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