Report, public hearing on Landmark 99 proposal set for Nov. 28 council meeting

Aerial view of the 10-acre Landmark 99 property.

A presentation on proposed uses for the Landmark 99 property followed by a public hearing is scheduled for the Tuesday, Nov. 28 Edmonds City Council meeting.

You can read a summary of those proposed uses in our report on the Nov. 18 Landmark 99 public meeting here. The council is scheduled to vote during its Dec. 5 meeting on whether to proceed with the project.

The council will also welcome newly elected Councilmember Chris Eck, who will be sworn in to the Position 1 seat. She replaces appointed Councilmember Dave Teitzel, who didn’t seek election to the position. Appointed Councilmember Jenna Nand — running unopposed in the November election — will also be sworn in for Position 7.

In other business, the council is set to consider a contract with Fitch and Associates — at a cost of $44,500 — to provide a fire services feasibility assessment related to a future decision about Edmonds annexing into the South County Fire Regional Fire Authority. According to the agenda, “the intent is to evaluate the current fire service delivery models and the efficacy of the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) proposal, an evaluation of the creating an internal fire department, and potential contractual relationship with another provider.

The firm is known to the city and the fire authority. In 2016, Fitch and Associates issued a report that analyzed South County Fire’s services and suggested ways to make them more cost-effective and efficient.

The council will also continue its 2024 budget deliberations.

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. in the council chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N., downtown Edmonds. You can view the meeting remotely and comment via Zoom at Or comment by phone: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 957 9848 4261.

Regular council meetings beginning at 7 p.m. are streamed live on the council meeting webpage (where you can also view the complete agenda), Comcast channel 21, and Ziply channel 39.

  1. The Landmark 99 deal reminds me of children sitting on Santa Claus’ lap in the mall telling him what they want for Christmas (like a pony or a motorcycle) before the parents have even figured out how to pay for it.

  2. With the projected deficit in the city’s budget it is unwise to go ahead with the Landmark 99 project. The site is remote in that access to property is limited, the cost is too high, the terms not favorable to the city, Therefore do not vote to go ahead with this Landmark 99 project.

  3. Valid comments, all above. We don’t “need” this project…seems like Suz Orman(finance Guru) says if you want to get your finances in good shape……spend only on the “needs” , not the “wants”

    As Brian Drechsler above said……

    1. For everyone who is concerned about the viability of this project, please consider writing to with comments to the Public Hearing on the Landmark 99 property tomorrow night.

      In addition to future budgetary expenditures, when reviewing the Landmark 99 presentation in Council packet the data presented on expenditures to date, total $137,700.

      Expenditures to date, pg. 139 Council packet for 11-28 meeting:
      “Option negotiation, appraisals, PSA negotiations $ 62,700
      Communications, advertising, printing $ 30,200
      Conceptual alternatives and public meetings $ 44,800
      Total $137,700”

      Also, on pg. 107 of the packet, Agenda Item 9.1, current option agreement:
      “3. The current Option may be exercised at any time but must be exercised by December 31, 2024. Upon exercising the Option, the city must pay $1,000,000 in earnest money, whereupon the city enters into several contingencies. *This has been a point of negotiation with the seller.”

      Which means there will have to be $1,000,000 available in the 2024 budget if we continue plans to purchase into 2025. If the deal ultimately falls through, Edmonds would forfeit $1,100,000.

      Since we are in such a precarious financial position, where is the $1,000,000 earnest money supposed to be come from if Council votes to proceed?

      1. Joan, the EDC was briefed by staff a couple of weeks ago about the date for the $1m. What the EDC was told is the date for the $1m payment has been extended to March 31, 2025. That statement is on page 108 of the packet. While other costs would need to be budgeted for 2024 the $1m is now a need for 2025.

        1. Darrol,

          Thanks for the correction. Didn’t notice that in the packet. Even with the $1,000,000 earnest money punted to 2025, there is the issue of staff time that would have to be devoted in 2024 to this project, in addition to consultation $ that staff would require to do so. Keep in mind that staff asked for $250,000 to be taken from ARPA funds to vet the property, which thankfully Council voted against. Yet, the administration still spent $137,700, so far, on this project as I noted above.

          Council and the administration has the enormous task of updating our Comprehensive Plan by the end of 2024. Approximately $1,000,000 has been allocated for consultation, and for the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for that effort. Staff will not have time, or money, needed to focus on the Landmark 99 project in 2024.

          In my public comments to, I will request that Council stop throwing taxpayer money away, get back our $100,000, and look for a more viable location to serve South Edmonds residents.

  4. So, essentially we are paying $44,500 for someone to tell us that fire service (which is mostly aid car service in reality) is going to become exponentially more expensive to maintain the same level of service no matter what we do or who supplies the service. Sure seems like that money could be spent more wisely. Like covering the cost of several aid calls perhaps? No wonder we are broke.

    1. Clint, I expect to get more value from the consultant. I expect some research into forming a fire/EMS department with Mukilteo. I expect them to read the email from the resident of Woodway that outlined the options and develop arguments for each option. And I hope that there’s a true pro/con narrative and a true risk assessment- and not the 30,000 foot view narrative that we got on the Landmark 99 project.

  5. Trying to put together a Christmas playlist for the council meeting I was thinking.
    “Rudolph the red nosed reindeer” for the mayor because all of the other reindeer used to laff and call him names they never let poor Rudolph join in any reindeer games.
    “Frosty the snowman” for CM Nand because because it is getting hot in council chambers and she is starting to melt.
    “Santa baby” for CM Eck because it seems she would do anything to get a seat on a city council even move.
    “I want a hippopotamus for Christmas” for the staff because hippos are big and bloated just like the budget and they want it to play with and enjoy.
    “Your a mean one Mr Grinch” for the lawyer because I think it describes lawyers.
    “All I want for Christmas is you” for the supporters of the landmark property.
    “Silent night” for the audience because they might need to be more quiet.
    “Last Christmas I gave you my heart” for all the citizens of Edmonds because we gave you our trust and you took it away.
    I need a few more songs to fill out the playlist suggestions welcome.

  6. Haha – very clever, Jim. I love the holiday theme and your sense of humor. And once again, I agree with other writers, NO to the Landmark property. Is anyone listening?

  7. Other concerns to consider.

    (1) From the myedmondsnews article on the October 21 meeting, one of the “Common themes” was “Concerns on accessibility to the site (Choose a more central location)”
    And, “Vaughan Davies, architect and urban designer at Perkins Eastman, explained that the current Burlington Northern property has “inhospitable roadways,” making it a “difficult site to get into” for both vehicles and pedestrians.”

    – Access to the site is through the surrounding neighborhoods, not via 99 because that’s not possible due to “inhospitable roadways.”

    (2) All three proposed design options eliminate the trees/forest behind the buildings.
    – Why are we even considering removal of this “pocket forest?” How could this possibly support our Climate Action Program goals?

    (3) There is no parking in any of the three proposed designs, unless it is assumed to be beneath the buildings themselves.
    – Where will visitors to the community center, business, etc, park?
    – If a parking garage must be considered, who will pay for it?

  8. Just think, if we get our 100K back for Landmark, that will cover our fire service consultant with money left over to pay for more trips to the ER by the fire service. It’s big win-win for everyone, and saves money in the process.

Leave a Reply

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

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.