Edmonds City Council is now deep in the process of development of the 2024 City of Edmonds budget, and I’ve been giving the budgeting process a great deal of thought. It is clear our budget is stressed in 2023 and will be stressed even more in 2024. In fact, a council majority voted on Nov. 2 to declare a fiscal emergency, since the city was required to use reserves in 2023 to cover operating costs. This is causing council to look hard at how we can best allocate scarce budget resources and continue to deliver the top-quality city services our constituents expect. It comes down to defining our wants versus our needs.
We’ve clearly and repeatedly been told the city needs to get back to basics and focus on doing these things well: outstanding police services, more and better sidewalks/crosswalks/bike lanes, excellent fire/EMS services, good street quality, well distributed parks/open space within convenient walking distance for all residents, high quality water/sewer/stormwater systems, updated and clear city codes, stronger focus on environmental protection, etc. Council and the sdministration are working together to ensure these things are done.
Beyond the basics, the issue becomes prioritization of wants. And there is a gap around this issue: We don’t have sufficient clarity about what our citizens’ priorities are, and this is where we need your help. There will soon be a new Edmonds mayor and two new councilmembers. It is important the new administration and 2024 council have a clear view of how to prioritize the many “wants” of the city. And this is where it gets hard. Even if the city is operating as leanly and efficiently as possible, there is simply not enough money available to cover all the wants.
At a time of limited resources, if citizens had to choose between wants such as buying the Landmark property on Highway 99 for $37 million, for example, and purchasing the 20-acre Unocal property at the Edmonds Marsh to preserve it as open space, which would they choose? If the choice was to purchase both properties rather than investing in more sidewalks and parks, which would they choose? Those are just two examples, but they illustrate the problem. In fact, the city can’t afford all the wants with current resources. Since that’s the case, the next question would be: If citizens demand we deliver all the wants, are they willing to pay for them with additional taxes or a special levy?
Simply put, we need your help. Especially now, with a mayoral change and new council, we need to hear from you about how you expect your elected officials to responsibly manage your tax dollars. Please contact your elected officials via email or telephone, attend council meetings to voice your opinions, attend council and mayoral open houses, etc. and be sure your views are made known. We need your input around priorities. The year 2024 will be an unusually challenging year from a budgetary standpoint, but we can manage it with your guidance.
— By Dave Teitzel
Dave Teitzel currently holds Edmonds City Council Position 1. The thoughts expressed are his own and do not represent the views of city council as a body.
Very well put, if we want government to do our bidding we need a good general message. Myself I have only needs but I understand we have some money above those basic needs, me give the taxpayers a break. But I can understand the wants so maybe we should look to live within our means and chip away at the wants as resources become available. But I guess since we have a city full of people that don’t care about what it costs and are willing to pay any amount of additional taxes us people on the margin and the poor will just have to suffer from no longer being able to afford to live in the city. Property taxes will become ridicules driving rents so high only the rich will be able to move here and the elderly will have to move out and make room for richer people. So here we are at a crossroads. I would ask our staff and leaders to put their visions of utopia in the toilet and flush it down the most expensive sewer system we could find cause your resume isn’t as important as our ability to live here.
Good points Jim. Separating wants and needs are a basic good money management. Edmonds cannot follow the federal government’s example of overspending and then try to make it on its residents’ taxes. It would be beyond irresponsible.
If the city needs help prioritizing the ideas and placing them on needs and wants buckets, please make lists and plans broadly available to the public and collect feedback. I used to volunteer in the now disbanded technical committee, went to a few meetings about events organization and will be glad to participate in more of them if they are advertised. I feel that some decisions aren’t well publicized and just appear.
Someone has mentioned you were involved in the fiber optics program when it began. Any chance we could get a short essay on that? Eventually we want to add a number of short stories together to do a book on Edmonds history.
Sam Spencer
Vice-Chair HPC
Hello Sam,
I’d be glad to. Please forward your contact info and we go from there.
Cheers!
I’ll connect the two of you via email, Mario and Sam. Thanks. Teresa
Hi Dave, for the record: last time I gave an opinion and input you disregarded me and tried to bully me into being quiet because of a former volunteer position I held. How do I know you’ll consider my input now?
I guess that answers my question.
It’s hard to want to stay engaged in this city when a handful of people remain in control of most everything. The gatekeeping is real, and it’s about to get worse.
Then again, maybe that’s the goal.
Heather, would you share who the few “gatekeepers” are? And why is it about to get worse? I’m obviously in the dark.
I would be curious too? I don’t have high hopes for better governance, but just maybe a little less aspirational. None of us can survive exponential government growth. The idea has always been limited government so as they don’t have to much control, but it seems many in the region want government to control their whole lives because somehow the government knows better than they do about how to live it. I should want a electric car because government tells me I should and is even willing to penalize me for not wanting one, as just one example of hundreds.
Hi Pamela,
I don’t know if I should name names here in the comment section, but if you look at the local boards and orgs, you start to see patterns of who is in charge and dictating the direction of the city. I’m happy to chat offline (I’m not sure how to get you my contact info).
Since 2019 and electing a more progressive council, we’ve experienced a conservative backlash which has gotten us whittled down to an upcoming conservative majority council and mayor. I’m thankful voters saw to retain Susan Paine and elect Chris Eck, but a lot of the progress we made is really in jeopardy.
Just the fact that this letter pits improvements like sidewalks against something like the Landmark Property shows a willingness to mislead. These two things come from completely different ‘buckets’ of money. The Landmark Property would likely be eligible for many grants and have interest from many partnering organizations. But it’s being cast as an irresponsible project because it’s not in the Bowl.
She cannot define the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are the majority who voted. Notice I did not say the majority, they are the msjority who voted. I hope these blanket elitist rhetorical statements go away and that Mayor Rosen is able to bridge this divide.
Heather,
I provided my cell phone number in response to another commenter’s request, and I’m always available to talk. I’d be glad to visit with you any time. Also, I apologize if anything I said was interpreted as an attempt to bully. That certainly wasn’t my intent. I was simply asking for clarification about your role as Mayor Nelson’s campaign manager.
Hi Dave, thank you for the apology – I’m not sure there was another way to “interpret” it given you knew full well that I was not currently in the role but had been previously (I was discussed extensively in the “conservative Christian” group Edmonds Moms, Dads and Neighbors on Facebook and I know you were involved in that group). Regardless of that, especially in your official capacity as councilmember, it’s pretty inappropriate to try to play gotcha with your constituents, especially on a public forum, in order to attempt to discredit them.
I accept your apology and hope you can reflect on how the intimidation and gatekeeping really robs the city of people who want to be helpers, who have time and energy and gifts to give.
I would love to talk with you Dave. Could you possibly call me or I could call you. I do have thoughts on all you say in your letter and I appreciate you reaching out to citizens here in Edmonds. Thank you. Deb. We aren’t friended up on FB or anything but I think you could message me and I could give you my phone number. I have never once written a letter or sent an Email to the City Council or the mayor.
Sure, Deb. My Council phone is 425-967-1474. Feel free to call any time.
Thank you, Dave. I’ll call you next week after the CC meeting. Later in the week. Give you some time to relax. Deb
No time like the present Deborah to start emailing & calling Council members. If we don’t contact them, how will they know what we citizens want? I’ve done it recently on 2 separate issues. I emailed each one of them individually. I got some responses & I have kept track of who responds & who doesn’t. I was also in touch w/ a couple of folks running. I highly recommend communicating w/ council as well as the mayor elect.
Hi Pamela, Thanks. I know. We all have our ways of keeping in touch and asking questions.
I am in contact and have been for a long time. I totally agree with you that communicating and researching and watching CC meetings are very important. I personally like the personal touch with a phone call. To me it’s more like a conversation. A back-and-forth conversation with even though you can’t see the person you can hear that person and the inflection of tone etc. After I know someone then a text and such work great. It’s just my way. Any type of communication is what I hope everyone will do too. I am glad to see you are also engaged in conversation with our city leaders. I also like conversations with people just other citizens too regardless of whether we agree on an issue or a plan for our city. Communication is Key. Maybe we will talk sometime (:
Hi Dave. Purchasing the Landmark property, with support of partners, is my family’s choice. Right up there with compliance with the State upzoning law. Thanks for encouraging input. We have and will continue to communicate this to electeds who will listen. I am willing to pay higher taxes and am open to helping neighbors do the same.
Kim, the problem isn’t with buying the Landmark property or portions of it for possible various city uses; the problem is with how the people you seem to support so often politically want to go about it. Our city doesn’t need to purchase the land outright and then sell it or parts of it back to the private developers. Your political pals have created an artificial need to act fast before a large property (with some very obvious flaws for city or private development) slips out of our hands. None of this passes the smell test and it is just backwards of how it should work. I do understand where you are coming from, however, in that all of us got an expensive Civic Field Park re-do jammed down our throats by town special interests, so we now have a facility that is attracting hoards of visitors and can’t be used for two of it’s most important past functions. I agree with Dave, we need to develop a process for everyone in town to be heard and start placing common needs ahead of special and geographical wants. As to upzoning, that just made our own property way more valuable, but I’m not so selfish to think that those laws are good for the city or the state in general.
Good comments Clinton. The untested cost of the property at $37mm even alerted Youth Commission at their meeting; and while the upcoming drawings are professionally done and look great! Really great! $37mm pays for our Police Department for three years.
Also we don’t have sufficient codes in place to address development agreements, multi-family design standards and sufficient environmental related codes. The way our code rewrite has been limping along and as seen in the repeal of #4079, the City needs to address so many environmental issues well before engaging in any type of partnership or development agreement with a rainmaker in that former planned action area.
We simply don’t have the money right now and to set up a “false sense of hope” that all these things come together next year – especially the code and the replenishment of the reserves to fund expenses and get the City out of this fiscal crisis is plain wrong. This is taxpayers’ money and so put it out on the market! Test the price.
This project is a multi-year endeavor that put the $37mm cart way before the horse. We simply do not have the money and considering our cash flows, we can’t bond or borrow.
Let’s test the real estate market as many of us know it is hugely overpriced and then decide on property.
Call me crazy, but why would the City buy property instead of providing better safety for the residents with more sidewalks and better lighting?
Why would that even be a discussion?
Dave, Thank you for your service, the professionalism you bring to your position and, for your balanced and fair approach taken in your decision-making.
Niall – I see from an earlier comment you are new to Edmonds. Welcome! Based on your comments above, I will strongly suggest you do your due diligence in researching what has been shared already regarding the Landmark property. City Council doesn’t need further analysis to determine what their 2024 city priorities should be. Facts have been shared and the bottom line is we don’t have the money without sacrificing basic needs the city should be providing. It appears you like to live in the data weeds choosing to pick apart Dave’s intent on his message and label it bias. We should be grateful a city council member is asking the right questions as opposed to showing bias through partisan beliefs.
The fact that police is mentioned before the author can even breath his own breath to mumble about the environment at the very end is extremely telling for our future. More pocket lining now paid for with the blood of our children
Thank you, Dave, for the encouragement. And thank you for your years of service on the Council. That was a tough job.
You asked us to reach out to Council members and the new mayor. Will do!
Here, I’ll share my vote for security and safety: sidewalks, complying with federal environmental regulations, making sure Edmonds citizens will be safe in wildfire seasons, more speed tables, and avoiding harm from flooding and landslides.
Sorry i think Landmark Prop a waste of money for a strapped City and purchase price only a drop in the bucket of the costs it will involve. I also think utility costs are outrageous especially storm water rates and the never ending increases, NEVER a break or enough for this City, they do not know how to operate ever, on existing revenue too easy for them to just raise, raise, raise, in any and all areas! I guess “some” don’t care, but I believe the majority DO however, no one listens.
If you check Dave’s letter carefully you won’t find the use of the pronoun “I” a single time. Dave has been a truly exceptional public servant and we will be losing him in just a few weeks. He has the ability of putting issues into stark terms that allows for making an easier decision. His retirement from city government is truly a tremendous loss for the City of Edmonds. Dave, thank you for your service.
Yes we need more active citizen involvement in helping to make these hard decisions but we also need to present the decisions in a fact based and unbiased way. Positing a choice between “ buying the Landmark property on Highway 99 for $37 million, for example, and purchasing the 20-acre Unocal property at the Edmonds Marsh to preserve it as open space” is an example of probably unconscious bias. The first option is assigned a negative connotation of cost with no stated purpose or benefit while the cost of the second option is at least somewhat mitigated by a stated purpose. I am neither in favor nor opposed to the landmark property plan because I don’t have enough information to decide and the council recently voted to give the administration more time to assess the pros and cons of this purchase. Until that is done and the analysis is presented in an unbiased way that takes into account both long term and short term perspectives, there is no basis for a decision.
Also, realistically, most citizens are not going to have the time to explore all the nuances of these major decisions so it falls to our council and administration to lay out the decisions in clear and honest ways to guide citizens in their response to such questions.
I couldn’t agree more that local government needs to layout decisions in a clear and honest way. Unfortunately, the now outgoing administration often did not meet that standard. For example, the Nelson administration phony Landmark property survey is a prime example. The mayor elect said that he would not have let that questionable survey out of the house. The Landmark decision is completely filled with the current administration’s bogus bias, and waiting another month ain’t going change it.
I would not waste any time and money evaluating the purchase of a Rolls Royce if I couldn’t even afford the purchase of a used Fiat. That’s essentially what the city is doing with this nonsensical evaluation of the Landmark property. This needs to be ended NOW.
The Current Administration’s proposition is that it is a good idea for our city to purchase private property with public funds for as yet undetermined uses and sell what we don’t need back to private developers. The state DOT desperately wants Edmonds to purchase the Unocal property that is now surplus to it’s needs and has a huge price tag for environmental clean up or capping it over that the future purchaser will inherit. None of this is simple. There is a perception both inside and outside of the city that Edmonds is full of rich people who need to loosen up on the purse strings and finance every conceivable want known to exist. We do have one very good and generous wealthy man living amongst us and a wealthy couple just left the city some funds for wants; but those are the exceptions; not the rule.
Safety and prevention from crime/criminals is the first responsibility from our local government, so let’s make sure that is firmly accomplished. Last time I checked, raw land is not being made anymore. Yes, on a special levy for the Unocal property, no on the Landmark property.
I wish our new Mayor the best!
Dave, thanks for serving on the city council, it is a difficult job. I agree with most, stop spending money on buying things that aren’t necessary and focus on the essentials, safety and security of this city. I am not willing to pay more taxes and it certainly seems as though Edmonds has more than enough beautiful parks. The city of Edmonds needs to operate within their budget just as we all must.
I agree
As someone who doesn’t live in downtown Edmonds, the Landmark property on Highway 99 would be my priority to keep around. Yes it is expensive, but it would help tremendously in the long term to those who don’t have access to these places walking-distance from their homes. Whether it would become a library, community center, park, etc. Having a safe, closer gathering spot to connect with our neighbors, at the very least to me sounds important enough to invest in.
Amelia, Yours is the first voice from outside the west side. Neither has anyone from that unnamed neighborhood offered an opinion. Only in the past few years has it come to the forefront in consideration. There must be some leadership in, shall we say Eastgate. The same taxpayers as we are and have all the parts, business and opinions, for example. Let them be vocal too.
Dave, thank you for a level-headed, thoughtful assessment of the budget issues facing our City. “Wants” and “needs” is a rational way to set priorities, provided, of course, that we can agree on those definitions. I also understand your plea for public input.
On a personal note, I recently participated in a city related activity during which gaining citizen input was a particular challenge. Quite frankly, we got very little.
We, as a citizenry, tend to quickly focus on details important to us personally. We, however, fail to think holistically so clear priorities can be established. That, it seems to me, is a challenge we’ve not yet figured out how to address.
Dave, thank you for your service to the city and the citizens of Edmonds. Your insight will be missed. I hope the new mayor and city council will seek input from the citizens. However, asking people to just provide what they want is not sufficient. The mayor and city council needs to provide financial implications of the various options. Just asking for wants will not do it. For the Landmark 99 proposal, so far we have only been asked for what the citizens want without any information about the costs and the financial tradeoffs of those wants. As individuals, we can’t do our own budget without knowing what our income is and add up all of the things we want to buy and subtract it from the income available to determine if we can afford our wants and what the tradeoffs are.
Thank you, Dave, for your leadership. It will be sorely missed.
While I applaud the outreach, I would also like to put your request in perspective. I have been following our city’s finances for some time now. They have never been in such poor shape as they are now. We have been trending down for the last few years and now, as you’ve said, we’re in a fiscal emergency. What does that actually mean? It means that left unchecked, our city becomes insolvent by the end of next year. We would need to double the city’s personal property tax revenue next year to bring us into compliance with our own financial policies.
So, while your request is for public input, our current mayor has already proposed priorities of his own. He has prioritized everything else over city funded fire protection. His proposed budget eliminates fire protection and EMS services by 2025. His alternative is to punt and join another jurisdiction at substantially higher cost to us all.
Let’s keep this in mind as we collectively provide our ideas. It’s needs vs. wants. Unfortunately, we can’t afford it all, particularly in 2024. I would suggest that we look at this through the opposite end of the telescope. What should we cut or reduce in city services in 2024? Difficult decisions will need to be made.
I’m saddened to read about perceptions of “gatekeepers” or others in charge and “dictating” things in Edmonds. I suppose if your only worldview (cityview) is through a cramped political lens, then things may appear that way. But that’s not reality. That’s not how Edmonds works.
Civic life in this town is porous and open, especially to anyone who wants to roll up their sleeves and do something. There are volunteer opportunities all over the place, including on the city’s many boards and commissions. Few will question your politics, especially not on the left/right political spectrum~ that’s for Olympia and the other Washington, not Edmonds.
If you have a chip on your shoulder, I say brush it off and get involved. Broaden your interests. Talk to a wider range of people. We’ll have a new mayor in January, a great communicator who’s open and welcoming regardless of politics.
Heather Damron,
You say, “The Landmark Property” is “being cast as an irresponsible project because it’s not in the Bowl.” This comment is solely your point of view, without benefit of any facts. It also pits neighborhoods against each other. What is your goal in making such statements?
Who are these people that you think believe the 99 property is irresponsible “because it’s not in the Bowl?” I believe it’s irresponsible because it was a surprise to Council, brought up in the midst of a contentious election season, the process of “vetting” it has been time consuming and expensive, biased toward Nelson and his staff’s preferred goals for the city, and because we are in the midst of a “financial emergency.”
Joan,
I am not pitting neighborhoods against each other – this is an argument trotted out whenever someone points out the Bowl/Talbot/wealthy precincts have been historically favored. It’s apparently only pitting neighborhoods against each other when it’s beneficial to underserved areas?
I do appreciate you put “financial emergency” in quotes because that is also highly subjective and I think deserves more scrutiny than an op-Ed by a councilperson who couldn’t even suss out the streetery financials.
Yes, the Landmark property is expensive but I also know that the cost would be tempered by partnerships and the residents up there could benefit from something thoughtfully put together. It’s at least worth meaningful exploration. We wouldn’t just be ok selling the waterfront to the highest bidder if we could get it for park space or recreational area.
Heather,
You didn’t answer my question, “Who are these people that you think believe the 99 property is irresponsible “because it’s not in the Bowl?” Now I’m left to wonder who are the people you think “trotted out” this argument “whenever someone points out the Bowl/Talbot/wealthy precincts have been historically favored.”
You’ve stated your opinions, devoid of information. It is my opinion that by expressing hostility towards fellow Edmonds residents, you contribute to pitting neighborhoods against each other when allocation of resources is being discussed.
Heather,
Our financial emergency is not subjective at all. It’s real and based on the criteria laid out in our Fund Balance Reserve Policy. We have been using emergency reserve funds to pay for General Fund operating expenses throughout the year. Once this became evident to the city council, they authorized the mayor to utilize these funds to bail out our General Fund. As my previous comment outlines, the 2024 budget will be difficult to balance in light of our current situation. One will only need to watch the next months’ worth of Council meetings to see how this plays out. My belief is that no one will get what they want, and some will actually get less of what they currently have.
I applied for a commission a while back but was told off the record by a council person and a person on the commission to try again after I’d lived here longer. Hoping this will change now that I’ve hit the 5 year mark. I mentioned this to Mike Rosen when I had coffee with him. He did seem supportive of broadening the base of people who are selected to serve. I’m gonna hold you to that, Mike R!
Hello Dave,
I’m glad you brought the topic.
If you drive through 9th Ave S, the new “bicycle lane” being marked over there is a pure waste of money. I recall some discussions about a bicycle lane and how it was rejected. I don’t know how this one was approved but can tell it was money squandering from the concept all the way to the execution.
How many are expected to use those lanes on a hilly avenue that has big traffic some parts of the day and in a town with a rainy and sometimes icy weather that makes it unusable?
The irregular lane widths and tortuous demarcation lines seem like painted by someone on drugs or drunk, let alone that eliminating the parking spots on one side was a really bad idea.
So, talking about responsible budget allocation, that project that feels came from a third world banana republic, is an example of what not to do.
Thanks!
Mario:
It’s a long time since I’ve seen your name. I remember that you were an intelligent guy when we served on a city committee 15 or more years ago. I totally agree with your comments about the 9th ave. bicycle lanes. I thought that they were dumb when I first viewed what they were doing a few weeks ago. I just walked along them again a couple of hours ago and now I’ve confirmed that they are idiotic. Whoever approved the design should be fired.
And like you’ve said, Mario, even if they were perfectly designed they’d get minimal use. I have been walking this route every week for more than two years now. I can’t recall ever seeing anyone on a bicycle.
Hi Ron, yes Mario served on the Citizen’s Technology Advisory Committee. He and I served on that work together and yes, Mario was a great contributor to that work. CTAC did all the initial work on the Fiber Network for the city. That all started when DOT worked with the city to provide Fiber to the Ferry Dock back in 2005.
Mario and Ron, If I remember correctly, we have the past Nelson four Council Member voting block and a regional transit money grant to thank for the 9th. Ave. project that many of the local citizens most definitely did not want. The theory was/is that this facilitates lots of bicycle traffic getting to community transit, sound transit and the ferry system more safely. Apparently this was a terrific step forward for the two or three bicyclists a day that may use it and well worth the large grant of what is really just another pile of tax money from another government run institution that comes out of all of our pockets in the final analysis. The ultimate good or bad of it is in the eye of the beholder or users of the road.
Hello Ron, Darrol, Clinton,
Great hearing from you again. It’s been a long time indeed.
I drive 9th at least twice a day and have yet to see anyone using that thing. Only time I see anyone riding bicycles here is late Spring to early Fall. That includes, some occasional large groups that usually come from Caspers, not 9th, which is too hilly. Even the old route on 220th is seldom to never used. Adding that most Edmonds’ citizens were rejecting it, it puts a big question mark on the real intent of building it.
On top of it, the real bad quality of the work done there puts an even bigger question mark on how the contractor selection process happened. It’s really, really bad. Crooked lines with varying widths, painting stains all over, etc. make it look like coming from some shady third-world banana republic.
As others mentioned and the main point of the original post. As Edmonds’ citizens, we expect better transparency, responsibility and accountability for the projects done here, which should not be politically oriented and genuinely strive for community improvement. That thing on 9th is an example of what NOT to do. To make things worse, it looks like an abandoned half-done project right now, probably because even the budget was also poorly managed.
Cheers!
We are getting bad city actions and “solutions” because we think in terms of “liberal” and “conservative” ideas instead of just “good” or “bad” ideas. The city being in the land development business, for example, is simply a bad idea; subject to a thousand different pit falls. A neighborhood association or interest group partnering with a land development and/or re-development business to promote better public and private uses of available property is simply a good idea with a thousand different possibilities. For example, a neighborhood association might ask a potential development property owner to approach the city for a possible trade of a small amount of cramped high value public office property in one location in exchange for a large amount of property that would be better suited to meet the public need in that other neighborhood. Look for win – win situations in other words, but don’t hamstring the municipal budget in the process with politically based solutions that may or may not work in the end.
Hi Clinton,
Excellent point! I strongly agree that Edmonds’ projects should be apolitical and strive for improving the community. As you said, win-win solutions. There have been great projects, some of which I participated.
For what I read from several posts, the property acquisition on 99 seems to be a high-contention topic and definitely should be evaluated carefully and Edmonds’ citizens given a stronger decision-making voice on it.
That becomes even more important as Dave’s post highlighting that Edmonds isn’t “swimming in money” and its residents also do not have deep pockets to see taxes raised because of poor spending.
Cheers!
To me Paul Simon is one of the most brilliant lyricists ever. If you listen to the song the Boxer the first two lines of this song pretty much cover what I see and hear. It’s such a good song but those lines A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest pretty much covers it huh? I do not support the Purchase of the Landmark Property, what I have heard so far is not enough. What I do hear is a lot of money with a lot of speculation and assumptions and not a central location for the uphill E and W in Edmonds. So, I am disregarding any idea for this purchase or project.