2009.02.6 & 7 CC Retreat Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Retreat
City Hall, Brackett Room
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
February 6 - 7, 2009
______________________________________________________________
Friday, February 6, 2009
The View From Here
09:00 a.m. - Welcome and Council President's Comments
09:15 a.m. - Mayor's Comments
09:30 a.m. - Policy Priorities and Discussion: Response to Questionnaire
09:45 a.m. - State of City Operations
City Clerk's Office
Finance Department
Human Resources
AM-2069
(15 Minutes)
10:30 a.m. - 2009-2010 Budget Review (Refer to Packet Page 4)
10:45 a.m. - Break
Revenue Challenges
11:00 a.m. - Economic Development
History of Economic Development in Edmonds
Discussion on Strategies for Economic Growth
Discussion on Highway 99 Development
11:45 a.m. - 2009 Levy: Part 1
AM-2070
(10 Minutes)
A. 2009-2010 Budget Review / Current Forecast (Refer to Packet Page 8)
AM-2072
(20 Minutes)
B. 2009 Levy - Part 1 (Refer to Packet Page 11)
Packet Page 1 of 93
Report from the Revenue Work Gorup
Context: Levies on the 2008 Ballot
Funding Needs: Optimal vs. "Hold the Line"
Recommended Scope, Size and Shape of 2009 Levy.
Discussion and Initial Affirmation of 2009 Levy.
01:15 p.m. - Break
01:30 p.m. - 2009 Levy: Part 2
Discussion and Initial Affirmation of 2009 Levy (continued)
Timeline for Action - Council Approval Needed
Expense Challenges
02:15 p.m. - "Smarter, better, faster?"
Review Possible Expense Cuts
Possible Efficiencies Gained Through Technology
AM-2064
(30 Minutes)
03:15 p.m. - Ending Fund Balance Policy Discussion (Refer to Packet Page 55)
03:45 p.m. - Break
04:00 p.m. - Employees: Future Labor Negotiations
AM-2073
(45 Minutes)
Legal Considerations - Public Bargaining (Refer to Packet Page 59)
Reflections on the Recent Contract Round
Benefit Considerations
05:50 p.m. - Concluding Remarks
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Policy Goals for 2009
09:00 a.m. - Framework for Saturday
AM-2068 09:15 a.m. - Conservation Agenda for 2009 (Refer to Packet Page 72)
Packet Page 2 of 93
AM-2068
(90 Minutes)
09:15 a.m. - Conservation Agenda for 2009 (Refer to Packet Page 72)
1) Review of Previous Action:
a) Mayor's Agreement on Climate Change
b) Council Resolution on Policy and Principles
2) Discussion of Possible Initiatives
3) Prioritization
10:45 a.m. - Policy Priorities and Discussion
Questionnaire Responses
"Parking Lot" Issues from Friday
12:00 p.m. - Determination and Term of Council President
Discussion on Campaign Finance Reform
12:30 p.m. - Summary and Concluding Remarks
Packet Page 3 of 93
AM-2069
2009-2010 Budget Review
City Council Retreat
Date:02/06/2009
Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov Time:15 Minutes
Department:Administrative Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:Recommend Review by Full Council
Information
Subject Title
10:30 a.m. - 2009-2010 Budget Review (Refer to Packet Page 4)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For Information only.
Previous Council Action
Adoption of 2009-2010 Budget.
Narrative
At the August 2008 retreat Finance presented a forecast that showed a $4.5 M deficit at the end of
2010.
Thru a combination of new and increased revenues and some cuts the 2009-2010 budget was
adopted with approximately $1.3 M in ending cash at the end of 2010.
Revenues solutions were:
• Increasing water, sewer and stormwater utility taxes to 10%, a 4% increase $405,000
• Increasing CATV utility tax to 6%, a 5% increase $460,000
• Increasing Business License fees $87,000
• Increasing Development Services fees $67,000
• Implementing EMS Transport fees $700,000
• Forming a Transportation Benefit District $350,000 in 2009 and $700,000 thereafter
Cuts included in the Preliminary Budget presented to Council on September 30, 2008 totaled
$389,000 and included:
• Elimination of the Administrative Services Director Position $167,000
• Elimination of the Economic Development Director Position $130,000
• Elimination of the subsidy to Cemetery Fund for Sexton’s salary $92,000
Cuts implemented during the budget development process totaled $629,545 as follows:
• 2008 IT Equipment purchase ($157,000)
• Proposed new positions HR and IT ($25,865 & $214,250, respectively)
• Vacant positions in Finance and the City Clerk's office ($66,000 & $60,000, respectively)
• Eliminate Crime Prevention Specialist position ($106,430)
Packet Page 4 of 93
Council amendments further reduced the budget by $6,600
• Reduce Council City Attorney budget ($10,000)
• Eliminate printing and postage for City Newsletter ($20,000)
• Reduce Council Travel budget due to retreat being held in Edmonds ($1,600)
• Increase Economic Development Advertising budget $25,000
The Preliminary budget as presented in September anticipated the formation of a Regional Fire
Authority (RFA) which would be in place beginning in 2011. The formation of a RFA would
require a vote of the people and would establish a separate taxing district.
Council affirmed the need to go to the voters by attaching to the Adopted Budget a “Budget Note”
resolving to go to the voters on the November 2009 ballot with a levy or some other revenue
option to fund basic City services.
For reference the note has been attached in its entirety.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Executive Summary 2009-2010 Adopted Budget
Link: Budget Note
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/03/2009 08:56 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/03/2009 09:02 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/03/2009 09:20 AM APRV
Form Started By: Kathleen
Junglov
Started On: 02/03/2009 08:46
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/03/2009
Packet Page 5 of 93
Packet Page 6 of 93
A COUNCIL ADOPTED NOTE TO THE 2009-2010 BUDGET
To be included in the 2009-2010 Budget
Whereas, the adopted 2009-2010 Budget for the City of Edmonds assumes a new revenue source from
somewhere; and
Whereas, without a new revenue source, the 2009-2010 Budget for the City of Edmonds will leave a
precariously low ending balance at $1,310,987 in 2010; and
Whereas, given the City of Edmonds General Fund Budget is approximately $35m per year, and the
MSRC suggests the appropriate level of Ending Cash Balance in reserves is
approximately 15% of the general fund budget for cash flow purposes; and
Whereas, 15% of our $35m general fund would be equal to $5.25m in an Ending Cash Balance, or $4m
more than our projected Ending Cash Balance in 2010 in this budget;
Now therefore be it Resolved that the City Council recognizes that the Ending Cash Balance for the City
of Edmonds is precariously low, putting the City on unstable financial footing moving
forward, and
Therefore be it further Resolved that the City Council has funded the minimum level of service in the
2009-2010 City of Edmonds Budget demanded by the citizens of Edmonds, and believes
additional cuts risk undermining our public assets, our public safety, and our sense of
community, and
Therefore be it further Resolved that the City Council commits to going to the voters on the November
2009 ballot to with a levy or other revenue option to be approved by the voters to fund
basic City services such as public safety, or parks, or other items as may be deemed
necessary, in order to alleviate the precarious nature of the City financial status.
Packet Page 7 of 93
AM-2070
2009 - 2010 Budget Review Current Forecast
City Council Retreat
Date:02/06/2009
Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov Time:10 Minutes
Department:Administrative Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
A. 2009-2010 Budget Review / Current Forecast (Refer to Packet Page 8)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For Information Only.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The Current Forecast includes the following updates made to the forecast since the 2009-2010
Budget was adopted:
1. Updated for 2008 Year end results.
These are preliminary numbers and may change, however I am not anticipating significant
changes.
There is good news and bad news in the numbers. Overall the General Fund carried forward an
additional $360,000 to 2009 Beginning Fund Balance, which is good.
Total Revenues exceeded forecast by approximately $110,000, with most revenues coming in
higher than estimates. The glaring exception is Sales Tax Revenue which came in $177,000 below
expectations, not good news.
Expenditures were under forecast by an additional $250,000 for a total under expenditure of
$1,190,000 or 3.5%.
Approximately $130,000 of the additional under run was from the Fiber Project.
$818,000 of the total under expenditure was from labor savings, the balance $372,000 was from
general M & O.
Two things about the under expenditures:
Packet Page 8 of 93
• Departments may request a reappropriation of the funds. This means they will ask for the money
back in their 2009 Budget as the funds were committed to signed contracts. The expenditure is
going to occur just later than expected.
• Elimination of vacant positions in the budget also eliminates future under runs.
2. Lowered Sales Tax Forecast for 2009 ($736,000) and 2010 ($886,000)
At the time the 2009-2010 budget was developed it was anticipated that the economy would see
some recovery in the second half of 2009. It now appears that the recovery will not occur until
2010.
Lowering the forecast for 2009-2010 lowers the base in all out years.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Executive Summary - Current Forecast
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/03/2009 10:01 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/03/2009 12:26 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/03/2009 01:27 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kathleen
Junglov
Started On: 02/03/2009 09:38
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/03/2009
Packet Page 9 of 93
Packet Page 10 of 93
AM-2072
2009 Levy - Part 1
City Council Retreat
Date:02/06/2009
Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov Time:20 Minutes
Department:Administrative Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
B. 2009 Levy - Part 1 (Refer to Packet Page 11)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only.
Previous Council Action
Adoption of the 2009-2010 Budget including Budget Note.
Narrative
As mentioned during the discussion of the 2009-2010 Budget Review, Council adopted a Budget
Note resolving to go to the voters on the November 2009 ballot with a levy or some other revenue
option to fund basic City services.
A Revenue Work Group was formed comprised of Councilmembers Wilson, Plunkett, and
Wambolt. The Group has been meeting along with Mayor Haakenson and city staff discussing
various levy scenarios, as well as determining a preliminary estimate of what the levy amount
would need to be to fund essential services.
Attached you will find a forecast that provides a preliminary estimate for a $4.5 million dollar
levy. A levy in this amount funds all services currently provided by the City including the decision
package requests submitted by departments through 2016.
The requests included represent current unfunded needs which departments feel are necessary to
provide essential services. They are split approximately 50/50 between requests to support
technology and requests to support other operating needs, and are attached for your review.
In addition to these requests departments submitted three requests for Capital facilities necessary
to provide essential services. A separate schedule has been provided for these requests, as well as,
what the debt service would be on a 6-year bond issue to fund these facilities.
I have also attached the following information to facilitate the discussion:
• Estimated Annual Impact to Average Residence
• Schedule of Cuts Proposed during the 2009-2010 Budget Process, Implemented and Not
Implemented
Packet Page 11 of 93
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Executive Summary Including Levy
Link: Non-Capital Requests
Link: Capital Requests
Link: Impact to Average Residence
Link: Cuts Proposed 2009-2010 Budget Process
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/03/2009 02:55 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/03/2009 02:59 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/03/2009 03:13 PM APRV
Form Started By: Kathleen
Junglov
Started On: 02/03/2009 12:49
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/03/2009
Packet Page 12 of 93
Packet Page 13 of 93
Packet Page 14 of 93
Packet Page 15 of 93
Packet Page 16 of 93
Packet Page 17 of 93
Packet Page 18 of 93
Packet Page 19 of 93
Packet Page 20 of 93
Packet Page 21 of 93
Packet Page 22 of 93
Packet Page 23 of 93
Packet Page 24 of 93
Packet Page 25 of 93
Packet Page 26 of 93
Packet Page 27 of 93
Packet Page 28 of 93
Packet Page 29 of 93
Packet Page 30 of 93
Packet Page 31 of 93
Packet Page 32 of 93
Packet Page 33 of 93
Packet Page 34 of 93
Packet Page 35 of 93
Packet Page 36 of 93
Packet Page 37 of 93
Packet Page 38 of 93
Packet Page 39 of 93
Packet Page 40 of 93
Packet Page 41 of 93
Packet Page 42 of 93
Packet Page 43 of 93
Packet Page 44 of 93
Packet Page 45 of 93
Packet Page 46 of 93
Packet Page 47 of 93
Packet Page 48 of 93
Packet Page 49 of 93
Packet Page 50 of 93
Packet Page 51 of 93
Packet Page 52 of 93
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
n
n
u
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
to
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
To
t
a
l
L
e
v
y
50
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
3
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
A
V
7,
7
1
3
,
7
0
2
,
6
7
5
7
,
7
1
3
,
7
0
2
,
6
7
5
7
,
7
1
3
,
7
0
2
,
6
7
5
7,
7
1
3
,
7
0
2
,
6
7
5
7,
7
1
3
,
7
0
2
,
6
7
5
7
,
7
1
3
,
7
0
2
,
6
7
5
7
,
7
1
3
,
7
0
2
,
6
7
5
7
,
7
1
3
,
7
0
2
,
6
7
5
7
,
7
1
3
,
7
0
2
,
6
7
5
Ra
t
e
p
e
r
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
0.
0
6
4
8
0
.
1
2
9
6
0
.
1
9
4
5
0.
2
5
9
3
0.
3
2
4
1
0
.
3
8
8
9
0
.
4
5
3
7
0
.
5
1
8
6
0
.
5
8
3
4
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
V
(
1
)
46
1
,
5
0
0
4
6
1
,
5
0
0
4
6
1
,
5
0
0
46
1
,
5
0
0
46
1
,
5
0
0
4
6
1
,
5
0
0
4
6
1
,
5
0
0
4
6
1
,
5
0
0
4
6
1
,
5
0
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
30
60
90
12
0
15
0
1
7
9
2
0
9
2
3
9
2
6
9
Yo
u
r
A
V
75
0
,
0
0
0
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
75
0
,
0
0
0
75
0
,
0
0
0
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
An
n
u
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
L
e
v
y
49
97
14
6
19
4
24
3
2
9
2
3
4
0
3
8
9
4
3
8
(1
)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
V
a
l
u
e
o
f
a
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
p
e
r
t
h
e
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
'
s
2
0
0
8
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
Packet Page 53 of 93
Schedule of Cuts Proposed during the 2009-2010 Budget Process
2008 2009 2010 2011
Cuts Implemented
IT Equipment 157,000
Eliminate HR New Position .5 FTE 25,865 25,583 26,862
Eliminate Position City Clerk Office 60,000 63,000 66,150
Eliminate IT New Positions 2.5 FTE 214,250 220,976 232,025
Eliminate Position Finance Department 66,000 69,300 66,150
Reduce Legal Fees 10,000 10,000 10,000
Eliminate Crime Prevention Specialist 120,120 126,477 132,575
157,000 496,235 515,336 533,762
Cuts Not Implemented
Eliminate Economic Development 74,700 76,568
Eliminate Fiber Optic Project 59,719 61,212
Eliminate DARE Program 89,250 93,713
Eliminate Planner Position 89,250 93,713
Eliminate Engineering Tech Position 64,050 67,253
Eliminate Discovery Program 41,786 42,831
Close Yost Pool 110,447 113,208
Reduce Park Maintenance 500,000 523,109
0 0 1,029,202 1,071,605
Packet Page 54 of 93
AM-2064
Ending Fund Balance Policy Discussion
City Council Retreat
Date:02/06/2009
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Ron Wambolt Time:30 Minutes
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
03:15 p.m. - Ending Fund Balance Policy Discussion (Refer to Packet Page 55)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Councilmember Wambolt requested that this item be placed on the 2009 Council Retreat Agenda
for discussion.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Appropriate Level Of Unreserved Fund Balance In The General Fund
Link: E-mail message re effect of fund balance on ratings.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/30/2009 03:52 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/30/2009 09:59 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/02/2009 03:46 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 01/29/2009 09:38
AM
Final Approval Date: 02/02/2009
Packet Page 55 of 93
L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0014_2064_WAMBOLT GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION.doc 1
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND (2002)
Background. Accountants employ the term fund balance to describe the net assets of governmental funds calculated
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Budget professionals commonly use this same
term to describe the net assets of governmental funds calculated on a government’s budgetary basis.1 In both cases,
fund balance is intended to serve as a measure of the financial resources available in a governmental fund.
Accountants distinguish reserved fund balance from unreserved fund balance. Typically, only the latter is available for
spending. Accountants also sometimes report a designated portion of unreserved fund balance to indicate that the
governing body or management have tentative plans concerning the use of all or a portion of unreserved fund balance.
It is essential that governments maintain adequate levels of fund balance to mitigate current and future risks (e.g.,
revenue shortfalls and unanticipated expenditures) and to ensure stable tax rates. Fund balance levels are a crucial
consideration, too, in long-term financial planning.
In most cases, discussions of fund balance will properly focus on a government’s general fund. Nonetheless, financial
resources available in other funds should also be considered in assessing the adequacy of unreserved fund balance in
the general fund.
Credit rating agencies carefully monitor levels of fund balance and unreserved fund balance in a government’s general
fund to evaluate a government’s continued creditworthiness. Likewise, laws and regulations often govern appropriate
levels of fund balance and unreserved fund balance for state and local governments.
Those interested primarily in a government’s creditworthiness or economic condition (e.g., rating agencies) are likely to
favor increased levels of fund balance. Opposing pressures often come from unions, taxpayers and citizens’ groups,
which may view high levels of fund balance as “excessive.”
Recommendation. GFOA recommends that governments establish a formal policy on the level of unreserved fund
balance that should be maintained in the general fund.2 GFOA also encourages the adoption of similar policies for
other types of governmental funds. Such a guideline should be set by the appropriate policy body and should provide
both a temporal framework and specific plans for increasing or decreasing the level of unreserved fund balance, if it is
inconsistent with that policy. 3
The adequacy of unreserved fund balance in the general fund should be assessed based upon a government’s own
specific circumstances. Nevertheless, GFOA recommends, at a minimum, that general-purpose governments,
regardless of size, maintain unreserved fund balance in their general fund of no less than five to 15 percent of
regular general fund operating revenues, or of no less than one to two months of regular general fund
operating expenditures.4 A government’s particular situation may require levels of unreserved fund balance in the
general fund significantly in excess of these recommended minimum levels.5 Furthermore, such measures should be
applied within the context of long-term forecasting, thereby avoiding the risk of placing too much emphasis upon the
level of unreserved fund balance in the general fund at any one time.
1 For the sake of clarity, this recommended practice uses the terms GAAP fund balance and budgetary fund balance to distinguish these two
different uses of the same term.
2 Sometimes reserved fund balance includes resources available to finance items that typically would require the use of unreserved fund balance
(e.g., a contingency reserve). In that case, such amounts should be included as part of unreserved fund balance for purposes of analysis.
3 See Recommended Practice 4.1 of the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting governments on the need to “maintain a prudent
level of financial resources to protect against reducing service levels or raising taxes and fees because of temporary revenue shortfalls or
unpredicted one-time expenditures” (Recommended Practice 4.1).
4The choice of revenues or expenditures as a basis of comparison may be dictated by what is more predictable in a
government’s particular circumstances. In either case, unusual items that would distort trends (e.g., one-time revenues
and expenditures) should be excluded, whereas recurring transfers should be included. Once the decision has been made
to compare unreserved fund balance to either revenues or expenditures, that decision should be followed consistently
from period to period.
5 In practice, levels of fund balance, (expressed as a percentage of revenues/expenditures or as a multiple of monthly expenditures), typically are
less for larger governments than for smaller governments because of the magnitude of the amounts involved and because the diversification of their
revenues and expenditures often results in lower degrees of volatility.
Packet Page 56 of 93
L:\Productiondb\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0014_2064_WAMBOLT GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION.doc 2
In establishing a policy governing the level of unreserved fund balance in the general fund, a government should
consider a variety of factors, including:
The predictability of it revenues and the volatility of its expenditures (i.e., higher levels of unreserved fund
balance may be needed if significant revenue sources are subject to unpredictable fluctuations or if
operating expenditures are highly volatile).
The availability of resources in other funds as well as the potential drain upon general fund resources
from other funds (i.e., the availability of resources in other funds may reduce the amount of unreserved
fund balance needed in the general fund, just as deficits in other funds may require that a higher level of
unreserved fund balance be maintained in the general fund).
Liquidity (i.e., a disparity between when financial resources actually become available to make payments
and the average maturity of related liabilities may require that a higher level of resources be maintained).
Designations (i.e., governments may wish to maintain higher levels of unreserved fund balance to
compensate for any portion of unreserved fund balance already designated for a specific purpose).
Naturally, any policy addressing desirable levels of unreserved fund balance in the general fund should be in
conformity with all applicable legal and regulatory constraints. In this case in particular, it is essential that differences
between GAAP fund balance and budgetary fund balance be fully appreciated by all interested parties.
Approved by the Committee on Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting and the Committee on Governmental
Budgeting and Management, January 30, 2002
Approved by the Executive Board, February 15, 2002.
Packet Page 57 of 93
E-mail Message regarding Effect of fund balance on ratings.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Dashen [mailto:alan@dashenmusselman.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 10:33 AM
To: Junglov, Kathleen
Subject: FW: Effect of fund balance on ratings
Kathleen
This is what I received so far. I have not yet reviewed it. I am also waiting for some info from Moody’s.
As a rule of thumb, most cities and counties want a fund balance of a minimum of 10%. Below that I think
it would definitely have a negative effect on the City’s bond rating. If it does drop below, the City needs to
have a good explanation and plan. Of all of the financials, fund balance is a major discussion point
because it is easy to look at and is a good barometer of cash availability.
Alan
Please note new address below .
Alan Dashen
DashenMusselman Inc.
5400 Carillon Point
Building 5000, Suite 400
Kirkland, WA 98033
425-452-9550
alan@dashenmusselman.com
Packet Page 58 of 93
AM-2073
Employees: Future Labor Negotiations/Legal Considerations
City Council Retreat
Date:02/06/2009
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Submitted For:Scott Snyder, City Attorney Time:45 Minutes
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Legal Considerations - Public Bargaining (Refer to Packet Page 59)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
City Attorney Scott Snyder prepared the attached memorandum regarding "Public Employees
Collective Bargaining and Council Policy."
In addition, attached is an excerpt from the 09/05/2000 City Council Minutes that
includes discussion and adoption of the L-5 Salary Plan.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Public Employee Collective Bargaining
Link: Excerpt from 09-05-00 Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/03/2009 02:39 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/03/2009 02:53 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/03/2009 02:55 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 02/03/2009 02:26
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/03/2009
Packet Page 59 of 93
A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
{WSS717485.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 3, 2009
TO: Edmonds City Council
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Public Employees Collective Bargaining and
Council Policy and Budgetary Control
OVERVIEW
As a municipality created under RCW Title 35A, the City of Edmonds has adopted a
mayor/council form of government. The day to day direction of employees is a prerogative of
the office of Mayor. RCW 35A.12.090. The City Council, on the other hand, controls the
budget and establishes the salaries of public employees. As a part of the budget, the City
Council adopts an annual salary ordinance. RCW 35A.33.030. The salary ordinance sets the
salaries of non represented employees and may be amended to provide for collective bargaining
agreements. RCW 35A.33.080.
Chapter 41.56 RCW. The Public Employment Relations Act generally provides that public
employers have the obligation to bargain with employees and adopts a series of unfair labor
practices for both public employers and public employees. RCW 41.56.140 and 150. Both
parties have an obligation to engage in good faith collective bargaining. RCW 41.56.140(4) and
41.56.150(4).
The Act creates an important distinction between uniformed employees (commissioned police
officers and firefighters) and non-uniformed employees (all other city employees). The statute
takes away the right of uniformed employees to strike and in exchange provides uniformed
employees with the right to binding interest arbitration. RCW 41.5.450. Interest arbitration is a
catch all phrase which, in the event that the parties reach impasse in their negotiation, gives to an
arbitrator the right to determine a contract on all issues that are mandatory subjects of bargaining.
The arbitrator has the right to set the terms and conditions of employment, including wages,
hours and conditions of employment. RCW 41.56.465. The statute lists the factors which are to
Packet Page 60 of 93
Edmonds City Council
February 3, 2009
Page 2
{WSS717485.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
be considered by the arbitrator. Ibid. The consumer price index and changes in circumstances of
the employer are among factors listed. The most important criteria in practice, however, is the
consideration of
“…a comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment of personnel involved in the proceedings with the
wages, hours, and conditions of employment of like personnel of
like employers of similar size on the west coast of the United
States.”
RCW 41.56.465(2).
The provision regarding firefighters is substantially the same. RCW 41.56.465. Regional
differences in salaries are not to be considered unless a city has a population of less than 15,000.
Non-uniformed employees on the other hand do not have the right to binding arbitration. In
practice, this means that the City has considerably more leverage with non-uniformed
employees. The City’s main obligation is to bargain in good faith. Employees are not granted
the right to strike under RCW 41.56.120, but employees who do strike or refuse to perform their
duties are typically subject to restraining orders through the judicial process, as well as
discharge.
For non-uniformed employees, if an agreement is not struck in mediation, the employer has the
right to “unilaterally implement” its last, best offer. RCW 41.56.123. Implementation may
occur one year after the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement -- the City must
maintain the status quo in the interim.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
1. Exercise Legislative Authority Judiciously. The City Council has the right to determine
the salaries, wages and working conditions of non-represented employees. The City Council
must use this power judiciously or it may encourage nonrepresented public employees to
organize. While supervisors do not have the requisite “community of interest” to be included in
a bargaining unit with the employees which they supervise, they have the right to organize and
be placed in supervisory units. Only “confidential” employees, that is, employees who have a
direct role in the labor negotiations process, may be excluded from a bargaining unit. Therefore,
if the City Council presses issues such as at will termination or salaries beyond certain limits, it
faces the prospect of unionization of currently non-represented employees.
2. Great Leverage With Nonuniformed Employees. With respect to represented but non-
uniformed employees, the City Council has the right to determine salaries and ultimately impose
its judgment on these employees. The cost of the process is always a factor. If, after one year of
good faith bargaining and mediation the City unilaterally implements its last best offer, the
parties must continue to bargain until a Collective Bargaining Agreement is reached. Also, for
Packet Page 61 of 93
Edmonds City Council
February 3, 2009
Page 3
{WSS717485.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
one year following the expiration of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, the “status
quo” or wages, hours and conditions of work as they existed in the last year of the contract will
control. In this scenario, however, employees could lose the right to retroactivity -- that is, wage
increases during the negotiation. This is a strong incentive to settle.
3. Uniformed Employees. Ultimately, in binding arbitration an independent arbitrator will
determine the wages, hours and conditions of employment for your uniformed personnel if you
cannot reach agreement. That determination will be made on the basis of a comparison of west
coast cities of a comparable size. Arbitrators tend to look to historical factors -- that is, how the
parties have structured past contracts and also the comparables used in prior negotiations. The
population of cities is one factor in the selection of comparables, but other factors such as sales
and property tax revenues may be considered. In the practical terms, this means that the largest
percentage of your employee costs will be determined by external factors and not as a legislative
decision of the City Council.
ABILITY TO PAY
While the City’s financial resources are a factor, ultimately so long as the City has untapped
sources of revenue, it is difficult or impossible to raise as a defense that the City does not have
the “ability to pay.”
While any employer is constrained to negotiate within the limits of
its resources, it will not do to have an employer arbitrarily refrain
from using an available resource and the, in effect, plead inability
to pay…that it did not choose to avail itself of this resource was
not the problem of the exclusive bargaining representative or a
defense to good faith bargaining.
Shelton Education Assn. v. Shelton School District, Dec. 579-B (PECB 1984) - special levy.
Ability to pay can come up in two contexts. One is as a defense to an Unfair Labor
Practice(ULP) claim that a city has not bargained in good faith. The second is the presentation
of the employer’s case in binding interest arbitration. For City employer, the bar has been set so
high that it is virtually impossible to make an ability to pay so long as the City Council has, in its
legislative discretion, chosen not to tap certain revenue sources. For example, the City has a
wide variety of untapped revenue sources detailed at past retreats from parking meter revenue to
business and occupations taxes. While the City Council has the legislative discretion not to
impose such taxes, charges or fees, failing to do so eliminates your ability to raise an ability to
pay as a valid factor in either a defense to a ULP or in arbitration.
A related tactic can, however, be effective in addressing what you may view as exorbitant
contract demands. As noted, the size of the City is one important factor in arbitration, as is its
service area. The City’s sales tax base and property tax information are also relevant to how the
City should be ranked among cities of comparable size. That is, the development of a
Packet Page 62 of 93
Edmonds City Council
February 3, 2009
Page 4
{WSS717485.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
comparable list and the City’s placement on it can take into account not only size but also the
City’s revenue base. The decision on wages will be ultimately made by an interest arbitrator for
your police and fire employees.
CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STRATEGY
After over 30 years of working with public employers, it is my observation that collective
bargaining strategies tend to run in cycles. City Councils take tough stances to respond to
economic and political pressures. The cost of arbitration, unfavorable results, and poor
employee relations tend to make the pendulum swing back toward a more conciliatory posture.
Such postures over time can lead to inflated wages which cause the pendulum to swing back in
the other direction. Similarly, Union leadership can swing from cooperative to confrontational.
Mr. Bernheim has inquired regarding the City’s use of a professional negotiator. As some
Council Members may be aware, I have provided labor and employment services to
approximately twelve cities, a transit authority, and three counties over the years. I have
negotiated contracts in small and mid-sized communities in this state and in the Midwest. This
was my first contract cycle with the City of Edmonds. Edmonds has been negotiated by a
professional negotiator for over 25 years. The last labor negotiation cycle was conducted in
accordance with tactics and strategy developed jointly with the Mayor, staff and City Council.
Briefly summarized:
1. The City Council has established a series of comparison cities for use with your non-
represented employees. Salaries are set at the mid-range of the median salary paid for
comparable positions. Some positions are difficult to categorize or differ from city to city and
are established by analogy. These salaries for non-represented employees are set by the City
Council through the annual budget ordinance.
2. The City Council establishes a target amount or a percentage for use in negotiations. The
City has used a Total Cost of Compensation (TCC) approach in bargaining comparing the entire
wage package (salary and benefits) when making comparisons. Management goals are
established by the Mayor and relevant department heads.
3. Two different bargaining approaches have been utilized for your police and fire units and
your other represented employees:
a. Police and Fire. In the last contract cycle, the City used a collaborative approach
with its uniformed employees. I was not present at the table during your negotiations with your
police and fire units. Negotiating parameters were set by the City Council based upon
comparable wage data. This approach recognizes that binding arbitration ultimately controls
hours, wages and terms of condition for the uniformed services. Your police and fire chiefs have
led negotiations directly with the unions. Ms. Junglov and I have been consulted regarding
economies and contract wording issues. The City Council sets negotiating parameters and
reviews contracts. I recognize that two Council Members came late to the negotiation process
Packet Page 63 of 93
Edmonds City Council
February 3, 2009
Page 5
{WSS717485.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
after bargaining parameters had been established. This creates a difficult situation because
“regressive bargaining” is an Unfair Labor Practice. Regressive bargaining refers to one party or
reducing an offer placed on the table. Therefore, the City Council had little ability once the
initial negotiations were under way to change your bargaining parameters in mid stream.
4. With non-uniformed units, I served as your lead negotiator assisted by Ms. Humann and
the appropriate director. On the teamsters unit, this was Noel Miller and for the SEIU or
administrator unit, it was Duane Bowman. Police support negotiations were conducted by Chief
Compaan with the EPOA representative.
The department heads should speak to the rationale for the current negotiation approach.
COUNCIL POLICY DECISIONS -- POTENTIAL CHANGES.
The City Council has every right (and the responsibility) to review changing the way you
approach negotiations. Changes are worthy of discussions, but there are costs and benefits to
every approach.
1. Comparables. The City has a well established history of using certain comparables in
negotiation. There is nothing magic about your list but any comparables which have been used
over time tend to be given weight by an arbitrator (for uniformed employees). The City Council,
therefore, could:
a. Look at adjusting its comparable list. Comparables are most often based on size
and population as well as whether a community is a “full service” community or provides only
partial services. For example, while Shoreline is of comparable size, it does not have a public
works department which provides water and sewer services.
b. Consider adjusting the City’s ranking based upon the City’s revenue sources. The
City of Edmonds has lower sales tax revenue than communities of a comparable size. It also has
relatively higher property values than many communities of a similar size. Based upon your
analysis, the City Council may choose to adjust the reference point as you determine where City
salaries should be placed on any comparable schedule. For example, if you feel that overall City
revenues are at the 38th percentile with respect to your comparable cities, you may choose to pay
wages at a 38th percentile of your comparable cities.
2. Change in Negotiation Strategy - Use of a Professional Negotiator with Fire and Police.
The Mayor and Council have emphasized collaborative labor negotiations with your police and
fire unit to avoid both labor unrest and reduce labor costs in the negotiation process. The
Council is the ultimate judge of whether that effort has been successful, and key criteria is the
comparison of your labor settlements to those of your comparable cities. The Collective
Bargaining Agreements which you approved in 2008, at the time they were entered into were at
the mid point of your comparable cities.
Packet Page 64 of 93
Edmonds City Council
February 3, 2009
Page 6
{WSS717485.DOC;1/00006.900000/}
Timing is everything. Employers who are locked by contract into CPA increases are paying 5.5 -
6.5% increases for 2009 while recent settlements (January 2009) were 3 - 4%.
If the City Council adjusts where within the spectrum your settlement should fall, you can expect
union resistance and should prepare for negotiation in the same manner as you prepare for
binding arbitration. That is, the City should anticipate putting more effort in at the front end in
preparing you for negotiation the same way as one would prepare for a binding arbitration. You
will need to evaluate the potential cost savings over time through tougher negotiating strategy
with the cost of the process.
3. Adjusting Your Negotiation Parameters for Non Uniformed Represented Employees.
The City Council has a great deal of leverage with respect to these employees if potential
employee unrest is not a consideration. In the last round of bargaining, we spent far more time
with the SEIU unit addressing the issue of bumping into the court than we did on any other
single bargaining issue. Again, cost benefit comes into play. Some members of the Council
expressed concern regarding labor costs in the SEIU negotiation. A tougher labor stance will
ultimately consume more time. Using a professional negotiator for all units will increase the
expense of negotiation. Negotiation costs are a one time expense; wage increases multiply over
time.
4. Non Represented Employees. Non represented employees present a conundrum for the
City Council. While the City Council has the ability to more tightly control salaries at your
discretion, too tight of a control or perception of unfairness when compared with other units can
lead to unionization of these employees. Only confidential employees -- those directly involved
in the negotiation process -- can be excluded from a bargaining unit. Adding a supervisor’s unit
in police and fire, or a city hall supervisor unit for your non-represented employees would
significantly increase your labor negotiation costs. Again, the City Council has the ability to
play hardball with non uniformed employees, but adding more bargaining units would not seem
to be in the City’s interest.
There are other factors, as business people, of which you are all aware. The costs of attrition
replacement and the potential impact on attracting top quality employees are all factors for your
consideration. Bad labor relations can also have a direct cost in an organization as thinly staffed
as Edmonds. One push back strategy which work groups can employ is known as “work to rule”
-- that is, do just what is required and no more. Ultimately, the City Council determines the size
of the budget, but the unfortunate reality is that an arbitrator has the ability to determine the
wages for sixty percent of your work force.
WSS:gjz
Packet Page 65 of 93
EXCERPT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 5, 2000
6. PRESENTATION OF “L-5” SALARY PLAN FOR NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES
AND APPROVAL OF NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES SALARY ORDINANCE
Human Services Director Brent Hunter explained this was a presentation of a new salary plan for
non-represented employees with a recommendation from the Human Resources Committee. If
acceptable to the Council, he requested approval of an attached salary ordinance that would
implement the plan. He thanked the Human Resources Committee for their review of the
proposed salary plan, advising the Human Resources Committee was comprised of
Councilmembers Orvis, Davis, and Miller, Mayor Haakenson, Administrative Services Director
Peggy Hetzler and himself. Mr. Hunter explained keeping salary levels up was one of the more
difficult problems the City faced, particularly keeping them up on an ongoing basis and the City,
like many organizations, had a history of short term fixes. He explained the Human Resources
Committee agreed the proposed salary plan would address short term problems and, if accepted
on a policy level, would address problems of wage compression, City salaries below comparable
salaries, recruitment of qualified employees, and lack of performance incentives and lack of
consistency
Mr. Hunter explained there had been a problem with wage compression in the City’s fire
department for a number of years and comparison with neighboring cities often reveals
substantial gaps in the amount the City pays to top managers and what other cities are paying.
Regarding recruitment of qualified employees, Mr. Hunter explained it was necessary when
hiring the two new directors to exceed the salary range in order to obtain the caliber of person for
the position, hiring these directors at a wage higher than was paid to the City’s current directors.
Mr. Hunter commented most director positions are “topped out” due to their being hired at the top
of the range or having been employed by the City long enough to have reached the top of the
salary range. This situation provides no financial incentive for the Mayor to encourage or reward
superior performance. Regarding lack of consistency, Mr. Hunter explained the proposed salary
plan would be more consistent from year to year and demonstrate to the City’s employees that
there was a consistent approach to addressing salary inequities.
Mr. Hunter displayed a comparison of Fire Department salaries, pointing out Edmonds Fire Chief
was paid slightly under $82,000 in 1999, the Assistant Fire Chief approximately $75,000. Their
subordinates’ pay, which includes overtime, exceeded the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief in a
number of instances. In 1999, the Fire Chief was the fifth highest paid employee in the
department and the Assistant Chief was the tenth highest paid employee in the department. A
comparison of the Police Chief’s salary to other cities of similar size revealed Edmonds’ Police
Chief’s salary was the lowest at $86,360. He pointed out there was a $20,000 difference between
the salary paid to the Edmonds Police Chief and the City of Lynnwood Police Chief although
they were comparable positions and comparable populations.
Mr. Hunter displayed a comparison of department head salaries which illustrated the new
director’s salaries were higher than existing directors, some of whom have been in the City’s
employ for many years and have a great deal of experience.
“L-5” Salary
Plan for Non
Represented
Employees
Packet Page 66 of 93
Mr. Hunter explained the L-5 salary plan was proposed by Council President Miller who worked
with this plan in a previous city. Mr. Hunter explained the purpose of the L-5 salary plan was to
attract, retain and reward employees. He pointed out some of the City’s directors had been
approached with offers to leave the City for higher salaries. Mr. Hunter explained the L-5 salary
plan considered salaries in the Puget Sound region. He displayed a list of Puget Sound cities in
Pierce, Snohomish and King counties with greater and less population than Edmonds. In addition
to surveying total salary paid, total compensation was considered. He displayed a benefit
comparison of health insurance and vacation and holiday accrual. He said the benefit comparison
illustrated the City was not just weak in salaries and strong in benefits.
Mr. Hunter explained the L-5 salary plan was based on the median salary; cities were ranked by
population and the salary information determined for each city and position. The four cities
higher in population and four cities below in population were then ranked by salary and the fifth
or median level was selected as the most representative salary. He said the intent was to repeat
the process each year in time for review by the Human Resources Committee and Council so that
the impacts could be addressed in the budget process.
Mr. Hunter said after the L-5 information was gathered, the positions were grouped on the basis
of the salary data collected and level of difficulty/complexity. He displayed a list of the grouping
by position, explaining the Human Resources Committee agreed to use the L-5 ranking for the
highest position in each group, the Police Chief in the director’s group, and set that as the top of
the salary range for all directors and establish the low range based on a 20% salary range. He
explained most of the change occurred at the department director level as sufficient salary
corrections have been made in lower levels over the years.
Mr. Hunter summarized adopting the L-5 salary plan would allow the Mayor to have financial
incentives to reward employees via merit increases. The intent would be to have an annual
update and review by the Human Resources Committee prior to the budget. He said any
proposed changes would be reviewed by the Council each year. Mr. Hunter said the final step
would be approval of the salary ordinance for non-represented employees, creating new salary
ranges for all non-represented positions effective immediately. He said the next agenda item was
a request for mid-year salary adjustments for non-represented employees to implement the L-5
salary plan.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the next step was to appropriate funds; the first step was not a
monetary expenditure, only a policy. Mr. Hunter agreed. Councilmember Orvis said the Council
maintained control of salaries via the budget process. Mr. Hunter agreed.
Councilmember Petso questioned how the proposed L-5 salary plan would address wage
compression in the Fire Department. She said if a union employee’s salary exceeded the Chief’s
salary, there would still be compression. Mr. Hunter said most of the compression problem was
driven by employees via collective bargaining. He said the Police and Fire Department wages
were the most “watched” wages and thus were the most comparable. The Human Resources
Committee believed if the City was comparable with other Fire Chiefs, the possibility for wage
compression would be reduced.
Councilmember Petso asked what if there was still salary compression. Mr. Hunter said the Fire
Chief was comfortable with the proposal. Councilmember Petso expressed concern the proposed
L-5 salary plan would not solve the problem of wage compression. She asked if only population
was considered when making comparisons. Mr. Hunter answered yes. Councilmember Petso
asked whether consideration had been given to differences between job descriptions in
Packet Page 67 of 93
neighboring cities, such as Public Works Director who manages all water and sewer services
compared to Edmonds who has other water and sewer providers. Mr. Hunter said consideration
was given to how comparable some cities were. He attempted to keep the positions as similar as
possible and if there was a great deal of disparity in job descriptions, he did not use the data for
that city.
Councilmember Petso asked how the Mayor incorporated performance incentives into the L-5
salary plan. Mr. Hunter said the Human Resources Committee recommended funds be set aside
for the Mayor to correct some of the existing salary problems. Total implementation of the plan
was estimated to be $140,000 (bringing all employees to the L-5 level). The Human Resources
Committee recommended a partial adjustment and requested Mayor Haakenson determine an
amount that would be necessary to make the most critical adjustments (to be addressed in Agenda
Item 7). He said future corrections and the remainder of the implementation would be
accomplished via the performance review process and a merit increase.
Councilmember Petso observed all non-represented employees in a particular grouping would be
paid at the salary range established for the highest L-5 salary in the group. She observed if the
Police Chief was the highest paid, adopting the policy would result in salaries for all directors to
be based on the Police Chief’s salary. Mr. Hunter agreed, commenting the positions were
grouped not only on the basis of salary but similar level of responsibility.
Councilmember White asked how the range was established. Mr. Hunter answered he selected a
20% range. The salaries for the recently hired directors was $90,000 and the top of the range was
$100,000. A director with less experience likely would be paid at the lower range. He said the
Ewing Study had a 30% salary range but 20% was a more realistic assessment of today’s market.
He commented the salary for the newly hired directors was a good indicator of the current
market. He said the newly hired directors were earning similar salaries in their previous
employment.
Councilmember White referred to the benefit comparison, pointing out a director in Lynnwood
had 92% of his/her benefits paid by the city and a director in Edmonds had 80% of their benefits
paid by the city. A director in Lynnwood received 136 vacation days after 10 years and 200
vacation days after 20 years compared with 128 vacation days after 10 years and 176 vacation
days after 20 years for an employee in Edmonds. He said the current salary for the Police Chief
of Lynnwood was approximately $5,000 above the top range in Edmonds. Mr. Hunter said the
intent of the Human Resources Committee was a salary plan that placed Edmonds in the middle
of the range.
Councilmember Orvis observed page 2 of the ordinance included the appropriation requested in
Agenda Item 7. Councilmembers agreed to combine the discussion of Agenda Items 6 and 7.
7. REQUEST FOR MID YEAR SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR NON REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES
Mr. Hunter explained the Human Resources Committee found several positions that were far
enough awry they needed immediate correction. As the Human Resources Committee was
uncomfortable with implementing the salary plan all at one time, they requested Mayor
Haakenson determine appropriate salary adjustments that were needed to implement the new L-5
salary plan. He said the immediate concern was that the salaries of the newly hired directors were
higher than existing directors and a compression problem needed to be addressed. He said full
implementation costs were approximately $140,000; the $30,000 requested was a partial
Salary
Adjustment
for Non-
Represented
Employees
Packet Page 68 of 93
implementation to correct the worst disparities. He said the remaining corrections would be made
next year and in future years.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the annual cost of implementing the adjustments Mayor
Haakenson recommended. Mayor Haakenson answered approximately $120,000.
Councilmember Orvis recalled from the Human Resources Committee discussion that $78,000 -
$80,000 would be necessary for the first phase. Council President Miller pointed out those most
impacted by the L-5 salary plan were department directors and complete implementation would
be $140,000.
Council President Miller said salary compression had been an ongoing problem for a number of
years and the need to resolve it had been identified in the Ewing study. Regarding
Councilmember Petso’s concern that compression would still exist, he said labor groups were
approximately at the L-5 level but non-represented employees were at approximately a L-7 – L-
10 level. By adjusting the salaries to the L-5 level, Edmonds’ salaries would be comparable to
other cities’ salaries. As a result, it would be the egregious hours put in by 1-2 employees that
would result in their salary exceeding the Chief’s salary rather than 10-15 employees earning
more than the Chief. He recognized Edmonds did not have the same tax base that Everett,
Lynnwood or Redmond had but the City was in the same competitive market and by adopting L-5
would establish salaries in the top five. Council President Miller acknowledged the City had lost
several talented employees due to salaries as the City had not kept pace with other cities in its
salaries and benefits. He encouraged the Council to support the L-5 salary plan, pointing out it
would improve morale as well as assist with attracting and retaining directors.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the City’s most important resource was not its fire trucks, not the
PRISimTM firearms training program, not computers, not equipment of any kind but the
employees. He said represented employees’ wages were fairly represented in the market via a
union contract, but non-represented employees do not have a 1-3 year adjustment to their salaries
via union contracts. He commented he did not have the ability to provide any merit pay increase
to several directors because they were at the top of the salary level. He said several directors had
not received any increase other than cost of living increases for 5-6 years. He pointed out the
importance of paying directors an equitable, fair wage and via a merit increase, bring their
salaries up to an appropriate level. He urged the Council to keep in mind that the employees were
the City’s most important resource. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE L-5 SALARY PLAN ORDINANCE PRESENTED THIS
EVENING AND APPROVE $30,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 2000.
Councilmember White said the Edmonds Fire Department was consistently rated among the
highest in the State, the City’s Police Department was one of only five in the State with national
accreditation and the City’s parks were second to none in the State, yet he was embarrassed by
what the City’s directors were paid. He pointed out the Lynnwood Police Chief earned
approximately $20,510 more in a city that was smaller geographically and had less population.
Bothell has 10,000 less population and their Police Chief earns $24,700 more that the Edmonds
Police Chief. Edmonds’ Police Chief pays 20% of his benefits; Lynnwood’s Police Chief pays
8% and Bothell’s Police Chief pays 1%. Councilmember White recalled when the City
interviewed for the director positions, applicants came from many other cities, indicating people
want to work in Edmonds which may be why the City “can get away” with a mid-range salary.
Packet Page 69 of 93
He pointed the City demanded excellence but paid moderately. Councilmember White said he
was overwhelmed by the lack of respect shown to the City’s directors and said the adjustments
were extraordinarily overdue.
Councilmember Petso pointed out there were two separate issues, 1) whether the City’s directors
were adequately paid which she said it appeared they may not be, and 2) whether the L-5 policy
would address that problem or whether the L-5 salary plan was the correct policy to address the
problem. She said there are numerous ways to increase salaries including bringing all salaries up
to the level of the newly hired directors or reviewing the job description of each director,
comparing it to the other cities and determining an appropriate salary based on the job duties
rather than population. She said one of the worst possible ways to increase salaries was to set the
Public Works Director’s salary, for example, based on what eight nearby cities pay their Police
Chief. She said she was unable to endorse such a policy.
Councilmember Petso recommended the Council not addressing the problem as part of the L-5
policy. She said the L-5 policy was not the solution to compression and could make compression
problems worse. Councilmember Petso recalled a comment made by Councilmember Earling
that the Council should consider the budget as a whole and compensation should be a part of that.
She recommended the City establish priorities; obviously a high priority would be to correct
department director’s salaries but without the whole picture, the Council could not say with
certainty that was the highest priority. She suggested a decision be delayed until the entire budget
picture was before the Council.
Councilmember Davis commented Edmonds was a top notch city and needed to pay its
department directors what they were worth. He disagreed with Councilmember Petso’s
objections to the L-5 salary plan, pointing out the L-5 plan utilized a median level in other cities.
He was initially concerned the L-5 salary plan would pit cities against each other and artificially
increase salaries but now agreed the market would drive salaries. If the City did not increase
salaries, employees would leave for other cities.
Councilmember Petso said she did not object to comparing the salary of, for example, the Parks
and Recreation Director to other Parks and Recreation Directors doing the same job; however,
she said paying the Parks and Recreation Director based on the salary of Lynnwood’s Police
Chief was not appropriate.
Councilmember Davis disagreed with Councilmember Petso, stating the department heads are
indispensable and equal in status and responsibility. Therefore, a system needed to be established
that could address salaries in an equitable manner.
Councilmember Petso pointed out the L-5 salary plan addressed not only department heads but
also other non-represented employees. She said L-5 was a policy decision to pay the City’s
Traffic Engineer within the same range as the Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor regardless
of what the Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisors in other jurisdictions, doing the same job,
are paid. She said it was unknown which job the L-5 salary would be linked to, only the highest
paid position. She questioned the connection between the positions in each group, for example,
the connection between the salary for the Fleet Maintenance Manager and the Court
Administrator. She recognized that all employees were valuable and necessary but failed to see
any logical connection between establishing a salary for a Court Administrator based on the
salary for a Fleet Maintenance Manager.
Packet Page 70 of 93
Mayor Haakenson said the ranges were determined by 1) current pay rates and the way the
employees were currently grouped, and 2) the knowledge, skill and education level. He pointed
out the Council had the ability to consider the ranges each year. Councilmember Petso said in
future years the Council would not have the ability to consider what each position in the group,
doing the same job were paid in other cities. The Council would only be considering the L-5 for
comparable cities. Mayor Haakenson said the Council would have the ability to request
comparables in the future.
Councilmember Davis said the intent of the Human Resources Committee was to design a
uniform plan to avoid 1-2 employees seeking an increase at each Human Resources Committee
meeting based on their individual performance. He acknowledged the L-5 plan was a
philosophical way of viewing salaries and was at least a starting point.
Councilmember Earling said by taking action on this appropriation, the Council created the
potential for $30,000 this year and $30,000 next year. He recalled there had been several other
expenditures, all for one-time expenditures. He also pointed out long-standing inequities have
contributed to directors and other staff members leaving the City for opportunities in other cities.
Council President Miller restated the motion as follows:
APPROVE THE L-5 SALARY ORDINANCE AND TRANSFER $30,000 FROM THE
COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND TO MAKE A MID-YEAR SALARY ADJUSTMENT.
MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
The approved ordinance reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3323 AMENDING THE ANNUAL SALARY ORDINANCE NO. 3285
FOR BUDGET YEAR 2000, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3316, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Because the next Agenda Item pertains to establishing the salary for the Mayor, Mayor
Haakenson did not participate in the discussion and requested Council President Miller lead the
discussion and any action taken on this matter.
Ord #3323
Amending
Annual
Salary Ord
#3285 (Non-
Represented
Employees)
Packet Page 71 of 93
AM-2068
9:15 a.m. - Conservation Agenda for 2009
City Council Retreat
Date:02/06/2009
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Submitted For:Rob Chave Time:90 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
09:15 a.m. - Conservation Agenda for 2009 (Refer to Packet Page 72)
1) Review of Previous Action:
a) Mayor's Agreement on Climate Change
b) Council Resolution on Policy and Principles
2) Discussion of Possible Initiatives
3) Prioritization
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
For Part 1 of the discussion, these are the relevant actions taken by Council to date:
Res #1129 - Supporting Kyoto Protocol and endorsing the US Mayors' Climate protection
Agreement.
Res #1130 - Joining ICLEI and participating in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, and
pledging to take a leadership role in promoting public awareness about the causes and impacts of
climate change.
Res #1168 - Establishing the City of Edmonds Sustainable Building Policy.
Res #1169 - Joining the Cascade Agenda as a member City.
Res #1170 - Committing to a set of principles and policies, as well as policy goals for future
action.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Packet Page 72 of 93
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
For Parts 2 and 3 of the discussion, Councilmember Strom Peterson has prepared an outline,
"Working Toward Sustainability," which is attached as Exhibit 6.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Res #1129 US Mayors
Link: Exhibit 2: Res #1130 ICLEI
Link: Exhibit 3: Res# 1168 Sustainable Building Policy
Link: Exhibit 4: Res #1169 Cascade Agenda
Link: Exhibit 5: Res #1170 Environmental Principles
Link: Exhibit 6: Working Toward Sustainability discussion outline
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 01/30/2009 03:52 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 01/30/2009 09:59 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/02/2009 03:46 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 01/30/2009 02:20
PM
Final Approval Date: 02/02/2009
Packet Page 73 of 93
{WSS638720.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
0006.900000
WSS/gjz
8/7/06
RESOLUTION NO. 1129
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IN SUPPORT OF THE KYOTO
PROTOCOL ON EMISSIONS, ENDORSING THE U.S.
MAYOR’S CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT AND
REQUESTING PERIODIC REPORTS REGARDING THE
PROGRESS OF THE CITY TOWARD IMPLEMENTING THE
U.S. MAYOR’S PROTECTION AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously adopted strong policy
resolutions calling for cities, communities and the federal government to take action to reduce
global warming pollution, and,
WHEREAS, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
international community’s most respected assemblage of scientists, has found that climate
disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible or increasing
concentrations of global warming pollution; and
WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate disruption include
average global sea level increase of rout to eight inches during the 20th century; a 40 percent
decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness, and nine of the ten hottest years on record occurring the past
decade, and
WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now predicted by the scientific
community will cause extremely costly disruption of human and natural systems throughout the
world including: increased risk of floods or droughts; sea-level rises that interact with coastal
storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat
waves; more frequent and greater concentrations of smog, and
Packet Page 74 of 93
{WSS638720.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement
to address climate disruption, went into effect in the 141 countries that have ratified it to date; 38
of those countries are now legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average 5.2
percent below 1990 levels by 2012, and
WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than five percent of the
world’s population, is responsible for producing approximately 25 percent of the world’s global
warming pollutants, and
WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target for the U.S. would
have been 7 percent below 1990 levels for 2012, and
WHEREAS, many leading US companies that have adopted greenhouse gas
reduction programs to demonstrate corporate social responsibility have also publicly expressed
preference for the US to adopt precise and mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a
means by which to remain competitive in the international marketplace, to mitigate financial risk
and to promote sound investment decisions, and
WHEREAS, state and local governments throughout the United States are
adopting emission reduction targets and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan, coming
from Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike, and
WHEREAS, many cities throughout the nation, both large and small, are reducing
global warming pollutants through programs that provide economic and quality of life benefits
such as reduced energy bills, green space preservation, air quality improvements, reduced traffic
congestion, improved transportation choices, and economic development and job creation
through energy conservation and new energy technologies, and
Packet Page 75 of 93
{WSS638720.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
WHEREAS, mayors from around the nation have signed the U. S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement which, as amended at the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of
Mayors meeting, reads:
The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
A. We urge the federal government and state governments to
enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing
global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by
2012, including efforts to: reduce the Unites States’ dependence
on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical
energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as
conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to
energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles,
and biofuels;
B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan
greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes 1) clear
timetables and emissions limits and 2) a flexible, market-based
system of tradable allowances among omitting industries; and
C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for
reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own
operations and communities such as:
1. Inventory global warming emissions in City
operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create
an action plan;
2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce
sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban
communities;
3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle
trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling
and public transit;
4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for
example, investing in “green tags”, advocating for the development
of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for
energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy
technology;
Packet Page 76 of 93
{WSS638720.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 -
5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building
code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient
lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money;
6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and
appliances for City use;
7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices
using the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program or a
similar system;
8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal
fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee
education program including anti-idling messages; convert diesel
vehicles to bio-diesel;
9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency
in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment
methane for energy production;
10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in
the community;
11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree
planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and
12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions,
professional associations, business and industry about reducing
global warming pollution, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds City Council hereby endorses and adopts the U.S.
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of
Mayors meeting and encourages the Mayor to consider its recommendations as he prepares this
year’s annual budget and implements the current year’s budget.
Section 2. In furtherance of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and ICLEI Local
Governments for Sustainability and other appropriate organizations’ attempts to track progress
and implement the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement as amended, the City Council
Packet Page 77 of 93
{WSS638720.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 5 -
requests semi-annual updates regarding the progress of the City in implementing the following
program milestones: 1) conduct an emissions inventory and forecast; 2) set a reduction target; 3)
develop an action plan to achieve the target; 4) implement the plan; and 5) periodically review
progress and update the plan.
RESOLVED this 18th day of September, 2006.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 09/15/2006
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 09/18/2006
RESOLUTION NO. 1129
Packet Page 78 of 93
City of Edmonds, Washington
Resolution No. 1130
Membership into ICLEI
Cities for Climate Campaign Participation
WHEREAS, Scientific consensus has determined the CO2 and other greenhouse gases released into the
atmosphere have a profound effect on the Earth’s climate; and
WHEREAS, in 2006 the U.S. National Climate Data Center confirmed clear evidence of human influences on
climate due to changes in greenhouse gases; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors endorsed the 2005 U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement
initiated by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and signed by 238 mayors in the United States as of June
2006; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Environmental Accords adopted by local government delegates during UN World
Environment Day 2005 call for reduced emissions through energy efficiency, land-use and
transportation planning, waste reduction, and wiser energy management; and
WHEREAS, in 2003 the American Geophysical Union adopted a statement noting that human activities are
increasingly altering the Earth’s climate and that natural influences cannot explain the rapid
increase in near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th Century; and
WHEREAS, in 2001 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewed and declared global warming a real
problem caused in part by the actions of humankind; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 Third Assessment Report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the
2000 U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) First National Assessment indicate that
global warming has begun; and
WHEREAS, 162 countries including the United States pledged under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, energy consumption, specifically the burning of fossil fuels, accounts for more than 80 percent of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, local government actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency
provide multiple local benefits by decreasing air pollution, creating jobs, reducing energy
expenditures, and saving money for the local government, its business, and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the Cites of Climate Protection Campaign sponsored by ICLEI – Local Governments for
Sustainability has invited the city of Edmonds to join ICLEI and become a partner in the Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the city of Edmonds will join ICLEI as a full member and participate in
the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and, as a participant, pledges to take a leadership role in promoting
public awareness about the causes and impacts of climate change.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city of Edmonds will undertake the Citied for Climate Protection Campaign’s
five milestones to reduce both greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions throughout the community, and
specifically:
Packet Page 79 of 93
• Conduct greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast to determine the source and quantity of
greenhouse gas emissions in the city
• Establish a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target
• Develop an action plan with both existing and future actions that when implemented will meet the
local greenhouse gas reduction target
• Implement the action plan
• Monitor and report progress.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the city of Edmonds requests assistance from ICLEI’s Cities for Climate
Protection Campaign as it progresses through the milestones.
RESOLVED this 18th day of September, 2006.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 09/15/2006
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 09/18/2006
RESOLUTION NO. 1130
Packet Page 80 of 93
Packet Page 81 of 93
Packet Page 82 of 93
Packet Page 83 of 93
Packet Page 84 of 93
Packet Page 85 of 93
Packet Page 86 of 93
Packet Page 87 of 93
Packet Page 88 of 93
Packet Page 89 of 93
Packet Page 90 of 93
Working Toward Sustainability
1. What are we talking about in broad terms?
• How do we define sustainability? More than an “eco”/environmental
idea, but a concept of our community as a whole.
• Create the concept of the “Sustainability Star”. This gives us an
opportunity to “brand” the concept for our citizens, businesses, and
to others in the region. The points of the star include:
1. Governmental Policies
2. Development (residential and commercial)
3. Economic Development and Infrastructure
4. Education
5. Transportation
6. Environmental Action
2. Short term action plan (within 1 year). How do we move from words to
actions and build on the work that has already been done? We have some
great starting points, but without some tangible actions, we could lose
momentum, public interest, and actual positive environmental impacts.
This is also an opportunity to lead by example.
• Increase City recycling program
Do all departments recycle?
Computer/cell phone/cfl recycling programs
• Eliminate bottled water in city buildings
• Plastic bag/Styrofoam ban
• Create an “Adopt a Street/Flowerbed/Park/etc” program
• Implement "Green Partnerships" with subcontractors and vendors
• Green contracting specs
• Use CFLs in all city buildings
• Join other organizations
• Become an "Agenda City" with Cascade Land Conservancy
• Calculate our (government and community-wide) carbon footprint
• Pass the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Set up a multi-year strategy
• Get the word out/market the concept
• Include sustainable practices in the code rewrite
Packet Page 91 of 93
3. Lay the Groundwork for future actions/opportunities. This would
take place concurrently with the action items.
• Identify funding sources (feds, grants, partnerships)
• Identify incentives (tax breaks, expedited permits, etc)
• Identify cost savings (i.e. lowering city utility bills)
• Identify stake holders/partners
• Identify local environmental issues (i.e. salmon fisheries)
• Identify intangible benefits (citizen participation, employee
satisfaction)
• Inventory current codes, policy, operations
• Inventory our urban forests
• Assess affordable/senior housing options
• Study other municipalities (good and bad) to look for lessons learned
4. Mid-Term Goals (1-5 years out).
• Cut utility use (pretty basic, but that's really where it starts)
• Develop "Transit Oriented Development Zones"
• Look for ways to implement inclusionary housing principles in
development code (e.g. incentives for affordable housing)
• Expand Mayor's Climate Protection Committee--do we want/need a
Council Committee on sustainability?
• Education partnerships with NGOs, schools, city newsletter
regarding benefits, projects, successes.
• Develop a plan to daylight enclosed creeks
• Adopt "Low Impact Development" standards
Commit to ongoing process of code and permit changes (i.e. lower
fees/faster permits for remodel vs. new construction, LEED
certified building, make provision for new technologies, etc.)
• Continue work on transit hubs, increased rider ship, etc.
• Look for big impact public works action (i.e. solar cells/ wind turbines
on public safety building or city hall)
• Adopt a "Receiving Site" for TDR's along HWY 99 to re-direct
development off of north County rural lands and into our City
• Bring in previously identified funding sources
• Use concept of "Eco-Municipality" as a driver for economic
development (i.e. attracting business, development, etc that believe
in the concept).
• Increase communication with neighboring cities, Olympia, DC
Packet Page 92 of 93
5. Long term goals (5 years to...)
• Green building codes
• Complete streets
• Measurable carbon emission reductions
• A new way of thinking
• Become THE leading model for becoming a “Sustainability Star
Community”.
6.Some Big Questions
• What about budget? Can we accomplish any of these goals without
the November Levy?
• How do we create measurable goals in short and long term?
• How do we integrate the “Sustainability Star” into every aspect of the
comprehensive plan?
• How do we lay the groundwork on which future councils can build?
Packet Page 93 of 93