If Santa Claus happened to be watching the video of Tuesday night’s Edmonds City Council meeting, he may have had a hard time determining who was naughty and who was nice. While the council discussed some important issues on what appeared to be a short and simple end-of-the-year agenda, it ended with councilmembers trading accusations about spreading falsehoods, mansplaining, bullying and being treated with disrespect.
But before we get to what one councilmember described as the “airing of dirty laundry,” here’s a summary of actions taken at Tuesday’s meeting.
First, the council discussed feedback from local business owners — including three who spoke during the public comment period — opposed to a city proposal to suspend the business license of any downtown business delinquent in its payments to the Business Improvement District (otherwise known as the Edmonds Downtown Alliance, or ED). During his presentation on the proposal, City Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty explained that the idea of suspending business licenses to encourage payment came from the City of Auburn, which used this approach and had almost 100% fee payment compliance as a result. However, councilmembers who spoke on the matter Tuesday night wondered if it was the right approach to take, and collectively agreed it would be best for staff to explore other options for ensuring business owners stay current with the BID assessments.
The Business Improvement District, instituted in downtown Edmonds in 2013, includes an area comprised on the north by Bell Street, on the east by Durbin Street, on the south by Homeland Drive and on the west by Sunset Avenue South and Railroad Street. Doherty said that the number of businesses that are delinquent is small — around 5-7% — but added that the delinquencies aren’t fair to those BID businesses current on their payments.
Councilmember Neil Tibbott wondered whether the BID has “run its course, has it done its job, are there are other avenues that businesses are successfully using?” In response, Doherty noted some of the BID’s successes, including arranging for after-hours parking downtown and the BID’s marketing of “the Edmonds experience” in the “walkable heart of downtown.”
“I wonder if it’s time for the city or even the Economic Development Commission to take the lead in evaluating the effectiveness of the BID for the 351 owners (who are BID members)” Tibbott said. He added he wouldn’t be supporting the proposal because he thinks “there is more work to be done and something that the new council could take up.”
Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas said that while she believes the BID members have made a positive impact, “I don’t think the city should be in the business of removing people’s licenses because they haven’t paid into this BID.”
In a second item, the council voted to approve a proposed ordinance that repeals another ordinance, 3303, which was originally passed in April 2000 and established a purchasing policy for the city. The council in February 2009 adopted revisions to the April 2000 purchasing policy, but apparently did not do so using an ordinance — leaving two different purchasing policies on the books. The vote was 5-1, with Fraley-Monillas opposing. (Councilmember Mike Nelson was absent from Tuesday’s meeting.)
In a third item discussed Tuesday night, the council heard summary results of a survey, conducted by outgoing Councilmembers Tom Mesaros and Dave Teitzel, regarding how much a selected number of other local cities are paying for city attorney services — either on a contract basis or as a city employee. The list of 10 “comparator cities” was approved by the council in November, and while some responses were still pending as of Tuesday night, Teitzel noted that the report could continue to be updated as information comes in. The summary of results received so far can be reviewed here.
The work of Mesaros and Teitzel to acquire that data was part of the City Attorney evaluation — an assignment they had offered to take on earlier in the year. The study results were for information only, as the council at its Nov. 26 meeting voted 5-2 to approve a three-year contract with existing city attorney Lighthouse Law Group.
However, those attorney evaluation efforts became a flashpoint at the end of Tuesday’s meeting, when Earling invited all the councilmembers to offer final remarks. While each councilmember included positive notes regarding the year and offered best wishes for the holiday season, for some councilmembers, that’s where the holiday cheer ended.
Councilmember Teitzel started by reading a detailed critique of a letter that Council President Fraley-Monillas submitted to the Edmonds Beacon, which criticized the councilmembers’ work on the survey and the council’s 5-2 vote to approve the Lighthouse contract.
Teitzel said the letter was “very disappointing and unbecoming of a council president,” adding it was “full of innuendo, misinformation and falsehoods designed to influence public opinion against council.”
Mesaros, who followed Teitzel in making his remarks, said “there was an attempt to distort the facts, and that’s unfortunate. I would hope that going forward that the new councilmembers, the new mayor really concentrate on getting the facts correct and getting the truth correct.”
When it came time for Fraley-Monillas to give her comments, she said that she stood by her statements, and would be “more than happy” to meet with any citizens who want to discuss the matter. “I’m not going to miss the mansplaining and the bullying that occurs and has occurred on the council for the past four years,” she said. “I think it’s been a challenge for a woman in particular to be a part of this council because it’s kind of clear that assertive women don’t fit in so well and if we can’t make it work, we make it up as it goes.”
A few minutes later, during her remarks, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis stated that while in general “I don’t think it’s appropriate for councilmembers to air their dirty laundry,” she went on to detail a dispute involving herself and Fraley-Monillas. During a recent council agenda-setting meeting that Buckshnis attended with the mayor, Fraley-Monillas and two city staff members, Buckshnis said that Fraley-Monillas swore at her several times “publicly in front of staff and citizens. It was inappropriate.”
“I know that next year’s going to be problematic for me because I will have a grudge on my back, but the fact of the matter is, no councilmember should ever be treated that way, ever,” Buckshnis said. “We’re all human. We all have our agreements. We all have our disagreements. We do not deserve to be called names. I hope in the new year with the new councilmembers we can all just calm down and learn to interact in a professional manner.”
— By Teresa Wippel
First, wow Teresa, you are a great writer and reporter. What a read.
I have thoroughly researched the creation of the BID and shared a white paper on this with the city council. I think the BID is a great idea, I dont want to see it scuttled, BUT the way it was created is not according to the RCW. The BID was established without a passing petition, so it is not in good standing. The ordinance that established the BID said a petition was taken and passed. A petition was taken and it failed. Lora Petso tried to warn the other council members that the ordinance was not legal/factual. She got man-splained. The BID (though well intentioned) is illegally assessing taxes. This is particularly important, especially considering the potential lawsuits (maybe class actions) that are likely to manifest even if this isn’t tied to business licenses.
I tried to explain my findings to Patrick Dorherty and it was not well received. He said that the businesses that didnt want to play ball could move to Lynnwood.
I am out of town on business, but will post the white paper online shortly.
With so much time spent playing Victim with Mansplaining, it makes one want to draw some cartoons of these characters exaggerating their false claims of victim hood.
The new Council and Mayor will also be grist for great cartoons…
Brief responses from the City of Edmonds:
1. Matt Richardson is correct in stating that the BID was not created by the petition method. It was created by the Resolution method, as allowed by RCW 35.87A, cited in part as follows: “For the purpose of establishing a parking and business improvement area, an initiation petition may be presented to the legislative authority having jurisdiction of the area in which the proposed parking and business improvement area is to be located OR the legislative authority may by resolution initiate a parking and business improvement area.” (emphasis on “OR” added.)
A petition was initially conducted and contained a sufficient number of signatures, but the timing on getting the petition to Council was delayed to the point that the earliest signatures were no longer valid. Recognizing the initial signature-gathering as an expression of intent, but also that the petition itself was no longer fully legally valid, the Council chose to use the other, Resolution method of creating a BID provided for in the above-cited RCW.
2. I never said, nor even implied, that businesses not interested in paying the BID assessment fees could move to Lynnwood. I would never say such a thing and take umbrage at his suggestion.
Patrick Doherty
City of Edmonds Economic Development and Community Services Director
A BID petition can be *Initiated* via a resolution from the city OR *Initiated* via a petition from the business owners. A Resolution to Initiate is optional; a petition is legally required to Establish. After it is initiated, a BID can only be *Established* if a petition was taken and passed and after Hearing(s) are held. Edmonds held hearings over a Christmas break and didnt give the lagal required notice. People were very confused at the Hearing, complaining they were out of town when the mail came in, many saying they thought the initiation was over when the petition failed. No second hearing was scheduled.
The RCW even dictates that the results of the passed petition be codified in the Ordinance to Establish (which Edmonds did)…. but the petition failed to pass so the ordinance is wrong.
Let’s disagree on what “initiate” and “establish” means… I looked at a lot of BIDs in WA and other states and Only Edmonds seems to believe they can unilaterally create a new district and tax. Civics 101.
The BID is also supposed to hold an Annual Meeting and gavel them. Members of the BID (any democratic organization) must be allowed to make motions and nominate officers. Instead the BID holds a meet-&-greet each year with a secret ballot box and no official business. The BID has never had an Organization Meeting, which is the first meeting where bylaws are adopted. Who adopted the BID bylaws? The business owners (the members) have not adopted the bylaws. Read Robert’s Rules, re-read the RCW. Look at how Pioneer Square was initiated, established, organized, then how their business meetings are conducted.
There is no provision in the RCW for a city council to *Establish* a BID without a passed petition. There would be a lot of BIDs forced upon people unilaterally if that were the case.
Patrick,
Wow- obviously you must have an extremely short memory Patrick and are profoundly oblivious of your own actions, or their ultimate ramifications. You yourself, just proposed to the Edmonds City Council that the 34-37 business owners in Edmonds who are delinquent in their Ed! fee assessments, or refuse to pay, should have their business licence revoked, as such they would be closed by the City. Your attitude is business owners should be forced to pay, or leave town, maybe to Lynnwood, Bellingham, Twisp, or anywhere, as long as they are GONE from Edmonds. Almost unanimously- the City Council rebuffed your lunacy, and was not as business ignorant as to entertain such a proposal from YOU. Voice all the umbrage you like Patrick, you said it, you yourself put it into a proposed Ordinance for the City Council to pass, and it failed….your actions Patrick, own them.
The reality is, under your guidance Ed! has squandered almost $ 1 Million dollars taken by force and threats from business owners in Edmonds, with nothing accomplished. You must be so proud, how many business owners have left downtown Edmonds due to the taxation of Ed! Do you care??? Give us your money, or, get out of town, we know far more than you about running your business than You….. the Owner!!
Ed! will be shut down in 2020.
I am a service business in Edmonds in the District covered by Ed!. I wanted to know more about the business district and found that the last online report on the District’s activities was from 2018. I looked for an annual report which most organizations such as this prepare with their budget and the expenditures. Couldn’t find it. I noted that the Advisory Board meets on Thursdays from 8:00 to 9:30 a.m.. I don’t know about others, but I really can’t afford to spend time at meetings during the business day.
At the very least, the Ed! webpage should provide members and the public with more information.
They dont hold Annual Meetings. There is an annual meet and greet, but the floor is never opened.
I have to question the City Council meeting venue being used as a place to discuss or resolve personal grudges and hurt feelings. For heaven’s sake grow up folks and/or grow some thicker skin. Wouldn’t the proper place to answer the Fraley-Monillas letter in the Beacon, be The Beacon? As to the tiff between Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas, how about hashing it out in the ladies room or some other private place and spare the rest of us the unwanted drama. Honestly; you all look and act like middle school children with this public personal affront drivel. Spoiler alert, we fellow citizens and your constituents care about roads, sidewalks, building permits etc. and paying the bills in the most efficient ways possible, not your hurt feelings so much.
Mr Clinton – profanity and profane name calling should be unacceptable in any workplace setting especially in front of staff and elected officials.
I have spent decades in the world of finance including regulatory evaluations and tenuous situations with many stories of anger and misunderstandings that “hardened my skin”. But like one Councilmember said “had this been a man” being this abusive – it probably would have hit the media that same day with sanctions to follow.
So don’t think I have not spent hundreds of hours over the past decade attempting to resolve disputes among Councilmembers and/or Administration behind the scenes and many will support me on this statement. But as you must know – once the secret is out – perhaps the behavior will change as others are aware.
My threshold is profanity is unacceptable in the workplace and I am sorry if you disagree.
Diane, thank you for speaking out; you have every right AND responsibility to let the community know what is going on between council members. Exposure of “bad behavior” should never be hidden or ignored. That is how abuse begins, with the perp intimidating the other person. You are a courageous woman, smart too!
First of all Ms. Diane, my name isn’t Mr. Clinton, it’s Mr. Wright or preferably just Clint. Second point, is that I totally agree with your points about profanity and name calling in the work place being inappropriate. What I disagree with is you bringing it up in the context of a city council meeting which is supposed to be about running the city, not settling your personal beefs with another member over some perceived insults. Your carrying a personal grudge is immaterial to me and I would venture to guess most ofther town citizens. That’s between you and Ms. Fraley-Monillas . The proper place for this would be the city HR department or in a lawyers office or, as I stated in my earlier post, in a back room somewhere. I’m also having a hard time wrapping my head around our city council meetings becoming a battleground of the sexes. Don’t tell us how professional you are, show us.
In the interest of open and transparent government, please disclose what transpired and led to this very unfortunate occurrence. Also disclose the subject matter, what actually was said, including the witnesses.
I assume what really happened was you were attempting to usurp the duties and powers delegated by law to the office of Council President.
Your further explanation would be appreciated.
Mansplaining is probably best defined as a man explaining something, typically to a woman, “in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.” When a man offers facts or opinions in a professional manner during City Council discussion, that doesn’t become mansplaining merely because a woman listener disagrees.
I hope the new City Council begins next month on a happier note than the old Council ended on. Everybody please just chill out, and remember what we were taught as adolescents — disagree without becoming disagreeable!
Every group has its storming and norming… We can trust the Council will make amends and move forward professionally. It is up to the Council to create, adhere to, enforce, and hold accountable standards of conduct for Council Meetings. In preparation for a Special Meeting, and, or a Council Retreat it may be worthwhile to return to the basics. One is “ Point of privilege. A matter that concerns the welfare of the group. Can be raised even when another person is speaking. No second, not debatable, no vote required. Call for the orders of the day. A demand that the group return to the agenda. Can be taken when another person is speaking, no second required, not debatable, no vote required.” There are also placards to consider having in sight for all members, references such as Rotary International’s reminders of when choosing to speak. http://mrsc.org/getmedia/034f13b6-7ec2-4594-b60b-efaf61dd7d10/Mayor-And-Councilmember-Handbook.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf
Here is the white paper regarding the illegitimacy of the BID (aka Downtown Alliance, aka Ed!). I even addressed the misinterpretation of the RCW. The BID has been collecting taxes illegally for years. There is a lot of good intentions behind the BID, a lot of good that can be done with a BID, but I don’t trust that this BID is in good faith and [as we are witnessing with the attempts to tie it to business licenses] the BID could transform into something not benevolent.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=11ZLLe8bExM7Ww1OCXjJ-DzAjdQTn3a6D
Patrick Doherty, we had a meeting regarding my findings. I took minutes and sent them out to everyone while they were fresh. A business woman came to me and mentioned that there are many licenses that she has to maintain, insurances, fees, and the BID assessments (not to mention her delinquencies) are piling on and she is having trouble holding it all down. On our parting you said, “[Edmonds is a nice place. It’s is expensive to operate a business here. If there are businesses that cannot afford the BID assessments, they should move to Lynnwood.]” Take umbrage, as it was one of the most elitist things I’ve ever heard. -and I’m apologizing to Lynnwood for you.
The problem appears to be an enabling statute poorly drafted by the Legislature. I’ve read the relevant sections a few times, and reasonable people can interpret them either way. This is the type of discrepancy and confusion that courts can clear up, but only if someone thinks it important enough to file a lawsuit.
You’re right on. WA’s law is poorly drafted. I had to look at other BID’s accross WA to disambiguate the actual interpretation. I studied BID’s in Oregon, Idaho and New York. Even Edmonds knew they needed a petition. I have emails from Stephan Clifton (who is a nice man) describing the process to the City Council, and they conducted the legally required petition. However, when the petition failed, they moved the goalpost by invoking the 50% threshold used for “special assessments” instead of the required 60% threshold, and even that threshold was not met. So, when the petition failed, someone [I may know who] came up with the idea of using ambiguity in the way WA wrote and modified the law.
Thanks for publishing your white paper, Matt. We will make sure to review your comments and thoughts. As for the Lynnwood comment, something is amiss in your annotation of our conversation. I did not say that. I would never say that. I did not take minutes and I do not know exactly what either you or I said at that point in our conversation, but, yes, we did talk about the BID assessment fees and the many good works Ed! funds with those fees.
I certainly cannot reconstruct word for word what my statements were, but the correct gist of my statement was clearly this: If paying the BID fees is a deal-breaker for a particular business owner, then they certainly may consider other parts of Edmonds or other locations, but we hope they will see the many benefits the BID’s programs bring and will stay or locate in Downtown Edmonds.
But here’s the full context: There are some business owners who may not be happy about paying the additional $120 to $600 per year in fees to be located in Downtown Edmonds, notwithstanding the amenities, programs and benefits those fees fund. Any business owner is free to make his/her location decision based on many factors, which may include the costs of doing business. The simple fact – not opinion or snark or elitism – is that a business owner has many choices of where to locate a business: Downtown Edmonds, other parts of Edmonds, or other communities. We cannot waive BID assessment fees for those business owners who do not like such fees, while charging others. So to repeat, if paying the BID fees is a deal-breaker for a business owner, then he/she may choose to consider locating his/her business in another part of Edmonds or even in another community if it comes to that. We hope, of course, that those amenities, programs and benefits, along with the natural attractions of Downtown Edmonds, will help business owners see the value of paying the relatively small additional fees for BID membership, with the result that ultimately they either stay or choose to start a new business in Downtown Edmonds.
Great response and I apologize. I am betting I took your comments on businesses moving to Lynnwood out of context.
It’s time to circulate a new petition on the BID.
Matt,
Thanks for publishing your white paper. Let me know if you want to meet up.
Susan
In town again finally. Email me at mdrich2012@gmail.com. Cheers.
Forced “Membership” is illegal under Federal Law. I think you will find that SCOTUS has recently issued a ruling on this Constitutional Right. And Ed! labels all business owners as “members”. Membership, without the right to make a choice of joining, or not, is Federally illegal.
So, again Patrick, Ed! is illegal on another ground.
As I stated to a past President of Ed! when she came into my business, with the all important Ed! employee in tow (side bar: and the Ed! Hawkers stated there would never be an employee), if you really believe that business owners truly want the BID, Edmonds Alliance, Ed! in Edmonds. Then let business owners hold a new vote, after all it has been six years with nothing accomplished after around $ 800,000.00 has been flushed down the drain by Ed!. The City of Edmonds is the only City which never allows “members” the right to hold a Vote, even Socialist Seattle allows a vote every five years in their BID’s, but not in Edmonds, nope-taxation without the right to a vote. Let business owners vote, let the votes be counted ONLY by the Citizen elected Edmonds Judge, so there will be no chance for retribution by City Hall against any business owner. Take a vote, after all, this is America where people have constitutional rights which override the RCW’s, and business owners should have the right to a vote, right? In all fairness, and we shall assume that Edmonds shall be at a very minimum “Fair” to business owners. As such, should business owners really need to go to such lengths as Demanding a Vote from Council, when in a just and fair City, it should be done as a courtesy to business owners. In a just and fair City, such an act would convay the Cities respect and acknowledgement toward the contributions business owners make in the City of Edmonds, they are what keeps the heart of Edmonds alive, not City Hall. Should business owners really need too demand such a thing, in a just and fair City? The former President of Ed! stated flat out- there will Never be a vote taken….. there you have it, the voice of pure prejudice, and as a current Ed! Board Member and past President, the display of prejudice against other business owners and their right to tally discontent against the ineffective and wasteful Ed!, without retribution by City Hall.
Ed! may be shut down by a major revolt of non-payment.Or, business owners will collect signatures to shut Ed! down, or a major negative campaign against Ed! will be started in the City, but Ed! will be closed. Or, maybe I will just get a local Ed! assessed attorney, and we will take this to Superior Court and let a Judge decide. If we prevail, and Ed! is ruled illegal, and since many business owners have been sent out to collections, and as such they would have “standing”, it could prove very interesting to say the least.
Ed! will be closed this year and the sooner the City stops the charade that Ed! was formed legally, the sooner business owners will be able to get the City out of their lives, and retain their own money to use as they see fit.
Brent, there is no petition process for ending a BID [that I am aware of]. The City Council can end the BID unilaterally, just can’t establish one unilaterally. I understand you’re frustrated, and I wish I could help you not be upset. There’s no bad intentions in Ed! that I can find. It is a good idea run by good people, but it could be different.
Roberts Rules [knuckle cracking sounds]:
Assuming the BID is in good standing, any member of the organization/society can make a motion to dissolve at any regular business meeting. **Note there has never been a business meeting of the Ed! membership.** There have been Executive Board Meetings, but no mass meetings that I am aware of. There should be an annual regular meeting according to the rules/law but the BID has never had one. I think I read that Pioneer Square meets bi-annually, with each meeting gaveled. Ed! holds an annual meet-&-greet, but that meeting has never conducted business or taken minutes (this is one of the big reasons why Ed! has got to go). So even if you get a petition, you’d have to bring it to a mass meeting of the society and make a motion to dissolve the Ed! Then, you’d also likely need a quorum because unless there’s an agreement to use a petition before hand (such as in the bylaws), members have to show up or send a proxy to be heard (it’s old school). I went to last year’s meet-&-greet and maybe 15-20 unique businesses showed up, out of hundreds. A quorum is impossible I think because few care enough about Ed! to got to the annual meet-up (it was a lovely nonetheless).
Here’s how any single member of Ed! can motion to dissolve:
1) Call an **Organization** Meeting by sending an invite to all members. This must be done via mail. Get the addresses from the City.
2) With the invite, send an Agenda. It must have your plan to dissolve on it. It must go out with a 30-day notice.
3) Conduct the Organization Meeting. Those who show up must elect a chair for that meeting. Because it’s an Organization Meeting, there is no quorum required. Elect a Secretary to take minutes.
4) Hear for a Motion to Dissolve the Ed! You only need a simple majority (> %50) to Adopt the Motion to Dissolve. Note: if you bypassed steps 1-2, organization/rule motions require a super-majority and a quorum, which I think is impossible to get with Ed! Roberts Rules specifically designed this process for organizations that can never get quorum.
5) Close it up. Send the minutes to the City Council and tell them to stop assessing. I am betting Ed! created a 501(c) so that it can hire employees and open a bank account. How these are closed could be handle by a motion and discussion at the meeting, but must be accounted for as well.
Wow! Keeping a good website is not the same as the things that bring people to Edmonds. They come for the food, shops, Halloween spectacular, July 4th Parade, Christmas Tree lighting. I think you’ll find that Ed! has nothing to do with these events.
At the annual meet and greet, the Ed! website was showcased as the BID’s chief achievement. It’s basically a community directory. A chamber of commerce provides the same service. The internet in general, facebook and google, has deprecated this idea for the most part. For the Pioneer Square BID, their website is barely a line item for them compared to the rest they do. The Ed! website is mostly what Ed! is.
BIDs are usually created for tangible reasons. They usually buy benches or lighting, pay for upkeep of private communal areas. A BID could build bathrooms. A small contribution from Ed! went to the bathroom on 5th for example. Those sort of things are appropriate. Edmonds needs a BID?
Matthew Richardson,
Would you consider entering the the article and thread portions of the BID statements into one of the next council meetings to be on record?
Thank you,
Lori Rasmussen
I will likely be out of town for work. I can email the white paper to the council nonetheless Some of the council incumbents have seen it, but I don’t feel like it’s been evaluated yet. A parliamentarian and a WA State Legislator have critically reviewed it though. Cheers,
On November 26, 2019 from the Council podium and during audience comment, I testified regarding the Lighthouse Law Group/City of Edmonds contract 2020-2023. My testimony was not about the performance of Lighthouse but rather the actions of the ad hoc Committee Councilmembers Mesarso and Teitzel and the current Edmonds City Code. The task assigned the two councilmembers was to evaluated and compare the legal services provided by Lighthouse. The Committee assignment didn’t include the responsibility to negotiate a new contract. Beside this issue, the assignment was incomplete because no comparisons of other cities legal services were provided the City Council for their consideration. Another concern with the contract was the back billing for legal services from a flat fee rate to an hourly fee rate should the Council terminate Lighthouse law Group legal services prior to 2023.
Edmonds City Code 2.04.010 states: “The city council shall utilize the consultant selection process established by Chapter 2.80 ECC provided that the mayor shall participate with the city council consultant selection committee in the selection of up to three candidates for presentation to the city council of its final approval.”
ECC Chapter 2.80 Professional Consultants was repealed by Ordinance 3303. There is a code reviser’s note: Ordinance 3303, Exhibit A. available in the office of the clerk, adopts the purchasing policy of the city. On November 26, 2019 per the mrsc.org website, “the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is (sic) current through Ordinance 4161, passed October 15, 2019.”
The city staff and attorney claim this is an old law and has not been followed. New purchasing and procurement policies have been adopted since Ordinance 3303 enacted in 2000. Although this is true and under the guidance of City Attorney Taraday only one of three amendments was adopted by Council Resolution 2017 and not by Ordinance.
Whereas, a resolution encompasses all actions of the municipal body other than ordinances. A resolution deals with matters of a special or temporary character and a ordinance prescribes some permanent rule of conduct or government to continue in force until the ordinance is repealed.
Ordinance 3303 was in effect on November 26, 2019 and on December 17, 2019 when the Mayor and City Clerk and Lighthouse Managing Partner signed the contract. Therefore, despite the perjury of Councilmembers Teitzel and Buckshnis, Finance Director James and City Attorney Taraday the contract is null and void.
The City Council must request an RFP for City Attorney services or decided to hire inhouse legal staff.
Here’s Council Woman Lora Petso asking Attorney Jeff Taraday if the city gave the required public notice for the BID hearings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX39OaL-69U
^ I snipped this clip out of an hours long video.
As I explained in the white paper, the RCW requires 10 days notice before the hearings. Edmonds gave only 9 days, if I remember correctly, abandoned the Initiation Petition in the middle of those days (because it failed to pass), sent out the notices over Christmas vacation, invoked a Resolution Method to *Establish* (the RCW only has a Resolution Method to *Initiate*). All members of the Council expressed that the processes was wonky, only disagreeing over it being categorized as unfair or unclear. A motion for a second hearing was made but ruled out of order [bizarre]. Why no second hearing?
Note from the clip that Taraday says that the petition was “mentioned” in Ordinance 3909. The RCW requires that the Ordinance to Establish post the petition results. The issue is that Taraday also says the petition failed to pass, but the Ordinance says it did pass:
“WHEREAS, the owners and operators of businesses located within the area and representing approximately sixty percent (60%) or more of the assessments levied by this ordinance signed a petition in support of Establishing an Edmonds Downtown Business improvement District;”
If there is a Resolution Method to install a new taxing district, why do a petition at all, and why publish the results nonfactually?
I have some MP3’s that Brent Malgrin dug up from the WA State Legislature discussing BID creation bills back in 1995. It was very clear according to the legistlature that both Assessments and Special Assessments required a petition. WA is not different that any other state that has BID’s.
Who is on the City Council Finance Committee that wanted to put the BID issue on the council consent agenda?
Why was there not a public hearing? Edmonds is a code city any revision to the code requires public participation.
Diane Buckshnis and Tom Mesaros were in attendance.
How was Diane Buckshnis going to get 4 votes to change the agenda?
The schedule of 2020 meetings are listed on http://edmondsdowntown.org/about-ed/. Here’s what the page claims regarding the formation of the BID: “How was the organization established?-
Under the RCW 35.87A.030, the downtown Edmonds BID was formed by ordinance using a three step process. Step 1 – Adoption of a Resolution to Initiate a BID; Step 2 – Resolution Declaring a City’s Intent to Establish a BID; and Step 3 – Approval of an Ordinance to Establish a BID. The petitions gathered from businesses were used to show support from our business community. It was renamed the Edmonds Downtown Alliance in spring 2014.”
‘Advisory Board meetings are held on the 2nd Thursday of each month from 8:00am – 9:30am at the Edmonds Center for the Arts, 410 4th Ave North, Room 225. Please join us.”
January 9, 2020 is listed as the next meeting.
January 15, 2013 is listed asa hearing date for the proposed bid. It appears signatures were still being collected days before the hearing. https://patch.com/washington/edmonds/downtown-business-improvement-district-on-edmonds-citf238be9726
The referenced RCW 35.87A.030 includes parking along with the list of businesses, along with other specific details. This is only the “initiating petition” of the process.
The process, requirements and legal guidelines go well into: RCW 35.87A.180 and beyond including:
‘Disestablishment of area—Hearing.
The legislative authority may disestablish an area by ordinance after a hearing before the legislative authority. The legislative authority shall adopt a resolution of intention to disestablish the area at least fifteen days prior to the hearing required by this section. The resolution shall give the time and place of the hearing.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 45 § 18.]”
RCW 35.87A.190
Disestablishment of area—Assets and liabilities.
Upon disestablishment of an area, any proceeds of the special assessments, or assets acquired with such proceeds, or liabilities incurred as a result of the formation of such area, shall be subject to disposition as the legislative authority shall determine: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, Any liabilities, either current or future, incurred as a result of action taken to accomplish the purposes of RCW 35.87A.010 shall not be an obligation of the general fund or any special fund of the city or town, but such liabilities shall be provided for entirely from available revenue generated from the projects or facilities authorized by RCW 35.87A.010 or from special assessments on the property specially benefited within the area.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 45 § 19.]
RCW 35.87A.200
Bids required—Monetary amount.
Any city or town or county authorized by this chapter to establish a parking improvement area shall call for competitive bids by appropriate public notice and award contracts, whenever the estimated cost of such work or improvement, including cost of materials, supplies and equipment, exceeds the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 45 § 20.]
RCW 35.87A.210
Computing cost of improvement for bid requirement.
The cost of the improvement for the purposes of this chapter shall be aggregate of all amounts to be paid for the labor, materials and equipment on one continuous or inter-related project where work is to be performed simultaneously or in near sequence. Breaking an improvement into small units for the purposes of avoiding the minimum dollar amount prescribed in RCW 35.87A.200 is contrary to public policy and is prohibited.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 45 § 21.]
RCWs > Title 35 > Chapter 35.87A > Section 35.87A.220
35.87A.210 <> End of Chapter
RCW 35.87A.220
Existing laws not affected—Chapter supplemental—Purposes may be accomplished in conjunction with other methods.
This chapter providing for parking and business improvement areas shall not be deemed or construed to affect any existing act, or any part thereof, relating to special assessments or other powers of counties, cities and towns, but shall be supplemental thereto and concurrent therewith.
The purposes and functions of parking and business improvement areas as set forth by the provisions of this chapter may be accomplished in part by the establishment of an area pursuant to this chapter and in part by any other method otherwise provided by law, including provisions for local improvements.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 45 § 22.]
I have not yet found an ordinance number or the hearing.
– Lori
That’s a good run-down Lori. What’s extra confusing is that a lot of the later-added provisions of the RCW were pertinent to only “Special Assessments” and not Assessments. For example, RCW 35.87A.190 regards dissolution of a Special Assessment, and not the BID itself as an area. My best explanation of a Special Assessment is the park out front of the Cheesemonger’s Table. The BID should have paid for that. Also, the BID could charge Cheesemonger’s Table a Special Assessment because that park specially benefits them more than Toshi’s Teriyaki. If the BID pays for a Holiday Trolley, that’s great. However, the BID has the right to motion that Walnut Street Coffee pay a Special Assessment if Pam wants the trolley to stop at her business. Walnut would be specially benefited if the trolley stopped there but didn’t stop at Cafe Louvre. This is why it is *extremely important* that the BID actually conduct meetings. Currently, only the Executive Board has meetings and the BID is mostly a trolley for animosity between businesses. Note: The BID doesn’t have bylaws (they were never adopted), and the Bylaws create the Executive Board, so there legally isn’t an Executive Board.
WA BID law is written very poorly compared to other states, but it mostly says the same things. WA complicated the law by adding poorly constructed Special Assessment law on top of it.