08/28/2012 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
August 28, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Rob English, City Engineer
Pamela Lemcke, Capital Projects Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 75 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley -
Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public
Works Director Phil Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Finance Director Shawn
Hunstock, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:15 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:20 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
(6 -0). (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.)
K�K'1199111+ /:I Wei W K13000101IFX"010 17�YYFlufy
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0).
(Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2012.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 1
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #133824 THROUGH #133952 DATED AUGUST 23,
2012 FOR $638,586.89.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, displayed a photograph of a car boat. He referred to the ordinance that
prohibits motorboats on Lake Ballinger and suggested the City consider revising the ordinance to allow
an event that would showcase car boats and the Fire Department's rescue equipment and training.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked why copies of the June 5, 2007 minutes were available on the public
information table in Council Chambers. Next, he referred to chip sealing done by the cities of Mountlake
Terrace and Shoreline, citing specific projects in Shoreline on 10"' Avenue NE, 15'h Avenue NE and NE
175"' Street. He suggested 5`" Avenue be the first road considered for chip sealing in Edmonds as it is
scheduled for an overlay. Because chip sealing is less expensive than an overlay, it would free up money
to chip seal other roads. He suggested the Council contact Shoreline to determine how much money
Edmonds could save by chip sealing rather than overlays.
5. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 27, 2012 FOR THE MAIN STREET DECORATIVE
LIGHTING AND SIDEWALK ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT (5TH AVE TO 6TH AVE) AND
POSSIBLE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.
City Engineer Rob English reported this is the second time this project has been bid; the first bids were
rejected due to problems with documentation provided by the bidders related to the Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise program. The project was re- advertised and the City received four bids. The low bid
was provided by Interwest Construction; their bid amount was $1,092,552. The engineer's estimate was
$1,084,553. In the first round of bids opened on August 7, the lowest bid was $1,179,015. Interwest
Construction's bid is $87,000 lower than the lowest bid in the first round of bids.
Mr. English reviewed the scope of the project, displaying several photographs illustrating the existing
condition of the sidewalks:
0 12 -foot sidewalks
0 16 LED Sternberg street lights
0 18 street trees
• Raised mid -block pedestrian crossing
• Relocation of overhead electrical utility service (currently on the south side of the street, will be
relocated to the south alley)
• Street pavement reconstruction
• Waterline replacement (existing is 1920s cast iron)
• Stormwater improvements
• 4 artistic flower poles
• Street furniture (bike rack, solid waste receptacles and benches)
Mr. English reviewed the construction budget:
Element
Amount
Construction contract
$1,092,553
Construction management
185,800
Contingency 10%
109,300
Street lights
49,500
Art
8,000
Miscellaneous
5,500
Public art (1% of Stormwater)
1,700
Total
$1,452,353
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 2
Mr. English reviewed funding sources:
Source
Amount
Federal grant
$ 596,000
State grant
477,867
Water Utility
181,305
Storm Utility
197,181
Total
$1,452,353
Mr. English introduced Interwest Construction Owner Eban Twaddle (360- 757 -7574) and Project
Manager Andy Conner (360- 757 -7574) and the City's Project Manager Pam Lemcke (425 -771 -0220
x1329).
Mr. English reported a meeting is scheduled with downtown businesses in this corridor on Tuesday,
September 4 at 8:30 a.m. in the Brackett Room in City Hall where Interwest Construction, City staff and
the consultant management team will review the schedule and answer questions. There will also be a
meeting with the Downtown Edmonds Merchant's Association (DEMA) on September 7 to provide an
update on the project. The goal is for construction to begin on September 10. Main Street will be closed
between 5`" & 6`" during construction; a 5 -foot sidewalk width will remain open to provide access to
businesses. The contract is structured so that the project is completed by mid - November.
WSDOT concurs with the contract award, particularly the DBE participation. Staff recommends award of
the project to Interwest Construction in the amount of $1,092,552.65.
Mayor Earling pointed out the high quality work staff has done leading up to this point including 4 -5
meetings with the business community. Everyone is satisfied with the communication and he was pleased
Interwest would be constructing the project. He relayed that several staff members have worked with
Interwest in the past.
For Councilmember Petso, Mr. English stated the engineer's estimate was $1,084,553 and the prior low
bid amount was $1,179,015.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. English to identify where construction would occur. Mr. English
answered the east boundary is approximately 50 feet east of the intersection of 6t'' Avenue and will
include intersection improvements at 6`" & Main (reconstruction of each corner with curb returns, ramps
and pedestrian crossings); the west boundary is just short of the intersection of 5"' & Main.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the $8,000 for art. Mr. English explained that is for the four
artistic flower poles. The $8,000 covers the cost of the art element and fabrication. The cost is reimbursed
by the federal Transportation Enhancement grant.
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AWARD THE MAIN STREET DECORATIVE LIGHTING AND SIDEWALK
ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT (5TH AVE TO 6TH AVE) CONTRACT TO iNTERWEST
CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,092,552.65. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PERMITTING FEES FOR SOLAR INSTALLATIONS
Building Official Leonard Yarberry relayed staff was asked to describe how fees for solar installations are
calculated so that the Council could consider potentially reducing or waiving fees for certain projects.
This item was presented to the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee on August 14 and referred
to full Council for discussion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 3
Mr. Yarberry explained there have been three residential solar projects and one commercial solar project
(phase 1 of the installation on the Frances Anderson Center). Following the Frances Anderson Center
project and applications for residential projects, staff began researching how permitting fees for solar
projects were established by other jurisdictions. There is currently no specific fee for solar permits in the
City's adopted fee schedule. In accordance with City policy regarding establishing fees, a fee was
calculated based on staff time and determined to be two hours; one hour for plan review and permit
processing and one hour for inspection. The total permit fee for a residential solar project is $135. For the
Frances Anderson Center project, the standard valuation format was utilized; the fee for that project was
approximately $13,000. Since then a policy was adopted that is consistent with other jurisdictions
(Portland and San Jose) where the valuation does not include the cost of the solar panels and inverters.
Based on information provided by Steve Bernheim regarding phase 2 of the Frances Anderson Center
project, using the new valuation methodology, the permit fee would be $621.
Mr. Yarberry explained the above valuation methodology is consistent with a guide for local governments
published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), "Solar Power in Your Community." DOE
recommends a fee of $300 or less for most residential systems and Solar America Board for Codes and
Standard recommends fees of $75 -$200 for a system up to 4 kilowatts. The fee Edmonds currently
charges is within those ranges.
The question before the Council is whether to continue with the current fees or to reduce or waive fees for
certain projects. One option would be a reduction or elimination of fees for solar projects as an incentive
to be consistent with the Sustainability Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Edmonds is a participant in a Department of Energy grant project, the Evergreen State Solar Partnership
(ESSP) along with Bellevue, Seattle, and Ellensburg as well as Puget Sound Energy, Snohomish PUD,
City of Ellensburg and Seattle City Light. ESSP is examining ways of standardizing and minimizing costs
for solar energy projects statewide.
Councilmember Johnson relayed it appeared that the residential fee considers the time for plan review and
inspection to develop a fee. Recognizing the City has little experience with commercial solar projects, she
asked whether staff could calculate the amount of staff time for plan review and inspection for the
Frances Anderson Center solar project. Mr. Yarberry answered residential solar installations projects are
similar and are typically not very large; conversely the size of a commercial project could be extremely
variable depending on the roof structure, number of panels, type of installation, etc. It would be difficult
to establish a single fee for a commercial solar installation; it is possible a sliding fee schedule could be
developed for commercial installations based on size and kilowatts. He relayed some jurisdictions such as
Seattle established a low threshold for small residential projects that do not require a permit.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas relayed an email from Steve Bernheim expressing Sustainable Edmonds'
and his personal support for the way solar permitting fees are being handled by the Planning Department.
They generally support lowering commercial and residential fees for solar energy projects (and /or all
renewable energy projects in Edmonds) in a way that values the project fairly and results in a fair fee so
that fees do not become a disincentive to the project. The Planning Department has acted very reasonably
in its revised valuation approach to commercial installations and its reasonable flat fee approach to
residential installations. They also support the anticipated success of the ongoing statewide ESSP fee -
standardizing efforts. They also acknowledge that everyone needs to pay their fair share of everything, so
that a waiver of fees is neither politically appropriate or necessary as a matter of public policy. Edmonds
wants to do all it can to incentivize the installation of renewable energy projects, and the Planning
Department's current approach to permitting fees is a small but successful step toward attaining that goal.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked about the ongoing statewide ESSP fee standardizing efforts. Mr.
Yarberry answered it is part of DOE's SunShot Initiative; different elements of solar have been
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 4
distributed to different groups around the county. The ESSP is studying a standardized permitting
process. Because this is new technology, many jurisdictions do not have a permitting process to address
it. The ESSP will likely make a recommendation regarding fees, but each jurisdiction will establish its
own fees.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out without a permit, the City would not know how many residences
have solar systems. She supported lowering the permit fee to provide incentive for solar installations. She
asked about Exhibit 1 in the packet, Community Solar Fee Comparison. Mr. Yarberry advised the
numbers were provided by Mr. Bernheim and were used by staff to calculate a baseline fee for Phase 1 of
the Frances Anderson Center project.
Councilmember Johnson suggested evaluating the amount of time spent on plan review and inspection in
determining the fee for a commercial solar installation.
Council President Peterson observed if the Council took no action, staff would continue with the fee
structure for residential installations as described. Mr. Yarberry agreed. Council President Peterson
observed waiving fees would require Council action. Mr. Yarberry agreed.
Council President Peterson disclosed he owns a slice of the solar installation on the Frances Anderson
Center and has promised to donate any profits from it to Sustainable Edmonds.
The Council took no action with regard to this item.
7. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
Council President Peterson explained the Council began discussing the taking of minutes /notes during
executive sessions at the 2012 Council retreat. Upon further Council and Committee direction, he was
asked to schedule a broader discussion along with presentations from outside interested parties.
Jim Doherty, Legal Consultant, Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC), explained MRSC has
functioned in Washington for over 75 years as an advisory group to cities, counties and special purpose
districts on a wide range of issues. MRSC has 25 staff members including 6 attorneys, 2 planners, a
finance consultant, policy consultants and has the most extensive local government library in the State.
MRSC's website, www.MRSC.M, is open to the public. He has been with MRSC for over 19 years and
authors and updates the Public Records Act (PRA) publication as well as has addressed many questions
over the years regarding Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) issues.
Mr. Doherty relayed he had reviewed Council minutes where the issue of taking minutes /notes during
executive session had been discussed and City Attorney Taraday's input regarding the pattern in
Washington cities. He was also provided an email from Ken Reidy that contained a blog post and
responses regarding this issue.
Mr. Doherty relayed MRSC is not aware of any cities in the State of Washington that take minutes of
executive sessions or record executive sessions. He found a reference that was confirmed by Mr. Nixon
that the Port of Seattle records their executive sessions because of scrutiny by the State Auditor's Office
due to past problems. MRSC's advice to cities over the last 20 years is that cities not take minutes of
executive sessions. He clarified it was not that MRSC was for or against open government, as a practical
matter there is some uncertainty regarding the status of minutes of executive sessions because they
usually are not taken; there is no specific exemption in the PRA for minutes of executive sessions.
MRSC's position is cautious; their advice is why create a problem that cities do not need.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 5
Mr. Doherty explained the purpose of minutes is an official record of action taken by the Council.
Executive sessions are discussion and not final action; any action is taken during open session. Thus the
purpose of minutes of an executive session is not clear because no action is taken.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the work MRSC does for city officials,
recalling she utilized their resources regarding financial transparency. She asked about taking notes of
executive session rather than minutes. Mr. Doherty asked who would take the notes. If a Councilmember
takes notes in executive session for their own use, they are similar to notes taken during an open Council
meeting. There is case law that supports the view that those are not public records, they are a
Councilmember's own personal notes, not taken at the request of the City, and not used by the City. He
cited Jacobellis v. Bellingham where the court found personal notes are not a public record.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about notes taken by the City Clerk. Mr. Doherty answered if those
notes are minutes, a record of the executive session, under one statute they are not open to public
inspection. He noted it is unclear as the statute was written long before the PRA was adopted.
Councilmember Petso asked about the statute that distinguishes Clerk's notes from a public record. Mr.
Doherty answered RCW 42.32.030 which was passed in 1953 and has never been amended.
Councilmember Johnson observed one question is whether a written record should be kept of executive
sessions. She asked what should be done with the records maintained of executive sessions over the past
seven years if the Council decided to stop keeping a written record; should they be destroyed or were they
subject to public record requests. Mr. Doherty answered their destruction would depend on how the
records retention schedule applied to those records. The retention schedule for minutes of regular Council
meeting minutes requires they be kept permanently. He was uncertain whether that would apply to notes
of an executive session. With regard to public records requests for those notes, he referred the Council to
the City Attorney. He recognized many of the notes are related to attorney- client privilege where
exemptions clearly apply.
Councilmember Johnson commented if the Council chose to stop taking minutes of executive sessions,
the Council could audio record executive sessions. She asked whether Mr. Doherty knew of any other
cities, other than the Port of Seattle, that audio record their executive sessions. Mr. Doherty answered he
did not. He pointed out there is no exemption that applies to an audio recording, whether video or voice,
and if no exemption applies, it must be disclosed. If the City made an audio recording of an executive
session and someone requested it, the City would need to provide it. That could be problematic if the
Council was discussing a real estate purchase or other sensitive issues. Councilmember Johnson
commented she had not heard that before; it was a key point. Mr. Doherty commented there was
legislation pending this year and in past years regarding recording of executive sessions but it included a
provision that any challenge would require a judge review the recording in chambers and exemptions
would apply. That legislation did not pass and there is currently no exemption in the law for a recording
of an executive session. Unless that is clarified, he recommended cities not record executive sessions.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether any legislation regarding recording of executive sessions was
anticipated in the next legislative session. Mr. Doherty answered that was difficult to anticipate; it has
been raised in the past and has not been passed. It may be introduced again as the Coalition for Open
Government and other groups believe it is an important issue.
Councilmember Johnson summarized Mr. Doherty's recommendation was that the City do not maintain
written records or audio recordings of executive sessions and whatever records of executive sessions the
City has created would be maintained in accordance with the records retention schedule. Mr. Doherty
agreed with her summary.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 6
Toby Nixon, President, Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG), explained he is a
former member of the State Legislature, served as ranking member on a Committee of the House that had
responsibility for the open government laws of Washington, and is currently a City of Kirkland
Councilmember, elected in November 2011.
Mr. Nixon commented this has been one of WCOG's highest priority issues for several years. WCOG is a
statewide non - profit, non - partisan organization dedicated to defending and extending the people's right to
know what their government is doing. WCOG focuses most of its energy on the PRA and OPMA but also
works on open courts, open legislative process, open rule- making processes, follows the workings of the
Public Disclosure Commission, disclosure of campaign finance and lobbyist information, whistle- blower
laws, ethics laws, and anything related to transparency and accountability in government. This is
accomplished via four programs: education, litigation, legislation and recognition.
He relayed language from RCW 42.30.010, "The legislature finds and declares that all public
commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other
public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It
is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted
openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the
people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that
they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
Mr. Nixon provided a definition of executive session: "Executive sessions are meetings allowed (but not
required) to be closed to the public because the people, through their legislative representatives, have
determined that it is more in the public interest than not that the specific information to be discussed be
kept secret for some period of time."
To the question of whether recordings should be made, Mr. Nixon said yes. Agencies can choose today to
make audio or video recordings, or to keep notes or minutes, of executive sessions. There is no
prohibition of such recordings. Recordings can be useful for a number of agency purposes:
• To resolve disagreements over what transpired or was said
• To hold attorneys and others accountable for advice given or information provided in closed
meetings
• To allow newly- appointed or newly - elected members of the body to catch up on previous
executive session discussions
• To improve the ability of the agency to defend itself if it is accused of having an inappropriate
discussion in an executive session
Mr. Nixon relayed reasons some many do not want executive sessions recorded:
• Would interfere with frank, honest, free - flowing conversations. He emphasized that is the point,
executive sessions should be limited to only the allowed topic and nothing more. Members should
not need to be behind closed doors to have a frank and honest discussion.
• Recording is expensive. He cited the reasonable cost of a digital audio recorder. Operation is
trivial. The recorder can be plugged into a PC via USB cable and recordings transferred to a
secure server, and be as well protected as any other confidential electronic city records. No need
for expensive safes, locked file cabinets, or large amounts of storage space.
• Risk of disclosure under the Public Records Act. Mr. Nixon relayed information from RCW
42.56.010 Definitions, of "public record" and "writing," agreeing that audio recordings are
records, including voicemails. He acknowledged recordings are not automatically exempt.
Recordings of several of the allowed topics for executive sessions would be exempt from
disclosure, but not all.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 7
Mr. Nixon explained the Port of Seattle Digitally records all executive sessions. They submit records to
outside counsel for periodic review for compliance. They have not had many requests for disclosure
although who knows what will happen with current controversy.
Mr. Nixon described the allowable topics for executive session (RCW 42.30.110) and his response to
each (in italics):
(a) To consider matters affecting national security.
Rarely applies to cities. Some topics covered under 42.56.420 (security plans and vulnerabilities,
prevention of terrorist acts).
(b) To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when
public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price.
(c) To consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale or lease when public
knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price. However,
final action selling or leasing public property shall be taken in a meeting open to the public.
Real estate appraisals are covered by 42.56.260, but not discussion of price willing to pay or sell
for, or the fact that the city is interested in the property.
(d) To review negotiations on the performance of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge
regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased costs.
Not covered by any known PRA exemption.
(f) To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee.
However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the
public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge.
Records of complaints against public employees are disclosable unless determined to be
unsubstantiated or false. 42.56.230(3), Bellevue John Does v. Bellevue School District.
Some records may be exempt under the investigatory records exemption, 42.56.240(1).
Identity of persons filing complaints may be exempt under 42.56.240(2) if their life, safety, or
property may be endangered by disclosure, and they request non- disclosure.
(g) To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the
performance of a public employee. However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a
governing body of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied
within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects
to take final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or
discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to the
public;
Names, resumes, other application materials are exempt,from disclosure under 42.56.250(2). No
exemption for other content of discussion.
(h) To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office. However, any
interview of such candidate and final action appointing a candidate to elective office shall be in a
meeting open to the public;
Not exempt under PRA.
(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement
actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to
which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to
become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse
legal or financial consequence to the agency.
All materials are likely exempt under RCW 42.56.290 or 5.60.060(2)(a), which are broader than
the allowed purposes for executive sessions for attorney- client communication, and include all
"attorney work product".
Topics for executive session not applicable to cities include:
(e) ... export trading company... ;
0) ...state library...;
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 8
(k) ...state investment board...;
(1) ... state purchased health care services... ;
(m) ...life sciences discovery fund authority...;
(n) ...health sciences and services authority...;
(o) ...innovate Washington...
Mr. Nixon referred to RCW 42.30.140 that describes meetings that are not technically "executive
sessions," in that they do not require the agency to first convene in an announced public meeting, declare
the purpose and duration of the closed meeting, and then return to public session to adjourn. He explained
"140" meetings can be entirely secret, although many agencies treat them the same as "110" executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon reviewed the four types of meetings described in RCW 42.30.140 and his response to
each (in italics):
(1) The proceedings concerned with the formal issuance of an order granting, suspending,
revoking, or denying any license, permit, or certificate to engage in any business,
occupation, or profession or to any disciplinary proceedings involving a member of such
business, occupation, or profession, or to receive a license for a sports activity or to
operate any mechanical device or motor vehicle where a license or registration is
necessary; or
Business license proceedings occur in cities, but are not exempt under the PRA.
(2) That portion of a meeting of a quasi-judicial body which relates to a quasi-judicial matter
between named parties as distinguished from a matter having general effect on the public
or on a class or group; or
Cities have quasi-judicial discussions for permitting, etc. Not exempt under the PRA.
(3) Matters governed by chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act; or
Does not apply to cities.
(4)(a) Collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations, including contract
negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions relating to the interpretation or
application of a labor agreement; or (b) that portion of a meeting during which the
governing body is planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the
governing body during the course of any collective bargaining, professional negotiations,
or grievance or mediation proceedings, or reviewing the proposals made in the
negotiations or proceedings while in progress.
Information regarding unfair practices exempt under 42.56.250(4) and (5). Otherwise,
not exempt under PRA.
Mr. Nixon relayed WCOG's support for enactment of additional PRA exemptions:
• Specific public records exemptions to cover each of the executive session topics, even if the
material is discussed in writing rather than in an executive session.
• Blanket public records exemption for all recordings, minutes, and notes of executive sessions.
This would also cover materials prepared by staff for review during executive sessions. Materials
provided in executive session today are not exempt from disclosure under the PRA unless
communications from the City Attorney protected by attorney - client privilege.
In the meantime, WCOG recommends Council's be selective; have a policy to not record executive
sessions when the discussion would not be exempt from the PRA, or retain only a high -level summary of
the nature of the discussion without the key details. They recommend cities consider the benefits of
recordings or notes on key topics that would be exempt from disclosure. For example because there is a
broad exemption for attorney - client privilege communications and since attorney - client communications
are the most frequent purpose for executive sessions, the Council may decide to record those executive
sessions.
Mr. Nixon provided WCOG's contact information: Washington Coalition for Open Government, 6351
Seaview Avenue NW, Seattle, WA 98107; (206) 782 -0393; info @washin t�o g.org;
www,washin toncog.org.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 9
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked why no cities in the State kept minutes or record executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon answered it is due to the concern about possible disclosure if a member of the public
submitted a properly worded public records request. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether
Kirkland keeps minutes or records executive sessions. Mr. Nixon answered Kirkland does not.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked why Councils have executive sessions. Mr. Nixon answered it
was because the legislature decided it was more in the public interest than not to have that discussion in
secret and to keep the content secret for at least some period of time. For example if the Council were to
discuss the most they were willing to pay for property and that information became public and known to
the property owners, that would become the price of the property and the City's ability to negotiate a
lower price would be extremely limited.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked about executive session for labor negotiations. Mr. Nixon
responded when he was in the legislature, he advocated for removing labor negotiations as an allowed
topic for executive session; he personally believes labor negotiations should occur in public as they do in
many other states.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if one of the legislature's responsibilities was to be risk managers. Mr.
Nixon answered one would hope they had that exposure in mind when they passed bills. In his
experience, that did not always happen because the analysis has not been deep enough. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked as risk managers, shouldn't the goal be to prevent litigation; recordings of executive
session could expose Councilmembers and the City to liability. Mr. Nixon answered it was unlikely to
expose Councilmembers individually. There could be scenarios for liability based on the content of the
recording such as inappropriate statements or incorrect information made in executive session that could
be considered libel. His focus was the purpose of the executive session; attorney - client privilege is
obvious, the Council does not want to expose its courtroom strategy to the opposition in a lawsuit.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if executive sessions were recorded, Councilmembers would need
to be more careful about what they said. Mr. Nixon answered that was a good thing; people in leadership
positions should think carefully before they speak. As a Councilmember himself, before saying or
emailing anything, he assumes it will be printed on the front page of the Seattle Times the next day.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she did not object to disclosing information discussed in
executive sessions regarding real estate once the transaction had been completed. She recognized
confidentiality must be maintained for some other topics. Mr. Nixon referred to the fundamental
principles of the PRA and OPMA, the people are sovereign, they have a right to know what their
government is doing, and it is up to them to decide what is good for them to know, not for elected
officials to decide what is good for them to know.
Rather than determining what topics were exempt from the PRA, Councilmember Yamamoto suggested it
would be simpler not to record executive sessions. He suggested that was why no other cities recorded
executive sessions. Mr. Nixon agreed without a blanket exemption for recordings of executive sessions,
cities are unwilling to determine what executive session topics should and should not be recorded. If the
idea of recording executive sessions for its own use is something the Edmonds City Council would like,
he urged them to request that AWC support legislation that would allow it.
Councilmember Yamamoto referred to Mr. Nixon's comment about handouts provided during executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon explained if a document is produced by City staff and distributed in executive
session, it does not become a protected document because it was viewed in executive session. It is a
public record like any other City document. Unless there is an exemption covering the content of the
document, it must be released if a member of the public requested it. Councilmember Yamamoto asked
what documents would be protected. Mr. Nixon answered it would depend on the nature of the document;
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 10
a memo from the attorney regarding a case and strategies would be exempt from disclosure. Other
documents may not be exempt. For example in the case of real estate, there is an exemption in the PRA
for an appraisal but there is no exemption for other types of information such as a staff analysis of the
property, how a facility would fit on the property, etc., unless it was protected by the generic deliberative
process exemption. Simply collecting documents distributed in executive session and shredding them is
not enough; the original is still on someone's computer and required to be retained under the records
retention schedule. If a member of the public requested it, the City Attorney would need to determine how
to prevent its disclosure.
Councilmember Yamamoto summarized his understanding was that every document and handout
provided at executive session should be processed accordingly. Mr. Nixon answered similar to any
document handled by the Council in its official role it is considered a public record and unless a specific
exemption applies, someone could request it. Councilmember Yamamoto asked Mr. Doherty's opinion.
Mr. Doherty agreed with Mr. Nixon's statement; just because something is looked at in executive session
does not create an automatic exemption for it.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether comparisons provided by staff in executive session regarding
labor negotiations would be subject to a public records request. Mr. Nixon answered he was not aware of
any exemption for that. Mr. Doherty referred to a case, ACLU v. Seattle, where strategy papers reviewed
in executive session were not exempt under the PRA.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether the attorney should check everything that staff provided prior
to an executive session. City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out it was not sufficient for him to check
something; it would need to be advice from him in order to be attorney -client privilege exempt. It was not
enough for a director to have the City Attorney review it for it to become attorney - client privilege exempt.
Mr. Nixon agreed having the City Attorney in the room does not make a conversation attorney- client
privilege nor does the City Attorney reading a document make it attorney- client privilege. Mr. Nixon
suggested the Council could ask the City Attorney whether a document would be exempt from disclosure.
Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Nixon said the Council could choose to record some executive
sessions. If the Council made a decision to record all executive sessions regarding attorney - client
privilege, would they be exempt from disclosure under the PRA? Mr. Nixon answered yes, as long as the
executive session followed the guidelines in the OPMA.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether those recordings would be exempt forever from public disclosure?
Mr. Nixon answered according to a Supreme Court decision, there is no timeout on attorney - client
communication, particularly related to litigation. Even though one lawsuit completes, there is nothing to
stop someone else from suing on a similar topic; therefore, privileged information should not be released
and benefit the next person filing a lawsuit.
Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification whether notes taken by the City Clerk or any record kept of
executive sessions related to attorney - client privilege would be subject to public disclosure. Mr. Nixon
answered the portion of the notes related to questions asked of the attorney and the attorney's responses
could be redacted. Anything else would be disclosable. Councilmember Bloom asked who made the
decision regarding what was exempt and what was not if a public records request was submitted. Mr.
Nixon answered the Public Records Officer; if he /she had any questions, he /she would seek direction
from the City Attorney. Ultimately the State Supreme Court decides what is exempt or not exempt. Even
if staff makes a decision they believe is correct with regard to disclosure, someone could still sue the City.
Councilmember Bloom commented Edmonds is in the unique position of having taken summary minutes
of executive sessions for several years in accordance with direction provided by resolution. She
commented it would be difficult to go backward when that practice was started for a legitimate reason.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 11
There was also discussion at a Council meeting that certain executive session meetings could be disclosed
when the issue was resolved. She questioned how the City should proceed when it was "already more
advanced in some ways in terms of open government than other cities are." Mr. Nixon answered
according to the law, if someone made a public records request for them, the non - exempt portions would
need to be disclosed. If they meet the legal definition of minutes, they must be retained forever. If they are
only notes, their retention is determined by the records retention schedule.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the question she asked previously, should the City maintain a paper
record; if the answer is yes, it is important to know the retention schedule. Although the ordinance refers
to them as minutes, the City Attorney has advised they do not meet the legal definition of minutes
because they are not voted upon and are actually notes kept by the City Clerk. Given the current laws, she
asked for Mr. Nixon's recommendation whether a paper record should be kept. Mr. Nixon clarified under
the PRA, all types of records are the same, whether paper, electronic or an audio recording, the content of
the record is what is important. It is easier to redact paper records. With regard to a recommendation, he
has not loudly demanded that Kirkland start recording executive sessions because he recognizes the value
of their being exempt. He has encouraged Kirkland to urge AWC not to oppose legislation regarding
executive sessions.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that it made a difference who took the notes. She
asked if an audio recording or notes taken by the City Attorney would be exempt. Mr. Nixon answered it
would depend whether it was an attorney -client privileged discussion. The City Attorney's record of
questions asked and responses he gave would be exempt as an attorney -client work product. If the City
Attorney was simply being used as a clerk to take notes about something other than an attorney - client
privilege discussion, the fact that he was the City Attorney would make no difference with regard to
whether the notes were disclosable.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that there was no exemption for audio recordings
other than regarding an assessed valuation of a real estate transaction and would need to be made
available upon a public records request. Mr. Nixon answered audio recordings are included in the
definition of public records. Whether a recording was disclosable would depend on the content of the
recording; portions of the recording for which there is an exemption could be redacted, the rest of the
recording would have to be disclosed.
With regard to minutes versus notes, Council President Peterson asked if there could be such a thing as
executive session minutes when the Council did not vote on the minutes in executive session or in public
session. And if they are just cursory notes that are not reviewed by the Council, who outside the City
Clerk has the ability to verify their authenticity /accuracy if they become a public record upon a public
records request. Mr. Nixon answered that is why the Port of Seattle is recording their executive sessions.
He asked if the executive session minutes /notes the City currently maintains are distributed to Council
following executive session. Council President Peterson answered they are not. Mr. Nixon agreed the
Council was very dependent upon the accuracy of the person taking notes during executive session. If
there were a dispute in the future regarding an executive session, he envisioned a judge and jury would
ultimately make a decision regarding the accuracy of the record. Council President Peterson summarized
the Council was in a very nebulous situation with any kind of recording device, whether pen or audio
recording.
Mr. Nixon clarified he is not an attorney and urged the Council not to act on anything he said without first
checking with the City Attorney.
Councilmember Petso asked how confident Mr. Nixon was in his statement that a Councilmember's
personal notes made in executive session were not a public record. Mr. Nixon answered that was
established in the case Jacobellis v. Bellingham which is summarized on the MRSC website. As long as a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 12
Councilmember does not share their notes with others, it is a personal record and not a City record.
Councilmember Petso asked whether that applied to notes typed into her city - provided iPad. Mr. Nixon
answered yes; he sends emails to himself and was told by Kirkland's City Attorney that emails he sends
to himself as personal notes and not shared with anyone else were exempt from disclosure. If the emails
are forwarded to someone else, they become a public record. Mr. Taraday stated he was unsure about that
interpretation.
Council President Peterson asked for Council direction regarding recording executive sessions.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas preferred to wait to see what action the legislature took.
YAMAMOTO, TO RESCIND RESOLUTION 853 BECAUSE MINUTES ARE IN FACT NOT
BEING TAKEN.
Councilmember Petso pointed out this was listed on the agenda as a discussion item. She preferred to
rescind the resolution at a future meeting when the item is on the agenda for action.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso. She suggested holding a public hearing.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Council consider keeping a record of attorney - client privileged
discussions as they would be exempt under the PRA.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Council President Peterson asked whether this issue should go back through the committee process.
Councilmember Bloom commented it would be prudent to have it discussed at committee as
Councilmember Johnson was not on the Committee at that time and new information has been provided
that warrants further discussion.
Council President Peterson explained the purpose of committee discussion was so staff could update the
committee. There is no City staff person in that role for this item. He did not want it to be a discussion
between two Councilmembers and members of the public that excluded the other five Councilmembers.
He preferred any further discussion occur at a regular Council meeting.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented discussions at committee should only be with the two
Councilmembers on the committee; the public is not included in discussion other than by providing input
during public comment.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the City Attorney can participate at the committee level. The
discussion at committee could include attorney- client privilege, recording, which executive sessions could
be recorded, etc. Mr. Taraday responded he is happy to attend a committee meeting if there is meaningful
discussion he needs to participate in. His advice on this matter is straight - forward and remains the same.
The vast majority of executive sessions are attorney -client privileged. Any recording of executive
sessions regarding potential litigation is in all likelihood protected under the PRA and it is up to the City
Council to decide whether to record those. With regard to other types of executive sessions, they should
not be recorded because there is no clear exemption from disclosure. He summarized it is an
administrative, logistical question; whether the City wants to deal with the hassle of turning on and off a
recording device or having the City Clerk enter and leave the room for the portion of the executive
session the Council wants a written record maintained. He was unsure he needed to attend the committee
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 13
meeting to have that discussion. The presentations by Mr. Doherty and Mr. Nixon were excellent; he
would broaden what Mr. Nixon said would be included under the potential litigation exemption.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented this was a work session and presentations were made by two
parties. He was unclear what sending it to committee would accomplish. He preferred the full Council
participate in any further discussions.
For Council President Peterson, Councilmember Johnson said she was present when the committee last
discussed this matter. Council President Peterson asked whether Councilmember Johnson preferred to
have it discussed at committee. Councilmember Johnson suggested the committee could discuss it at the
September 11 meeting and it could be scheduled for full Council discussion on September 18. She was
uncertain Councilmember Bloom and she were of like minds but they could narrow the issues to facilitate
Council discussion.
Council President Peterson concluded since both committee members asked for this issue to be scheduled,
he will schedule it on the September 11 Committee agenda. He echoed Councilmember Fraley - Monillas'
comments that committee meetings are not open discussions with the public. He will discuss with Mr.
Taraday whether his presence at the committee meeting is necessary.
Councilmember Johnson requested staff determine the records retention for notes.
8. REPORT ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmember Yamamoto reported SnoCom is working to resolve issues with the New World system.
The Port of Edmonds is in the process of presenting the Harbor Square Master Plan to the Planning
Board. The Citizens Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) did not meet this month.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas reported the Snohomish County Health District Program Policy
Committee discussed fluoride in the water and agreed to send the matter to the full Board with a
recommendation not to change the current policy regarding fluoride in water. The Committee has
requested that testimony be limited to recent data and not old data from the 1950s and 1960s.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 is having a Cedar River Watershed event. She reported
Governor Gregoire gave each Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) member a merit award for
intergovernmental collaboration in the preparation of the Countywide Planning Policies. SCT is also
discussing dispute resolution for municipal urban growth areas (MUGA).
Council President Peterson reported the Council will be provided an update on the Regional Fire
Authority (RFA) discussion at the September 18 meeting. Mayor Earling, Councilmember Petso and he
participate on the planning committee as well as individual subcommittees.
Mayor Earling requested Council President Peterson and Councilmember Petso meet with him after the
meeting regarding the RFA.
Councilmember Bloom reported staff provided updates to the Economic Development Commission
regarding Highway 99, the Harbor Square Master Plan, Main Street project, etc. Evan Pierce and Bruce
Witenberg were elected co- chairs.
Councilmember Johnson reported there will be a formal dedication of the Allen House on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places on August 29 at 3:00 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 14
Mayor Earling reported in the next few weeks, the Sound Transit Board will begin discussions regarding
elements of Sound Transit 3 which in theory will launch an extension from Lynnwood to Everett.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling announced the September 4 Council meeting has been cancelled.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Bloom reported she has attended the Planning Board meetings regarding the Harbor
Square Master Plan. The Planning Board is doing an exceptional job reviewing the Master Plan. She
encouraged the public to watch the video that airs daily at 8:00 a.m. on Channels 21 and 39.
Councilmember Buckshnis invited the public to the Puget Sound Bird Fest on September 7 — 9. It starts at
the Edmonds Wildlife Habitat Native Plant Demonstration Garden and includes viewing of birds in the
marsh. She next thanked several of her neighbors who assisted her and her husband with their fourth
annual block party. She explained anyone living on a non - essential street can obtain a special event
permit for a block party.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported she led this year's last senior center walk. It was a successful
summer and great deal of fun.
Councilmember Yamamoto reported the Chamber golf tournament at the White Horse in Kingston was
well attended.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 15