Thank you!
Your vote in the recent election was more than just a box checked. It was a clear statement of trust, and of your belief in the future of Edmonds. Because of your support, our city will officially join South County Fire—a major step forward that ensures our community will continue to receive high-quality, life-saving emergency services from a partner we already know and trust.
This is a big moment. And it’s a reminder that, when we come together, we can make decisions that protect our present and help shape a better future.
However, as I have been sharing since taking office, we still have difficult conversations ahead.
As many of you know, Edmonds is facing a long-standing financial challenge. Even with fire services moving off our books, we’re still left with a structural gap between the services, amenities, and infrastructure our community love and deserve—and the revenue we collect to provide them. In our most recent budget, we identified a need for at least $6 million in ongoing revenue just to maintain our current level of operations.
That number doesn’t reflect the full picture. It doesn’t include what we’ve already significantly scaled back: the programs and staff positions we’ve eliminated, the streets and buildings in critical need of care, and replacing outdated equipment. And it certainly doesn’t include the investments we should be making—to preserve what we love about Edmonds and to thoughtfully meet the needs of the future.
This isn’t a new issue. Since 2001, when the state limited property tax increases to 1% per year, cities across Washington have been falling behind. Inflation has outpaced our ability to keep up—especially in areas like public safety, infrastructure, and basic city services. Edmonds has tried to weather the storm. We’ve used reserves. We relied on one-time federal aid. We’ve tightened our belt more than most cities—reducing our workforce by 48 full-time positions.
And frankly, many of you have felt that. In the slower response times. In the park maintenance we’ve had to delay. In the programs we have eliminated.
Now, we find ourselves at a crossroads. How do we start building a more stable, sustainable path forward? That might mean asking voters to consider a levy lid lift. But before any decision is made, we want to talk with you — really talk with you.
Over the next few months we need to explore: What kind of Edmonds do we want to live in? What are we willing to invest in to get there? What services and spaces matter most to you—whether it’s safe streets, vibrant parks, strong public safety, or a city hall that responds when you call?
You deserve transparency. You deserve to understand the financial challenges, and to help shape the solutions. That’s how we approached the fire annexation—together, with honesty and openness. And it’s how we’ll approach this next chapter too. I know there are community groups already forming that align with this desire and approach. I am eager to hear from you and work with you. Your voice matters.
Thank you again for your engagement, your care, and your belief in this community. These are not easy times—but they are real. And I believe Edmonds is ready.
The only thing the major has done is install speed cameras. Seriously what is council doing about developing sr99 into a vibrant revenue generating source of income like shoreline does. All this administration thinks of sr99 is a place to dump problems of instead of solutions. Those motels need to be zoned out. Tax incentives given to developers both commercial and residential to bring much needed investment. Downtown is maxed out due to restrictive zoning so the only place for Edmonds to grow its tax base is precisely the places it has systematically ignored. The good news at least is that the city is heading to insolvency so it cannot continue business as usual and will need to face it’s future like it or not. The RFA situation is simply one that will replay until Edmonds acts its size as a prominent Urban growth area instead of pretending to be a backwater town in the middle of San Juan islands.
Mr mayor- I’m not sure what you mean here:” That might mean asking voters to consider a levy lid lift. “ the city council built a budget for the 2025-2026 period that includes a levy lid lift ‘yes’ vote that will increase property taxes by $6,000,000 in 2026. That budget revenue line item is more than a ‘maybe’ from my understanding of the city’s budget process. The dismal failure of Brier’s level lid lift vote yesterday may be giving you second thoughts, however. The 2 new Facebook based groups called Edmonds Vibrant, and Edmonds Activated did not exist last summer when you ran 5 focus groups to provide budget management suggestions before you proposed a budget to Council. So I can understand using the city’s Facebook page and this MEN column to invite a conversation with you. In the transparency department – please publish in your next column a list of the positions that were laid off, their annual wage, the percent of that wage that is charged to the general fund, the date of hire of the individual that was laid off, their last day on the payroll . (employee name is not needed). You have only reported on the budgeted positions that were eliminated, which is meaningless to me. Most of them were vacant. Also publish the list of funded vacancies. Thank you
So clearly blowing off the feelings of 30% of the population who voted no. And I respectfully disagree with your assessment that this process was done with transparency, openness, and honesty – the emails and PDC findings show otherwise. At least you’re transparent here, already saying you’re going to raise taxes within 24 hours of this vote.
Trust? ha. You bought votes, with our own money. The city spent what $250,000? And the firefighters have reported $44,000 thus far in election expenditures.
https://www.pdc.wa.gov/political-disclosure-reporting-data/browse-search-data/committees/co-2025-18238#expenditures
You can’t (entirely) cut your way out of a $13M budget shortfall – and what I hear property tax owners saying, myself included, is that we are maxed out.. no wonder, our tax rates are high enough as is.
You need revenue, in the tune of millions. And you need it fast.
Mark,
You are correct. The city has cut quite a bit already and can likely do some more, but new revenue is clearly needed to get the city budget into balance. There will need to be increased property taxes, but that increase can be minimized if the city pursues other revenue generation sources. But that is where close collaboration will be critical between elected officials and taxpayers. Many of the non-tax revenue generation ideas will be unpopular (i.e., increasing permit fees, installing more red light cameras, instituting paid downtown street parking, selling a park, etc). The taxpayers will need to decide which of these ideas are acceptable to minimize the size of the fall property tax levy the city will bring to the voters. It’s going to be a difficult discussion, but one that is necessary to allow the city to continue to function well in delivering services we need and want.
Spoken like a human who has sat on city council and had to make those tough calls and suggestions Dave! What I’m struggling with when reading the comments here on MEN lately, is the “old guard” mentality of not wanting to grow, not wanting to pay more in taxes, wanting to preserve green spaces, wanting to preserve existing city owned parks/buildings/spaces, wanting to have services provided at a rate that is antiquated and wouldn’t provide sustainable living costs for service providers, not wanting parking fees of any kind, no new business in the bowl, etc etc etc, but at the same time demand quality of life and city to remain as is with everything Edmonds residents have become accustomed to. You are spot on! Revenue will have to be generated somewhere/somehow. I just would love to see a public realization that cuts alone are an impossible way out of this mess, instead of the constant vitriol aimed at anyone who suggests any solution other than cuts. This has been a problem decades in the making, and as much as it hurts, it’s going to require solutions that will be unpopular and painful, but ultimately are necessary to survive as a city.
Mr Rosen, It amazes me how you can actually say “you deserve transparency” when what YOU and many on the council have done is anything but that! Again, you talk of Trust, where what YOU and many on the council have done is everything to erode the trust we placed in you. That too is gone.
Paul, I couldn’t agree more. Systematically we’ve had the little progress that has been made on Highway 99 wiped in the last year..
first, the uptown market was canceled, then the potential development at Burlington was dropped, and last his satellite city office that supported those in need was closed. I suspect the barriers put up in the middle of Highway 99 to protect citizens, would’ve been taken down if it could’ve been dismantled..
The highway 99 areas really is the key to pulling the city of Edmonds solvent again.
Wake up Mayor and Council!!!!!
HEAR HEAR!
Mr. Mayor-
Congratulations – you and the Council won the RFA annexation election and offloaded $21M per year to taxpayers to pay for services that truly cost $12M per year. You, the Council, the RFA, and the firefighters’ union spent over $300,000 of taxpayer money to mislead voters into thinking a ‘No’ vote would jeopardize basic fire/ems service. You failed to do proper due diligence on alternative fire/ems services that could be had for $12M /year, not the $21M annexation price. You made a mockery of the State Public Disclosure election laws. The State PDC found the City illegally used taxpayer money to campaign for annexation, instead of following a neutral and unbiased educational approach. You claimed ‘back-of-the-envelope’ calculations showed Edmonds can’t afford its own fire/ems service. That’s unacceptable. You could have spent a couple hours with ChatGPT artificial intelligence and found that Edmonds can save $45 million over 5 years by setting up its own fire/ems operation by adopting best-of-breed business models used by other Cities with 40-60,000 population. Edmonds has unique economies of scale (fire stations; fire trucks; contract income from Esperance, Woodway, Port of Edmonds; hospital transport fees) that support a $12M/year operation. You owe it to residents to do proper due diligence on fire/ems alternatives and revoke annexation as soon as you confirm how to save $45 million in unnecessary taxes.
And yet, virtually every small community (<60k population) has consolidated or is seriously considering consolidaton of Fire/EMS services over the past 10-15 years. The historic Volunteer Firefghter model became broken long ago with the competing needs of 2-earner households and mandated training minimums under NFPA and Western Fire Chiefs Codes. Yes, Firefghter/EMTs and Firefighter/Paramedics are expensive. Know what is more expensive? A catastrophc medical issue made worse by insuffcent response personnel; a complete loss of a home or several homes due to insuffcent, properly trained personnel. Add to that the huge increase for property insurance or outright cancellaton of same due to reduced service capabilities. RFA's and consolidaton is the only viable way forward along wth BLS (EMT) single resource and vehicles as the vast majorty of the 85% non-fire calls are BLS; not ALS. For an excellent example look to Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, TVFR outside of Portland, OR.
Kurt- All due respect, annexation is clearly not ‘the only’ viable way forward. The firefighter model is not broken for lack of volunteers. It is broken from chronic RFA mismangement that claims the ‘cost’ to run a fire station is $7million/yr.; that can’t deliver on any economies of scale; that won’t innovate with dedicated paramedics. Why is it that ChatGPT AI found over 10 cities that provide excellent fire/ems service for the current Edmonds’ contract rate of $280 per year per resident and $1,846 per 911 call, while RFA will be charging annexed residents $488 per year per resident and $3,382 per 911 service call? Why are the Mayor and Council refusing to invest in proper due diligence to find a way to save taxpayers $45 million in incremental RFA fire/ems taxes over the next 5 years? Why are they refusing to demand concessions and better terms from the RFA as prerequisites to for annexation? Why does everyone think it’s OK for the firefighter’s union (95% non-Edmonds’ residents) to spend over $50,000 on direct mail and robo-calls to advocate for annexation to protect their outlandish wages ($264K per year for average wages of the top 50 RFA employees). When are taxpayers going to be supported , rather than disrespected. There are better fire/ems business models than the RFA’s outdated, inefficient, and self-serving operation.
First time posting – so please be kind….
One thing Edmonds has become is a destination location for others – for dining, shopping, etc. Any thought to a new revenue line item based on preserving Edmonds hospitality? I am not familiar with what may already be in place. Would a flat amount of say, $2.00 on purchases over $50.00 (dining, shops, etc.), generate sufficient revenue to maintain the beauty of Edmonds, 3 hour free parking, etc.?
Transparency would involve explaining how the actions since the pandemic affected revenue and spending. That hasn’t been done on a local or state level. It would involve the unpleasant job of detailing the costs associated with importing hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers and having to pay for their food, housing, healthcare and transportation until they can adequately pay for themselves. This was a planned operation by our government and we were left out. Healthcare and the insurance industry were severely impacted by pandemic mismanagement, resulting in the necessity of either a bailout or severely increased rates. While the governments act surprised, even writers to MEN have warned of the impacts of their mismanagement.
You added many thousands to each persons property tax by supporting (with our money) the RFA annexation and now you ask us for more? No way!
Amid the RFA vote you have to acknowledge the trend that two thirds of the community clearly have money in their pockets to burn. Furthermore, apparently loyalty to business-as-usual leadership prevails over financial constraints. Accounting for additional levy taxes forthcoming, one potential advantage is that they will slow development and growth, as historically taxes have tended to do.
Just think we are going to have the biggest and best squads of aid people and firemen hauling us to the E.R. of any medium sized and totally bankrupt city in the entire country. Good luck, Mayor, when you have to sell the General Fund Levy too come the Fall. I have to hand it to you, though, because you will probably manage to pull another rabbit out of the PR hat because all the renters and people living outside the primo old Downtown area think everything should just be free and easy to come by. Let those ” fat cat” old property owners just pick up the tab for all of it.
No vote on a levy lid lift, until we see some transparency. No more smoke & mirrors. Answer Theresa Hollis’ question and back it up with data.
While you’re at it, fight for us at the state level, follow the lead of dozens of States, end ‘pension spiking’. It will help ease our budgeting woes.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/inflated-seattle-public-pensions-for-retirees-cost-tens-of-millions/
Yes, answer T Hollis’ question on laid off employees.
Also, how much is the Mayor going to spend/pay a PR firm to sell ‘us’ on the levy lid lift? Edmonds residents are will be watching for this.
Kim- Isn’t the mayor trying to get the PR effort for free the next time, by collaborating with Keep Edmonds Vibrant?
Increasing new sources of revenue will take time. Consider that if Edmonds has to seek Municipal bankruptcy protection, property value will go down considerably, and new business will not seek opportunities here. Potential homebuyers will fear major property tax increases are on the horizon, and this will impact the market prices of existing Edmonds homes. It would be better to raise as much money as is reasonable through the coming levy lid lift and then implement revenue raising measures, such as parking fees, as quickly as possible.
Gil, I personally believe that using the ‘City of Edmonds’ and ‘quickly as possible’ in the same paragraph is wishful thinking. (This is not a criticism, but rather my personal opinion). Regarding the city’s overspending their revenue stream- Council held town halls in several neighborhoods in 2023 and asked residents where the budget could be cut. (But put together a deficit budget for 2024 anyway). The Mayor had a Blue Ribbon Commission explain how (but not much on the ‘why’) the deficit happened and the framework for resolving it- but did not put many of their recommendations into his proposed budget for 2025/2026. He ran 5 focus groups with residents about budget cuts before presenting the proposed budget last Fall – my suggestions were not used, but there’s still time for that. After almost a year, the Finance Director vacancy was filled (but a consultant worked on budget strategy). The public has not seen any of the Finance Director’s work so far. I’m cautiously optimistic that he will provide meaningful leadership. The volunteer Economic Development Commission is supposed to advise on new revenue streams, but most volunteer boards are suspended. The Council has a workshop coming up to review a long list of new revenues. Council has to decide on a permanent levy lid or a temporary one. Will ANY lid lift get voter approval?
The Citizens belief in the Mayor’s and much of the City Council’s integrity, honesty, and transparency flew out the window with the PDC’s report on the City’s misuse of funds to push for the “Yes” vote on the RFA. Once belief in those virtues is lost, they won’t come back soon, if ever. We just can’t trust you!
This should make any vote on the levy lid much more difficult. You’ve doubled our taxes for fire and medic services, and the county will raise their part of property tax by 4%. The legislatures if raising all kinds of taxes and fees. We’re getting taxed out.
As a 2 decade citizen of Edmonds, I am horrified and saddened by our leadership over the last years and I do not support this mayor and or council.
The transparency and lack of care for the citizens who live here is inexcusable.
Our future is bleak financially and a sense of community is being destroyed.
I have read the above comments and now realize that what I have been feeling is rampant in our beautiful city.
No development is happening on I-99.
Why not?
(There is empty real estate that could easily be converted to homeless issues etc.)
Pedestrians being hit in the bowl, as well as increased crime is not being addressed.
Spending an exorbitant amount of money for cameras on 104 & 100th is ridiculous!
The pulse & heartbeat of our needs are being completely ignored.
Marta Card
Take a look at any of the below-median priced houses in Edmonds, almost any house outside the bowl, and you will see that the annual tax bill for that house is up 75 to 100 percent over the last 12-15 years. That is a whole lot more than a 1% annual increase paid to all the agencies who get a piece of the property tax. Now with the RFA those same homeowners are looking at another large jump in the annual tax bill. Not to mention the planned annual 20% increases in our already high water and sewer bills.
It’s no longer good or effective PR or “transparency” to cite the 1% lid on property taxes, which has been in effect since 2001…24 years ago! The homeowner who is increasingly burdened by property tax and utility increases is about to get knocked around by the RFA tax. Once that extra $1000+ RFA tax hits the bill those homeowners will not care about the 1% lid affecting the City’s piece of the pie. It seems like an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes when that 1% lid from 24 years ago keeps getting cited as an excuse for the City’s overspending.
I tend to see things differently. One significant discovery from our Edmonds Can Do Better campaign was uncovering that South County Fire RFA has been withholding transport fee revenue from our city for the past six years, an amount that likely approaches $8 million. As a result, a levy lid lift this fall is unnecessary.
Instead, the priority should be recovering the transport fee revenue withheld by the RFA in violation of our contract. This recovered amount not only offsets the $6 million the mayor claims is needed but also buys the city time to establish new revenue streams to delay or even avoid a future levy lid lift. Let’s focus on addressing issues in the right order for a change.
Jim, Many thanks for sharing the research that you and your colleagues involved in the Edmonds Can Do Better campaign unearthed. You propose an elegant solution to the levy lift planned for the fall. I myself have reservations that any further substantial tax increases will gain voter approval. The levy lift itself is designed to be the next part of the crucial effort to restore Edmonds finances to a better place.
If what you say is indisputably true, it would be a simple matter of collecting a check for about $8 million from South County Fire. Of course, this money might have already been spent by SCF, and is not even accessible. There would also have to be lawyers involved, and certainly legal questions would arise as to whether the issue you raise is valid. While this idea should certainly be pursued, I doubt that Edmonds would receive any funds on a timely basis. Therefore, I don’t think it is a total solution to a levy lift. But, if this approach eventually bears fruit, it could well be very useful in solving the additional budget problems that Edmonds has.
Gil, let me elaborate on my idea.
As outlined in the annexation documents signed by the city and RFA in December (referenced on page 593 of the Council Agenda from December 17, 2024), the annexation officially takes effect on June 1, 2025, following voter approval. Paragraph 3.2 specifies: “If the Annexation Measure is approved at an election in 2025, the Original ILA shall terminate at 11:59 pm on the day immediately prior to the Annexation Date.” This signifies the end of the original ILA (fire contract) on June 1st, relieving the city of payment obligations for the remainder of the year—resulting in a savings of over $7 million.
The RFA has assured continued fire and EMS services beyond that date. Crucially, the annexation documents do not state that the city owes any further payments after June 1st. Therefore, the city could potentially utilize these funds immediately or, at a minimum, place them in escrow until the GEMT dispute is resolved. Either option would provide critical financial flexibility as the city establishes a recovery plan, possibly negating the need for a fall levy lid lift. This should be the first step in the process – not an afterthought.
I urge others to examine the annexation documents and share any differing interpretations. Ensuring clarity and accountability during this transition is essential for Edmonds’ financial future.
Could this mean that the RFA starts taxing Edmonds property owners effective June 1st?
No, they cannot do that with the current property tax assessed valuation approach we annexed into. All RFA member cities are taxed at the same levy rate beginning the first of each year. That levy rate is calculated by the County Assessor’s office at the end of the preceeding year. We won’t know what our actual 2026 tax bill will look like until the end of this year.
Thank you for elaborating on this, Jim. It certainly seems plausible to pursue this. I am not qualified to make a judgment about the contracts involved, but many other MEN readers are. I will simply say that I appreciate your efforts in bringing this to everyone’s attention, and hope the appropriate officials will investigate the possibilities.
Gil,
I encourage others to get involved and evaluate the points I’ve raised to determine if they hold merit. More importantly, given that my comments are attached to the mayor’s article, they are directed specifically at him. I’m eager to hear the city’s interpretation of the annexation documents they signed. What actions are being taken to recover the GEMT revenue withheld by the RFA? After all, $8 million could significantly address our financial challenges and potentially eliminate the need for a levy lid lift this fall—if we approach this strategically.
I’ve outlined the beginnings of a plan here. What’s your plan, Mr. Mayor?
Jim, I totally agree that this information should be properly directed to the Mayor’s office. If your proposal does have merit and could bear fruit, then it is really up to the Mayor and Council to follow up. If they think this idea is without merit, then fine. At least they should explain the reason why it is not feasible, practical, or legal. The onus is on them. Again, I doubt that further substantial tax increases will be approved, so there needs to be an investigation of the possibilities inherent in your exposition.
Hopefully, some of our other concerned Edmonds residents will either agree, or at least offer rebuttal. I would really like to hear a discussion of this issue, as there is no other prospective choice but a levy lift.
Agreed! Great discussion. To get the Mayor’s attention we need to spread the word.
‘Keep Edmonds Vibrant’ group needs to pick up this issue.
For those who are concerned with overdevelopment in Edmonds.
Edmonds residents supported the Fire Union, it’s time for the Fire Union to support Edmonds residents. Contact the RFA union, ask them to stop funding Strom Peterson’s campaigns. Strom Peterson architected the legislation, stripping our communities voice on zoning / development issues.
RFA Union contact: 1828IAFF@gmail.com – also available on NextDoor, Facebook
2024 – Fire Union contributed $1,200 to Strom’s campaign.
https://www.pdc.wa.gov/political-disclosure-reporting-data/browse-search-data/candidates/689012#contributions