Cmd032420EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
March 24, 2020
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Shannon Burley, Interim Parks & Recreation Dir.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
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, participating remotely.
Mayor Nelson described the procedure for Councilmembers to be recognized to speak.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE AGENDA TO CHANGE AGENDA ITEM 8.5, EMERGENCY COMPENSATION
PLAN, FROM AN ACTION ITEM TO A DISCUSSION ITEM.
Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers not to support this change due to the
need to disseminate the information to employees affected by the coronavirus.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 1
Councilmember Olson said there was no idea regarding the financial implications of this proposal as there
are no numbers included. She did not feel the Council could responsibly vote on it without having any
idea of the financial impact. She has also not had an opportunity to research what other systems are place
such as unemployment benefits, etc. that would impact whether it would be a good idea to support this
proposal.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she requested the HR Director gather information regarding the
financial impacts and she will be providing that information during her presentation.
Councilmember Buckshnis was concerned the Council was receiving this information two hours before
the meeting. She was also concerned the Council did not have enough information. She suggested the HR
Director explain why this needs to be done today.
Councilmember Olson said if the intent is to have her to support this, that is more likely if she has an
opportunity to get the information she needs to make a good decision.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed this should be a discussion item to ensure Councilmembers had all the
information they needed and not hastily making a decision of this importance without all the information
in advance. She would be unable to make a decision based on simply a presentation for something this
extensive and she said the Council should consider it very carefully.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented this is very important and is related to staff, the ability for
them to work as well as work from home, and it includes compensation figures. Numerous staff members
have been sent home including likely the Council's legislative assistant. She suggested retaining it as an
action item and hearing what the HR Director has to say.
Councilmember Distelhorst said the information provided talks about implementing a similar plan during
weather events which presumably would have happened after the fact. He asked if this could be passed at
next week's meeting and back -dated. Mayor Nelson said that was something that could be considered
during the discussion on that agenda item. This is simply whether it is an action or discussion item on the
agenda.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, L. JOHNSON, AND PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO CHANGE THE 2019 TRANSPORTATION
BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT FROM AN ACTION ITEM TO A DISCUSSION ITEM.
Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out no action was requested for that agenda item so it was a
discussion item.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PRESENTATION
1. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH AND
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 2
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation recognizing the month of March as of Women's History Month and
calling this observance and recognition to the attention of all citizens.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL)
See Attached.
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 3, 20202
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2020
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
4. WWTP POLYMER CONTRACT
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. SENIOR CENTER LOAN REQUEST
Finance Director Scott James explained tonight is the third meeting where the Council has considered the
Senior Center's request for the City to help them secure a $2 million line of credit from a bank. He
reviewed:
• During the March 10"' meeting, Council asked staff to update the Ground Lease Amendments to
include provisions for second floor alcoholic beverages
o Section 1.2.1.1.D:
• ... similarly, alcoholic beverages may be consumed on the second floor outside of the
caterer's exclusivity ri hts PROVIDED THAT guidelines for alcohol consumption o the
second floor will be mutually agreed upon subject to requirements of the Washington
State Liquor & Cannabis Board:
• During the March 5t' Council meeting, Council asked about the financial strength of Financial
Northwest Bank
o BauerFinancial has assigned its highest rating of 5 stars to First Financial Northwest Bank
• Tonight's Council packet includes the Assignment of Deposit Account (the City's collateral
agreement with First Financial Northwest Bank)
• Staff recommends the Council approve the resolution in the packet that captures the Ground
Lease Amendments and the Account of Assignment
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the City would be paying any other part of this loan to the
bank such as the interest. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered his understanding was the City could
potentially end up paying interest; ultimately the promissory note will be between the Senior Center and
the lender. Any missed payments would be subject to the City' collateral; the City may end up paying
nothing but if there are missed payments, the collateral would potentially be subject to the bank's use for
missed payments. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about the interest charges. Mr. Taraday said if
the Senior Center owes interest to the bank under its promissory note and the Senior Center fails to pay
the bank, then the City's collateral would be at risk.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 3
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the Senior Center would be responsible for the interest or was
the City responsible for paying the interest in addition to the loan amount. Mr. Taraday explained all the
City was doing was providing collateral for the loan. The City was not necessarily agreeing to pay
anything to the bank. The City may pay zero, but because the City is putting up the collateral, any default
by the Senior Center, whether it is failure to pay interest or principal, would subject the City's collateral
to risk in that the bank would have a right to it.
Councilmember Paine read the response from Daniel Johnson, Campaign Manager, Senior Center, to her
question if the Senior Center had doublechecked with the donors who have outstanding pledges in the
amount of approximately $1M: "The $1,100,000 approximately in outstanding pledges represents gifts
from 24 donors. Eight are Senior Center board members or staff, one board member who signed a five
year pledge had hoped to pay it off in three years told me last week he would likely need to take the full
five years. The largest pledge is $500,000, $100,000/year beginning in 2021. I spoke with this donor on
Friday and he voiced no concern about paying the pledge on time. The second largest pledge is $200,000
due this year. It comes from a donor who has already paid his initial $4 million pledge. I have regular
contact with these donors and I have spoken with 11 of them the past week. The total pledges from these
l l donors represents 78% of those outstanding pledges."
Councilmember Paine commented times have been changing rapidly and many have been looking at their
retirement accounts with jitters so she was curious how these pledges were holding up.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1450, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AND AN AMENDMENT TO GROUND LEASE
IN RELATION TO THE CITY'S PROVIDING OF $2,000,000 COLLATERAL IN SUPPORT OF
THE EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER'S BORROWING OF UP TO $2,000,000 FROM FIRST
FINANCIAL NORTHWEST BANK TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EDMONDS
WATERFRONT CENTER.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. James and
since January. She found the packet very complet
decision. Mr. James recognized Ms. Burley and Mr.
Ground Lease Amendments with the Senior Center.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
e
the Senior Center who have been working on this
with all the data necessary to make an educated
Taraday who were instrumental in negotiating the
2. ORDINANCE IMPOSING MORATORIUM ON SMALL BUSINESS & NON-PROFIT
TENANT EVICTIONS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday reviewed the proposed ordinance:
1. Moratorium on evictions of small businesses and nonprofit tenants until the end of the emergency
or 60 days from the effective date of the Ordinance.
a) Does not excuse tenants from paying rent under leases
b) If someone does not pay rent, the ordinance would give them time to get caught up or an
eviction proceeding could occur when the ordinance is no longer in effect
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Section LE that states there will be no late fees, interest or other
charges due to late payment, observing that of course there should not be any penalties or gouging, but
payment of interest to the property owner would be fair. Mr. Taraday said that is a legitimate policy
question for the Council to deliberate on. The Council could amend the ordinance to include interest but
not allow late fees.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 4
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was a standard ordinance that Mr. Taraday obtained from another
city and did he know what other cities were doing in terms of interest, considering that interest rates were
zero now. Mr. Taraday said Seattle has an emergency order in effect that is essentially the same as the
ordinance in the Council packet. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Seattle's ordinance allowed interest.
Mr. Taraday said Seattle ordinance is very similar to subsection E with regard to excusing interest and
late fees during this time period.
Councilmember Paine asked if this language would affect a lease agreement. Mr. Taraday explained on
an emergency basis, in order to provide some relief, the ordinance language would override late fees
otherwise contained in a lease.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4178, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON EVICTIONS OF SMALL
BUSINESS AND NONPROFIT TENANTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented small businesses are part of the fabric of the community and they
are being called on to make huge sacrifices right now. As a small business owner herself, although she did
not have a storefront, she is beginning to feel this and is aware firsthand of the stresses that many are
under. She was supportive of the ordinance and appreciative of the moratorium.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said this was an example of something the City could do to ensure
small businesses survive this epidemic. She was supportive of the ordinance as written.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the Chamber of Commerce's announcement of the availability of a
grant program for small businesses that the public can donate to, similar to what Amazon did, donating
$5M to help small businesses. Once Mayor Nelson declared an emergency in Edmonds, small businesses
can obtain Small Business Administration emergency loans. She will support the ordinance requiring no
interest because interest is zero.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented the fifth whereas is non-specific and she suggested it either be
specific or removed. Mr. Taraday agreed the data in that whereas was now dated. Councilmember K.
Johnson suggested the data in the fourth whereas was also dated. Mr. Taraday said the reason for the
whereas clauses was to explain to someone reading the ordinance why the Council did what it did. That
information helps paint the picture even if it is not up-to-the-minute accurate with respect to the number
of cases, etc.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE THE 5T11 WHEREAS CLAUSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT DEFINE
THE REGION AND IT IS NOT TIME SPECIFIC.
Councilmember Olson said for the purpose of context, she preferred to retain the whereas clause and
therefore would not support the amendment.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested making it specific to the State of Washington, the date
corresponding to the number of cases and the expectation about the exponential rate. This is a moving
target and if the intent is a historical picture, it should be accurate.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
MAKE IT SPECIFIC TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THE DATE CORRESPONDING TO
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 5
THE NUMBER OF CASES AND THE EXPECTATION ABOUT THE EXPONENTIAL RATE.
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday asked for clarification regarding the intent of the amendment, update the 5t" Whereas after
the Council meeting and before the Mayor signs the ordinance with up-to-date information.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed. Mr. Taraday summarized the Council was delegating the authority to
staff to replace the 5" Whereas clause with current, up-to-date figures. Councilmember K. Johnson
suggested the region be the State of Washington.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. ADOPTION OF EMERGENCY ORDINANCE FOR MORATORIUM ON RESIDENTIAL
EVICTIONS
Mr. Taraday explained this ordinance is very similar to the previous agenda item but addresses residential
evictions. To those who would question the need for this as there is a State order in place, his
understanding was the State's order was in effect for a shorter period of time compared to the proposed
ordinance which is 60 days from the date of the emergency ordinance.
Mayor Nelson recognized Councilmember Distelhorst for his assistance with this ordinance.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if this was necessary since the State adopted a similar moratorium. Mr.
Taraday answered the moratorium proposed in the ordinance is longer that what is provided by the State.
Councilmember K. Johnson recommended making the same language change as was made in the
previous ordinance.
Councilmember Paine commented the ordinance will assist people in the Puget Sound area and Edmonds
specifically. The State's moratorium covers areas with lower rents.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4179, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON RESIDENTIAL TENANT
EVICTIONS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY UPDATING THE
5TH WHEREAS CLAUSE. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Olson emphasized this ordinance did not waive the payment of rent if a person was in a
position to do so. It would prevent evictions from occurring and give people time to determine how to
make good on their obligations.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. REVIEW AND RATIFICATION OF THE MAYOR'S STAY AT HOME ORDER
City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented as the Council will recall during discussion at the March 22"d
meeting, whatever emergency order is issued by the Mayor under the authority given via the revisions to
Chapter 6.60 of the Edmonds City Code, that emergency order comes back before the City Council as
soon as is practicable for review and either ratification, modification or voiding the order. To keep the
order in effect beyond this Council meeting, the City Council would need to ratify or modify the order.
Since the March 22"d Council meeting, the Governor has issued a Stay at Home Order for the State of
Washington that takes effect in slightly over 24 hours from now as it relates to businesses. Mayor Nelson
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 6
issued the order on Sunday; after the Governor's order came out, there was interest in having a sunset
clause added to Mayor Nelson's order to avoid any confusion about what order was in effect.
Mr. Taraday explained this afternoon he emailed the Council a draft of the order that contains
modifications regarding the effective date. He reviewed the proposed modification.
+ Section 1. Stay Home: Residents, business owners, and other who either work or recreate within
the City of Edmonds, shall, effective 11:50 p.m. on Sunday March 22, 2020 and until f4the
„tee 11:59 p.m. on Wednesd March 25 2 02 0.
Mr. Taraday advised these amendments were proposed by administration and the Council could propose
other amendments if they wished.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested adding accounting and tax services, bookkeeping, financial
managers as essential businesses because even though the tax date is being extended, those professions
are essential.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO ADD ACCOUNTING AND TAX SERVICES, BOOKKEEPING, AND
FINANCIAL MANAGERS AS ESSENTIAL BUSINESSES.
Councilmember Paine said she understood the need for these services but those services could be done
remotely. She has contacted financial managers and CPAs who are managing their businesses well with
safe interactions that do not involve people coming into their business. She recalled visiting a CPA with a
friend who was having her taxes done and she found the business very unsanitary and the employees were
not wiping down surfaces between clients. It is much safer to use electronic drop boxes which is not an
unfamiliar practice for most with that type of business.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the Governor's order keeps banks open and but the businesses in
the motion were not included in the Governor's order. She acknowledged a financial person may consider
those essential but it was most important to keep people off the streets as much as possible. Edmonds has
the highest number of attorneys and banks in the State; they are important but not important enough to
risk people's lives and spreading the virus.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the Governor's directive lists financial services which includes
thousands of depository institution, providers of investment products, insurance companies, other credit
and financing organizations and the providers of critical financial utilities and services that support this
functions. Financial institutions vary widely in the size and the presence. Whether it is an individual
savings account, financial derivatives, credit extended to large organizations or investments to a foreign
country, these products allow customers to deposit funds, make payments, provide credit and liquidity,
invest funds, transfer financial risks. The essential workforce identifies three types of workers, 1) those
needed to process and maintain systems including insurance services, capital markets, wholesale funding,
workers who are needed to provide consumer access to banking and lending services and workers who
support financial operations such as staffing, data and security operation. It does not specify accountants
but covers those type of financial institutions.
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained Mayor Nelson's order
would only be in place until tomorrow as the Governor's order would supersede it tomorrow at midnight.
The City does not have the authority to be more permissive that the Governor's order after tomorrow at
midnight. To Councilmember K. Johnson's point about exceptions, it does not include people who do not
need to be in a bank or other financial institution. Therefore financial planners, accountants and other
individuals who provide advice or planning service regarding finances are not exempt under the
Governor's order. Occasionally there needs to be a witnessed signature of a document and some people
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 7
do not have access to DocuSign so there is an exemption in the Governor's order about the basic
functions of maintaining a business. For example a quick witness signature of financial planning
documents would be permissible. Having a financial planning office with a staff and people visiting the
office is not permissible by the Governor's order and the City did not have the authority to supersede that.
Councilmember L. Johnson echoed Councilmember Paine's sentiments. The Council is an example of
virtual meetings working and she wanted to encourage that to the fullest extent possible. She did not
support the amendment.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that staff could be in an office and not necessarily
open for business. Some financial institutions are currently administering and helping small businesses
with SBA emergency loans. He realized it was only for 24 hours but was an important distinction to
make, allowing someone to be in an office with a secure connection did not necessarily mean they were
open for people to walk in off the street.
Councilmember Olson echoed Councilmember Distelhorst's point.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was going to be moot in 24 hours, but she believes the
finance world needed to have staff working in their offices if they did not have VPNs (virtual private
networks) at home. She has received approximately ten emails regarding this topic. She offered to
withdraw the motion, deciding to leave it on the floor out of "kindness to the finance people."
Councilmember L. Johnson appreciated Councilmember Distelhorst's perspective, commenting she had
been considering it from the viewpoint of being open to customers. She supported an amendment that
allowed this, at least for tomorrow. She was opposed to having a business open for customers to come in.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the point of all this was to avoid people intermixing. Staff
in an office are intermixing, driving to and from work and getting gas and food. The Governor's order is
primarily to ensure banks continue to operate. There are many different agencies who would like to have
the ability to continue working with only 1-2 in an office but COVID-19 is airborne. She did not view this
as a necessity for 24 hours.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, BUCKSHNIS,
DISTELHORST AND K. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON AND PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE EMERGENCY ORDER AS PROPOSED BY JEFF TARADAY.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order. This is not regarding the emergency ordinance; this
about the Mayor's emergency order. Councilmember Paine clarified it is regarding the emergency order.
Councilmember Olson asked if that included Ordinance related to Chapter 6.60. Mayor Nelson answered
it did not, it was only the Stay at Home Order.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, that the ordinance amending Chapter 6.60 was part of this
agenda item. Mayor Nelson advised it was not on tonight's agenda.
5. EMERGENCY COMPENSATION PLAN
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 8
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this item is related to the Emergency Closure/Essential
Personnel Compensation Plan, written in response to the Governor' Stay at Home Order that becomes
effective tomorrow at midnight.
• Governor's Stay at Home Order
o Effective in 48 hours (Wednesday at midnight): All businesses, except for essential
businesses. Businesses that can operate using telework should continue to do so
o Government is considered an essential business
• Not all functions are considered essential
• Some essential work may be done remotely, or not at all
■ If not considered essential and unable to work remotely, employees should not be
working during stay at home order
• Standard Practice
o It is generally a standard practice to have an Emergency Closure/Essential Personnel
Compensation Policy in place
o This has been done at Edmonds on an ad -hoc basis in the past which can lead to inequity and
confusion among the employees
o Policy would clearly establish how compensation will be handled during the Governor's State
at Home Order
o Council can consider a standing policy going forward for future closure events such as
extreme weather events
• Three Categories of Compensation
o Category 1
■ Employees who must physically report to work more than a de minimis amount of time
(1 day) and will be exposed to potentially increased hazards due to this requirement and
are supporting the City's essential services.
o Category 2
■ Employees who can perform the majority of their work remotely (more than 2 days per
week) and must be physically present a de minimis amount of time (less than 1 day).
These employees are less exposed to potentially increased hazards while continuing to
support the City's essential services.
o Category 3
■ Employee cannot perform their work remotely nor are they required to be physically
present to perform essential functions.
• Compensation Levels by Category
o Category 1
■ Propose a 6% pay differential for each week in which an employee is in this category
o Category 2
R Propose a 3% pay differential for each week in which an employee is in this category
o Category 3
■ Propose maintenance of regular pay for each week in which an employee is in this
category
• What is the Compensation Proposal Based On?
o Survey of other agencies (Listsery of approximately 70 HR professionals in Washington) has
shown that emergency closure pay for employees who must physically report to work ranges
between 5% and 15% with most falling in the 5% to 7% range
o A step one increase on City pay schedules is 5%
o City has previously compensated employees who were required to come to work during a
weather event with a 5% pay differential
o Given the nature of this closure and the potentially increased hazards employees may be
exposed to, an additional 1% over what has previously been provided is proposed, equaling
6% in total
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 9
o Employees who can work remotely with minimal on -site work would receive half of the
proposed pay differential due to the reduced hazard exposure
o It is proposed to continue to provide employees who are told to stay at home with their
regular compensation consistent with previous weather event emergency closures where the
City has done so.
Employees by Category
o Emergency Sector Services
R Police
- Category 1: 63 employees
- Category 2: 5.75 employees
- Category 3: 0 employees
• Public Works
- Category 1: 31.5 employees (split schedules of week on week off plus 7 engineering)
- Category 2: 15 employees
- Category 3: 2.45 employees (split schedules of week on week off)
■ Development Services
- Category 1: 1 employee
- Category 2: 17.25 employees
- Category 3: 0 employees
■ City Clerk
- Category 1: 3 employees
- Category 2: 2 employees
- Category 3: 0 employees
■ Finance
- Category 1: 0 employees
- Category 2: 13 employees
- Category 3: 0 employees
■ Human Resources
- Category 1: 1 employee
- Category 2: 2.5 employees
- Category 3: 0 employees
■ Parks & Recreation
- Category 1: 6 employees (split shift week on week off)
- Category 2: 10.4 employees
- Category 3: 8.4 employees (split shift week on week off plus 2.4 employees)
■ Community Services
- Category 1:.25 employee
- Category 2: 2.25 employees
- Category 3: 0 employees
Totals by Category
o Category 1: 105.75 employees
o Category 2: 142.15 employees
o Category 3: 32.9 employees
■ Majority of employees are working split shift
o Only approximately 2.9 employees are not doing a split shift, not essential and cannot work
remotely
Union Considerations
o Both AFSCME and Teamsters have submitted a demand to bargain wages should the City be
under an emergency closure/essential personnel only status
o Action the Council takes tonight will be shared with the unions
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 10
Ms. Neill Hoyson explained the week on, week off schedule is in response to the Governor's directive as
well as it reduces the number of staff working at one time to reduce exposure between employees as well
as isolates a group of employees for the week so if there is a contact event among that work group, the
group is isolated from that event. A Parks employee was determined to be COVID-19 positive; following
an analysis of employees who had prolonged and close contact, 12 employees were notified that they
needed to quarantine. Fortunately a majority were already teleworking but two employees who could not
work remotely were sent home.
With regard to the actual financial impact, Ms. Neill Hoyson explained the employees in Category 3 who
would be kept on salary, that cost is already budgeted; they would basically be on a standby leave. There
would be an increase in the budget due to pay differentials; for example, an employee earning
$65,000/year, the 6% pay differential for the two weeks of the Governor's current Stay at Home Order,
the cost would be $150 for that employee. The cost for an employee in the 3% category would be $71.54.
Councilmember Olson said she had reservations about voting on this today. These are not typical
economic times for the City and the fact that this is coming up in the context of a pandemic and the
potential it could last 4-6 months instead of 4 weeks, she felt it would be prudent to spent more time
thinking about the ramifications of the proposed plan. She referenced Councilmember Distelhorst's
earlier suggestion about backdating and tabling this issue until next week.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO
TABLE THIS UNTIL NEXT WEEK WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WHATEVER DECISION
WAS MADE NEXT WEEK, IF IT WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, WOULD BE BACKDATED
TO BE EFFECTIVE TODAY.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said these are extraordinary times and she estimated the pay for these
people would be no more than six weeks when it is anticipated the coronavirus will begin to decrease. She
cares for staff and appreciates them working every day and around citizens, each other and the virus and
this was a tiny bit of additional compensation for working in this abnormal environment. Other cities, the
county and the state are doing this and she did not see any point in waiting a week. The Council's job is to
legislate, not to micromanage departments and their staff; she counted on the directors to make those
decisions. She also wanted staff to be kept safe in this environment and she appreciated employees
coming to work every day and putting themselves in jeopardy of potential contracting the virus just to
serve the City. She did not support waiting a week before compensating staff for working in this
dangerous environment.
Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, referring to people visible on the screen in Council
Chambers (standing close together behind City Clerk Scott Passey who was participating in the meeting)
who were not abiding by the Governor's orders and putting staff at risk. Mayor Nelson directed the
people standing behind Mr. Passey to disperse from Council Chambers. Mr. Taraday advised they could
remain in Council Chambers but must remain 6 feet apart. He suggested Mr. Passey turn off his video
feed.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
Mayor Nelson advised during the break he learned there was an emergency proclamation by the Governor
amending the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). In response to the Governor's emergency order, the
meeting has been closed to the public. The proclamation also limits the business the Council as a
legislative body conducts to coronavirus related items. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said during the break
he was alerted to the proclamation. He summarized the proclamation, the Governor has prohibited public
agencies from conducting any meeting subject to the OPMA unless that meeting is not conducted in
person and instead provides an option for the public to attend the proceedings at minimum telephonic
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 11
access and may also include other electronic internet and other means of remote access, and provides the
ability for all persons attending the meeting to hear each other at the same time. Mr. Taraday said the
Council is complying as Councilmembers are separated and meeting over the internet.
Mr. Taraday said the proclamation goes on to say agencies are further prohibited from taking action as
defined in RCW 42.30.020 unless those matters are necessary and routine or are matters necessary to
respond to the COVID-19 outbreak and the current public health emergency until such time as regular
public participation under the OPMA is possible. The proclamation makes additional modifications to the
OPMA which Mr. Taraday indicated he had not had time to fully process. One of the items on the
Council's agenda (2019 Transportation Benefit District Report) may not be allowed unless an argument
could be made that it was necessary and routine. The proclamation remains in effect for 30 days until
April 23, 2020.
Councilmember Paine asked whether backdating the compensation would be possible if the Council did
not approve the plan until next week. Ms. Neill Hoyson said her concern is being responsive to the
Governor's order as of midnight tomorrow so there would be some employees who potentially would not
be considered essential and should be sent home.
Councilmember Paine asked if Ms. Neill Hoyson could provide a rough, back of the envelope estimate of
the cost. Ms. Neill Hoyson said salaries on average generally range between $65,000 and $75,000. She
reiterated for an employee earning $65,000/year, a 2 week period at 6% would be $150 and 3% would be
$71.54. She noted the Governor' orders are for two weeks.
Councilmember Olson said the City will be complying with the Governor's orders whether employees are
in the office or not. She asked whether the value of the Council approving this plan tonight was to address
the compensation aspect. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered most urgent is addressing the compensation aspect
for the employees who would be told not to come to work and who cannot work remotely.
Councilmember Olson observed the value of not tabling and not backdating compensation was to avoid
creating any new problems. Ms. Neill Hoyson said both the AFSCME and Teamsters had demanded to
bargain prior to taking any action to send employees home without pay. There would be union impacts
related to that action. Mr. Taraday said there is a rule under the Gift of Public Funds Doctrine that public
employees need to be paid pursuant to adopted policy or approved collective bargaining agreements and
for that reason retroactive pay is generally not allowed unless there is an existing policy or collective
bargaining agreement that specifically allows for retroactive pay. It is unlikely that paying them
retroactive would work. He was uncertain it was clear to the Council the effect of sending staff home if
the policy is not adopted.
Public Works Director Phil Williams commented the additional pay recognizes employees have
additional hazards coming to work now that they did not have previously. In addition it creates some
incentive; a person could call in sick and would be justified in doing so. He acknowledged many of staff
are scared and although every effort is made to make them feel comfortable coming to work and doing
their work, with all the inflamed stories, some of which are accurate and some are not, employees get
pretty worked up. This compensation would go a long way to help smooth that over. He agreed there were
more hazards now than there were before. Doing a quick calculation of 200 employees at $125 each over
the next 2 weeks equated to about $24,000.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented this was a very minor amount of money to have people
doing the type of work they do while the Council is staying at home doing its work. Essential employees
show up no matter what; the estimated cost to have these people working on the frontlines of this virus is
change on the dollar.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 12
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED EMERGENCY CLOSURE/ESSENTIAL
PERSONNEL COMPENSATION PLAN.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for and agreed with Mr. Williams' comment. Staff is
being asked to continue to do their jobs to the best of their ability and the Council needs to recognize what
is being asked of them. This is a small step to recognize that and continue to encourage and incentivize
them. She supported the motion.
Councilmember Olson said without a doubt she had immense appreciation for staff s efforts. She was
looking ahead and around at a world of hurt for the entire community and all the citizens and was
concerned about the City's total resources. She asked if this plan agreed to the pay for only two weeks.
She was looking at the bigger picture of the City's resources and knowing what the Council was agreeing
to financially before making that agreement and felt that was a responsible thing for the Council to do.
Ms. Neill Hoyson said it is tied to the Governor's Stay at Home Order which is currently two weeks. The
plan would change based on the Governor's order. Councilmember Olson commented it was a big
unknown.
Mr. Taraday explained if the Governor's order gets continued and continued and continued again, and the
Council wants to revisit this issue, the Council could put it on an agenda and alter the compensation
policy. For example, if the Council was willing to agree to a compensation policy for two weeks but not
for 8-12 weeks, it could be revisited.
Council President Fraley-Monillas acknowledged the Council was the keeper of the taxpayers' dollars,
but what are the citizens going to say when staff City is not doing their jobs and more citizens are put at
risk. She supported staff as well as the citizens by staff working and helping contain the virus in the City.
Mr. Williams said the federal government has passed bills and will continue looking at ways whereby
when this event is over, the City can apply for financial assistance to offset additional costs and this
would certainly be one of those costs. He acknowledged that was not a certainty or that the City would be
reimbursed 100%. Typically 75% of the costs are paid by the federal government and often 12.5% paid
by the state. He summarized there would likely be some recovery of additional expenses to respond.
Councilmember Buckshnis said everyone supports staff and thinks they are doing a great job. This is a
wonderful thing to do. The point that is being missed, similar to Ordinance 4177, there is not complete
information. She asked if HR could provide a more complete packet with a projected cost for the next
meeting. She agreed with Mr. Williams' comments, pointing out the fact of the matter is the Council
needs to have a good understanding of what they are approving. She summarized staff deserve this but
she wanted to have a more complete picture.
Councilmember Paine said she supported the motion for the following reasons: staff needed to have a
sense of job security, their work is in support of the City's mission and the additional compensation will
calm some of the waters. She agreed with having an update regarding the costs. She appreciated efforts to
develop the proposal in as comprehensive a way as possible, acknowledging there may be some missing
information, but she was confidence about the direction it was going.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO POSTPONE THE ORIGINAL MOTION UNTIL
THE NEXT MEETING. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she found the information very incomplete and confusing. The Council
has a fiduciary responsibility and does not know how much this will cost. The Council has been provided
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 13
information in a PowerPoint presentation about the number of affected employees. The Council does not
have any details and this will take effect Wednesday night. She did not support something that had so
many loose ends and was not well -thought out. The employees are the City's most important assets and
no one should come to work if they feel they are in harm's way. She wanted to know more about the
state's unemployment for people unable to work remotely; for example, rather than paying their salary,
would they be eligible for unemployment insurance. There were too many unknows, she needed more
information and she needed the information in writing. The Council had no way to capture the
information presented in the PowerPoint. She concluded it was a very poor way of making a decision and
she did not support the motion although in concept she felt it was a good idea but it needed a lot more
work.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson, relaying she came to the meeting with
the desire to postpone this item. She was somewhat convinced by Mr. Williams' comments about the
labor unions. She wanted assurance that if this was approved tonight, it could be scheduled on an agenda
even if only one Councilmember wanted to put it on the agenda, noting it had been difficult for her to get
items on the agenda in the past.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmembers could vote no if they did not support the
proposal although she encouraged Councilmembers to support the motion. She agreed with asking the HR
Director to provide additional financial information for the long term via email or sending documents to
Council. The alternative is to do nothing and if nothing is done, staff will not receive the compensation
they deserve for fighting the virus. She encouraged Councilmembers to support the motion and work out
the cost later. She commented this was very little money particularly compared to some things the City
spends money on.
Councilmember Olson commented since the Council was voting on this with incomplete information, she
reiterated her request that it be scheduled on an agenda at the request of any Councilmember when further
information is provided. Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated Councilmembers could vote no if
they wished or could vote yes if they wanted to approve it tonight and the HR director would be asked to
provide further information to Council.
Interim Parks Director Shannon Burley explained the idea of split shifts was an effort to try and keep
employee safe as much as possible. There are several staff members in the high risk category and she has
to make difficult decisions every day. For example, a member of her staff who is over 60 was asked to go
home due to concerns for her health. That occurred two days prior to a Parks employee testing positive.
These are difficult decisions to make and it was difficult for directors to compile information in time to
get it into the presentation based on the directive the Governor's issued last night. Splitting shifts will be
challenging without assurances and doing so by the time the order is effective tomorrow night does not
give much time to help employees understand the benefits of continuing to maintain social distance. She
appreciated the Council's willingness to consider this.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Motion #1
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD ORDINANCE NO. 4177 AS IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE
AGENDA PACKET AS PART OF ITEM 8.4, REVIEW AND RATIFICATION OF THE MAYOR'S
STAY AT HOME ORDER.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was promised at Sunday's meeting that the Council would have an
opportunity to review the ordinance since the Council only had an hour before the meeting to review it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 14
Motion #2
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO AMEND TO BRING BACK EDMONDS CITY CODE 6.60 WITHIN THE NEXT 6-8 WEEKS
TO ALLOW FOR GREATER PUBLIC COMMENT AND ADDITIONAL POLICY REVIEW BY
THE COUNCIL AND TO INCLUDE OTHER DISCUSSION AS NEEDED.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if an ordinance took effect seven days after the Mayor signed it. Mr.
Taraday advised an emergency ordinance takes effect immediately. Councilmember Buckshnis said the
Council was only provided one hour to review the ordinance before Sunday's meeting and she has several
amendments she would like to make. The Council was promised they could discuss it tonight.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said there may be opportunity to include some of the emergency
response responsibilities in the order that were discussed including some that have been delegated to
Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management. She referred to an emergency plan the
Council approved in the first quarter of 2017. She wanted to ensure the plan was comprehensive. She was
satisfied what the Council approved on Sunday covers enough of the territory that needs to be covered
now. She did not want to have another rushed process and preferred to schedule it in the next 6-8 weeks.
Councilmember Olson recalled when Ordinance 4177 revising Chapter 6.60 was passed on Sunday, the
Council was told it could be revised at tonight's meeting. She wanted to ensure the community was
comfortable with components in the ordinance and that they were legal. Mr. Taraday said some research
was done today on issues that have been raised and additional research could be done with more time. He
was uncertain whether he would have a definitive answer with respect to Subsection G tonight; more time
would allow him to explore that in more detail and provide the Council more options. It is entirely up to
the Council whether to revisit the ordinance tonight or in a few weeks.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if 4-6 weeks would be enough time. Mr. Taraday said he would
not need six weeks. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if a month would be enough time, noting
that would also provide time for citizens to provide input. Mr. Taraday answered a month would be more
than plenty.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented she has received numerous emails about removing Subsection G,
an order prohibiting the carrying or possession of a firearm or any instrument which is capable of
producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm,
provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the
performance of their official duties.
Motion #3
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO DELETE SUBSECTION G AS THE COUNCIL RATIFIES THIS.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the Council could then take 6-8 weeks to evaluate it. She was confident
this was a Second Amendment constitutional issue and did not think this was an appropriate vehicle in
which to raise that issue.
City Clerk Scott Passey observed this was a third motion, the first was simply to add this topic to the
agenda, the second was to delay this item for 6-8 weeks and this motion was getting into the merits of the
item. Mr. Taraday agreed motions to amend were not appropriate unless the item was on the agenda.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Councilmember Buckshnis to clarify her motion (motion #1).
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she was asking to add Ordinance No. 4177 to the agenda as Agenda
Item 8.4 was originally Review and Ratification of the Mayor's Stay at Home Order. She was told at
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 15
Sunday's meeting that the Council would be able to revisit the ordinance at Tuesday's meeting. She has
questions about 6.60.090 including Subsections C and G. She wanted to discuss it tonight because the
Council had no time to review it prior to Sunday's meeting.
Councilmember Olson said she was willing to add it to the agenda but her vote whether to include
Subsection G will be based on the constitutionality and whether it is legal to include it. If it is added to the
agenda, she will make an amendment to table it until that input is provided by Mr. Taraday.
Action on Motion #1
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Restated Motion #2
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
BRING BACK EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 4177 THAT COVERS EDMONDS CITY CODE
6.60 TO BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE NEXT 4-6 WEEKS. THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT, GREATER POLICY REVIEW BY THE FULL COUNCIL AND BETTER
CLARIFICATION OR RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Mr. Taraday said he could have the review completed sooner than 6-
8 weeks. Councilmember Paine said her motion was 4-6 weeks and she was open to discussing it sooner
if that could be accomplished. She wanted to ensure the Council was not "jumping from one frying pan to
another." Councilmember K. Johnson suggested stating it would be reviewed after the legal analysis is
completed. Councilmember Paine said her intent was to do something broader than that. She wanted to
ensure all the roles and responsibilities covered within the ordinance are also included.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it was awful what the Council did on Sunday. Councilmembers were
given an hour to do a very important ordinance and they were promised they would be allowed to make
changes tonight. That is now being pushed off due to the fact that legal analysis is required; that legal
analysis should have been done before it was brought to Council. This is not a good example of how to
pass very serious ordinances.
Mr. Taraday said attorneys can analyze things to death. If he had more time he would look at it harder,
and it if is added to the agenda tonight, it could be discussed tonight. He did not want the Council to think
he was not prepared to discuss it.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that this had been a very
klutzy approach, acknowledging that that sometimes happens in an emergency. She supported the motion,
anticipating the analysis could be done more quickly. She also supported having more public input. With
the number of future agenda items that are being delayed due to the Governor's order, she anticipated
there would be time to discuss the ordinance sooner than six weeks.
Vote on Motion #2
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON, PAINE, OLSON, AND DISTELHORST VOTING YES,
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS
ABSTAINING.
6. 2019 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT
Mayor Nelson asked whether this item was appropriate in view of City Attorney Jeff Taraday's
interpretation of the Governor's order. Public Works Director Phil Williams said a portion of the report,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 16
basically the revenue and expenses, is routine and necessary due to the deadline to file the report and
publish it in the newspaper. The remainder of the presentation is related to the paving program and an
update on I-976 which is critically important but unrelated to the coronavirus and does not have a
deadline.
Mr. Taraday said in view of the statutory deadline, the TBD report meets the Governor's order, but the
information regarding I-976 likely does not.
Mr. Williams reviewed:
TBD Overview
o Edmonds City Council formed TBD on November 18, 2008
o TBD Board enacts $20/year fee with Ordinance No. 1 on February 17, 2009 limiting the use
of funds collected to maintenance and preservation of streets and related traffic control assets
o Funds collected
0 2012 $640,994
■ 2013 $670,435
■ 2014 $623,111
■ 2015 $687,421
■ 2016 $701,467
■ 2017 $692,589
■ 2018 $716,013 + $43,181 in additional qualifying expenditures = $759,194
■ 2019 $689,668 + $26,345 in additional qualifying expenditures = $176,013
Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Chanaes in Fund Balance 1/1/19-12/31/19
Revenues
$20 Vehicle Registration Fee
$689,668
Total Revenues
689,668
Expenditures
Road Maintenance includes repairs, patching, crack sealing)
Labor & Benefits
149,090
Su lies
36,089
Traffic Control
Labor & Benefits
190,949
Supplies
170,895
Total Expenditures
$689,668
Net Char e in Fund Balance
--
Fund Balance - Beginning
--
Fund Balance - Ending--
[1] A additional $26,345 in expenditures were eligible for reimbursement from this funding source,
however, due to funding constraints, these expenditures were absorbed by Fund I I I — Street Fund
Mr. Williams relayed his intent to publish the information in the local newspaper, the Everett Herald, as
soon as possible unless there were any objections from Council. He requested an opportunity to discuss
the information regarding the paving program as soon as there was an opportunity to do so.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson acknowledged these are challenging times and uncharted territory. Everyone is doing their
best, City staff is doing their absolute best — above and beyond responding to this emergency, this
pandemic, this virus that is infecting everything we do in our lives, our work and in government. He
assured everything possible was being done to keep people safe, but he needed everyone's help and
patience, including Councilmembers' patience. This is an emergency and we need to act like it is an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 17
emergency. It is not business as usual; these are emergency conditions and reactions and decisions have to
be made faster than ever because people's lives are at stake. He will continue to make those decisions,
make requests and propose emergency ordinances and whatever he can to keep people safe. What
Councilmembers did on Sunday was in response to an emergency. The packet was published Friday
afternoon and was available for over 36 hours. Councilmembers had 36 hours to read the emergency
ordinance that the Council voted on at Sunday's meeting. He will use the minimal amount of power
necessary because at the end of the day he just wants to keep people safe. Those powers are not just for
him but for any future mayors in any disaster or emergency.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Mayor Nelson for his comments, for the work he is doing and his
dedication. She thanked everyone who is following the Stay at Home Order and working to protect the
community. She expressed appreciation to those on the frontline serving the community, especially
healthcare workers, first responders, City staff and all essential service workers including sanitation,
grocery, childcare, and more. She wished everyone "be well."
Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Mayor Nelson and Councilmember L. Johnson's comments. These
are very difficult times for essential staff and people working at home. There will be difficult decisions
for Council to make and he appreciated everyone's flexibility in making decisions and the ability to go
back and revisit decisions in the future to ensure the best interests of citizens in the short term and the
City in the long term. He thanked Council for their action on the ban on residential evictions as well as
non-profit and small business evictions during this emergency.
Councilmember Olson assured that Councilmembers and the Mayor are thinking of and considering
citizens in everything they do, losing sleep and giving conscious thought day and night about what they
are doing to make this better. She thanked citizens for their creativity in making things work in a virtual
environment and protecting the community via social distancing and following the City and the
Governor's mandates. She wanted to ensure it was clear and understood that Ordinance 4177, Chapter
6.60, is related to emergency powers and not for daily use. Most of the Mayor's potential powers are only
and exclusively if a specific emergency or disaster warranted them. It is not a blank intrusion on citizens'
rights. She assured Councilmembers heard citizens' concerns and are investigating to ensure there are no
violations of constitutional rights.
Councilmember Paine thanked the Mayor, Directors and Staff for all the work they have been doing in
this rapid-fire, evolving situation. She appreciated everyone's thoughtfulness, patience and eagerness to
do things the right way, recognizing it may not be as clean as we'd like it to be. The Council is working
hard to do what is best for the City. She encouraged everyone to follow the Governor's orders and stay at
home, to call and check on friends and loved ones living alone who may feel socially isolated. Mental
health is just as important as physical health and it's a scary situation. She appreciated everyone's good
work and promised to do her very best for the City.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone for their emails, phone calls and texts and assured she is
listening. She referred to healthy calm, healthy concern and healthy fear versus fear and panic and urged
the public to maintain healthy fear, stay healthy and maintain distances. There is a lot of misinformation
and everyone needs to be cognizant that this is a crisis situation and need to stay strong, checking in on
friends and neighbors, and having Zoom meetings.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed these are very unusual times and she wanted to extend her
appreciation to the community. About 25% of the Edmonds population is in the high risk age category
and many people have underlying health problems. She thanked Teresa Whipple for her posting on My
Edmonds News of all the cases in Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds. As of today, 39 people in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 18
Edmonds have tested positive for COVID-19 and 547 in Snohomish County. This exponential growth rate
is the reason all the extraordinary measures are necessary. The Council, Mayor and City employees are
committed to doing their jobs and she assured citizens that they are here for them.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reassured the Council is willing to work with the Mayor to assist him.
She thanked Mayor Nelson for his strong, clear leadership which has helped staff and the citizens of
Edmonds to move forward, understanding where he is coming from and his direction. She received a call
from a legislator over the weekend and spoke with Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin and both were very
complimentary of what the Council has done as well as Mayor Nelson and his guidance. She has
witnessed staff s amazing and detailed efforts and was appreciative of the Council's approval of a small
increase for hazard pay. She advised there were 5 more deaths today in Washington State, bringing the
total to 110. The death rate is climbing, but the more people stay apart and the cleaner areas are kept, the
better it is. She wished everyone luck in the coming week and looked forward to working with Mayor
Nelson.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
M1CAAEL NELSON, MAYOR
SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 19
FA
Edmonds have tested positive for COVID-19 and 547 in Snohomish County. This exponential growth rate
is the reason all the extraordinary measures are necessary. The Council, Mayor and City employees are
committed to doing their jobs and she assured citizens that they are here for them.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reassured the Council is willing to work with the Mayor to assist him.
She thanked Mayor Nelson for his strong, clear leadership which has helped staff and the citizens of
Edmonds to move forward, understanding where he is coming from and his direction. She received a call
from a legislator over the weekend and spoke with Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin and both were very
complimentary of what the Council has done as well as Mayor Nelson and his guidance. She has
witnessed staff s amazing and detailed efforts and was appreciative of the Council's approval of a small
increase for hazard pay. She advised there were 5 more deaths today in Washington State, bringing the
total to 110. The death rate is climbing, but the more people stay apart and the cleaner areas are kept, the
better it is. She wished everyone luck in the coming week and looked forward to working with Mayor
Nelson.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR
SC61LP4SSEY, CITY CLER
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 19
Public Comment for 3/23 — 3/24/20
3/23-3/24 Email from numerous members of the Public (listed here for brevity): Jonathan
Byerly, Cindy & Bryce Carpenter, Charles D Cripps, Mark (no last name included), Dan Moll,
Tim Ehlers, Justin Everson, Charles Eakins, Dennis Glines, Valerie Sabado, Liz Capetillo,
Unnamed, Keith Martin, Allen Terrell, Ralph Monis, Aidan Foxley, Robert Wallace, Matthew van
Camp, Fredy Armani, Rolf Shumann, Jeff Clark, Betsy Patton, Robin E. Johansen, Leo Jacobs,
Bobbie Piety, Rick Lapinski, Justin Seimears, Mary Walker, Bryan Stevens, Roger Peterson,
David Wendt, Glenn Green, Tom Cox, Deven, Dan Jennings, Ken Manning, Myron & Shawna
Feiock, Timothy Hemple, Blake Stedman, Jeff Scherrer, Travis Ries, Diane Jackstadt, Walter,
Day, Ronald Utke, Jeff Pack, Lois Brown, Gary Coringly, Cory Shanahan, Craig Williams,
Melissa Garrity, Rick Witkowski, Harry and Sally Parmer, Julia Fogassy, Craig (no last name),
Stephen & Cristine Brown, Diana W., Dave Matz, Paul Werner, Michael Boyd, David Goff, Jet,
V, Jacqueline Dawson, Mark Van Scoy, Ashley Moll, Bill Chandler, Gary (no last name
included), Scott Semanko, Mike & Heather Earl, Mike Rose, Priscilla Turner, Michael ONeal,
Bob Locati, Jean -Michael Depena, Kimberly Glidewell, Stacey West, Ryan Hatch, Keith Evans,
Meixter, BVT, Marty & Teri Munson, Joseph Taylor, Kristin Grose, Duane Dent, James Ashby,
Brittany Thovsen, Kelly S., Linda Ader, Dennis Larsen, Sherijdv, Ric Cade, Carlo Marinaro,
Frank Durham, Dave Avis
Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights — remove section G from your emergency
ordinance.
No government — certainly not a city — can prohibit citizens from carrying or possessing a
firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the Washington state
Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."). Your legislation is also illegal (KOMO 4 NEWS:,
Bellingham to pay $15,000 to a man who was threatened by a police officer for wearing a
holstered gun in a city park — htt s,Ilkomonews.comlarchivelbellin ham -to- a-15000-to-man-
who-wore-qun-in-park). After the council listens to public testimony during this open public
meeting, all it takes to remove this anti-2A provision is for one councilmember to make a motion
to amend the emergency ordinance, another councilmember to second it, discuss it, then the
council will vote to remove it. There is absolutely no justification for this blatantly unconstitutional
— and illegal — provision and your emergency ordinance should be modified to remove it.
Please confirm you received my email message.
3/23 Heather Damron, Subject: Ordinance Amending Chpt. 6.60 of Edmonds City Code
I know we are all stressed out right now, so I will try to keep this as short as possible. I am
writing today to urge you to leave Section 6.60.090, G intact as written. It is absolutely
imperative to the safety of the citizens of Edmonds that the Mayor has the ability to enact an
order "prohibiting the carrying or possession of a firearm or any instrument which is capable of
producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause
such harm, provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel
engaged in the performance of their official duties." The sales of firearms and ammunition is
through the roof right now. That, in and of itself, is terrifying. The last thing we need are people
acting as vigilantes. Pulling weapons if supplies run low. Actively intimidating fellow citizens.
This will protect citizens, make the police and other emergency responders safer. Simply put,
allowing people to haphazardly and freely carry weapons around the city while everyone is
under extreme stress is going to quickly devolve. Open carry during a regular time is totally
about intimidation. During a time of collective anxiety, it's a recipe for disaster. This is not the
time to bow to the gun lobby. Please, let's band together sensibly, look out for each other and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 20
protect each other from escalated gun violence. Thank you all for your dedication and service,
especially during these strange times. You are so appreciated.
3/23 Phil Lovell, Subject: Edmonds Waterfront Center
As most of you council members know, I have been a vol u nteer 'construction engineer' to the
Senior Center going back as far as proposed repairs to the sinking slabs and leaking west wall
sections of the old building since 2015 and earlier. I am grateful to be assisting by contributing
my past experience and knowledge to the current process of building the new Waterfront
Center. I have every intention of sticking with it to the grand opening this Fall and beyond with
whatever help the Center requests of me. While it's unfortunate that the fundraising, capital
funds availability, COVID-19, and cash flow are creating extra 'burden' to the project, we are
confident that our City of Edmonds partners will step up to help with Council approval of the
2mm$ CD and LOC worked out between ESC and COE. It seems that this review/approval has
been drawn out timewise to a point now where construction progress could be severely
impacted by inadequate cash flow. In the worst case scenario, both the building AND
beachfront improvement components of the project could be temporarily stopped until funds
become available and project component coordination are able to continue.Please assure that
your membership approve this most important matter at your March 24th meeting. Thank you
one and all.
3/23 Ken Smith, Subject: CPA Firm Essential Service
As Managing Partner TranerSmith & Co. 25 member CPA firm strongly urge you to Designate
CPA firms as essential service we help individual receive tax refunds and businesses with
conoravirus loans and disaster planning! We are being careful 50% of staff working from home!
3/23 Liz Morgan, Subject: City Ordinance Amendments — Urgent
My name is Liz Morgan and I'm a married mother of 2, who lives at 1053 B Ave S. in
Edmonds. I understand that you'll be meeting this week to review the city ordinance for the
emergency declaration and that council members are able to consider amendments. I also
understand that there is a section which addresses gun and weapon possession, which i believe
is 6.60.090, G. I ask that the Council do their due diligence in protecting our community by
retaining this section of the ordinance. Please.
3/23 Laura Meyer, Subject: Gun Violence Prevention
As the council discusses, possibly amends and hopefully approve the ordinance "TO ENHANCE
THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ACT SWIFTLY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND
WELFARE IN RESPONSE TO EMERGENCIES AND CIVIL EMERGENCIES," I am writing as a
member of Mom's Demands Action to request that the following section remain in the ordinance
for public safety: Upon the proclamation of an emergency or civil emergency, the mayor, or if
absent or incapacitated, the president of the city council, during the existence of such
emergency or civil emergency, may make and proclaim any or all of the following orders: G. An
order prohibiting the carrying or possession of a firearm or any instrument which is capable of
producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause
such harm, provided that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel
engaged in the performance of their official duties. PLEASE continue to keep our town and our
families safe!
3/23 Teresa Chilelli White and Armando and Sina Chilelli, Subject: Cannibis stores:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 21
Hello, My parents live in Edmonds and I help care or them. I am also the owner of a cannabis
retail store. I read the article about the council's discussion about closing cannabis stores. You
should close them to all except for medically endorsed stores and they should be open to
registered medical patients only and open times should be reduced. The struggle to keep
employees safe is a battle we are losing. There is not enough PPE equipment to keep them
safe. We cannot find gloves and masks. At the same time we are asked to donate these
things to hospitals because there is a shortage. How can we keep our employees safe without
PPE's? Not to mention the recent medical concerns with vaping and the WA department of
health does not consider anything you smoke to be a medical product. So the argument that
many people us it during these trying times is not valid and should not be used as an
argument. The use of vaping and smoking marijuana is not a necessity and could add to the
burden of the medical system with vaping lung concerns and driving while high. We have seen
an influx in business because people are home, and people are coming in already high, and
people are coming in coughing and sneezing and sick. If we do not have PPE's because there
is a shortage, how do we stay safe? Keep your community safe and close cannabis retailers to
all except registered medical patients. I know this will hurt my business, but if all of my
employees are sick or dead, isn't that worse?
3/24 Dominic Suciu, Subject: Do not pass this stupid antigun bill you douchebags
3/24 Frank Trieu, Subject: Request: Remove section G from the Emergency Ordinance
Hello my name is Frank Trieu and I have been a resident of Edmonds for the past 33 years. I
am a property owner and my children are part of the Edmonds School District. Having caste my
vote for the council and the mayor, I appreciate the work of the council in caring for our
community. Respectfully, I would ask that a council member consider making a motion to
amend the emergency ordinance, and another to second it to have the 2A provision removed. I
recognize that the situation is volatile right now, but we need respect the our constitutional rights
in working towards a solution. cNo government -- certainly not a city -- can prohibit citizens from
carrying or possessing a firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the
Washington state Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen to bear
arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."). Thank you for taking time to
read through my message and please confirm that you r received my email.
3/24 Tim Matthes, Subject: Your oath
I am writing to remind you of the oath that you too on entering office, that was to protect and
defend the US and the State of Washington's constitutions. I hope you will honor that oath and
vote to remove section G of the proposed ordinance, because it is a direct attack on your
citizen's second amendment's rights.
3/24 K Baker, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from your
emergency ordinance.
No government -- certainly not a city -- can prohibit citizens from carrying or possessing a
firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the Washington state
Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."). Your legislation is also illegal (KOMO 4 NEWS:
Bellingham to pay $15,000 to a man who was threatened by a police officer for wearing a
holstered gun in a city park - After the council listens to public testimony during this open public
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 22
meeting, all it takes to remove this anti-2A provision is for one councilmember to make a motion
to amend the emergency ordinance, another council member to second it, discuss it, then the
council will vote to remove it. There is absolutely no justification for this blatantly unconstitutional
-- and illegal -- provision and your emergency ordinance should be modified to remove it. Your
blatant refusal to consider that you may be wrong is a sure sign that you are not listening to your
voters and are oblivious to the situation you are creating with your actions. You have not been
given carte blanche to change law and remove rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Tread
lightly the pendulum swings both ways. Please confirm you received my email message.
3/24 Gordon Forguson, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights — remove section G
from your emergency ordinance.Your attempt to abridge our God given rights to self protection,
shall not only be your political undoing, But ... May also be your Physical undoing! Max
Conflass
3/24 Heather Damron, Subject: Re: Ordinance Amending Chpt. 6.60 of Edmonds City Code
I am watching the now tabled City Council meeting, and I would like to reiterate all the points
above, and think we just witnessed EXACTLY why it is imperative that 6.60.090 is left intact.
That was a disgusting display of intimidation. Please, all of you, be safe. These people are not
okay. That behavior is absolutely abhorrent and should not be rewarded.
3/24 Rick Morgan, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance
City government does not have the right to violate the US Constitution and restrict 2nd
Amendment gun rights. You might think you are helping and doing good by attempting to
change and restrict gun laws. All you are doing is keeping guns out of the hands of honest law
abiding citizens. Unfortunately, criminals will still get guns and use them to commit crimes. The
difference is lawful citizens will not be able to protect themselves. Continue to ignore the rights
of state citizens and you will awake a sleeping giant - do not attempt to restrict 2nd Amendment
rights.
3/24 Earl Hufnagel, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance.
I understand that by including section G in your emergency ordinance reflects your concern that
civil unrest might eventuate from the COVID-19 crisis. However, disarming the general public is
not the way to prevent civil unrest. Such unrest, if it happens, will be initiated by people who pay
no attention to local ordinances: criminals. Due to local policy permitting convicted criminals and
low-level offenders like shoplifters and home burglars to walk free, there are those among us
who will foment violence in hope of personal gain using whatever arms they have at their
disposal, regardless of local arms bans. To prohibit "the carrying or possession of a
firearm..." by a law-abiding citizen is a clear violation of the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and also the Washington State Constitution. It is also an illogical response
to this crisis. To disarm the public at large is to leave them vulnerable to the criminal element.
there are not enough "peace officers or military personnel" to protect every citizen at every
location. As a law-abiding citizen who works in Edmonds, I urge the Edmonds City Council to
reconsider this policy and remove this section from your emergency ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 23
3/24 Bill Hirt, Subject: Why I'm a Candidate for Governo The 3/23/20 post on my blog
http://stopeastlinknow.blogspot.com opines my candidacy for governor is the latest attempt to
make up for the Seattle Times decade of abetting Sound Transit perpetrating a failed approach
to the area's transportation problems. That billions and years have already been wasted on
light rail extensions to East Link and Northgate that will increase congestion, lose access for
current riders, and exacerbate fare -box revenue shortfall. Those problems will be dwarfed if
Sound Transit is allowed to proceed with ST3 extensions to Lynnwood and beyond and Federal
Way and beyond.
3/24 Steve Chancellor, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights — remove section G
from your emergency ordinance.
I find it appalling that the Edmonds City Council would want to make criminals out of law
abiding citizens. Your proposed order, section G, to prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying a
firearm or any other undefined instrument is ludicrous. A law abiding citizen does not carry a
firearm with the intent to use it to cause anyone any harm. The law abiding citizen only carries
a firearm, or other undefined instrument, for self-defense. Elected government, no matter what
level, isn't in place to oppress the law abiding citizenry. Section G only hurts the law abiding
citizen and emboldens the true criminals visit Edmonds. Trying to burry the ill-conceived section
G language in your emergency code and vote it in under the dark of night is criminal on your
part. We live in a free society. You need to leave law abiding free citizens alone and worry
about criminals and other non -law abiding people. Seems to me that is one of the things we
elected you for.
3/24 Doug Lafferty, Subject: Edmonds municipal code 6.60.090 Orders during emergency
I am writing to you all to express my sincere disapproval concerning City of Edmonds municipal
code 6.60.090, section G, regarding the carrying or possession of a firearm. This ordinance is
an egregious violation of our constitutional rights. -United States Constitution, Bill of Rights,
Second Amendment; A well -regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infrinned. In District of Columbia v.
Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals -Washington
State Constitution, Article I Section 24; RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual
citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired... As such, your
restriction to carry and possess firearms is a violation of law abiding citizens right to protect
themselves and others at a time when they most need to do so. It is my hope the council holds
their oaths of office and to the constitutions and remove this section from the ordinance.
3/24 Carolyn Strong, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance.
It disturbs me that in your ordinance you are voting to ratify tonight, that you have included
language that infringes on the Right to Bear Arms.
No government -- certainly not a city -- can prohibit citizens from carrying or possessing a
firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the Washington state
Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."),I believe this is illegal, sets the city up for multiple
lawsuits and is tyrannical in its implication. At a time when people are fearful of government
take-over, when our normal lives are disrupted, our work and income has been removed, I
believe a threat that allows our Constitutional Rights to be trampled on is irresponsible and
outrageous. This clause creates fear and anxiety, needlessly. As a US citizen we have an
UNFRINGABLE Right to carry a weapon and to defend ourselves from harm. America was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 24
based on freedoms, Rights and limited government power. I believe your actions including gun
language in your ordinance is beyond your power, your responsibility and beyond the
Constitution. 7 or 8 people do not get to override the Constitution. Please remove this language
from the Ordinance.
3/24 Jim Simpson, Subject: Item for Discussion at Tonight's City Council Meeting
I appreciate your responses. I appreciate your time dedication to the Community. I'm just very
concerned that amount of power can be given in an Emergency Order given on a Sunday
without Public Comment. Be Safe!
3/24 Jim Simpson, Subject: Item for Discussion at Tonight's City Council Meeting
Just watched the section on 6.60 and it was extremely confusing. Is the Ordinance in effect or
Not?
3/24 Jim Simpson, Subject: Item for Discussion at Tonight's City Council Meeting
I Have grave concerns about the Emergency Powers that you are to vote on in tonight's Council
Meeting. I do understand that we are going thru unprecedented times but you mare asking for
extraordinary powers that I do not believe are Constitutional. Of Biggest Concern 6.60.090
Section G: You say it is illegal "to have Possession of a Firearm". Could you please clarify this?
Does this mean that anybody who has legally purchased and stores a Firearm is now
considered Breaking the law? That's sure what it looks like. Please describe or clarify before it is
put in to law. Also Part E CONCERNING Gasoline sales: How are you to fill your Generators or
any other Equipment during an Emergency? Your proposed rules on shutting down business's
and Bars are also much to restrictive and leave far too much power to you. Please reconsider
the Power you are asking for.
Susan Shotthafer, Subject: Protect and Defend Our Second Amendment
You possess no legal authority to deprive American citizens of their God-given, natural right to
self-defense i.e. our right to protect our lives, liberty, and property. Our U.S. Constitution,
specifically our Second Amendment, and our WA State Constitution protect our entitlement to
self-defense. These Constitutions remain superior to any local government ordinances, laws, or
edicts. In courtrooms, nationwide and in our U.S. Supreme Court, legal dense foundations such
as Mountain States Legal Foundation and the NRA Legal Foundation win against such local
edicts, proving over and over again, that these local provisions are entirely unconstitutional. Can
you possibly be unaware of such rulings? Any attempt to use the covid19 virus lock -down as
reason or excuse to violate our right to self-defense is senseless and foolishly irresponsible. As
an elected official, you took and an oath to protect and defend our Constitution, and therefore —
our constitutional rights. Think wisely. Do not violate your oath and our natural rights.
3/24 Katrin Sperry, Subject: Martial Law
Is it true you are banning people from protecting themselves with their legal guns in this
frightening time?
3/24 Kelly Swanty, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights — remove section G from
your emergency ordinance.
Please do not mess with anything doing with the 2nd Amendment.
3/24 Dan Moline, Subject: 2nd Amendment constitution rights
We as people in your town or all across the state of Washington have the right to concealed
carry, for those of us that are qualified and have the right to defend ourselves, our families and
friends. You and council members do no have the right to abuse your elected office of power by
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 25
taking advantage of the coronavirus, over law abiding gun owners of Edmonds or any town in
the state of Washington. No need to fear us, however you might want to rethink your agenda.
Pro NRA ,Pro 2ndA and Pro CCRKBA
3/24 Rick Pratt, Subject: 2nd amendment attack
Our constitution and rights are NOT subject to the whims or desires of some small town mayor,
or anyone else who would remove them! Please quit using this pandemic to strip people of their
rights. You work for us and should be working to HELP us, not strip us of our rights.
3/24 Kreshenda Hughes, Subject: Edmonds City does not have the authority to pass Section G
in Ordinance 4177.
How dare you take away the ability of self defence from residence of Edmonds. How dare you
take away my ability to stay alive and without harm. I have someone in my past who has
threatened me with bodily harm and death by his own hands. He still lives in Washington state
and knows where I work. No, a protective order will not stop him, he doesn't care. No, my
screams will not be loud enough to scare him away. No, me dialing emergency (if I even had the
chance) will not stop him. No, me spraying him with pepper spray will just enrage him
more. Maybe one of you will volunteer to be my personal bodyguard to protect me at all times?
.. no takers? I didn't think so. I cannot let that person get within physical reach of me. Because if
he can, he will carry out his promise to kill me with his bare hands. You are elected officials that
are supposed to uphold the Washington State Constitution and the US Constitution. Who do
you think you are to try and pass laws that blatantly go against them? Why would you do
something so unlawful? I am a law abiding citizen. I lawfully follow the laws of the State and
Country. I am outweighed by a particular violent, angry man by seventy pounds. A narcissistic,
prone to outbursts, creepy individual who has threatened to kill me in no less than 74 texts and
emails. This is why I have a firearm and carry it with me at all times. My life is worth protecting.
How dare you declare it isn't.
3/24 Brett Bass, Subject: Testimony for the record of proposed emergency mayoral powers
My name is Brett Bass. I've lived in the beautiful city of Edmonds since 2016. By way of
introduction, I was honorably discharged from the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve less than a year
ago after two enlistments. I separated from the service as a Sergeant of Marines, having
graduated near the top of my class from USMC Military Police School class 05-07. During my
time in uniform, I was mobilized to active duty on three occasions and served overseas in four
countries on two continents in two theaters of the Global War on Terrorism. I volunteered for
each deployment and I volunteered to extend each deployment as well. I now work as a
program manager for Forefront Suicide Prevention. I'm in charge of the Safer Homes, Suicide
Aware program, which carries out the objectives of Washington state's Safer Homes Task
Force. I had previously served as a volunteer for the Task Force since before day one. From
2018-2019, 1 drove over ten thousand miles across our state, distributing thousands of free
lockboxes for medications and safes for firearms from Vancouver to Walla Walla to Lynden and
Republic. Due to the nature of my normal work, I have not had the opportunity to attend a city
council meeting before tonight. I am also a certified rifle and pistol marksmanship instructor for
Bellevue Gun Club, where I have worked since shortly after returning from Afghanistan. I have
trained thousands of students in the safe, legally -responsible, ethical, and responsible use of
firearms. My clientele has consisted of civilian law enforcement & corrections officers, private
security personnel, members of the armed forces, domestic violence survivors, women who
have survived home invasions, new arrivals to our republic, and countless other peaceful
citizens. Both of my professions require a heavy emphasis on data. How do rates of criminal
activity influence sluice rates? What does a statistically -average home invasion scenario look
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 26
like? How effective are policies compared to culture change? As it pertains to the emergency
powers proposed in section "G" there are a number of presumed assumptions that I would like
to address. Implicit in empowering the mayor to ban the carry of possession of firearms is the
belief that all persons who do so are a threat to the citizens of our community. This assumption
cannot be supported by empirical data. In studies conducted by the Crime Research Prevention
Center of arrest and carry license revocation data for all states who make such data public, it
has been consistently found that those who have been issued licenses to carry are among both
the most law-abiding and safest of demographics; even more so than police officers (who are
already extremely law-abiding and safe). I say this with the utmost respect, having served as a
military policeman and in partnership with numerous civilian police agencies and individual
officers.There is no data to suggest that imposing penalties against citizens who are lawfully
carrying firearms in order to see to their personal safety will in any way improve the public safety
of Edmonds. In fact, it is my opinion that tasking our invaluable police officers to arrest lawfully -
armed citizens is a wild misallocation of scarce emergency services during a time of real and
genuine crisis. It is imperative that the public trust that their first responders are doing
everything that they can to help our medical personnel and other emergency personnel and not
arbitrarily persecuting our most law-abiding, many of whom have served in uniform. We must
commit resources to protecting the community, not break the trust of the public by turning our
public servants against the most vetted and law-abiding residents. The social fabric is frayed.
Do not further tear it. Next, legality. It is simply a matter of both constitutional and longstanding,
recently -reinforced law that subdivisions of government smaller that the state do not have the
legal authority to pass firearm laws. I was a plaintiff in the case against the city last year on just
these grounds. The superior court agreed. Again. This is to say nothing of Article 1, Section 24
of our state's constitution, which is even more explicit that our republic's second amendment.
Mayors do not have the power —regardless of what city councils decide —to obviate emphatic
constitutionally protected rights, even in times of significant duress. Our community has
weathered dramatic crises without trampling on constitutional rights before. Or nation has also
failed to live up to our founding ideals in trying times. In World War 11, our government interred
thousands of citizens in camps out of fear. Power delegated to the mayor to deprive citizens of
their rights —especially of self-defense while in a time of crisis —is illegitimate and indefensible,
philosophically or legally. It is a failure to live up to our shared founding principles. It is caving
to fear when leadership is needed. This measure must be amended to remove provision "G".
We can safeguard our neighbors and our community without entertaining provisions that
unambiguously run into constitutional rights. I would also like to speak briefly of the disparity of
risk between government and governed. In my previous suit against the city, I held to this
problem: State preemption is a statutory law of Washington, codified in the RCWs for several
decades. When the city passed an ordinance in violation of this statute, neither the council nor
any member of it suffered any personal consequences. If 1, as a private citizen, opted to make
a statement by violating a state firearm statute, I would be arrested, prosecuted, and
presumably convicted. I would personally bear the consequences of my action. If these
extraordinary emergency powers are used, it is not the city that bears the risk. It's the individual
citizen. The citizen doesn't have a legal right to —or reasonable demand of —police protection.
Numerous court precedents have clearly established this. Addendum and conclusion: I learned
of this proposed emergency ordinance at roughly five o'clock in the afternoon (a scant two hours
prior to the council meeting). I prepared testimony, changed into more professional attire, and
went to city hall to deliver my concerns to my local government. In my haste, I didn't observe
any notification that public testimony would not be permitted either at city hall or the municipal
building where the `hearing' was conducted. All guidelines for public gatherings were observed
(only ten individuals, including me, were in attendance, and all chairs were arranged very far
apart in order to allow social distancing —they had been very carefully set up for the meeting by
the facilities staff). Various attendees asked the very professional facilitators of the Zoom
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 27
meeting when we would have the opportunity to sign in or testify. I wondered when public
comment would be read from the stated hundreds of emails from the public, but
(understandably) no such time came. When repeated inquiries to the meeting facilitator(s)
and —from what I gathered —text exchanges with one or more members of the council itself
didn't allow an opportunity for those of us in attendance the opportunity to speak, a decision was
made by others in attendance along with the employee managing the Zoom meeting that all we
had left to petition our local government for redress of grievances was to stand on -camera
behind the gentleman running the computer and ask to speak. The meeting went on recess and
within minutes, a number of very polite and professional members of the Edmonds Police
Department arrived on -scene. The sergeant in change deserves greasy credit for tact,
professionalism, and diplomacy. It was eventually explained to us that the Public Meetings Act
has been suspended and that the municipal building was no longer open to the public. We left.
I tidied up the chairs on my way out. This was the first time I had been able to directly engage
with my local government. I care about our community and our inalienable civil rights enough to
hazard a literal pandemic in order to make my voice heard. I left when armed agents of that
government who were just doing their jobs advised me and nine other citizens that no
accommodation would be made to facilitate our right to engage with our elected representatives
over my concerns that the city was passing a poorly -worded ordinance with potential
ramifications on our civil rights to keep and bear arms during a national emergency. Please
understand that this was easily the most heartbroken I have ever been in all my years of
engagement with government. The optics from my perspective are profoundly troubling. How
we uphold our first principles and civil rights —even for out groups —in times of crisis reflects
upon who we are as a people. They help share who we become when the crisis is passed. Stay
safe and thank you for your time.
3/24 Joel Helle, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from your
emergency ordinance.
I have a right to carry a firearm to protect myself. This right doesn't apply just while I'm in my
house or on my property. You need to worry about criminals with guns .... not law abiding
citizens who wish to defend themselves, and defend others.
3/24 Marc Nagel, Subject: Why are you trying to take away our rights?!
There is no good reason and it is unlawful for you to prohibit citizens from carrying or
possessing a firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the Washington
state Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."). Please remove this language from
your emergency ordinance. This would never stand up in a court of law and you are just asking
for trouble by trying to sneak this into this ordinance. Be sensible and do the right thing!
3/24 Randy Garl, Subject: Please protect our rights
Below is what I understand that will be voted on tonight, please vote to protect our
Constitutional Rights and not vote to pass something out of Fear. These type of items are when
the true believers of our Constitution stand up for what we have always believed and not be
persuaded to back down. The fear itself is much worse in the long run for our people than any
obstacle we may face. Thanks for your time.
3/24 Ron Johnson, Subject: Anti 2A Agenda
Five out of five criminals surveyed support your measure to disarm law abiding citizens
from being able to protect themselves and their families. Nice job
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 28
3/24 Andy Schwartz, Subject: RE: Don't vote against our second -amendment rights.
What's wrong with you people in the Seattle area. Are there any real men in that neck of the
woods any more? And what's up with all the women on the Council. That's a major, major
problem. The ladies on the Council ought to be home taking care of their husbands, children
and/or grandchildren, doing the hard work of making a good home for their families. They ought
not to be governing because they are incapable of making the kinds of decisions that God
Almighty equipped men to make. Accordingly, a vote on banning the carrying of a permitted
concealed weapon. Are you kidding me? The very wisest thing all of you women could and
should do is resign your positions immediately and go home. Then endorse a strong man for
your position. And you men, surely the planned gun restriction cannot be a product of your
manly minds. So in the name of all that's right, stand firm against the ladies. Be real men. Take
off your nylons and go to work. Maybe watch a good John Wayne movie so you can have some
idea of what manliness looks like. I suggest "The Sands of Iwo Jima". That's a good plan for
the next City Council Meeting. Learn to be strong, even publicly strong so your strength can be
seen by others. Your constituency, in their hearts of heart, male and female, is looking for real
men who will stand firm for what is right. Be heroes for them. Be brave, strong and bold. Gun
packers are the best of men, prepared to defend themselves from the worst of men, per the 2nd
Amendment, while protecting law abiding citizens who are defenseless, weak, and afraid. And
by all means, all of you, get a clue. We have the best governing document ever known to
man. Abide by it instead of attempting to violate it. Our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights,
is not to be trifled with! It is the right of every American to keep and bear arms and should
remain so!
3/24 Kay Ahlburg, Subject: Please repeal unconstitutional Section 6.60.090.G of the Edmonds
City Code
I respectfully request that you immediately repeal Section 6.60.090.G of the Edmonds City
Code allowing "An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of a firearm". It is blatantly
unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 24
of the Washington State Constitution, and the state preemption statute in RCW 9.41.290. All it
takes to remove this provision is for one councilmember to make a motion to amend, another
councilmember to second it, discussion, and then a council vote. With this unconstitutional
restriction you are opening yourselves and the City of Edmonds up to a multitude of lawsuits,
invite civil disobedience on a massive scale, potentially place law enforcement officials in harm's
way if they unconstitutionally try to take legally owned and carried guns from citizens, and
contribute to unnecessarily spreading alarm and panic. Not currently planning to make use of
this provision would be no reason for failing to remove it promptly. You can not bind future City
Councils as to actions they might take. If there is no intention of ever using this illegal provision
and it has never been used, surely no harm can be done by repealing it. If there is an intention
to engage in a blatant violation of the constitutional and civil rights of the citizens of Edmonds by
applying Section 6.60.090.G, all the more reason to take a step back and repeal this provision.
Nor would the fact that some other cities may have similar illegal and unconstitutional provisions
in their municipal codes be a valid reason not act. If the offending unconstitutional provision
dealt with restricting voting rights or the rights of minorities, no one would consider it to be an
acceptable answer to say: "Don't worry, we've never invoked it and have no current intention of
doing so, and some other cities have the same antiquated provision in their codes, so let's just
leave it in place." Thank you for your consideration.
3/24 Mason Chaussee, Subject: Please - Do not attack OUR 2nd Amendment rights — remove
section G from your emergency ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 29
Please do not pass this bill. Myself and other law abiding citizens that travel to or live in the City
of Edmonds would be affected. This will not make Edmonds more safe. It will infringe on our
individual rights and liberties. I am disgusted that you are taking advantage of your 2nd
amendment supporting citizens who are distracted during a time of fear and uncertainty caused
by the Corona Virus which has killed 110 Washingtonians. Actions made unjustly that use
human suffering to hide or disguise them should not be allowed. I stand with Tim Eyman and
ask that you make the motions necessary to amend and vote to remove section G from your
emergency ordinance.
3/24 Jason Jacobs, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights — remove section G from
your emergency ordinance
THIS IS WRONG!!!! You can not do this. I am a Seattle/ Edmonds native, 4th Generation. All
my family and friends still live in the Edmonds/ Lynnwood area. If you pass this I will do
everything in my power to ensure you are NOT REELECTED!!!!
3/24 Courtney Persson, Subject: Is now really the time to attack our rights?
I find it despicable that such an attempt to limit our right to defend ourselves is being proposed
in such a time as this. Our state is already under enough stress without making people feel even
more unsafe by denying them the right to defend themselves if they are out getting some much
needed (and even encouraged by the Governor) fresh air and exercise.
3/24 Sandra Higgins, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance.
I just heard you are voting on prohibiting firearms. Why? This is unconstitutional or very
wrong. Please do not vote for this.
3/24 Joshua Freed, Subject: Public
You have a group in your chambers that would like to have public comment on your gun
restriction Ordinance 4177.
3/24 Dave Robson Deming, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section
G from your emergency ordinance. My high school teachers instilled in me a great interest in
U.S. History and how our constitution anchored our freedoms. Watching our nation function as I
grew older, a great respect for the constitution and its amendments solidified trust in its tenets.
That foundation was a major factor in deciding to give four years to our military, honoring,
respecting and protecting its tenets. No aspect of the constitution or its amendments are to be
deluded or sacrificed for any crisis or emergency! I'd like to respond to what I hope to be just an
unfounded rumor. Holding a public meeting but denying the public to voice their opinions and/or
feelings is untenable! My history interest background equates such activity to third world
dictators and despots. I certainly hope none of our current governing bodies anywhere in this
state or nation fall into that description.
3/24 Bruce Guthrie, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance.
I don't want women to be raped. I don't want gays and lesbians and trans folks to be lynched. I
know that the police can not be everywhere and that our police resources will be stressed in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 30
these difficult times. So I want women and the LGBT community to be armed to defend
themselves. Your ordinance will make it harder for them to possess a firearm for self defense,
but the rapists and murderers and homophobes and thieves will think nothing of violating your
new ordinance. It will not help the problem, and will only hurt the vulenarable. I defend the
rights of women and members of the LGBTQ community. Will you? No government -- certainly
not a city -- can prohibit citizens from carrying or possessing a firearm. It violates the US
Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the Washington state Constitution's Article 1, Section 24
("the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be
impaired."). Your legislation is also illegal (KOMO 4 NEWS: Bellingham to pay $15,000 to a man
who was threatened by a police officer for wearing a holstered gun in a city park --
htt s.Ilkomonews.com/archive/bel/in ha►n-to- a-15000-to-man-who-wore- un-in- ark). After
the council listens to public testimony during this open public meeting, all it takes to remove this
anti-2A provision is for one councilmember to make a motion to amend the emergency
ordinance, another councilmember to second it, discuss it, then the council will vote to remove
it. There is absolutely no justification for this blatantly unconstitutional -- and illegal -- provision
and your emergency ordinance should be modified to remove it. Please confirm you received
my email message.
3/24 avid Smailes, Subject: Must Read
As a retired law enforcement officer I think your attempt to disarm citizens is wrong. I feel you
are doing this during the crisis to get away with it. I want to let you know I will always conceal
carry even in your town and I also have federal HR 218 for Law Enforcement Safety Act to carry
anywhere in the US. I think it's wrong to play this game.
3/24 Paul Talbott, Subject: 2nd Amendment
I demand that the city council upholds my constitutional rights! The Constitution states "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
3/24 Gary Allen, Subject: Please Remove Section G from your Emergency Ordinance
Section G is a solution to a problem that does not exist within the context of the present health
crisis. In addition, no city government has standing to prohibit citizens from carrying or
possessing a firearm when otherwise legal under state law; such prohibition is not only
proscribed by Washington State's preemption law, it also violates the US Constitution's Second
Amendment and Washington State Constitution Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual
citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."). Court precedent
has already established that your legislation is unsupported by law: KOMO 4 NEWS:
Bellingham to pay $15, 000 to a man who was threatened by a police officer for wearing a
holstered gun in a city park (see httns:/Ikomonews.com/archivelbellingham-to-pay-15000-to-
man-who-wore-pun-in-park). Now, before it is too late, the city council can avoid a losing stance
in future litigation. Please remove Section G before your ordinance is enacted. Allow testimony
from at least one person in opposition to Section G (this is being considered in an open public
session, is it not?). Then it would take only one council member to move amending the
emergency ordinance to remove Section G and another council member to second that
motion. Following discussion, simply hold a council vote on removal. Failing to allow public
testimony, failing to put this matter to a council vote, or failing a majority in favor of removing
Section G, will open the city to lawsuit backed by Washington residents from all corners of the
state. There is more at stake here than a mere quibble about misguided feel -good language
copied from some other city's already -enacted ordinance. As it stands, your proposed ordinance
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 31
is an attack on the the right - and the means - of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves
against criminal attack. That is an inalienable right, and a right that is protected by the
Constitution of the State of Washington and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. I urge you to take a common-sense approach to the blatantly unconstitutional and illegal — provisions of Section G. Avoid costly future repercussions by amending your
emergency ordinance to remove Section G. The entire State of Washington is attentively
following this matter.
3/24 Bill Schwartz, Subject: Don't vote against our second -amendment rights.
I understand that your agenda for tonight's meeting includes a proposed provision that would
outlaw the carrying of a concealed weapon on one's person in your city. I want to strongly voice
my disagreement with such an action, and with the notion that you have the authority to deny
any citizen of the United States any of their constitutional rights. What's next? Will you be
coming forward with a requirement that all city residents must belong to a "state
religion?" Please think about the implications of what you are considering. Isn't it likely that
Edmonds residents who legally carry guns currently will resist such an order? Furthermore, isn't
it likely that residents who legally own guns, but don't usually "carry", will begin to pack a
weapon, out of fear that their right -to -carry will be taken away? If you pass this, you can count
on a huge rush by residents to buy guns. While your goal may be to reduce or eliminate the
carrying of weapons, the passage of this measure would result in the opposite. This is not China
or Cuba or Iran. This is the USA, and we Americans have certain unalienable rights. Please
respect those rights.
3/24 Joe Fioretti, Subject: Unconstitutional Emergency Ordinance
We have every right to bear arms as the Constitution of the United States clearly states.
Therefore, whoever drafted this ordinance is ignorant of the law if they believe poorly drafted
municipal laws usurp federal law. Unless the Council wants to find itself embroiled in a lengthy
and costly lawsuit, may I suggest you strike this illegal language from your playbook.
3/24 Ken Reidy, Subject: AUDIENCE COMMENTS (SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL) for March 24,
2020 City Council Meeting
As I have yet to receive a response confirming receipt of my Audience Comments, I am
emailing them in a second time. The City has encouraged: THAT THE PUBLIC BE
ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN WRITING; During the
March 17, 2020 Council Meeting, Councilmember Buckshnis said comments could be emailed
and read during the meeting. Please read my Audience Comments out loud during
tonight's meeting. I'd also appreciate confirmation from somebody that my Audience
Comments have been received. Thank you.
3/24 Ken Reidy, Subject: AUDIENCE COMMENTS (SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL) for March 24,
2020 City Council Meeting
Please read these comments into the minutes during tonight's City Council Meeting: The City
Council has an opportunity tonight to ratify or modify the stay-at-home order issued Sunday
night by Mayor Mike Nelson. I recommend City Council does neither, voiding the order. My
Edmonds News is reporting that Governor Jay Inslee's statewide order, announced Monday, in
effect does the same things that Mayor Nelson's order does. As the City's enforcement focus
will be on education and the City is really seeking voluntary compliance, one can easily argue
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 32
that Mayor Nelson's stay-at-home order is no longer necessary. After voiding the order, I urge
City Council to review what took place on Sunday afternoon and ask Mayor Nelson and City
Attorney Taraday to explain why there was no discussion of the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), a Plan dated January 2017 recently
approved on April 18, 2017. The City's CEMP is important to the City operationally and it is a
legally required document. The CEMP describes the basic strategies, assumptions, objectives
and operational protocols which will guide the City's emergency management efforts through
preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. To facilitate effective operations, the City's
CEMP utilizes an Emergency Support Function (ESF) approach. Each ESF identifies the City
Department primarily responsible for organizing response actions related to that ESF, as well as
support departments and agencies. The CEMP is a 265-page long document. The CEMP
states on Page 39 that "This CEMP will be updated every four years". As such, I believe the
CEMP needs to be updated later this year and it may make more sense to update E.C.0 6.60 at
the same time. I didn't hear any discussion of the CEMP Sunday. I also don't see the CEMP
discussed in the Agenda Packet for tonight's March 24, 2020 City Council Meeting. I don't see
any discussion of the ESF in the Agenda Packet for tonight's City Council Meeting either. Were
all members of the City Council aware of the CEMP and the ESF prior to your vote
Sunday? Was there anything else you might not have been aware of before your vote on
Sunday? The CEMP clearly states that City of Edmonds Ordinance 2224 and Municipal Code
6.60 are part of the authorities and references used in the completion of the 2017 version of the
City's CEMP. It appears this topic has been looked at in detail in recent years. In January
of 2019, the City posted a job opening for the position of Safety and Disaster Coordinator
that referenced the CEMP. The CEMP clearly states that the Mayor or his/her successor may
proclaim special emergency orders under Edmonds Municipal Code 6.60. As I believe City
Council did not consider all details prior to voting to pass Ordinance 4177 on Sunday, March 22,
2020, 1 believe City Council should immediately repeal Ordinance No. 4177. Please do so and
undertake a comprehensive review of this complex issue in the future. Please also allow
citizens an opportunity to be involved in this very important legislative process. In addition, new
Ordinance No. 4177 refers to something called the "Emergency services coordinating agency
(ESCA)". I suspect such does not exist. If one clicks on the link to such on the City's website, it
takes you to a website about getting a license to drive in the state of Texas. Had the Council
reviewed and discussed the CEMP on Sunday, March 22nd, Council likely would have noted that
page 8 of the document indicates that Al Compaan discussed removal of references to ESCA in
October, 2016. 1 think it best to start this process over by repealing Ordinance No. 4177.
Finally, I think it important to review whether former Mayor Earling and Mayor Nelson failed in
their duty to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is
maintained in the city. Such is mandatory under E.C.C. 2.01.010 [Ord. 2349 § 2, 1983].
Specifically, a review of their enforcement of City of Edmonds Ordinance 2224 and E.C.C. 6.60
is called for. Was the Emergency management organization required by E.C.C. 6.60.035 in
place? Specifically, were the following positions, required by E.C.C. 6.60.035 in place prior to
City Council passing Ordinance No. 4177 on March 22, 2020?:
1. Disaster Coordinator
2. Emergency Operations Board
3. Emergency Management Committee
In conclusion, please do not ratify or modify the Mayor's stay-at-home order, voiding the
order. Governor Inslee's order accomplishes essentially the same thing. Please also repeal
Ordinance No. 4177 to allow a comprehensive review of this complex issue and to allow citizens
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 33
an opportunity to be involved in this very important legislative process. Please make sure any
new code adopted is consistent with the CEMP. Please consider updating the code concurrently
with the update to the CEMP. And please review whether our current and past Mayor had us
prepared for this current situation by complying with E.C.C. 6.60.035. Thank you. Please know
that your hard work on behalf of our citizens is greatly appreciated.
3/24 Wayne Howarth, Subject: What is the matter you people?
So now you are following Bellingham by preparing to vote on your emergency ordinance that
includes language that is clearly in violation of both the Washington State and
US Constitution.Why don't you understand the implications of such laws, they give the "bad
guys" an open license to do what ever they want without any fear of people being able to defend
themselves. It seems very clear you have no idea what this type of actions long term effect
could be. It cab cause a breakdown in the freedoms Americas have enjoyed for 100s of years. I
appeal to you to at least investigate the legality of this type of action with the State and Federal
Department of Justice. Server your people and not you own policy agendas.
3/24 David Ford, Subject: Firearms restrictions
Please do not pass this restriction on possession of firearms by lawful citizens. This move will
be the source of great contention during this delicate time in our nation. Many already feel our
government leaders are exercising too much power as it is. Please do not attempt to limit lawful
citizen's right to defend their life.
3/24 Michael Smith, Subject: please remove restriction on firearms
In these troubled times please do not prohibit the constitutional right of citizens to carry or
possess firearms - your charter is unconstitutional where it talks about this -please remove this
language today H
3/24 Ty Rogel, Subject: Please reconsider infringing upon the 2nd amendment rights of
Americans
I love Edmonds, it's a great town and delightful place to visit. I understand that i have no voting
rights within the city of Edmonds however i do understand that actions taken by your city council
may influence other city councils to follow your leadership. I wanted to be sure to encourage you
to reconsider what the municipal government's role is in protecting the rights of it's citizens
during a time of crisis which we are currently experiencing. I would strongly urge you all to
remember that precisely during a time of uncertainty men and women MUST be allowed to the
right to freely carry weapons for personal protections, and in order to protect the weak if
necessary during a time when law enforcement, and even military could become easily
overwhelmed. Please remember that each of us as citizens should be encouraged to be self-
sufficient in the protection of our vulnerable neighbors and ourselves in order so as not to be a
burden on law enforcement. No government -- certainly not a city -- can prohibit citizens from
carrying or possessing a firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the
Washington state Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen to bear
arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."). Your legislation is also illegal
(KOMO 4 NEWS: Bellingham to pay $15,000 to a man who was threatened by a police officer
for wearing a holstered gun in a city park--https:Ilkomonews.Gam/archive/be//Ingham-to-pay
15000-to-man-who-ware-qun-rn park}. After the council listens to public testimony during this
open public meeting, all it takes to remove this anti-2A provision is for one councilmember to
make a motion to amend the emergency ordinance, another councilmember to second it,
discuss it, then the council will vote to remove it. There is absolutely no justification for this
blatantly unconstitutional -- and illegal -- provision and your emergency ordinance should be
modified to remove it. Please confirm you received my email message.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 34
3/24 Roberta Martin, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance.
I have been an Edmonds City citizen for 30 years. This is an outrageous grab for power! I will
be in attendance at the meeting.
3/24 John Fannon, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance.
As a fellow American and legal resident of Washington, I am inquiring why you would even
consider this? Have you ask yourself's if, you are still an American? Do you support and defend
the Constitution of the United States and Washington State? If the response is you are not an
American and don't support the stated constitutions then, you should remove yourselves from
your respective offices. If you do support the before mentioned constitutions then remove
section G from your emergency ordinance. No government and certainly not a city, can prohibit
citizens from carrying or possessing a firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment
and the Washington state Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen
to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."). Your legislation is also
illegal (KOMO 4 NEWS: Bellingham to pay $15,000 to a man who was threatened by a police
officer for wearing a holstered gun in a city park -- httl)s://komonews.com/archive/bellingham-to-
pay-15000-to-man-who-wore-qun-in-park). After the council listens to public testimony during
this open public meeting, all it takes to remove this anti-2A provision is for one council member
to make a motion to amend the emergency ordinance, another council member to second it,
discuss it, then the council will vote to remove it. There is absolutely no justification for this
blatantly unconstitutional and illegal provision and your emergency ordinance should be
modified to remove it. My recommendation is for you to remove it forthwith! Please confirm you
received my email message.
3/24 Gregg Allyn, Subject: Please Revise ECC 6.60.090 List of Emergent Mayoral Orders
Thank you for your public service in general and to the citizens of the city of Edmonds.
It is crucial that no law shall violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, even
in a time of crisis... especially when those very rights may be crucial to protecting and helping
their own families and friends, such as during a crisis that warrants drastic Mayoral
orders.Certain items in the list under ECC 6.60.090 would make it illegal for law-abiding citizens
to protect themselves or help their families and friends during a crisis. In the event that the
Mayor deems it necessary to order drastic action it may well be beyond the capabilities of
government (at any level) to help most law-abiding citizens, and it would fall to citizens to
protect and help themselves, their families, and their friends.) respectfully request that the list
of Mayoral orders under ECC 6.60.090 be revised such that it neither explicitly nor
implicitly restricts the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens to protect or help
themselves, their families, and their friends. Clearly one intent of such emergent Mayoral
orders is to permit law enforcement to crack down on bands of roving thugs or vigilantes, but
such orders must be carefully considered and worded such that they do not also prohibit a
group of families or friends who are simply trying to protect themselves from said roving
bands. Please keep this intent, but please also preserve our constitutional rights to
protect ourselves in a time of crisis. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration
of my request.
3/24 Wayne Palmer, Subject: Second Amendment Rights
What is this? You're copying word-for-word what Bellingham is attempting. Please note: the
Second Amendment is not a suggestion, it is a God-given right enumerated in both the US and
Washington State Constitution. Studies have all shown that Concealed -carry holders are some
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 35
of the most law-abiding people that you would ever see. A have to laugh at the language,
too. Section G says "intent to use the same to cause ... harm" Because words mean things
because I don't intend to cause harm, I'm perfectly within your law to carry. This is the same as
"motive" in criminal cases. Is that what you want" Anyway, you are probably not aware of the
flack caused by officials trying to confiscate weapons during Hurricane Katrina. These orders
were found to be totally at odds with the Constitution. Here's a link to that:
https://www. nrai la. org/articles/20150821 /a -decade -I ate r-reme m ber-new-orlea n s-g un-
confiscation-can-and-has-h pened-in-america By including section G, you're opening up a real
can of worms. Now is the time to strike it. Thanks for reading this, and reviewing the link above.
3/24 Chris Jones, Subject: Please provide unifying Public Leadership
Thank you for taking a moment of your time to read my email. Please provide unifying Public
Leadership tonight at a time when all of our communities need the example. Now is not the time
to have on the table community -dividing issues with long histories of emotional and passionate
debate. Help to bring us all together at an important moment of community definition. Thank you
all for all that you have done well so far ... please continue to enact only inclusive policies.
3/24 Allan Vanderhamm, Subject: Your attack on law abiding citizens is wrong
Law abiding citizens have a federal and state constitutional right to protect themselves. With
police overburdened and criminals on the streets this time of crisis is a perfect example of a
time when carrying weapons by the law abiding reduces the risk for all. When criminals know
the citizens are disarmed they are more prone to commit crimes and violence. You are breaking
the law if you pass ordnances restricting our rights. You should then be arrested and
prosecuted to the full extent of the law for your crimes. You certainly should not represent us in
government with this attitude.
3/24 Don Armstrong, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance. Do not be the catalyst for a new revolution. Any restriction of our
gun rights is exactly why we need those rights in the first place. When things go bad, you can
not protect me or my family. I will protect my gun rights to the death. I hope you do not force
me to prove that.
3/24 Ron Marlett, Subject: Section G of the proposed emergency ordinance violates the state
constitution, article 1 section 24. The Edmunds city council does not have the authority to
disregard the state constitution under any circumstances. Nothing in the code should imply that
they do have that illegal authority... This right and state law pre-eminence has been upheld in
court with the city of Bellingham loosing its case after threatening action against the owner of a
legally carried firearm in a city park. The city's ordinance forbidding this was found to be
illegal ... V/r Ron Marlett, concerned individual citizen of Washington state.
3/24 Eric Rohrbach, Subject: Protecting citizen safety
I am absolutely stunned that someone would propose a potential emergency order that would
deny law-abiding citizens their constitutional right to defend themselves or their family,
especially when the entire country is currently in the midst of a major public health emergency
where government agencies are releasing jail occupants early and local police are announcing
the will not act on "low level" crimes. Are you trying to scare people to death? Are not panic
runs on toilet paper enough for you? You want to create runs on gun stores? Most of the
country has already learned from Hurricane Katrina (and other such incidents), when you have
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 36
a community emergency you will need the law-abiding citizens in a community, with their
constitutionally protected defense capabilities, to assist in maintaining public order and private
safety. And citizens have certainly learned that when things get bad, they will likely be THE
ONLY public safety capability standing between themselves and those who might potentially
want to threaten them. Stand with the law-abiding citizens in Edmonds and remove this
unconstitutional and inflammatory language from the proposed law.
3/24 Ken Reidy, Subject: AUDIENCE COMMENTS (SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL) for March 24,
2020 City Council Meeting
Thanks Diane, 65 comments is a lot. I understand that is far too many to read out loud. I hope
all councilmembers will have time to read all public comments submitted and consider them
fully. Thanks Diane. I'll cc Council so they know I have confirmation that my audience
comments were received. Thanks. Best wishes during these trying times! One more request —
if they can't be read out loud, please make sure Audience comments are documented in the
meeting minutes. Thank you!
3/24 Benjamin Martin, Subject: I DO NOT Support the Ban on Sale of Liquor
I work at Scratch Distillery, an Edmonds -local business that produces and sells spirits. The
business is already suffering due to the closure of our tasting room and the restaurants and bars
that serve our spirits. My job is at stake since the business is suffering. Banning the sale of
liquor in Edmonds puts unnecessary extra stress on an already dire situation. I have a newborn
(1 month old today) at home that I'm trying to support. Do not ban the sale of liquor and put me
out of a job. We have been able to survive this so far for three reasons:
1. We can ship products ordered online.
2. We can safely arrange curbside pickup for local online orders.
3. We can continue to supply our products locally at supermarkets that carry our line, such as
QFC and PCC.
Please do not issue a ban on the sale of spirits in Edmonds. Doing so will only cause people to
make their purchases outside of Edmonds (for instance at Total Wine and More in Lynnwood) -
money that would have otherwise been spent supporting a local, small business inside of
Edmonds. Our business is able to provide spirits safely to those who wish to purchase, much
more so than a large market where many, many people gather. We have a local following that
LOVES to support us! They would much prefer to buy from us directly to support a local
business during these tough times for all. Please DO NOT force people to make their alcohol
purchases outside of Edmonds with this prohibition -style amendment. They will absolutely do
so, and by doing so bring their money to large corporations that will weather this economic
malady just fine. A passing of this amendment is a DIRECT assault on Edmond's local
businesses and constituents. Additionally, our business is supporting the fight against this
coronavirus by providing ethanol for hand-sanitizer production. A ban would needlessly harm
our healthcare workers, who desperately need sanitizer to remain safe and continue providing
their services. Again, I DO NOT support the ban on liquor sale and am asking the
Councilmembers to drop the amendment in its entirety. People will simply drive to a more
public, larger, more risky purchasing location to buy their alcohol. You will not limit any alcohol
purchases by Edmonds residents that wish to purchase. Do not put me out of a job and put my
NEWBORN BABY at risk of going hungry with this needless, useless, and impotent
amendment.The ban is unnecessarily draconian and directly and immediately hurts local, small,
Edmonds business and individuals.
3/24 Joel Bergfalk, Subject: Constitutional violation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 37
Your order prohibiting the carrying or possession of a firearm during a declared emergency is in
direct violation of 42 U.S.C. 5207 written specifically to stop this type of government overreach
and should be immediately removed. You took an Oath of Office to protect your citizens federal
and state Constitutional Rights. Honor your Oath.
3/24 Russ Cooley, Subject: Edmonds City Council and vote this evening
Adding provisions that give the government power to take away fire arms is unconstitutional and
you know it! Testing the waters is a very skeptical stategey this sort of power grab will come
back to be costly to you and your body and the city of Edmond's there will be groups that will file
legal action and you will not win!
3/24 Joy Erickson, Subject: none
No government - can prohibit citizens from carrying or possessing a firearm. It violates the US
Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the Washington state Constitution's Article 1, Section 24
("the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state.) Do not pass
this! It is the citizens right to protect themselves that's why we have the constitution in the first
place!
3/24 Vernon Tolson, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance.
Our 2nd Amendment rights are guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. State mandates and
rules and ordinances do not supercede those rights. Leave them alone!!! By the way, you are
elected officials, and answer to the people. Keep that in mind!
3/24 Keith Keeton, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights — remove section G from
your emergency ordinance
I have just learned of your intent to pass an emergency ordinance this evening and want you to
know I am opposed to several of it provisions, the most onerous being provision G. No
government — certainly not a city — can (or should) prohibit citizens from carrying or
possessing a firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the Washington
state Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired."). Your legislation is also illegal (KOMO 4
NEWS: Bellingham to pay $15,000 to a man who was threatened by a police officer for wearing
a holstered gun in a city park — https://komonews.com/archive/bellingham-to-pay-15000-to-
man-who-wore-gun-in-park). After the council listens to public testimony during this open public
meeting, all it takes to remove this anti-2A provision is for one councilmember to make a motion
to amend the emergency ordinance, another councilmember to second it, discuss it, then the
council will vote to remove it. There is absolutely no justification for this blatantly unconstitutional
— and illegal — provision and your emergency ordinance should be modified to remove section
G. Additionally, I implore you to also remove provisions B, D, E, F, K and M. These additional
provisions, if enacted, will prevent the people from access to needed goods and services at the
time when they are most needed, while at the same time preventing us from leaving without
permission from the city. This equates to holding the citizens of Edmonds prisoner in their own
homes, certainly leading to civil unrest and needless distress. This emergency order, as written,
is a serious overreach of city government and needs to be amended. Please confirm you
received my email message. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Ryan Bouts, Subject: CITIZENS' SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT!
As a concerned citizen, I URGE you to please, PLEASE, remove section G from your
emergency ordinance! There is no reason to fear your own community so much that you
demand they be helpless against bullies and criminals, unless that is what you intend to be
yourself! How in the world does such an OVERTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL grasp for power help
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 38
this medical pandemic situation at all?? I'll answer for both of us, because we both know; it
doesn't. This is a very poorly veiled attempt to ramrod an ideology behind the scenes while you
hope everyone is distracted and the real heroes are addressing the actual problem. Don't be on
the wrong side of this one. Don't become an anecdotal footnote in a major part of history by
using subterfuge and underhanded means to achieve a personal goal that is very anti -citizen
and borderline tyranny! No government -- certainly not a city -- can prohibit citizens from
carrying or possessing a firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the
Washington state Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen to bear
arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.'). Your legislation is also illegal
(KOMO 4 NEWS: Bellingham to pay $15,000 to a man who was threatened by a police officer
for wearing a holstered gun in a city park -- https:/lkomonews.comlarchivelbeIIingham-to-pay-
15000-to-man-who-wore-gun-ill-park). After the council listens to public testimony during this
open public meeting, all it takes to remove this anti-2A provision is for one councilmember to
make a motion to amend the emergency ordinance, another councilmember to second it,
discuss it, then the council will vote to remove it. There is absolutely no justification for this
blatantly unconstitutional -- and illegal -- provision and your emergency ordinance should be
modified to remove it. Please confirm you received my email message. Sincerely, and hopeful
of your respect for Freedom and Due Process
3/24 Scott Semans, Subject: Emergency ordinance section g
You do not have the constitutional authority for this. Why buy an expensive lawsuit that you will
lose? Why should Edmonds taxpayers be on the hook for your mistakes?
3/24 Jennifer Sanders, Subject: Remove Section G
Please remove Section G from your emergency ordinance. It takes away the rights granted by
the 2nd Amendment. Thanks for your attention to this important matter.
3/24 Finis Tupper, Subject: Public Comment
Now that the Governor has declared a stay at home order. The Edmonds Mayor's order and
code changes are unnecessary actions.
3/24 David Payne, Subject: Do not attack our 2nd Amendment rights - remove section G from
your emergency ordinance.
You are our representatives not our leaders and you have no right to draft any legislation that
takes any of our rights 2"d or other. Shame on the local governments using this tragic time to do
such things rather than look out for the people in the community. Let's get it right folks!
3/24 Ben Suave, Subject: Do not adopt anti -civil right section of emergency ordinance
As found on your proposed emergency ordinance 4177, on page 9 of the ordinance, you appear
to be adding a code that would allow you, the governing city council of Edmond, to restrict, limit,
or encroach upon (infringe upon) the citizens' inalienable right to keep and bear Arms by adding
subsection G. as shown, "An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of a firearm or any
instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm..." Do you actually intend to add language
to your city code that would allow someone to potentially infringe on the citizens right to armed
self defense and defense of their community in the event of what the mayor and city council
deems an emergency or disaster, when opportunistic people generally begin to victimize others
and when not every single citizen can be escorted everywhere by armed government forces
(police officers) during said time of increased danger? Is that really what you're proposing? I
recently urge you do completely remove subsection G and not even make it an option for you to
try to infringe on the citizens' second amendment rights, which are civil rights as important, if not
more so, as any other enumerated Constitutional right, and are especially vital to our safety and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 39
security, which is NOT derived from government protection, oversight, or regulation, during
times of peace or chaos and panic. Do not adopt this resolution as presented with this gross
trampling on the rights of the public. However you may feel personally about firearms
ownership, it has been proven in the supreme court again and again to be an individual right
which may not be limited, and has been the law of the land for 231 years, and we've done just
fine in times of emergency ensuring our own security and freedom from intrusion or threat,
foreign or domestic. Thank you.
3/24 Bruce & Susan, Subject: Knee jerk reaction
As a servant of the people, it should not be confused with a dictatorship. You have no right to
over ride the constitution! A wise man once said to be careful that you will reap what you sow!
You have not been able to control the criminal population and their gun violence so the only
choice you think you have is to make law abiding citizens into criminals. Sounds like perfect
normal sense to us from servants of the people that have swore to uphold and protect the
constitution of the USA. Thank you for your trust in the people that elected you may be they will
rethink their choice in the future.
3/24 Margaret Hoover, Subject: Remove section G from your emergency ordinance immediately
- DO NOT ATTACK OUR 2nd Amendment Rightsl!!!!
NO GOVERNMENT -- certainly not a city -- can prohibit citizens from carrying or possessing a
firearm. It violates the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment and the Washington state
Constitution's Article 1, Section 24 ("the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.").
Your legislation is also illegal (KOMO 4 NEWS: Bellingham to pay $15,000 to a man who was
threatened by a police officer for wearing a holstered gun in a city park --
https://komonews.com/archive/bellingham-to-pay-15000-to-man-who-wore-gun-in-park). After
the council listens to public testimony during this open public meeting, all it takes to remove this
anti-2A provision is for one councilmember to make a motion to amend the emergency
ordinance, another councilmember to second it, discuss it, then the council will vote to remove
it. There is absolutely no justification for this blatantly unconstitutional -- and illegal --
provision and your emergency ordinance should be modified to remove it. Please confirm
you received my email message.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 24, 2020
Page 40