During its first meeting of 2025, the Edmonds City Council agreed to place on next week’s consent agenda an interim ordinance for neighborhood centers and hubs that were created as part of Edmonds’ 2024 Comprehensive Plan update. The council also approved a resolution calling for a special election regarding Edmonds’ annexation into the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority. And the council moved to the next consent agenda an interim ordinance for STEP housing, as required by state House Bill 1220.
Prior to the 7 p.m. business meeting, councilmembers and city staff hosted a reception and information session for members of the state’s legislative delegation who represent portions of Edmonds. Attendees included 32nd District State Sen. Jesse Salomon and Rep. Lauren Davis and 21st District State Sen. Marko Liias and Rep. Strom Peterson.
During the reception, legislators updated attendees regarding bills they were planning to introduce during the upcoming 2025 session, which starts Jan. 13. Following that, it was the council’s turn to ask questions, followed by sharing its legislative priorities for the year.
Of particular interest to some councilmembers was Rep. Davis’ explanation of two public safety-related bills she is sponsoring. One would create a civil protection ordered aimed at impaired drivers, which “says you’re unsafe to drive a motor vehicle without an ignition interlock because of your behavior.” Another would target issues related to pretrial release of suspects as well as ensuring adequate supervision of those released in community custody.
Council President Tibbott asked Davis if there were any plans for the state to fund additional prosecuting attorney resources to address crime — noting in particular concerns expressed by local retailers regarding shoplifting. Davis replied that while there was a 2024 pilot program for additional prosecutor resources in three areas statewide, including retail-heavy Lynnwood, that funding runs out in June. Given the state’s significant budget deficit, funding for additional prosecution will be “hard to come by” this year, she said.
Sen. Jesse Salomon acknowledged the City of Edmonds’ own budget issues and added he anticipates the legislature will be “looking at the 1% cap” on property taxes during this session as a way to provide relief to cash-strapped cities. “I’ve been supportive of lifting that and tying it to CPI (Consumer Price Index),” Salomon said. State law currently limits increases by individual taxing districts to 1% annually.
Following up on Salomon’s statement, Councilmember Will Chen asked if there is anything Edmonds’ lawmakers can do to support such an effort. Sen. Marko Liias weighed in, stating that it’s important for local governments to highlight how they are investing those dollars “so that we talk about…it’s not just 1% or 3% but it’s police, fire, the prosecutor’s office. Part of the reason they’re [prosecutors are] underfunded is because county government is under that same 1% [cap],” Liias said. It’s also important to explain, Liias said, “that just because the limit may change doesn’t mean that every city in every jurisdiction is going to take the maximum every year.”
Councilmember Vivian Olson said that tying property tax increases to the CPI “makes all kinds of sense. Everything’s getting more expensive. You can’t continue to deliver the same level of service.” She also praised Davis’ efforts at “addressing that revolving door” when it comes to criminal suspects. “I was so glad to hear that that’s on your radar and that you’re acting on that,” Olson said. “I hear people talk about that every day. You hear these horrible violent crimes being perpetrated by people who previously committed these horrible violent crimes.”
The discussion about the city’s legislative priorities was led by Edmonds Community and Economic Development Director Todd Tatum, Council President Tibbott and Mayor Mike Rosen. They include:
Highway 99 Revitalization Project: Maintain the $22.5 million in the Move Ahead Washington package across 2025-27 ($4.3 million) and 2027-29 ($18.2 million) biennia for Stage 3 of the SR 99 Revitalization Project. This legislative agenda item notes that this significant public investment “will also promote private investment along the corridor, and bring needed jobs, affordable housing and services to an underserved community of Edmonds.”
Edmonds Marsh: The Legislature in the 2023 session approved a proviso for the duration of the 2023-2025 biennium that provided Edmonds the first right of purchase of the former Unocal site when it transfers to the Washington State Department of Transportation. These provisions are in effect until June 30, 2025. As the clean-up process with likely take through 2025, the city is requesting an extension of the first right of purchase.
City revenue options: Support mechanisms to expand general revenue, such as lifting the 1% property tax cap, increasing the city’s real estate excise revenue (REET) share and expanding state revenue-sharing).
Behavioral health and public safety: Support co-responder programs, increase resources to deal with domestic violence and enhance behavioral health infrastructure (including practitioners and beds).
Indigent defense standards: Engage in discussions on defense standards, emphasizing state funding for any cost increases.
Increase housing supply and support measures that increase housing stability: Back measures that aid in the financing of housing construction, and explore new funding options for needs along the housing continuum, including home ownership, senior housing, rent support and permanent supportive housing.
Tax increment financing (TIF): Support the viability of such financing.
Address the impacts of state environmental and housing legislation on cities: Promote the creation of funding and programs that help cities to plan for, adapt to and fund solutions to the changes brought on by state legislation, particularly with respect to watershed health and restoration.
Work to address the following: Impacts of the lowest bidder requirements, the ability of retired law enforcement officers to return to service and reducing the impacts “of vexatious requests and litigation” as a result of the Washington State Public Records Act.
You can see the complete 2025 City of Edmonds legislative agenda here.
During the 7 p.m. business meting, the council heard from interim Planning and Development Director Shane Hope regarding the state-required code updates the city needs. Required updates must be adopted by the due date or the city will be considered non-compliant and ineligible for grants, she explained.
Two updates were due by Dec. 31, 2024, but couldn’t be completed ahead of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan update adopted last month. To address the delay, Hope proposed that the two requirements be adopted as interim ordinances:
– For neighborhood centers and hubs to accommodate housing and commercial
– For permanent supportive housing and emergency shelters (also known as STEP housing).
Additional code updates due by the end of June include those on middle housing, design standards and review process, parking, multifamily and bonus density for affordable housing on land of religious organizations. And two more topics, due by Dec. 31, involve critical area regulations, as needed, and co-living housing.
Some background: In 2021, the state legislature passed House Bill 1220, which included a requirement for cities and counties to plan for and accommodate the number of housing units needed for very low- to moderate-income households, consistent with analysis and guidance from the Washington State Department of Commerce. For Edmonds, that means about 2,400 more housing units, especially multifamily housing, would be needed beyond the existing capacity.
To accommodate this number, the city’s strategy was to designate neighborhood centers and hubs that could accommodate new multifamily housing and commercial uses. The neighborhood centers are Five Corners, Westgate, Firdale and the Medical District Expansion. The neighborhood hubs are the North Bowl, Maplewood, East Sea View, West Edmonds Way and South Ballinger.
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan update adopted on Dec. 17 designated neighborhood centers and hubs to accommodate multifamily housing and commercial uses. Now the development code needs to be updated to match.
Hope explained that an interim ordinance is a temporary way to adopt regulations to meet a time-sensitive goal. Under city code, an interim ordinance may be in effect no more than six months unless the city council adopts an extension. Within 60 days of adopting an interim ordinance, the council must hold a public hearing for comments on it. The ordinance expires at the end of six months, or sooner, depending on council action. The council may also adopt a more permanent ordinance (with any changes from the interim version) prior to the date the interim ordinance expires.
The interim ordinance for neighborhood centers and hubs was approved by a 6-1 vote (Councilmember Michelle Dotsch opposed), following detailed discussions about several proposed amendments. Only one of those — proposed by Councilmember Vivian Olson — was approved. It is aimed an ensuring height transition zones in the centers and hubs, stating that “for any lot abutting or immediately across the street from a single-family zone, the height of any development that is within 20 feet of the property line shall be no greater than 30 feet.”
Various other amendments failed, including one by Councilmember Susan Paine reducing the amount of off-street parking required for multi-family dwellings and another by Councilmember Dotsch exempting the Westgate center from the new standards since it was the subject of previous code amendments. Councilmembers generally agreed that they would prefer to sort out those detailed concerns before a permanent ordinance governing centers and hubs is adopted.
The interim STEP ordinance, also moved to next week’s consent agenda, is based on requirements of HB 1220, which requires changes to the city’s development regulations to allow four specific housing types: emergency shelter, transitional housing, emergency housing, and permanent supportive housing.
According to the Washington State Department of Commerce, “STEP, like emergency shelters, emergency housing and transitional housing, may help individuals and families experiencing homelessness meet their basic needs while they wait for affordable permanent housing to become available. By offering an alternative, STEP can reduce the number of people living and sleeping in unsafe conditions and divert people from living in public spaces.
Council President Tibbott said that while he supports the concept of STEP housing, he has “some serious reservations” about such facilities if they offer no-barrier housing, where drug use is allowed. Dotsch added that she doesn’t favor passing an interim ordinance on STEP housing “at this time,” stating she preferred to involve the community in considering the issue.
After Councilmember Jenna Nand moved to approve the interim STEP housing ordinance Tuesday night, Tibbott offered an amendment — which the council approved — to place it on next week’s consent agenda. Tibbott said this would give him time to research the possibility of putting “some restrictions and guardrails” in place for such facilities.
In other business, the measure to approve the recommended ballot language regarding a proposal for Edmonds to annex into the Regional Fire Authority passed 6-0, with Councilmember Dotsch abstaining. An April special election is planned.
— Story and photos by Teresa Wippel
So they’re saying that if the property tax rate cap is raised, not every jurisdiction will raise it by the maximum every year? Give me a break! The extra potential revenue will be way too tempting, and there’s no proof that jurisdictions wouldn’t give in to that temptation (just look at how the state and other local jurisdictions are trying to find ways to implement new taxes and/or increase the rates of existing ones).
Further, while adjusting rates so they’re tied to CPI makes some sense at a high level, when you actually look at possible implementations it becomes much more complicated. CPI swings wildly on a seasonal basis for example, and YoY changes can be significant. Are we going to do a trailing average? An average of statewide versus metro area? What happens if CPI decreases by a significant amount during the period? This is a budgetary planning nightmare, and clearly lawmakers haven’t put much thought into the mechanics of it.
Hi Kimberly, changing the 1% to 3% will not produce a massive increase in our taxes. The % only applies to a small portion of the general fund. The GF is around $51m and less than $16m come from property taxes. EMS taxes are $4.4m and subject to their own % increase limits. For Edmonds and a home with an assessed value of $900k, the current tax would be about $625 and the and the increase using the 1% formula would add about $7 to the taxes. A 3% addition would add around $21. For all of Edmonds the 3% addition would give the city about $360k more in GF revenues.
The data above comes from a presentation the Snohomish County Assessor gave to the Council about a year ago.
The publishers of this news outlet should really make an article explaining what you just did. People keep taking an increase of 1% to 2% as a literal doubling of their total tax bill which in fact isn’t and it isn’t even close to that. The actual amount is rather small and considering the artificially low tax increases that have failed to keep with inflation, 1% is basically unsustainable.
I think I’ve reached the point of no longer paying my taxes at all and never voting again. With the exception of Michelle Dotcsh, this city government has become little more than a weekly village educated idiot’s convention. This week we invited all the state level educated idiots to promote their ideas for doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. People, we are being taxed out of our homes, and nothing gets better. Affordable housing in Edmonds is a complete unachievable hoax and the new housing laws are the Democrats gift to the development industry to promote overcrowding and more tax money to grab. They are still talking about first rights to buy the marsh from the state that’s also broke now apparently. They are anxious to buy property that still has major petroleum pollution that must either be capped over or physically removed and that will cost millions. We are mostly electing people who haven’t really got a clue about how to run anything without a never ending spigot pumping out middle income and poor peoples’ hard earned cash, while they let the rich folks skate. It’s reached the totally absurd point at all government levels if you really think honestly about it all.
Why are we allowing the building of residential neighborhood two story “condos” between two single story residences? This shows no respect for the single story people. (RE A single home being demolished and a two story “condo” turned 90 degrees from the footprint of the demolished residence.)
Because a certain generation passed laws to make building denser housing illegal so that their properties would appreciate by reducing home supply. This generation bought homes at rock bottom prices as zoning laws enabled affordable home building. However, in doing so, they created the worse housing supply shortage in history. Surely they benefited from the equity but now the state has no choice but to return zoning to how it was before this generation basically made it illegal to build housing after their home was built. It will take decades to undo the zoning damages but ultimately it will return America to the land where you could own a home.
Joe, this sort of thing is going to be happening all over Edmonds, just like it did in Seattle and most especially Ballard. Plus these people are going to allow housing to intrude into our critical natural areas that are already in extreme distress due to overdevelopment and unwise development standards in both Lynnwood and Edmonds. I’m convinced that almost all of our city leaders are completely out of touch with reality. They are in bed with the state people and the RFA that are foisting all this property tax hike need on us and the affordable housing nonsense when they should have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to them and fight for, instead of against, the overloaded middle class taxpayers that are expected to keep paying for their folly and outright lack of knowledge and basic ability. It’s soon going to come out that Chief Pruitt who was first hired and then publicly humiliated by some of these people just got a big settlement. They are throwing our money away and then telling us to, “suck it up and keep giving us more to waste.” It’s not because they are bad or evil people; they most certainly are not. It’s just that we have given them jobs they simply aren’t up to doing in most cases.
I’m not a fan of this either, but from the various community meetings I’ve attended over the past year (the ones that have been held to discuss the city’s plans in response to the state-level growth requirements), no one is in agreement on what to do. Some people don’t want the kind of building you’ve referenced, some don’t want to build midsized complexes (5-6 stories) anywhere outside of the 99 corridor, some don’t even want medium to large sized complexes in the 99 corridor, some don’t want any infill in the Bowl, etc etc etc. Then some folks want some or all of those things! Basically, there seems to be no possible way for the city to appease even close to a majority of residents…no matter what they do, residents are angry. But unfortunately, if they do nothing (ignore the state-mandated housing requirements) or even if they don’t do enough, the state will come in and make decisions FOR us. That’s the law. Not sure what you personally would have proposed that would have satisfied the requirements?
Hi Kimberly, affordable housing is a messy issue. First, we use some funny numbers about income that make the issue more complicated. We talk about service employees, and we talk about avg income family levels. But what is not often talked about is the income from our long-time residences who are retired and on limited incomes that most of the time do not grow at the same rate as their costs. Many of these folks’ own homes and would like to stay put or downsize and stay in Edmonds. They have equity but no cost-effective way to use that equity for living. Reverse mortgages are not very cost effective.
What would help these folks is to increase the tax exemption available up to and including a delay of taxes until a home is sold. That in fact would help these folks AND shift the tax burden more to the “rich”.
What Edmonds needs is some creative thinking on how we can build more senior housing and allow folks to use their existing equity for new forms of senior housing.
The key component of housing cost is land. Finding land is a challenge. Trading one’s equity for a smaller place to live may be a way to help our seniors. We need our collective thinking caps to find solutions.
The reason affordable housing doesn’t get mixed with existing home owners is because they already own a home. Affordable housing initiatives are aimed at new owners as building new housing increases supply which lowers demand and prices. The issue is existing home owners love equity so they reject increases in supply as it lowers prices, but want their taxes to stay the same or want to pay no taxes and shift the city tax burden to others, making their home even less affordable. This doesn’t tax “the rich”, it taxes people without equity, which is often the young and or poor actually. Ultimately sitting on a large amount of equity is a good problem to have. You can sell and retire in a lower cost of living state and stretch your money further with greater quality of life. But if you choose to stay in a high growth area where employment for the young is growing, you can’t really have your cake and eat it too. Interestingly, increased density allows seniors to downsize and stay here, and their large home go to a large family that needs it. opposing density simply means seniors will need to afford the tax for empty nests they no longer need, or leave altogether.
I relocated to here from a place where the property tax codes favored older and/or more longtime residents. That place is called California (thanks to things like Prop 13), and it’s not viable for a lot of reasons. for example, there’s already a large tax burden that comes due when selling a home, and your idea of delaying a tax bill until sale will do things like incentivize fewer people to move (across the age and income spectrum)…this results in the cost of homes being pushed higher due to there being less supply, putting purchasing a home out of reach for many. Plus, depending on how long that delayed tax bill accumulates for, you could end up with insufficient funds from a sale to cover the cost. Not to mention the fact that if we’re in a budget crisis we need *more* revenue, not less. Edmonds skews older than average overall, and it also skews wealthier than average overall. Our longest-term residents usually have, by extension, the most equity in their homes…this is especially true when compared to folks who have moved here more recently (folks like myself who have been here for a few years). They have money to pay the taxes. These are unpopular points to make, I’m sorry. But I’m not ok with this turning into CA.
Don’t try to satisfy the their damn unreasonable and unfunded state requirements. We have a city attorney who has no problem wasting our tax money on everything else. Pay him or somebody else (who actually knows municipal law) to send a communication to the state dept. of commerce that we are in a huge financial crises and cannot possibly meet the requirements of these unfair and arbitrary laws in the time frame they are demanding. (At least make them be the bad guys they are.) Plus we have a Comp. Plan adapted by the previous administration that has totally ignored the SEPA law and that has to be fixed before we can even think about allowing all this rampant development in our town with it’s very unique topography and critical salmon run needs that have to be addressed. With RFA, the so called “negotiators” should have formed some sort of citizen commission to immediately start the process of restarting our own fire service. They didn’t even threaten to do anything like that. We are being ill served by these people and you will all find out when the huge tax bills start rolling in. We have people who aren’t serving our needs and fighting for us as Edmonds taxpayers and we need to fire them ASAP.
Not touching the RFA issue, since that deserves a whole thread. But to the best of my knowledge, there aren’t many (or any) loopholes to allow cities to get out of the now required housing development projects. Therefore, I’d rather put my money towards viable stuff versus a court battle we are more than likely going to lose ..that’s throwing good after bad, which seems like a other bad idea given the budget deficit wouldn’t you say?
Economies of scale. Having multiple cities and thousands of more taxpayers spreads the upfront costs of EMS is cheaper for Edmonds taxpayers. I think the tax bill shock of an Edmonds owned and operated EMS would be massive as the same service cost would be covered by less households which means higher taxes per property. Our own fire department is a luxury few cities which have more vibrant and larger tax bases can consider. A city on the verge of financial insolvency like Edmonds cannot afford such luxurious perks.
So much to say. I just can’t figure out a nice way to say it. Maybe I will think of a nice way but it doesn’t look good so I will just stay quiet and read as I have been doing every day. Be careful Edmonds.
Edmonds is becoming a city wherein those of limited means or fixed incomes can no longer afford to live.
The 1% cap was there to account for inflation, but was never intended to finance the kind of corporate greed we’ve seen since COVID.
As long as city and county government just see the taxpayer as an inexhaustable cash bucket, and no one stands up for us, they’ll just keep going back to the well until it ruins dry.
1% accounts for 1% inflation. Inflation has not been at those levels for decades and even in years of low inflation it is typically 2%. So basically this was a short sighted decision which always has consequences. We’re now living the consequences.
What a bunch of total gaslighting, Paul. What you do is form a basics only fire department with maybe one station and the job of just putting out fires of which there aren’t really that many and bring back private EMS service that charges the people they actually have to help for services rendered. Then you wouldn’t have firemen hanging out at the E.R. in Edmonds waiting for patients to get admitted. Cross training large numbers of fire personnel to be fully accredited EMT’s is costing the taxpayers millions. Why not let private individuals and private companies pay for all this training and let the taxpayers off the hook for a change. This was the system for years and it worked pretty well. Yes this would require some thinking out of the box and fighting the job creating IAFF’s and our conflict shy city leaders wan’t no part of that since they are really broke and will ask for all the tax money they can possibly squeeze out of us.
I would be interested to know how voters would react to a single minimal fire department for two zip codes as insurance companies are already hesitant to offer fire insurance, and are in some cases doubling rates or more if they deem the fire department coverage is not up to the task. Add to that shifts in public opinion due to the California suburban fires and the increasingly dry and hot Washington summers. Let’s just say votes may not go the way you hope Clinton. I think the city is bringing this to the voters at the perfect time as Edmonds tree canopy preservation will push insurance companies to take a very close look at how the city manages this issue. Ultimately any tax savings will be lost to the insurance hikes which don’t need voter approval.
According to the budget passed by council we will all have a say about raising taxes. There are two tax levies on the ballot this year. One in April and one later in the year.
Yes, and for heaven’s sake vote no on RFA and all the levies unless you just like the idea of doubling your city portion property taxes because that’s what’s guaranteed to happen if you don’t And , renters, just plan on your rents going up substantially unless the Democrats get their rent cap bill passed this year because that’s their latest brilliant idea to save the world for housing affordability.
Keep in mind voting no means renewal of the yearly contract which will be more expensive to the city than joining the RFA, assuming SCF even wants to renew and I would expect the rate hikes to continue to raise higher than the city can raise revenue. Our neighboring towns ran the same numbers and simply joined the RFA as it makes no mathematical sense to try and leverage a contact alone when you can do so as a group. The more Edmonds avoids joining the RFA, the worse rates it will get. This is a simple game of leverage and Edmonds doesn’t have any.