Like many, I have been waiting for the mayor or council to show a financial recovery plan for our city. A plan that does not show us going insolvent in the future. I haven’t seen one yet.
My definition of a plan is one that we have direct control of the outcomes based on the decisions made. Otherwise, it’s hope. And hope is not a plan. Right now, all I see is hope from the mayor and council. Hope that the citizens will approve annexation into the RFA. Hope that the citizens will increase their city-related property taxes by over 150%. Hope that Olympia will increase the minimum property tax increase above the current 1% per year limit. The city does not have direct control over any of these outcomes. The city can help influence by outreach and education, but they can’t control the outcome.
What I would expect to see as a plan is a balanced budget where new revenue streams are enacted through legislative action, expenses are reduced through budgetary action and cash is generated through the action of the sale of assets (land and buildings). The current proposed approach of borrowing $12.5 million from our infrastructure funds (utility funds) and using $6.5 million of funds previously earmarked for our fire and EMS services (hoping the citizens approve joining the RFA) digs our financial hole another $19 million deeper in two years!
Let me make an analogy. In your personal finances, do you have a plan to stay solvent and for retirement, or is your plan based on hoping to win the lottery? Good luck with that plan. We all belt-tighten and make difficult financial decisions at some point in our lives to stay afloat or put away in our rainy day fund. The city is no different.
My proposed actionsare within the control of the city. We may not like what it looks like because it will look ugly, really ugly based on the financial hole that we’re in, but it would be a plan where the city can control the outcome. If the citizens don’t like the plan, then we can vote to change it via approving a levy lid lift and the plan can be amended to reflect the new revenue. This approach provides us a proactive course of action we can use to avoid insolvency. To date, this city has been completely reactionary, and we don’t have any more time to react before our financial fate is set. The mayor’s “plan” digs the hole deeper and shows the city insolvent in 2027.
Mr. Mayor and council, please provide us with a plan for financial recovery before you ask for higher taxes. If we don’t like your plan, then maybe, just maybe we’ll approve a tax increase so you can adjust the plan and provide for a city we all want. And if we don’t approve a tax increase, then at least we’ll all know what is being done and why.
— By Jim Ogonowski
Jim Ogonowski lives in Edmonds.
I concur.
Thanks for the column, Jim. I concur. Readers should note that there is a public hearing on the 2025-2026 budget at the regular Council meeting tonight ((Nov 12). But Council has made no decisions yet on the budget. The residents of Edmonds don’t even know what they have in mind. They’ve had several meetings where they asked clarifying questions on the Mayor’s proposed budget. But that budget is just a starting point. I want to know what the Council thinks the new revenues are, and what (if any layoffs) will be made in January. Then I’m happy to participate in the public hearing process and give them my opinion. We don’t need a hearing on what the Mayor has proposed. We need the Council to start making motions and voting on them – especially the ordinances that are required for new revenues.
Great comments Jim. Much of the data has been known and discussed for a long time. Two things.
New options for non-property revenue:
MEN did a great job covering the meeting where council did a straw poll for each idea. A few commented but maybe we could do a quick Survey Monkey to gather some input?
New Property tax levies:
There are tax impacts for the levies currently being discussed by council. The impacts are calculated to show the added taxes for a property, home or business with an assessed value of $1m. Business and residential will be impacted too. A typical rental unit may be valued at around $500k, so just divide the numbers below in half.
1. Fire service: city data shows the same tax increase for a new contract or joining SCF. That increase is shown to be around $15m total or about $960 for a $1m property.
2. The first alternative is for a levy that gets us started on fixing the Budget Gap but does not deal with restoring some basic services or deferred building maintenance as outlined in the Mayor’s state of the city address. That levy would be $20.5m or $1330 for a $1m property.
3. A smaller levy for $10.8m has been mentioned and the impact would be $710 for $1m property. The Gap wouldn’t be filled.
Everyone will be happy to learn that I’ve reached the point of near speechlessness about all that is happening lately; locally and nationally. To paraphrase our new national Fearless Leader, it seems we have a “concept” of a plan to fix it. Thanks for all your great insight Jim O. I plan to just vote NO on anymore tax asks for anything and HOPE for better leadership management someday; locally and nationally. I’ve lived long enough that all politics now just seem like a giant circles back to where we started.
So that means renters can expect a huge increase in rent probably a minimum of a few hundred dollars if one passes and if both pass double that if these things get past by the voters, so much for affordable housing. 400 square foot studio apartment for rent in Edmonds 2100 a month