfa. )P, r r r r(JC�rfJ ; (JJ� eu la.of liar fo i a.i p a J.C3 (1C)fa.i ofpC��i rr�a.ra Jf Ia.f ,J. p 1i1 �1�1� (1 JC��. �P, p ( I J J r,lG)a i ;Ji ;d) I J J AJf 1 J � I J i 0-41 or) Packet Page 254 of 346 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 1 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID EMAXLongevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) ASSISTANT BUILDING OFFICIAL $61,212 1 $69,133 1 $75,854 1 $86,221 1 $6,251 1 $22,124 1 $89,587 1 $97,508 1 $104,229 1 % $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 1 $95,212 1 $103,212 1 $110,001 LIMITED DATA ranae 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 % I% $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 Base Variance: -8.5% -17.3% -24.4% 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 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: -8.5% -17.3% -24.4% PSPC Packet Page 255 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 2 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF $108,012 1 $115,698 1 $125,352 1 $121,314 1 $8,795 1 $22,124 1 $138,931 1 $146,617 1 $156,271 5% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+DCP 1 $141,400 1 $149,086 1 $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: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: Proposed Base Range: $108,012 $94,402 14.4% $97,270 Range $115,698 $118,003 -2.0% $113,811 19 $125,352 $141,604 -11.5% $130,351 50% 34% Median: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: $110,052 $94,402 16.6% $116,940 $118,003 -0.9% $126,606 $141,604 -10.6% Undersheriff Chief Deputy Sheriff Assistant Police Chief no comparable match reported Snohomish County - INFO ONLY King County - INFO ONLY Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY Shoreline - INFO ONLY $118,631 $113,724 $94,644 $133,811 $128,940 $103,002 $148,990 $144,156 $111,360 26% 27% 18% PSPC Packet Page 256 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 3 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) ASSOCIATE PLANNER $58,500 1 $65,580 1 $71,256 1 $73,169 1 $5,305 1 $22,124 1 $85,928 1 $93,008 1 $98,684 1 % $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 1 $92,473 1 $99,624 1 $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% I% $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 Urban Planner (Journey) Median: ERI- Private Sector Seattle Area $58,500 $56,088 $65,580 $66,969 $71,256 $77,849 Median: $58,500 $66,236 $71,969 Private Sector Median: $56,088 $66,969 $77,849 Unweighted Average: $57,294 $66,274 $74,553 Current Edmonds Base Range: $57,740 $72,175 $86,610 50% Current Base Variance: -0.8% Proposed Base Range: $59,715 Range -8.2% -13.9% $69,870 80,024 34% Transp or WQ Planner II King County - INFO ONLY $63,888 $72,432 $80,976 Associate Planner Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $53,904 $63,180 $72,456 Associate Planner Shoreline - INFO ONLY $59,520 $65,970 $72,420 Associate Planner Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $42,445 $46,996 $51,546 26% 34% 22% 21% Private Sector Median: $56,088 $66,969 $77,849 Unweighted Average: $57,294 $66,602 $74,909 Current Edmonds Base Range: $57,740 $72,175 $86,610 Current Base Variance: -0.8% -7.7% -13.5% PSPC Packet Page 257 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 4 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) BUILDING OFFICIAL i $82,281 1 $93,345 1 $103,851 1 $92,718 1 $6,722 1 $22,124 1 $111,126 1 $122,190 1 $132,697 1% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 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 Base Variance: -3.47%-12.39%-18.77% Proposed Base Range: $80,024 $93,632 $107,24 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% Current Edmonds Base Range: $85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance: -3.33%-12.39%-18.69% PSPC Packet Page 258 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 5 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER No PE required ; $70,159 1 $77,712 1 $85,824 1 $75,506 1 $5,474 $22,124 $97,757 $105,310 $113,422 i $8,456 1 $24,932 $33,388 $103,547 1 $111,100 1 $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% 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 Packet Page 259 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 6 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER (we suggest title change to IS Manager) E $82,090 1 $92,189 1 $103,252 1 $93,872 1 $6,806 $22,124 $ 111,019 $ 121,118 $ 132,181E 1% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 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% 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 Packet Page 260 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 7 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (725% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) CITY CLERK i $67,800 1 $78,194 1 $88,116 1 $106,022 1 $7,687 $22,124 $97,610 $108,004 $117,926 i 1% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 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 Div Dir, Rec & Lic Svcs Comm Rel Dir/City Clerk County Clerk City Clerk Current Edmonds Base Range: $85,237 $106,546 $127,855 50% Current Base Variance: -20.5% -26.6% -31.1 % Proposed Base Range: $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 34% Range 14 King County - INFO ONLY $121,200 $137,412 $153,624 Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $96,024 $106,860 $117,696 Snohomish County- INFO ONLY $98,789 $98,789 $98,789 Shoreline - INFO ONLY $72,480 $80,328 $88,176 Current Edmonds Base Range: $85,237 $106,546 $127,855 Current Base Variance: -20.6% -26.7% -31.1% PSPC Packet Page 261 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 8 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) CITY ENGINEER i $85,237 1 $93,982 1 $102,133 1 $123,024 1 $8,919 $22,124 $ 116,280 $ 125,024 $ 133,176 i 1% $8,456 1 $24,932 1 $33,388+1% 1 $119,478 $128,309 j $136,542 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 % I% $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 Unweighted Average: $98,981 $117,230 $135,569 Current Edmonds Base Range: $94,402 $118,003 $141,604 50% Current Base Variance: 4.9% -0.7% -4.3% 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% Private Sector Median: $105,520 $129,781 $154,041 Unweighted Average: $98,981 $117,230 $135,766 Current Edmonds Base Range: $94,402 $118,003 $141,604 Current Base Variance: 4.9% -0.7% 4.1°% PSPC Packet Page 262 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 9 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health JMIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR i $101,196 1 $115,412 1 $128,214 1 $136,979 1 $9,931 $22,124 $133,250 $147,466 $160,269 i $8,456 1 $24,932 $33,388 $134,584 $148,800 $161,602 Asst City Manager/Econ Dev Manal Bothell, 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: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: Proposed Base Range: $101,196 $103,568 -2.3% $102,133 Range $115,412 $129,460 -10.9% $119,501 20 $128,214 $155,352 -17.5% $136,869 50% 34% Median: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: $103,184 $103,568 -0.4% $115,592 $129,460 -10.7% $128,214 $155,352 -17.5% Comm & Econ Dev Dir Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY Econ Dev Prog Manager Snohomish County- INFO ONLY Econ Dev Prog Manager Shoreline - INFO ONLY Ast Div Dr Comm Svcs King County - INFO ONLY $96,024 $78,919 $80,028 $84,926 $106,860 $95,219 $88,698 $96,283 $117,696 $111,518 $97,368 $107,640 23% 41% 22% 27% PSPC Packet Page 263 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 10 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) COURT ADMINISTRATOR ; $76,059 1 $85,689 1 $95,319 1 $96,131 1 $6,970 $22,124 $105,152 $114,782 $124,412 E $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $109,447 $119,077 j $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 CourtAdmin 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 Base Variance: 0.0% -9.9% -16.5% Proposed Salary Range $72,584 $89,174 $97,270 Range 13 Court Svcs Admin Snohomish County- INFO ONLY $78,919 $97,219 $115,518 Court Ops Manager - Sup Ct Crim C King County - INFO ONLY $66,096 $75,108 $84,120 no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY 34% 46% 27% Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance: 0.8% -9.2% -15.9% PSPC Packet Page 264 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 11 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR unfilled ; $106,122 1 $118,963 1 $129,444 1 VACANT $9,385 $22,124 $137,630 $150,471 $160,952 i 2% $8,456 $24,932 i $33,388+2% 1 $141,633 1 $154,730 1 $165,421 i 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 Developmen Sammamish, 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 Developmen Bremerton, 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, Cityof $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 Base Variance: 2.5% -8.1% -16.7% 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 Current Edmonds Base Range: $103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance: 4.2% -6.3% -15.5% PSPC Packet Page 265 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 12 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four 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 i $8,456 1 $24,932 i $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°% 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 Packet Page 266 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 13 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health JMIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) 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 i $8,456 1 $24,932 i $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 regV 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% 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 Packet Page 267 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 14 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health JMIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT - CONFIDENTIAL ; $52,776 1 $59,940 1 $67,104 1 $52,507 1 $4,865 $22,124 $79,765 $86,929 $94,093 i $8,456 $24,932 i $33,388 $86,164 $93,328 $100,492 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 Unweighted Average: $51,187 $59,922 $68,657 Current Edmonds Base Range: $48,574 $60,718 $72,861 50% Current Base Variance: -5.1% 1.3% 6.1% Proposed salary range: $54,164 $63,374 $72,584 Range 7 Admin Asst II King County - INFO ONLY $62,856 $71,268 $79,680 Admin Asst - HR (Confid) Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $56,120 $62,198 $68,276 Exec Assistant Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $52,824 $59,430 $66,036 Admin Asst III Shoreline - INFO ONLY $48,792 $54,090 $59,388 34% 27% 22% 25% 22% Private Sector Median: $49,598 $59,904 $70,210 Unweighted Average: $51,577 $59,468 $68,139 Current Edmonds Base Range: $48,574 $60,718 $72,861 Current Base Variance: -5.8% 2.1% 6.9% PSPC Packet Page 268 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 15 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four 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 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% 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 Packet Page 269 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 16 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health JMIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) FINANCE DIRECTOR i $110,788 1 $124,353 1 $133,856 1 $137,800 1 $9,705 $22,124 $142,616 $156,181 $165,684 i $8,456 $24,932 $33,388+2% 1 $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% 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 Packet Page 270 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds Page 17 of 32 FY 2012 Compensation Survey Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health JMIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) FLEET MANAGER i $75,042 $85,575 $96,049 $87,125 $6,964 $22,124 $104,129 $114,662 $125,136 i $8,456 $24,932 i $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 21(-) 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 Unweighted Average: $69,676 $81,958 $94,211 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50% Current Base Variance: 4.1 % -2.0% -6.1% Proposed Base Range: $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 Range 12 Vehicle Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY $101,400 $114,966 $128,532 Fleet Equip Manager Snohomish County- INFO ONLY $86,982 $104,948 $122,914 Fleet, Fac & Prop Mgmt Supervisor Shoreline - INFO ONLY $67,332 $74,622 $81,912 Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY 34% 27% 41% 22% Private Sector Median: $64,310 $78,342 $92,373 Unweighted Average: $69,746 $81,958 $94,241 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 4.2% -2.0% -6.1°% PSPC Packet Page 271 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 18 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST ; $58,248 1 $66,162 1 $73,539 1 VACANT $5,332 $22,124 $85,703 $93,617 $100,994 $8,456 $24,932 $33,388 $91,636 $99,550 j $106,927 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 Base Variance: 19.9% 9.0°% 0.9°% Proposed Base Range: $56,872 $65,836 $76,214 Range 8 Human Res Analyst King County - INFO ONLY $62,388 $70,734 $79,080 Human Res Analyst Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY 34% 27% 21% Current Edmonds Base Range: $48,574 $60,718 $72,861 Current Base Variance: 19.9°% 9.0% 0.9% $5,128 $18,401 $94,263 $4,350 $16,440 $80,791 PSPC Packet Page 272 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 19 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID AX MAXI Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER I $81,883 1 $96,010 1 $110,269 1 $85,237 1 $7,994 $22,124 $112,001 $126,128 $140,387 i 1% $8,456 $24,932 i $33,388+1% $116,089 $130,358 j $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% Proposed Base Range: $80,024 $93,632 $107,241� 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 Packet Page 273 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 20 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DIRECTOR i $105,990 1 $118,614 1 $128,322 1 $123,900 1 $9,303 $22,124 $137,417 $150,041 $159,749 i i 2% $8,456 $24,932 i $33,388+2% 1 $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 Base Variance: 2.3% -8.4% -17.4% Proposed Base Range: $102,133 $119,501 $136,869 Range 20 Pks, Rec & Cult Svc Dir Shoreline - INFO ONLY $115,908 $128,466 $141,024 Parks & Rec, Director Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $95,877 $115,677 $135,477 Rec & Parks Director Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $104,040 $113,220 $122,400 Dir., Nat'l Resources & Parks King County - INFO ONLY $133,266 $151,091 $168,917 34% 22% 41% 18% 27% Current Edmonds Base Range: $103,568 $129,460 $155,352 Current Base Variance: 2.3% -8.3% -17.4% PSPC Packet Page 274 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds Page21 of32 FY 2012 Compensation Survey Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) PARKS MAINTENANCE MANAGER $69,726 i $79,053 $90,091 $89,709 $6,532 $22,124 $98,381 $107,708 $118,746 i 1% $8,456 $24,932 i $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 21 (+) 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 21 (+) 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 Base Variance: 4.2% -5.5% -10.2% 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% Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 5.0% -5.5% -10.2% PSPC Packet Page 275 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 22 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) PLANNING MANAGER ; $84,729 1 $96,179 1 $107,647 1 $111,981 1 $7,804 $22,124 $114,657 $126,107 $137,575 i $8,456 $24,932 i $33,388 $118,117 $129,567 $141,035 range width Deputy Director Community Develol Sammamish, 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 21 + 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 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% Proposed Base Range: $84,025 $98,314 $112,602 Range 16 34% Real Est, Lnd Use & Env Plan Supe King 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 Current Base Variance: -0.6% -9.7% -14.6% PSPC Packet Page 276 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 23 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) 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: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: Proposed Base Range: $116,475 $103,568 12.5% $112,602 Range $131,283 $129,460 1.4% $131,750 22 $144,648 $155,352 -6.9% $150,898 50% 34% Median: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: $119,220 $103,568 15.1% $134,362 $129,460 3.8% $145,728 $155,352 -6.2% County Sheriff Police Chief Sheriff no comparable match reported PSPC Packet Page 277 of 346 Snohomish County - INFO ONLY Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY King County - INFO ONLY Shoreline - INFO ONLY $121,061 $104,040 $170,144 $121,061 $113,220 $170,144 $121,061 $122,400 $170,144 0% 18% 0% CITY OF EDMONDS $8,777 $8,208 $12,335 $16,440 $24,459 $18,401 JUNE 2012 $146,278 $145,887 $200,880 City of Edmonds Page 24 of 32 FY 2012 Compensation Survey Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (propose title modification PW/UTILITIES Director) i $110,040 $125,490 $134,600 $138,050 $9,759 $22,124 $141,922 $157,372 $166,482 E 2% i $8,456 $24,932 i $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. 1(-) 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% Proposed Base Range: $107,240 $125,476 $143,712 34% Range 21 Current Base Variance: 6.2% -2.0% -11.6% 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 Packet Page 278 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds Page 25 of 32 FY 2012 Compensation Survey Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) RECREATION MANAGER i $68,900 $75,906 $84,025 $90,057 $6,092 $22,124 $97,115 $104,121 $112,241 i 1% $8,456 $24,932 i $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) Mai Bothell, 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 21 (+) 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 Recreation Frogs Manager Recreation Superintendent Data Increased 21(-) Recreation Supervisor Level not a match Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50% Current Base Variance: 3.0% -9.2% -16.3% Proposed Base Range: $69,128 $80,883 $92,638 King County - INFO ONLY Shoreline - INFO ONLY Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY Snohomish County - INFO ONLY Range 12 34% $89,040 $100,956 $112,872 27% $80,028 $88,698 $97,368 22% $74,707 $84,139 $93,571 25% Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 5.5% -7.0°% -15.1% PSPC Packet Page 279 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 26 of 32 Edmonds Employer TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance` MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) 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: Current Edmonds Base Range: Current Base Variance: Private Sector Median: Unweighted Average: Current Edmonds Base Range: Proposed Base Range: $67,002 _ _ $67,146 $65,734 _ $62,106 Range $76,488 _ _ $75,315 $76,365 _ $73,066 10 $85,974 _ _ $83,484 $86,963 _ $84,025 50% 34 % Median: $67,002 Current Edmonds Base Range: _ Current Base Variance: $76,488 _ $86,400 _ HR Analyst Senior Sr HR Analyst no comparable match no comparable match King County - FOR INFO ONLY Shoreline - FOR INFO ONLY Snohomish County - FOR INFO ON Mountlake Terrace - FOR INFO ON $70,236 $79,638 $89,040 27 % $64,056 $70,992 $77,928 21 % PSPC Packet Page 280 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 27 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (725% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health JMIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) SENIOR PLANNER unfilled ; $63,678 1 $72,180 1 $80,610 1 VACANT $5,844 $22,124 $91,646 $100,147 $108,578 $8,456 $24,932 i $33,388 $97,066 $105,568 $113,998 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 Unweighted Average: $65,734 $76,365 $86,963 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 50% Current Base Variance: -1.8% -8.7% -13.3% Proposed Base Range: $65,836 $77,031 $88,227 Range 11 • Transp or WQ Planner III King County - INFO ONLY $71,928 $81,552 $91,176 Senior Planner Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $65,964 $74,208 $82,452 Senior Planner Shoreline - INFO ONLY $65,640 $72,762 $79,884 Senior Planner Snohomish County- INFO ONLY $54,183 $60,001 $65,818 34% 27% 25% 22% 21% Private Sector Median: $67,789 $80,550 $93,310 Unweighted Average: $65,734 $76,365 $86,960 Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: -1.8% -8.7% -13.4% PSPC Packet Page 281 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 28 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) SENIOR UTILITIES ENGINEER i $83,016 1 $91,435 1 $100,824 1 $85,000 1 $7,310 $22,124 $112,449 $120,868 $130,257 i $8,456 $24,932 i $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 Base Variance: 24.08% 9.33% 0.46% Proposed Base Range: $76,214 $89,174 $102,133 Range 14 Engineer III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 Engineer IV Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY 34% 27% 22% Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 24.1% 9.3% 0.5% PSPC Packet Page 282 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 29 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) STORMWATER ENGINEER i $75,114 1 $85,857 1 $95,022 1 $99,548 1 $6,889 $22,124 $104,127 $114,870 $124,035 i $8,456 1 $24,932 i $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 11 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 Base Variance: 12.3% 2.7% -5.3% Proposed Base Range: $72,584 $84,927 $97,270 Range 13 Engineer III King County - INFO ONLY $73,656 $83,508 $93,360 Engineer IV Snohomish County - INFO ONLY $71,634 $79,416 $87,197 no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Shoreline - INFO ONLY 34% 27% 22% Current Edmonds Base Range: $66,905 $83,632 $100,358 Current Base Variance: 12.3% 2.7% -5.3% PSPC Packet Page 283 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 30 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) STREET/STORMWATER MANAGER $69,270 $79,416 $90,279 $81,214 1 $6,545 $22,124 $97,938 $108,084 $118,947 i 1% $8,456 $24,932 i $33,388+1% 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 21 (+) 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 21 (+) 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 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 Road Maint Manager Roads Maint Ops Manager Storm Water Prog Manager Data Increased 21 (-) PW Maint Spv Current Base Variance: 8.2% -3.8% -11.4% Proposed Base Range: $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 34% Range 15 King County - INFO ONLY $100,260 $113,670 $127,080 27% Snohomish County- INFO ONLY $78,919 $95,219 $111,518 41% Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY $71,412 $80,346 $89,280 25% Shoreline - INFO ONLY $84,859 $94,054 $103,248 22% Current Base Variance: 8.2% -1.7% -8.5% PSPC Packet Page 284 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 31 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health MIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER ; $75,012 1 $85,854 1 $96,600 1 $82,380 1 $7,004 $22,124 $104,139 $114,981 $125,727 i $8,456 1 $24,932 i $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 Engineerir Lynnwood, 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, 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% Proposed Base Range: $72,584 $84,927 $97,270 34% Range 13 Ast Rds Maint Manager & Traffic En King 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 Current Base Variance: -1.4% -9.7% -15.3% PSPC Packet Page 285 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 City of Edmonds FY 2012 Compensation Survey Page 32 of 32 Edmonds Employer Comparator Cities Employer Paid Benefits &Total TOTAL SALARY RANGE (includes ANNUAL Paid Benefits & Total Edmonds' TOTAL SALARY RANGE Cash Compensation TOTAL medical and cash compensation Edmonds Cash Compensation Additional Cash from comparator cities) Edmonds Job Survey Job Class Participant Organization Current Compensation Class Actual Pay (Comparator Retiree Health Market Cities) MIN MID MAX (7 25% Insurance* MIN MID MAX Longevity DCP Car Market Health JMIN MID MAX PERS) (family of Allowance Retiree Insurance four) WATER/SEWER MANAGER I $82,377 1 $92,464 1 $100,415 1 $98,944 1 $7,280 $22,124 $111,780 $121,867 $129,818 i 1% $8,456 $24,932 i $33,388+1% 1 $116,588 $126,776 $134,807 range width Data Increased 21 (+) 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 21 (+) 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 Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance: 8.3% -2.8% -12.0% Proposed Base Range: $80,024 $93,632 $107,240 Road Maint Manager King County - INFO ONLY Data Increased 21(-) PW Maint Supervisor Shoreline - INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Snohomish County- INFO ONLY no comparable match reported Mountlake Terrace - INFO ONLY Range 15 50% 34% $100,260 $113,670 $127,080 27% $84,859 $94,054 $103,248 22% Median: $82,618 $94,153 $103,478 Current Edmonds Base Range: $76,071 $95,089 $114,107 Current Base Variance: 8.6% -1.0% -9.3% PSPC Packet Page 286 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS JUNE 2012 PSPC City of Edmonds Prevailing Benefits Practices Comparison 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 ✓ Life Insurance Premium % Paid by ER Employee Life ✓ Spouse Life ✓ Children's Life ✓ AD&D Premium % Paid by ER Employee AD&D Not widely offered Spouse AD&D Child/Children AD&D Disability STD Not widely offered 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) CITY OF EDMONDS Page 1 of 57 7/18/2012 Packet Page 287 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 2 of 57 Plan Option 1 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Coverage Pays/Mo. Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Burien Burien Burien Burien Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines nr' indicates no response provided. PSPC 1 Employee Only Regence $651.95 $586.77 90% $65.18 10% 2 Employee & Spouse Regence $1,291.40 $1,162.28 90% $129.14 10% 3 Employee & One Child Regence $944.05 $849.66 90% $94.38 10% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence $1,842.65 $1,658.41 90% $184.26 10% 1 Employee Only Regence HealthFirst $617.87 $617.87 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Regence HealthFirst $1,239.98 $1,115.56 90% $124.42 10% 3 Employee & Children Regence HealthFirst $1,174.82 $1,063.43 91% $111.39 9% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HealthFirst $1,796.94 $1,561.12 87% $235.81 13% 1 Employee Only Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $455.01 $455.01 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $902.38 $857.64 95% $44.74 5% 3 Employee & Children Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $908.35 $863.02 95% $45.33 5% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health CoPay Plan 1 $1,355.72 $1,265.65 93% $90.07 7% 1 Employee Only KPS Plan B $559.13 $559.13 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse KPS Plan B $1,185.46 $1,122.83 95% $62.63 5% 3 Employee & Children KPS Plan B $1,065.78 $1,015.12 95% $50.67 5% 4 Other: Employee plus Family KPS Plan B $1,692.11 $1,578.81 93% $113.30 7% 1 Employee Only Group Health, $10 Co -pay $455.01 $455.01 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health, $10 Co -pay $902.38 $857.64 90% $44.74 10% 3 Employee & Children Group Health, $10 Co -pay $908.35 $863.01 90% $45.34 10% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health, $10 Co -pay $1,355.72 $1,265.67 90% $90.08 10% 1 Employee Only POS Medical $493.43 $493.43 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse POS Medical $986.85 $937.51 95% $49.34 5% 3 Employee & Children POS Medical $993.18 $943.20 95% $49.98 5% 4 Other: Employee plus Family POS Medical $1,486.60 $1,387.28 93% $99.32 7% 1 Employee Only Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $3,100.00 $2,250.00 73% $850.00 27% 2 Employee & Spouse Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $6,250.00 $4,500.00 72% $1,750.00 28% 3 Employee & Children Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $6,250.00 $4,500.00 72% $1,750.00 28% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Annual contribution to H.S.A. Accounts $6,250.00 $4,500.00 72% $1,750.00 28% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 288 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 3 of 57 Plan Option 1 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Coverage Pays/Mo. Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees King County King County King County King County Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lynnwood Lynnwood Lynnwood Lynnwood Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace nr' indicates no response provided. PSPC 1 Employee Only Regence PPO $617.88 $617.88 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Regence PPO $1,240.00 $1,177.79 95% $62.21 5% 3 Employee & Children Regence PPO $1,174.84 $1,119.14 95% $55.70 5% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence PPO $1,796.96 $1,679.05 93% $117.91 7% Annual contribution to Health Retirement Account $1,550.00 100% 1 Employee Only Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $639.27 $639.27 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $1,242.39 $1,242.39 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $1,121.76 $1,121.76 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence BlueShield - KingCare Gold $1,324.88 $1,324.88 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Kirkland PRIME $610.61 $610.61 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Kirkland PRIME $1,234.49 $1,234.49 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee, Spouse, 1 dep Kirkland PRIME $1,489.71 $1,489.71 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & 1 dep Kirkland PRIME $922.55 $922.55 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Kirkland PRIME $1,234.49 $1,234.49 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Kirkland PRIME $1,830.00 $1,830.00 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Regence HealthFirst $630.48 $630.48 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Regence HealthFirst $1,265.29 $1,265.29 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Regence HealthFirst $1,198.80 $1,198.80 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HealthFirst $1,833.61 $1,833.61 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Regence/WillametteNision $712.83 $712.83 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Regence/WillametteNision $1,401.19 $1,332.35 95% $68.84 5% 3 Employee & Children Regence/WillametteNision $1,403.40 $1,334.34 95% $69.06 5% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence/WillametteNision $2,038.21 $1,905.67 93% $134.54 7% 1 Employee Only Regence HealthFirst $630.48 $630.48 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Regence HealthFirst $1,265.29 $1,170.07 92% $95.22 8% 3 Employee & Children Regence HealthFirst $1,198.80 $1,113.56 93% $85.24 7% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HealthFirst $1,833.61 $1,653.15 90% $180.46 10% 1 Employee Only AWC HealthFirst $630.48 $630.48 100% $1.89 0% 2 Employee & Spouse AWC HealthFirst $1,265.29 $1,138.33 90% $130.16 10% 3 Employee & Children AWC HealthFirst $1,198.80 $1,085.14 91% $117.34 10% 4 Other: Employee plus Family AWC HealthFirst $1,833.61 $1,592.98 87% $244.31 13% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 289 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 4 of 57 Plan Option 1 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Coverage Pays/Mo. 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 1 Employee Only Elected Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and 2 Employee & Spouse Elected Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and 3 Employee & Children Elected Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and 4 Other: Employee plus Family Elected Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 1 Employee Only Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 2 Employee & Spouse Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 3 Employee & Children Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 4 Other: Employee plus Family Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO) $630.48 $630.48 100% $0.00 0% AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO) $1,265.29 $1,170.07 92% $95.22 8% AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO) $1,198.80 $1,113.55 93% $85.25 7% AWC HealthFirst (aka Regence Blue Shield PPO) $1,833.61 $1,653.14 90% $180.47 10% City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $602.00 $602.00 100% $0.00 0% City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $1,201.00 $1,201.00 100% $0.00 0% City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $1,761.00 $1,761.00 100% $0.00 0% City of Puyallup Health Care Plan 1 $1,129.00 $1,129.00 100% $0.00 0% Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A nr* nr* 100% $0.00 0% Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A nr* nr* 90% nr* 10% Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A nr* nr* 90% nr* 10% Regence Blue Shield Medical Plan A 1796.93 1702.61 95% 94.32 5% Regence Blue Shield PPO $568.00 $568.00 100% $0.00 0% Regence Blue Shield PPO $571.90 $571.90 100% $0.00 0% Regence Blue Shield PPO $852.10 $852.10 100% $0.00 0% Regence Blue Shield PPO $1,083.90 $1,083.90 100% $0.00 0% Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100% $0.00 0% Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100% $0.00 0% Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100% $0.00 0% Group Health #60973 $1,059.13 $1,059.13 100% $0.00 0% Group Health #6177 $970.59 $939.59 97% $0.00 0% Group Health #6177 $1,077.59 $939.59 87% $0.00 0% Group Health #6177 $1,058.59 $939.59 89% $0.00 0% Group Health #6177 $1,124.59 $939.59 84% $0.00 0% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 290 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 5 of 57 Plan Option 1 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Coverage Pays/Mo. 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 291 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 6 of 57 Plan Option 2 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional Employees Burien Burien Burien Burien Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC 1 Employee Only Group Health $499.32 $449.40 90% $49.92 10% 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health $989.51 $890.57 90% $98.94 10% 3 Employee & One Child Group Health $747.66 $672.90 90% $74.76 10% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health $1,486.19 $1,337.57 90% $148.62 10% 1 Employee Only GH $10 co -pay Plan $455.01 $455.01 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse GH $10 co -pay Plan $902.38 $812.91 100% $89.47 10% 3 Employee & Children GH $10 co -pay Plan $908.35 $817.69 100% $90.66 10% 4 Other: Employee plus Family GH $10 co -pay Plan $1,355.72 $1,175.58 100% $180.14 13% 1 Employee Only KIPS Plan B nr* nr* 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse KIPS Plan B nr* nr* 90% nr* 10% 3 Employee & Children KIPS Plan B nr* nr* 90% nr* 10% 4 Other: Employee plus Family KIPS Plan B nr* nr* 90% nr* 10% 1 Employee Only No additional plans offered 2 Employee & Spouse No additional plans offered 3 Employee & Children No additional plans offered 4 Other: Employee plus Family No additional plans offered 1 Employee Only Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $565.00 $565.00 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $1,134.30 $1,077.37 95% $56.93 5% 3 Employee & Children Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $1,074.58 $1,023.62 95% $107.89 10% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence Blue Shield HealthFirst 250 $1,643.88 $1,535.99 93% $107.89 7% 1 Employee Only HSA Medical $346.40 $346.40 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse HSA Medical $692.80 $658.16 95% $34.64 5% 3 Employee & Children HSA Medical $697.24 $662.16 95% $35.08 5% 4 Other: Employee plus Family HSA Medical $1,043.65 $973.92 93% $69.73 7% 1 Employee Only Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $550.00 2 Employee & Spouse Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $1,100.00 3 Employee & Children Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $1,100.00 4 Other: Employee plus Family Annual Contributions to HRA Accounts $1,100.00 CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 292 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 7 of 57 Plan Option 2 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees King County King County King County King County Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt II (non -rep) Lynnwood Lynnwood Lynnwood Lynnwood Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace nr" indicates no response provided. PSPC 1 Employee Only Group Health - $10 co -Pay $455.01 $455.01 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health - $10 co -Pay $902.38 $902.38 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Group Health - $10 co -Pay $908.35 $908.35 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health - $10 co -Pay $1,355.72 $1,355.72 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only KingCare Silver $603.09 $603.09 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse KingCare Silver $1,170.02 $1,170.02 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children KingCare Silver $1,056.63 $1,056.63 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family KingCare Silver $1,523.56 $1,523.56 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Group Health $489.95 $489.95 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health $936.46 $936.46 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee, Spouse, 1 dep Group Health $1,162.59 $1,162.59 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & 1 dep Group Health $716.08 $716.08 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Group Health $942.21 $942.21 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health $1,388.72 $1,388.72 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Group Health Premiums $455.01 $455.01 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health Premiums $902.38 $902.38 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Group Health Premiums $908.35 $908.35 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health Premiums $1,355.72 $1,355.72 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Regenc/WDSNision $702.12 $702.12 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Regenc/WDSNision $1,382.23 $1,314.22 95% $68.01 5% 3 Employee & Children Regenc/WDSNision $1,371.44 $1,304.51 95% $66.93 5% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regenc/WDSNision $2,006.25 $1,875.84 93% $130.41 7% 1 Employee Only Group Health $10 Copay Plan $455.01 $455.01 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health $10 Copay Plan $842.38 $835.28 99% $7.10 1 % 3 Employee & Children Group Health $10 Copay Plan $908.35 $840.35 93% $68.00 7% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health $10 Copay Plan $1,355.72 $1,220.62 90% $135.10 10% 1 Employee Only Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co -pay $10) $455.01 $455.01 100% $1.89 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co -pay $10) $902.38 $812.91 90% $92.67 10% 3 Employee & Children Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co -pay $10) $908.35 $817.68 90% $94.35 10% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Co -pay $10) $1,355.72 $1,175.58 87% $183.82 14% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 293 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 8 of 57 Plan Option 2 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. 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 1 Employee Only Elected Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and 2 Employee & Spouse Elected Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and 3 Employee & Children Elected Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and 4 Other: Employee plus Family Elected Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 1 Employee Only Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 2 Employee & Spouse Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 3 Employee & Children Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 4 Other: Employee plus Family Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC 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% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 294 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 9 of 57 Plan Option 2 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Snohomish County - Clerk's Association Snohomish County - Clerk's Association Snohomish County - Clerk's Association Snohomish County - Clerk's Association University Place University Place University Place University Place nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC Packet Page 295 of 346 1 Employee Only PPO #1008695 $1,124.13 $1,059.13 94% $65.00 6% 2 Employee & Spouse PPO #1008695 $1,276.13 $1,059.13 83% $217.00 17% 3 Employee & Children PPO #1008695 $1,168.13 $1,059.13 91% $109.00 9% 4 Other: Employee plus Family PPO #1008695 $1,321.13 $1,059.13 80% $262.00 20% 1 Employee Only Group Health Cooperative nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* 2 Employee & Spouse Group Health Cooperative nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* 3 Employee & Children Group Health Cooperative nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* 4 Other: Employee plus Family Group Health Cooperative nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 10 of 57 Plan Option 3 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost Amt. Employer Amt. Employee of Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Edmonds, City of 1 Employee Only No additional plans offered Edmonds, City of 2 Employee & Spouse No additional plans offered Edmonds, City of 3 Employee & One Child No additional plans offered Edmonds, City of 4 Other: Employee plus Family No additional plans offered Bothell - Non Rep 1 Employee Only Regence HDHP $329.93 $329.93 100% $0.00 0% Bothell - Non Rep 2 Employee & Spouse Regence HDHP $663.50 $596.78 90% $66.71 10% Bothell - Non Rep 3 Employee & Children Regence HDHP $631.41 $571.12 90% $60.30 10% Bothell - Non Rep 4 Other: Employee plus Family Regence HDHP $964.99 $837.97 87% $127.01 13% Bremerton - All Employees 1 Employee Only No additional plans offered Bremerton - All Employees 2 Employee & Spouse No additional plans offered Bremerton - All Employees 3 Employee & Children No additional plans offered Bremerton - All Employees 4 Other: Employee plus Family No additional plans offered Bremerton - Management & Professional 1 Employee Only No additional plans offered Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional 2 Employee & Spouse No additional plans offered Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional 3 Employee & Children No additional plans offered Employees Bremerton - Management & Professional 4 Other: Employee plus Family No additional plans offered Employees Burien 1 Employee Only AWC RIBS HDHP $329.93 $329.93 100% $0.00 0% Burien 2 Employee & Spouse AWC RIBS HDHP $663.50 $630.14 95% $33.36 5% Burien 3 Employee & Children AWC RIBS HDHP $631.42 $601.27 95% $30.15 5% Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family AWC RIBS HDHP $964.99 $901.48 93% $63.51 7% Des Moines 1 Employee Only No additional plans offered Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse No additional plans offered Des Moines 3 Employee & Children No additional plans offered Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family No additional plans offered Des Moines 1 Employee Only No additional plans offered Des Moines 2 Employee & Spouse No additional plans offered Des Moines 3 Employee & Children No additional plans offered Des Moines 4 Other: Employee plus Family No additional plans offered nr* indicates no response provided. PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 296 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 11 of 57 Plan Option 3 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost Amt. Employer Amt. Employee of Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees King County King County King County King County Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Kirkland Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) Lynnwood Lynnwood Lynnwood Lynnwood Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace nr' indicates no response provided. PSPC 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 2 Employee, Spouse, 1 dep 2 Employee & 1 dep 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered No additional plans offered KingCare Bronze KingCare Bronze KingCare Bronze KingCare Bronze No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered No Additional Plans Offered Group Health/WDS/Vision Group Health/WDS/Vision Group Health/WDS/Vision Group Health/WDS/Vision 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 CITY OF EDMONDS $572.93 $1,109.71 $1,002.35 $1,539.13 $526.65 $1,019.32 $1,080.99 $1,528.36 $572.93 100% $1,109.71 100% $1,002.35 100% $1,539.13 100% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $526.65 100% $970.05 95% $1,025.57 95% $1,428.20 93% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $49.27 $55.42 $100.16 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5% 7% 7/18/2012 Packet Page 297 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 12 of 57 Plan Option 3 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost Amt. Employer Amt. Employee of Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. 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 1 Employee Only Elected Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and 2 Employee & Spouse Elected Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and 3 Employee & Children Elected Snohomish County - Non - rep, AFSCME, and 4 Other: Employee plus Family Elected Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 1 Employee Only Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 2 Employee & Spouse Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 3 Employee & Children Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains Snohomish County - Sheriff Deputies, 4 Other: Employee plus Family Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains nr' indicates no response provided. PSPC 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% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 298 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Insurance - by Employer Page 13 of 57 Plan Option 3 Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name Monthly Cost Amt. Employer Amt. Employee of Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Snohomish County - Clerk's Association Snohomish County - Clerk's Association Snohomish County - Clerk's Association Snohomish County - Clerk's Association University Place University Place University Place University Place nr' indicates no response provided. PSPC 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 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 CITY OF EDMONDS 7/ 18/2012 Packet Page 299 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Medical Ins Notes Employer Comments Bothell, City of Bremerton, City of Burien, City of Burien, City of Issaquah, City of Kirkland, City of Lacey, City of Shoreline, City of University Place, City of PSPC Page 14 of 57 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. Employee pays 10% of dependent premium Both medical plans sponsored by Association of Washington Cities Benefit Trust Employer pays 100% of the employee's premium and 90% of the dependents premium. Employer pays 100% of the employee's medical premium and 90% of the premiums for spouse, dependents, and/or domestic partner. Medical premiums include a $43.45 per month "Program Fee" previously included in premium rate but now shown as a separate fee. 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. Benefit Allowance - The City allocates to each full-time regular employee $865 (Tier 1) 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. Employer pays 100% of the employee's medical premium and 75% of the dependents' medical premium. CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 300 of 346 Employer Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Burien Burien Burien Burien Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees King County King County King County King County PSPC Insurance Group City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Plan Type/Name Page 15 of 57 Plan Option 1 Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. I Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. 1 Employee Only Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $56.33 $50.70 90% $5.64 10% 2 Employee & Spouse Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $107.19 $96.47 90% $10.72 10% 3 Employee & Children Level not offered 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan - F Plus Orthodontia $186.47 $167.84 90% $18.66 10% 1 Employee Only WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5) $53.18 $53.18 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5) $101.53 $91.86 90% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5) $188.52 $130.54 69% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family WDS Plan F/Ortho Plan 2 or 5) $188.52 $161.45 86% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service $50.89 $0.00 0% $50.89 100% 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service $96.19 $0.00 0% $96.19 100% 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service $151.89 $0.00 0% $151.89 100% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service $151.89 $0.00 0% $151.89 100% 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay $45.16 $45.16 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay $83.90 $83.90 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay $139.37 $139.37 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service, Plan E - Employer pay $139.37 $139.37 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Dental $62.49 $62.49 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Dental $118.56 $118.56 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Dental $207.33 $207.33 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Dental $207.33 $207.33 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service (Plan F) $50.89 $50.89 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service (Plan F) $96.19 $96.19 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service (Plan F) $151.89 $151.89 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service (Plan F) $151.89 $151.89 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Service $68.48 $68.48 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Service $129.96 $129.96 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Service $117.66 $117.66 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Service $179.14 $179.14 100% $0.00 0% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 301 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Page 16 of 57 Plan Option 1 Employer Insurance Group p Plan T e/Name YP Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Covera a 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 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $61.60 $61.60 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $115.15 $115.15 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (noi 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $61.60 $61.60 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (noi 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $115.15 $115.15 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (noi 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (noi 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 Orthc $46.32 $46.32 100% $0.00 0% Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Orthc $86.76 $86.76 100% $0.00 0% Olympia 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Orthc $159.82 $159.82 100% $0.00 0% Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Basic Dental Plan E plus Orthc $159.82 $159.82 100% $0.00 0% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 302 of 346 Employer I 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 PSPC City of Edmonds Page 17 of 57 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Plan Option 1 Monthly Cost of Plan Type/Name Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. I Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Self insured $106.00 $106.00 100% $0.00 0% Self insured $212.00 $212.00 100% $0.00 0% Self insured $195.00 $195.00 100% $0.00 0% Self insured $301.00 $301.00 100% $0.00 0% Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia nr* nr* #VALUE! nr* ####### Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia nr* nr* #VALUE! nr* ####### Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia nr* nr* #VALUE! nr* ####### Washington Dental Service Plan F and Orthodontia nr* nr* #VALUE! nr* ####### Washington Dental Service Plan F $55.07 See Medical Note Washington Dental Service Plan F $104.08 See Medical Note Washington Dental Service Plan F $164.27 See Medical Note Washington Dental Service Plan F $164.27 See Medical Note Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100% $0.00 0% Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100% $0.00 0% Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100% $0.00 0% Willamette Dental $92.10 $92.10 100% $0.00 0% Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $61.60 $61.60 100% $0.00 0% Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $115.15 $115.15 100% $0.00 0% Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% Willamette Dental $10 Co -pay $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 303 of 346 Employer Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bothell - Non Rep Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees Bremerton - All Employees City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Insurance Group 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name 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 Plan Option 2 Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Page 18 of 57 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Burien 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental of WA $10 cc $61.60 $61.60 100% $0.00 0% Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental of WA $10 cc $115.15 $115.15 100% $0.00 0% Burien 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental of WA $10 co $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental of WA $10 cc $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Des Moines Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees Issaquah - Exempt Employees King County King County King County King County PSPC 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental of WA $10 co $61.60 $61.60 100% $0.00 0% 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental of WA $10 cc $115.15 $115.15 100% $0.00 0% 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental of WA $10 co $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental of WA $10 cc $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered Additional plan not offered CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 304 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Page 19 of 57 Plan Option 2 Monthly Cost of Employer Insurance Group Plan Type/Name I n^ - --- I Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. Kirkland 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental $58.50 $58.50 100% $0.00 0% Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental $109.30 $109.30 100% $0.00 0% Kirkland 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental $174.70 $174.70 100% $0.00 0% Kirkland 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental $174.70 $174.70 100% $0.00 0% Kirkland 1 Employee Only Additional plan not offered Kirkland 2 Employee & Spouse Additional plan not offered Lacey - Management Exempt I (nor 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Services $50.89 $50.89 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (nor 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Services $96.19 $96.19 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (nor 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt I (nor 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt II (noi 1 Employee Only Washington Dental Services $50.89 $50.89 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (noi 2 Employee & Spouse Washington Dental Services $96.19 $96.19 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (noi 3 Employee & Children Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100% $0.00 0% Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (noi 4 Other: Employee plus Family Washington Dental Services $151.89 $151.89 100% $0.00 0% Lynnwood 1 Employee Only Additional plan not offered Lynnwood 2 Employee & Spouse Additional plan not offered Lynnwood 3 Employee & Children Additional plan not offered Lynnwood 4 Other: Employee plus Family Additional plan not offered Lynnwood - Non -Rep & Council 1 Employee Only Additional plan not offered Lynnwood - Non -Rep & Council 2 Employee & Spouse Additional plan not offered Lynnwood - Non -Rep & Council 3 Employee & Children Additional plan not offered Lynnwood - Non -Rep & Council 4 Other: Employee plus Family Additional plan not offered Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee Only Willamette Dental ($10 Copay) $61.60 $61.60 100% $0.00 0% Mountlake Terrace 2 Employee & Spouse Willamette Dental ($10 Copay) $115.15 $115.15 100% $0.00 0% Mountlake Terrace 3 Employee & Children Willamette Dental ($10 Copay) $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% Mountlake Terrace 4 Other: Employee plus Family Willamette Dental ($10 Copay) $183.85 $183.85 100% $0.00 0% Olympia 1 Employee Only Additional plan not offered Olympia 2 Employee & Spouse Additional plan not offered Olympia 3 Employee & Children Additional plan not offered Olympia 4 Other: Employee plus Family Additional plan not offered PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 305 of 346 Employer Puyallup Puyallup Puyallup Puyallup Sammamish Sammamish Sammamish Sammamish Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Shoreline Snohomish County Snohomish County Snohomish County Snohomish County University Place University Place University Place University Place PSPC City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance - by Employer Insurance Group 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family 1 Employee Only 2 Employee & Spouse 3 Employee & Children 4 Other: Employee plus Family Plan Type/Name 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 Willamette Dental - $10 Copay Willamette Dental - $10 Copay Willamette Dental - $10 Copay Cigna Dental Cigna Dental Cigna Dental Cigna Dental Washington Dental Services Ple Washington Dental Services Ple Washington Dental Services Ple Washington Dental Services Ple CITY OF EDMONDS Plan Option 2 Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Page 20 of 57 Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. $56.90 See Medical Note $106.40 See Medical Note $169.85 See Medical Note $169.85 See Medical Note $116.92 $116.92 100% $0.00 0% $116.92 $116.92 100% $0.00 0% $116.92 $116.92 100% $0.00 0% $116.92 $116.92 100% $0.00 0% $50.89 $50.89 100% $0.00 0% $96.19 $96.19 100% $0.00 0% $151.89 $151.89 100% $0.00 0% $151.89 $151.89 100% $0.00 0% 7/18/2012 Packet Page 306 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Dental Insurance Notes Employer I Comments Snohomish County Dental Plan Option 3 - Total premium $102.90 all levels of enrollment, 100% paid by County. Page 21 of 57 Shoreline, City of Benefit Allowance - The City allocates to each full-time regular employee $865 (Tier 1) 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 11, and is able to receive an nrlrlitinnni nnntrihi itinn frnm tha Cifv of i in to n total of Q1 37n Tha amnlnvae navy the nnsts that avicearl Q1 37n 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 307 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Vision Insurance - by Employer Page 22 of 57 Plan Option 1 Employer Insurance Group Plan Name Monthly Cost Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. 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 Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair optic $23.04 $23.04 100% $0.00 0% Burien 2 Employee & Spouse Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair optic $23.04 $23.04 100% $0.00 0% Burien 3 Employee & Children Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair optic $23.04 $23.04 100% $0.00 0% Burien 4 Other: Employee plus Family Service Plan $10 Deductible plus second pair optic $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% PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 308 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Vision Insurance - by Employer Page 23 of 57 Plan Option 1 Employer Insurance Group Plan Name Monthly Cost Amt. Employer Pays/Mo. Amt. Employee Pays/Mo. of Coverage 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 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 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 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 PSPC Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co -pay $20.75 $20.75 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co -pay $20.75 $20.75 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co -pay $20.75 $20.75 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) $10 co -pay $20.75 $20.75 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) $7.56 $7.56 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) $9.27 $7.56 82% $1.71 18% Vision Service Plan (VSP) $18.94 $7.56 40% $11.38 60% Vision Service Plan (VSP) $18.94 $7.56 40% $11.38 60% VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1) $20.75 $20.75 100% $0.00 0% VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1) $20.75 $20.75 100% $0.00 0% VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1) $20.75 $20.75 100% $0.00 0% VSP with $10 Deductible (Option 1) $20.75 $20.75 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible) $16.82 $16.82 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible) $16.82 $16.82 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible) $16.82 $16.82 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible) $16.82 $16.82 100% $0.00 0% Self -insured $28.00 $28.00 100% $0.00 0% Self -insured $56.00 $56.00 100% $0.00 0% Self -insured $53.00 $53.00 100% $0.00 0% Self -insured $81.00 $81.00 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) nr* nr* 100% nr* 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) nr* nr* 90% nr* 10% Vision Service Plan (VSP) nr* nr* 90% nr* 10% Vision Service Plan (VSP) nr* nr* 90% nr* 10% Vision Service Plan (VSP) $15.67 See Medical Note Vision Service Plan (VSP) $15.67 See Medical Note Vision Service Plan (VSP) $15.67 See Medical Note Vision Service Plan (VSP) $15.67 See Medical Note Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100% $0.00 0% Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100% $0.00 0% Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100% $0.00 0% Regence Vision $15.88 $15.88 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible) $16.82 $16.82 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible) $16.82 $16.82 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible) $16.82 $16.82 100% $0.00 0% Vision Service Plan (VSP) ($25 deductible) $16.82 $16.82 100% $0.00 0% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 309 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Vision Insurance Notes Employer Comments Page 24 of 57 Shoreline, City of Benefit Allowance - The City allocates to each full-time regular employee $865 (Tier 1) 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 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 310 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Life Insurance - by Employer Page 25 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Not Monthly Cost % Employer % Employee Amount of Coverage Offered of Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. 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 $1,001 100% 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 311 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Life Insurance - by Employer Page 26 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Not Monthly Cost % Employer % Employee Amount of Coverage Offered of Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) 1 Employee Life Insurance $0.198 per $1,00 of ben' 100% 0% 1x annual salary Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) 2 Spouse's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of ben 100% 0% $1,000 Lacey- Management Exempt I (non -rep) 3 Children's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of ben 100% 0% $1,000 Lacey - Management Exempt II (non -rep) 1 Employee Life Insurance $0.198 per $1,00 of ben' 100% 0% 1x annual salary Lacey - Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) 2 Spouse's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of ben 100% 0% $1,000 Lacey- Management Exempt 11 (non -rep) 3 Children's Life Insurance $0.363 for $1,000 of ben 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 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% e, AD&D and LTD (Unum) included in premit. 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 312 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Life Insurance - by Employer Page 27 of 57 Employer Insurance Group Not Monthly Cost % Employer % Employee Amount of Coverage Offered of Coverage Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. University Place University Place University Place PSPC 1 Employee Life Insurance 2 Spouse's Life Insurance 3 Children's Life Insurance CITY OF EDMONDS $6.50 100% 0% $25k 7/18/2012 Packet Page 313 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Life Insurance Notes Employer I 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 Page 28 of 57 7/18/2012 Packet Page 314 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary AD&D Page 29 of 57 Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Employer Policy Type Not Offered Coverage per pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage $1,000 in payroll 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 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 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-rel 1 Employee Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rel 2 Spouse Lacey - Management Exempt II (non-rel 3 Child/Children x x x nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* $0.05 per $1,000 100% 0% 1 x annual salary x x nr* 100% 0% $5,000 x x nr* 100% voluntary voluntary nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* x x Included in life 0% Basic paid by employer enhanced offered on voluntary basis nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 315 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary AD&D Page 30 of 57 Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Employer Policy Type Not Offered Coverage per pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage $1,000 in payroll 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 $1,00( 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 316 of 346 PSPC City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary AD&D Notes Employer I Comments No comments. CITY OF EDMONDS Page 31 of 57 7/18/2012 Packet Page 317 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 32 of 57 STD Employer Policy Type Not Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Amount of Coverage Offered payroll Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. 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 EmployeeE 1 Employee voluntary Bremerton - Management & Professional EmployeeE 2 Spouse voluntary Bremerton - Management & Professional EmployeeE 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 318 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 33 of 57 STD Employer Policy Type Not Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Amount of Coverage Offered payroll Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. 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 319 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 34 of 57 STD Employer Policy Type Not Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Amount of Coverage Offered payroll Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Lynnwood 1 Employee nr* $0.00 voluntary Lynnwood 2 Spouse x Lynnwood 3 Child/Children x Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee nr* nr* nr* nr* Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse nr* nr* nr* nr* Mountlake Terrace 3 Child/Children 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* Sammamish 2 Spouse nr* nr* nr* nr* Sammamish 3 Child/Children nr* nr* nr* nr* Shoreline 1 Employee nr* nr* nr* nr* Shoreline 2 Spouse nr* nr* nr* nr* Shoreline 3 Child/Children nr* nr* nr* nr* Snohomish County 1 Employee nr* nr* nr* nr* Snohomish County 2 Spouse nr* nr* nr* nr* Snohomish County 3 Child/Children nr* nr* nr* nr* University Place 1 Employee x University Place 2 Spouse x University Place 3 Child/Children x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* 7/18/2012 Packet Page 320 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 35 of 57 LTD Employer Policy Type Not Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Amount of Coverage Offered payroll Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. 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 EmployeeE 1 Employee Bremerton - Management & Professional EmployeeE 2 Spouse Bremerton - Management & Professional EmployeeE 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 PSPC Packet Page 321 of 346 x x Included in STD 6.2% of payroll 6.2% of payroll MEBT included LTD and $75k life insurance nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* $20.00 Available to Ee's enrolled in LEOFF2, err 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 $5,001mo. 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* CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 36 of 57 LTD Employer Policy Type Not Monthly Cost of Coverage per $1,000 in Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Amount of Coverage Offered payroll Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. 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 $0.35 per $100 of covered payroll 100% 0% 66.66% max $7,500 per month. 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 100% 0% 66.66% max $7,500 per month. Lacey - Management Exempt II (non -rep) 2 Spouse x Lacey - Management Exempt II (non -rep) 3 Child/Children x Lacey - Police 1 Employee $0.55 per $100 of covered payroll 100% 0% 66.66% max $7,500 per month. Lacey - Police 2 Spouse x Lacey - Police 3 Child/Children x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 322 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Disability Insurance - by Employer Page 37 of 57 LTD Not Monthly Cost of Amt. Employer Amt. Employee Employer Policy Type Offered Coverage per $1,000 in Pays/Mo. Pays/Mo. Amount of Coverage payroll Lynnwood 1 Employee nr* nr* nr* Lynnwood 2 Spouse nr* nr* nr* Lynnwood 3 Child/Children nr* nr* nr* Mountlake Terrace 1 Employee nr* nr* nr* for staff working 30 hours + per week Mountlake Terrace 2 Spouse nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* Mountlake Terrace 3 Child/Children nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* Olympia 1 Employee $0.403 per $100 of payroll nr* nr* nr* Olympia 2 Spouse x Olympia 3 Child/Children x Puyallup 1 Employee $0.90 per $100 of salary 100% 0% Puyallup 2 Spouse x Puyallup 3 Child/Children x Sammamish 1 Employee nr* nr* nr* 67% Benefit level Sammamish 2 Spouse nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* Sammamish 3 Child/Children nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* Shoreline 1 Employee Mandatory coverage, rate based on salary Annual salary /12/100x.21 (no change) Shoreline 2 Spouse nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* Shoreline 3 Child/Children nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* Snohomish County 1 Employee $100.00 100% 0% 60% of pre -disability gross wages to max of $3,000 per month. Snohomish County 2 Spouse Snohomish County 3 Child/Children University Place 1 Employee $0.58 per $100 of salary 100% 0% University Place 2 Spouse x University Place 3 Child/Children x PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 323 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary STD & LTD Notes Employer I Comments Page 38 of 57 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 324 of 346 PSPC City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Pension -Retirement - by Employer Page 39 of 57 Defined Benefit Employee Employer Employee Group Employer Employee Contribution Paid Formula Contribution Contribution 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. 911111) 5.24 % 8.46 % nr* Edmonds, City of PSERS (eff. 911111) 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 employ 7.250% 6.000% nr* PERS I (membership before 10/1/77) King County Regular or Local 587 employ 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 emplo 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 PERS3 7.250% varies 0.000% Olympia PSERS 8.860% 6.360% 0.000% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 325 of 346 PSPC City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Pension -Retirement - by Employer Page 40 of 57 Defined Benefit Employee Employer Employee Group Employer Employee Contribution Paid Formula Contribution Contribution by Employer Puyallup Misc/General 7.250% 4.640% 0.000% PERS2 Puyallup Misc/General 7.250% Options 0.000% PERS 3 Puyallup Police &Fire 5.240% 8.460% 0.000% LEOFF2 Sammamish Misc/General Shoreline Misc/General 8.480% 6.000% 0.0000% Plan 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% PERS3 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 PERS1 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% CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 326 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Pension & Retirement Notes Employer I Comments PERS Plan 3 Member Contribution Ra Option 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/emPlover/emPloverhandbook/pdf/combinedlist.pdf PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS Page 41 of 57 7/18/2012 Packet Page 327 of 346 Employer Employee Group Edmonds, City of Misc/General Bothell - Non Rep Non Represented City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary DC -SS -Medicare - by Employer Social Security Medicare Employer Employee Employee Contribution Employer mployee ICE Employee Contribution Employer Employee Employee Contribution Pz 0ntribution Contribution paid b Y Contribution ontribution Paid by Contribution Contribution by Employer nr* nr* nr* 1.450% 1.450% ' 0.000% 6.200% 6.200% 6.200% 6.200% 0.000% 1.450% 1.450% 0.000% Page 42 of 57 Other Formula or Plan Name MEET - Retirement program in lieu of Social Security 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 Employee; 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 Tuned 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 401 a) Shoreline Misc/General - Deferred Compensation Balance of allotm Voluntary 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 Sheriffs 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 328 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Pension & Retirement Notes Employer I Comments Edmonds, City of Sammamish, City of Snohomish County Issaquah, City of Bremerton, City of PSPC Page 43 of 57 MEBT - retirement program in lieu of Social Security; contribution rate City and Employee 6.2% each, includes LTD & $75,000 life insurance. 457 Deferred Compensation Plan - Voluntary employee contribution. All regular Snohomish County employees working 20 hours or more in a budgeted position, except: Elected Officials, Sheriff's Deputies and Sergeants, Sheriffs Law Enforcement Support, Corrections Guild (Corrections Deputies), Corrections Support. 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. Deferred Comp - City match up to 4% of monthly pay rate, max combined (employer and employee) contribution of $16,500 CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 329 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Retiree Health - by Employer Page 44 of 57 Retiree Health Plan Employer Employee Employee Employer Employee Group Contribution Contribution Contribution Paid by Formula/Plan Employer Edmonds, City of Misc/General nr* nr* nr* nr* Bothell - Non Rep All groups 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% Retiree Health Savings Acc Bremerton - Non Rep Misc/General Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA) Police Mgmt $ 30.00 Retirement Medical Savign Burien Misc/General nr* nr* nr* nr* Des Moines Misc/General Issaquah - Exempt Employees Misc/General 1.0000% Mandatory ICMA Retiremer 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 PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 330 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Retiree Healthcare Notes Employer Comments Page 45 of 57 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 331 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO -Paid Leave - by Employer VACATION LEAVE Page 46 of 57 Employer Employee Group PTO Bank @ 1 Year I @5 Years @10 I Years @15 I Years @20 I Years 20+ Years I Comments Hours/ r I Hours/ r I Hours/ r I Hours/ r I Hours/ r I Hours/ r Bothell - Non Rep General Bremerton - Non Rep General Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA) Police Bremerton - Management & Professional Employee Police 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 120 160 200 105 104 152 192 208 208 Max carry-over 160 hrs <5yrs; 300 hrs >5 yrs 120 200 200 200 200 200 96 168 8 to 14 hrs/mo based on service 96 128 160 176 192 192 See Notes page 128 160 192 208 224 224 See Notes page 96 96 128 160 192 200 nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* 96 nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* Increases over time 96 nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* 96 nr* nr* nr* nr* nr* Increases over time 96 128 168 168 168 168 96 96 PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 332 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO -Paid Leave - by Employer VACATION LEAVE Page 47 of 57 Employer Employee Group PTO Bank @ 1 Year I @5 Years @10 I Years @15 I Years @20 I Years 20+ Years I Comments Hours/ r I Hours/ r I Hours/ r I Hours/ r I Hours/ r I Hours/ r 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 Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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* Edmonds, City of Edmonds, City of PSPC Averages #DIV/0! 96 124 172 192 209 209 Director 176 176 176 176 176 176 Other 40 88 128 176 200 Max @ 25+ years = 27 days/year CITY OF EDMONDS 7/ 18/2012 Packet Page 333 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO -Paid Leave - by Employer OTHER LEAVE Page 48 of 57 Employer Employee Group Sick Personal Holidays Mgmt or Admin Comments Hours/Yr Da s/ r Da s/ r Da s/ r Bothell - Non Rep General Bremerton - Non Rep General 0 10 Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA) Police 96 1 10 Bremerton - Management & Professional Employee Police 96 1 10 Burien General 96 1 10 Des Moines General Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 1 w/12 sick days per ye, 96 11 Issaquah - Exempt Employees Vac Sched 2 w/8 sick days per year 64 11 King County General 96 2 10 Kirkland General nr` nr* nr* Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) General Lynnwood General Mountlake Terrace General 96 1 10 Olympia General 96 nr* 11 Puyallup Unaffiliated 96 12 Sammamish General 96 11 Shoreline General 96 2 10 Shoreline FLSA Exempt staff 96 5 10 5 to 10 42 merit leave hours, can carry up to 84, 40 hours professional leave. Upper mgmt: 80 hrs Max sick accrual is 1200 hrs Max sick accrual 125 days 4 Admin leave offered comp time up to 100 hrs 3 to 5 Directors - 50 hrs; Managers- 40 hrs; supervisors- 30hrs 8 PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 Packet Page 334 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO -Paid Leave - by Employer OTHER LEAVE Page 49 of 57 Employer Employee Group Sick Personal Holidays Mgmt or Admin Comments Hours/Yr Da s/ r Da s/ r Da s/ r Snohomish County AFSCME 96 2 10 Snohomish County Clerks Association 96 2 10 Snohomish County Correction's Captains 96 2 10 Snohomish County Correction's Guild 96 2 10 Snohomish County Correction's Support 96 2 10 Snohomish County Deputy Sheriffs Association 96 2 11 Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (24hr shift) 164 Snohomish County Firefighters IAFF (40hr week) 126 10 Snohomish County Human Services Supervisors 96 2 10 Snohomish County Local 763 96 2 10 Snohomish County Sheriffs Office Management Team 96 2 10 Snohomish County SOMT 96 2 10 University Place General nr* nr* nr* Averages 98 2 10 Edmonds, City of Director Edmonds, City of Other PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS Holiday -in -lieu 5% of annual base or Holiday -in -lieu 5% of annual base 7/18/2012 Packet Page 335 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO Notes Employer I Comments Page 50 of 57 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 311_ 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 336 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary PTO Notes Employer I Comments PSPC CITY OF EDMONDS Page 51 of 57 7/18/2012 Packet Page 337 of 346 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Other Benefits - by Employer Page 52 of 57 da `o Employer o W m a a s t 3 Comments w y m on Bothell - Non Rep Bremerton - Non Rep 4% Managers and above Bremerton - Police Management Assoc. (BPMA) 4% 2% 4% X Middle Mgmt Cart pay 1.75%; Exec Cart pay 2.5% Burien x Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sount Transit Des Moines PD Mgmt 2.5%-5% 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 PD mgmt 2%-3% Lacey - Management Exempt I (non -rep) 1-2 % 1 Def Comp 1%for Managers & 2%for Directors Lynnwood PD Mgmt 2%-7% see note 5 years = $221.52/yr;B years = $443.D4/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 PD Mgmt 2%-3% N/A Sammamish Shoreline I INIA Snohomish County University Place N/A Edmonds, City of PSPC Packet Page 338 of 346 CITY OF EDMONDS 7/18/2012 City of Edmonds 2012 Benefits Survey Summary Other Benefits Program Notes Employer Comments Bremerton - Police Mgmt Assoc Burien, City of King County PSPC 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% Employer paid ORCA Card for METRO, Community Transit, Everett Transit, Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit. HRA Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA) offered on voluntary basis. CITY OF EDMONDS Page 53 of 57 7/18/2012 Packet Page 339 of 346 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%-5yrs 4% $ 103,272 $ 151,042 3% BA 3%- 10 yrs 5%- 15 yrs 7%- 20 yrs 10% - 25 yrs Packet Page 340 of 346 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 341 of 346 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%6-10yrs 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 29,6 $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%7-10yrs $ 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%5yrs 4% $ 92,352 $ 135,079 3% BA 3% 10 yrs 5% 15 yrs 7% 20 yrs 10% 25+ yrs Packet Page 342 of 346 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 Admint-eave Comp Time Overtime Certification Pay Merit Pay Clothing Allowanceas 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 $ 135,079 717 Packet Page 343 of 346 DRAFT 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 344 of 346 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 345 of 346 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 501" 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 346 of 346