2023-01-17 Regular Meeting
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
January 17, 2023
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Neil Tibbott, Council President
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir.
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: “We acknowledge the original
inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who
since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water.”
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described procedures for audience comments.
Jay Grant, Port of Edmonds commissioner and liaison to the city council, explained Port commissioners
have oversight of Port operations and have encountered some challenges recently. The first is flooding that
occurred for the second time. Public Works Director Antillon gave a great overview at the committee
meeting, but basically concluded there wasn’t much more that could be done. More has to be done, because
the flooding resulted in the closure of some businesses in Harbor Square, difficulty reaching some
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 2
businesses, and hampered access to the Port. A lot of people have electric cars and unlike a combustion
engine, the batteries are on the bottom and they cannot drive through that much water. He acknowledged
the need to involve WSDOT, but Washington State Ferries have an alternative, they can relocate to the
Unocal property where there are no water problems. Second, the City and Port need to work together on
the waterfront comprehensive plan. Third, there is nearly 1-foot high hump in the joint Port/City parking
lot which is an ADA violation. The City is responsible for maintenance of the parking lot under the
agreement. He recommended the City’s public works director talk with the Port’s executive director
regarding these issues.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, referred to agenda item 9.2, Draft Ordinance Amending ECC 10.01 Board and
Commissions, and stated providing consistent public noticing will be beneficial to the City and having
vacancies clearly identified with clear open and closing date would be a tremendous improvement to the
current process. She recommended the council consider having the mayor interview all candidates deemed
qualified by the council. She did not regret her advocacy over the past two years; there have been times she
was critical of council, speaking on what she believed to be both accurate and needed. This is her role as a
resident. There have also been times when she was critical of the City administration, most recently with
the SEPA determination. She did not regret her advocacy around trees, parks or SEPA and most importantly
equity which connects all these issues. She likes almost everyone she meets and has huge respect for anyone
who chooses public service either on council, boards or the City. Her goal in virtually showing up at council
meetings and to City events is to challenge the council with a different perspective; business as usual is not
acceptable to address equity or the environmental challenges the City faces and it is a universal truth that
change and growth requires discomfort.
Ms. Seitz congratulated the current appointments to the planning board and thanked them in advance for
their time and commitment to the City. There are many important decisions ahead with the comprehensive
plan and she hoped they would put equity for all Edmonds residents at the center of their deliberations and
examine institutional bias with the information they receive. The reasons often given for not investing in
underserved areas of the City are often overlooked when it comes to resourcing wealthier and wider areas.
She urged them to ask themselves why, to question their assumptions and to allow themselves to get
uncomfortable. Planning board members are vested with the ability to change Edmonds for the better and
create a more equitable future for all residents. It is a responsibility for which they have her complete
support and she urged them to use it wisely.
6. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING
2. NOVEMBER 2022 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
3. PROJECT STATUS: TREE CODE AMENDMENTS ADM 2022-0004
4. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2023
3. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2023
4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2023
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 3
5. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
6. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
7. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
8. TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 763 | 2022-2024 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT
9. SNOHOMISH COUNTY AGREEMENT TO RELINQUISH REAL PROPERTY
INTEREST
10. TREE BOARD CANDIDATE APPROVAL
11. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE
12. APPROVAL OF SENIOR PERMIT COORDINATOR-ENGINEERING JOB
DESCRIPTION
13. CODE UPDATES TO CHANGE MEETING LOCATION OF PLANNING BOARD,
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, TREE BOARD, AND ADB
8. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD REVIEW AND BUILDING STEP-BACKS FOR
CERTAIN PROJECTS IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONE
Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained this is a public hearing on the ordinance the council adopted on
December 10, 2022; the council is required to hold a public hearing within 60 days since it was an
emergency interim ordinance. The ordinance did two things, it created a new process for design review of
projects in the CG zone with buildings taller than 35 feet. Currently design review for the CG zone is done
entirely by staff. New projects with building 35 feet or taller would go to Architectural Design Board
(ADB). The ordinance also added step back language for those buildings in the CG zone. Step backs were
covered in a previous version of an interim ordinance, but this language was included with the current
ordinance. Step backs are not a requirement, but in their review process, the ADB could require them at
their discretion.
Mr. Clugston explained the packet contains Ordinance No. 4283 that the council approved on December
10, 2022 as well as the minutes of that meeting. The packet also includes a resolution from 2016 which
staff was not completely aware of at the time the emergency ordinance was adopted. Resolution 1367,
adopted in 2016, indicated the council’s desire to get the council as well as citizen boards out of making
quasi-judicial decisions. Quasi-judicial decisions are when a board or council essentially sit as a judge
listening to land use permits. In the case of the council, that was typically closed record reviews; the council
still hears closed record appeals of conditional use permits and variances that go to the hearing examiner.
No changes were made to the ADB code as a result of Resolution 1367 and the ADB still issues quasi-
judicial decisions although Resolution 1367 indicated the council’s intent to remove the ADB from making
those decisions. The current interim ordinance is asking the ADB to do another review so the current
ordinance and Resolution 1367 are somewhat in conflict. The intent of tonight’s public hearing is to take
public testimony and issue a resolution with findings in support of the interim ordinance. Staff will then go
back to the planning board over the next few months and bring a recommendation to council for final
regulation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 4
Public Testimony
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing.
Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway neighborhood of the Highway 99 subarea, spoke in
support of emergency Ordinance 4283. She felt residents had been heard with the council’s recent vote to
approve funding for the SEIS for the Highway 99 subarea plan and sidewalks on 84th Avenue West between
234th and 238th Streets. She thanked the council for making those a priority. Another demonstration of how
the council is listening to neighborhood concerns is voting to make Ordinance 4823 permanent. The
ordinance is a good solution to address the lack of transition between the CG zone and the single family
residential area identified in the Highway 99 subarea plan in 2017. ADB review of building design over 35
feet allows for the right expertise to guide design elements that soften the transition between the zones and
provides public process and accountability. Voting tonight to approve the code revision adding one more
architect bolsters the ADB’s expertise. ADB review in the Highway 99 subarea also allows for parity with
the downtown business district which also has building design review by the ADB. Further, including step
backs in Ordinance 4283 is very important to eliminating a barrier for addressing neighborhood concerns.
The existing code for the ADB in section 3A reads, “The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk
and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome
by clear and convincing evidence.” This puts the burden on every community whether this is an issue to
produce the clear and convincing evidence required which can require expertise and studies, potentially
requiring more resources than most neighborhood groups have at their disposal. It creates a potentially
unresponsive process for the very residents most impacted by these types of development. She urged the
City to continue their consideration of emergency Ordinance 4283 and make it permanent to maintain the
City and council’s commitment to their community.
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, expressed support for the emergency ordinance and appreciation for the
persistence shown by council and staff to respond to the neighborhood concerns when large developments
in the Highway 99 planned area raise issues. She reminded council that a significant issue remains; the
planning board recommendation and the council decision in 2018 to eliminate transition zones that existed
around the boundaries of the Highway 99 planned areas. She did not want to wait until the 2024
comprehensive plan update and the possible zoning changes that will come with that work effort. She
emailed council last week with possible comprehensive plan language to add to Ordinance 4283; if that
amendment does not occur, she will meet with the planning board to propose a code amendment that
requires CG buildings on the boundary of an RS zone to use site and building design to transition to the
less intensive residential area. A technical definition of transition is in other cities’ codes but is missing
from Edmonds’ code. That language is a tool the ADB needs. She asked the council’s support for adding
the transition requirement to the CG code regardless of whether Ordinance 4283 is amended or a code
revision vetted and forwarded to council by the planning board.
Amy June Grumble, Edmonds, a resident on 236th Street SW, spoke in support of interim Ordinance
4283. She thanked the council for funding the SEIS for the Highway 99 planning area and for moving up
the timeline for installing badly needed sidewalks on 84th Avenue West. She also thanked the council for
listening to and coming to their neighborhood to see and discuss the impacts of this development firsthand.
She applauded the idea of involving the ADB in review of projects that intersect with single family zoned
properties. She requested step backs be included in the code revisions as defending the need for them on a
case-by-case basis will be difficult for residents with limited resources. She hoped the council would vote
to make the ordinance permanent.
Stanley Piha, one of owners of the vacant land at the corner of 84th & 236th, commented since October 4,
the city council has stopped an application from a builder to develop a market rate multifamily building
totally in compliance with all City codes and provisions of the Highway 99 subarea plan on this vacant
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 5
parcel. Blocking the project was first accomplished by enacting the emergency ordinance related to step
backs and now continues with the implementation of an emergency ordinance requiring ADB approval
when none is required under the Highway 99 subarea plan. Also since October 4, there has been a public
outcry from Washington state officials describing the housing and homelessness crisis in the state due to a
lack of affordable housing. Governor Inslee has gone so far as saying a lack of affordable housing drives
the state’s homelessness crisis. State Senator Markus Liias expressed to the Snohomish County Alliance
that one obstacle is the permitting process for new projects and supports streamlining the process to
encourage new development. Once property is zoned, projects also need to be built, something that is not
seen in Edmonds; there is a vision, but there need to be units on the ground. While state officials including
the governor describe the housing crisis as the main cause of homelessness and promote ways to encourage
housing so desperately needed, Edmonds’ governance and actions to date are exactly the opposite.
Mr. Piha continued, the council’s actions discourage building housing and as a result ignore the plight of
the homeless population. The council’s actions create an insurmountable barrier to building in the Highway
99 corridor and adding housing to the City’s stock as mandated by the GMA which turns a blind eye to the
crisis at hand. Following an extensive public process in 2017, the Highway 99 subareas plan was adopted
to incentivize building in the corridor by removing uncertainty in the permitting process. Passing the
emergency ordinance on tonight’s agenda does exactly the opposite and penalizes those considering
building in the corridor. Additionally, a vote to pass the emergency ordinance is simply a vote of no
confidence in the planning director and planning department. The planning director has expressed to council
on numerous occasions the protections in place in the administrative review process to guide projects in the
corridor to their best outcome. Professional planners working with professional designers and builders to
provide housing complimentary to the corridor are the experts, yet by passing this emergency ordinance,
the council’s actions undermine that authority. The wordsmithing in the ordinance and ignoring
constructability consequences is a prime example of creating so much confusion and uncertainty that
building in the corridor will come to an immediate halt. Like the prior emergency ordinance, this ordinance
should be vacated.
Dean Williams, Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Koloušková, speaking on behalf of the applicants for the Terrace
Place building, explained the purpose of the Highway 99 subarea plan and planned action EIS was to
provide developers with certainty and predictability while streamlining the environmental review and
permitting process, furthering the goals of SEPA and the GMA, a direct quote from the subarea plan. Recent
actions by the City have eliminated the certainty and predictability that made this subarea plan an attractive
development opportunity for investors like his client. A project like this requires an immense amount of
due diligence, planning, and prep work to even submit a preapplication. Under the current regulations, his
client could not even submit a vest-able building permit until they go through the design review process.
Most recently the City upended that predictable, streamlined process they worked so hard to implement in
2016-2017 so instead of predictability, the process has been changed in the middle of their submittal and
there is no clear guidance on how to shift gears from one process to the next. Instead of an administrative
review for something as fundamental and encompassing as designing their building, his client is being told
there will be a two phase public hearing, first a preliminary concept design, a hearing where findings of
fact are established and then the applicant redesigns their project and submits another set of plans to comply
with priorities design guideline checklist criteria.
Mr. Williams continued, the ADB then decides upon conditions that will be imposed, establishing a guess
and check review for what should be a relatively simple process for constructing a building that the City
invited and exhaustively planned for. This is a 5-over-1 apartment building, not an Escala-type high rise in
the center of downtown. This is a working class building in a working class corridor. The ordinance is
inconsistent with the GMA and the City’s comprehensive plan. The subarea outlines much of the work that
went into it, including consolidating the CG zone to allow for a cost effective 6-story mixed use building
to be constructed with comfortable floor to ceiling heights. Page 58 notes the construction type of five wood
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 6
frame floors over a ground floor concrete podium, also known as a 5-over-1 building, is efficient and cost
effective. This statement is only true because for issues like step backs, the City established regulations that
required step backs adjacent to single family and no step backs across the street. The reasoning for this
came from the EIS, there have been no new facts to warrant throwing out that EIS which is required under
SEPA when adding to existing environmental documents. The subarea plan the City came up with is well
thought out and provides the efficiency and predictability that was missing before. He urged the City to
stick with it and avoid reversion to the prior litigious system.
Jeremy Mitchell, Edmonds, said he generally supports the design review process as it helps cities guide
architectural, aesthetic and transitions from neighborhood to neighborhood which is very beneficial. He
referred to the upper story step backs adjacent and across the street, finding the language in the packet to
be too vague looking at it from an applicant’s point of view, “these requirements shall apply unless deemed
not to be necessary pursuant to design review or the ADB.” In his mind when going into a phase 1 design
review whether an applicant is meeting with the ADB or City staff, they want to know upfront what is and
is not prescriptive because at the phase 1 hearing with the public is where departures are presented. If not
clearly aligned, it is hard for the applicant to put the departures in the submittal. If the intent of the language
is to put the onus on the applicant to justify its use, he recommended taking out “unless deemed not to be
necessary” and just making it a strict requirement and let the applicant do the rest via departures.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented in support of the emergency interim ordinance to require ADB review
and building step backs for certain projects in the CG zone. Although relatively new to the neighborhood,
three years, she moved into an area that until recently has had very little turnover. Her house, like many in
the areas, was built in the 50s and they are only the third owner. People have stayed in this neighborhood,
raised families and developed communities. Her neighbors talk about how the areas is changing, sirens are
common if not nightly and property theft and vandalism are growing concerns. People who spent their lives
there now feel unsafe and lock their doors. The area is also changing due to displacement. In the past three
years, half the houses on her street have turned over at least once, amazing for an areas where the tenure
used to be 30 years. The issues of lack of resources and displacement of population especially lower, fixed
income and elderly population are a reality in the corridor every day.
Ms. Seitz said was telling the council this because when talking about the emergency ordinance and what
it does, it is often framed as anti-housing. She is not anti-housing; she is anti-displacement and anti-
gentrification, but that is exactly what the CG zone is doing. Residents know the buildings in their
community will not be the same and they are completely supportive of low income housing; the fact is the
City’s actions are displacing residents in the community and she feared it would only get worse. The
emergency ordinance gives the community a voice and allows greater participation in community
redevelopment, a recognized anti-displacement strategy. In addition to supporting the emergency
ordinance, she thanked the council for funding the SEPA in the most recent budget, advancing sidewalks
on 84th, and finding creative solutions to help meet the community’s needs. She supports including more
architects on the ADB and making additional code amendments to allow ADB to utilize a full range of
design guidelines applicable to the SR-99 corridor and the SEPA required step backs.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Council President Tibbott thanked the public for their comments and for showing up when it is very
important for the council to hear from the public. With regard to design review by the ADB, he asked how
the ADB would be improved by adding an architect to the board. Mr. Clugston answered having more
architectural experience on the board would be helpful. Currently the position is very general, anyone with
a related background. Changing it to an architect provides more architectural context. Planning &
Development Manager Susan McLaughlin answered design professionals go to school for that, they learn
the design vocabulary, materiality, dimensions and depth, how to design a building in context and scale,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 7
and are able to speak architects in the same language. Often lay people may not see things the same way or
be able to articulate how to improve a building in the same language as an architect.
Council President Tibbott asked if that could be added that to the ordinance through the hearing process
with planning board. Ms. McLaughlin answered that change was approved on the consent agenda tonight.
She relayed staff still supports administrative review, but the question was how to strengthen the ADB’s
composition, and that was staff’s recommendation.
Council President Tibbott asked if the ADB’s review was always quasi-judicial. Mr. Clugston answered it
is always quasi-judicial. If a building is in one of the design districts in the BD and CG zones, it is a two-
phased hearing. General Commercial design review is a one-phase hearing, but it is all quasi-judicial.
Council President Tibbott asked the type of hearing. Mr. Clugston answered it was Type IIIA.
Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the comments at the public hearing. She suggested next
time this comes to council, it would be helpful to have a flowchart of the applicant process with this change.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Resolution 1367 regarding quasi-judicial, pointing out the council is
still involved in quasi-judicial processes. She asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday to explain. Mr. Taraday
answered the resolution Councilmember Buckshnis referenced was an aspirational statement by the council
to direct staff and the planning board to develop code changes that would reduce or eliminate the council’s
role in quasi-judicial processes. One outcome of that resolution was adoption of Ordinance 4154 which was
adopted in 2019 and referenced in the council packet. Resolution 1367 can be looked at as the beginning of
the process and Ordinance 4154 as a potential end of the process. With the adoption of Ordinance 4154, it
was unclear whether the council was done tinkering with the quasi-judicial process or if there would be
future reductions in the council’s involvement in quasi-judicial processes. Whatever the council thought in
2019, decision makers may have a different opinion in 2023. Resolution 1367 did not do anything other
than set a goal.
As historical background, Councilmember Buckshnis explained the quasi-judicial process has been back
and forth for many years; it used to be called Title 20. In 2009 the council voted to remove itself from quasi-
judicial, and when she was appointed to council, the council moved back into quasi-judicial in 2010. In
2019, via a process led by Councilmember Tibbott and the late Councilmember K. Johnson, a modified
approach was adopted where certain parts would go through the council and certain parts would go to
supreme court. She preferred to have citizen’s voices heard at local level. Although this issue was not part
of the public hearing, but she wanted people to understand what was stated was not entirely true, that
everything is quasi-judicial and council is totally out of the picture. She recommended this be addressed
sometime in the future.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the SEIS and EIS, relaying her understanding that those have nothing
to do with the emergency ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered they are related in the sense they are addressing
the same neighborhood and the same zoning district so they are not completely unrelated, but it is a separate
process. The SEIS is a much longer term project and will allow for a much broader review of the council’s
long term vision for the neighborhood. This interim ordinance is not directly related to the SEIS process.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to go on record that the SEIS process came through as a report
for filing and the council pulled it and asked to have a supplement done right away which of course has not
happened but it is in the budget. The council did not agree with the report for filing stating that the CG and
subarea were environmentally fine. She wanted people to realize that the timing of events have muddied
the water. She thanked staff for their hard work and the citizens for their comments and continued concern
and encouraged them to continue to comment to council.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 8
Councilmember Teitzel said his perspective about the ADB is it is a board that is best equipped to monitor
development activities to ensure they are in concert with the charm, character and livability of Edmonds
and in his opinion, that is their charter. The description of the ADB on the City’s website includes,
Establishes goals, objectives, and policies for design districts, which was in line of his view of the ADB.
He asked if the emergency ordinance complied with the current code relative to development in the CG
zone; in other words, does the ADB have the latitude under the existing code to do what council is
suggesting they do in this draft ordinance or are they precluded from quasi-judicial rulings like this. Mr.
Taraday answered the ADB is certainly not precluded from conducting quasi-judicial review; the ADB is
largely a quasi-judicial body. In that respect, the ordinance is not giving them anything new. In the absence
of the interim ordinance, design review in the CG zone would not be a quasi-judicial process, it would be
an administrative (staff reviewed) process. That is one of the most significant changes in the interim
ordinance, who does design review.
Councilmember Teitzel asked for confirmation of his understanding that the draft ordinance does not
mandate that step backs are required, there is flexibility in the wording of the ordinance. Mr. Taraday
answered there is certainly a presumption that they are required, but it is not an absolute mandate.
Councilmember Nand thanked the stakeholders who took the time to share their views with council. She
recognized this is a very hot button issue and emotions are running high. Everyone’s input is very important
to council and City staff is taking feedback and trying to find ways to meet the stated objectives and desires
of various stakeholders. She encouraged everyone who participated tonight to come to the next planning
board meeting on January 25 because this process will take many months. The council is looking at a draft
ordinance and a full public and political process will follow. She urged stakeholders to continue providing
feedback to the planning board, council and City staff.
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. CITY ATTORNEY ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE WORK PROPOSAL
Speaking on behalf of the assessment subcommittee, Councilmember Teitzel explained the subcommittee
will present the 2023 city attorney assessment work plan and key target dates associated with the plan. At
the end of the presentation on the workplan, he would like to have council vote to approve the work plan.
The subcommittee will also present regarding the performance evaluation survey tool to evaluate
Lighthouse’s performance.
Councilmember Teitzel thanked Councilmembers Nand and Paine for their work during the past two weeks
to reach this point, recognizing there is a lot more work ahead for the subcommittee and council to reach
an end goal and make decisions. He reviewed a list of tasks and key dates for collection information to
support the Council decision process (Attachment A):
• January 3, 2023
o Council approved the formation of the City Attorney Assessment Subcommittee
(Councilmembers Teitzel, Paine and Nand)
• January 17, 2023
o Present draft for discussion and approval of 2023 city attorney assessment work plan
o Present draft for discussion and approval of city attorney internal client satisfaction survey
o Consider costs/benefits of external audit of communications involving Lighthouse, the
administration and Councilmembers leading up to the 2022 budget discussions, and request
Council vote regarding proceeding.
• February 1, 2023
o Issue city attorney satisfaction survey to internal city attorney clients, requesting responses by
February 16
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 9
Responses aggregated for submission to Council by February 28
• February 7-February 28
o Contact judges who have handled litigation involving Lighthouse to solicit input regarding
quality of Lighthouse’s work
• March 7, 2023
o Present aggregated client satisfaction survey results to Council
• February – March 2023
o Conduct research and present cost estimates and pro/con findings to Council regarding
contracting vs. in-house city attorney services.
o Contact cities of similar size to Edmonds to collect key information about their city attorney
service arrangements, their views of pros/cons of their arrangements and annual city attorney
costs. Share this information with Council.
• April 4, 2023
o Council decision regarding contracted city attorney services vs. hiring in-house city attorney
team
• April 24, 2023 (if council decides to hire in-house city attorney team)
o Issue job bulletin requesting applicants
• April 24, 2023 (if council decides to continue to contract for city attorney services)
o Issue RFP requesting proposals from alternative city attorney service contractors
• May 2023
o Assess applicants, conduct background checks, check references
• June 2023
o Extend offer to chosen provider
With regard to the external audit of the 2022 budget process, Councilmember Teitzel said the subcommittee
believes this would require hiring an outside, impartial attorney. The council has worked with Madrona
Law Group in the past and would likely turn to them for this effort. The fee for the attorney the
subcommittee has worked with at Madrona is $295/hour. If Madrona was hired to do this work and it took
approximately one month of work time, 160 hours, the cost would be approximately $50,000. The time that
effort would take is unknown, it could take longer than 160 hours as it will require looking at minutes,
emails, text messages on council and personal cell phones, reviewing recordings of council meetings, etc.,
a fairly detailed assessment. In an informal discussion with Madrona about this to get their preliminary
view, they cautioned some information could be attorney-client privileged and some information may be
redacted. The benefit would be to determine if any rule, code, statute violation occurred, who made them,
whether Lighthouse had any knowledge of it, etc. There is no reason to believe that Lighthouse was
involved or had any knowledge that anything occurred, but this review would drive to a set of facts that
might reveal if that happened. He invited Councilmember Buckshnis to provide additional background.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she watched the November 16 meeting again and has sent council the four
emails from the State Auditor’s Office (SAO) and the Attorney General (AG) as a result of citizens’
complaints. The issue at hand is the continuation meeting was spur of the moment and brought forth through
the council president and actually defined as an adjournment meeting by Mr. Taraday later on in the meeting
which shows he did in fact provide the correct quoting of the ECC and the RCW that the council president
brought forth. In terms of proper posting, that is something the SAO may have looked at and they will be
providing their findings. The SAO will not rule on the legality aspect and the AG said they do not provide
legal advice to citizens. Regarding the truncating of the public hearing where citizens were not allowed to
speak a second time, no one asked for a ruling from Mr. Taraday and she had no idea how that opinion
came about or how it was determined the public could not speak a second time on new material or on a
different subject. She suggested everyone watch the November 22 meeting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 10
Mayor Nelson suggested Councilmember Buckshnis was getting off topic, the subcommittee’s work plan,
by describing what happened in the past. Councilmember Buckshnis explained from a legal standpoint, that
is what Madrona would be looking at. Mayor Nelson said from a parliamentarian standpoint, he wanted
councilmembers to stay on topic. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated from a legal standpoint, that would
be something Madrona would look at because there was no opinion requested from the attorney so it was
possible citizens’ right of free speech may have been violated. She relayed a citizen’s suggestion to form a
task force to assist Madrona. The issues Madrona would consider include how the process came about and
who decided on a continuation meeting which has never happened in the past. Mr. Taraday was asked about
the RCW and ECC and he in fact answered correctly and the adjournment meeting was part of those laws.
Councilmember Teitzel attempted to continue his presentation. Mayor Nelson interrupted, stating he was
the chair of the meeting and would call on other councilmembers.
Councilmember Paine asked Mr. Taraday for his thoughts and opinions about what Councilmember
Buckshnis was searching for regarding what happened 15 months ago. Mr. Taraday answered he has always
maintained that procedurally speaking, what occurred during the 2021 deliberations on the 2022 budget
was procedural allowed under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). He was so convinced that what was
done was legal that he was happy to have other law firms look at it if the council was unconvinced. He
knows what was done was legal and welcomed and thought it would be good thing if it helped the
community put that issue to rest. He was tired of hearing allegations of illegality when he knows for a fact
it was not illegal. Whether the council wants to spend the money is the council’s choice. He was tired of
hearing unsupported assertions of illegality or unsupported assertions that he provided incorrect legal
advice.
Councilmember Paine said she was unconvinced that this item should be included in the work plan because
if an investigation/audit is going on during the time when the attorney assessment and a report after the
fact, she wondered how the entire assessment would look and feel. She would like to have this looked at
externally as it is something that keeps coming up which seems very unfair. At a public meeting in
December 2021 she was found not to have violated any code of ethics. On December 13, 2021, regarding
the subject of a group email, the state auditor reminded all councilmember that efforts should be made not
to violate the quorum rule because it could be considered a meeting. There were extensive emails in
November and a number of public records requests that indicated there was plenty of knowledge and
information. There was an absolute assertion by Mr. Taraday when the meeting was adjourned because of
the late hour due to 40-50 public comments which delayed the agenda and would have prevented the
meeting ending before midnight. At the adjourned meeting, the public was not allowed to come to the back
end of the line. She questioned whether having an external review done now would interfere with the city
attorney assessment process. She summarized nothing found to be illegal and the word illegal gets thrown
around too often and adding it here is about as useful as saying the council should investigate other things
that happen on council. She concluded it did not belong in this assessment process.
Councilmember Nand explained she joined the council in 2022 and just joined the city attorney assessment
committee in January. Councilmember Teitzel has been very helpful in explaining it is not the
subcommittee’s job to make recommendations but to transparently present information to other
councilmembers to make decisions. The work plan transparently lists, Consider costs/benefits of external
audit of communications, an item one councilmember wanted added to the review of Lighthouse and
Councilmember Buckshnis wanted to present a countervailing point of view. It is not the role of the
subcommittee to make a recommendation whether or not to fund an external review. Speaking as a
councilmember, not as a member of the subcommittee, she acknowledged there were lingering questions
in the minds of the public and some councilmembers regarding the budget process in 2021 before
Councilmember Chen joined the council. However, she did not see how spending $50,000 for an external
audit would benefit the City in 2023. Speaking only as a councilmember, not as a member of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 11
subcommittee, she recommended voting against the external audit. She thanked Councilmembers Teitzel
and Paine for helping educate her.
Councilmember Olson said she was opposed to this being an element of the city attorney evaluation process.
She is on record back in 2021 thinking there was wrongdoing in the 2021 planning and execution of the
2022 budget process although she never said that wrongdoing was illegal. She has and continues to have
no reason to suspect Mr. Taraday of any of that wrongdoing and said it was misplaced to put that here. She
agreed with Councilmember Nand that spending $50,000 or potentially considerably more does not seem
like a good use of taxpayer resources.
As he was the councilmember that joined the council in November 2021 in the midst of the budget
deliberations, Councilmember Chen said he felt obligated to express his opinion. He agreed with previous
council comments that taxpayers’ money could be spent elsewhere to make a bigger difference. Having
now participated in two budget processes, the timeline was adjusted during both according to circumstances
at the time and he was fully confident that the city attorney provided good advice. There was always room
for improvement, but at this time, it would be better to focus the City’s limited resources on the issues in
front of the council.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
REMOVE ITEM 3, CONSIDER COSTS/BENEFITS OF EXTERNAL AUDIT OF
COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING LIGHTHOUSE, THE ADMINISTRATION AND
COUNCILMEMBERS LEADING UP TO THE 2022 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS AND REQUEST A
COUNCIL VOTE REGARDING PROCEEDING, FROM JANUARY 17 2023 ON THE WORK
PLAN.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the motion due to his concern with looking at the information
and spending a fair amount of money, $50,000 or substantially more, and if some of the records are redacted
due to attorney-client privilege, the situation will end up in the same place it is today, having spent a great
deal of taxpayer money for no good benefit.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not believe she ever said Mr. Taraday did anything illegal so she objected
to his supposition that she said that. She recalled saying Mr. Taraday said it was a legal meeting and that
he was not asked about the public hearing. She recognized trust has deteriorated which is the reason she
felt it was important to do an external audit. She thinks Mr. Taraday should come back next year because
he has a history with the City, but this issue caused a lot of mistrust in the City. She assured she never
accused Mr. Taraday of doing anything illegal.
Mayor Nelson requested councilmember keep their commentary relevant to motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis encouraged everyone to watch the November 16 meeting and make their own
decisions. It would have been better to have a taskforce and spend less money although she recognized it
could dilute the timeliness of getting this done.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Teitzel asked council if there were any amendments to the proposed timeline in the work
plan. He would like council to approve the timeline so subcommittee can proceed with its work.
Councilmember Olson referred to February 1 on the timeline, the city attorney satisfaction survey, relaying
there has been some public input that the survey should also be administered to members of the public and
that failing to do that would be a flaw in the process. The public is not included in the list of who would be
issued the city attorney satisfaction survey. She wanted the public to know that she considered that input
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 12
and why she did not agree. Unlike electeds who represent citizens 100%, the citizens of Edmonds are not
the city attorney’s client; the client of the city attorney is the municipal corporation of the City of Edmonds.
Additionally, members of the public are not in the ideal position to judge as they often only know half the
story, for example, how council votes versus how council was advised by city attorney. In her opinion,
surveys will be issued to appropriate parties such as electeds. Electeds read the public’s emails and have
heard the public input and that input will be reflected in the electeds’ input once they are synthesized with
other information available on subjects the public has weighed in on.
Councilmember Nand agreed with Councilmember Olson. The subcommittee discussed whether they
wanted citizen input but because Mr. Taraday is in an attorney-client relationship with the municipal entity
versus other structures where a city attorney might be elected and is directly accountable to community
members. Mr. Taraday’s imperative is to act in the best interest of the City and he may be criticized by
someone involved in litigation who has a weighted interest and a personal dislike of Mr. Taraday or
decisions or recommendations he’s made. The political process in Edmonds is set up so that the city council
gets negative or positive comments during the process. The entire point of the survey is for Mr. Taraday
and Lighthouse to get feedback from the people who consume the legal services they provide, the electeds
and City staff as employees, agents and affiliates of the municipal corporation. In thinking about an
attorney-client relationship, she suggested thinking of members of public as floating nearby, not directly
intersecting with Mr. Taraday.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the subcommittee is asking the council to consider going in-house,
but there were no numbers provided such as the number of attorneys, support staff, purchasing the law
library, etc. She was concerned with putting the work into a thorough evaluation without having any
information regarding the cost of an in-house attorney. It is similar to proceeding with a project without
knowing the cost. She was unsure who would do those calculations. She did not think a city Edmonds’ size
could function with only one in-house attorney. This is a flaw she found in the timeline. Another issue is
the council has never contacted judges in the past. When Lighthouse was hired in 2010/2011, there was a
lot of leftover work from the previous attorney that Lighthouse cleaned up. She also questioned asking the
chair of boards and commissions to provide input, recalling in the past, only the council and the
administration completed the performance evaluations.
Councilmember Teitzel said Councilmember Buckshnis’ first concern is addressed in the February-March
timeline in Attachment A, conduct research and present cost estimates and pro/con findings to council
regarding contracting vs in-house city attorney services. With regard to contacting judges, the subcommittee
is focused on collecting as much information as possible regarding the quality of Lighthouse’s work which
would include the quality of their briefing, oral argument, preparation, etc. Judges will be contacted and if
they are willing to provide information, it will be provided to council. With regard to boards and
commissions, the subcommittee wanted to ask any City entity, elected official, administration and the
mayor, city clerk, boards and commissions, etc. about their experience with Lighthouse if they have regular,
direct interaction. That is a proposal; if council does not want the subcommittee to do it, they won’t.
Speaking as a councilmember and not as a member of the subcommittee, Councilmember Paine agreed
with Councilmember Buckshnis.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
REMOVE HAVING THE EVALUATION SENT TO THE CHAIR OF BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS.
Councilmember Paine explained the reason was to not have input from community members and
volunteers. It is appropriate for electeds, administration, and directors to provide input and she anticipated
here would be plenty of material to evaluate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 13
Councilmember Nand did not support the motion. The proposal is to send assessments to the chair of boards
and commission who interact with the city attorney. As a component that is consuming legal services
provided by Lighthouse, it would be entirely appropriate to get their assessment. The intent is to build an
objective tool to provide metrics on job performance for Lighthouse and to make a fair and objective
recommendation to council later this year. The more information that can be collected from those who
consume legal services, the more evenhanded and fair the assessment tool will be. She was opposed to
removing the chair of boards and commissions who consume legal services through their City volunteer
role.
Councilmember Olson commented good points have been made on both sides. She will vote no on the
motion for the reason the assessment might be used on an ongoing basis to provide feedback to the city
attorney and the chairs of boards and commissions may be able to provide helpful feedback on an ongoing
basis.
Councilmember Chen said he will vote against the motion for the reasons stated by other councilmembers.
Chairs of boards and commissions are volunteers, but they dedicate their time and expertise, they may be
involved with the city attorney, and their input would be valid.
Council President Tibbott asked how many chairs have interaction with the city attorney. Mr. Taraday
answered it is very uncommon for him to have direct interaction with any board or commission chair. Every
once in a while he may have a brief email exchange with the chair about what to include in training he is
providing. In recent memory, that has only happened with only one board. If the council decides to keep
that in the scope of the review process, it would be a pretty limited number of people. Most often City staff
that serves that board or commission acts as an intermediary between him and the board/commission. If
training is planned, it is usually the staff member who reaches out about doing the training and to describe
what the board wants covered and there is very little direct interaction with the chair.
Based on Mr. Taraday’s answer, Council President Tibbott said he would support the motion to remove the
chair of boards and commissions, partially because the interaction with the city attorney is so limited that
it strikes him as being additional work that would add very little to the outcome and the understanding of
the city attorney services received.
Councilmember Teitzel clarified, the survey was not just asking for input about Mr. Taraday specifically
but Lighthouse attorneys. For example, a Lighthouse attorney attends most if not all disability board
meetings. In that instance, the chair would have a clear view of the quality of Lighthouse’s work.
Councilmember Nand commented as the council shifts from a flat rate fee with Lighthouse to an hourly
basis, part of the decision making process will be whether Lighthouse will provide attorney services at the
board/commission level. Feedback from that level could be helpful to the council in the future when making
decisions about how to tailor services.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS,
AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, OLSON AND NAND VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE LEGAL COMMITTEE TO ADD AN OPT OUT FOR BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS TO THE SURVEY BEFORE THEY SEND IT OUT SO THOSE WHO DO NOT
HAVE INTERACTION DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE POOL OF INFORMATION.
Councilmember Teitzel pointed out the motion not to send the survey to chairs of boards and commissions
was passed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 14
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
ADOPT THE 2023 CITY ATTORNEY ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN.
Councilmember Nand expressed appreciation to councilmembers who provided input. The subcommittee
would like to get underway; this a very truncated work plan and a lot of work needs to be done. The target
of June 2023 is proposed so there is not a surprise late in the year about the city attorney for 2024. She
hoped the subcommittee had been able to adequately address all the council’s concerns about the assessment
work plan and would empower the subcommittee to move forward as presented and amended.
Councilmember Teitzel reiterated as the subcommittee proceeds through the work plan, they will collect
information but will not make any recommendations or decisions. The subcommittee is simply collecting
information for council’s use in considering how city attorney services should be obtained long term.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Regarding the performance survey document, Councilmember Teitzel advised after the council approves
the survey, the subcommittee plans to submit it to respondents on February 1. The document will be emailed
to internal clients who have regular interactions with Lighthouse which would include elected officials such
as councilmembers and the mayor, directors, department heads and managers. The subcommittee would
like to ask the mayor for a list of respondents who should receive the document because it will be important
to get 100% response. The subcommittee will convert the evaluation document in the packet into an online
Survey Monkey questionnaire for ease of use by the respondents. He anticipated it would be a brief effort;
Attachment C is an example of the Survey Monkey format with boxes to check, 1-5 ratings, and an N/A
option if the question does not apply.
Councilmember Teitzel explained the first page of the survey in the packet is a set of instructions; that will
not be included in the survey document but will be sent in an email to the respondents. Respondents will
be asked to return the survey by February 16, giving them approximately two weeks to complete the survey.
The survey should take only 15-20 minutes to complete. Response will be confidential with no names
attached to assist in more accurate, forthcoming responses. The respondents will be grouped by category,
for example elected officials, department heads, and managers.
Councilmember Buckshnis said for those who have been around a long time, it may take longer than 10-15
minutes to complete the survey as she felt it was an extremely serious survey. She asked if the intent was
to review all four years or just one year, pointing out things have changed drastically over the course of a
couple years. She also hoped responses would not be limited to 120 characters.
Councilmember Teitzel responded the instructions will ask respondents to think over a three year
timeframe. His reference to 15-20 minutes to complete the survey may have been too offhand, it may take
more or less time depending on the input provided. The Survey Monkey tool will make it much more
convenient for respondents. There will be a comment box under each question and there will be no limit on
the number of characters.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
ADOPT THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR LIGHTHOUSE CITY ATTORNEY
SERVICES.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 15
Councilmember Nand commented this was a work product of primarily of Councilmembers Teitzel and
Paine as she just joined the subcommittee but she found it very comprehensive. As an attorney, she would
find it very helpful to get this feedback from her clients. If there are no additional tweaks, she hoped the
council would adopt the survey so it can be distributed to City staff and electeds.
Mr. Taraday pointed out a tension between two things on the survey. One question asks if invoices
accurately identify tasks and expenses in sufficient detail to provide accountability. Another question asks
does Lighthouse maintain appropriate confidentially with regard to all matters discussed with the mayor,
city council, department directors and city staff. He cannot maintain confidentiality if he includes a ton of
detail in the invoices so the responses on those questions may be in tension with one another.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has a problem with question 6 in its entirety because council does not
see the invoices, does not know who authorizes tasks, and some of the questions are too subjective. She
asked if N/A would be an option in Survey Monkey. With regard to cost effectiveness, she recalled when
the council began meeting via Zoom, suddenly Lighthouse was at all committee meetings which takes a lot
of time. She suggested providing an N/A option because few of the respondents would have seen the
invoices.
Councilmember Teitzel answered there will be a N/A option on every question. With regard to costs, some
respondents may have knowledge and be able to answer questions such as the finance department or some
councilmembers. If they did not, N/A would be an option.
With regard to Mr. Taraday’s comment about a potential tension between questions between 6c and 8b,
Councilmember Nand assumed the administrative services director was reviewing the city attorney
invoices. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding that the subcommittee will be reviewing invoice narratives
this year; in the past there was no incentive to review the invoice narratives because the flat fee resulted in
the same payment and he was unsure who reviewed them. He suspected the invoices would be looked at
more closely this year and knowing that, Lighthouse was being careful about how bill narratives were
phrased to not reveal the substance of conversations. Councilmember Nand aid she could see the sensitivity
with serving different branches of City government. If that is a challenge, possibly the assessment
subcommittee could provide guidance regarding the narrative.
Speaking as a councilmember and not as a subcommittee member, Councilmember Paine she also had
trouble with this questions because most respondents would not be qualified to evaluate that. The council
sets the rate through the contract and also have oversight opportunity. The survey is looking backward three
years when the fee was a flat rate. A better question would be whether time has been used effectively and
efficiently.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE QUESTION 6 FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE BECAUSE
IT WILL NOT NET USEFUL INFORMATION.
Councilmember Teitzel explained the questions were developed by the subcommittee. Speaking as an
individual councilmember, he did not have a strong concern if question 6 was removed because the City
has been on a flat fee billing arrangement for the past three years with Lighthouse and the responses would
not be as relevant if the City was on an hourly billing arrangement.
Councilmember Nand suggested retaining question 6 as there will be an N/A option. Further, selecting your
general role at the City in Survey Monkey, such as elected officials, director, department head or manager,
will tailor the questions provided. Obviously directors and department heads will not be very concerned
with cost or fiscal accountability or control so there would be no reason that question would be provided to
them when taking the survey. For people like electeds who work on the budget, that would be a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 16
consideration and was a considerable consideration of the subcommittee in 2022 in providing options for
an hourly or flat rate fee. She recommended retaining question 6 for electeds.
Councilmember Chen agreed with previous comments to retain question 6. For anyone participating in the
survey that did not have enough knowledge about that issue, they can always select N/A. Some of the
respondents will have the knowledge, such as the finance team who review invoices.
Councilmember Buckshnis said there is value to question 6 but the finance team does not look at it. For
example, question 6d, Does Lighthouse display the ability and knowledge to research issues in a minimum
amount of time, respondents will need to either guess or select N/A. With a flat rate, it is difficult to ascertain
if Lighthouse is spending the right amount of time on tasks. She advised the finance committee has never
looked at Lighthouse invoices.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL,
BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, OLSON, AND NAND
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled a councilmember saying this document could be the basis for an ongoing
performance evaluation. The council does not have a formal evaluation process for the city attorney. If the
performance evaluation tool works well, it could be done annually in the future.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
2. DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC 10.01 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Council President Tibbott explained this is a draft ordinance, An ordinance of the City of Edmonds,
Washington, amending Chapter 10.01 ECC and establishing new processes related to the filing of openings
on the City’s boards and commissions. He emphasized for the council and the public that the ordinance
simply seeks to improve the way vacancies for all boards and commissions are filled. As due diligence was
done looking at the process for appointment planning board members, it was realized the steps for filling
vacancies have never been spelled out. The process relied on historical practices that had been followed for
decades. He emphasized this was not an attempt by the council to control the administration or for the
council to cover up its own lack of consistency in applying the process for selecting board and commission
members. It is simply to address a gap in the process for forming boards and commissions and filling
vacancies when they happen. He emphasized there was no wrongdoing and no rules were broken in the
process of bringing forward recommendations for the planning board. The way those recommendations
were brought forward was in line with the unwritten ideas and former practices.
Council President Tibbott expressed appreciation for those who volunteer on boards and commissions; they
play a very important role, some in an advisory capacity and others are citizen input groups that provide
information to the council and as a sounding board for the community. The City’s boards and commissions
are very important so it is critical to outline how positions are filled.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised in drafting the ordinance, he primarily worked with the Council
Executive Assistant Beckie Peterson. It started with a conversation to outline concepts that needed to be
addressed in an ordinance and to kick around ideas and generally establish the scope of what would be
included in this chapter. Ms. Peterson sent him her notes/thoughts and he developed the draft ordinance
with a few tweaks along the way. As with most code chapters of this type, it is entirely subject to council
discretion; there is no state law that governs these processes so council is free to make changes. He provided
an overview of the ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 17
• 10.01.010 Public notification of service opportunities
o States the city will provide public notification of all opportunities to serve on boards and
commissions including vacancies, terms that are ending even if the incumbent wants to renew.
o Provides timelines for when notice should occur: 14 days after a vacancy occurs or 90 days
prior to a term expiring.
• 10.01.020 Means of notification.
o There are three types of notification, posting on the City website, media release and including
in the Received for Filing section of the council packet.
o The posting on the website would be in place for at least 30 days
• 10.01.030 Content of notice.
o Identifies the particular board or commission that has the vacancy or opportunity, what
position, the length of the term, application materials and where to find them, the submission
deadline, inviting incumbents to reapply, and anticipated timeline for making the appointment.
• 10.01.040 Incumbents
o States incumbents need to submit an application to be considered for reappointment
• 10.01.050 Timeline for submission, review and appointment
o Section A
Submission for a vacant position cannot happen until at least 14 days after the last of the
three types of notice was provided.
Submission deadline for positions whose term is expiring cannot happen until at least 30
days after the three types of public notice was provided.
o Section B
For positions that become vacant, appointment shall occur no later than 90 days after the
vacancy occurs
For positions whose term will be expiring, appointment shall occur no later than 30 days
prior to expiration of term.
o Section C
In the event of no qualified application responds by the application deadline public
notification process restarts
o Section D
Notice of appointment shall be provided to city council within 5 days
• 10.01.060 Multiple contemporaneous openings
o Appointing authority can treat an application for one position as an application for another
position on the same body.
• 10.01.070 Resignations
o A vacancy caused by resignation shall be deemed to occur upon the effective date of the
resignation. Where an intended resignation is announced in advance, no vacancy occurs until
the date set forth in the resignation announcement. Would allow someone to withdraw an
announced resignation.
o Consistent with state case law that addresses this type of situation
• 10.01.080 Roster of positions
o City clerk will maintain a roster of all board and commission positions and their term expiration
dates
• 10.01.090 Council confirmation
o Contains portions of existing Section 10.01.010
o Requires city council to act on proposed confirmation no later than 30 days after notification
• 10.01.100 Noncompliance
o City council can still confirm an appointee even if there was a flaw in the process
o Any noncompliance brought to the city council’s attention after confirmation would not result
in forfeiture of office.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 18
Mr. Taraday summarized the goal is to develop a process that meets the City’s needs.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.01 ECC ESTABLISHING NEW
PROCESSES RELATED TO FILLING OPENINGS ON THE ON CITY’S BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS.
Council President Tibbott explained in developing the ordinance, consideration was given to, 1) best
practices in other cities, 2) the city attorney was asked to ensure the ordinance was consistent with other
appointment and hiring process in the City, and 3) recapture best practices used in the past to appoint board
and commission members.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND
10.01.020 MEANS OF NOTIFICATION, SECTION B, MEDIA RELEASE, TO INCORPORATE A
REQUIREMENT OF PAID ADVERTISEMENT IN AT LEAST TWO LOCAL PUBLICATIONS.
Councilmember Nand explained the reason she supports putting funding behind the publication is because
it is a constant struggle to get people who are geographically diverse and from non-traditional backgrounds
to participate in City boards and commissions. Widening the reach through paid advertisement would
expand the pool of applicants instead of the usual suspects. She would like to see a wider pool of applicants
that are more geographically diverse, represent a bigger age range and non-traditional backgrounds get
involved in City governance and the political process via volunteerism.
Councilmember Paine asked if the motion was to include other languages. Councilmember Nand said she
would defer to the administration’s communications coordinator Kelsey Foster. That would be a valuable
addition if that was something she was able to incorporate.
Councilmember Chen asked if that was already covered in 10.01.020.B Media release. Councilmember
Nand explained her reading of .020 is it would be just a press release that is sent to various publications
who can choose whether to publish it. A paid advertisement would place the open position in a more
prominent way and guarantee that it is carried in at least two local publications.
Councilmember Chen said 10.01.020.B Media release already cover a lot of media. He suggested specifying
Korean, Chinese, or Hispanic publications, because otherwise it would not help.
Councilmember Nand asked if he was suggesting instead of just paid advertisements in a minimum of two
local publications, there also be a requirement that one be in a non-English language.
Councilmember Chen began to amend the amendment to add the above.
Councilmember Paine raised a point of order that there cannot be an amendment to an amendment. Mr.
Taraday advised an amendment to an amendment is allowed. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND
THE AMENDMENT TO SPECIFY THE PAID MEDIA MUST BE THE MAIN MINORITY
LANGUAGES SUCH AS HISPANIC, KOREAN, AND CHINESE MEDIA.
Councilmember Chen commented it was a good idea to expand the reach in terms of advertising board and
commission openings. In Edmonds, the three main minority languages are Korean, Chinese and Hispanic.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Councilmember Chen meant Spanish rather than Hispanic. She asked
if that meant there would be interpreters as part of boards and commissions. If the City is publicizing in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 19
foreign languages, she asked if there would be a requirement that the applicant understand English or would
individuals from minority populations be selected and the City provide interpreters as part of the board or
commission. She suggested this needed to be thought through a little more.
Councilmember Olson said Councilmember Buckshnis’ point was also on her mind. She understands the
idea behind this, but was uncertain advertising in foreign languages was of value if the applicants did not
speak English, the language the board and commission’s business would be conducted in, and feared it may
cause frustration. She will vote against all of these well intentioned, good thoughts in the big picture in
terms of trying to achieve something. If these amendments were not approved, the council could add an
intent to achieve outreach to minority communities through appropriate means and each time there is an
opening, the City administration can determine what that means for the particular board/commission
opening. It could be an announcement at a community center or church, a bulletin board or through people
who are in contact with a specific community, etc. She understood what the amendments were trying to
achieve, but she did not think being that prescriptive added value.
Councilmember Nand strongly disagreed with Councilmembers Buckshnis and Olson’s comments. If an
member of the deaf community applied and needed an ASL interpreter, the City would find a way to
accommodate due to the value of that person’s input. Saying it would be too arduous for someone who
speaks English as a second language to participate on a board or commissions is very offensive to
communities of color of which she and Councilmember Chen are members. Both she and Councilmember
Chen come from bilingual households, she is the daughter of immigrants and Councilmember Chen is
himself an immigrant. She felt it was saying the City didn’t want people from the English as a second
language community because it might be too difficult to incorporate them into a board or commission.
Councilmember Nand expressed support for Councilmember Chen’s amendment. Her original amendment
was paid advertisements in a minimum of two local publications. Councilmember Chen added to include
advertisements targeted to the English as a second language community. To anyone listening who speaks
English as second language or is a member of deaf community, she assured the City would find a way to
accommodate them if they wanted to participate in a board or commission.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Councilmember Nand put words in her mouth that she did not say. She has
no problem with what Councilmembers Nand and Chen are attempting to accomplish but was thinking of
the unintended consequences. There have been deaf individuals on the diversity commission. She referred
to Councilmember Nand’s clarification of English as a second language. She was unsure why
Councilmember Nand was stating the council was attempting to not be inclusive; she welcomed English as
a second language individuals. Her question was if the person did not speak English, was the intent to have
interpreters. She was offended that Councilmember Nand was accusing her of making gestures when all
she was asking for was a response.
Mayor Nelson encouraged councilmembers to maintain respect for each other.
Councilmember Olson pointed out the original discussion was not English as a second language, it was
advertising in a different language where it was very likely to find people who do not speak English as a
second language. That was her point, not that she did not welcome people who speak English as a second
language. If someone who did not speak English wanted to participate, consideration could be given to
what logistics would be required to accommodate that. Seeking people who will have that additional
difficulty interacting with other members of the board or commission and doing the work and business of
reading packets, etc. is a lot for the City to take on.
Councilmember Chen assured all councilmembers were open minded and welcoming and the questions and
discussion are for the good of order. No one has any judgment against non-English speaking people. His
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 20
amendment was just to make it available and provide for a broader reach. In the United States, business is
still conducted in English.
Mr. Taraday said he heard the original motion as one of the two publications would in a non-English
speaking publication and it was subsequently refined as publishing in Chinese, Korean and Spanish. He
asked that the amendment be restated.
Councilmember Chen restated his amendment:
TO HAVE BOARD AND COMMISSION OPENINGS PUBLISHED IN THREE MAJOR NON-
ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS INCLUDING KOREAN, CHINESE AND SPANISH.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES;
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Paine asked who would manage this process. It appears to be council directed but she
questioned whether it would be managed by the administration and then turned over to council for the
application review.
Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, stating the council should vote on the amendment. Mayor
Nelson ruled point taken.
Councilmember Nand restated the amended amendment:
REVISE 10.01.020.B MEDIA RELEASE TO INCLUDE PAID ADVERTISEMENTS IN A
MINIMUM OF TWO LOCAL PUBLICATIONS WHICH WAS AMENDED TO BE PAID
ADVERTISEMENT IN A MINIMUM OF FIVE LOCAL PUBLICATIONS INCLUDING THREE IN
MAJORITY LANGUAGES OF CHINESE, KOREAN AND SPANISH.
Mr. Taraday agreed that is how he interpreted the effect of the passage of the amendment. He was familiar
with statutes that require paid advertising and many include a frequency element. He suggested the
frequency be clarified.
Councilmember Nand suggested a minimum of two weeks of at least once week paid advertisement.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it was her understanding there would be three publications but now five
are proposed. She questioned what department would fund this and hoped it would not come from city
council funds. If it was not paid from city council funds, the mayor should have some say in this.
Mayor Nelson said councilmembers have reached out to other cities but have not reached out to the
administration. He was also concerned that the council was ready to vote on this the same night it was
introduced which was usually not done. He questioned how this very elaborate, thorough, in-depth outreach
would be funded, who would do it, and what it means for boards and commissions. It has big implications
and he found it surprising that none of the City’s directors had been contacted.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was just as concerned because this has morphed into a very expensive
proposal. She suggested going back to the drawing board and that the administration have some input
because this could get very costly, an issue for a fiscal conservative like her. She was trying to figure out
what councilmembers were trying to accomplish and suggested it be considered in a committee or
subcommittee that works with the administration. She was not in favor of the amendment without further
information about the cost.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 21
Council President Tibbott said he was under the impression that the amendment was to publish notice in
two publications and one of the announcements would be in three different languages so it was not
necessarily to publish in three separate publications. He supported publication in two hard copy publications
to extend the reach, but found it difficult to agree to more than that.
Councilmember Olson commented it was unlikely the council would get through all the conversation and
amendments on this tonight and suggested tabling it. The council has no idea of the cost of the additional
advertising that has been proposed, an off-the-cuff idea from the dais that has not been vetted which she
felt was a very bad idea. She suggested moving on to the vote and reconsidering it when information
regarding the cost is available next week. There has been a lot of board and commission turnover and
vacancies in the past 2-3 months so it is probably not prudent to pass this tonight without any forethought
on the subject.
Councilmember Chen agreed with what has been said regarding taking more time to digest this and do
further research. His amendment was meant to replace the two original publications, not increase it to five.
Councilmember Paine said if a board member needed sign language, it would be an ADA violation not to
provide it. The council should always be thinking about people with differences that need to be
accommodated.
Councilmember Nand liked Council President Tibbott’s suggestion for two local publications in multiple
languages and anticipated Councilmember Chen would also support that.
Mr. Taraday said he was confused where to go now procedurally because prior to the last 5-2 vote, the
intent of that amendment was clarified to publish in three publications, a Spanish publication, a Korean
publication, and a Chinese publication. Maybe Councilmember Chen was saying he wanted to advertise in
three languages other than English but in an English-speaking publication which is different. He suggested
going back to that vote and get additional clarification and revote if Councilmember Chen was saying the
effect of his amendment was not what he intended.
Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday’s comment was for the council to recall
the vote to Councilmember Chen’s amendment to her amendment and call the vote on her amendment to
the ordinance. Mr. Taraday said what is needed is a big board on the wall that shows the text of pending
motions so the council can agree on the motion they are voting on. He was still unclear whether
Councilmember Chen’s motion was publishing in three languages in an English publication or in a foreign
language publication.
Councilmember Chen commented it would not make sense to publish foreign languages in an English
publication; it has to be in the foreign language publication that reaches that audience. His original intent
was to publish notice in Korean, Spanish and Chinese publications. Mr. Taraday asked if Councilmember
Chen’s amendment was instead of two English plus the Spanish, Chinese and Korean, it would be no
English and Spanish, English and Chinese. Councilmember Chen said the media releases in English were
not paid advertisements. Mr. Taraday said Councilmember Nand’s original amendment was to have paid
English advertisements of the vacancies. He was trying to understand if the intent was to substitute the paid
English ads for the Spanish, Korean, Chinese ads or supplement the paid English ads with Korean, Chinese
and Spanish ads; it is either three ads or five ads.
Councilmember Chen suggested tabling and do some research.
Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin said what has been done in the past with ethnic media
sources through the equitable engagement framework such as regarding the comprehensive plan this
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 22
summer, was to send a press release in multiple languages, for example to the Korean newspaper, and they
can choose whether to publish it just like a press release sent to other media channels. She recommended
doing that, sending a press release which can be translated into multiple languages and the ethnic media
sources can choose whether to publish it or not.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed concern the council was getting bogged down in detail which was not
productive.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
TABLE THIS ISSUE FOR ONE WEEK AND DIRECT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO MEET
WITH THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF TO WORK THROUGH DETAILS AND
BRING THIS BACK NEXT WEEK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND A VOTE. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. 2023 COUNCIL RETREAT PLANNING
Council President Tibbott referred to the proposed agenda in packet and suggested the retreat not be held
virtually.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
HOLD THE COUNCIL RETREAT IN A NON-VIRTUAL FASHION UTILIZING THE
RESOURCES OF RECORDKEEPER.
Council President Tibbott commented the council has not had an in-person retreat for at least 3 years. The
design of this retreat includes a lot of movement around room and the formation of discussion groups
making it difficult to provide microphones and capture multiple people talking at same time. The room will
be large enough to accommodate the public, all are welcome to participate and notes will be available. The
most important reason not to have a virtual environment is to avoid misinterpretation of comments made
on the side or jokingly as attendees are working. He asked the council to approve a non-virtual event for
this retreat and looked forward to a lot of interaction. The results of the planning process will be available
for everyone to see.
Councilmember Paine said although she has a better understanding of why Council President Tibbott wants
the retreat not to be virtual, it eliminates the ability for the public to watch, listen and observe the process.
Although people will be moving around, there will also be time for discussion which she felt would be
helpful for the community to watch in real time. The Brackett Room has great equipment; she attends
committee meetings there regularly and it has good virtual function. The council could all agree to attend
in person unless they are ill to facilitate face to face conversations. She preferred to have the virtual
opportunity available for the public, not necessarily for the council, as that ability is provided for all other
meetings and this is no different.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Tibbott. A retreat has a lot of moving parts. A
lot of people like the virtual aspect, but when it was done for the Housing Commission, it was very difficult
to follow. The public can read the minutes or attend the meeting if they wish. It would be wonderful to have
a retreat in person and not worry about the virtual aspect. For example, she tried to listen in on a virtual
Rotary meeting today, but it does not work well. A retreat should be informal, fun and invigorating. A
virtual format does not work well with in a large group setting and retreats in the past were never virtual.
Councilmember Olson said it will not be a great spectator event via virtual means. The press will cover the
meeting and it is an open meeting for anyone to attend. Hybrid meetings are not required, the council does
it to provide access. When the experience of that access will not be good, won’t add to the spectator
experience and makes it more difficult for the participants, there are reasons at times, such as this retreat,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 23
to suspend that extra hybrid aspect. She was asked in advance about not holding the retreat virtually and
although she initially was skeptical, after the logistical aspects were described, she agreed that was the right
choice.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO.
Council President Tibbott said the agenda will include a presentation by CEO, Association of Washington
Cities Deanna Dawson, a former Edmonds councilmember, who will talk with the council about her ideas
for efficient and effective council meetings. That agenda item will include Q&A and he invited
councilmembers to submit questions to him in advance.
Councilmember Paine asked if the agenda will include discussion about budget planning. There are two
appointed council positions; the person who is elected will be installed the day the election is verified which
is in the middle of budget season. She was hopeful there would be an opportunity to discuss council budget
planning to get ahead of that before candidates file for council positions and in a way that honors the
integrity of the budget process. Council President Tibbott agreed there would be.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reminded of the Lunar New Year Celebration beginning Saturday at 10 a.m. in downtown
Edmonds.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nand asked Councilmember Chen since it is the Year of the Rabbit, would it be appropriate
for her to bring her pet rabbits to the celebration. Councilmember Nand answered definitely.
Councilmember Nand encouraged the public to attend Saturday’s New Year Celebration and pet a real
rabbit. She expressed her appreciation for to her fellow councilmembers, recognizing discussions
sometimes get feisty. She wished all a joyful and lucky Year of Rabbit.
Councilmember Paine wished everyone all the good fortune of Lunar New Year and assured she will attend
the Lunar New Year Celebration. She thanked the community members who put on the spectacular Lift
Every Voice program at the Waterfront Center, a full day of activities including 500 kids in the morning
and a program in the evening that was all about love, a very powerful, uplifting, joyful message. She got a
lot out of it and hoped that program would continue in Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she thought she would never get COVID because she has been so
cautious but she did and is recovering. She opined the integrity of the budget process in 2021 was very
flawed and suggested everyone watch that meeting. She was out of town at the wedding of her brother’s
only daughter on November 18th, an event the council president knew about. She has called in during
vacations, during Packer games, and from Lithuania, so was upset at being blamed for not calling in.
Weddings and funerals take precedence over a budget process and there was no reason to have the vote on
the budget occur with an appointed councilmember. She hoped Council President Tibbott realizes the
budget process does not have to occur prior to installation of the elected candidate. She recalled Will Chen
spoke on November 17 about a lot of her budget amendments. All councilmembers have a voice and the
council president should represent all councilmembers. She was never called or even told what an
adjournment meeting was. She hoped the council learned from their mistakes including that the integrity of
the budget rests on the entire council, not just four members.
Council President Tibbott said when he spoke with Deanna Dawson, former Edmonds councilmember and
now CEO of AWC, he bragged about the council. The council has improved so much in the last year in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2023
Page 24
how they deliberate, listen to each other, and make decisions. Part of the retreat is to develop a work plan
that will help the council move to the next level with the achievements made in 2022.
Councilmember Olson commented it is time to circle back to the statement made by Finance Director Dave
Turley at the December 13 meeting that he felt disrespected by the council motion and 6-1 vote at the
December 10 budget meeting to direct him to post the budget spreadsheet and impacts so that council could
feel confident about approving the final budget on December 13. His statement included a non-specific
request for a public apology. She revisited the meetings and communicated with MSRC. This event
occurred at the tail end of a four hour meeting and an intense three month budget season where all members
of the administration and council and especially the finance director and council worked together
collaboratively to develop and deliver a budget they were proud of and that represented the community’s
priorities. Director Turley, the whole administration and the council worked very hard with the best
intentions and no one has anything to apologize for in that regard. In response to Mayor Nelson saying if
council wanted to direct staff to do something that a motion was needed, she offered the motion that directed
staff. That was a crossed line as it is never appropriate for council to direct staff. The motion should have
been directed to the mayor that his administration post the spreadsheet on the website. She will do it that
way in the future and she apologized to the mayor and Director Turley for the misstep.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
EXTEND TO 10:10. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Chen commented on how lucky he was to be part of this community where all voices are
heard. His experience as resident and as councilmember is he feels included and accepted. The Martin
Luther King, Jr. Day celebration and the artists who put up the welcome figure at the Waterfront Center
also expressed the same feeling. Korean American Day on January 13 was a big celebration as well as
Martin Luther King’s message that love overcomes hate. There are red lanterns around the City for the
Lunar New Year and he invited everyone to attend the celebration.
Councilmember Teitzel said he attended the Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration at the Waterfront Center;
it was very well done and he applauded Lift Every Voice Legacy, Donnie Griffin in particular, for putting
on such a great event. He found it very uplifting and the main message was love conquers hate, something
everyone needs to keep in mind. As he heard that message yesterday, he reflected on how the council and
administration should take that to heart and work together and give each other grace and slack at times
when things get tense. Election season is approaching and things may get more tense.
Councilmember Teitzel congratulated Kevin Fagerstom, his appointment to the tree board on tonight’s
consent agenda. There were two excellent candidates to consider and it was a very close call, but Mr.
Fagerstrom, in addition to having very strong tree knowledge and living in Edmonds for over 30 years, was
also the code manager for the City of Everett and has a very strong knowledge of code. The tree board will
benefit from his combined knowledge of trees and code.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
____
SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK