Councilmembers engage with public on City of Edmonds budget

An estimated 50 attendees gathered at the Edmonds Waterfront Center Thursday evening for an informal discussion with Edmonds City Councilmembers on the budget proposal introduced by Mayor Mike Rosen earlier this week (see full coverage of that event here). Sponsored by the Edmonds Civic Roundtable, the goal of the event was to give the public an early opportunity to engage with council, ask questions, provide ideas, and express concerns.

To keep within rules governing public meetings and to avoid having a quorum present, the council was represented by two councilmembers, Olson and Chen.

A big part of the evening’s discussion centered on the $13 million deficit included in the mayor’s proposal. He has asked city staff to come up with $7 million in cutbacks to partially fill this budget hole. He has also suggested a range of possible cost-cutting and revenue-enhancing options for council to consider as they grapple with developing a balanced budget. Council’s timeline is to approve a final budget by Nov. 26.

“We’re in a tough situation,” said Edmonds Civic Roundtable (ECR) Chair Gil Morgan as he welcomed attendees. “In past years revenue expectations have not come through, communication has not been the best, and our reserve funds have been drawn down. ECR is proud to be part of this process of bringing folks together to talk and engage on this critical topic.”

The format included introductions by Councilmembers Olson and Chen, group table discussions with a designated recorder aimed at generating questions and ideas for council, and concluding with direct Q and A to the councilmembers.

“All the notes taken at your tables will go directly to council,” explained ECR’s Chrissy Roberts, who directed the event. “This will ensure that everyone’s input – not just that of the people who talk the most or are brave enough to stand up with a microphone – will get to council and form part of their deliberations.”

In her introductory remarks, Councilmember Olson provided a quick review of the mayor’s budget address, utilizing many of the slides and visual aides he presented on Monday.

“I really appreciate the opportunity to engage with the public on this very important subject,” she began. “Lots of folks have been part of developing this proposal including councilmembers, directors, and community members who participated in the survey, served on the Blue Ribbon Panel, participated in focus groups, and contacted us by phone and email.”

In recapping the mayor’s presentation, she reiterated the principles that have and will continue to guide the process, including public engagement, transparency, conservative approach to revenue projections and other assumptions, not hiding from hard choices and spreading/sharing the pain. In addition, she assured that the council will continue to prioritize safety, the environment, wise investment, livability and economic resiliency throughout the process.

She also reviewed the 2024 numbers and how the city now faces a $20 million deficit. She explained that the current proposal provides a roadmap for addressing this through cuts and revenue enhancements.

“No one will be happy with these cuts,” she explained, as she presented the slide from the mayor’s presentation describing some of them:

On the revenue side, Olson further clarified Edmonds’ heavy dependence on property taxes by comparing us to Lynnwood.

She explained how while Lynnwood has a lower population than Edmonds, it takes in 50% more in general fund revenues due to sales tax revenues from its robust retail sector. This means Lynnwood property owners contribute 7% to its general fund through property taxes — compared with Edmonds, where property taxes provide more than 30% of the general fund.

“As we look at ideas of how to generate more revenue for Edmonds, one thing we should certainly consider is whether we want to attract more commercial business,” she explained.

She illustrated possible other revenue-generating ideas by sharing the following slide from the mayor’s Monday presentation.

“Our fragile Edmonds needs help, and we want to hear from you on this,” she said. “There are several public meetings coming up to provide this opportunity. I want to particularly draw your attention to the Oct. 29 meeting, which will be in a special format that will allow citizens to ask questions and engage with council in lieu of the traditional three-minute comment.”

The event then broke into small table discussions to generate and discuss the various concepts inherent in the 2025 budget proposal, identify critical questions, and generate ideas.

Questions and comments from the tables included the following

• Which of the proposed cuts do you support, and which don’t you support?
• Don’t sell the Frances Anderson Center.
• Enlist volunteers to do some of the work done by city crews such as landscape maintenance.
• How would you encourage more commercial businesses to help bolster our sales tax revenue?
• Give sponsorship recognition to local landscape companies in exchange for maintaining parks, etc.
• We need to know more about the budget implications of the fire/EMS contract.
• How far have we depleted our reserves? Are we running on fumes?
• What is the comprehensive plan costing us?
• What about moving the police and fire stations?
• What are the upfront costs of charging for parking? Meters? A parking garage?
• Who decides which positions are eliminated?
• And a bit of humor: Institute fines for people who can’t parallel park!

In response, Councilmember Chen said he agrees that the city should not sell the Frances Anderson Center, but rather look at ways that it can be made into a revenue generator rather than an expense center.

Chen further said the city needs to be purposeful and deliberate in encouraging more commercial business in Edmonds to preserve its atmosphere and charm, saying that Edmonds needs to find “the sweet spot” to bring in suitable revenue.

“I love the idea of more volunteers!” he said, and suggested that the city might use the recently donated Johnson property as a nonprofit community garden that would generate revenue.

Chen next provided some detail in response to the status of our reserves, explaining that Edmonds has two reserve funds — an operating reserve and a contingency reserve. Operating reserve policy requires that the city maintain 20% of its budget in a reserve (20% of $50 million equals $10 million), but Edmonds has drawn that down to about $500,000. The city’s contingency reserve is at $2.2 million, so with both combined Edmonds has less than $3 million in total reserves, enough to last about 20 days.

Regarding moving police and fire stations, Chen observed that South County Fire is currently looking at the old Value Village property on Highway 99, and that perhaps the city could strike a deal with them to share this property.

Then it was Olson’s turn to address the questions, which she did quickly due to meeting time constraints. Focusing on the question of joining the Regional Fire Authority and the money the city has taken from its revenues to pay for the current South County Fire contract, she pointed out that the “$6 million being levied for fire would be retained and go to offset other expenses – so it’s not like you’re paying for fire twice. It’s being used for other things.”

The final 15 minutes remaining in the session was used for direct questions from the attendees.

First was Jim Ogonowski, who pointed out that according to the 2025 budget proposal page 20, the city will be insolvent in 2027 and beyond and asked what we will do to regain financial solvency.

Page 20 of the mayor’s draft budget:

Olson responded that the city will be looking at all potential revenue streams.

“We’re going to need more,” she stressed. “We will be very creative about getting out of these negative numbers. The mayor gave us a strategy for financial resilience and rebuilding reserves over the next 10 years. It’s part of the recovery plan.”

Chen added that Edmonds will develop a strategy to get beyond 2026.

“We all want to maintain the high levels of service we love, but we’ll have to pay for it,” he added.

Darroll Haug asked about the school cameras and red-light cameras that are projected to generate $2.5 million. “What are your thoughts about increasing these and using the revenue to help our financial crisis?” he added.

Olson responded by pointing out that the revenue mentioned is without expenses, and when you back out the cost of installing and maintaining these cameras, the figure falls to around $2 million. She said she’d recommend seeing how the installations work out before deciding on expanding the program.

Chen observed that as one who puts public safety first, he sees these cameras as more of a public safety enhancement than a revenue generator.  “If these cameras can help improve public safety, I’m for it,” he said.

Kerry Radley then offered her comments about the Frances Anderson Center, pointing out that it’s part of our community history and heritage, and should be retained.

The last public question came from Roger Pence, who gave his view that annexing to the Regional Fire Authority would be a “bum deal” for Edmonds, and result in the city paying far more than its fair share.

“The RFA would bill us based on property values, not cost of service like our current contract,” he said.  “A view lot on a hill in Edmonds that is worth much more than a similar sized lot in Lynnwood without a view would pay significantly more in RFA assessments. Our community should not be penalized because of higher property values.”

Olson responded that since the details of the annexation agreement are still being worked out, there is no way to know how this will address the property value question. “There is a parity conversation going on, and this is a part of it,” she said.

ECR Chair Gil Morgan then returned to the podium to thank participants and conclude the meeting.

You can review the city budget and watch the mayor’s budget address at this link.

— Story and photos by Larry Vogel