07/16/2002 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 16, 2002
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Earling, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director
Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director
Chris Sheridan, Treatment Plant Supervisor
Brian McIntosh, Cultural/Recreation Supervisor
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Marin requested Item K be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 2, 2002
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #56527 THROUGH #56652 FOR THE WEEK OF
JULY 1, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $413,433.21. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
#56653 THROUGH #56793 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 8, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$246,277.18. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #33133
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 1
1
THROUGH #33308 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 16 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2002, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $784,109.75
(D) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD
(E) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR SEALED BIDS TO SURPLUS THE PUBLIC WORKS
1985 CATERPILLAR LOADER, UNIT #50
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR EDMONDS/WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL
ATHLETIC FIELD DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR MADRONA SCHOOL PLAYGROUND
IMPROVEMENTS
(H) APPROVE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF WOODWAY FOR
FIRE DEPARTMENT PROVISION OF FIRE PROTECTION, PREVENTION AND
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
(I) MIKE DOUBLEDAY GOVERNMENT RELATIONS — CONTRACT PROPOSAL FOR
SERVICES
(J) PROPOSED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND EDMONDS
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
(L) ORDINANCE NO. 3404 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE
SECTION 2.35.020(A) IN ORDER TO ADD THE HOLIDAY, MARTIN LUTHER KING
DAY
Item K: Report on Bids Opened July 9, 2002, for the 2002 Street Overlav Proeram and Award of Contract to
Lakeside Industries, Inc. ($948,568.69)
Councilmember Marin recalled when attending/watching Council meetings as a citizen, it was difficult to
understand Consent Agenda items. He explained Consent Agenda items were issues that had been
discussed previously by Council Committees or were items that could be adopted with limited
discussion.
Councilmember Marin commented street overlay was an issue citizens should be aware of and read the
list of streets scheduled for overlay this year:
• Bicycle Grate Replacement
• Perrinville Utility Zone
• 86th Avenue W, 238th Street SW to end
• 4th Avenue S, Walnut Sound Transit to Dayton Street
0 7h Avenue S, Birch Street to Elm St
• Elm Place, 7th Avenue S to end
• 202nd Place SW, Maplewood Drive to end
• 204th Street SW, 88th Avenue W to Maplewood Drive
0 205' Street SW, 88' Avenue W to Maplewood Drive
• 2nd Avenue S, Dayton Street to Main Street
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 2
• James Street, 3`d Avenue S to 2nd Avenue S
• Sprague Street, 9th Avenue N to end
• 185th Street SW & 82nd Avenue W off 186"' Street SW
• 216th Street SW, 84th Avenue W to 86th Avenue W (includes walkway)
• 218th Street SW, 84" Avenue W to 92"d Avenue W (1" overlay)
• Laurel Street, 70 Avenue S to 8th Avenue W
• Access Road off 191" Street SW and speed hump
• Bowdoin Way, 84th Avenue W to 92nd Avenue W
• Maplewood Drive, Main Street to end
• 199th Street SW, Maplewood Drive to end (1" overlay)
• 206th Street SW, Maplewood Drive to end
• 207th Street SW, Maplewood Drive to end
• 92°d Place W, end to Bowdoin
• Maple Street, 10th Avenue S to end & 10th Avenue S, Maple Street to end
• Erben Drive, 14'h Avenue S to 3`d Avenue S
Councilmember Marin asked the mileage these overlays represented. City Engineer Dave Gebert
answered with the 76"' Avenue overlay, 8.3 miles would be overlaid this year, a significant increase over
recent years. This was possible due to the Council's support in the capital budget to provide funding
sources for street overlays including a bond issue that provided $750,000 for street overlays.
Responding to further questions, Mr. Gebert stated 8.3 miles per year represented an 18 year overlay
cycle, which meets the goal of a 15-20 year cycle. The City did 6.3 miles last year which represented a
24 year cycle; and the amount of streets that received overlay in the past 4-5 years represented a 40-50
year cycle.
Councilmember Marin commented this was an impressive list of overlays and complimented the
Engineering Department for the savings they were able to incorporate into the work.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as
follows:
(K) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 9, 2002, FOR THE 2002. STREET OVERLAY
PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES, INC.
($948,568.69)
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON
SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
Kevin Clarke, Chair of the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials, expressed his
appreciation to the Edmonds Beacon and Enterprise for their coverage of the June 18 Council meeting,
particularly the Enterprise for the depth, research, and interviewing members of the Commission to
ensure the full story was presented.
Mr. Clarke presented the Commission's recommendation:
• Salaries/Benefits
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 3
Annual Salary for the Mayor increased to $97,000 plus the current benefit package. Base Salary
for Councilmembers increased to $600 per month with the same payment for meetings and the
same benefit package. The same $100 per month additional compensation for the Council
President
• Annual Salary Review for the May
Review and adjust the Mayor's salary at the beginning of each budget year. The review process
to be based on a formula that reflects the salaries for CEOs of cities above and below the criteria
the Commission established which includes population and budget
• Review of Election Campaign Barriers/Financing Associated with running for public office in
Edmonds
Mr. Clarke explained the Citizens Commission was established by the Council, not because they wanted
a raise, but to take the process of evaluating compensation out of the political arena. He noted in recent
history, Mayors have come from the Council and it was difficult for Councilmembers to vote for an
increase in the Mayor's salary and then run for Mayor. The Council was also reluctant to raise their own
salaries, thus the Council's salary has not increased since 1990. The Commission, established in 1999,
consists of one member appointed by the Mayor, two appointed by the Council, and those individuals
review and select the four remaining members subject to approval by the Council. He noted the
Commission, made up of citizens, has the same representation as the Council, seven members, and has
the same citywide representation. The Commission did not receive compensation, was not elected by the
public, and State law limited the activities of the Commission, requiring the final vote on the salaries of
elected officials to be made by the Council.
Mr. Clarke noted State law required a super majority vote, five of seven Councilmembers, to approve the
recommendations. He recalled when the Commission made a recommendation previously to increase the
Council's salary, one Councilmember was absent and one Councilmember who was running for Mayor
recused himself. At that time, although a majority voted for the recommendation, there was not a super
majority of five and action was not taken. He noted all votes by the Commission were unanimous and his
goal was to convince the entire Council to support the Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Clarke pointed out the six citizens who testified before the Commission were the six citizens who
testified regarding the budget. He used the analogy that per dollar, the Commission had better
participation than the Council had for their $23 million budget. He explained with the City's budget of
over $23 million, the dollars represented by the proposed salary increase were insignificant — using one
cent out of a dollar in the budget, that 1% would represent approximately $200,000. That one cent would
need to be cut into ten pieces and one and one half pieces represent the amount of money the
Commission was proposing for increases for the Mayor and Council.
Mr. Clarke explained the goal of the Commission was to establish a process that could be followed in the
future. He noted most people would not accept employment where they did not receive an increase in 12
years. Further, because the Mayor is a full-time employee, the position should be considered in relation
to its responsibilities versus its popularity as the voters would determine whether the Mayor was doing a
good job. He said the salary paid the Mayor and Council should attract public officials who are
accountable for the job, and appreciation for the job they are doing should be demonstrated via the
compensation. He pointed out the difference between a salary and a stipend; salaries are based on worth
and stipends are amounts paid just to get by.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 4
Mr. Clarke observed the Council may have made promises via the campaign process. He stressed the
Councilmembers were not voting on their salaries; the salary increases, if approved, would not be
effective until the next election cycle. He noted some Councilmembers may not vote for the increase
because it was politically unpopular. However, the citizens who testified against the proposed increases
were nearly the same percentage of the salaries to the budget, almost immeasurable.
Mr. Clarke explained the Citizens Commission invited Councilmembers and the Mayor to their public
hearings but only one attended. Although the Commission appreciated the Council's concern with being
asked questions, the Commission's goal was to learn about the Council's responsibilities and how they
felt about their compensation. He pointed out it was not fair for a Councilmember to vote no if they did
not attend the public hearing because they didn't tell the public why they would object to having their
salary increased. He read from the record a comment made by Mayor Haakenson at the Commission's
public hearing, "I am somewhat reluctant and uncomfortable being here tonight but I was told that the
Commission had several questions they would like to ask me." Mr. Clarke explained the Commission
did ask Mayor Haakenson questions, not about how much he was worth, but to help understand the
Mayor's responsibilities, how they differed from a City Manager's responsibilities, etc.
Mr. Clarke suggested if Councilmembers were uncomfortable with the increase, he/she could voluntarily
return the additional compensation back if re-elected. He pointed out a "no" vote did not express
confidence in the process of the Commission providing a recommendation to the Council.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the process used to determine the Mayor's salary in the 1980's,
noting there had been a fairly dramatic increase in the Mayor's salary since 1988. She inquired whether
the salary established for the Mayor at that time was inordinately low and whether that was the reason the
increases outpaced inflation. Mr. Clarke answered the City used to have a part-time Mayor, a position
that was somewhat ceremonial. As the position became full-time, there wasn't a balanced, principle -
based approach on how to set the Mayor's salary at market rate but it was based on the analysis of the
Council. The Mayor's salary was established previously without the benefit of an outside, objective
process that considered comparable salaries. Other cities have historically had the same process and only
recently other cities have developed commissions to assist in establishing salaries to eliminate the
political process.
Councilmember Dawson asked how the salary of $46,000 for a full-time Mayor was established in 1988.
Mr. Clarke advised it was not an independent process, the salary was established by the Council. Human
Resources Director Brent Hunter agreed the salary was set by the Council, a political decision. He did
not recall how that amount was determined. Mr. Clarke recalled there was a time when the Mayor
approached the Council to request an increase.
Presuming the $46,000 salary was established using a proper theory, Councilmember Dawson pointed
out the salary increased more than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and more than 5% per year. Mr.
Clarke pointed out the difficulty with comparing the increase to CPI was that one must assume the salary
was at market rate to begin with or the comparison was not fair. As that was not the case with the
Mayor's salary, it was logical the increase would be greater due to the below market salary structure.
Councilmember Dawson concluded it was the Commission's determination that the $46,000 salary in
1988 was too low, therefore, increases have outpaced inflation. Mr. Clarke agreed, noting the same has
occurred with salaries of Directors. The Mayor was more grossly underpaid in the 1980's than today but
was still grossly underpaid.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the number of votes that would be required, recalling previously
the vote was 4-3. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained an ordinance required 4 affirmative votes to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 5
pass. Mayor Haakenson recalled in 1999 the vote by the Council was 3-2 but did not have the requisite 4
votes of the Council. Mr. Snyder noted tonight's recommendation would be returned to the Council in
ordinance form; 4 votes would be necessary to pass the ordinance, not 5 votes as indicated by Mr. Clarke.
Councilmember Petso referred to the list of 13 cities (Puget Sound Cities - Mayor's Salary Increase
History) that indicates the compensation for each city's Mayor. Based on the list, she noted Edmonds
Mayor's current salary was fifth highest of the 13; if the salary were increased as proposed, the salary
would be fourth highest. She asked Mr. Clarke to review why fifth of 13 was not good enough. Mr.
Clarke explained when applying statistics, the foundation would determine the result. He noted the 13
cities represented cities in the Puget Sound that met the criteria of population and budget and cities 50%
above Edmonds and cities below Edmonds were selected, regardless of the salary paid the Mayor. Then
the statistical average was calculated by including Edmonds. He noted this was similar to the L5
program. The difference between the L5 and this process was the L5 had a range which was not possible
with Councilmembers' and the Mayor's salaries.
Councilmember Wilson asked if the function/responsibility of the Mayor in 1998 versus today was
analyzed by the Commission. Mr. Clarke answered the Commission did not conduct that type of analysis
although they recognized changes in the City such as increases in population and budget that have
resulted in increased responsibility for the Mayor's position.
Councilmember Wilson noted the $97,000 average was based on Mayors and City Manager salaries. Mr.
Clarke agreed, noting the Edmonds Mayor had greater responsibilities than a fulltime City Manager as
the position has the Mayor's responsibilities as well as the responsibilities of the City Manager.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the additional duties a Mayor had that a City Manager did not.
Mr. Hunter referred to a list of the Mayor's duties, explaining both a Mayor and City Manager are
responsible for the day-to-day business of the City, both are responsible for preparing budgets, the Mayor
works with the Council in its legislative role, both hire and fire all city employees, both ensure the laws
and ordinances are carried out, both serve on regional and local boards, and the Mayor serves as the
ceremonial head of the City. Typically in a City Manager form of government, there is a Council -elected
Mayor who performs this function. He concluded the differences were primarily supporting the
legislative role of the Council and ceremonial duties.
Councilmember Dawson asked if the $84,000 salary established for the Mayor in 1999 was too low at
that time. Mr. Clarke answered the same type of process was used but considered the assessed value,
number of city employees, etc. — wider criteria and more volatility in the numbers. He concluded that
$84,000 salary was the Commission's best guess at that time and they recognized it was still a political
environment.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the increase in the Mayor's salary from $84,000 to $97,000 in two
years was double CPI. Mr. Clarke answered the process was not based on the $84,000 salary but on a
process of comparing other cities, similar to the L5 program. He questioned why the Mayor was paid
13"' highest of the City's employees.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out Edmonds was not the only city that paid their Mayor less than the
Police Chief. Mr. Clarke answered unfortunately that was a process that had been in place for many
years, but more cities/counties were using this type of mechanism to evaluate fair pay, eliminating the
political process. He explained the Commission did an analysis of the salaries of Mayors and directors in
other cities; many of the Mayors and City Managers were making at least the top of the salary range for
all employees. Councilmember Dawson asked which cities' Mayors were paid more than the Police
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 6
Chief. Mayor Haakenson noted about half of the cities did not have Police Chiefs as they contracted for
police services.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out one of the differences between a Mayor and City Manager was the City
Manager worked 8-5, Monday through Friday, did not have evening/weekend meetings and did not have
citizens calling him/her at home.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ray Albano, 20916 76th Avenue, Edmonds, said the $46,000 salary was an arbitrary and capricious
amount established by the Council. He supported the increase in Councilmembers' salaries but did not
support an increase in the Mayor's salary. He cited increases in expenses he has experienced. He
expressed concern with lawsuits that have occurred under this administration. He summarized there were
no employees, other than Police and Fire, who deserved to earn "that kind of money." He expressed
concern with the limited availability of animal control on evenings and weekends.
Norma Bruns, 816 Walnut, Edmonds, expressed concern with comparing salaries of government to
business as the mission of government differed from business. She hoped no one ran for office in City
government with the idea of making money. She urged the Council to take the high road in view of the
current economy. She acknowledged the Council deserved an increase but did not support the increase
due to the current state of the economy. She urged the Council to delay any increases.
Rowena Miller, 8711 182nd Place SW, Edmonds, agreed the Commission had done a wonderful job
comparing city size, valuations, budgets, and salaries. However, they did not consider the current
economy, the number of layoffs, city budget problems, and the attitude toward government. She noted
problems with the City budget were a frequent topic of discussion by the Council including fire station
funding and a commitment to the Public Facilities District while citizens face increasing utility rates.
She noted the Mayor and Council appeared to be doing a great job and deserved more than they were
getting. She noted the Mayor was doing City Manager as well as Mayor functions. She noted that
although it was difficult to ignore the Commission's recommendations, appointing the Commission did
not absolve the Council from making the decision. Due to the difficult economic times and lack of trust
in government, she urged the Council to wait until the City could afford increases.
Laurie Dressler, 15714 75th Place W, Edmonds, indicated she attended one of the Commission's public
hearings as well as the June 18 Council meeting where the Commission presented its recommendation. It
was her understanding that the Council had the responsibility to set salaries for elected officials in
Edmonds. She acknowledged the difficulty to be tasked with raising their own salaries and then to
explain it to voters when running for re-election. She noted a Citizens Commission was created and
asked to research, take public comment and make a recommendation. The Citizen's Commission
developed a formula so that salaries in the future would be set via an objective standard. The
Commission met multiple times, did vast research, held two public hearings where testimony was
solicited from citizens, conducted interviews, developed a method of comparing salaries, and made a
recommendation to the Council. She was surprised when the Council did not take action at the June 18
meeting to accept/reject the Commission's recommendation and was now, a month later, discussing it
again and holding another public hearing. She summarized it appeared the Council was second-guessing
the advice of the Commission appointed to advise the Council. Ms. Dressler strongly urged the Council
to implement the recommendations made by the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials.
Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, noted if the Council endorsed the $97,000 salary
increase, they would be endorsing the Mayor's action to bring a lawsuit against a citizen and embarrass
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 7
the community. He noted the Council would also be endorsing the Mayor calling an illegal meeting
regarding the Medic 7 program. He questioned the qualifications of past Mayors and said he was
uncertain of the current Mayor's background with regard to management of people and understanding the
Fire Department, Police Department, budget issues, etc. He noted there was a difference between a
Director with an extensive background and an elected official for whom there was no guarantee he/she
would have a relevant background. He summarized the Mayor was well compensated, noting the salary
had increased from $65,000 to $84,000 during his term. If the Council chose to increase the Mayor's
salary, he recommended it be phased at $4,000 per year.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, compared the cities on the list, noting Redmond had a
population of 45,000, General Fund of $33 million, and salary of $82,000; Auburn has a population of
40,000, General Fund of $28 million and a salary of $88,000; Edmonds has a population of 39,000,
General Fund of $23 million and salary of $84,000; Renton has a population of 50,000, General Fund of
$31 million and Mayor's salary of $100,000. He noted Renton had approximately 500 employees,
double the employees in Edmonds. Mr. Hertrich criticized the Council's adoption of the L5 program,
noting that allowed the salaries to get too high. He questioned whether the City could afford the
proposed increases. He suggested adopting Ms. Bruns or Ms. Miller's conservative approach. He
expressed concern with the apparent lack of concern with the City's budget situation such as the inability
to build a fire station because there was not enough money. He summarized the Mayor's salary was
reasonable and an increase was unnecessary. He pointed out that, according to the Enterprise, the City
had six employees whose salaries range from $102,000 to $108,000 and five employees earning
approximately $90,000, amounts the Council allowed via the budget process.
Glenn Choate, 550 Elm Way, Edmonds, spoke in support of the recommended increase for the Mayor
and Council, noting the Commission did a great job analyzing comparable cities. If the City wanted to
keep competent people, it had to be willing to pay a competitive rate. This was a time when more
competent people were needed, more was demanded and more was expected, and results were measured.
Noting the cost of training/hiring new employees, he hoped the Mayor would stay for another term. He
noted the Mayor's position was the lead position in the City and he supported paying the leaders
properly. He referred to "a battle of wills with outside forces such as Brightwater," noting the Mayor and
Council represented the citizens' best interests to King County. He summarized Edmonds had the best,
and recommended paying them adequately for the job they did.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Harold Houston, 836 Cary Road, Edmonds, noted he has lived in many areas but Edmonds was the
most efficiently operated city he has lived in. As a full-time volunteer, he has had the opportunity to
work with most departments in the City and found the employees to be dedicated and hardworking. He
noted the Commission had done an excellent job. He said if the citizens wanted the best, they needed to
pay a fair wage. He referred to the members of the public who speak at Council meetings who were
pleased with nothing. He suggested the 1% who were unhappy join with the 99% who were happy to
create a better city.
Carolyn Drake, Martha Lake, a frequent tourist in Edmonds, recalled after observing a Council debate
over a fence on Sunset, she was impressed with how the Council deliberated issues in a respectful and
consensual manner and attempted to craft solutions where everyone wins. During this process, she
developed a great respect for the Mayor, Council and City. She stated her belief that talented people
should be compensated well, noting talented people had a lot of employment options. She described her
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 8
extensive background in Human Resources and pointed out how incredibly lucky the citizens were to
have Mayor Haakenson as Mayor, noting without his phenomenal leadership, Brightwater would be a
reality in Edmonds. She noted the hours the Mayor puts in are much longer than the public comprehends
and the work requires substantial expertise in a wide range of areas as well as leadership and relationship
skills, yet she was astonished at the low pay the Mayor and Council receive for their efforts. She noted
each could make substantially more if they devoted their time to their professional endeavors rather than
Edmonds City business. She commented it was bad policy to pay any supervisor, particularly a CEO,
less than subordinates. She urged the Council to approve the recommended increases, noting the Mayor
and Council had earned it.
John Quast, 15714 75th Place W, Edmonds, a member of the Citizens Commission but testifying as a
citizen, said this process was not about the current Mayor or Councilmembers or their performance. He
explained that after surveying many citizens on what Councilmembers and the Mayor should be paid, the
response was "the average pay for someone doing that job in a surrounding labor force." The
Commission's job was well defined in the City Code, "it is the policy of Edmonds to base salaries of
elected officials on realistic standards so that elected officials of the City would be paid according to the
duties of their office." He noted realistic standards equated to the average salary of someone with a
similar job and responsibilities. He urged the Council to support the recommended salary increases.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Councilmember Petso referred to the suggestion by the audience to phase in the increase in the Mayor's
salary and asked if that would be possible. Mr. Hunter answered the Commission had not discussed
phasing their recommendations. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Commission could develop a
proposal to phase the increase in the Mayor's salary due to the magnitude of the increase. If that was the
Council's desire, Mr. Hunter recommended the Commission be asked to meet again to consider that
issue. Mr. Clarke advised the Commission discussed this issue but felt it was not fair or representative of
the ordinance.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO:
• 1A) SET THE MAYOR'S SALARY AT $97,000/YEAR. ALL BENEFITS TO REMAIN AS IS
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HEALTH INSURANCE WHICH WILL BE INCREASED TO
THE SAME LEVEL PROVIDED TO NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES.
• 1B) INCREASE THE COUNCIL'S SALARY TO $600/MONTH. ALL BENEFITS TO
REMAIN AS IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HEALTH INSURANCE WHICH WILL
INCREASE TO THE SAME LEVEL PROVIDED TO THE NON -REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES. CHANGES TO THE COUNCIL'S COMPENSATION WILL BECOME
EFFECTIVE AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERM OF OFFICE.
• 2) MAYOR'S SALARY TO BE REVIEWED EACH YEAR PRIOR TO THE ANNUAL
BUDGET PROCESS USING A CONSISTENT METHODOLOGY. SALARY ADJUSTMENTS
MAY BE PROGRAMMED INTO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. METHODOLOGY TO BE
ESTABLISHED IN ORDINANCE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND COMPLIANCE. THE
COMMISSION RECOMMENDS USING THE AVERAGE SALARY OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER FROM THOSE PUGET SOUND CITIES WHICH HAVE A
POPULATION AND GENERAL FUND WHICH IS 50% GREATER AND LESSER IN SIZE
THAN EDMONDS. THIS METHODOLOGY WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE SALARY
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MAYOR'S POSITION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 9
• 3) THE COUNCIL APPOINT AN AD HOC CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE TO IDENTIFY
OBSTACLES THAT MAY HINDER A CITIZEN FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.
THE AD HOC COMMITTEE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PREPARE
RECOMMENDATIONS ON MEASURES WHICH CAN PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AND
REDUCE BARRIERS SUCH AS CAMPAIGN FINANCING. THE COMMISSION
RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE A CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE,
SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE AND OPERATION TO THE SEVEN (7) MEMBER CITIZENS
COMMISSION FOR SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THIS TASK. IF THIS
RECOMMENDATION IS PROMPTLY ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL, A COMMITTEE
COULD BE ORGANIZED WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS AND A REPORT FROM THE
COMMITTEE RETURNED BY DECEMBER 31, 2002. PROMPT ATTENTION AT THIS
TIME WOULD ALLOW AMPLE TIME FOR THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
TO BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION PROCESS
STARTING IN 2003.
Council President Earling suggested the Council consider each issue separately. He noted this was a
business decision regarding whether compensation was due. He recalled he consistently argued against
raising the Council's salary in the past, primarily because he felt it was a voluntary position. He noted
regardless of whether the salary was $350 or $600 pr month, it was still essentially a volunteer position.
However, because Councilmembers spend a great deal of time reviewing materials, and it is a more
complex environment with more regional issues, he would support an increase in the salary.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
INCREASE THE COUNCIL'S BASE SALARY TO $600/MONTH. ALL BENEFITS TO REMAIN
AS IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HEALTH INSURANCE WHICH WILL INCREASE TO THE
SAME LEVEL PROVIDED TO THE NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES. CHANGES TO THE
COUNCIL'S COMPENSATION WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR
NEXT TERM OF OFFICE.
Councilmember Orvis explained he would not support the motion, noting that although the Commission
had done an excellent job, he believed a Councilmembers' compensation should be a stipend rather than
a salary. He believed Councilmembers should earn their living outside the Council so that they
represented the community and also were representative of the community. He noted the salary was not
part of the reason he ran for office and the salary should not be a motive for running for office.
Councilmember Dawson indicated she would support the motion, pointing out no one ran for a Council
position for the money and regardless of whether a Councilmember was paid $350 or $600 per month,
he/she often spent 20 hours per week preparing for and attending meetings. She noted she lost money
from her employment to attend board and commission meetings. She summarized an increase after 12
years was not inappropriate and might make it easier for some to serve on the Council.
Councilmember Petso indicated she would support the motion primarily because of the work the
Commission did. Although she was somewhat reluctant, it was difficult to ask people to do a job and,
after they completed the job well, not accept their recommendation. She was happy the increase would
not have an immediate impact in view of the current economy and current budget situation. She noted
unless a glaring flaw could be found with the Commission's work, she would support their
recommendation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 10
Councilmember Wilson indicated he would support the motion, noting the Commission did an
outstanding job gathering information and researching this issue. He reiterated the increase would not
impact any of the current Councilmembers
MOTION CARRIED (5-1) COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
SUSPEND THE RULES TO ASK MR. CLARKE A QUESTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Earling expressed concern with the recommendation that the Mayor's salary be
reviewed each year prior to the annual budget process using a consistent methodology. He was
concerned the yearly review would become a political debate each year and preferred to accept a
recommendation of the Commission after they had done due diligence. He was also concerned the
debate would extend to whether the methodology was appropriate as well as the size of the salary. Mr.
Clarke answered that political debate could be healthy. He commented that although the Commission
had two public hearings, the citizens who spoke in opposition of the recommendation tonight, did not
participate in the public process. The Commission's intent was for the determination of the Mayor's
salary to reflect the same process/principles for determining the salary of other full-time employees in the
City whose salaries were reviewed annually.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO
ADJUST THE MAYOR'S SALARY TO $97,000 AND NOT INCLUDE AN ANNUAL
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT.
Councilmember Petso indicated she was reluctant to adopt the increase due to the budget as well as the
current economy. She preferred the increase be phased in. However, she was inclined to accept the
Commission's recommendation unless a clear error could be identified. Initially she believed that error
was the difference between the Mayor and City Manager, noting that by calculating the average of
Mayors' salaries, Edmonds Mayor was paid sixth highest; however, when the City Managers are added,
the average increased to $97,000. The Commission determined it was appropriate to include the City
Managers although some comments from the public indicated that may not be appropriate because a City
Manager must have the requisite training and the Mayor "could be anybody who gets enough votes." She
indicated she would reluctantly support the motion because this was the Commission's recommendation.
She noted supporting the work of the Commission should not be construed as support for an individual
calling an illegal meeting or taking an action the Council may or may not like. The Commission's effort
was regarding the Mayor's salary not Mayor Haakenson's salary. She supported the Commission's
approach to using an L5 -type policy.
Councilmember Dawson commented this was a difficult decision due to the budget process and the
current economic condition. She took offense at the suggestion that the Council would make this
decision based on political factors or what would be politically popular as the Council clearly would only
do what was best for the City taking into consideration appropriate factors. She noted although she
initially had a great deal of concern and questions, they had been answered by the Citizens Commission.
She agreed with Councilmember Petso there was no fatal flaw with the Commission's analysis. She
noted the Commission considered the relevant factors and developed an appropriate methodology. She
concluded she would support the motion to increase the Mayor's salary to $97,000.
Councilmember Wilson noted the Commission did an incredible job sorting through a difficult issue. He
stated he had the opportunity to work for and with both City Managers and Mayors and to a large degree,
there was no difference. The reason the City had quality directors was the strong leadership provided.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 11
The success in each department was due, in a large part, to the Mayor and it was the citizens'
responsibility to elect a qualified person to the position. He concluded the Mayor's position was a Chief
Executive Officer and he/she must be compensated for the value he/she provided to the community.
Councilmember Wilson acknowledged that although these were difficult economic times, strong
leadership would help the community stay solvent.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out the major difference between a Councilmember and Mayor was the
Mayor was a fulltime position and he/she must give up his/her job to work fulltime for the City,
therefore, a Mayor must be paid comparable to the type of job they were giving up. In order to recruit
someone with management skills, a good wage must be offered. He indicated he would support the
motion.
Mr. Snyder advised the effective date would be five days after publication of the ordinance after it was
adopted on the Council's next agenda.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN,
THAT THE COUNCIL APPOINT AN AD HOC CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE TO IDENTIFY
OBSTACLES THAT MAY HINDER A CITIZEN FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. THE
AD HOC COMMITTEE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PREPARE RECOMMENDATIONS ON
MEASURES WHICH CAN PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AND REDUCE BARRIERS SUCH AS
CAMPAIGN FINANCING. THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZE A CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE, SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE AND
OPERATION TO THE SEVEN (7) MEMBER CITIZENS COMMISSION FOR SALARIES OF
ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THIS TASK. IF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS PROMPTLY
ADDRESSED BY THE COUNCIL, A COMMITTEE COULD BE ORGANIZED WITHIN SIXTY
(60) DAYS AND A REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE RETURNED BY DECEMBER 31, 2002.
PROMPT ATTENTION AT THIS TIME WOULD ALLOW AMPLE TIME FOR THE
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING
OF THE ELECTION PROCESS STARTING IN 2003.
Council President Earling explained he was concerned with the potential outcome because of the
potential of restricting free speech such as the number of signs, placement of signs, amount of
advertising, number of houses visited, etc. although hoped the Commission would consider these issues.
Councilmember Petso expressed a similar concern, noting once the Commission was asked to undertake
this action, she may not like the outcome. She planned to vote against the motion to avoid this situation.
She was uncertain there was anything that could be done due to freedom of speech.
Councilmember Dawson indicated she would not support the motion as there had not been sufficient
guidance provided for her to support establishing such a Commission.
Councilmember Marin indicated he would support the motion because nothing the Commission would
determine would hurt the Council. He noted it was appropriate to identify potential pitfalls to running
for office.
Councilmember Orvis indicated he would not support the motion because this was "not a road I want to
go down" and did not want the Commission to do work that he would then vote against.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 12
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO REQUEST MR. CLARKE PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE
RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Clarke explained this issue arose during the Commission's last meeting. When the presentation was
made to the Council previously, the discussion got off track into areas such as free speech and campaign
finance reform, etc. He referred to a letter from a former Councilmember who also testified at the
Commission's public hearing previously and identified issues that make it difficult to run for public
office. Mr. Clarke said the intent was to identify barriers to running for office as well as ways to attract
qualified candidates.
Councilmember Dawson thanked Mr. Clarke for the clarification. She noted one of the barriers may be
the verbal abuse Councilmembers endure.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED.
Council President Earling requested the Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials undertake this task
within 60 days.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no members of the audience who wished to address the Council.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
5. APPROVE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSITION FOR A PERMANENT EMS LEVY TO THE QUALIFIED
VOTERS OF THE CITY AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 AND, IF
REQUIRED, ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002
Fire Chief Tom Tomberg explained the six-year EMS levy approved in 1997 expires December 31, 2002.
In 2000, the Legislature authorized placement of a permanent EMS levy before voters; previous levies in
Edmonds were of six year duration. The City Attorney prepared two ordinances authorizing placement
of a permanent EMS levy proposition before voters for the September 17, 2002 primary election and the
November 5, 2002 general election. He advised preparation of the second ordinance was a contingency
that allowed voters to reconsider if the September 17 proposition failed.
The ordinance places a proposition before voters authorizing a permanent regular emergency medical
services tax levy of 50 cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation effective January 1, 2003, the
same rate as currently exists. Fire Chief Tomberg explained the levy funds help pay for the 24-hour
emergency staff, training and certification, external medical control, oversight and quality assurance, and
to purchase vehicles, tools and equipment. Levy funds help pay for EMS basic life support services
provided by the Fire Department and for advanced life support (paramedic) services currently provided
by Medic 7. The 2002 EMS levy pays for approximately 60% of EMS services provided to Edmonds
citizens. A 60% vote is required to pass the proposition.
Fire Chief Tomberg recommended a permanent levy that renews the funding sources to provide EMS
services to Edmonds citizens be placed before the voters for the following reasons:
The legislature modified State law in 2000 to allow consideration of a permanent EMS levy as an
option.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 13
• Election costs to Edmonds taxpayers associated with levies are high. The EMS levy election in
2002 is budgeted at $45,000.
• Passing a permanent EMS levy helps alleviate the year-to-year funding uncertainty associated
with the passage of statewide revenue -limiting initiatives.
• In the past, Edmonds voters have passed EMS levies when the proposition dealt solely with the
provision of EMS.
• Passage of a permanent levy helps ensure EMS resources are able to respond to the vast majority
of annual emergency incidents. In 2001, EMS responses made up approximately 81% of all
incidents in the city.
• Passage of a permanent EMS levy helps ensure services to the city's most vulnerable population.
The 2000 Census reported Edmonds residents 65 years of age or older made up 16.6% of the
population. Because of age and patient acuity, senior citizens are the majority consumers of
EMS services.
• Passage of a permanent EMS levy helps fund an essential, core, lifesaving and life-sustaining
emergency service important to Edmonds citizens.
• Passage of a permanent levy helps maintain the current level of service and to continually
improve the emergency medical capabilities and technology.
Chief Tomberg recommended the Council approve the EMS ordinances providing for the submission of a
proposition for a permanent EMS levy to the qualified voters of the City at an election to be held on
September 17, 2002 and, if required, on November 5, 2002.
Councilmember Dawson asked why the measure would be on two ballots, whether there was a price
difference for the primary election versus the general election. Mayor Haakenson answered no, the city
would pay the same for both elections if both were required. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained the
measure would be on the November ballot only if it failed in September.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out there typically were not as many voters in a primary election and
asked why the levy would not be placed only on the November ballot. Mayor Haakenson explained there
would then not be a second chance to place the levy on the ballot if it failed. Councilmember Dawson
assumed citizens would vote the way they wanted and should not be offered a second chance. Mayor
Haakenson cautioned against making any assumptions due to the importance of this funding. City
Attorney Scott Snyder said the cost of a second election as a special election was far greater than the
primary and general election.
Mayor Haakenson asked the deadline for the November ballot. Chief Tomberg answered three days after
the primary. If the levy failed on September 17, it would need to be submitted to the Council by
September 20 which may necessitate a special Council meeting.
Councilmember Dawson questioned the rationale of having the levy on two ballots rather than ensuring it
passed the first time. Mayor Haakenson noted the history of EMS levies was they were passed. Mr.
Snyder pointed out the levy required a 60% super majority vote of 40% of the people who voted in the
last election. He noted if there was a low voter turnout, theoretically, 60% could support the levy but not
reach the required percentage. Councilmember Dawson explained her concern with the September
election was that there would not be sufficient voter turnout.
Chief Tomberg noted the "Previous Council Action" section indicated the Council approved ordinances
placing EMS levy propositions before voters in 1991 and 1992; he explained in November 1991 the levy
failed and the Council was required to identify funds to continue BLS and ALS services during 1992.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 14
Edmonds voters overwhelmingly approved the EMS levy in March 1992 but the City could not begin
collecting the funds until 1993.
Council President Earling noted that when the EMS levy failed in 1991, the City identified funds to cover
the costs, and an enormous effort was waged to pass the EMS levy at a second election. He noted it
became clear at that time that many citizens did not understand the proposition. He noted the importance
of forming a pro and con committee to ensure the public was aware of the importance of this issue.
Councilmember Dawson noted there was a history of not enough voters in the primary to reach required
percentages. She inquired about the voter turnout at the last election. Mr. Snyder answered that
information was not available. Chief Tomberg assured those who supported the EMS levy would
participate on a committee to get the vote out. He recalled in 1991 when the EMS levy failed, the
Council was required to provide $600,000 in funding, thus the importance of a second opportunity in a
short time period to avoid the Council having to identify funds.
For Councilmember Dawson, Ms. Chase explained in 1997 there were not the required number of voters
but because a super majority of those voting were in favor of the levy, the levy passed. Mr. Snyder
explained the requirement was 60% of those voting if the number of voters exceeded the 40% figure. If
the number of voters was less than 40%, 60% of 40% of those voting in the last general election was
required.
Councilmember Wilson stated if the levy were placed on only the November ballot, the earliest
opportunity for a special election would be February. He asked whether the levy must be passed before
the end of the year to be effective for the subsequent year. Mr. Snyder answered the levy was assessed
on an annual basis. If the levy was not passed in 2002, the City would lose one year's revenue.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, THAT
THE COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3405 PROVIDING FOR SUBMISSION OF A
PROPOSITION FOR A PERMANENT EMS LEVY TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE
CITY AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2002. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, THAT
THE COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3406 PROVIDING FOR SUBMISSION OF A
PROPOSITION FOR A PERMANENT EMS LEVY TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE
CITY AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD, IF REQUIRED, ON NOVEMBER 5, 2002. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Earling pointed out the need to appoint a committee in favor of the levy and a
committee opposed to the levy. As the committees must be formed by August 2, he asked that anyone
interested in participating on the committees contact the City Clerk's office by 5:00 p.m. July 31. He
advised a Council Committee comprised of Councilmembers Petso and Dawson and he would select the
committee members.
6. PROPOSED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE EDMONDS
ALLIANCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mayor Haakenson advised the Finance Committee reviewed the contract between the City and the
Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development and recommended it be forwarded to the full Council for
review.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 15
Council President Earling suggested rescheduling this item so that Councilmember Plunkett, the Council
liaison to the Alliance, and a representative from the Alliance could be present to answer questions.
Councilmembers agreed to reschedule this item on August 20.
7. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ANNUAL SALARY ORDINANCE FOR BUDGET
YEAR 2002, ORDINANCE NO. 3390, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE LEVEL OF
PREMIUM PAYMENT FOR NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES FOR MEDICAL, VISION
AND DENTAL BENEFITS AT 85%
Human Resources Director Brent Hunter explained this change was made in all of the City's labor
agreements for unionized employees. In the past the City has paid 80% of health insurance premiums; in
the collective bargaining process this year, that funding level was increased to 85% effective January 31,
2002 for union employees. The proposed amendment would increase the City's level of premium
contribution for non -represented employees' health insurance to 85%. With Council approval, this
would be effective August 1, 2002 for non -represented employees.
Mr. Hunter explained the cost for the remainder of 2002 would be $6,380; the annual cost was
approximately $15,000. He referred to a comparison of the previous cost and new cost for various
bargaining units in the City.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN,
FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3407. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
ordinance adopted is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ANNUAL
SALARY ORDINANCE FOR BUDGET YEAR 2002, ORDINANCE NO. 3390 IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE FOR THE LEVEL OF PREMIUM PAYMENT FOR NON -REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES FOR MEDICAL, VISION AND DENTAL BENEFITS AT 85%, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE WITH
INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES, INC., AND ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION APPROVAL FOR
THE HEAT EXCHANGER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Treatment Plant Supervisor Chris Sheridan sought Council authorization to exceed the $300,000
budgeted for the replacement and installation of the heat exchanger. He advised the funds would be
taken from the dedicated treatment plant capital fund 414. The purpose was to address a change order as
well as honor early completion incentives for the manufacturer and installer and establish a small
contingency.
Mr. Sheridan advised in January 2002, the Council authorized staff to call for bids for replacement of the
heat exchanger. The bids received split the installation and manufacture. In March 2002, Council
authorized award of the manufacturing contract to Thermal Transfer for approximately $255,000 and in
June 2002, Council authorized award of the installation contract in the amount of $44,235. The change
order requested represents storage and transportation of the heat exchanger in the amount of $2,000 and
an additional appropriation for early completion bonuses for the manufacturer and installer and a
contingency budget of $5,000 for a total of $19,500.
Councilmember Wilson asked how long the equipment would be stored. Mr. Sheridan answered one day.
The $2,000 was primarily for rental of a trailer to transport the 35 foot, 20 ton unit. Councilmember
Wilson asked whether the unit could be transported from the manufacturer to arrive on the day of
installation. Mr. Sheridan agreed that would be ideal but the unit was being manufactured in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 16
Pennsylvania. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the city did not want the liability of having the unit
in the City's hands during construction and preferred it be delivered to the installer from the
manufacturer. Regarding the reason for the early completion bonus; Mr. Snyder explained the City was
under a consent order. Due to difficulties with the shell of this equipment several years ago, the City was
sued on a technical Clean Water Act violation by a citizen group. He noted Clean Water Act violations
were automatic, there was no defense. If the City was late installing the equipment, the City paid. He
summarized it was better to have an early completion bonus to ensure there was no other technical
violations.
Councilmember Wilson asked if there could be greater storage costs if the manufacturer completed the
unit but the installer was not ready. Mr. Snyder explained any additional storage costs would be offset
by penalties for being late. Mr. Sheridan noted the unit had been manufactured and was in Washington
State.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO THE HEAT
EXCHANGER INSTALLATION CONTRACT AND ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF
$19,500 TO THE HEAT EXCHANGER REPLACEMENT PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 9, 2002
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Marin reported the Committee discussed the City's response to the State's siting of
Secure Community Transition Facilities and asked staff and the City Attorney to present the issue to the
full Council with a recommendation of no action. The Committee discussed the Interlocal Agreement
with the Edmonds School District for football/soccer fields drainage improvements at Edmonds
Woodway High School which was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Next, staff provided an
update on the Board of Appeals. No action was required; Building Official Jeannine Graf will continue
working on the project. A report was provided to the Committee from Gregerson Homes regarding
manufactured homes. The Committee asked staff to research the Code to determine if manufactured
housing could be accommodated. The Committee then considered the definition of a hedge and asked
that this item be reviewed by the Committee again in September.
Councilmember Wilson explained the Committee discussed Planned Residential Development (PRD)
Ordinance amendments and presentations were made by the Talbot Group and the North Talbot Group
regarding flaws they have identified in the current PRD ordinance and requesting review by the Planning
Board. The Committee recommended the letters from the Talbot Group and the North Talbot Group as
well as the letter authored by Councilmember Petso be forwarded to the Planning.Board to review and
conduct hearings on amendments to the PRD ordinance. Further, in an effort to provide guidance to the
Planning Board, the Committee suggested the Board, 1) re-evaluate the purposes section to more clearly
define and establish the purpose of the PRD ordinance and the benefits or detriments to citizens — an
overall policy discussion to assist in framing the review and analysis of the ordinance, 2) consider
whether the City should encourage or allow PRDs, 3) define public benefits and tradeoffs, 4) define
acceptable guidelines for clustering units such as minimum separation, 5) if PRDs should not be allowed,
why not and if they are restricted, where and how, 6) consider how to provide affordable housing in large
lot zones and in the City, and 7) define traffic impacts on surrounding residential areas. Councilmember
Wilson encouraged Councilmembers to provide input in the Planning Board's review.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 17
Councilmember Petso noted the citizens also requested a moratorium on PRDs. City Attorney Scott
Snyder indicated he provided the Council an outline of what the Council would need to find in order to
impose a moratorium. The Council had a great deal of legislative discretion but the difficulty would be
that many of the citizens' concerns relate to issues that have been considered or were difficult for the
City to respond to, such as a mandatory dedication of open space which would violate Supreme Court
decisions and buffering of large lot development. He noted it was a worthy goal to elaborate on the
City's requirements such as with pictures, descriptions, etc. to remove uncertainty from the process. He
concluded the Council could impose a moratorium but the difficulty would be defining the risk or harm.
Councilmember Petso explained that in addition to the issues she raised with regard to PRDs, the
Committee identified several additional areas where the ordinance may not meet the intent. She asked
whether that was enough reason to impose a moratorium. Mr. Snyder answered that was a policy
decision for the Council. Councilmember Petso asked whether the next step in establishing a moratorium
was scheduling a public hearing. Mr. Snyder explained the public hearing could be held after the
moratorium ordinance was passed. Councilmember Petso clarified the next step would be to direct Mr.
Snyder to draft a moratorium ordinance. Mr. Snyder agreed.
Councilmember Marin commented the Committee did not reach the conclusion that a moratorium was
necessary at this time.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A MORATORIUM.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the process of establishing a moratorium. Mr. Snyder explained
in the moratorium process, unlike any other process, the ordinance was passed first followed by the
public hearing which determined whether there was sufficient reason to maintain the moratorium. He
explained typically a moratorium placed a moratorium on the acceptance of new applications. The City
had 3-4 applications now in process and the risks, dangers and costs escalated if the moratorium was
extended to applications in process.
Responding to Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Snyder explained the difficulty was with the Vested Right
Doctrine; an applicant in process under a certain set of regulations had a certain economic expectation.
Therefore, imposing a moratorium on new applications had relatively low risk in terms of damages and
would allow the Council time to address the issues.
Councilmember Dawson suggested the motion indicate the moratorium would be only on new PRD
applications. Councilmember Petso indicated that was consistent with her intent, to direct the City
Attorney to draft a moratorium on new PRD applications.
Councilmember Orvis preferred to forward Councilmember Wilson's recommendations to the Planning
Board and get input from the Planning Board before making a decision whether to impose a moratorium
or amend the PRD ordinance. He preferred to amend the PRD ordinance in a timely manner.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO
TABLE THE MOTION AND FORWARD COUNCILMEMBER WILSON'S COMMENTS TO
THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND
DAWSON OPPOSED.
Public Safety Committee
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 18
Councilmember Petso reported the Committee reviewed ferry commuter parking on downtown Edmonds
streets including a discussion of possible alternatives such as expansion of the 3 hour parking zones,
adjusting the schedule of fines to deter illegal parking, adding additional parking enforcement officers,
the ratio of required parking spaces to new residential and commercial buildings, using the in -lieu of
parking funds to create City -owned parking facilities, whether the schedule of in -lieu of parking funds
should be adjusted, and privatization of parking enforcement. It was agreed all issues would be referred
to the City Parking Committee for further evaluation. Councilmember Petso expressed her reluctance to
add human resources to parking enforcement due to the cost.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Orvis noted most items the Committee reviewed were approved on the Consent or
Council Agenda. He reported as a result of the Council's adoption of a pretreatment ordinance, a
pretreatment technician position was established. The Committee reviewed the pretreatment technician
job description and requested a presentation be made to the Council. The Committee then discussed the
salary of the Traffic Engineer and recommended the salary range be increased by 10% to allow for
further increases in an effort to retain the City's quality traffic engineer. The final item on the agenda
was a review of the format of the City's monthly financial reports and Administrative Services Director
Peggy Hetzler agreed to include the sales tax graph and provide more summary information.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Dawson expressed her disappointment that the motion regarding establishing a
moratorium on PRDs was tabled. She explained the purpose of imposing a moratorium was not to
preclude any PRDs in the City but to present an opportunity to review the apparent problems with the
existing ordinance and not accept further applications for PRDs until the difficulties had been addressed.
Without a moratorium on new applications and because the process may take time to address, further
PRDs that may not be acceptable may be the result.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Planning Board address the concerns regarding the PRD ordinance
no later than August 14 and a public hearing be scheduled on 'any amendments at the earliest possible
opportunity. Council President Earling agreed.
Councilmember Petso expressed concern with delaying further review of the PRD ordinance until August
14. She referred to Councilmember Orvis' desire to amend the ordinance but not prevent acceptance of
new applications under the current ordinance. She questioned why, when there was consensus on the
Council that there was a problem with the ordinance, there was not consensus for a moratorium to avoid
adding to the problem.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
GAM
_� I/ e-44��21SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 16, 2002
Page 19
1
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
2505 1h Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
JULY 16, 2002
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 2, 2002
(C) Approval of claim checks #56527 through #56652 for the week of July 1, 2002,
in the amount of $413,433.21. Approval of claim checks #56653 through
#56793 for the week of July 8, 2002, in the amount of $246,277.18. Approval of
payroll direct deposits and checks #33133 through #33308 for the period June
16 through June 30, 2002, in the amount of $784,109.75.
(D) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(E) Authorization to call for sealed bids to surplus the Public Works 1985
Caterpillar Loader, Unit #50.
(F) Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School
District for Edmonds/Woodway High School athletic field drainage
improvements.
(G) Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School
District for Madrona School playground improvements.
(H) Approve Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Woodway for Fire Department
provision of fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services.
(1) Mike Doubleday Government Relations - contract proposal for services.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JULY 16, 2002
Page 2 of 2
(J) Proposed contract between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce.
(K) Report on bids opened July 9, 2002, for the 2002 Street Overlay Program and
award of contract to Lakeside Industries, Inc. ($948,568.69)
(L) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds City Code Section
2.35.020(A), in order to add the holiday, Martin Luther King Day.
3. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on the recommendations of the Citizens Commission on
Salaries of Elected Officials.
4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
5. (20 Min.) Approve Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Ordinances providing for the
submission of a proposition for a permanent EMS Levy to the qualified voters
of the City at an election to be held on September 17, 2002 and, if required, on
November 5, 2002.
6. (10 Min.) Proposed contract between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Alliance for
Economic Development.
7. ( 5 Min.) Proposed Ordinance amending the annual salary ordinance for budget year
2002, Ordinance No. 3390, in order to provide for the level of premium payment
for non -represented employees for medical, vision and dental benefits at 85%.
8. (10 Min.) Authorization for Mayor to sign Change Order Number One with Industrial
Resources, Inc., and additional appropriation approval for the Heat Exchanger
Replacement Project.
9. ( 5 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of July 9, 2002
10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.