The Edmonds City Council met Saturday morning in a special session aimed at examining ways to close the $13 million gap in the proposed 2025-2026 proposed budget.
In addition to the 28 ideas presented by the mayor in his November 1 budget address, more strategies emerged in the intervening month bringing the total to 53 (see below).
Council’s agenda for the morning was to discuss these strategies, provide initial input and evaluation, and consider next steps as they move forward toward their self-imposed goal of approving a final budget by Thanksgiving. The council discussed each of the 53 revenue ideas, including increasing fees, selling assets, and implementing new taxes – all with a focus on prioritizing those with the most impact on the general fund. Several councilmembers emphasized the need for careful consideration of new programs to avoid creating additional oversight costs.
To set the stage and provide background, Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe presented seven possible revenue scenarios, highlighting the impact of decisions like annexation into the RFA (Regional Fire Authority), levy lifts, and loan repayments.
The critical variables – yet to be determined — in her scenarios were as follows:
– Whether voters approve annexation into the Regional Fire Authority.
– Whether voters approve a tax levy lift
– If voters approve RFA annexation, whether the council will decide to keep the $6.5 million in the city budget earmarked for Edmonds’ current EMS contract with South County Fire.
The table below summarizes the budgetary outcomes of the seven possible scenarios, five of which (five left columns) assume voter approval of the RFA. Should voters not approve RFA annexation (two right columns), the question of whether to retain the $6.5 million earmarked for the EMS contract is moot and the columns include the estimated $19 million annual cost of a new fire contract:
Note that the 2025 proposed budget includes a $7.5 million internal loan, with a $47.8 million total expenditure, leaving a $500,000 ending fund balance. For 2026, scenarios range from a $10.8 million levy lid lift to a $19 million fire contract cost. Three of the seven scenarios leave the city in deficit.
With this as background, the council dove into discussing the 53 revenue ideas, including increasing fees, selling assets, and implementing new taxes — all with a focus on prioritizing those with the most impact on the general fund, and eliminating those ideas that were illegal (for example, an alcohol tax) or otherwise not viable.
After discussing, asking questions, and clarifying each idea, the councilmembers took a straw vote by raising flags – green for good ideas, yellow for those needing more information, and red for deal breakers — on whether the idea was worth pursuing further. The following list ranks the straw votes from highest to lowest, lumping together the categories from the mayor’s original list. The two right columns identify possible costs to implement an idea, and whether it impacts the general or another fund.
The councilmembers then discussed the most favored ideas in greater detail, particularly emphasizing their long-term sustainability, impact on the general fund and whether implementation would require additional staff and resources resulting in new expenses for the city.
Other concerns included borrowing strategies — including capping utility fund loans — the impact of layoffs and furloughs on programs and services that depend on these staff, and the need to be transparent about these. Councilmembers also requested a detailed list of professional services contracts for evaluation as to whether they are required or might be reduced.
In addition, Rosen told councilmembers that he would be taking a close look at the city’s organizational structure aimed at finding efficiencies and cost savings.
The discussion among councilmembers concluded with a consensus of the importance of sticking to their self-imposed Thanksgiving deadline for approval of a final budget, and the need for disciplined and efficient meetings to meet this timeframe.
In this regard, Council Executive Assistant Beckie Peterson presented a worksheet template as a guide for councilmembers in drafting their proposed amendments to the budget, asking that each amendment that involves a spending increase to be accompanied by a companion amendment proposing a spending decrease that would balance out the first.
She further requested that these be done in time for inclusion in the packet for the Nov. 19 council meeting, which would require councilmembers to submit them by Nov. 13 to give sufficient time to publish them on the website.
She concluded by presenting a timeline that would lead to the targeted final budget adoption on Nov. 26.
Rosen concluded the meeting by thanking councilmembers for their hard work, attention and their creativity in looking for approaches to move through the city’s current budget crisis.
— Story and photos by Larry Vogel
Kind of surprising to me that raising pet license fees landed so high on the list, with little objection. I doubt the majority of pet owners even license their pets to begin with, or even know the rules. (Does Edmonds have any idea about the rate of compliance?) A higher fee isn’t going to increase the number of people who license their dogs. It might even drive down the rate of compliance since there is no/little enforcement anyway, and therefore revenue could go down. I suppose you could increase the fine for non-compliance into the stratosphere so that more otherwise well-meaning scofflaws would get with the program, just to reduce the already very small chance of being fined. Or how about mandatory cat licenses? Or removing the senior discount? Or I guess you could post a compliance officer down at the dog park or in front of Starbucks. Of course I’ve slipped into facetious mode here, but the point is, I think Council is barking up the wrong tree.
The ‘Increase and Introduce’ sections (32 total items), with 99% of those line items coming in the form of new taxes / fees.
As a member of the community – and homeowner – I’m hesitant to pay any new tax / fee when the city has shown a fundamental inability to manage funds – to the tune of a $13M budget deficit.
The way out of this is for the city to make some really HARD decisions – about what which programs, positions, properties, etc., need to be eliminated as a means to reduce the deficit.
Adding new taxes and fees isn’t going to cut it.
They are the hammer, so to them everything looks like a nail. Its the same issue at the federal level. While taxes perhaps should be increased here and there, reduction in spending would go a long way for community endorsement when they do come asking for more revenues.
Since the number of participants in that room already owe their seats to special interest backing, I see no reason to object to sponsorships banners or advertising on the dais and city properties.
What stands out to me is the ALL IN response for a general property tax lift (and virtually no discussion about the implications of that in relation to the RFA Annexation property tax ask that’s coming for sure at this point). I cannot believe that this wasn’t even a yellow flag to at least one of the people we elected to look out for our interests in the process of proper city management and living within our means. Another thing that stands out is the reluctance to consider some sort of annual parks pass for both citizens and visitors. Yost Park, for example, contains a major watershed that is in serious Environmental degradation condition with totally unfunded needs for trail repairs and removal of obstructions that are causing silt accumulation that ruins Salmon habitat. Why shouldn’t frequent users of Yost Park trails, the dog park, the underwater park and the skate board and other facilities at Civic Field Park have to have some financial skin in the game of keeping them up. I’d happily pay for an annual family pass at $50 or a single pass at $30. There could be a donation fund for hardship situations. Signs indicating a $50 ticket for not being able to produce a pass on request could be the enforcement tool.
This could all be avoided if Edmonds will simply develop its commercial land opportunities instead of allowing shoreline and Lynnwood to build right at the edges of Edmonds and reap all the sales tax rewards from Edmonds residents that will visit at big retail anyway. We pay for the traffic but they benefit from the revenue. Wise up Edmonds! Home Depot and Costco were placed strategically and Edmonds thinking it could block growth missed out on hundreds of millions of dollars just to have growth happen across the street literally. Instead of doubling down on the strategy of neglecting and pushing 99 to a blighted state, rezone it for revenue generating retail both large and small and meet the requirements of the GMA by legalizing mixed used development just as it is legal downtown where we see residential on top and retail at the bottom. The insanity of Edmonds has been to do the same things and expecting different results. There is no reason to raise our taxes, sell our cherished properties, and install parking meters all over. Simply use the land we already have to generate revenue. Rezone 99, Westgate, downtown, and 5 corners, to make attractive for retail and residential to come in and transform it. opportunity!
Irrational NIMBYism has shaped our community for decades. Acknowledging such irrationality is now shamelessly avoided through the humanist guise of ‘protecting the lower-income cohorts who live by 99’. Anything to avoid development, as you state.
In 2021, revenues exceeded expenses by $2M in the General Fund. The City Administration and Council drove us into this hole throughout 2022 and 2023 by passing budget deficits and unfunded budget amendments. Any Council members present during that time do not deserve a seat at the table in figuring out our City’s current budget woes.
It will be very difficult to roll back the 2022/2023 staff hirings and increases in spending but is needed. This is a spending problem and not a revenue problem.
I’m not defending the Nelson Administration as it started out sketchy and just kept getting worse. But to say all this is on the years 2022 and 2023 and blame all the CCM’s from that era is naive, untrue and unfair. The Civic Field cost overruns that contributed to deficit spending started in the Earling years as did the money wasted on planning the Connector and the twin debacles of giving away Fire Service Control and the state of the art Waste Disposal sales job that blew up in our financial face. Diane Bucksnis who sat on the Council much of this time, fought the insanity tooth and nail for years and was opposed and rejected when she ran for Mayor by many of the same people who helped start and perpetuate this mess. Indeed, Mayor Rosen was the chosen one to get us back to all the “great” management approaches of our past glory days. You just don’t go this broke in two years; it takes decades. There is lots of CYOA going on in this process of supposed recovery. Years of low inflation and Covid give away programs masked the problems into the Nelson Administration but they started long before he showed up. His self serving reign was just the straw that broke the Camel’s back.
Indeed, the prolonged financial mismanagement across different administrations has been a concern. The voters of Edmonds also bear some responsibility for repeatedly electing council members who, despite receiving ongoing endorsements from their partisan committees, evidently lack fundamental financial literacy.
Yes, we elected one new and re-elected one incumbent CM who got much of their campaign support from the Democratic Party and the Fire and Police Unions to the point of some having endorsements on their election signs for what are supposed to be totally non-partisan positions. The two more Independent and Centrist thinking and acting candidates lost, so we do deserve a lot of what we are getting in terms of the decision making on our city budget problems. Unions and Unionism are great and need to be part of achieving the American dream, but you can’t let public employee Unions have so much power that they can literally contribute to the bankruptcy of their employers. Even they will lose in the end if city insolvency becomes a fact. The average annual income for citizens in Edmonds is around $70,000/household. Non command uniformed/commissioned Police and Fire personnel pretty routinely make well over $100,000/Yr. and often much more with O.T. factored in and pretty sweet fringe benefits too. That is an imbalance that cannot be sustained over time, no matter what your Ideological leanings are.
I haven’t been involved (my fault) and wonder how in the world a seemingly prosperous city like Edmonds got into such financial difficulty. I hear nothing what caused the disparity, just increased taxes, reduced services.
Seems to me cutting police and fire should be a VERY last resort. ?????
Here’s some background:https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/10/edmonds-mayor-finance-director-address-budget-challenges-in-sit-down-interview/
Please, no Park Fees.
Now, we have seen many coastal towns institute metered parking…pay for parking….at their coastal beach parks.
Imagine the grumbling you’ll get from that one !
Yes, Mayor Rosen and Council, we demand that you fix this budget crisis with absolutely no pain inflicted on anyone, or any special group, or the destruction of any of our sacred cows of “Free Stuff.” Please pass the Fairy Dust, Tinkerbell, we need a couple more Edmonds Kind of Day miracles.
If we could get on the same page and voted no on the RFA and voted no on a levy lift we could force the city to make the hard choices, as it is now they are just playing cat and mouse hoping voters will save them. I ain’t buying I can’t afford to buy big bloated government, just the needs please otherwise I’ll have to become a burden on the taxpayers and I won’t be the only one.