The Edmonds City Council faced a key decision during its Tuesday, Aug. 22 business meeting regarding the Landmark 99 proposal, but ended up making no decision at all. After a lengthy discussion about whether to allocate $250,000 to further investigate the proposed purchase of 10-plus acres in southeastern Edmonds, the council voted 4-3 to approve Council President Neil Tibbott’s motion to table the matter, with Tibbott, Diane Buckshnis, Susan Paine and Jenna Nand voting yes.

Tibbott’s motion ended a discussion that began with a presentation by three city department directors — Community Services and Economic Development Director Todd Tatum; Parks, Recreation and Cultural Service Director Angie Feser and Planning and Development Director Susan McLaughlin. All three reiterated points made at last week’s council meeting, stressing that the $250,000 investment was needed to cover four areas — due diligence, master planning, development strategy and project communication — to help the council decide whether to move forward with the Landmark purchase.

Staff did make a change in the funding source, however. Instead of taking the money from American Rescue Plan Act funds originally allocated for facade improvements to businesses impacted by the COVID pandemic, staff suggested two new options: using $250,000 of ARPA funds allocated to the city’s Green Streets program, or taking $150,000 from Green Streets and $100,000 from the citywide professional services budget.

Addressing concerns expressed by councilmembers that the city shouldn’t be in the business of developing property, staff also presented case studies of two Puget Sound cities — Woodinville and Tukwila — that had successfully created projects using public/private partnerships.

Tibbott’s motion to table the discussion came after several other council motions that were unsuccessful. First, the council rejected — by a 3-4 vote — a motion by Councilmember Dave Teitzel “to discontinue pursuit” of the Landmark 99 purchase and ask for the return of the city’s $100,000 refundable deposit. Teitzel noted that he was the “swing vote” when the council June 27 voted 3-1 with two abstentions and one absence to authorize Mayor Mike Nelson to sign an option agreement for the possible future purchase of the site, with a current asking price of $37 million. 

“I cast my vote with the understanding that staff had the expertise and bandwidth to further vet the details of the potential purchase to provide council with the information it needed to make the go/no go decision within the six-month window,” Teitzel said, referring to the deadline by which the city has to decide whether to proceed with the project and still get its deposit back. Had he known about the need for a consultant, Teitzel said, he never would have voted to approve the option agreement.

The $100,000 deposit is refundable if the council chooses not to pursue it by the end of the year. Some of the ideas put forth so far for the site include parkland, a community or civic center, a police station and affordable housing.

Stating he was appealing to his “fellow councilmembers who are fiscal conservatives,” Teitzel said he had several concerns about the project. One was the restrictions imposed by the seller of the property in which only 25% of the property could be developed for public use, with 75% being reserved for public purposes. “While the seller is apparently now willing to negotiate the percentage split after hearing concerns expressed by council, it was mentioned in the June 27 (council meeting) minutes that he was asked to consider a 50/50 split and he rejected that notion,” Teitzel added. “So it is clear there will continue to be a significant restriction of something in excess of 50/50 in terms of the sale.”

Teitzel also said he spoke with a commercial real estate expert who told him that the commercial market was showing signs of signicant downturn, and “there is a very real risk” the $37 million asking price is not supported by market conditions.

In addition, Teitzel stressed the importance of returning “to the basics of city government” and focusing on numerous essential services, including ensuring the city’s wastewater treatment plant is operating as designed; acclerating sidewalk installation and repairs; enhancing police protection in the Highway 99 area, establishing a roadside trash cleanup and abandoned shopping cart retrieval plan, developing plans to restore the city’s watersheds and estuaries, fixing the leaky roof at the Edmonds Library, and addressing increases in fire and emergency services expenses.

Teitzel’s remarks were followed by similar concerns from Councilmember Vivian Olson, who said she was particularly disappointed that the council did not receive an update on the city’s budget status prior to discussing the $250,000 funding request. The council was scheduled to hear a report on the city’s fund balance reserve and contingency reserve balance, but Council President Tibbott pulled it off the agenda at the beginning of Tuesday’s meeting.

“I’ve had concerns (about the budget) and was looking forward to vetting that more with the finance director today,” Olson said. Between inflationary pressures and recent increases in city staffing, Olson said the city may be needing to tighten its belt rather than “expanding and looking at things that are really exciting but really possibly not be feasible right now.”

Speaking in opposition to Teitzel’s motion, Councilmember Jenna Nand noted many of the projects in downtown Edmonds were envisioned many years ago. “So when I look at something like the magnitude of this project, I’m not thinking about, well how is this going to benefit taxpayers of today,” Nand said. “I’m looking at how this is going to benefit our community and our region for generations to come.” Many large projects that have been built in downtown Edmonds were also the result of funding partnerships with public and private organizations, she added.

Councilmember Susan Paine said she was also opposed Teitzel’s motion, and stressed that having such an amenity in the Highway 99 neighborhood “is really crucial,” adding that the city is unlikely to have an opportunity to acquire that amount of property in the future.

Councilmember Will Chen also said that he wouldn’t be supporting Teitzel’s motion to abandon the project, but reiterated his position — expressed last week — that staff are capable of researching the feasibility of the Landmark 99 site and providing the information the council needs to decide on a future purchase. Later in the discussion, Chen also mentioned that the city has already spent nearly $15,000 for real estate consulting related to the Landmark 99 property, plus another $14,500 with an appraisal company, and $23,626 for site analysis. “A lot of work has been done to find out about this site,” Chen said. “At this point…we just need the bare bones information to decide whether to move forward to the next stage.”

Councilmember Buckshnis said she supported Teitzel’s motion, and also expressed worries about the city’s budget. “We need to get back to basics,” Buckshnis said.

Tibbott said it was premature to pull the plug on the proposal, adding that it was “high time that we get input from across the city and it’s high time that we engage with our citizen groups and I think it’s high time that we get additional information.

“If we stop now, we’re going to miss that opportunity,” Tibbott added.

The council then took a vote on Teitzel’s motion and it failed 3-4 (Chen, Tibbott, Nand and Paine opposed). That was followed by more discussions and motions, including a proposal by Nand to fund only two of the four tasks staff had outlined — due diligence at a cost of $60,000 and master planning at $75,000 — for a total of $135,000. Tibbott then proposed an amendment to trim that allocation to $85,000 total, but withdrew it after he heard from staff that it would be impossible to produce any meaningful work with that dollar amount. Nand’s original motion for $135,000 failed on a 2-5 vote, with Nand and Paine supporting.