July 17, 2025 9:01 am

The premier news source for Snohomish County

Lynnwood City Council discusses residency requirements and unlimited virtual attendance

LYNNWOOD—The Lynnwood City Council revisited a contentious topic Monday, relating to recodifying residency requirements for City Councilmembers, as well as discussed, a 90-day unlimited virtual attendance for councilmembers (which appears to provide a financial benefit to councilmembers if approved), during its Business Meeting Monday, May 12.

lynnwood residency
Lynnwood City Council meeting on May 12, 2025. Source: Snapshot from Lynnwood City Council Livestream.

In the wake of Binda’s residency kerfuffle, Council member Patrick Decker proposed an amendment to the current Lynnwood Municipal Code (2.04.060) that would clarify the residency requirement language to avoid further confusion.

Last December Council requested an investigation be conducted by the City Attorney to review the costs and labor involved in recodifying the LMC, which was reviewed in January. One month later Councilman Decker requested to instruct City Attorney Marshall on the proposed language change to the code. 

The proposed ordinance has since been reviewed by City Attorney Lisa Marshall who raised concerns Monday, namely related to proof of residency, how proof is obtained, and how those proofs would be made public.

“If a public records request is made by a citizen who wants proof of residency, for example the affidavit, the document evidencing residency, we must honor that as a public records request,” said Marshall. “If for some reason that’s missed, the public records aspect and requirements of that request, there could be dire consequences for the City.”

Residential addresses are not currently protected under the Public Records Act and would normally be redacted, but if a citizen were to request a Public Record, requesting proof of residency, a redacted document would be “useless,” Marshall added.

Councilman Binda, who is under public scrutiny for allegedly living outside the City of Lynnwood until mid-February of this year, said he believes the ordinance “overcomplicates an already handled situation.”

“I think this is already addressed with our current LMC and state law. All this does is create more hindrance to certain situations,” said Binda. “I think if people don’t like the current policies than maybe change the state laws that we have, but this is going to contradict and combat the already in-place state laws.”

Binda added that to get a Washington State Voter Registration card you already need to provide DOL-supported documents.

On April 15, 2025, the Snohomish County Auditor dismissed a Voter Registration Challenge against Binda alleging he lived in Everett because on the day of March 25th hearing, without advance knowledge to the challenger, Councilman Binda changed his voter registration address to a Lynnwood apartment which was later confirmed by the Auditor. According to documentation provided by Councilman Binda under oath to the County Auditor, Binda began renting an apartment within Lynnwood city limits beginning mid-February 2025, making the voter registration challenge moot.

“The challenge was dismissed because the challenger failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Binda does not live at the address in his voter registration record,” Sierra Cornelius, Communications and Public Engagement Officer for the Snohomish County Auditor’s Office told the Lynnwood Times.

When asked if the Auditor’s role is to determine a person’s residency, Cornelius said, “[The] Auditor’s role is to determine if the challenged voter’s registration is improper based on evidence brought forth by the challenger.”

Council member George Hurst added during Monday’s meeting that he hopes the Lynnwood City Council can clarify its policies regarding eligibility to hold two elected office seats as well – another discrepancy brought up when former Lynnwood City Councilwoman Julieta Altamirano-Crosby was elected to serve as Snohomish County PUD Commissioner while still having plans to retain her seat on City Council.

In addressing some of the council’s concerns regarding the “need” to adopt new language, Councilman Decker noted that while Binda’s points are true – regarding state statute, LMC, and MSRC guidelines on residency requirements – the current law does not outright refine what is meant by “resident.”

“If we’re going to say one needs to be a resident of Lynnwood, shouldn’t we all agree what it means to be a resident of Lynnwood?” If we’re going to say that one must live in Lynnwood for one year, prior to their election, shouldn’t we have a definition of what it means to live in Lynnwood?” asked Decker. “Lacking that, literally, someone could be voted into office and move away for six months, continue to Zoom in however they wish, and continue to serve the people of Lynnwood while they’re playing snowbird in Arizona.”

Overall, the Council’s consensus was to have Council member Decker simplify the ordinance and for the topic be revisited at a later date.

Suspension of Council rules regarding virtual meeting attendance

Council President Nick Coelho made a motion to suspend Council Rule 8(B)(2)(A) – which deals with remote meeting attendance of council members.

“This is an active and working-class Council, most of us have full-time jobs, some of which that take us out of town on a semi-regular basis,” said Coelho. “As there are cities in our region that do not have a Zoom attendance restriction and allow hybrid attendance by default, I think we can give ourselves a little bit of leeway. I’m not proposing, necessarily, that we allow for the abuse of remote attendance. I do think there’s a lot of value to be in-person, but I do think while our Rules Taskforce is bringing back a refined version of the Zoom attendance rule, that we suspend this for a period of 90-days.”

The City of Lynnwood Council Rules of Procedure 8(B)(2)(A) reads: “Councilmembers may attend remotely a maximum of three (3) Council Meetings per calendar year; provided the Council may, by majority vote, allow a Councilmember to attend additional meetings remotely in excess of three per year due to medical or other factors beyond the individual’s control. After three virtual meetings, more shall be counted as an unexcused absence.”

Council member David Parshall noted a point of order regarding this suspension, reminding Council that Robert’s Rules, as well as the Lynnwood Council Rules of Procedure passed by council-approved resolution, do not allow for a 90-day suspension and already allows for council members to request, by majority vote, additional remote attendances passed the limit of three.

Given the point of order, Council President Coelho formerly withdrew his motion.

Council Vice President Binda then made a motion that would allow for an unlimited amount of virtually attended meetings, for council members, over the next 90-days, that was seconded by Councilwoman Derica Escamilla.

According to Lynnwood Municipal Code 2.04.072, Compensation of councilmembers, council members are to receive a base compensation per month in the amount of $900.00 plus a “per meeting” payment of $150 up to a maximum accumulated bank of $750.00. However, the LMC reads that “for councilmembers attending less than the five regular scheduled council meetings per month, a $150.00 deduction for the ‘per meeting’ payment bank shall occur for each meeting missed” except “if fewer than five regular council meetings are scheduled in a month” or if a council member is using one of four “excused absences, at their [councilmember] discretion, during any calendar year.”

In other words, council members will not receive full compensation of the $750 monthly portion of the meeting compensation for meetings missed in excess of four meetings. According to the Lynnwood Council Rules of Procedure passed by council-approved resolution, “After three virtual meetings, more [virtual meetings] shall be counted as an unexcused absence.”

If the council were to allow for an unlimited number of meetings virtually attended for council members over the next 90 days, then a councilmember would receive a financial benefit to the rule change.

Binda later withdrew his motion after being challenged by Council member Decker on concerns with its language and urgency, stating that he will hold off until Council President Coelho has an opportunity to clarify his motion’s language.

Other Business

In addition to these two topics, Council signed three proclamations; one officially recognizing Memorial Day on May 26, one recognizing May as Asian Pacific Heritage Month, and another recognizing May as Older Americans Month.

During its consent agenda Council also approved an agreement between the City of Lynnwood and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) that would allow law enforcement services provided by the City of Lynnwood to be reimbursed to the City at an hourly rate of $170.87 for an amount not to exceed $355,409.00 for 2025.

Kienan Briscoe
Author: Kienan Briscoe

2 Responses

  1. naturally like your web site however you need to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to tell the truth on the other hand I will surely come again again.

    1. I discovered an online system that now allows me to make $16,590 per month without the usual stress and long hours. My days are now filled with freedom, creativity, and real financial security—

      Go ON My Profile

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tell Us What You Think

This poll is no longer accepting votes

If you are IAM member, will you vote to approve the October 19 tentative agreement with Boeing? Poll ends 11:59 p.m., Oct 22, 2024.
VoteResults

    Join Our Mailing List

    Verified by MonsterInsights