Following an executive session held at the end of Tuesday night’s Edmonds City Council meeting, the council approved an emergency ordinance that prevents property developers from submitting more than one development application for the same property. The ordinance would affect any future applications filed by Point Edwards Building Number 10, which was the source of a December 2013 lawsuit against the City of Edmonds, former City Council President Lora Petso and the Town of Woodway after the Edmonds council reversed the City Architectural Design Board’s approval of the five-story, 85-unit multi-family residence.
City of Edmonds Development Director Shane Hope said that it has been rumored that a new application for Point Edwards could be filed at some point soon, and the city — which already has a current application on file for Building 10 — wanted to proactively ensure that two applications weren’t before the city at the same time.
Discussion about the emergency ordinance — prior to the public vote — was conducted in executive session, closed to the public, under the heading of “potential or pending litigation.” Hope said that while the ordinance could be applied immediately to Point Edwards, it could also be applied to other future development projects in similar situations.
Ordinance No. 3992, which is available for viewing here, was unanimously approved 5-0 with one abstention — that of City Councilmember Tom Mesaros, who also didn’t participate in the executive session but waited alone in the council chambers until it was concluded. Mesaros is a Point Edwards resident. (Councilmember Diane Buckshnis was absent from the entire council meeting due to a family emergency.)
The purpose of Ordinance 3992, according to its text, is to “ensure that the legal effect of filing such a development application will be known by the applicant prior to the filing so that the applicant can elect to file or not file with an understanding of the consequence.” The ordinance further notes that “the city has learned that it may be receiving such an application in the near future.”
The ordinance also states that the Edmonds Community Development Code “has been silent on the legal effect of filing multiple irreconcilable applications to develop the same property,” and that “in fairness to both the city and future applicants, the city council would like to clarify the legal effect of filing a subsequent irreconcilable application for development before such applications are filed.”
My Edmonds News has heard from citizens close to the issue in recent weeks that the City of Edmonds, the Town of Woodway and several individuals have been working to reach a settlement on the Building 10 issue. We were told that if such a settlement is reached, the lawsuit could be set aside and the developer could submit a new development proposal to the City of Edmonds for consideration and approval.
An interim ordinance may be adopted for up to six months in the City of Edmonds, but a public hearing must be held within 60 days. Hope said that such a hearing hasn’t been scheduled yet, but will be within the 60-day time frame. The reason for passing an emergency ordinance, she said, is that a permanent ordinance requires review by the Edmonds Planning Board and two public hearings, and the city believed it was important to get the ordinance on the books in anticipation of the Point Edwards filing. After the hearing is held, the emergency ordinance will expire in six months unless a permanent ordinance is adopted, Hope added.
Well that explains it then, nothing like a few real facts to help understand this important stuff better. And a job well done by council, mayor, dir. Hope, and others. A unanimous vote speaks volumes.
Great summary, Teresa.
Nice to see that Council Member Buckshnis likes the summary. Maybe this will not be the last time we get a detailed article about an item discussed in Executive Session less than 24 hours after the related Executive Session.
City of Edmonds Resolution No. 1150 requires the following:
1.2 Executive Sessions: Prior to adjournment of an executive session, the Council shall, by consensus, determine what, if any, information may be released regarding the executive session. A discussion to release information shall be confirmed by voice motion in open session. The City Council can take action only in open session at a public meeting. In the absence of a motion and vote, no confidential information shall be released. In the event that, at a later date, the Mayor, Council President or a Council Member wishes to refer to or place information relating to executive session in the public record, the Mayor, on behalf of the Mayor or the staff or a Council Member, shall ask the Council President to place an item on an agenda for such a motion and vote. The Council Agenda item shall notify Council Members of the procedural issue to be discussed, but shall not itself release confidential information relating to the executive session.
The above applies to all Executive Sessions and is MANDITORY.
I don’t recall a voice motion to do so in open session on Tuesday night.
I still would have preferred the majority of the related discussion to have taken place in Open Council Session.
Yes, the majority of the sessions to be in Open Council Sessions….
.As we had no information in public I am still wondering if the 104 Crosswalk (paid with our tax dollars) was part of the deal to raise the rating points for those condos in regards to easier access to downtown Edmonds which would help sell condos faster (or because of WHO lives there)……..Just wondering……as Ive seen little information in public……Maybe Im way off base, but when deals are reached out of the public eye, whose to know? Clearly, at some point the information should be available and by law is supposed to be for the citizens who PAY for government representation……We the people
Ken, Thanks for all your work on this issue. It seems councils have given a broad meaning to potential litigation. A good source of information is Washington Coalition for Open Government at washingtoncog.org
You are welcome Don. I agree Washington Coalition for Open Government at washingtoncog.org is a great website!
I think the City Attorney and staff play a very significant role in the volume of Executive Sessions. I believe Mayor and staff play a major role in preparing the Council Agenda’s which schedule Executive Sessions. Council relies on the City Attorney to advise them as to the appropriateness of entering Executive Session.
Now if you take out the collective bargaining Executive Sessions, the numbers don’t look as bad. I am more concerned about the pending litigation Executive Sessions. I think it is too easy to retreat behind closed doors under the pending or potential litigation umbrella. Maybe Tuesday night was an example of that.
Once in Executive Session, I think it absolutely critical that the Council reach consensus before adjournment whether or not any information may be released regarding the executive session.
Just so people are aware – I discussed Resolution No. 1150 in an email to or blind cc’d to 6 of the 7 current Councilmembers on February 14, 2015. In that email, I asked two very important questions related to Resolution No. 1150:
1. Does the Council follow its rules of procedure by determining what, if any, information may be released regarding the executive session prior to adjournment of each executive session?
2. How does the Council determine consensus in executive session?
Ken, did you get any answers to your email of February 14, 2015?
Hi Don – no, I did not get any responses to my email of February 14, 2015.
The following information from the July 17, 2007 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes might be of interest. This meeting took place less than a month before Resolution No. 1150 was passed:
Executive Session
Councilmember Plunkett advised he requested a resolution be prepared regarding Executive Sessions. He recalled during the discussions of the park in south Edmonds over the past year, there was some confusion regarding what information was and was not Executive Session, whether the Council should discuss certain issues in Executive Session and in at least one instance the confidentially of an Executive Session was broken. The intent of the resolution was to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session. He advised this resolution would accomplish two purposes, 1) if a Councilmember believed an Executive Session was taking place that should not, they could propose a motion to end the Executive Session and the Council could have discussion and make a determination during the public meeting, and 2) prevent any one member from revealing information that other Councilmembers believed was protected by Executive Session.
Councilmember Dawson commented the resolution did not appear to address Councilmembers questioning whether the Council should be in Executive Session; she agreed it was appropriate for Councilmembers to have the ability to question whether a topic should be discussed in Executive Session. She noted the draft resolution also addressed the dissatisfaction expressed at the retreat with the way meetings were handled, the way Councilmembers were recognized and the number of times each Councilmembers could speak.
Councilmember Moore agreed the resolution did not appear to provide Councilmembers a way to question an inappropriate Executive Session. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised a Councilmember could always leave an Executive Session that they felt was inappropriate. He noted the City kept minutes of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council discussed the appropriate issue. He explained the Council could reach consensus in Executive Session. If the Council agreed to discuss an issue in the open meeting, they could come out of Executive Session and make a motion to have the issue placed on a future agenda and/or request information be released. In the absence of a motion, the confidence of the Executive Session would be observed. He noted the resolution did not address the appropriateness of a subject for Executive Session because that was addressed in state law.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled there were Councilmembers who revealed information that the Council had agreed should not be disclosed. His intent was to develop rules so that all Councilmembers had the same understanding. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting release of confidential Executive Session information was a crime and a potential basis for forfeiture of office. The resolution was intended to establish an orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. He concluded Executive Session information remained confidential as long as the Council felt it should remain confidential.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO SCHEDULE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1150 ON A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ken, I’m assuming that you did not receive answers to your two question?
We had collective bargaining in 2009 when only a total of 9 sessions were held compared to the 38 in 2014. I suspect that it’s the council’s indecisiveness that’s causing too many sessions on the same topic. And we should all be concerned that we still do not know what happened in 37 of those sessions. Could it be that they never came to a consensus in any of them?
I suspect that the change in the city attorney position a few years ago is also a contributing factor to the high frequency of executive sessions. Executive sessions to consider litigation have essentially become a part of the council agenda boilerplate! They are now the last agenda item for EVERY council meeting.
It is also this city attorney who gave a different ruling on the use of a citizens compensation committee. His ruling was that that committee had the power to unilaterally decide the compensation for elected officials – making it an ad hoc committee having more power than any other city committee. Council liked what the committee came up with in 2012, because it caused their compensation to be increased. Council did not like their 2014 report, so they scrapped the committee. Who knows what’s coming next!
It has been a while since I thought about the Citizens Compensation Committee mess. As I have said before, I think a review of Mayor, Staff and Commission conduct is warranted.
The June 17, 2014 meeting is highly alarming as they met for nearly 2 hours despite not having a quorum.
The Open Public Meetings Act is law. Laws shouldn’t simply be ignored. The Code is clear:
The mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the city, and shall have general supervision of the administration of city government and all city interest.
Ken, Since it appears the council did not follow the resolution is the ordinance legal or at least bring out the posabilialty for litigaton
So, why isnt our Mayor requesting that information from at least a good part of the past 37 closed door executive sessions be put in the open public record.?…..Isnt this the complaining about frivolous FOIA requests and the large amount of money it costs our city that town hall has talked about many times?When a government is TRANSPARENT as it is supposed to be, the need for Freedom of Information requests is very small or nearly eliminated.
It is the responsibility of our Mayor to make sure laws are not broken…….When we have silence regarding many issues with the operation of our government or many behind closed door sessions, it appears to me that something is terribly wrong…….Those of us that have been around long enough know how a government entity can become easily corrupt with secret behind closed door meetings or people just going along………..Watergate, Iran Contra, “weapons of mass destruction”, McCarthyism, Salem Witch Hunts, The Pentagon Papers, New Jersey Toll Ways shut down, etc, etc.
I’m still wondering how many law suits and law suits from developers have been made to go away behind closed doors with our government in the past forty years?…….I say 40 years as I am wondering if this is a regular working part of our government for many years here, and if it is, the public has the right to know the details of all the transactions or possible give a ways to developers….
Without a totally transparent government and a government that answers (and asks) the questions of the public or Council, the possibility of citizens mistrusting their government is very high…….
As the citizens are at the top of government, history of our country shows that just going along can create corruption at the highest of places. All government is accountable and answerable to the citizens.
Government does not choose the right to decide what is best for citizens to know.
Along the lines of government transparency, Im also wondering now when a City Council member asks our City Attorney a question in an OPEN City Council meeting and our City Attorney says “I dont know, I will get back to you” (which happens all the time) or something along those lines…….WHERE Is the PUBLIC record of the answers by our City Attorney that he gives for all those questions asked.?…. Are all those answers also off the record or out of view of the public or behind closed doors at town hall when answered?….Those questions by our Council members in open public session are part of their job and are supposed to be answered in public somewhere…..a record
These are all questions that should be answered by our government…..Where is the public record of all those answers?