Edmonds Mayor Dave Earling presented his 2015 State of the City address at the Edmonds Theater on Thursday, Feb. 12. Also speaking were Edmonds School District Board President Diana White and Edmonds native Rick Steves, owner of Europe Through the Back Door. You can read Larry Vogel’s report on the address here.
Leave a Reply
Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.
By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.
My Edmonds News
Sign Up for Our Daily Edmonds Newsletter
“Many think of Edmonds as a quaint seaside village”….”But that is not us”…. Mayor Dave Earling, 2015
Yes, it is us and we also have a quaint Main Street and that is why people come here……Oh, did I forget the beach
Life is a beach……….and I am reminded of
“It takes a village”………..THIS is now a fully global understanding
I would hope that those pushing that we are a city and not a quaint town are not pressing for a commercial runway (Herald today, New York company., Paine Field…just read headline) that would totally destroy what the town of Edmonds is right now……Edmonds would appear to be right under the commercial airline flight path and our land values would become nothing……to say the least about our fragile environment……..South Seattle, Kent, Burien, Des Moines come to mind
Edmonds is way down the population rankings chart for cities in the state of Washington.
Seattle, 606,000, Marysville, 60,020, Federal Way, 89,306, Kenewick,73,917, Vancouver, 161,791, Spokane, 208,916, Tacoma, 198,,397, ,Everett, 105,370, Shoreline, 53,007,Bellevue, 122,363,Yakima, 91,067, Kennewick, .73,917, Redmond, 54,144, Kent, 92,411, Renton, 90,927, Lacy, 42,393, Auburn, 70,180…..need I go on…………
I believe those in our government here are well aware of transportation plans being made…….No wonder the
“But this is not us” “Many think of us as a small quaint seaside village”
In the majority (people and land), Edmonds is not a quaint village. This notion runs from the waterfront up to 9th, and that’s it. I’ve spent many months literally watching a multi-million dollar project arise from the dirt over @ Swedish. Running the length of our City is Hwy 99 and if you have come up out of the ‘village’ you know the volume of traffic that moves each day along the 99. Great public transit running in all directions from around 216th and Hwy 99. All four directions and linked to the major transit nodes in south county/Aurora Village. Gas stations, grocery stores, small and large businesses, they all live outside the village. New development to come, new homes along Lake Ballinger, a community of health care providers along 76th, the same street that provides this part of Edmonds with k-12 education. Entry to the Interurban Trail just east of the 99. Solid neighborhoods, many built after the 1950’s and standing strong today. All of this, and more, makes up the majority of our City. We do visit the ‘village’ at times, but life is good otherwise. Give it a try some time! Oh, by the way, it’s the revenues from the business community along Hwy 99 that supports much of the expense in having the village. You’re welcome.
One can easily check with the Feds and FBI and see the area statistics for residents and business here and as a matter of fact it was just recently that the Feds and Western Washington U.S. Attorneys broke up a large trafficking problem I believe just across 99 in Lynnwood…….The crime is easy to check and this is historical…….. and obviously in what you refer to as “village”, “bowl” whatever has its major crime problems also..(we are all one in the city of Edmonds, in this together)…Feds here last week in unmarked vehicles…….we said, “Hi, and thanks”………down here at the
beach…….same people that show up to help on 99
The jist is that people with businesses and particularily on 99 KNOW exactly what goes on here in our small town, and the cost of this crime does nothing for our town and definately does not support us here in positive ways, nor make us a vibrant town
Again, I spend a whole lot of time up at five corners, so how ’bout not always denigrating the people that live here by the beach and just happen to be able to afford higher taxes…..we still work at our professions 50 and 60 hours a week and are well past the 65 mark, so let’s not make this into a class issue for all of those that live in the bowl. The crime in our town costs all of us and we are all in it together.
New development does not just fix crime areas like 99, Five Corners,……..usually big mega transportation areas have high crime…..if a commercial air runway happens it will be even worse and ALL property values will plummet….developers do not care, they make their monies and are gone…..real estate people also are for more and more development because that is how they make their money
……..
I hope come voting time, people will choose people that will not be saying the same propaganda, development speak……..and we elect people that do not get huge sums from entities a long ways away or entities that have said the same thing for a long time and only want to profit at the expense of our town. Lets get some new fresh ideas, new fresh faces and people that will run our government and staff with ethics and fairness as a priority………Any people that are corrupt or have broke laws or done unethical things need to be gone so all of Edmonds can be a vibrant town
I would also like to add that I am from a big city and I have never heard as many racist remarks as I have since moving here 5 years ago……so this town needs a working, educating Diversity Commission. ……we do our shopping in another area at Five Corners because it is diverse…….No this whole town is not diverse
Ms. Ryder, you remain seriously out of touch with the majority of our fair community. I’ve lived and breathed in this community for 40 years, and I have never seen the discrimination or political corruption you profess exists here, nor have I feared the other personal hazards you speak so often about, be they drones surreptitiously circling your home or studio, cars running you and others off the roads, turnip trucks, or whatever. And I am attuned to the community, and my head is not buried in the sand. Maybe my lack of enlightenment is because (unbeknownst to me) I am one of the “selected few” who you never identify and who themselves probably don’t know who they are and what they consistently profit from.
That being said, Edmonds is no different from any mid-sized city. We have our attributes and we have our issues. We are governed reasonably well, and as good or better than most cities. You think Seattle or Tacoma are more transparent? Probably not. You don’t think we’re sufficiently diverse? Maybe, if you measure diversity only on racial terms and not in terms of diversity of thought, culture, and gender, but we’re gaining on all fronts. Don’t believe it? Check out our changing demographics provided by the Census Bureau. And remember, Hispanics and Middle Easterners are generally counted as Caucasians.
But here’s the thing, Edmonds is a great place to live. All of our diverse neighborhoods contribute to the value of our City. Life here is not just a beach, it’s a pleasure. And we are a great deal more than a quaint beach town, we are the Gem of Puget Sound. From the beach to Highway 99, Downtown, Firdale Village, Perrinville, Westgate, Five Corners, Seaview, Lake Ballinger, Esperance, and up to Mukilteo.
Maybe you should walk more.
Mr. Underhill – home-run! Sure, parts of our city are quaint, but Edmonds is so much more than that. The idea that a dozen or so blocks of old buildings and the waterfront defines the entirety of Edmonds is tunnel-vision and very poor arithmetic. What has made Edmonds a great home for me over the past 30 years is the terrific diversity of our communities and neighborhoods. The city of Edmonds supports a pretty darned good quality of life for about 40,000 citizens and everybody’s neighborhood is an important part of that.
Jim and Matthew, you done good!!
I’m always puzzled by the people who claim there’s no “diversity” in Edmonds. You need to get in your car and drive up towards 99 — those business signs in Korean aren’t there for third-generation Scandinavians. There’s an (I believe) Ethiopian Orthodox church a few blocks from my house, as well as a private Christian school which appears to be, for whatever reason, entirely Asian.
And you know what? We all get along. Bonus: best sushi north of Seattle.
In assessing how well we are governed compared to most cities, one objective measurement would be to look at the quality of our City Code. Would a well governed City function for many years under a City Code that Mayor Earling described last week as a “mish-mash of regulations and rules that have been cobbled together over time”?
This would not be so alarming if the Code problems were a recent development. However, the City has known about the Code problems going back at least 15 years, yet here we sit with a very flawed Code.
City Council has budgeted money for the Code rewrite more than once, but not much has been accomplished. As a citizen I have tried to help with this effort and I will continue to do so as time allows. There is much that needs attention.
Hopefully the quality of our Code will improve soon.
I agree that modernizing the city code is important. I don’t feel however that a partially outdated and/or piece-meal set of ordinances suggests objectively that we are not governed well.
A comprehensive re-write and update is a massive task and will take probably as much time as is already spent on city business, effectively doubling the current work load for council and staff, not to mention expenses. The commission that I currently serve on is now involved with a full opening of 246-808 WAC for edits, rewrites, additions etc. We have voted to double the amount of time we (14 commission members) spend on business in 2015 just to handle the additional work load for the code rewrite.
We are all entitled to our opinion as to how well our City is governed. I merely offered the status of our code and the long history of the rewrite effort as tangible examples of the quality of City Government.
Ken – I couldn’t agree with you more about entitlement to opinions. Your post includes a lot of detail and I hope that compels the council to bring the subject of the rewrite to the forefront and set some targets and priorities.
I don’t doubt the code needs work, but the mayor described our laws at every level of government. What issues in particular are there with the city code?
John – little time to respond.I’ll provide a little glimpse in this post and one more:
From August 20, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes:
Councilmember Moore inquired about the status of the code rewrite. Mr. Bowman answered the review had been completed for Chapter 15 and 17; City Attorney Scott Snyder was working on Chapter 16 and Chapters 18-21 and the critical area regulations in Chapter 23 remained. He noted there was still a great deal of opportunity for citizens/developers to participate in the code rewrite. He expected the review of all the chapters would be complete by next spring and ready for presentation to the Council a chapter at a time. Councilmember Moore referred to a suggestion to form a committee to assist with the rewrite. Mr. Bowman advised he could facilitate that effort.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled staff’s indication that some of the code rewrite would be available this fall. Mr. Bowman answered Chapter 17 and the non-conforming regulations would be presented to the Council this fall. He explained the nuisance regulations were contained in Chapter 17; staff planned to schedule separate hearings for the nuisance provisions and for the non-conforming regulations. He anticipated a series of code rewrite presentations to the Council.
From November 3, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes:
Mr. Snyder recalled three years ago he recommended updating the Community Development Code, yet only two chapters had been addressed, chapters that staff had identified as the least controversial. The most important chapter that needed to be updated was the procedures chapter which needed to be streamlined, made user friendly via the use of charts and less dissentient. Further there were several areas of the code that were out of compliance with State law. He recommended the City’s permit revocation procedures be updated while Mr. Bowman was still on staff and suggested using a stakeholder process of citizens, organizations, builders and developers to review the procedures section. He noted there were other issues more appropriately addressed in Executive Session.
John -following are examples of problems….some of the following may have been addressed by now…don’t have time today to review status….gut tells me much of the below still needs to be addressed:
1. Non Conforming Law: clarify law and associated procedures, identify Type of decision and appeal process.
2. EMC 2.05 code requires the City Attorney to attend all sessions of the Edmonds Municipal Court. [Ord. 2430, 1984; Ord. 1107, 1965; Ord. 926 § 2, 1962]
3. ECDC 20.75.040(C). A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050https://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2075.html plat at the applicant’s option. Section 20.75.050 does not discuss a preliminary plat map. It discusses lot line adjustments. The reference should be to Section 20.75.060.
4. ECDC 16.20.040(D). Setback Adjustments. https://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/Edmonds20/Edmonds2050.htmlECDC 20.50 contains a procedure for adjusting distances and locations in special situations. This would appear to be where a citizen would find a discussion of setbacks related to special situations such as flag lots. Incredibly, when one goes to Chapter 20.50, one finds it has nothing to do with setback adjustments. I’ve conducted a search for the word “setback” in Chapter 20.50 and I do not see the word anywhere in the chapter. Chapter 20.50 relates to WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. After a neighbor of mine researched the issue, it was found that flag lots setbacks are addressed in something called a Staff Interpretation. Staff Interpretation #97-2 was issued in 1997 describing how flag lots are treated with side setbacks. Even though 13 years have passed, this Staff Interpretation has never been codified! Several of the code sections referenced in Interpretation #97-2 have been subsequently updated via ordinance, yet this Staff Interpretation still appears to be in effect.
I must ask, how many other Staff Interpretations have yet to be codified and how can this be allowed? Furthermore, are Staff Interpretations a smart idea in the first place? Edmonds actually allows staff to make laws apart from City Council review?!? If I understand this correctly, it seems like very bad policy to me.
I have a troubling feeling that the City Council does not possess a comprehensive list of all “Staff Interpretations” that have yet to be codified, including the date of each such “Staff Interpretation”.
5. It is time to conduct a full investigation into the passage of Ordinance 3740, passed after it was represented to the City Council that a public hearing was not required as the Ordinance was merely to correct a Scrivener’s error. I have strong reasons to believe this was not true and Ordinance 3740 is an illegally adopted law.
6. ECC 2.05.010 states that the city council shall utilize the consultant selection process established by Chapter 2.80 ECChttps://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds02/edmonds0280.html 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 for its final approval. Chapter 2.80 ECC was repealed by Ordinance 3303 many years ago.
7. It would be most appreciated if somebody could provide a clear definition of “City Officer” under the City’s laws. In addition, it would be helpful to have a complete list of “City Officer” positions.
Following is additional information with several related questions:
ECC Chapter 2.40 is titled BONDS FOR OFFICERS.
It includes the following:
2.40.010 Bonds required – Amounts, blanket bond authorized.
The finance director, city clerk, deputy city clerk, chief of police and city attorney shall be bonded and may be so bonded by an individual bond policy or by a blanket bond policy including other city employees, naming the city of Edmonds as its beneficiary and bonding all covered officers and employees for $5,000 or more for fidelity, for $5,000 or more for faithful performance, and for $45,000 or more as an aggregate excess fidelity coverage. The surety for such bond shall be a surety company authorized to do business in the state of Washington, or an unauthorized surety insurer as a surplus line pursuant to Chapter 48.15 RCW. Any such bond offered in satisfaction of this section must be approved by the mayor. [Ord. 2317 § 1, 1982].
Four of the five positions mentioned in ECC 2.40.010 are not mentioned in ECC 2.10.010. The only position mentioned in both sections of the Code is chief of police, who is referred to as “police chief” in ECC 2.10.010.
This leads to more questions related to our Code:
1. Are the positions of finance director, city clerk, deputy city clerk and city attorney “City Officers”? If so, are they subject to the Confirmation Process described in ECC 2.10.010?
2. Why does ECC 2.40.010 not require Bonds for other positions thought to be “City Officer” positions, such as:
Hearing Examiner
Community Services Director
Administrative Services Director
Development Services Director (Director of Community Development)
Parks and Recreation Director
Public Works Director
Human Resources Director
3. Are the bond AMOUNTS still adequate? Is $5,000 or more for fidelity, $5,000 or more for faithful performance, and $45,000 or more as an aggregate excess fidelity coverage adequate at this point in time. The related ordinance was drafted in 1982 and the required bond amounts may be inadequate as 30 years have passed.
4. Do “City Officers” have to be employees of the City or can they also be those who have Professional Services Contracts with the City?
8. ECC 2.80 Professional Consultants was repealed by Ordinance 3303 over 10 years ago on April 25, 2000. Ordinance 3303, Exhibit A, available in the office of the city clerk, adopts the purchasing policy of the city. For some reason, this ordinance was never codified so citizens are unable to look up the purchasing policy of the City online.
9. I have found more Code Errors, this time related to Code section 10.35.010 Office of hearing examiner.
First of all, Chapter 1.14 hyperlinked in the Conflict of Interest section was repealed March 5, 2004.
Secondly, portions of Chapter 20.100 hyperlinked in the Powers and Duties section have been repealed.
In particular, please review the Conflict of Interest and Freedom from Improper Influence Paragraphs in Code section 10.35.010 carefully.
Chapter 10.35 of the City’s Code appears to be out of date and may require correction. For example, ECC 10.35.010.C states the following:
Conflict of Interest. The hearing examiner may hold no other position in the city government of Edmonds or be an employee of or contractor for any person under contract to the city of Edmonds. The hearing examiner shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 1.14 ECC, Public Official Disclosure.
There is no longer a Chapter 1.14 ECC as it was repealed by Ordinance 3489 in January of 2004.
10. Speaking of more errors in the City Code, just noted another one in Chapter 20.100.040 C. 6.:
If the hearing examiner finds that the only reasonable way to correct the deficiencies is for the permittee to cease the permitted activity, the hearing examiner may revoke the permit. The hearing examiner’s action shall be appealable to the city council under ECDC 20.100.010.https://sn134w.snt134.mail.live.com/Edmonds20/Edmonds20100.html
There is no ECDC 20.100.010https://sn134w.snt134.mail.live.com/Edmonds20/Edmonds20100.html. It was repealed also.
11. Please note that ECDC 20.75.158 contains at least one more CODE ERROR. It represents that final short plat approval is a Type II decision. It is a Type I decision. Also, I am not sure if Chapter 20.06 applies to Type I decisions.
12. 20.75.065 Preliminary review.
E. Short Subdivisions – Staff Review. The director of community services shall review a short subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision – Notice required).
F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the community development director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06https://bay171.mail.live.com/Edmonds20/Edmonds2006.html ECDC. [Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 1983].
The Edmonds City Code contains more errors in a CRITICAL spot – preliminary Short Plat Approval. This is the approval that vests so many rights to the applicant. The Code states that the review must be done by the director of community services as a Type II decision. The Code does not allow this review and decision to be designated or delegated.
The Edmonds City Code then goes on to say that the Type II decision of the community development director on a short subdivision may be appealed to the hearing examiner. The obvious problem with this is that the Code requires the director of community services to make this Type II decision, not the community development director.
13. https://bay171.mail.live.com/Edmonds20/Edmonds2075.html20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats.
N. The location of tree-covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director;
I do not believe there is a position of planning director. Even if there was, why would disclosure of the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter be at the planning director’s discretion? I am uncertain if this should state community development director or director of community services, but I am fairly certain it should not state planning director.
14. Another example is ECC 10.35.010.F, which states the following:
F. Vacations and Dedications. The hearing examiner will review the comprehensive plan and report on the same prior to any street vacation or dedication as provided in ECDC 15.05.020.
I do not know if the Hearing Examiner has done such related to any street vacation or dedication, so maybe the Code needs to be updated to reflect such. Also, I do not think there is an ECDC 15.05.020 anywhere in the Code. I can’t tell if any such Code section ever existed as is possible with most code sections that were repealed. Furthermore, the link to ECDC 15.05.020 is not hyperlinked as most code links are.
15. Chapter 2.10 as discussed on My Edmonds News. Please also see my response to that article for more information.
16. ECDC 20.110.040(A) & (D) needs to be further clarified related to what is an administrative hearing and appeal procedures to Superior Court.
I’m out of my depth here, but surely no one can accuse you of not having specific examples. 🙂 Sounds like a job for a herd of lawyers.
Thank you for “knowing what you don’t know”. I wish that a few others on this site would follow your example.
And I genuinely can say that probably nobody knows as much about the code issue as Ken
It is clear that after much ta do forever regarding our mixed up and un updated code that it is left this way so ANYBODY can interpret this type of wishy-washy code any way they want to depending on the circumstances each time …….The excuses I’ve heard regarding this clearly point to that over and over again for many years. Why update totally when this seems to be a system that has worked for many years. Another reason why many citizens do not trust this government……..That the update would take a lot of time and be hard is totally ridiculous this day and age.
Thanks Ron – I wish I had not spent so much time reading our code, but now that I have – I hope what I have learned can be useful for Edmonds and its citizens.
Our Code has two components. The first is the Edmonds City Code (ECC) comprised of Titles 1 through 10. This component is sometimes referred to as the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC). The ECC/EMC deals with more general provisions.
The second component is the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). It is comprised of Titles 15 through 23. This component deals more with land use, development, public works and natural resources.
The latest rewrite attempt deals with the ECDC only. This attempt is in process and I am rooting for a successful completion of this effort.
The ECC/EMC badly needs to be rewritten also. I hope this will be recognized and prioritized by our current elected officials. It would help if other citizens would contact all elected officials and ask them to please address the ECC/EMC also, not just the ECDC.
The following is an excerpt from an email I sent my elected officials on December 6, 2010 the day before two code errors were addressed during the December 7, 2010 City Council meeting:
“It is highly troubling that these two code sections are being corrected many years after they should have been. I know they seem like minor corrections, but they are symbolic of a much larger problem. My question to you is: How many more errors exist in the City Code at this very moment? Errors that may be much more significant and can lead to problems for the City and its citizens? How can any of you possibly know?”
“As a citizen who has found errors in the City Code and who has been harmed by the ambiguous City Code that was inconsistent with State law related to appeal procedures, I beg you to get this situation under control.”
My hope today, in early 2015, is that we are committed to getting this entire situation under control. There is much work to do.
Hi all,
Just a reminder, the overwhelming majority of folks that comment on this or any given MEN article truly provide constructive feedback and opinion. Those that fall prey to responding to Ms. Ryder’s constant negativity, are just feeding the fire.
It is rare when she offers anything positive and often calls out our “sea side village”, “quaint town” or “awesome city, we call home” as broken and unsatisfactory for all.
Having a town that follows the rule of law and ethics is positive and should be at the top of what all citizens want for the place they call home. I would question those that don’t want this and those that find questioning actions by our government as negative……We live in a democracy and the day we quit asking important questions and our government not being answerable to its citizens, democracy doesn’t exist. Our government and citizens should welcome these questions…..We have historically much to have learned from past actions of descent being quashed. ……for me personally the 60s come to mind……Well, we were right about the war and we were right about the civil rights movement…….I remember well some of the same rhetoric from that era……I also remember the “if you dont like it, leave the country”……….same old rhetoric