05/25/2010 City CouncilMay 25, 2010
At 5:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would meet in executive
session regarding pending litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 90 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public
Safety Complex. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, and
Councilmembers Plunkett, Fraley - Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson and Wilson. Others present
were Attorney Grant Weed, Attorney Stephanie Croll, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The
executive session concluded at 6:46 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag
salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President Pro Tem
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Steve Bembeim, Council President
ALSO PRESENT
Graham Marmion, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
John Westfall, Fire Marshal
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2010.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page I
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #118986 TO #119125 DATED MAY 20, 2010 FOR
$532,678.53. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49268
THROUGH #49309 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OF APRIL 15 - APRIL 30, 2010 FOR
$645,555.20. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49310
THROUGH #49358 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OF MAY 1 - MAY 15, 2010 FOR $623,745.94.
D. RESOLUTION NO. 1231 - THANKING COUNCILMEMBER DAVE ORVIS FOR HIS
SERVICE.
E. ORDINANCE NO. 3793 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 3592, ADOPTING A BIENNIAL BUDGET PROCESS,
AUTHORIZING REVERSION TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 35A.33 RCW
WITH RESPECT TO THE PREPARATION OF A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011,
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
3. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAOUE TO COUNCILMEMBER DAVE ORVIS.
Council President Pro Tern Peterson read a resolution thanking Councilmember Orvis for his service on
the City Council from January 2000 through May 31, 2010 and wishing him success in his and his
family's future. He presented Councilmember Orvis a plaque in recognition of his service.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he first met Councilmember Orvis when he was a resident making
comment to the Council regarding his interest in keeping property taxes at or below the rate of inflation,
which he succeeded in doing as a Councilmember. He envied Councilmember Orvis' elevation to the role
of citizen. He recalled Councilmember Orvis' efforts to prohibit casinos in Edmonds, explaining at one
time casinos were allowed in any commercial zone and a casino owner had expressed interest in locating
a casino at the site of the Antique Mall. Councilmember Orvis and others collected 5,000 signatures on a
petition and submitted the petition to the Council. The Council subsequently approved a ban on casinos in
Edmonds.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled Meadowdale residents' interest in a walkway on 76th and
Councilmember Orvis' efforts that made that a reality via grant funds to connect a walkway to the park
above Haines Wharf. He cited Councilmember Orvis' efforts to preserve the charm and character of
Edmonds, noting he was easy to work with and never took personal umbrage or personal shots at other
Councilmembers. He wished Councilmember Orvis well in his future endeavors and thanked him for his
service.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas expressed her admiration for Councilmember Orvis' work on the
Council. Although the quietest and most unemotional member of the Council, she recognized him for
thinking through things before speaking, a model she hoped to emulate. She cited the importance of his
work with the Snohomish Health District, particularly his tenacity and consistency. She admired his
decision to resign to focus on his family.
Councilmember Buckshnis wished Councilmember Orvis good luck.
Councilmember Wilson commented whenever Councilmember Orvis spoke, he was sincere and well
informed. He recalled the first time Councilmember Orvis and he met was in 2001 when they discussed
Brightwater and how to obtain more funding for park acquisition and sidewalk construction. He
recognized Councilmember Orvis' steadfastness, commenting although they sometimes disagreed, he
would miss Councilmember Orvis on the Council.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 2
Council President Pro Tem Peterson commented although Councilmember Orvis and he had an exciting
campaign, he knew once he was appointed to the Council, that that was behind them. Although they have
disagreed on occasion, he respected his opinion, recognizing that it was well thought out and sincere. He
was especially impressed with his work with the Snohomish Health District, noting the importance of
helping those less fortunate.
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Orvis' service. He commented that
Councilmember Orvis' decision to resign to focus on his family illustrated his priorities were in the right
place.
Councilmember Orvis recalled when Council President Pro Tern Peterson was appointed, he was quoted
as saying an appointment was the political equivalent of marrying your sister, noting his resignation was
creating an appointment situation. He explained his decision to resign was to spend more time with his
family as he could no longer meet both responsibilities.
Councilmember Orvis referred to Edmonds' historic small town charm, commenting since he has been on
the Council, the citizens and the Council have banned gambling, bought Marina Beach Park, built the
Edmonds Center for the Arts, constructed numerous sidewalk and pathway projects, rebuilt 220"', and
said no to taller buildings. He hoped the community and the Council would continue to say no to taller
buildings especially on the waterfront.
Councilmember Orvis cited New Haven, Connecticut as an example of a city that decided eliminating
historic structures would be good for economic development. An activist, Suzette Kilo, lost her Supreme
Court case to prevent the city's use of eminent domain to purchase and demolish her historic home and
replace it with a new building. Unfortunately, the ultimate result was the destruction of a historic area of
the city and an empty lot due to New Haven's inability to finance the new buildings. He urged the
Council to retain the historic small town charm, views and open space in Edmonds, noting Edmonds'
strength was its small town charm, its waterfront, its commitment to the arts, not taller buildings.
Edmonds economic future depends on preserving its small town charm and he anticipated in future
elections Councilmembers would be evaluated on their ability to preserve its small town charm.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman, City Clerk Sandy
Chase and all City staff; the Council and Mayor; the people of Edmonds who elected him and gave him
the honor of serving on the Council for the past ten years; and his wife, Martha, for her support during his
ten years on the Council.
4. RECEPTION IN HONOR OF COUNCILMEMBER DAVE ORVIS.
At 7:22 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a reception in honor Councilmember Orvis. The
meeting was reconvened at 7:35 p.m.
Councilmember Orvis left the meeting at the conclusion of the reception.
5. 2010 RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF
ELECTED OFFICIALS.
Mayor Haakenson left the dais during discussion of this item.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson thanked the Commission for their work.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 3
Deb Anderson, Chair, Citizens' Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials, introduced the
members of the Commission: Lisa Gallucci, Janice Flaagan, Alan Doman, Anne Ball, Dilys Rosales, and
Norma Middleton. She explained the Commission was established in 1999 and is composed of 7
members. The Commission meets every even year and their recommendations are to be filed with the
City Clerk by the first Monday in May. The Commission task is to review elected officials' compensation
(Council, Mayor and Municipal Court Judge) and recommend adjustments so that citizens of the highest
quality may be attracted to public service. Any approved compensation changes for Councilmembers will
become effective with the new Council terms beginning January 1, 2012. The compensation of the Mayor
and Judge may be altered during their term.
Historically, compensation for City employees per the Council's Non - Represented Compensation Policy
has been determined by comparing acceptable cities by population in Pierce, King and Snohomish
Counties. The Citizens' Commission used seven cities above and below Edmonds by population; cities
above are Kirkland, Redmond, Shoreline, Lakewood, Auburn, Renton and Kent, cities below are
Sammamish, Puyallup, Marysville, Lynnwood, Bothell, University Place and Burien. The Commission
used the following comparable data in their review of Mayor and Council compensation:
• City population
• Form of government
• Position, responsibilities and scope of work
• Edmonds historical compensation information
• Current compensation and benefits
• FTEs
By population, out of the 14 comparable cities, Edmonds ranked 8 by population. By FTE, Edmonds
ranks I lth out of the 14 comparable cities, below the median. She noted the Commission determined FTE
was relevant as it provided insight into various cities' workloads and could increase demand on the
position of Mayor. She pointed out Sammamish, Burien, and University Place have lower FTE because
they contract out most city work.
Ms. Anderson explained the Council adopted the Non - Represented Compensation Policy which 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 for deserving individuals. The Policy is based on maintaining salary ranges at the median
when compared to cities of similar size in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. This Policy has been in
place for approximately ten years.
With regard to the Mayor's compensation, she explained when the Commission made their
recommendation in 2008, the compensation level for the position of Mayor was at the 39th percentile, well
below the median. In 2010, the compensation level has slipped farther behind and is currently at the 36th
percentile. When compared to the 14 cities, the position of Mayor in Edmonds ranked second to last or
13th. Edmonds City Code 10.80 states that the Commission's mandate is to review compensation for
elected officials to ensure that the citizens of the highest quality are attracted to public service. The
proposed increases recognize that the current Mayor's compensation is significantly below similar
jurisdictions in both salary and benefits. In addition to more generous salary structures, many of the
comparable cities also provide either a deferred compensation benefit or car allowance or both.
Ms. Anderson provided a chart illustrating the Mayor's salary 1988 — 2010, noting the level of
compensation had not changed since 2008. She explained in 2008 the Commission recommended the
following:
• Increasing the Mayor's salary by 3.5% effective July 1, 2008, increasing the salary to $104,963
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 4
• A 3.5% increase effective July 1, 2009 increasing the salary to $108,637
• Add a monthly $400 deferred compensation contribution in addition to the base rate, increasing
the Mayor's salary by $4800 /year.
The 2008 Commission felt the increases were warranted and conservative based on the position's 2008
ranking at the 39th percentile.
In lieu of the 2008 Commission's recommendation, the Council proposed and approved the following:
• Increase the compensation of the Mayor by $983 /month to an annual salary of $113,210 effective
July 1, 2008 (Ordinance No. 3685)
• Effective July 1, 2009, increase the compensation of Mayor to $125,000, a 10.4% increase
• The July 1, 2009 increase was later delayed to January 1, 2011 (Ordinance No. 3733)
The 2010 Commission recommends the following compensation for the position of Mayor:
• Ordinance No. 3733 adopted by Council on May 20, 2008 move forward with a July 1, 2010
modified implementation date. This action will increase compensation for the position of Mayor
to $125,000, moving the compensation to the 40th percentile which is still well below the median.
• A market rate adjustment of 2% effective January 1, 2011
• A market rate adjustment of 2% effective January 1, 2012
The market adjustments are warranted as the salary for the position of Mayor is still well below the 50th
percentile.
With regard to Council salaries, Ms. Anderson displayed a chart of Council salaries 1988 — 2010, pointing
out Council salaries had not changed since 2002. She noted in addition to the base rate, each
Councilmember earns $50 per meeting per month up to maximum of 8 meetings per month or an
additional $400 /month as well as benefits.
When the Commission made their recommendation in 2008, the compensation level for Councilmembers
was 52 %, slightly above the median. In 2010, the compensation level has moved to the median at the 50th
percentile. When compared to the 14 cities, Council positions in Edmonds ranked 7th, the median.
Because Council positions are paid at the median, the Commission recommends no compensation change
for 2010 and 2011.
With regard to the Municipal Court Judge, Ms. Anderson explained in 2006 the Council required the
position of Edmonds Municipal Court Judge become an elected position which brought it under the scope
of the Citizens' Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials. Establishing the position as an
elected position qualified the City to receive reimbursement from State court improvement account funds.
As an incentive to attract quality Municipal Court Judges, cities were given an opportunity to receive
funds if they paid judges at least 95% of the salary set for District Court Judges. The Edmonds Municipal
Court Judge position is currently part time, 0.55 FTE, and the Commission recommends the following:
• Maintain compensation at 95% of the salary of District Court Judge
• No increase in 2010 in accordance with State Salary Commission
• If necessary during 2011, increase compensation to maintain 95% requirement
Ms. Anderson concluded that while the Commission was well aware of the current economic climate and
how the economy has specifically affected the City of Edmonds, the Commission took the scope of their
work from the Edmonds City Code which states it is the policy of the city of Edmonds to base the
compensation of elected officials on realistic standards so that elected officials of the City may be
compensated according to the duties of their office and so that citizens of the highest quality may be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 5
attracted to service. While the commission feels their recommendations are reasonable based on market
analysis, it was outside the Commission's scope to determine the budgetary constraints toward
implementing their recommendations. The Commission respectfully acknowledged that budget
implementation was the City Council's function; however, the Commission implores the Council to take
their recommendations seriously.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Commission did not differentiate between City Manager and
Mayor. Ms. Anderson stated their analysis looked at the City Manager and the Mayor together because in
Edmonds' the position of Mayor functions as both the City Manager and Mayor. Councilmember
Buckshnis observed the Commission equated them as one in the same, however, a City Manager reports
to the City Council and has many more reporting requirements. Ms. Anderson responded they were
considered the same in the Commission's analysis.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Shoreline, who has a City Manager, has a FTE of 143. She
questioned whether their FTE was lower because a City Manager was more efficient. Councilmember
Wilson responded Shoreline did not have their own Fire Department, Police Department or Sewer
Department. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded Shoreline was not really comparable to Edmonds. She
asked if the Commission compared like cities with regard to job responsibilities. Ms. Anderson responded
the Commission compared like cities based on population, form of government, position responsibilities
and scope of work, historical compensation information, current compensation and benefits, and FTE.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the median salary of an Edmonds' resident. Ms. Anderson responded an
individual citizens' salary was not relative to the Commission's scope of work.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why cities in closer proximity to Edmonds were not used in the
comparison such as Mukilteo, Everett, Mountlake Terrace, and Kingston. Ms. Anderson explained the
Commission used the Council approved Non - Represented Compensation Policy to determine the
comparison cities by population in Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas observed the Commission provided information regarding how
Edmonds ranked with the other 14 cities by population and FTE. The Commission referenced how the
Mayor's salary ranked with the other 14 cities but the Mayor's /City Manager's compensation in the other
14 cities was not provided. Ms. Anderson referred to a list of the Mayor's compensation in the 14 cities,
citing for example the salary of Kent's City Manager was $13,487 /month and Lakewood's was
$12,380 /month. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas suggested it would be helpful for the Council to have
the population, FTE and Mayor's salary comparison with other cities. Human Resources Director Deb
Humann responded the Commission discussed providing the Council all the data considered and decided
it was the Commission's responsibility to provide a recommendation based on the data and did not
provide all the data used in making their recommendation. It could be provided if the Council desired.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas suggested a list of the Mayor's /City Manager's compensation of the 14
other cities would be helpful to compare it to the number of staff supervised and city population.
Councilmember Wilson asked the deadline for the Commission to provide their recommendation. Ms.
Humann responded the deadline per City Code was for the Commission to submit their recommendation
by the first Monday which was accomplished. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Commission
could do additional research if the Council requested. Ms. Humann answered it was not precluded by
code but had not been done in the past. She offered to provide the Council additional information.
With regard to the selection of comparable cities, Councilmember Wilson referenced the City's policy of
paying at the 50th percentile and asked whether the Council adopted the list of comparable cities. Ms.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 6
Humann responded the policy states comparable cities in Pierce, King and Snohomish County that are
directly above and below by population. When she conducts the salary survey for City staff, she uses nine
cities including Edmonds, four above and four below. Councilmember Wilson asked whether it was
appropriate to revisit that policy in light of the differences in governmental structure between cities. Ms.
Humann answered how compensation was determined varied by city; some incorporate salaries of private
partnerships with the City, others use a percentage of other cities' compensation, etc.
Councilmember Wilson suggested it may be appropriate in the future to do an "apples to apples"
comparison as much as possible. He understood the logic of comparing a strong Mayor to a City Manager
observing that method had a fundamental flaw. He preferred to compare Edmonds' Mayor to other strong
Mayors even if the cities were not the four above and below with regard to population. He recognized the
similarities between a strong Mayor and a City Manager but anticipated a City Manager was a different
job and a different level of compensation than a strong Mayor. He suggested staff remind the Council of
this issue prior to the Citizens' Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials beginning their work.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson asked if the cost of living in different cities was considered, noting
the cost of living in Kirkland was different than Burien. Ms. Humann responded that was not considered.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether compensation provided by State or County was
considered. Ms. Humann answered County and Fire District salaries were considered in Fire Department
comparables. She anticipated King County and other jurisdictions' salaries would be considered in the
salary survey for the Police negotiations because when staff leaves, they usually are hired by those
agencies. She concluded State and County salaries were not considered in the Non - Represented Salary
Policy. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether State or County salaries were considered in
comparing compensation for positions such as Parks & Recreation. Ms. Humann answered no; there was
adequate information available from other cities for Teamster and SElU employees.
Ms. Humann asked what additional information the Council wished her to provide. Councilmember
Fraley- Monillas requested the annual salary of the Mayor or City Manager for the comparable cities and
an indication whether the city had a strong Mayor or City Manager. Ms. Anderson explained the
Commission only compared base salary because the compensation package such as deferred
compensation, benefits, etc. varied widely between cities.
Councilmember Wilson commented it was appropriate to request that information if there were at least
four Councilmembers interested in increasing the Mayor's salary. He did not support the Commission's
recommendation to increase the Mayor's salary and proposed repealing the ordinance that deferred the
Mayor's increase to July 1, 2011. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas advised she would like to have the
information she requested.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented salaries were part of the information the proposed levy committee
would be reviewing. She did not support an increase in the Mayor's salary.
Councilmember Wilson explained when the Council discussed increasing the Mayor's salary in 2008, he
supported the increase, recalling Councilmember Wambolt made a very compelling case for the increase
at that time. The Mayor's $113,000 salary is an appropriate level. When the economy fell off a cliff in
September 2008, the Council passed an ordinance to postpone the second increase. He suggested the
Council direct staff to return with a repeal of Ordinance 3733 that had postponed the Mayor's salary
increase from $113,000 to $125,000. When the economy improved, the Council could revisit the Mayor's
compensation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
THAT THE COUNCIL RESOLVE TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A REPEAL OF
ORDINANCE NO. 3733, THE ORDINANCE THAT DEFERRED THE MAYOR'S SECOND PAY
RAISE TO $125,000 AND BRING IT BACK FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.
Councilmember Wilson acknowledged the questions regarding comparing the salary of a City Manager to
a strong Mayor were valid He appreciated Ms. Anderson's comment that it was the Council's
responsibility to consider the budgetary pressures. If the Council planned to ask the voters to approve a
levy, it was important to avoid large salary increases. He envisioned providing a pay raise to a City
Manager in order to retain him/her; however, as a political figure, it was a symbolic gesture to ask the
Mayor to forego a future pay increase. He concluded in this economic climate and the potential for a levy,
it was prudent to forego a pay increase for the Mayor.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson understood Councilmember Wilson point and the difficulty of the
politics and symbolism. Conversely, the Commission's work indicates the difficulty of an apples to
apples comparison. He pointed out the importance of attracting quality people to the Mayor's position,
noting although the Mayor's position was political, it required a great deal of work. He noted Edmonds'
205 FTE with a population of 40,000 compared to Lynnwood's 455 FTE with a population of 35,000,
questioning which manager had the more difficult job; the manager managing more people or the
manager managing fewer people doing more work. He agreed with the Commission's recommendation
and did not support the motion.
MOTION CARRIED (4 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETERSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
PETERSON, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON
COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS REGARDING THE MUNICIPAL COURT
JUDGE.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why this action was necessary. Ms. Humann explained the Council never
passed an ordinance establishing the Judge's compensation at 95% of the salary of a District Court Judge;
a dollar amount representing the J'udge's salary had been incorporated in the annual salary ordinance.
Councilmember Wilson asked how Snohomish County District Court Judge's salaries were established.
Ms. Humann answered the amount was set by the State Citizens' Commission on Compensation of
Elected Officials. She explained in order to qualify for court improvement account funds from the State,
the Municipal Court Judge's salary must be maintained at 95% of a District Court Judge's salary.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to email communication with Councilmember Buckshnis prompted
by a levy proposal he sent to Councilmember on May 11. He qualified his proposal with three
assumptions, 1) approximately $600,000 in Fire District 1 receipts would be returned to the General
Fund, 2) pay increases for 2011 and 2012 be limited to 2.5% versus the 3.5% in the forecast, and 3) the
ending balance for each year would be no lower than $3 million. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed
with his assumptions, stating that was how misinformation got disseminated. He acknowledged
Councilmember Buckshnis' right to disagree with his assumptions; however, in the context they were
provided, they were not misinformation. In a series of emails that followed, that was the last reference to
the levy proposal and Councilmember Buckshnis proceeded to criticize him for other alleged failings
including why he had not audited the Fire District 1 numbers and that if he had listened to her and others,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 8
it may have been possible to save the City $1 — $1' /z million. Councilmember Buckshnis arrived at that
conclusion via a flawed analysis by totaling expenses that included compensation and not other expenses
incurred by Fire District 1. He suggested if Councilmember Buckshnis audited Fire District 1 costs, she
would find the contract with Fire District 1 was a bargain for Edmonds. Next, he disagreed with
Councilmember Buckshnis' assertion that $400,000 was removed from the REET fund, commenting she
did not understand the 2009 REST statement. Finally she insulted him with a statement that it was no
wonder he did not get past the primary and speculated he had a problem with intelligent women. He
quoted from an email by Councilmember Fraley- Monillas, "do not waste your time Diane with him, he
still thinks he is on Council as evident by attending every event and meeting possible ... you need to
consider his age and his need to remain involved no matter if he is correct or not. Kind of sad." Mr.
Wambolt invited the public to email him at RRWamboltamsn.com to read the emails.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported today's Lake Ballinger Forum meeting was cancelled. The next
meeting is scheduled for June 22 at 2:00 p.m. in Mountlake Terrace. Next, he reported 32 % -35% of
Edmonds residents were seniors. The City needs to provide services for both seniors and the younger
generation.
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 7, Formation of a Levy Committee, commenting the
Council had already formed a levy committee, the 60+ member Levy Review Committee that met last
year. The discussion regarding the levy was simply a continuation of those people's thoughts. He
acknowledged that although the numbers may have changed, he doubted the conclusion had changed —the
City needs a levy. The elected Councilmembers were the bottom line and needed to make the decision
regarding a levy. There was not enough time to form committees, gather information and report to the
Council. He supported Councilmember Wilson's suggestion for the Council to meet every Thursday and
to involve the public during those meetings. He urged the Council to get on with it and do what they had
to do to get a levy passed.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, asked whether the increase in the Mayor's salary had been resolved. He was
informed the Council had not approved a salary increase for the Council or Mayor. He commended
Councilmember Orvis, a fine gentleman, an honest, straight shooter with a personal code of honor who
was true to himself. He was saddened to learn Councilmember Orvis had been accused of assaulting his
son and was insulted when he learned Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Wilson had recommended
he resign. He noted Councilmember Orvis was subsequently acquitted of the charges.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Martin's concern with Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember
Wilson's request that Councilmember Orvis resign. Next, he referred to his comments at that May 18
Council meeting that building permits were down 58% and plan check fees were down 42 %, noting the
meeting minutes did not reflect his comment that the number of employees had not been reduced
correspondingly. With regard to the Mayor's salary, he recommended the Council reconsider the method
used to compare the Mayor's salaries, suggesting neighboring cities such as Mukilteo, Everett and
Mountlake Terrace be used and that the type of revenue each city collected be considered such as sales
tax versus property tax. He suggested the Council instruct staff to develop a new policy for comparing
salaries. He anticipated the employees who took furloughs during the last year would not appreciate the
Mayor receiving a pay increase.
7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE FORMATION OF A LEVY
COMMITTEE.
Councilmember Plunkett explained this was a continued discussion from last week regarding the
formation of a 7- member levy committee comprised of a member appointed by each Councilmember. He
explained Mayor Haakenson would be presenting a very bare -boned budget in October, a budget that did
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 9
not assume a levy increase. The Finance Committee proposes the levy committee consider the following,
1) augmentation of the General Fund, 2) capital targets of opportunity, 3) take public comment, and 4)
receive additional direction from the Council as information is developed and presented to the levy
committee. The intent would be a levy in February 2011 with the outside possibility of a levy in
November 2010. . He explained Councilmembers were welcome to meet with the committee. He supported
the Finance Committee's original recommendation, to form a 7- member levy committee.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT STAFF MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE COUNCIL IS FORMING A LEVY
COMMITTEE MADE UP OF SEVEN PEOPLE, EACH CHOSEN BY ONE COUNCILMEMBER.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she watched last week's meeting on television and wanted to respond
to the issues raised by Councilmember Wilson. She pointed out Consent Agenda Item E changed the
budget from a two -year budget to a one -year budget. In an effort to compare and contrast the proposed
levy committee to last year's 60+ member levy review committee, she acknowledged the hours
Councilmember Wilson spent organizing information that was presented to the committee. She remarked
whenever there was a revenue issue, there was a corresponding expense issue; because revenues have
declined, expenses must also be reduced. She envisioned this levy committee as a citizen - friendly
committee similar to the committee used by Redmond and Portland, Oregon. She envisioned questions
such as were raised last week about the attorney's fees could be investigated by this committee. Rather
than a tour of the City's operations that was provided to last year's levy review committee, she envisioned
this committee would be interactive and educate citizens and look at salaries of non -union employees
compared to cities close to Edmonds and cities with a similar tax structure. The levy committee would
consider the future of Yost Pool and the Senior Center. She concluded the committee needed to consider a
variety of issues and it was necessary to take time to investigate revenues and expenses. She commented
the committee could be more than 7 people if others wanted to help, comparing it to the Economic
Development Committee that had 17 members who met in subcommittees.
Councilmember Wilson commented the model used for last year's levy review committee was a model
used by other cities such as Lake Forest Park. He cautioned the Council not to underestimate the amount
of time a levy committee takes, noting someone needed to be responsible for guiding the conversation. A.
levy committee would require some structure and whoever led the committee needed to be willing to put
in the time. He did not support the motion, reiterating the Council was the committee and it was the
Council's responsibility to make the decisions. If the Council needed additional information, it was their
responsibility to ask for it, not the citizens, particularly when no structure had been established for
obtaining information. He recalled an ordinance was passed to form both last year's levy review
committee and the Economic Development Committee, thereby establishing a clear structure.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out of the items Councilmembers Plunkett and Buckshnis identified for
the levy committee to discuss, none of them solved the revenue problem. He agreed discussing Yost Pool
and the Senior Center were important; however, it did not address the operational shortfall. Although it
was worthwhile to discuss changing the salary compensation policy, it did not address the operational
shortfall. He agreed with taking public comment, noting that also did not address the operational shortfall.
He summarized none of the rationales identified for forming the levy committee addressed the operational
shortfall. He agreed with increased transparency, better reporting of financial data, and forecasting best
case /worst case scenario, however, none of that addressed the operational shortfall.
If the intent was a levy committee, Council President Pro Tem. Peterson questioned why the committee
would be discussing salaries and overtime, noting those were topics more appropriately discussed by a
budget committee. He recalled during last year's Council retreat, the Council discussed overtime versus
salaries and it was discussed as background information by last year's levy review committee. He agreed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 10
attorneys' fees and consultants' fees were important budget discussions but did not relate to a levy.
Recognizing that the timeframe for formulating a levy and placing it on the ballot was rapidly shrinking,
he was hesitant to add another layer of bureaucracy when the Council itself was an excellent committee to
make those decisions. For those reasons as well as the lack of clarity regarding the structure of the levy
committee, he did not support the motion. For example, Councilmember Plunkett's motion stated it would
be a seven member committee; Councilmember Buckshnis said the committee could be larger. He
acknowledged the need to discuss both revenues and expenses but did not see how talking about salaries
and overtime in the Police Department would solve the City's overarching financial issues.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his motion was to establish a committee of seven people. He
assumed Councilmember Buckshnis meant other people could participate; the committee would be seven
people. He pointed out one of the purposes of the levy committee was augmenting the General Fund
budget which did address the shortfall. He anticipated the budget Mayor Haakenson will present in
October would need to be augmented, likely via a levy. He disagreed with Council President Pro Tern
Peterson, commenting he had not yet reached the conclusion that a levy was needed. He acknowledged
the Council took votes on a levy last year, but in the end he did not support moving forward with a levy.
He did not support moving forward with a levy now until labor negotiations had been completed, noting
labor was 65 -70% of the City's budget. He questioned how the Council could recommend a budget when
65 -70% of the budget was undetermined. He was unable to support a levy until he had an opportunity to
review a no levy increase budget and learn what may need to be augmented and until he had a better
understanding of future labor costs. In the meantime, the levy committee could review the issues and
provide new perspective and new ideas. He acknowledged the ultimate decision with regard to a levy was
made by the Council. He did not anticipate a levy committee would adversely affect the process and
would in fact provide more information.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was perplexed by the comment that salaries and overtime were not part
of the levy decision - making process. Because salaries were such a major portion of the City's budget, she
did not anticipate being able to formulate a levy until negotiations had been concluded because that
process would identify how much money was needed. She envisioned part of the levy committee's charge
would be to determine what to spend money on and what levy monies were needed for. She was
perplexed by the comments against forming a levy committee.
To Mr. Hall's comments regarding the previous levy committee, Councilmember Fraley - Monillas pointed
out things had changed dramatically since the levy review committee began their work. She recognized
that all but one of the levy review committee subcommittees were in favor of a levy. However, the
Council chose not to place a levy on the ballot at that time. The situation has now changed again and a
levy committee was needed to consider what things could be funded via a levy. She disagreed with those
who felt last year's levy review committee resulted in adequate community input. She concluded there
was time for a levy committee to review the issues. She was wary of preparing a levy prior to the
completion of labor negotiations, fearing without that information the levy amount could either be too
much or too little. She recognized the concern with a levy committee holding up the process, commenting
what was delaying the process was the upcoming labor negotiations.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the reason she wanted the levy committee to discuss staffing and
overtime was the City spent $1.2 million in overtime for Police and Fire last year. The 2010 budget
includes two new positions in the Police Department. Her goal was to understand whether the overtime
was necessary or whether a third person should be hired in the Police Department. She summarized the
levy committee would seek answers to these and other questions. She pointed out responses from finance
staff has been slower than in the past; for example staff has not responded to a question she asked in
March regarding $400,000 in REET that was taken out to bring the forecast in line. She summarized the
levy committee was about citizen involvement, understanding the City's finances and educating citizens.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 11
Council President Pro Tem Peterson agreed with the importance of getting numbers, having a better
understanding and having financial information available on the City's website. He recalled one of the
advantages of last year's 60+ member levy review committee was that it was comprised of volunteers
who were not appointed by Councilmembers. One of the disadvantages of each Councilmember
appointing a member to the levy committee was the likelihood that the person each Councilmember
appointed would support his /her viewpoint. He recognized that labor was a major part of the City's
budget, pointing out the City was basically a service industry and people are necessary to provide those
services. He emphasized that even if the Council held every employee to a 0% increase, a levy would still .
be needed. He envisioned whatever increase was agreed to during labor negotiations would not
substantially change the bottom line in a few years.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson disagreed with waiting to complete labor negotiations before making
a decision regarding a levy, envisioning once labor negotiations were completed, something else would
arise. Although he agreed last year to postpone the levy, the Council agreed at that time that a levy was
imperative in the near future, a situation that has not changed and if anything, has worsened due to the
economic climate. He wanted to formulate a levy as quickly and as transparently as possible and did not
support the Council using a levy committee as a filter.
Councilmember Wilson commented this was his third year on the Council and he deals with governments
extensively in his day job. During his first year on the Council he thought he knew much more than he
did. In his third year on Council, he continues to learn that he knows far less than he likes to think he
does. When he was first elected, he voted in a manner that reflected his trust in the more senior
Councilmembers. Although he sometimes disagreed with Councilmember Plunkett as well as with Mayor
Haakenson, he always listened to their viewpoints because they were senior members. With six
Councilmembers in their first term, he recommended Councilmembers be better listeners and for
Councilmember Plunkett and Mayor Haakenson to provide their viewpoint. He acknowledged sometimes
he has had to take votes without complete information and sometimes he did not get answers from staff in
a timely manner. He was confident the seven members of a levy committee would not get their questions
answered any more quickly than a Councilmember. He beseeched Councilmembers Buckshnis and
Fraley - Monillas to work with the Council and for Councilmember Plunkett and Mayor Haakenson to
provide leadership.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented she was listening to the recommendation made by the senior
member of the Council, Councilmember Plunkett. To Council President Pro Tem Peterson's comment
that a levy would still be necessary even if no raises were provided, she questioned how the amount of the
levy would be determined. She did not understand the rush, recommending the Council take the time
necessary to determine what things should and should not be paid for. For example, there was a problem
if the City was spending over $1 million in overtime rather than filling regular positions as it was cheaper
to fill regular positions and pay benefits than pay overtime. She summarized it was her responsibility as
an elected official to ensure a levy was the right thing for the citizens. She was not willing to approve a
levy without adequate information regarding how much money a levy needed to generate and what a levy
would fund.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson asked whether formal direction would be provided to staff or the
committee regarding a report they would provide. Councilmember Plunkett responded initial direction
was outlined in last week's packet. While the committee was being formed in the next 2 -3 weeks, he
anticipated the Finance Committee in conjunction with the Council could provide direction.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to her narrative that identified areas the committee would review. She
recommended citizens who apply for the levy committee understand financial statements, modified
accrual accounting, cash flows and financial modeling if possible and have the ability to conduct research.
Councilmember Plunkett advised the Council would approve the direction given to the committee.
Council President Pro Tern Peterson asked whether there was a timeframe for the committee to gather
information and provide a recommendation. Councilmember Plunkett answered there was not.
Mayor Haakenson observed if the motion passed, Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman
would issue a press release announcing the Council was forming a 7- member levy committee, He asked
when the Council would appoint the 7 members. Councilmember Plunkett asked how long was typically
provided for application to a committee and City Clerk Sandy Chase advised a two week period was
usually provided. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the Council was accepting applications for
appointment to the levy committee.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the qualifications Councilmember Buckshnis cited be included in the
motion. Councilmember Plunkett agreed.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked if the qualifications were desirable or if it was up to each
Councilmember. Councilmember Buckshnis answered it would be up to each Councilmember to make
their selection.
Mayor Haakenson clarified in two weeks after applications have been submitted, each Councilmember
will select one person.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the implementation of the levy committee such as the frequency
of their meetings, how they would get their questions answered, how questions from the committee and
the Council would be prioritized, whether Ms. Spellman would staff the committee and forward questions
to staff, how the committee's work would be facilitated, etc. Mayor Haakenson acknowledged confusion
with the timeline based on comments that a decision would not be made regarding a levy until the budget
was presented in October and until labor negotiations were completed which may not be until 2011. He
questioned why a levy committee would begin meeting any time soon with those restrictions. Without
knowing the structure of the committee or the frequency of their meetings, he anticipated someone would
need to take minutes of their meetings, write down the committee's questions and refer them to staff and
staff would do their best to provide answers.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had obtained a number of financial reports and a great deal of
information had been provided via public records requests such as Ms. Bloom's request regarding the
City Attorney expenses. She summarized it was simply a matter of the committee organizing itself and
establishing a framework. The sooner the committee met and the more information they disseminated to
the public, the better. She did not anticipate placing a levy on the ballot in November 2010.
MOTION CARRIED (3 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
8. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE
ARTS.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson explained one of the funding sources for the Edmonds Center for the
Arts' (ECA) capital campaign were funds from Snohomish County designated for arts organizations
throughout the County and due to the economy, some of those revenues have not been realized. As a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 13
result several arts organizations, including the ECA, are seeking replacement funds. The Snohomish
County Lodging Tax Fund has a reserve available and they are in the process of creating an allocation
process to distribute those funds to arts organizations and Public Facilities Districts throughout
Snohomish County.
Council President Pro Tern Peterson requested the Council sign a letter of support to be sent to the
Snohomish County Council who will make the ultimate decision regarding allocation of the funds. He
read the letter stating the Edmonds City Council's support of the ECA and the Edmonds Public Facilities
District (EPFD) in the upcoming allocation process of the unallocated Snohomish County Lodging Tax.
funds. The letter cited the ECA's $3 million contribution to the local economy and South Snohomish
County and the ECA's dependence on the support of patrons and local and County government. The letter
urged the Council to support an allocation of the Snohomish County Lodging Tax Fund to the ECA,
noting the ECA provided a home for many important Snohomish County arts organizations including the
Cascade Symphony Orchestra, Olympic Ballet Theater, Sno -King Community Chorale, and Edmonds
Community College and established Edmonds and Snohomish County as a true arts community.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SIGN THE LETTER.
Councilmember Wilson highlighted the statement in the letter that the ECA requires the lodging tax funds
from Snohomish County, pointing out the debt on the ECA is guaranteed by the City. Because the ECA
does not generate enough to cover operations and debt service, another source needs to be identified. If
another source is not identified, the City is responsible for the debt service. He urged the citizens of
Edmonds to communicate with their Snohomish County Council representative Mike Cooper and
Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon to urge them to allocate the lodging tax funds to the ECA.
If funds are not allocated to the ECA, the debt service will be part of the budget discussion this fall,
approximately $186,000 annually, the equivalent of two police officers.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson reported the Edmonds Public Facilities District meeting included
discussion regarding the above letter. The PFD Board and the Executive Director Joe Mclalwain are
working diligently to identify funds to cover the capital debt. Despite the economy, the ECA staff,
volunteers, and board have done a remarkable job keeping operations in the black; an amazing feat for a
performing arts center particularly in this economy. He urged citizens to support the ECA.
Councilmember Wilson reported he attended 11 meetings during the last month in his capacity as a
Councilmember. He highlighted the Lake Ballinger Forum, advising the Forum is in line for $4.2 million
in federal funds for capital improvements and to keep all the jurisdictions involved. The existing
Interlocal Agreement will terminate in June and a new Interlocal Agreement will be presented to the
Council in June. The Lake Ballinger Forum is a national model and senior leadership from the
Department of Ecology (DOE) plan to attend the June meeting so that DOE and Governor Gregoire can
promote the model in Washington as well as nationally.
With regard to the Parking Committee, Councilmember Plunkett reported Parking Enforcement Officer
Debbie Dawson issued 197 violations in March due in part to working nights during March. He cautioned
violators that parking enforcement was 24/7. He relayed Councilmember Fraley- Monillas plans to change
several items in the Parking Code at the recommendation of Officer Dawson. The Committee
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 14
recommended an additional handicapped parking zone south of Dayton on 5th. The Committee has also
asked the Municipal Court to research why they dismissed 13 parking violations.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh made a report to the Port. With
regard to WRIA 8, she commented on efforts to move daylighting of Willow Creek from their ten year
plan to their three year plan and to invite the Port to participate in WRIA 8.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson invited the public to the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery's annual Memorial Day event
on May 31 at 11:00 a.m.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Pro Tern Peterson invited the public to attend the Jazz Connection, presented by the
Edmonds Daybreakers Rotary and the ECA, on Saturday, May 29.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Orvis for his service.
Councilmember Wilson commented one of the lessons of the recession was that government needs to
reinvent itself and figure out how to provide services differently and more smartly, often referred to as
Government 2.0. An example of that is the Fire District 1 contract. The model of focusing services in a
municipal corporation like a Fire District that only provides fire services makes sense. Although the City
has taken some of those steps, the Council is having difficulty with determining a levy, also part of
Government 2.0, making the case to voters regarding a levy every 2 -5 years. He suggested over the next
12 -18 months consideration be given to forming a Parks District such as Metro Parks Tacoma, a Parks
District that explicitly funds parks. He noted the City took a similar action years ago when it reverse
annexed the Edmonds Library into the Sno -Isle Library System. The formation of a Parks District would
require voter approval of its formation and to elect representatives. With the formation of a Parks District,
the City would no longer be responsible for parks and the City's costs would diminish considerably. As a
result the City could lower its costs and possibly lower taxes.
Councilmember Wilson also suggested the Council consider reverse annexing into Fire District 1.
Currently, citizens do not have an elected voice on Fire District 1 because they do not elect Fire
Commissioners; the contract is managed by Mayor Haakenson. He acknowledged fire service in Fire
District 1 would cost Edmonds citizens far more via reverse annexation than the current cost of fire
service. However, the City could lower its costs without the responsibility for the $6+ million contract
with Fire District 1. Fire District 1 is reviewing via allowances in State law how they can establish a
graduated cost for service that would allow for example a single family home to have a lower fire rating
than a nursing home. He urged the Council to think about ways to restructure government. He suggested
citizens peruse the Tacoma Metro Parks and Fire District 1 websites and consider whether direct
representation would provide more benefits.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to a comment he made a few weeks ago regarding postponing a vote to
change the City to a City Manager form of government. He clarified his intent was to move the vote on
that change to February 2011 to prevent a change in the form of government in the vortex of at least three
important issues. He has requested Council President Bernheim schedule Council direction on the matter
on a future agenda.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented substantial public records requests have been submitted
again over the past week for emails dating back five months or longer, requiring the employment of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 15
additional staff to assist with gathering that information. She planned to propose hiring temporary staff to
make all emails available on the City's website to avoid public records requests for emails. She
commented this level of public records requests had never occurred in the past and they are originating
from specific individuals.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on her trip to Lithuania where she met with Central Bank
representatives. Central Bank did not engage in any derivatives and have not had to close any banks or
put money into their banking system. She commented on the tremendous impact the economic downturn
has had on tourism.
Student Representative Marmion announced the Edmonds - Woodway High School May 26 Art Show that
features two local artists and promotes the work of high school art students.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 25, 2010
Page 16