Five months after the Edmonds City Council voted 4-3 to continue exploring whether the city should acquire the $37 million Landmark 99 property, the idea is back on the council agenda — this time with an actual proposal on the table.
During their Tuesday, May 7 meeting, councilmembers are scheduled to hear an update from city staff on the developer selection process — and discuss possible next steps for a potential partnership and purchase of the property.
The council’s first vote on the property came in June 2023, when it authorized former Mayor Mike Nelson to sign an option agreement for the 10-acre Landmark site, located at the southern edge of Edmonds’ Highway 99 neighborhood. The agreement included a refundable deposit of $100,000 to hold the property — home to the Burlington Coat Factory and Antique Mall businesses — for six months, giving the city time to conduct public engagement and further study the idea. The second council vote in December to continue exploring the purchase meant that the $100,000 will no longer be refundable if the city choses after further study to walk away from the project.
According to a presentation attached to Tuesday’s council agenda, staff developed a request for proposal for Landmark that was issued in January. The proposal closed on March 22, and staff received two bids that were evaluated by a six-person committee.
The proposal selected by the committee includes 826 units of “workforce housing,” with 648 units (80%) catering to those at 30% to 80% of area median income.
The next step would be for staff “to engage in negotiations with the potential partner to ensure that each party understands timelines, commitments, financing responsibilities and milestones,” the council agenda memo said. “These negotiations will lead to a document — tentatively described as a Memorandum of Agreement on Due Diligence – which will govern the steps leading to a decision to execute/not execute the option.”
The option to purchase would requires the city and its partners (or assignees) to put $1 million in earnest money down on the property by March 31, 2025, and close on the property no later than Sept. 30, 2025.
Staff will return to the council in June to request permission to engage in these negotiations, the agenda memo said.
In 2023, staff and consultants started gathering public input for ways to use the property, culminating in three possible concepts that were presented Nov. 18 — the second of two public meetings on the topic. A range of possible uses were offered based on public ideas, from a pedestrian promenade to open green space, a community center to retail stores, a branch library, a police annex, a recreation/aquatics center and apartments.
The council’s December 2023 vote came after councilmembers heard from about a dozen residents — testifying both in person and remotely — who were evenly split on supporting and opposing the proposal. Comments ranged from those decrying the idea of such a large purchase when Edmonds faces considerable budget challenges, to those urging the city to invest in a long-neglected part of town.
The council is also scheduled on Tuesday night to:
– Hold a public hearing about the city’s options for fire and emergency medical services (EMS). In December, the City of Edmonds received a two-year termination notice from South County Fire, advising that Edmonds’ current contract for fire and EMS services would end Dec. 31, 2025. In April, the city council received a presentation and final written report from Fitch and Associates, outlining three main options for the city to receive fire and emergency services: joining the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) by annexation, contracting with another fire department or creating its own department.
– Revisit a proposed city code amendment regarding critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs). While the council voted 6-1 earlier in April to place this on the consent agenda for approval, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch brought it forward to the full council agenda April 23. She then moved that the item be tabled until environmental issues could be reviewed, given concerns expressed by the Olympic View Water District about city’s proposal to allow shallow underground injection control (UIC) wells to control stormwater runoff. Dotsch’s motion to table was approved by a 4-2 vote, with Councilmembers Eck and Susan Paine voting no and Councilmember Nand abstaining.
The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. in the council chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N., downtown Edmonds. Prior to the 7 p.m. meeting, the council will meet at 5:30 p.m. in the third-floor Brackett Room of Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave. N., to receive an overview of the city’s existing Comprehensive Plan.
You can participate in both meetings remotely via this Zoom link: https://zoom.us/j/95798484261. Or comment by phone: US: +1 253 215 8782. The webinar ID is 957 9848 4261.
Regular council meetings beginning at 7 p.m. are streamed live on the Council Meeting web page (where you can see the complete agenda), Comcast channel 21 and Ziply channel 39.
Personally I just don’t see how 600 plus units at below market rate is investing in the neighborhood. Maybe those that know better can explain it to me? But if we must have it I guess no better place for it, but why do we have to have it again? Sounds like we are stomping on our own feet on purpose. The lost Zebra sitting next to Forest Gump waiting for the bus comes to mind.
The whole Landmark 99 project is financially brainless. It will be interesting to see how the Nelson-Rosen administration explains why this dubious project is a good deal for the city. Good Luck.
Landmark and Joining RFA are a done deal as is unhealthy and ugly housing density. I don’t care anymore. You can’t help people who don’t want help and just think your views are a nuisance to their grandiose plans for the future. All these plans already have at least four CM’s in the tank and there will be little or no push back from our new Administration. That train left Edmonds Station after the last election and it ain’t coming back.
Perhaps I’m clueless, but it seems this site would be a good “HUB” to develop to meet the mandated goals for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan, particularly the elements of land use, housing, urban design, transportation and economy. Not sure about environmental impact.
Wow, irresponsible City Council? How can we even think about this when our budget is a disaster and we don’t even know how we will fund our Fire Service. I’d love a Ferrari but that doesn’t mean I should buy one. I really hope logical, fiscally prudent heads prevail. Otherwise, they will roll… While Edmonds homeowners go broke with even higher taxes. Let the market dictate what happens to Landmark. Cities have no business playing developer. Especially cities on the brink of bankruptcy.
The city claims to be broke. Why is this even a consideration? Mabey save some cash to pay the lawsuit brought on by the former chief of police.
What’s missing from this article is that city staff is asking for ANOTHER $300,000 of money we don’t have, to continue this fallacy. At this point our (not so new) mayor needs to step up and put an end to this nonsense. This is coming from HIS administration now. What don’t they get about or financial situation? I’m sure city staff with try to put lipstick on this pig – again. The City Council could put an end to this as well if they do not allow them to spend the additional $300,000 on this project. But will they? Anyone care to bet on it?
Not to mention that even if they move forward with this, what happened to this being a community benefit center with services for the city as a whole? This proposal just looks like a giant apartment complex. I have felt this process has not been transparent the whole way through, the decisions have already been made without any real input from the community desired, and now they show us the first plans and it is just a concrete city full of apartments. This is even before we consider the fact we have no money to do the basic services at the city and are closing children’s programs to balance the budget and are having trouble finding money for fire and EMS services. Wow…
Tom, like I said, the common sense train has left the station, never to return. Just plan on writing bigger and bigger checks to the County twice a year as long as you choose to own a home here. All while having less and less say about how the town gets run. Just be glad you don’t rent and have no control over what your housing will cost you. That’s how I see it anyhow.
‘
Sounds like a boondoggle…
From Wikipedia:
A boondoggle is a project that is considered a waste of both time and money, yet is often continued due to extraneous policy or political motivations.
Have the Council, Mayor and residents gone through a true public policy process regarding this project? Have they asked the following questions from Public Policy 101?
1. Can we get agreement on what is the problem we are trying to solve?
2. Who are all the stakeholders who should be at the table?
3. What are the viable alternatives to addressing this problem? This includes looking at other examples from around the country and world.
4. What are the costs and benefits of the alternatives?
5. How do we measure success?
6. How do we refine the plan when needed?
Too often, projects are started with the best intentions but with no clear goals. While affordable housing and community benefits are needed, this project needs to show it has gone through the steps listed.
These are all great questions, not reasonably answered. Although the current Mayor Rosen did go to the Easter Egg Hunt, so there’s that…
I’m curious what additional costs there might for the Landmark project this year. It’s great to hear there are 2 developers already interested, though. Given the city’s financial situation, I wonder if it would make more sense to walk away from the project now, and leave it up to the sellers to figure out what to do. This new design proposal would really help address the shortage of housing in Edmonds (and the surrounding area), plus spruce up an area of Uptown… but I dunno if it makes sense for the city specifically to continue working on this.
What are the proposed uses for buildings 1,2,and3? All housing? I thought there were ideas for rec centers, satellite city halls and police stations? Why couldn’t this become a neighborhood hub?
Great questions Maggie. As far as I can tell, the alleged problems are that there just aren’t enough people living in Edmonds now and all the good stuff has been given to the fat cats who live in the Bowl. It’s time to get even by borrowing and taxing ourselves lots of money in the process to make it really expensive to live here for owners and renters both; no matter where they live in town. Thanks, State and County Rep. Strom P. and please tell your people to quit asking me for campaign donations. I asked them privately to take me off your list, didn’t happen, so now I’m asking publicly. Silly me, like you could care what I want.
tHIS IS ABSOLOUTELY NONSENSE……as our beautiful city is already in financial difficulty!!! If taxes are raised to help fund thsi crazy idea, then you are driving us longtime Edmonds residents out of our homes!!!!
Please…….get your $100,000 deposit back and look into other options…….????
I am solidly in the NO camp on the Landmark project. And, in the spirit of open, transparent and honest government ask the City planners/council/finance director to please provide a detailed accounting of what has been spent on this project to date since the $100,000 deposit was made.
And when accounting for what has been spent so far, please include the hours that staff has worked on this instead of other issues facing our city.
My understanding is the 100,000K is toast as of the end of 2023 – non refundable if we wanted to keep our hat in the ring which your city council chose to do. The deal was just too good to pass up according to the majority. Anyone else think it’s time to take away Administration discretionary spending or limit it to say a couple thousand dollars?
I would hate to see Edmonds credit rating with Standard and Poor’s or Moodys be impacted with the purchase of property on Aurora.
Can we just fix the darn SIDEWALKS already!?!
So, we are $12 Million in the hole, add another $20 Million for fire service, that equals $32 Million in the hole, then top it off with $37 Million for Landmark 99. Hmmmmm. Let’s see……$69 Million Dollars of Debt!! What does City Council, particularly Will Chen, not get? We can’t and shouldn’t make another move forward on Landmark 99.
Looks like a future “housing project” to me. Not a good idea to have so much housing concentrated on one site in an already known risk area. Maybe some apartments then lots of services and a police office. Let the RE developers buy it, figure it out, (zoning/density?) and then with the City of Edmonds being the entity that approves the plan…….. not the entity buying the property, liable for any environmental cleanup, and other future costs that will no doubt go up. . But I’m not knowledgable of what State and Federal money is at stake that the City of Edmonds is trying to capture.