Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Pausing meetings of non-mandatory boards and commissions. Increasing fees for red light and school zone camera violations. Reducing the police department’s command staff budget by more than half a million dollars. Those were among the 2025-26 biennial budget amendments approved by the Edmonds City Council Tuesday night to address the city’s budget shortfall. The meeting finally ended at nearly 11:30 p.m. but councilmembers agreed to meet again at 6 p.m. Wednesday to continue budget deliberations.
And the budget wasn’t the only focus of the evening. Prior to its regular 7 p.m. meeting, the council met to discuss a pre-annexation plan from the South Snohomish County Regional Fire Authority. (We’ll provide a separate story on that matter soon.)
Also during the regular meeting, the council heard a report summarizing changes made so far to the draft 2024 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan update and the plan’s transportation element. The council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the revised draft plan during its Dec. 10 meeting, where more details will be discussed.
The budget discussions began with Deputy Finance Director Kim Dunscombe introducing three staff-generated amendments. The first was a follow-up to the Edmonds Municipal Court’s request to the council last week for additional staffing and related costs to support the city’s new red light cameras. (The council approved the cameras earlier this year for two Edmonds intersections.)
The council last week approved those costs for 2025, but Dunscombe’s proposal called for extending court expenditures of $115,996.27 into 2026. In addition, the 2026 budget needed to account for a $500,000 reduction in revenue projected to come from the cameras. The net negative impact to the budget is $615,996.27. The council approved the expense through a motion from Councilmember Jenna Nand.
Dunscombe also proposed a revenue-neutral amendment that authorizes expenses for the Gateway Art Project near the Edmonds ferry holding lanes. The $129,500 project was funded through a combination of a state grant and matching funds from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. The motion by Council President Vivian Olson was approved.
The final staff amendment proposed removing the city’s $5 million “placeholder” interfund loan for 2026 that had been included in the biennial budget and replacing it with a $6 million levy lid lift in 2026 — assuming the voters approve it. Dunscombe explained that this shift would allow the city to spread out the repayments for the $7.5 million interfund loan already planned for 2025, noting the state auditor’s office recommends a three-year repayment period.
Councilmembers proposed delaying a discussion on the proposal until after the debate on other budget amendments is concluded – which could occur during the special meeting Dec. 4. But some spoke favorably about the idea, stating it would give taxpayers some certainty about what was to come in terms of a requested future tax increase.
“I think the sooner that our body can come to resolution on…signaling to the public and the administration about how much we’re going to go out for a levy lid lift, the more assurance [it would provide the public],” Nand said. “I mean, they could probably be more mad at us, but they’ll at least know how much we intend to ask for.”
Prior to moving on to council-generated budget amendments, Councilmember Chris Eck asked Dunscombe if she could provide a tally of how many staff positions the council had agreed to cut so far. The total is 22 positions although not all of those are full-time jobs, Dunscombe said. Eck also noted that the council through its budget amendments so far has brought back just one position that was originally proposed to be laid off — that of the police department’s community engagement coordinator.
Here is a summary of the council’s budget amendments considered Tuesday night:
From Councilmember Michelle Dotsch
Approved: Eliminating $75,000 in election costs from the 2026 budget. Dunscombe said she had allocated those on an as-needed basis in case the city needed to go to voters for a levy request, “but I also know that we can make that decision at a later time.”
Rejected: Eliminating $75,000 for ambulance fees in 2026 on the assumption that if voters approved annexation into the Regional Fire Authority, those costs would be covered.
Rejected: A proposal to reduce police professional services by $25,000 in both 2025 and 2026. After hearing Police Chief Michelle Bennett describe the important priorities this budget item covers – including fees for staff certification and training, Dotsch withdrew the amendment.
From Councilmember Susan Paine
Approved: a motion to increase violations for red light and school zone cameras from $130 to $145. “The purpose of this amendment is to increase traffic safety awareness through a more noticeable fine,” Paine said. “It’s anticipated that the red light cameras would bring an additional $210,000 in revenue, and the school zone cameras an additional $30,000,” she said. Nand voiced her opposition to the idea, stating it would unfairly impact those with limited incomes and would also make Edmonds an unfriendly city for visitors. Chen also opposed it, stating that the purpose of the cameras was for traffic safety, not revenue generation.
From Councilmember Chris Eck
Eck made a motion to reduce the police administration budget by one assistant chief, including salary and benefits, effective April 1, 2025 through the rest of the year, and then through 2026. The change would save the city up to $232,500 in 2025 and up to $319,320 in 2026, Eck said. Nand proposed amending the measure to instead reduce the police command structure budget by the total of those two amounts – $551,800 – but have the department and mayor determine how best to accomplish that. Eck said she was comfortable with the amendment as long as the reduction amounts were distributed as originally proposed in both 2025 and 2026. In the end, the council approved Eck’s motion as amended by Nand.
From Councilmember Neil Tibbott
Approved: A motion to transfer $50,000 from the city’s homelessness response fund to the general fund, which Tibbott said would cover “current city programs that support people experiencing homelessness or services that help prevent homelessness.”
Approved: A motion to reduce the police crime analyst position – costing $188,447 annually in salary and benefits – from the police department budget in 2025 and 2026. Tibbott explained that the current staff member in that position is leaving the city and that the city will look for alternative ways to do the work.
From Council President Vivian Olson
Approved: Placing “on standby status” for 2025-26 all of the city’s boards and commissions with the exception of the following mandated boards: Edmonds Planning Board, Civil Service Board, Disability Board, Lodging Tax Advisory Board and Cemetery Board. Olson said that while the financial impact of this decision appears modest – the total budgets represent just under $13,000 – “I have been told that in terms of staff time, it’s a very huge impact in the tune of half a million dollars. And we are doing furloughs, and we are cutting staff positions, and I think it’s critical this year that we don’t have our staff doing anything that they don’t have to do, so that the core things can get done,” Olson said. She also explained that a task force is underway “to evaluate and possibly recommend reorganization of the city’s boards and commissions or the city’s overall approach to seeking community engagement.”
In addition, Olson stressed that special meetings of the boards and commissions could be called by the mayor or the council majority, but there would be no regular meetings. “The duration of the board member or commissioner term will not include any of the time on standby status,” she added. “So you still are appointed and will have your full term if that board continues as it is.”
— By Teresa Wippel
Thanks for this reporting! It’s nice to see the amendments laid out this way, really easy to see what’s proposed.
We’re behind the curve. Suffolk County NY (county in Long Island), ending red light cameras after 14 years. Citing increase in accidents.
” “Merry Christmas to residents of Suffolk County. It’s about time that taxation through citation has ended,” County Legislator Anthony Piccirillo said.” – CBS News article linked below
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/suffolk-county-red-light-cameras-deactivated/
Great reporting MEN! Lots of issues presented.
Sorry Nick, Edmonds is sometimes well behind the curve. My thanks to the Councilmembers who noted that any fine would be a problem for limited income people. Please let everyone know where all the cameras will be, and when they go active, so we can try to be safe and also avoid these “contributions” to City revenue. Will the cameras know about school half days, vacation days, snow days, and teacher days, or do we need to slow to 20 even if school is not in session? If the City really wanted to focus on safety, perhaps an income based fine? Some pay $35, others $350, others . . . Not that I believe everything I see on the internet, but if you search “Finland income based fines”, you might find a story about a Finnish millionaire fined 121,000 euros, perhaps equal to around $100,000. (I can’t be bothered to check dates and look up exchange rates). Silly and invasive idea perhaps, but I guess they have been doing that for years.
I used to spend a lot of time in Finland, and had many Finnish friends, who were quite proud of the income-based fines, think it just and effective – what millionaire is going to feel the sting of “normal” fine?. Finland is frequently designated as the one of the happiest countries. To dismiss one of their long-established and effective laws as “silly” might seem just as bit arrogant.
Every time I hear a council member say that red light cameras are “first and foremost a safety issue,” I can’t help but feel frustrated. To claim that these cameras are solely about safety, when in reality they seem more like a tool to generate revenue for a city budget that’s struggling, is disingenuous. The truth is, red light cameras are not about keeping us safe — they are about increasing fines and adding to the city’s coffers. It’s insulting to hear the same talking points repeated, especially when we know that these cameras can sometimes lead to unfair penalties. And they disproportionately affect those who can least afford to pay the fines, which is hardly a fair solution to any problem.
“… a motion to increase violations for red light and school zone cameras from $130 to $145. “The purpose of this amendment is to increase traffic safety awareness through a more noticeable fine”
How insulting.
The council members who supported the rise in fines for red light camera infractions, after insisting that it was primarily about public safety, instead of just a money grab, turned out to be a bunch of dishonest Pinocchios.
We have two types of traffic cameras. School Zone and the to be installed Red light cameras.
Yes, both will produce revenue. But we should not generalize about both types as far as safety and accidents.
For school zone cameras it is hard to see that they would cause an accident. But it is easy to see that having people slow down does add to the safety of kids. Any issues with that? But the equity question is still in play. High- and low-income people will both get a citation. Either can appeal. What factors the judge may use to reduce fines is unclear? But regardless of income one should slow down.
Red light camera comment: Yes, this revenue will help with the current budget issue. For example if a red lite camera will produce $1m net after expenses that will help the budget. The other way to produce that same $1m is to tax us $.07/1000 of home or apt value (landlord may or may not absorb that tax). For a $200,000 home or apt that would be $14/yr. For a $1m property it would be $70/yr.
We need Millions of dollars for the budget. For $10m, a $1m property would need to pay $700 more in taxes. Don’t speed in a school zone on the way to the bank.
Council is finally beginning to work on the real budget issues to get a balanced budget for 2025-2026. They are making a few cuts and adding some non-property tax revenues. Now they have some new tax plans on the table. It is hard to get the numbers straight for the cuts and revenues that are not property taxes, but we will likely get a summary soon. The are currently planning to borrow $7.5m to balance the 2025-2026 budget.
The proposed property taxes under consideration are now a bit clearer: $15m for Fire and $6m to help pay back the loan. One thing to keep in mind is how will those taxes impact each of us. Basically, it depends on the Assessed Value of our property: home, business, or apt building. The basic formula to keep in mind is that it takes a tax rate increase of $.07/1000 to generate $1m of new tax. For a $1m property that’s $70. For the $21m being discussed the tax would be an added rate of $1.36/1000 or a tax increase of $1360.
The cuts, new revs and new taxes do not cover the Budget Gap as presented by the city, nor does it fund our capital needs. When we see the numbers from what is currently planned, we can then estimate what more will be needed.
Darrol Haug, thanks for your post at 2:58 pm where you described the math of the proposed property tax increases for an Edmonds property owner. The size of the increase is staggering. My personal opinion is that the City Council is taking a huge risk in setting the expense and headcount budget for 2025-2026 by thinking the owner of a house with a tax assessed value of $1,000,000 would vote to pay $1360 more in taxes every year for no new services. That homeowner is paying about $6500 in taxes now in 2024. Isn’t an increase of $500-800 more reasonable? As a homeowner, I never approved all the hiring- especially in 2023 when 47 new people were hired (see city council minutes for 10-17-23). But now I’m asked to approved the huge property tax increase. The city has a head count problem first, and a tax problem secondly, in my opinion. I’m waiting for Council to solve the headcount problem they created before I bail them out with new taxes- for the same level of services.
Nick, thanks for including a working link with your comments referencing the CBCNews article. In your synopsis of the article I think it would have been worthwhile for you to point out that the number of injuries went down even as you note the number of accidents increased. A fact that authorities were attempting to understand why. Also it is worth pointing out that this report is about one county in one state, and it happens in part because the local court ruled the traffic light fee was in excess of that allowed by statute. I don’t see how any of this applies to Edmonds even if it is informative.
Darrol, thanks for your comments. Having personally seen lots of drivers going faster than my 20mph vehicle in school zones with flashing lights, I feel we must be saving money by using remote cameras rather than a parked police car with officer inside. Having read the book, The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, I am sensitive to fines that adversely affect minorities. In Edmonds red light cameras appear to be impartial so far. The fee for tripping a red light camera is high, which is why I pay careful attention. When the traffic light turns yellow from green, I use the break pedal rather than the accelerator.
Hi Michael, you’re welcome. Included the link so people could read and make up their own mind. I’m all for safety, but has the city provided data around accidents at those intersections? Data after installed?
If you get a ticket, you’ve already sped through the intersection, possibly causing an accident. Suggest a proactive measure (not perfect, nothing is) vs a reactive one. The city should consider installing speed bumps. Seattle is experimenting with a version of them on Alki, to slow traffic. Edmonds has some on 8th ave & Olympic view drive.
Another option, fixed speed limits. Why not always 20 MPH, instead of variable speed. The signage at 100th ave w. is too small, and around a busy corner.
Thanks,
Nick
Daily, I see vehicles waiting for the ferry. Perhaps a officer could walk this area. The number of vehicles I see with expired tags is sometimes substantial. I have recently seen a car with 2020 license tags. Enforce existing regulations, before enacting more, such as red light cameras.
Just put in a number of freedom of information requests in relation to the cameras most likely they won’t all be provided causing the judge to have to dismiss the case. Seen it happen with a light in Kenmore. Granted many people will just pay the fine but a few dollars spent in information requests may save you a bigger fine. The idea a larger fine will give people a second thought is ridiculous the rich don’t care about a ticket just part of the cost of being rich, yes it does impact the poor the most and likely they will learn the lesson by not being able to afford to pay the sewer bill that is out of bounds because of the expense new sewer system that doesn’t work. Two problems with expired tabs one the state didn’t honor the vote of the people so I don’t see why I should pay if my vote wasn’t respected and the other is governments position of not making traffic stops for things like tabs and turn signals. Me I paid a 25 dollar fine instead of going through all the faults associated with this particular camera. The judge knew but I learned requesting information was a get out of fine completely strategy. With the paper work and court time I would say the city lost money.
When I got mine years ago at 220th and 99. They had them there for a while. I really thought I had made it thru on the yellow so I did call or something and they sent me a picture on my computer of me going thru the light and I was wrong it was Red before I got around the center lane. So, with me I didn’t get or want to fight it as they had the picture. That was the evidence. I paid no problem. I have only had 2 I think speeding tickets in my entire life haha. I was a go cart driver and raced when I was between 10 and 13. So I know how to speed. HA But I prefer not to speed. Also, I have always thought deterrents work better than about anything for everything someone is trying to get away with that could and does harm other people. I think if you can afford a car and the gas, but ya can’t pay a ticket you should not be speeding. Just like you shouldn’t be spending 8 bucks for a cup of coffee when you can brew a whole pot for that. I am tired of making or hearing excuses for bad behavior. No tabs or expired impound on the spot or let us all drive free.?
Hey Jim Fairchild. Question. While I agree that people who are in certain income brackets don’t feel the sting in the pocketbook. I remember it used to be that after you got so many tickets speeding etc. You lose your drivers license? Same thing +more for any DUI. Have these laws changed? Also, I think speeding tickets etc. somehow get to your car insurance companies and well they raise rates. I don’t know but I am just asking as so much has changed when it comes to law and order in our state. Thank you for any info. Deb.
Deborah I don’t know that any laws have changed but my observation is very little traffic enforcement is going on. It seems there has been a change in how we police things. I have never really had many tickets but am not a fan getting pulled over for a broken tail light or failure to signal or I forgot to renew my tabs. I know there was a stink a while back about how people being pulled over for minor things and how it negatively affected them so I think the cops backed off on those kind of things. Maybe someone within a police department can talk more to it.
Thank you for responding Jim. I agree that there is no need to stop someone for not signaling. I seldom see a turn signal anymore. Don’t have an issue with a taillight out but if it’s a brake light it can potentially cause a rear end accident and the person following that no break light car is the one who gets the ticket and is the one who is sued if they have any damages like soft tissue etc. So, in that way again the victim is the citizen who is being responsible. I also agree that just forgetting to renew a tab for a while is not a big deal and I think if picked up no ticket just a warning but I am talking about all of the many vehicles with tabs or plates that expired 2 3 and 4 years ago that are in plain sight at the ferry at the parking lots or just driving around the area. to me is unacceptable. Like I said being a bit late is no biggie but never doing it because they can get away with it is not cool to me. We need a citizens group (private) who are willing to donate 500 bucks each and our homeowners, Edmonds residents, could call and we pay your tabs for that year. I would help you.
Deborah money is always a issue but for me with car tabs it is principal we the people voted for reduced car tabs and our government didn’t honor it. So if the government will no longer honor the will of the people I feel I can protest by not renewing my tabs, I think every other year is about right. Happy holidays