The Lynnwood City Council had another lengthy debate over proposed changes to residency requirements at its meeting Monday, along with three proclamations for the month of May and a brief discussion on councilmember remote attendance regulations. 

The council held a proclamation observing Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and Older Americans Month, which both span the month of May. Additionally, a proclamation was held for Memorial Day on May 26. The council was joined by residents and community leaders to accept these proclamations. 

Following this, the council spent a large portion of the meeting discussing residency requirements. This conversation is tied to months of debate between councilmembers and concern from residents on whether Council Vice President Josh Binda lives in Lynnwood. 

Councilmember Patrick Decker came to the council with a proposed ordinance to “sharpen up” city code on residency requirements. 

Currently, the city’s laws on qualifications to hold elected office don’t dive into specifics on residency and instead refer to state law on the matter. State law requires electeds to be registered voters in the city they run for election, and requires candidates to live in said city for at least a year prior to running. 

Additionally, under state law, a city council seat becomes vacant when an elected official ceases to be a legally registered voter in the jurisdiction they serve – among other things including death, resignation or conviction of a felony. 

Councilmember Decker’s proposed ordinance suggests the following changes to city code: 

• In addition to being a registered voter in the city, an elected official must be “living within city limits with an ‘active’ status in State voting registration database” upon filing to run for office. 
• “Council members must reside continuously within city limits for the duration of their term, except in cases of extreme hardship which prevent a councilmember from residing within city limits for a short duration of time, not to exceed 30 days in total over the course of their 4-year term,” the proposed amendment reads. If any councilmember needs to live outside of city limits, they would need to submit a document to council detailing the hardship causing them to leave, including a beginning and end date to living outside Lynnwood. He also proposed the councilmember submit a written affidavit stating their “intent to resume residence within City Limits and the date of that action.” The council would then hold a vote on whether to approve the request. 
• If a councilmember ceases to live in Lynnwood without council approval, the councilmember’s position is “immediately vacated” and the council will begin the replacement process. 
• Any Lynnwood resident with an active voter registration status may also submit a request for proof of residency for any elected official every six months. Upon this request officials would need to provide proof of residency within 15 days. Acceptable documentation includes those required by the Washington Department of Licensing. Decker proposed not allowing voter registration and documents listing a P.O. box as proof of address. The council can allow an additional four weeks for a councilmember to provide proof of residency by a majority vote. A councilmember’s seat would be vacated if they failed to provide sufficient proof of residency within this timeframe. 

City Attorney Lisa Marshall raised concerns over potential complexity of the proposed ordinance, specifically over how citizens would obtain proof of residence and an affidavit. If a resident requested proof of residency through a public records request, the city would have five days to respond, per the state’s Public Records Act. There could be “dire consequences” for the city if they were unable to meet that deadline. 

“It puts the city clerk’s office in a difficult position,” to try and distinguish these proof-of-residency requests from a request under the Public Records Act, Marshall said. 

She also mentioned concerns over the complexity of crafting a final ordinance that would withstand potential constitutional challenge if it were ever presented to a court for any reason. 

“Those can be some challenges that people may make,” she said. “I’m not giving you an opinion on whether those would necessarily be upheld or not, but those are some things I can think of.” 

Other councilmembers said the amendments could be redundant, raising questions about whether the proposed rules were already covered by existing policy or law. 

“I think, in my personal opinion, that this over complicates an already handled situation,” Council Vice President Binda said. Our LMC already addresses it, as well as state laws for certain situations. …So if anyone has a problem or an issue, they can do what was recently done to me, which is challenge someone’s voter registration.” 

In March, Binda faced a voter registration challenge from a Lynnwood resident who alleged Binda didn’t live in Lynnwood. Snohomish County Auditor Garth Fell dismissed the challenge.  He said it was his duty to prove the validity of Binda’s registration at the time of the hearing, which Binda updated to a new apartment in Lynnwood hours before the hearing. This nullified the challenge since the challenger’s evidence related to addresses listed on Binda’s voter registration prior to the hearing. 

While he said he understood Decker’s intent to assure residents that councilmembers live in the city, Councilmember David Parshall said he saw “extreme difficulty in making this as airtight” as intended. He said he would like to see the “burden fall on councilmembers to be honest and forthcoming about their residence.” 

Every year, elected officials are required by law to submit their address on personal financial statements (F1). Councilmember George Hurst said he felt this was sufficient proof of address. 

“I would hope that we rely on the honesty of our councilmembers,” Hurst said. If a councilmember faces hardship –such as losing housing– and has to live outside city limits for a time, Hurst said the council should “address that on a one-on-one basis.” The proposed ordinance has “a lot of hidden issues,” he said. “This really is complicating things.” 

Councilmember Decker rebutted, stating F1 documents are “point in time” documents and don’t verify where you “have lived, where you have been living, and where you will live.” 

With staff and councilmember concerns in mind, Decker said he would “be happy to go back and do a revision” of the proposed ordinance to bring before the council at a later date. 

In other business, the council briefly discussed potentially suspending council requirements around remote attendance. As the rules currently stand, councilmembers are allowed to remotely attend three council meetings per year. Council President Nick Coelho, who introduced the item, made a motion to suspend the rule Monday, but rescinded it following direction from the city attorney. However, he said he would rework the item and bring it back for future consideration. 

A full recording of the meeting can be viewed on the city’s website. 

— Contact Ashley at ashley@myedmondsnews.com.