Edmonds council gives public the floor Tuesday for city budget questions

Many questions have been swirling in Edmonds in recent months about the city’s budget situation, so the Edmonds City Council on Tuesday night held an out-of-the-ordinary public hearing that gave community members a chance to ask budget questions directly of Mayor Mike Rosen and Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe.

Just four people took advantage of the format, with questions including how to reconcile the city’s official 2025 budget book with recent presentations from city officials and the status of the city’s negotiations with the Regional Fire Authority. There were also questions regarding whether the city would examine more affordable options for police services and if officials were really cutting the budget deeply enough to address the problem.

During his Oct. 1 budget address, Rosen proposed a combination of staff reductions, job furloughs and revenue-generating ideas to close the city’s projected $13 million budget gap in 2025. Rosen also asked city staff to address half that gap with $7 million in budget cuts.

During the public hearing, Edmonds resident Jim Ogonowski said he was having “a real difficult time” comparing the city’s budget document with presentations and discussions coming from the city. “I hear we’ve cut $7 million in expenses during the presentations and in the budget book I can’t find $7 million in expenses cut,” Ogonowski said. “I see 46 positions unfunded [in presentations] and I can’t find 46 positions in the budget book.” In addition, the city administration talks about a 10-year budget recovery plan when the actual budget shows “we’re insolvent by 2027,” he said. Noting that the council adopts the budget book and not the presentations, Ogonowski asked “which do I believe? Do I go by the words that are being said or the budget that’s been presented to the council?

Dunscombe first addressed the question about the $7 million in cuts. She noted that the administration started budget preparations by asking the city’s department directors “to request everything that they had proposed to do in their ’25 work plan,” and that totaled $66 million. “We didn’t propose that budget because we have forecasted revenues of $52 million. That’s not a balanced budget,” Dunscombe said. Staff then went through a reduction exercise, “and that’s where we discussed the seven and a half million dollars that we came up on our own to reduce the budget by. That is not in your budget book. And I understand the how unclear that has become, and has caused some issues, because we said those numbers out loud.

“I have asked all the directors to focus on some of the work that won’t be done next year to be able to help council and the community understand the services that you’re going to lose by us reducing our services,” she continued. “I will take ownership of failing to show that math, because I know that there are… community members who hang on those words and really want to be able to see that reduction — with whether it’s FTEs (full-time equivalents), and/or professional services or supplies that support our work.”

About a week ago, Dunscombe said she released a list of unfunded staff positions including whether they are currently vacant and the salary savings for the upcoming 2025-26 biennium. “I haven’t done a very good job of laying all of those out for you,” she added. “And I think it’s important that everyone sees how we got to the proposed budget that we’re at, knowing that we said out loud that we reduced our spending by seven and a half-ish million dollars.”

As for the city’s budget recovery plan, Dunscombe said there is “not a clear definition” of what that looks like. The city’s financial policy states that the recovery would take place over seven years, but the mayor is seeking to amend that policy to extend that timeline to 10 years, she said.

Rosen added that “I own some of this as well. In talking about the replenishment of the reserves, I did indicate the proposal of 10 years, and when that clock would start, that would need a council action to do, and that should have been a footnote, absolutely, or at least some kind of a comment in the [budget] book.

“This is a huge moving target, and the council has a huge role in that, as does the community,” the mayor said. He noted that the council will hold a revenue opportunities workshop this Saturday, Nov. 2 from 9 a.m. to noon to come up with ideas that could “offset some of this or pay off more quickly.” The public will also have an opportunity to learn more about the different variables that could affect both revenue and expenses, including public votes on annexation into the Regional Fire Authority and future levy lid lifts.

The second speaker, Theresa Hutchinson, asked about the types of efficiencies South County Fire (which also operates as the Regional Fire Authority) could employ in Edmonds, thus saving money for the city. Edmonds currently contracts with the fire agency for both fire and emergency medical services, but the city received notice in late 2023 that South County Fire intended to terminate its current 20-year contract effective Dec. 31, 2025. The city is now meeting with South County Fire officials to discuss next steps, which could include placing a measure before voters to decide annexation, entering into a new SCF contract without annexation, or restarting the city’s own fire department.

Rosen replied that the council’s approach in negotiating with South County Fire is to ensure that “whatever decisions we make do provide future residents and councils to change their mind,” with considerations including service level, service price and how services are provided. He said that the primary two options being discussed are a new contract and/or annexation, “and in that, the discussions of service and what that looks like, and what future service look like, what staffing levels look like, trying to find accountability for pricing, are absolutely conversations within these negotiations.”

Woodway resident Bill Krepick asked who was negotiating with South County Fire on behalf of the city, and he also wanted to know if the city has given up on the idea of having a city-owned fire department. Krepick also asked if, in light of Edmonds Police Chief Michelle Bennett’s pending retirement, whether the city would be considering other models for police services, including the possibility of contracting or partnering with other agencies.

Rosen first addressed the question about whether the city would considering restarting its fire department, adding that is also an option and that “nothing is off the table.” Regarding who is on the negotiating team, that includes the mayor, the city attorney and two city councilmembers — later in the meeting identified as Neil Tibbott, who has negotiated with the fire district in the past, and Vivian Olson, who is a former government contracting officer. In addition, two strategy teams have been helping advise on negotiations, along with two community members who have been closely following the issue.

Regarding restructuring police service, Rosen noted the city has three other director openings, which provides an opportunity to review “structure entirely throughout the organization, which also includes the police force,” Rosen said. This includes “looking at how we might be structured…in terms of other needs that we have and other services we provide,” he added, with a focus on collaboration and coordination “that could provide different business models as well. We are open to absolutely any of those kinds of changes.”

The final question came from Edmonds resident Finis Tupper, who stated he doesn’t believe city officials are doing enough to cut costs, adding “there is no pain with this current budget that you proposed.” Residents “really need an explanation before you reach into our wallet,” he added.

Rosen replied that he has provided detailed explanations for the city’s budget challenges, including his State of the City Address, a mid-year update on financials, his budget message and a lengthy interview he and Dunscombe gave with My Edmonds News Oct. 21. As for how the proposed budget will affect the city, Rosen added that during recent council meetings, “we had each director sit in front of council and talk about, here is the impacts of what that means in terms of the pain.”

After citizens had their say, it was time for the council to comment. “I just wanted to thank all our community members for coming here and showing everyone how democracy works,” Councilmember Jenna Nand said. “You’re holding us accountable. I will say I voted on the 2022 budget. I voted on the ’23 budget, and if I and my fellow council members made decisions that were unwise, please hold us accountable through the political process. Each of the directors makes proposals. We approve it. Budget is our purview. So we got us into this mess — this body, not the administration — and we are now trying to get out of it.”

Councilmember Susan Paine said she was hopeful the city would come up with creative revenue-generating ideas. One she is thinking about is a local surcharge on marijuana and alcohol taxes.

“We do need to stop the bleeding,” added Council President Olson. “I think this is one of those times where we’re not getting to do everything that we want to do.” Olson said the budget cuts “actually are really painful. I think for all of us up here on the dais, who know the people who are affected by these cuts and the jobs that are going away. My heart really hurts for all of those people and for their families.”

Councilmember Tibbott said he has had “numerous conversations with the mayor about how the city departments might be restructured, and I’m very impressed with the creativity and flexibility that the mayor is using. I think citizens of our city should have some confidence that the administration is being very forthright and working with the directors, working with the staff to come up with efficiencies that we have not seen in the city before. And I think all cities across the state are looking for the same kind of things,” he added.

“We can’t cut our way out of this,” said Councilmember Chris Eck. “However, we don’t just need taxes. Everything needs to be on the table, and we need to comb through it very, very finely to find the right answers. And so a mix of revenue and serious cuts that are painful are completely warranted at this point in time.”

Prior to the budget discussion, Acting Planning and Development Director Shane Hope made a presentation to the council on key draft land use and housing elements for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update. The draft plan was released Oct. 3 for public review and comments. The council is scheduled to discuss and may make a decision on a preferred Comprehensive Plan alternative at its Monday, Nov. 4 meeting. (That meeting is a day earlier than normal due to the Nov. 5 general election.

The Comprehensive Plan is the city’s primary policy document that outlines a long-term vision and provides direction for future growth and development over the next 20 years. It includes goals and policies for several elements, including land use, housing, transportation, economic dvelopment, dommunity design, climate, capital facilities and utilities. The draft plan includes a no-action alternative and two growth alternatives: Focused Growth (which includes four neighborhood centers and hubs) and Distributed Growth (four neighborhood centers and seven hubs).

To view the draft Comprehensive Plan, leave a comment online and view more information about the Comprehensive Plan process, visit www.edmondswa.gov/everyonesedmonds.

In other business, the council:

– Received from staff a list of alternative options regarding proposed green building incentives that the council has been considering. The goal is to promote green building in pursuit of climate neutrality by 2050. The program would be built on existing certification programs including Built Green and LEED Gold, and proposed incentives would include residential setbacks and building height bonuses. The alternatives proposed on Tuesday included some that eliminated those incentives. Some councilmembers reiterated their view that a decision on the incentives should wait until after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, while others urged passage of the incentives this year — either as is or with possible slight modifications. No decision was made on the proposal.

– Unanimously approved a motion to place on next week’s consent agenda an ordinance that includes permit processing timeline and public notice code amendments to achieve compliance with mandates required through state legislation: Senate Bill 5290 and House Bill 1105. The legislation is designed to consolidate, streamline and improve local land use permit review processes. In the past, state law required a 120-day review period for such permits, but now the timeframe has been changed depending on the type of permits being issued.

– Council consideration of a six-month contract with Ecoremedy, LLC, the technology provider for the new gasifier system purchased by the city to replace the old wastewater treatment plant incinerator, was postponed to a later date.

— By Teresa Wippel