Passionate testimony filled the Edmonds City Council chambers Tuesday night as two issues drew substantial public comment: passage of a resolution supporting Washington State gun safety Initiative 594, and whether councilmembers should — after four years of study, development and public engagement — support zoning changes for the Westgate neighborhood.
After hearing opinions from gun owners who said that Initiative 594 would restrict their ability to share their guns with others and rebuttal from initiative supporters who disputed that claim, councilmembers voted to support the resolution by a vote of 6-0, with Councilmember Lora Petso abstaining.
No vote was taken on Westgate, as it was billed as a public hearing to gather additional citizen comment. Those testifying included a mix of proponents and opponents, with opponents arguing that the plan to allow for mixed residential and commercial spaces at the Highway 104 and 100th Avenue West intersection would only serve to increase traffic and ruin Edmonds’ “small town” character.
Westgate area resident Robert Throndsen said in written testimony that while change is “crucial to the future of any community,” the changes proposed for Westgate don’t match the neighborhood’s scale and reduce the area’s livability and walkability.
Traci Bower, who lives a few blocks from the Westgate PCC store, told the council she believes the Westgate area “is working quite fine as it is.” Edmonds, she added, “is not the fun quaint town it used to be” and changing the zoning will only make things worse, she added.
Proponents, however, said redevelopment presented an opportunity for a more vibrant neighborhood with additional open space and a mix of housing opportunities. Westgate resident John Dewhirst said that rezoning Westgate would help preserve the existing character of downtown Edmonds, by relieving the redevelopment pressures the downtown area faces. “This is a real opportunity,” Dewhirst said.
Brad Shipley, who said he travels through the Westgate area “10 times a day” and has a young family, said the changes would produce greater walkability and increase public spaces in the area.
After the public hearing was closed, Council President Diane Buckshnis announced that the council is scheduled to make a decision on whether to approve the plan at its Nov. 3 meeting.
The council also:
— unanimously approved a new four-year contract with Lighthouse Law Group, which provides city attorney services, starting at a flat rate of $41,000 per month or $492,000 per year. The proposed 2015 flat fee is a 28 percent increase over the current flat fee approved in 2011 and will be increased by 4 percent each year for 2016, 2017 and 2018.
— Delayed a vote on whether to approve an ordinance that would change zoning requirements aimed at encouraging more mixed-use development on Highway 99.
— Listened as Earling read two proclamations. One honored Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Board member, veterans’ advocate and community volunteer Ron Clyborne for his years of service and his long-time chairmanship of the annual Edmonds Fourth of July celebration. The other recognized the work of the Edmonds Library and served as a reminder of the annual Friends of the Edmonds Library used book sale, set for Saturday, Oct. 25.
– Heard a presentation on the Edmonds Library by Edmonds Librarian Lesly Kaplan, who announced that she is retiring at the end of this year. The report included the following statistics on library use in 2013, which included 32,242 Edmonds borrowers; 700 per day average of people coming through the door; 352 programs presented, attended by 9,681 people and almost half a million book/material checkouts and renewals.
Whose was the one vote against supporting initiative 594 and why did Councilmember Petso abstain?
The vote was 6-0-1. No opposing vote, just the abstention.
Thanks for the correction, Ron. My brain wasn’t working at full speed early this morning.
Why did Laura Petso abstain?
She did not say anything during the meeting so I don’t know. Perhaps you should email her directly?
I was a councilmember 2006 thru 2009. During that period councilmembers typically stated the reason for their votes, particularly when they were abstaining from voting. I’d like to see that custom return.
Here’s what Councilmember Petso said:
I abstained because I do not yet have enough information about the initiative to try to tell other people how I think they should vote.
In the past, many of our citizens have encouraged me hold my personal ballot until I’m convinced that I have and understand all the relevant information. I am sure they would expect me to be just as careful before using my Council position to campaign for or against an initiative.
Lora
1/2 a million dollars per year for legal services for the small city of Edmonds???
“starting at a flat rate of $41,000 per month or $492,000 per year. The proposed 2015 flat fee is a 28 percent increase over the current flat fee approved in 2011 and will be increased by 4 percent each year for 2016, 2017 and 2018.”
does the city really have that much legal difficulties???
or
is it just a reminder that $1 million per year is just your basic middle class income???
I want to apologize to the voters of Edmonds: I should have abstained from the Council vote last night to support the firearms related initiative 594. I have abstained from voting on State initiatives brought to Edmonds City Council in the past, because I do not believe that the voters of Edmonds elected their Council Members to advise them as to how to vote on initiatives, or on issues that are not, and will never be, under the legislative authority of Edmonds City Council.
I do not recall an election when a Council candidate ran on State legislative issues, or when Council candidates were asked their opinions on these issues. To me, that says it all. I think the use of my elected office, in an attempt to influence Washington State voter initiatives, suggests that my opinion should hold more weight than that of others. It should not.
Voting on State Initiatives as a collectivity is NOT why we elected all of you to the City Council…stick to City business and vote secretly on your own individual State Ballots!
I commend Laura Petso for abstaining on principle, and I commend Joan Bloom for at least apologizing for her lapse. I don’t expect the other councilmembers will do as much. Donald Williams said it well: stick to City business and vote secretly on your own individual State Ballots!
“Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work” Vince Lombardi
Voting yes or no is team work. Abstentions like this feel like it’s less about initiative 594, and more about standing apart and being different and separate.
Also, council member Petso’s comment, “I abstained because I do not yet have enough information about the initiative to try to tell other people how I think they should vote” strikes me as a touch self-important. I suggest that none of the council members should hold themselves in such high regard as to assume that their opinion about anything is important enough to affect how individuals vote.
By passing this item, the City Council has resolved that it supports the passage of Initiative 594.
The Resolution itself does not clearly explain what the PURPOSE of the City Council’s support is.
The Resolution does say that the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to forward this Resolution to the City’s Delegation to the Washington State Legislature and the Chief of Police.
I am curious what the purpose of forwarding this Resolution is. What are the City’s Delegation to the Washington State Legislature and the Chief of Police going to do with this Resolution?
Will either the delegate or the Chief of Police use the Resolution to try and influence how individuals will vote on I-594?
Why did Council Member Strom Peterson submit this Resolution and did it have anything to do with trying to influence how individuals will vote on I-594?
I think Ms. Petso’s abstention was not “self-important” in any way. I think it was a humble decision and I appreciate her integrity.
Ken – maybe read my comment with more attention to detail. I did not say the abstention itself was self-important. I said her comment, “to tell other people how I think they should vote.” was a touch self-important.
No Matthew – you said:
“Also, council member Petso’s comment, “I abstained because I do not yet have enough information about the initiative to try to tell other people how I think they should vote” strikes me as a touch self-important.”
If it makes you happy, I will change my comment to say:
I think Ms. Petso’s complete comment about why she abstained was not “self-important” in any way. I think it was a humble decision and I appreciate her integrity.
Since you brought up the topic of self-importance, do you think Strom Peterson was trying to influence how individuals will vote on I-594 when he submitted this Resolution for inclusion on the City Council Agenda?
Do you think either the delegate or the Chief of Police will use the Resolution to try and influence how individuals will vote on I-594? If not, any ideas what they will use the Resolution for?
I personally believe that when city council takes a vote in regards to a larger initiative, it’s largely symbolic. I suppose it can be more than symbolic if the issue is in real need of support. I have not taken the time to look at the polls for I-594. I know how I feel and will vote because I read about and researched the initiative for myself.
If you simply put this into an internet search, “city council votes in support of state initiative” you will quickly find several references re: small cities in puget sound area and more, that took this same vote. To make this about council member Peterson or just Edmonds and the various agendas is a waste of space on this forum. It’s just part of the job. A few years ago, I think I remember a joint effort of council members Plunkett and Peterson to bring a similar vote in support of a gay rights initiative.
Further, if you actually take the time to do the research, you’ll see news accounts of council votes that are 5-2, 6-1 etc. I would also think there are cities where the council voted in favor of not supporting I-594. I think it’s just fine to take votes like this with either up or down results. I didn’t spend much time looking, and there might be other examples of council members abstaining from these types of things. But even if there are others, it’s a stunningly minority position. Not sure where the reference of integrity comes from.
Regarding my comment – about self-importance. I would be more likely to assign integrity to all of the citizens who showed up and spoke to the council re: I-594. Maybe it’s the work of citizens to compel the elected, not the other way around as council member Petso infers.
The concept that a City Council vote on State Initiatives is “part of the job” is debatable. The City Council does not pass a Resolution related to every State Initiative. They don’t vote on every State Senate Bill or State House Bill either.
Looking back at the agenda and minutes from the January 23, 2012 City Council Meeting might provide perspective related to the City’s legislative agenda and whether the Mayor and/or City Councilmembers should support or oppose State issues via formal Resolution.
On January 23, 2012, Councilmembers Strom Peterson and Michael Plunkett felt it was important to show support of SB 6239 and HB 2516 so they submitted a Resolution in support of marriage equality for City Council consideration. There was a problem – support of marriage equality was not on the City’s 2012 legislative agenda that had just been passed on December 20, 2011.
Strom Peterson and Michael Plunkett must have decided to address that problem by asking the City Council to add support of Marriage Equality to the City’s 2012 legislative agenda at the exact same time they were asking their fellow Councilmembers to pass an official Resolution of Support for Marriage Equality. Strom Peterson and Michael Plunkett wanted more than just the 7 City Council Members’ signatures….their draft resolution contained a signature block for Mayor Dave Earling.
Following is how the January 23, 2012 vote was cast:
The vote on the motion carried (4-0-3), Councilmembers Bloom, Petso and Yamamoto abstaining.
Following are excerpts from the January 23, 2012 City Council Meeting Minutes from Mayor Earling and the 3 Councilmembers who abstained. All 4 of these elected officials decided not to sign the Resolution:
Councilmember Bloom commented she has thought about this a lot. She wholeheartedly supports marriage equality as a private citizen but did not believe the citizens of Edmonds have given her the authority to speak on their behalf to the state legislature. She indicated she will abstain from the vote on the resolution.
Councilmember Yamamoto agreed with Councilmember Bloom and also planned to abstain from the vote. He did not feel this was the proper venue or appropriate to make a Councilmember vote on a controversial issue regardless of their own views. The Council is charged with making policy and spending the taxpayers’ money wisely. The resolution regarding marriage equality does not affect the City’s daily operations and he was uncertain how the citizens of Edmonds felt about the issue. He feared the Council taking a position on this may open the door to requests for the Council to take a position on similar issues which raises the question who decides when and on what issues it was appropriate for the Council to take a position.
Councilmember Petso indicated she would also abstain from the vote.
Mayor Earling asked whether a signature line for the Councilmembers who abstained and himself should appear on the resolution. City Attorney Taraday responded the four who voted in favor of the resolution could sign the resolution and Mayor Earling could choose whether to sign. The three Councilmembers who abstained requested their name with a blank signature line not appear on the resolution.
Mayor Earling commented the core mission in the City is to ensure the day-to-day operations are met with regard to public safety, infrastructure, long term planning and land use issues. The resolution addresses a state issue that is currently under discussion and which now appears to have the needed votes to pass both the State House and Senate and apparently the Governor is ready and willing to sign the legislation. If he were in the legislature, he would probably support the legislation; he has a history of supporting this type of issue including support for domestic partnership legislation. Because he is not a member of the legislature but rather an elected representative of the City of Edmonds, he has a different core mission. For that reason he will not sign the resolution.
My hope is that all of this will cause the City Council to take a hard look at the reasons for having a legislative agenda and how such legislative agenda should be used. When they look at such, I hope they will be very mindful of RCW 42.17A.555 which prohibits the use of facilities of a public office to support or oppose a ballot measure or an election campaign for public office. This prohibition is not new, as it was a part of Initiative 276 adopted by the voters in 1972. There are exceptions, but the procedures related to the exceptions must be closely followed.
The general prohibition against use of public facilities is very broad and comprehensive. The term “public facilities” is defined to include use of stationery, postage, equipment, use of employees during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office, or lists of persons served by the local government. This prohibition means that elective or appointive personnel of local governments may not work to support or oppose a ballot proposition during work time or allow public facilities to be used for that purpose.
The first time the I-594 item came before the City Council, September 9, 2014, the author of the agenda memo, Councilmember Strom Peterson apologized to the Council as the Council was unable to take action that night. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was unaware of the intricacies of State law. He said he would work with the Clerk and the City Attorney to ensure the agenda title meets the requirements of the statute.
Was this use of public facilities (City Clerk and City Attorney and possibly more) allowed or should it have been prohibited?