
An estimated crowd of 250 people packed the Edmonds City Council chambers Tuesday, spilling out into the foyer. Some were fearful that a cherished neighborhood park and community center could eventually be sold to help offset the City of Edmonds’ $20 million budget deficit. Still others mourned the removal of a historic 100-foot redwood tree. And yet another group expressed concerns about how future zoning changes could impact their neighborhood.
For two hours, nearly 70 people delivered heartfelt testimony — both in person and remotely. A contingent of residents attended to mark the loss of the redwood on 5th Avenue South known to many as “Big Red.” Gwen Baugh represented the views of several speakers when she said “there should be new codes which preserve heritage trees before we lose more of them.”
Some attending were residents living near Hummingbird Hill Park, located at 10th Place Northeast and Edmonds Street. They mobilized after discovering that the council was considering — as part of its priorities for 2025 Comprehensive Plan amendments — whether to further study the idea of “options for future land use” for the park, including sale.
That particular idea came from Councilmember Vivian Olson, and it was among 28 ideas councilmembers submitted for the city planning department to review for possible future study. Other ideas in that category of future land use included the Frances Anderson Center (which also drew a number of comments Tuesday night), the current Edmonds City Hall property, the Wade James Theater, and the Meadowdale Club House.
Many of those offering testimony were parents, some with young children in tow. One father spoke about his move to Edmonds with his wife and two young daughters. Both he and his wife had been diagnosed with cancer, six months apart, when their children were ages 3 and 1, and they moved to their Edmonds home because it was next to Hummingbird Hill Park. “This is kind of a sacred place for us and we’re so grateful to be part of it,” he said.
Ten-year Edmonds resident Gordon Black called the park “a popular community asset, one that should not be put up for sale. It represents 1.2 acres of greenery, big trees and calmness.”
Some of Edmonds’ well-known residents weighed in as well. Jack Faris said his children — including daughter and movie actor Anna Faris — played at Hummingbird Hill Park while growing up. Jack Faris also delivered a message from Edmonds resident and European travel guide Rick Steves, who encouraged the city to protect its green spaces.
The idea of selling the Frances Anderson Center also drew emotional responses from those who have used the center — or taken their children there — to take classes, develop friendships and stay active. One speaker also noted that the center is cultural hub, hosting the Olympic Ballet school, the Sculptors Workshop and the annual Edmonds Arts Festival. Other speakers addressed the need to protect the Main Street Kids child care center, which serves 90 children and has a waiting list of 500.
Several residents stated that selling city assets, whether it’s a park or a community center, is a short-term solution to the city’s long-term budget deficit. Some suggested that other revenue generation — including paid parking, opening a hotel on the waterfront and an increase in property taxes — would be preferable to selling public amenities. Others volunteered to help the city find creative ways to fix its budget woes.
In remarks to the audience after public testimony was complete, Council President Neil Tibbott stressed that the purpose of Tuesday’s discussion was to “introduce possible amendments to the Comp Planning process, and this is a very important distinction. There was never a time when we said we’re going to sell Frances Anderson Center, for example, or any particular park.”
And interim Planning and Development Director Shane Hope confirmed it was likely that her department — which is currently understaffed due to budget cuts — would only be able to get to four total priority areas this year.
In the end, the council on Tuesday night approved two ideas, for starters, from a list that was compiled based on individual prioritization lists submitted by councilmembers. They are: 1) to further evaluate the proposed North Bowl Hub — which has drawn concerns from residents living their due to the impacts of increased density on their neighborhood — and 2) to establish and study a critical areas program.
Councilmember Jenna Nand voted to abstain from voting on the Comp Plan measures, reading into the record a statement that she believes that focusing on Comprehensive Plan amendments “to be a questionable use of staff time and city resources. I think that it would be a more appropriate use of our limited staff time and resources in the planning department, especially during this time of fiscal emergency and extensive layoffs, to address the long-delayed tree code updates.”
Her stance, which she had communicated publicly to constituents prior to Tuesday night’s meeting, drew some criticism from public commenters worried that her decision not to vote could hurt their efforts to protect places like Frances Anderson Center and Hummingbird Park.
Neither of those items were considered Tuesday night, but Tibbott promised to bring the remaining list back to a future meeting for consideration.
As for next steps, planning department staff will study the council’s top priorities. with study results reported by the end of June. In early July, the council will decide on which ideas to formally propose as Comprehensive Plan amendments. Those amendments will then go through a public process (including review by the Edmonds Planning Board). In early September, the council will vote on adopting any of the proposed amendments into the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
During their comments at the end of Tuesday’s meeting, councilmembers thanked the public for sharing their thoughts and also offering suggestions for addressing the city’s budget crisis.
“I really want to thank everyone for showing up,” Councilmember Michelle Dotsch said. “It really warms my heart.” She also encouraged people to stay engaged in discussions about the city’s budget, “because this is going to continue as the year progresses.”
Councilmember Olson, who had come under fire after suggesting that Hummingbird Hill Park wasn’t being used, offered an apology during her comments. She then added — in a nod to those who offered to help — that Edmonds “would really benefit by having a volunteer, volunteer coordinator in our city, or maybe three or four people who would job share that position.
“If we set up a spreadsheet and we really were able to tap into all the time and talents that people were willing to give our city, that might be part of the solution, in addition to the dollars,” she added.
In other business Tuesday, the council received its annual presentation from the Edmonds Center for the Arts. You can review it here.
This Edmonds Council can sell our Parks, Community Center but give away two of Fire Stations and provide the third Fire Station rent free. Please vote for the Regional Fire Annexation the cost increase provides no additional service and isn’t financially justified.
Mr. Tupper-
I think you meant to say Vote No! for RFA annexation? Annexation will increase the price of fire/ems service from South County/RFA from the current $12M to $21M in 2026 – a 75% increase with no change in services provided or improvement in response times. The RFA annexation vote is indeed confusing because the Mayor and Council have dealt in false narratives and misinformation over the last 6 months. They provided a tax calculator that showed a $439 increase in 2026 local property taxes for an ‘average’ Edmonds home. My Edmonds News corrected the City’s calculator and showed how the tax increase would be double what the City claimed. The City has not issued an apology or correction. The City spent $64,000 of taxpayer funds to have a PR firm ‘sell the value’ of annexation in press releases, FAQs, website narrative, and a soon-to-be-mailed City flyer that advocates for annexation. RFA firefighters’ union has spent over $30,000 distributing their own propaganda, funding campaigns for 3 Council members, and falsely inferring that a No Vote will leave residents without fire/ems service. It’s no wonder folks are confused. Vote No! on annexation, and force the Mayor and Council to do proper financial analysis on cities the size of Edmonds that deliver fire/ems services at half the cost of the RFA. Find the truth: https://www.edmondscandobetter.org/
Editor- it was an epic night for public comments at a Council meeting. Thanks for the column this morning, and literally years of sitting through other more boring Council meetings to report on the City’s business for all your readers. I rely on your reporting to stay informed.
In response to Council Member Vivian Olsen’s call for volunteers to help with suggestions and solutions…didn’t we have that with all of the volunteers who are on Boards and Commissions in this city? Most all of these Boards and Commissions have been suspended through 2026. I have served on the Cemetery Board for 20 years now, I know I am not alone in expressing my dismay at these suspensions. All of the volunteers on these boards and commissions have brought years of suggestions, experience and service to the city. So to call for more volunteers seems disingenuous to me.
Volunteer Boards and commissions was always high on my priority lists and I along with Adrienne, Joan, Lora, Mike, Kristiana, Dave, Steve, and Michael) helped start many (Tree Board, Economic Development Commission, Youth and Diversity Commissions, etc) in order to gain understanding and expertise from our volunteer community. I too was shocked to see the postponement missive on all Boards and Commissions especially since the City does have a FTE volunteer coordinator. To say it’s too expensive to manage these volunteer groups is a cop-out and short-sighted as obviously the City Directors were not delegating staff effectively or utilizing or managing the knowledge and expertise that these volunteers had to offer. Thank you Melissa for bringing this up and dedicating your time and energy to the Cemetery Board.
Thank you so much Diane for addressing this issue. It is truly distressing to us on the Cemetery Board. We are in the midst of planning the Memorial Day program and will need to petition the City to get the resources we need to be able to put the program on. I’m somewhat confident that we will get them because I think it is in the best interest of the City that this ceremony go forward, It just adds more barriers between the City and hoops to jump through for us to accomplish this when we are not allowed to meet as a board.
I share your disappointment over the loss of commissions (for now) but also just wanted to flag that those official groups require extensive staff support and resources whereas true “volunteers” would not. For example, volunteers don’t require custom city email addresses or training about the laws of open public meetings or staff to prepare public documents like agendas to be hosted on the website. Nothing is preventing folks who used to serve on commissions from gathering outside of city structure to organize and get things done and even to provide valuable, qualified, informed suggestions to the mayor. He seems to value input from lay residents more than the guidance the commissions provided, anyhow.
While I can’t speak to the effort and cost to training, creating mailboxes on a volunteer subdomain or adding documents or content to a website are extremely low effort tasks. I don’t want to discredit the effort city resources take to help the community – but I do want to callout that these two examples should not be barriers to entry here.
If the City cannot handle these types of activities without a large associated cost, they need to seriously re-evaluate their IT strategy.
Great point Melissa! Thank you.
Thank you for this great summary of the evening. It was wonderful to be among fellow sincere involved Edmonds friends and neighbors. I hoping we can all stay aware and active and retain the Edmonds we all love.
It’s my understanding that the Comprehensive Plan is, or should be, the basis for virtually everything that our city government does in what is supposed to be in the interest of all the people who live in our town. An aspect of the Comprehensive Plan as currently constituted that is all but ignored is the proper care and use of our abundant natural gifts of wooded areas, streams and the Salish Sea in accordance with our SEPA laws that were enacted long before the new draconian state zoning laws that have been foisted on us. As a result we are getting really bad ideas from our Council for such things as a hotel in an active earthquake/Tsunami area (Waterfront/Port District); injecting storm water with possible( (if not probable) PFAS contamination into our very precious Deer Creek CARA (critical aquifer recharge area), and selling off a well established neighbor hood open space to accommodate more development with more high impact on our already deteriorated infrastructure. Part of this selling off assets thing is a scare tactic to pass ill thought out and burdensome property tax hikes, rather than figuring out ways to secure more much needed revenue and managing our own Fire/EMS service efficiently. We are all the victim of really bad city government for the past forty or so years.
I have observed a vast number of city council meetings as a city council member and as a citizen. My assessment of last night’s meeting’s citizen comments is that they were probably not only the most numerous but also the most well composed and delivered.
The possibility that Hummingbird Hill Park could be sold really caught my attention. I never previously heard of this park, but selling it struck me as being totally unreasonable. Yes, an analysis may have revealed that the loss of this park would still leave citizens in this area served by a sufficient number of parks. If an additional park was being requested that would be a reasonable response, but taking away a park that citizens directly in that area are accustomed to using, and may even be the reason why they moved to that area, would be unreasonable and unfair.
The docketing of Comprehensive Plan changes should occur in November or December after the CFP (comprehensive facilities plan) or CIP (comprehensive improvement plan) are approved. So this is a PLOY to put FEAR in the public to force a yes to annexation.
Folks, the compassion and intellectual understandings of “you all” is great; and seeing how bad Council is acting and processing these projects (that have significant budgetary consequences) out of sequence is plain wrong.
Continue to challenge this rhetoric as the Council has no authority until after those CFP/CIP projects are reviewed and approved; and the stupidly of some CMs for not researching historical sources as many parks are obtained or restored from Federal or State grants (which City would have to pay back, if sold).
More biased rhetoric to come, so just vote NO RFA to ensure the City keeps CONTROL of our fire/EMS services.
Many of us understand Plan B options and have given them to Mayor/Council: we deserve the best as we have highest property values and medic needs.
CP Tibbott should apologize for his inappropriate Council comments.
Stick to a no vote (Prop 1) to save this coastal community as it’s clear some politicians don’t care about leading this City through these troubled economic times – they only want easiest/most expensive route and give away control and fire stations.
Frances Anderson Center is the heart of Edmonds.
Keeping that center should be the #1 priority for Edmonds.
Hear, hear, Evan Nelson.
Edmonds cannot survive as any sort of safe, livable city without a huge infusion of huge amounts of money from somewhere. It is going to cost everyone, renters as well as owners, thousands of dollars more to keep living here unless more sources of revenue are identified and implemented and our elected leaders do not seem to be too keen on taking more of that approach so far. We seem to have one half or so of a population of people who think the answer is to tax the selfish rich home owners to the max to keep all our needs (but really lots of wants) met and another half or so of a population that thinks they are already paying their fair share of taxes and it’s someone else’s turn. This situation has been brewing for years now because we have been electing leaders who constantly place funding of wants over needs and fun stuff over much needed stuff. They place regional needs and goals over local needs and goals and we have just blindly followed the pied pipers that most of our past Mayors and Councils have been. We have a new Mayor and Council that are just basically continuing the programs that the last one they didn’t like started. Now we will have to pay the pipers or just go away.
The France Anderson Center is used extensively during the annual Write-on-the Sound held on the first weekend of October for many, many years.
I am very concerned about the future of Edmonds. Looking back, the city sold out our fire department, I understand there are desires to sell out our police department, and now discussions to sell out our parks and recreation facility. All this because of a huge deficit caused from overspending and sometimes spending inappropriately. All this when the city is also required (supposedly) to plan for more density and removing some single family zoning. WHAT A MESS. Given the density planning, we should be planing to increase such services!!
Did you all know that during the times the city spent its way into such dire straights, it received $11.9 million in Covid Relief funds? Do you know what that money was spent on? Well, it paid out $7.9 million for new police cars (the same ones they are selling now because it decided they really weren’t needed), a park department pick up truck, paying ($6.25 million) for the delinquent fire contract? Then $1/2 million for a creek realignment, just to highlight some of the spending of that Covid Relief money. Clearly, there is a spending problem, not a revenue problem. It’s time to do it right.
It’s both. Inflation continues to skyrocket and tax base continues to shrink. The math just doesn’t work.
Yes indeed. So the brilliant answer of our current Mayor and Council is to be sure inflation remains out of control by turning all the decisions over to the RFA with it’s management/labor affiliated Union and a bunch of Commissioners, most of whom have worked or had interest in the general welfare and promotion of the needs of firefighters and fire departments they have had contact with occupationally or socially. And this was the very plan of the past Mayor that the current Mayor was successful in ousting. Then they wonder why we have no confidence in them or trust in them on what they are literally trying to sell us using our tax money to make the sale.
Neil Tibbott and the rest of the unhinged council got caught. Plain and simple. I don’t buy anything about there being no plans to sell parks and property. There was a plan, Major Rosen takes about it repeatedly. Good to see Edmonds pushing back on the radicalized idea to sell City property to put a band-aid on the systemic problems of an underdeveloped tax base. Decades of neglect and restrictive commercial zoning meant Lynnwood and Shoreline build up next to Edmonds, collect the sales taxes from Edmonds customers, while Edmonds gets nothing and foots the bill for car infrastructure maintenance. It is a self inflicted wound.
Didn’t the WA law change not too long ago to keep sales tax revenue from online sales in Edmonds? That was described as a windfall when it happened according to my recollection. What happened to the windfall?
Yes indeed. This is the culmination of years of special interest and commercial and residential development at all cost programs that have been promoted by most of our past Mayors; aided and abetted by weak City Councils that have been dominated by the strong Mayor’s and their staffs with lots of bad and/or highly biased information presented by consultants milking the city for big fees. Waste treatment plant that doesn’t work and Landmark as just two blatant examples of the truth. On top of that we are paying for constant input of expensive legal advice from what amounts to a long term sweetheart deal with one individual with no competition for these services ever asked for by our City Management. Things are just out of whack in this town and the future does not look bright.
I hope that all North Bowl residents are aware that Councilmember Chris Eck’s only Comp Plan amendment (Council 4-1-25 packet, 1 Chris Eck, p.44) states:
“I would like to revisit all of the comp plan amendments regarding height and area size for the North Bowl.”
“I believe the decisions the Council made previously unnecessarily limit the growth for the North Hub.”
This is contrary to CM Dotsch’s well reasoned amendment (19 Michelle Dotsch, p. 48) to “Remove the North Bowl as a Hub”
You can view all Council members suggested amendments and rationale in this link to the 4-1-25 Council packet:
https://edmondswa.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4026&Inline=True
I can’t remember, isn’t CM Eck’s Council seat expiring with the next election?
Yes, at the end of 2025.
Thank you Ms. Bloom. Interesting reading on amendments. Says a lot about each CM. Hotel on the waterfront. 20 story building in the international district. Selling of Humming Bird Park, Frances Anderson, Meadowdale Community Club. Another says heights are not good enough in North Hub. One member did mention the Marsh, Creeks, buffer zones and actually trying to help preserve Edmonds and the encironment. Great job CM Dotsch at least you make me feel good about my city. Just what someone needs, another reason to be angry these days. Don’t we get enough of this already on a daily basis. I encourage folks to read the amendments.
I do not reply typically on media but I want correct the record here. Yes, what you say is true originally. However this past Tuesday I amended my wording to say we should again discuss the North Bowl and factor in the input from those residents. Thanks for the chance to share that!
CM Eck,
You said “this past Tuesday I amended my wording…” Please direct your constituents to documentation of “amended” wording in all three columns of your original amendment.
Column 1:
“I would like to revisit all of the comp plan amendments regarding height and area size for the North Bowl.”
Column 2:
“I believe the decisions the Council made previously unnecessarily limit the growth for the North Hub.”
Column 3:
“Type of Information from study period”
“A list of all comp plan decisions made pertaining to the North Bowl, versus what was proposed by the Planning Dept. and Planning Board. Along with the current household estimates based on those decisions versus how much household growth we can have if we closely adhered to the recommendations of the Planning Department and Planning Board.”
Your entire Comp Plan amendment is on p.44 of Council packet:
https://edmondswa.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4026&Inline=True
Thank you. I look forward to your response.
Joan, you can see me speak about this if you look at the last hour or so of the meeting video. The amended document should show in the packet when we walk about this topic again. I amended column 2.
I meant when we “talk” about this again.
Ms. Eck, If I understand this correctly you were for increased building heights in the North Bowl Hub before you were against increased heights there? Just wondering what changed your mind on that issue and if we should consider this at least some attempt to actually listen to your Edmonds Citizen constituents as opposed to your Majority Party friends who are in favor of lots of increased population density in Edmonds; including in some of what should be environmentally critical area greater density not allowed zones? I guess that could be viewed as progress of some sort as it sounds like people who actually live in the North Bowl Hub Area aren’t too keen on your higher building heights idea and probably lots of them will be voting if you plan to run again.
CM Eck,
Written words can not be amended verbally. As a Councilmember you should know that the responsible and transparent action would have been to remove your amendment from Council consideration and clearly state why you were doing so. Instead, you’re asking us to watch the video of the Council meeting and listen to how you supposedly amended your amendment.
As I said in my March 30 email to Council, ‘This leads me, and I hope others, to question if CM Eck is listening to her constituents.’
If I am able to find time to watch last Tuesday’s Council meeting, my focus will be on audience comments.