Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
The Edmonds City Council at its Tuesday night meeting unanimously approved an interlocal agreement between the cities of Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace supporting improvements at Ballinger Park.
The park borders both cities, and under state law, interlocal agreements allow local government agencies to share resources for their mutual benefit. During the 2023 budget process, the city council approved allocating $200,000 to support the third phase of improvements at the park, which will provide Edmonds residents with more convenient access to the park and Lake Ballinger. The planned improvements on the northwest corner of the park and adjacent to Edmonds include a pedestrian access trailhead and trails and a dock for access to the lake in the northwest corner.
City of Mountlake Terrace Recreation and Parks Director Jeff Betz paid a virtual visit to the council to explain the project. He noted that until 2012, the park used to be a nine-hole golf course. When the vendor that operated the course ceased operations, the city gained an additional 42 acres of passive park space and in 2013, the City of Mountlake Terrace adopted a park master plan to guide future development.
Phase 1 of that $3 million plan — including a new fishing pier, boat launch and restroom on the park’s eastern portion — was completed in 2022. A playground fully accessible to those with disabilities opened in 2023. Phase 2, now underway, is a $5.5 million project between Mountlake Terrace and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The phase 2 plan includes a substantial ecological restoration component for the portion of Hall Creek that runs through Ballinger Park, together with the park ponds and wetland areas. It aims to transform the park into a natural area with wetlands, riparian corridors, natural vegetation, and habitat for birds, fish, turtles and amphibians – and hopefully someday to support salmon runs.
Edmonds’ $200,000 approved Tuesday night will go toward Ballinger Park phase 3. The $1.5 million project includes building pathways connecting the Interurban Trail — which runs along the lake’s west side between Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace — to a new viewing platform over the lake. The trails will also provide access to the flyover boardwalk and the Hall Creek bridge crossing, both currently under construction.
The current pedestrian entryway to the park from the Edmonds side is toward the park’s north end, but the proposed new access point would be at the midpoint — further south — where there is now vehicle access with two large gates, Betz said.
On Aug. 9, Mountlake Terrace held an open house to present design ideas for viewing platforms and trails, and asked community members to take a survey on the concepts.
Betz, who noted the Mountlake Terrace City Council approved the same interlocal agreement Aug. 21, pointed out that it helps both cities reach their goal of providing parks and open space to their respective communities. “Most residents do not care what city something is in, they just want to have access to that activity or amenity itself,” Betz said.
Assuming all environmental permits are approved, Mountlake Terrace hopes to bring the project to bid in spring 2024, with construction during the summer, Betz said
Councilmember Will Chen moved to approve the project. “These improvements are going to greatly increase and benefit the residents living on the Edmonds side, closer to the Lake Ballinger area,” Chen said. “We all know that southeast Edmonds has lack of public access to open space.”
Councilmember Diane Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Vivian Olson for coming up with the idea of the interlocal agreement, which led to collaboration among councilmembers to bring the idea to fruition. Buckshnis also noted that Edmonds Waterfront Center/Senior Center is now partnering with the Mountlake Terrace Senior Community Center — now known as the Lake Ballinger Center — which will also benefit the community. “I just think there’s so much potential here and I’m very pleased with how this is working out,” Buckshnis said.
In other business Tuesday night, the council decided — by a 5-1 vote, with one absention — to send a letter to Gov. Jay Inslee requesting a meeting regarding the Unocal property next to the Edmonds Marsh. The vote came despite opposition from Edmonds Mayor Mike Nelson, who held a press conference at the marsh’s south viewing platform just prior to the council meeting to decry the council’s consideration of the matter. The mayor did not attend Tuesday night’s council meeting.
In January 2005, WSDOT and Unocal entered into a purchase and sale agreement for the property, a former bulk fuel terminal and asphalt production plant. At the time, WSDOT intended to use the site for a multimodal transportation center known as Edmonds Crossing, but that plan has been abandoned. Since 2017, contractors for Chevron — which purchased the property from Unocal — have been working under a Department of Ecology order to clean up contamination on the site.
City of Edmonds officials and marsh advocates have been hopeful that the city could eventually purchase the property from WSDOT, which would assist with both the city’s marsh restoration and Willow Creek daylighting efforts and promote the return of salmon runs there.
The council spent nearly two hours at its April 18 meeting discussing a proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the city and the WSDOT, which was advocated by Nelson as a way to ensure marsh restoration. As councilmembers debated the issue, they voted 4-3 to draft a letter to the governor to explore the option of the state retaining ownership of the Unocal property. Those in support have argued that the state may be better equipped than the city to oversee marsh restoration efforts — especially given ongoing concerns about contamination issues.
On May 23, the council voted 6-1 to approve the MOU. During that same meeting, the council also again reviewed letter to governor, but consideration of it was tabled after some councilmembers stated that WSDOT officials should first be notified of the planned outreach to the governor. The council sent a letter regarding that to State Transportation Secretary Roger Millar Aug. 2.
Originally, councilmembers were expecting the State Department of Ecology to releases its latest findings on the Unocal property cleanup in late summer. But Ecology announced last week those findings have been delayed, prompting some councilmembers to revisit sending the letter to the governor.
Introducing the matter Tuesday night, Councilmember Dave Teitzel pointed out that the letter — which is addressed to Inslee but copies state legislators and department heads, tribal leaders and salmon recovery advocates — has been revised to state that the purpose is “strictly to explore options about Unocal property and no recommendations proposed.”
The primary objective, no matter who owns that Unocal property, Teitzel said, is to ensure the marsh “is fully restored” for salmon recovery, as a wildlife refuge, for environmental preservation and public enjoyment. Once the Ecology Department certifies that Unocal has met cleanup standards for the property — expected in early 2024 — the title will transfer from Unocal to WSDOT, which will sell the property as surplus as soon as possible, he said. Part of the city council’s “due diligence on behalf of our taxpayers needs to be to determine the most cost-effective means of restoration of that property,” Teitzel said.
Because WSDOT is required to sell the property at fair market value, under current zoning, that price could be “in excess of $20 million,” Teitzel said, and that excludes any restoration costs. “If the state retains ownership, it has the resources and expertise Edmonds doesn’t have to drive estuary restoration and potentially remediate additional pollution issues,” he added.
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Olson agreed with the approach, stating that there is no harm in asking for a meeting and having a conversation if a meeting is granted.
In his remarks to the media Tuesday night, Nelson stated that sending such a letter to the governor “could set things back dramatically” for the city’s marsh efforts and called the council’s proposal “contentious” and “undermining.”
Councilmember Susan Paine, who voted against sending the letter, expressed similar sentiments prior to her vote. “I don’t know that having a meeting with the governor is, one, feasible,” Paine said. “I think the options you are laying out here will just muddy the issue, that it doesn’t really advance anything.”
Paine also said that Teitzel’s estimated costs for the marsh property “are speculative. We don’t have any firm basis for calling it $20 million.”
During his news conference, Nelson said that after he became mayor four years ago, he asked both the governor and state agencies for their help in purchasing the Unocal property so it could be restored — but received no interest.
“I concluded that the only way this will work is if we work with those who own the marsh and find ways to collaborate,” Nelson said. City staff began to collaborating with WSDOT and the result was the memorandum of understanding approved by the council in May.
State officials, Nelson said, have said they see no purpose in owning the marsh. Yet, the council is “going behind the back of the state agency” to talk with the governor about the idea. “I can’t think of something that is more contentious, undermining…it just baffles me,” Nelson said.
“This is the closest we’ve ever been to be able to restore this marshland. If WSDOT walks away from this, they will sell it to the first person who is interested to buy it, and that’s gonna be a developer,” Nelson said. “We won’t be able to compete, we won’t be able to match, they will sell to a developer, and this land will become condos and who knows what. But it won’t be a marsh, it won’t be restored unless we’re in the driver seat.”
Councilmembers Buckshnis, Chen, Olson, Teitzel and Tibbott voted in favor of sending the letter, with Paine voting against and Jenna Nand abstaining.
The council also:
– Heard a proclamation in honor of National Hispanic Heritage Month. Accepting the proclamation was Edmonds Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility Commission Vice Chair Jeanett Quintanilla. You can read the details at this link.
– Received a presentation regarding the Fixit Edmonds public reporting phone app. Councilmembers thanked city staff for implementing the app so that people can report a range of facilities issues that need to be addressed. “It really helps me as a councilmember focus on the policy level, not the potholes,” Councilmember Susan Paine said. You can learn more about the app here.
– Learned more about a financial dashboard and metrics prepared by Council Finance Committee Chair Will Chen to display the city’s financial status. You can download the mid-year review here.
— Story by Teresa Wippel with reporting by Nick Ng
A huge mistake was made 70 years ago when the state allowed an asphalt plant to be built on our shoreline. Now we are faced with the enormous task of seeing to it that this site is restored to a condition which will allow salmon and other wildlife to utilize this area in the same manner as they did prior to the operation of that plant. It is vital that we work with every organization and agency involved to see to it that the site is properly remediated and returned to its pristine condition. I believe that the sending of this letter will clearly state the cities goals and will bring all of the involved organizations to the table to work towards the funding and completion of this project. I applaud those council members wrote and approved this letter and I look forward to the day that we see salmon spawning in that stream !
On the issue of the Unocal property use for salmon recovery, Mayor Nelson either has his head stuck in the mud or has ulterior motives for future use of that property. Just the fact that Mayor Nelson wanted the Council to approve an MOU for purchase of the property that had NO MENTION of Marsh restoration or salmon recovery smacks of some backroom deal with WSDOT Ferries (that may explain the Mayor missing the Council Meeting to do a press conference behind the back of the Council) or an ulterior motive on future use of the property. Citizens should be aware that his MOU is noteworthy in its repeated statements on “Edmonds may withdraw its interests on purchase of the property” which would negate the State legislature’s proviso and give WSDOT Ferries open-rein to achieve their stated goal of maximum compensation for the property without regard to salmon recovery or Marsh restoration.
What’s missing in this chronology is the City’s 2019 Legislative Agenda which asked the State Legislature to have another State agency that is responsible for natural resource management take over title because WSDOT Ferries refused to commit to future use of the property for salmon recovery.
Given that the city has control of zoning, and zoning dictates value…downzone the upland property to Commercial Waterfront or even to single family RS 20,000. Use as a reason for the downzone protection of the valuable wetland adjacent. I have always wondered if the best use of the property is an expansion of the martime uses of the Port of Edmonds that greatly contribute top the aesthetics of the town.
Does this Mayor and his Executive Assistant, Susan Paine, ever watch the news? The state ferry system is broken down and broke as a result. Much of the ferry fleet is floating junk that needs to be replaced and WSDOT is desperately in need of selling that shoreline property that Kevin (Paine’s opponent for City Council in Nov.) refers to in his comment. Said property is badly polluted and the oil companies that did the polluting and the State that now owns the property are playing “not it” on the cost of clean-up that could be in the multi millions of dollars. For some reason the facts of the study about the amount of pollution and cost to be dealt with just keep being “not quite available yet.” The Mayor skipped two city meetings he was supposed to be running to put on his little show. This city government is disgusting and needs to get new leadership next year.
Mayor Nelson says that when he became mayor four years ago he “asked both the governor and state agencies for their help in purchasing the Unocal property so it could be restored — but received no interest”. Is this true, as I don’t recall hearing him talk about this contact (maybe I missed it?). I find it note worthy that in reference to the letter approved by the council he says “I can’t think of something that is more contentious, undermining…it just baffles me”, and yet he schedules a press conference the night of the council meeting, and doesn’t attend the meeting at all.
Posting on behalf of Councilmember Buckshnis:
hmmm – the Mayor not available last night to provide his opinion on how Council is “working behind his back” – perhaps he should look in the mirror!
My work with the Salmon Recovery Councils and Joe Scordino’s on Marsh restoration has been transparent since 2010. We both understand the lawsuit(s) and agency dynamics which is why I voted no on the MOU. Regardless if Mr. Taraday negotiated it as a non-binding agreement; if “we” walk away – we are signaling that “we” are no longer interested in purchasing the property and it’s on the market. That is the unintended consequence of a non-binding agreement coupled with option to purchase.
Last time, the Administration went behind Council/citizens’ back and negotiated a “channel design” as a Mitigation project (meaning NO public input) for the Connector, the citizens went ballistic? What happened here? And no, WSDOT Ferries’ feelings were not hurt, as implied – it’s a state agency looking to capitalize on that property.
Considering administrations have ignored Council’s request to remove “Edmonds Crossing” Project from our Comprehensive Plan, we have a problem – as our vision is mixed-used development. Many know the undercurrent of housing near multimodal is real. I have heard many (elected included) say “why not five acres only”! So, we are in quagmire and this Inslee letter is an option to pursue.
The Ballinger Park interlocal agreement is an excellent value using public funds. There’s so much potential with this park through collaboration that will benefit Edmonds. Councilmember Vivian Olson once again shows her civic leadership for coming up with the idea of the agreement.
Vivian Olson will be a very important asset to the better City Government of the not too distant future, assuming the election goes to the best people. I’m glad she is running unopposed.
Now, if we can get Roger Pence, Keven Fagerstrom, and Michelle Dotsch elected too we will have a pretty good basic crew of independent and open minded real public servants to represent all of us and not just some of us as City Council Members. I’m not totally sold on Will Chen and Jenna Nand yet, but I see some pretty good glimmers of hope for a better future there too. Will and Jenna are in a bit of a tough spot because they live in a part of our city that has gotten some poor deals and, worse yet, even ignored in the past. That has to stop.
Nand’s non-vote was better than an outright “no” but looks weak on this very important vote about the Unocal property letter to the Governor. There is a very high chance that that property will get paved over to cap the pollution that will be deemed too expensive to eliminate. Paving over, will likely mean business and/or housing use – not salmon restoration and recovery as many of us might prefer. This is a big deal!
So, Mayor Nelson did not get his way and therefore he boycotts the Council meeting and ignores his duty to preside over the meeting because he is having a snit fit? Is this the kind of leadership we need for the future? I think not. We need a new Mayor who will work with the Council to achieve common goals. Mayor Nelson is divisive and not transparent as to what he actually wants to achieve. He needs to return to his old job as a local labor union president for SEIU.
In short, I believe it, prudent and wise for this section of the marsh to remain in the states ownership. Any unforeseen soil contamination issues requiring remediation, would absolutely bankrupt the cities funds.
You are absolutely correct, Ed, which is why EPA may be an option along with talking to Gov Inslee who can only evoke change and be a true hero and recognize that the citizens of Edmonds should not bear the additional cost of a mothballed WSDOT Ferries project.
The MOU will not allow us to sit at the table when the restrictive covenants are negotiated with WSDOT and DOE.
DOE doesn’t want to be sued by Chevron so that WSDOT pipe may be restricted from the cleanup costs so future cleanup costs will be on new owner or taxpayers of Edmonds!
It is astonishing that Mayor Nelson is portraying himself as a supporter of Edmonds Marsh Restoration when he, in fact, NEVER DID RESPOND to community requests to allow volunteers to do bona-fida restoration work in the Marsh (see: https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/06/letter-to-the-editor-an-open-letter-to-mayor-nelson-about-volunteer-marsh-restoration-work/ ). The City Council had to provide the approval.
Further, Mayor Nelson’s supposed support for salmon recovery is totally countered by his actions to destroy salmon in both Perrinville Creek and Shell Creek (see: https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/08/reader-view-can-we-stop-the-demise-of-edmonds-salmon-streams/ )
Thus, I’d say, thank goodness the City Council has stepped-in to raise the issue of salmon recovery with Governor Inslee including State responsibilities to have the Unocal site sufficiently cleaned of toxins so that a “salmon channel” across the Unocal site is a real possibility. And, let’s keep Mayor Nelson out-of-the picture – he’s either clueless or has other mischievous intentions for the Unocal property.
I’m curious about the Port’s role or non-role in the Marsh land purchase/restoration/preservation (or whatever the ultimate goal here is). Isn’t the Port the right agency to pursue this Unocal land, given their adjacency as well as their ownership of Harbour Square on the opposite side of the Marsh? Why is this a City project and not a Port project?
Regarding the Ballinger Park paved trail agreement, my recollection is that Councilmembers Olson, Nand and Chen were all boosters of this connection. I thank them all as this will be a great short cut walking or biking to the MLT light rail station when it opens, as well as the waterfront improvements MLT has already completed at the park.
It would be nice if the neighbors on the Edmonds side of the Interurban Trail are given a chance to provide some input to the trailside improvements that logically must accompany this new trail and connection and gateway… a few parking spots along the fenceline, lighting, replacement of the broken down chain link fence, etc.
Hello John
On the park, it was Vivian Olson bringing it to my attention from citizen Natalie Seitz and I mentioned it to Will. Nand had nothing to do with this endeavor.
Agreed that the investment to the Interurban Trail and the access to Ballinger Park is going to be very welcomed by the community (speaking as a resident of Lake Ballinger). A huge thank you to those who championed this project, namely CM Olson. Lighting is a huge issue on the Interurban in the Edmonds section. The worst area is close to 228th (the alleyway that leads from this new entrance up to the 228th crossing) is pitch black at night, has bushes on both sides in some areas that add to the uncertainty walking through that area, in addition to a substantial graffiti problem due to the conditions. The area near 76th is equally dark. I have always thought about this from a recreation standpoint in this case having to walk our dog twice a day in the winter through these areas, but the point above about the light rail station opening and people using the trail to access this is a point very well taken. I would not want to talk through there at night as a commuter with all of my work items. Nevertheless, a huge thank you for the investment for the community here.
John,
On the Port of Edmonds website it states: “The mission of the Port of Edmonds is to provide value to our community through economic development, marina and commercial operations, waterfront public access, and environmental stewardship.” Purchasing the Marsh doesn’t fit the Port’s stated mission, although they could be a partner in restoration. It can be argued that the Port never should have purchased Harbor Square because the Port/taxpayers were then on the hook for clean up of that property, which added significantly to the cost.
Council is doing the right thing to request a meeting with Governor Inslee to explore options such as to “have the state maintain ownership of the 22 acre parcel” and/or “partner with the State in preserving and enhancing the marsh estuary” given the clean-up costs and issues, and ultimate restoration goals.
Note: Quotes are directly from the draft letter Council voted on Tuesday night, from Council packet pgs. 347-350.
I love it when city council members work together. That gives me confidence in the decisions they make. I know they have different backgrounds and areas of expertise, and sometimes disagree. But this seems like an example of careful thought and teamwork to prevent Edmonds taxpayers from being on the hook for an unknown price tag for an enormous clean up bill. Yes, we want the marsh restored. But there are lots of other environmental projects in Edmonds that need funding too. Asking for a meeting with the governor seems like a wise idea.
It seems to me that the natural place for this project to reside would be with the Lands Division of Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife. For more information on what they do here is a link:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/wdfw-lands/land-acquisitions. Take a look at the project underway in Snohomish County Intertidal area: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/snohomish_county_intertidal.pdf. Wonder if the Lands Division is aware of the potential for a project up here and whether a simple solution would be to go directly to them with a proposal. Note that Hilary Franz (current Commissioner of Public Lands) is running for governor; she might be a good contact.
Rebecca – your comment is spot-on! The City needs to explore all the options that will benefit salmon recovery, wildlife, outdoor enthusiasts, Marsh restoration, Puget Sound health, AND Edmonds taxpayers
Wow, this is a great observation by Rebecca Yalch. If this property could somehow or someway get declared as a critical component of Native Salmon Runs restoration (and the companion need of preservation of the Southern Region Orca Whale population that depends on the larger size salmon species for survival) there might be all kinds of federal, state, and Federated Tribe Casino profits, grants that could be accessed to keep this little part of our city natural, productive and beautiful.
The fight here is against the push for more population density and development in our town, which it appears that our current Mayor and some on our current Council seem to favor. I would like to see Mayor Candidate, Mike Rosen, come out with a position statement and real published commitment as to where his thinking is on this highly contentious issue. My same challenge goes to all our Council candidates. This coming election could be a real game changer for the better, but some folks need to come off the fence to make it happen. This piece of property needs to be preserved. NOT DEVELOPED!
Good point, Tom, about the need for more lighting. I walk the Interurban from Lakeview Drive/228th going north most evenings on my way home from work around 7 pm. In the dark days of winter, it would sure be nice to have some lighting as I lug my computer, several pounds of files, and other stuff home. I think this section of the trail might be MLT/SNOPUD responsibility…not clear to me where the exact boundary is as it zigzags a bit near my street. My street needs a streetlight also. With no sidewalks on my street or cross street, the lack of lights makes it eerie. Although I do see a lot of raccoons and other night critters….I’ve also fallen several times walking home in the dark.
Kim, The maps on the assessor web site show the ownership of 74th Ave W/Interurban Trail as Edmonds Parks, all the way north to 228th. North of 228th, not sure. I’ve reported issues with lighting, graffiti and lack of maintenance (overgrown scruffy vegetation) south if 228th several times and suggest that all trail users do the same. I tried the mayor’s Fix it app a few times and the replying bureaucrat turned on the deflector shields. The Fix it app answer person said the graffiti is not the City’s problem and fobbed it off on adjacent homeowners.
It’s shocking to me that our Parks department considers it OK to lower their standards so low for this park…I would imagine it is used by 100 times as many people as our new world class Petangue courts. After the MLT light rail opens, there will be a lot more. Meanwhile, new graffiti shows up next to the 4+ year old graffiti and nobody at the City wants to deal with it.