The Edmonds City Council spent much of its time Tuesday talking about updating the city’s middle housing development code — a process that must be completed by the end of the month. The council also heard from four community volunteers representing Keep Edmonds Vibrant, who presented the results of their month-long civic engagement initiative.
The Keep Edmonds Vibrant group faced some initial pushback before the presentation began, as two councilmembers attempted to pull its report from the agenda. Councilmember Michelle Dotsch made the motion to remove the item, stating that giving one particular group 30 minutes to present their ideas to the council was unfair to other citizens who are relegated to making three-minute public comments. Councilmember Jenna Nand, who seconded the motion, agreed, arguing that the council needed “more uniformity in who we allot time at a public meeting to, and the length of time that we would allot to them.”
Councilmember Vivian Olson said that while she agrees it is important in the future to “develop a policy on who will get council time,” it would be “disrepectful” to prevent those in the group who were planning to present from doing so.
Other councilmembers, including Chris Eck and Susan Paine, spoke to the importance of trying new ideas for gathering community feedback from those who don’t normally participate in government. Council President Neil Tibbott, who said he was “largely responsible” for placing the group on the agenda, said its polling work provided “input from many, many people from across the city.”
In the end, the council rejected Dotsch’s amendment by a 2-5 vote (Nand also voting for), and Edmonds residents Adel Sefrioui, Elise Randall Hill, Mackey Guenther and Erik Houser made their presentation.
Keep Edmonds Vibrant was built on the groundswell of opposition to a possible sale of city property — including parks and the Frances Anderson Center — to help address the City of Edmonds’ $21 million budget deficit. The group’s goals were to define vibrancy, determine the real cost of operating and sustaining a “vibrant” city, identify revenues and make recommendations to the council and mayor.
After hosting two in-person focus groups in the past month, organizers invited Edmonds residents to engage in online polling. The effort generated 600-plus unique ideas about not only what makes Edmonds vibrant, but how that vibrancy can be protected and enhanced in future years, group leaders said.
Among the themes that emerged as priorities:
– Maintaining the city’s current public amenities, including Frances Anderson Center, parks, Wade James Theatre and Yost Pool (92%)
– Generating additional revenue by allowing more ground-floor business/retail opportunities in strategic locations. (80%)
– Safety. (80%)
– Providing walkable, bikeable, quiet, clean air and housing options at various price points throughout all neighborhoods. (79%)
– Being open to generating additional revenue from an increase in the retail sales tax rate. (61%)
During their presentation, group leaders stated they believe that Edmonds is facing a structural revenue shortfall that can’t be addressed through budget cuts alone. They cited research on comparable cities that showed Edmonds’ budget — now at $46 million — should be in the range of $68 million to adequately support city services and staffing.
They noted that the majority of those they polled were open to new, long-term revenue strategies that don’t rely only on property taxes — such as additional school zone cameras or parking fees. They shared a chart with council outlining $9 million in possible revenue ideas.
Group member Elise Hill concluded the presentation by stating that based on its estimates, the group is recommending a $12 million levy lid lift to close the city’s budget gap. “Keep Edmonds Vibrant is ready to take on the role of the citizens group to advocate for this levy, but we believe the responsibility must be shared,” she said. “We’re asking council to commit to concurrently pursuing at least $9 million in sustainable, non-property tax revenue policies before the end of 2025. That’s what a balanced, forward looking approach looks like.”
The group’s recommendations for $9 million in immediate-term revenue gains are “simply suggestions,” she added. “The important thing is that you get to the $9 million number however you choose, though, we do have the information of what residents are interested in,” she added.
You can see the complete Keep Edmonds Vibrant slide presentation here.
Councilmembers generally expressed appreciation for the work done by the group, although questions were raised about the accuracy of some of its estimates and projections.
Later, during the public comment period, several people offered their appreciation for the efforts of Keep Edmonds Vibrant to engage them in city government — noting they represent a demographic that isn’t often seen at council meetings. Keep Edmonds Vibrant “should serve as as a role model, as a benchmark for how the city should engage with a community going forward,” said one resident, who has a young daughter. “So I encourage you to, you know, please review all the details and take their recommendations into consideration, instead of finding fault with their process or estimates, as some of you did.”
Another resident, who described himself as a 30-year-old renter, added: “I think there’s better ways to reach out to a lot of us. I work full time. I work at 5 in the morning tomorrow. I work in the trades. I’m tired. I want to be in bed right now. Coming to these council meetings is difficult.”
Related to middle housing, the council heard the Edmonds Planning Board’s recommendation for a development code update to ensure the city complied with House Bill 1110. The bill, which took effect in 2023, requires cities to increase middle housing in areas traditionally dedicated to single-family detached housing.
Staff explained that the board’s recommendation took a “minimum compliance” strategy, which adopts the necessary code changes required under HB 1110 while maintaining Edmonds’ established height, setback and lot coverage standards wherever possible.
Here are the key elements of the Planning Board recommendation:
New zoning framework: Consolidation of RS zones into a single low-density residential (LDR) zone with three context-sensitive overlays or subdistricts based on lot size (small, medium, large).
Allowed middle housing types: The board selected the followng six middle housing types for inclusion — duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, stacked flats, courtyard apartments and cottage housing.
Unit density standards: The recommendation allows two units per lot (duplexes) citywide; up to four units (fourplex) within one-quarter mile of a major transit stop and up to four units (fourplex) on any lot if at least one unit is affordable.
Affordability incentives: A bonus incentive is provided for cottage housing — up to six units on a lot in the LDR-large subdistrict, if at least three of the units meet affordability criteria.
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs): ADUs are counted toward unit density and are only permitted in conjunction with detached single-family homes. ADUs may not be part of middle housing developments.
Lot coverage: Up to 45% structural lot coverage is allowed for three- to four-unit projects. Answering a question from Council President Tibbott about why the board chose to exceed the current state lot coverage requirement of 35%, Planning Board Chair Lee Hankins said the board determined that allowing additional lot coverage would ensure the units are “livable.”
The middle housing ordinance will be discussed further at the following council meetings:
June 3: Additional code review and Q&A
June 10: Public hearing
June 17: Additional discussion and final revisions
June 24: Ordinance adoption with code and zoning map
In other business, the council:
– Held a public hearing on updates to the city’s design review code. The code revisions, set to be adopted in June, are required under HB 1293 — passed by the state Legislature in 2023. They are aimed at streamlining local design review processes and reducing permitting delays. The bill requires cities to ensure design review standards are clear, objective and focused only on the exterior design of buildings. They also require that projects be reviewed through a consolidated project review process with no more than one public meeting. The only person commenting during the hearing was Kim Bayer-Augustavo, who chairs the city’s Architectural Design Board (ADB). She expressed concerns that the board — currently on hiatus along with most other city boards and commissions due to the city’s budget crunch — was not involved in reviewing the code revisions. Later in the meeting, Councilmember Olson said she believes it was a mistake that the ADB was on hiatus and that she would be introducing an ordinance to have them involved in issues like this.
– Approved renewal of an interlocal agreement with the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council. The council is composed of elected representatives from 26 cities and King and Snohomish counties, and representatives from community organizations, business, environmental interests and state and federal agencies. The Salmon Recovery Council oversees implementation of the science-based Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan for the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed. The watershed, also known as Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8, runs from the Puget Sound nearshore and inlands from the north end of Elliott Bay to south Everett, and east to the Bear Creek basin, the Issaquah Creek basin, and upper Cedar River basin.
– Approved an additional management reserve of $70,000 to cover unexpected work on the city’s Main Street paving project between 6th and 8th Avenue. City Engineer Rob English told the council that the existing concrete panel joints and remnant sections in the underlying concrete layer have separation that could lead to cracking — and that would reflect into the new overlay layer. To prevent reflective cracks from occurring, which would shorten the life of the overlay, staff and the city’s consultant recommended putting down a pre-leveling layer of asphalt mix, along with a geosynthetic interlayer at the separated cracks.
Due to lack of time Tuesday night, a council discussion on a proposal from Mayor Mike Rosen to reorganize the city’s administrative functions to include a city administrator was postponed.
All I want to know is: We are RS-8 now, will we go to RS-6 or what? It is residential now, is it going to become low density or more, no matter location? How can we comment or participate when we have no idea how it affects individual neighborhoods. How about a detailed map? Can we start at the low end of Olympia’s requirements and see how it works a little at a time? Instead of the max. Which may turn into an
Ooops problem that cannot be reversed.
Nice work by the Keep Edmonds Vibrant group. Curious if the Immediate Term revenue estimates factor in the initial cost for the purchase and installation of additional cameras and parking meters as well as operational costs for issuing and collecting fees/fines. I assuming staff will need to be hired to handle the new duties.
I think council members should be grateful to have community members organize a collective statement/presentation that took 30 minutes, as opposed to having those 30-40-50 members sharing the same information individually in 3-minute increments, which we’ve seen recently. It helps those who can’t make these meetings, for various reasons, feel part of the process. It’s also a time savings for all involved.
I’m curious about how much the City pays annually in credit card processing fees, particularly related to customer payments for water and sewer services. I assume these fees are accounted for within the water/sewer utilities fund rather than the general fund, but I’d appreciate any clarification on where these costs are tracked in the budget.
Agree that the effort from KEV was fantastic! However, I thought Dotsch & Nand were dismissive, other CMs seemed supportive I thought. The criticism on survey methodology was not really relevant and frankly came off as a bit rude IMHO.
To me, the most interesting data wasn’t the survey results, but rather the comparison analysis to other similar sized cities.
Thought to add: If a deeper or more rigorous survey would have value, a GoFundMe campaign would likely get enough funding. I’d contribute…
Huge thanks to effort from the KEV team, very well done!!!
Polis, the survey tool utilized by KEV, uses machine learning to determine the statements presented to participants. The aim is to maximize insight from the collective responses of the community. However, I chose not to participate due to concerns about this approach. It mirrors techniques used by social media platforms to reinforce specific narratives by selectively promoting self-reinforcing statements. This process amplifies early contributors, giving them a disproportionate influence over the final outcomes. I have no interest in being spoon-fed only the perspectives that an algorithm deems relevant, while other viewpoints are overlooked. In my opinion, the criticism directed at this methodology was not only justified but demonstrated a level of awareness that I wish more individuals in city leadership positions possessed.
The Polis survey tool exhibits certain methodological concerns. For instance, the presence of “seeding bias”—the initial statements employed to initiate a Polis conversation (referred to as “seed statements”)—can significantly shape the trajectory and emphasis of the dialogue. Generally speaking, the city leadership, including the City Council and the mayor, are a digitally naive group of individuals.
Hi Jim and Brian, here’s the technical overview of how and when Polis displays comments to participants: a semi-random process that they call “comment routing”: https://compdemocracy.org/comment-routing/. I had no part in developing it, but am confident that this design reflects choices to avoid the self-reinforcing effect that concerns you. Please give it a read.
Any discussion of the solution space to any problem is inherently time-dependent: some ideas will come up first, and some will come later. That is an inherent part of every problem-solving effort. Polis subjects every viewpoint to identical treatment under the same algorithms, which, as described above, are designed to surface comments in an order that efficiently maps points of division & agreement, and with an inclination towards showing recently submitted ideas. I think this protocol reflects an intentionality on par with, or exceeding, that of many of the deliberative designs we typically use in public solution-finding processes.
It’s helpful to know that Polis does not “read” or have any semantic understanding of any of the statements it evaluates. There is no natural language processing involved. It simply keeps track of 1) how participants vote on statements, and 2) how those votes relate to each other (i.e. if groups of people agree and disagree on the same things.) Let me know if you have any further questions.
Mackey, the technical documentation linked on the KEV website described Polis software for the user interface and Jigsaw software to compile comments into categories. Jigsaw is beta software whose primary purpose for releasing is to get developers to use it and test it and write bug reports. I’ve read those bug reports, and I sent you my MEN column on this topic before I sent it to this editor for publication. Please confirm whether or not your group used Jigsaw software. And if you used it, how did you overcome the known defects. Thanks. (Full disclosure. I like online surveys to capture some community input. My Dec 2023 survey had 972 respondents. )
I’m really troubled with all the gyrations on the City’s budget problem without first seeing WHAT IS the baseline cost (by Department/Line item) for municipal operations in Edmonds. It’s time to stop using other City “numbers” (without details) to assume what municipal costs in Edmonds should be. Edmonds is DIFFERENT and the attributes and costs that make Edmonds a preferred place to live must be taken into account.
The question at hand, given the multitude of factors (including overspending) that got Edmonds into this budget mess, is what does a bare-bones budget for essential municipal operations in Edmonds (and FOR Edmonds) cost and how that compares to current revenue. And THEN, the City can prioritize essential needs above a bare-bones budget (such as deferred maintenance) and incrementally compare additional costs to incremental revenue increases.
Otherwise, it appears a $6 million dollar (or more) levy-lift is nothing more than an additional burden on taxpayers for a ‘culture’ of inflated, unjustified budgets with no repercussions for mismanagement and overspending.
A further comment about the lot coverage at 45% was no one could tell the difference between 35% and 45%. Actually, whether they could see a difference or not, a lot of people at the meetings vehemently stated their objection to 45% coverage. Does public input have any value at all? Is it considered?
Additionally 45% coverage is NOT the minimum – if that is truly the approach.
Greg Brewer brings up some interesting points in his letter about the minimum.
Please see: https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/05/reader-view-opinion-is-edmonds-required-to-pick-6-out-of-9-middle-housing-types/
This is pathetic. If you are friends of the Mayor and the majority of Council you get 30 minutes to state your case, but if you are anyone else you get 3 minutes and ,”you better make it snappy because we aren’t listening to you anyway.” Kudos to Nand and Dotsch for trying to make the case that this was an unfair and biased presentation disguised as promoting the need to try something different after a supposedly well grounded scientific poll. Oganowski and Scordino have been trying to get them to, “try something different,” for years now in three minute little increments and they just get ignored; while Mayors and co-operative Council Members just give away Edmonds to the highest bidders.
It would be interesting to understand (maybe public records request) the amount of coordination between the Mayor and the Keep Edmonds Vibrant group. Obviously, all a part of a professional PR campaign to push the levy. What actions has the Mayor and the Council taken that gives you confidence in them and their ability to administer even more $? Citizens opposing these tax increases are up against a strong PR force. Maybe create a new citizen led group – Keep Edmonds Affordable?
Whatever happened to the Citizens Housing Commission recommendations to council and city? It should be noted the HC was lead by our current planning director Shane Hope & Brad Shipley and lasted 15 months. The HC did not recommend broad based building height increases and expanded Density Hub boundaries into neighborhoods beyond the identified locations.
Erik Houser of KEV highlighted two “missed opportunities” by Edmonds government. Obviously, purchase of the Aurora Village property would have generated enormous tax revenue for the city. However, Council’s denial of the Harbor Square Master Plan was not a “missed opportunity.” It was a dodged bullet.
The entire Port of Edmonds is located in an enormous seismic hazard area, which most elected officials continue to ignore. Our final 2024 Comp Plan includes mixed use (retail, residential) directly within and near the seismic hazard area at the Waterfront. CM Chen proposed adding a hotel option (not allowed per our code) into our 2025 Comp Plan update. I’ve urged Council to remove all residential (and other not allowed uses) on or near the seismic hazard area at the Waterfront from our 2025 Comp Plan update.
I encourage survey participants who value our “Natural Environment” and our “Public Safety” to educate themselves about the dangers of allowing residential uses at our Waterfront:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/04/reader-view-opinion-the-seismic-hazard-elephant-at-our-waterfront/
Mackey,
First, I want to thank KEV for reinvigorating the long-standing dialogue on how to balance our budget. I also appreciated the link, it provided valuable insight into the algorithm, and as I delved deeper into the equations, it ultimately reinforced my concerns.
The semi-random comment routing process prioritizes the visibility of certain statements for new participants when deemed particularly relevant for mapping consensus or division. Additionally, the machine learning algorithm clusters similar statements, effectively shaping how perspectives are surfaced—a process that introduces an inherent bias. I’d be interested in reviewing your detailed results to understand whether this contributed to the polarization you observed.
Another key point is the influence of highly engaged users who cast votes on numerous statements over time, thereby exerting a greater impact on the perceived “consensus” compared to less active participants. How frequently did individuals reengage with the poll after its initial launch? This dynamic mirrors the “loudest voice in the room” effect, where dominant contributors steer the conversation and limit exposure to alternative viewpoints.
While Polis is an intriguing tool for surfacing ideas, I remain skeptical of the validity of its quantified results.
I’m struggling to find the Change part of the KEV message…the message seems to be “City government needs to spend (a lot) more money in order for Edmonds to be Vibrant !! “
So a $12 million levy lift (=property tax increase) and $9 million of other new revenue will make this town more “Vibrant”….because we will tax residents to the same level as Redmond (home of Microsoft) and Issaquah (home of Costco) ? The only thing missing is the levy lift should be called a “Vibrancy Tax” so people will know what they are paying for.
Where is the change in that approach? What will change in our tax base to support those high taxes? We will be the home of some shiny new neighborhood hubs and centers and our taxes will be much higher. Those who think this supposedly new approach is a rejection of the old guard status quo should think again, it is just more of the same but with better graphics and some fresh faces selling it to the public.