The Edmonds City Council was joined by city officials Friday in the City Hall Brackett Room for a special work session focusing on strategies to enhance revenues and cut expenses to mitigate the city’s budget crisis.
Mayor Mike Rosen opened the session by outlining the day’s agenda, explaining that it will begin with an update by Finance Director Richard Gould focusing on the city’s projected revenues and expenses through the rest of this year.
“We’ll follow this up with looking at three scenarios,” Rosen continued.
Scenario One: Sticking with the current budget as originally planned, which includes a $6 million levy lift in November.
Scenario Two: Exploring a sustainable vision for the city with a focus on community vibrancy and potential funding options.
Scenario Three: Examining what happens if the $6 million levy is not pursued or fails to pass, which would require significant adjustments to the city’s operations and services.
Each scenario was introduced by staff who clarified the potential benefits and risks.
Gould then took over, discussing the methodology used for projections, which included input from staff and historical data. He highlighted professional services as a particular area of concern, noting that the city budgeted $17 million for professional services, but actual spending is not even reaching $6 million. Gould noted that he hasn’t had enough time to fully investigate why, but he ran 99 pages of reports for the general fund to try to understand the discrepancy. He specifically mentioned that the professional services line item has an unusual pattern — a high amount at the beginning of the year, then a drop in the middle, and then high again at the end. Gould acknowledged more work is needed to understand these variations in professional services spending.
He also flagged concerns about sales tax revenue, explaining that while there was strong growth of around 10% in 2021 and 2020, the growth has slowed in recent years to under 5%. The original budget projection for 2026 was 3.5% growth. He went on to note that he is checking with other cities, which are seeing similar slowdowns in sales tax revenue.
See Gould’s complete set of numbers here.
The discussion then moved to the first scenario: sticking with the budget as it was produced (which assumed voters approve a $6 million levy lift). This offers a sense of continuity, following the current financial plan without major alterations.
The benefits of Scenario One include the following:
1. It reflects the balanced budget approach adopted during the 2026 budget process.
2. The $6 million levy lift balances the budget for 2026.
3. The $6 million levy amount has been part of budget discussions since the budget approval, making it familiar to the public.
4. It maintains a consistent approach to the budget that was previously agreed upon.
5. It provides a baseline financial strategy that was carefully considered during the original budget planning.
But there are also risks to this approach because despite a levy lift, the city will be operating with fewer staff and more limited resources than in the past. These risks include:
1. Quality of Life Impacts
- Reduced public safety responsiveness
- Limited parking and animal control enforcement
- Decreased maintenance of parks and public spaces
- Increased response times for issues like vandalism and litter
2. Maintenance Challenges
- Significant deferred maintenance across city infrastructure
- No comprehensive asset management program
- Lack of inventory for park and city assets
- No ADA transition plan for park facilities
- Reduced preventative maintenance leading to more expensive repairs later
3. Training and Staff Development
- Reduced professional development opportunities
- Increased safety risks due to limited training
- Higher potential for workplace injuries
- Decreased employee retention and morale
- Difficulty onboarding and training new staff
4. Technological Limitations
- Inability to upgrade technological systems
- Continued use of outdated processes (e.g., paper timesheets)
- Lack of resources to implement efficiency-improving technologies
5. Legal and Financial Risks
- Potential increased liability
- Financial uncertainty
- Reputation risks
- Stress on remaining staff
These risks suggest that maintaining the current budget approach could trade off a short-term sense of continuity for significant long-term challenges for the city.
Councilmembers expressed concerns about important activities that would be deferred under this approach, especially regarding staff training and development. This led Councilmember Michelle Dotsch to observe that deferring training and development in the short term leads to additional future problems, adding that “we can’t keep kicking the can down the road.”
Mayor Rosen then introduced Scenario Two:
“This began when we first started having the conversations about the budget crisis and this structural problem that will continue to haunt us unless we do something different,” he began. “We’re asking ourselves things like: What would success look like, what is the city we want, what do we love about this, what does this ‘charm thing’ mean? But we also must define success in terms of a sustainable funding model, protecting our assets, and safeguarding the culture that defines us. That’s what this scenario is about.”
In summary, Scenario Two is a strategic approach to addressing Edmonds’ budget challenges by focusing on creating a vibrant and sustainable city. The key aspects include:
1. Restoring service levels in critical areas like:
- Parks maintenance
- Infrastructure repair
- Human and social services
- Environmental health
2. Improving quality of life by:
- Maintaining green spaces
- Supporting affordable housing
- Addressing regional solutions for housing, crime and drugs
- Proactively seeking grants and partnerships
3. Implementing a more robust funding model through:
- Potential levy lift
- Careful strategic planning
- Transparent community engagement
- Prioritizing long-term financial resiliency
The goal is not just to solve the immediate budget crisis, but to position Edmonds for future success by investing in community priorities and maintaining the city’s unique charm while ensuring sustainable financial management.
“We’ve heard from the public about things that are really important to them – for instance, they don’t want to sell our parks and don’t want to outsource police,” Rosen said. “We’ve also heard them say that they ‘get’ that there’s a crisis, and that they’re willing to do their part – and part of this was passing the RFA annexation measure. Now we need to hear from the community about what’s important enough to pay for through either higher taxes, new revenue streams, or a combination.”
Referring to visual aids in his PowerPoint slide deck, Rosen pointed to three key inputs for this discussion: What is the community telling us they want, what services are we required to and/or should be providing, and what are other cities doing. (See the full PowerPoint slide deck here.)
Continuing with these visual aids, consultant Mike Bailey went through several slides comparing Edmonds with other cities in terms of expenses and revenue sources and how these factor into the less tangible values of charm and quality of life. He cautioned that all cities are different and that these need to be factored in when making comparisons.
This led Councilmember Jenna Nand to suggest that Edmonds might benefit from outsourcing certain functions to larger neighboring jurisdictions such as Everett or Lynnwood that have “more robust direct human services than we do.”
Moving on to what the community wants, Community and Economic Development Director Todd Tatum pointed out that the city isn’t starting from scratch here because we have a comprehensive citizen survey and the PROS plan (Parks, Recreation and Open Space), both of which were developed with considerable citizen input. (See slides 16 and 17 in the PowerPoint.)
“There’s a lot of information already out there about what the community has asked for,” he added.
Regarding the option of deferring work maintenance in parks, streets and sidewalks, Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Angie Feser and Acting Public Works and Utilities Director Phil Willams pointed out several significant impacts:
Parks Maintenance
- Reduced service levels
- Inability to address deferred maintenance
- Potential closures of amenities
- Less proactive maintenance leading to more expensive repairs
- Loss of beach ranger programs
- Reduced environmental education opportunities
Street and Sidewalk Maintenance
- Accelerated pavement deterioration
- Higher long-term repair costs (potentially five to seven times more expensive)
- Increased liability risks from uneven surfaces
- Reduced walkability
- Potential legal issues from sidewalk defects
- Inability to expand or improve pedestrian infrastructure
General Infrastructure Impacts
- Decreased asset lifespan
- More reactive (emergency) repairs instead of proactive maintenance
- Higher overall long-term costs
- Reduced quality of life for residents
- Potential safety hazards
Williams emphasized that $1 spent on early, proactive maintenance can save $5-$7 in future repair costs, making timely maintenance crucial for cost-effective infrastructure management.
In summary, the primary risk of Scenario Two would be minimizing the vital importance of strategic implementation. Specifically:
Implementation Risks
- Potential for overspending beyond budgeted amounts
- Risk of expanding capacity too quickly
- Need for careful, controlled spending
Mitigation Strategies
- Budget cycle provides council control over expenditures
- Council must approve staff hires and capital investments
- Gradual implementation with built-in checks
- Requirement to rebuild reserves first
- Pay back existing loans before full expansion
- Phased approach to strategic priorities
Key Safeguards
- Community can provide input during process
- Not an immediate injection of cash
- Time to have in-depth conversations about implementation
- Existing organizational structure and strategy
- Deliberate, measured approach to spending
Todd Tatum emphasized that this is not an automatic “turn it on” scenario, but a carefully planned process with multiple control points to ensure responsible financial management.
“Strategic implementation is critical in this,” Tatum said. “We need to get the pieces in place and implement them in an organized way. We can’t afford to be haphazard here. We need to look at the big picture.”
Councilmember Nand raised the issue of looking at less-expensive alternatives to certain activities. She specifically noted sidewalks, which Phil Williams said cost between $1,500 and $2,000 per linear foot, meaning that a typical city block would cost around $600,000.
“This is a very high-priority item for our community members,” Nand observed. “Are there alternatives to raising the pavement and having to deal with ADA that might cost less such as bollards or raised beds to separate pedestrians from traffic that would keep the pedestrian path level and at grade, but separate from traffic?”
Williams responded that the high costs make it prohibitive to build sidewalks on every street, and that therefore the city needs to be selective and strategic in its implementation, focusing on areas with high pedestrian traffic like downtown and commercial centers.
“Regarding at-grade alternatives, we could put it in the little candles or rumble strips that will warn a driver from going any further that direction, but that doesn’t stop a car from running through them and into the pedestrian space,” Williams said. “If you’re talking about actually having a protected space, you’re talking about a jersey barrier, some something more robust.”
The Scenario Two topic concluded with several comments from councilmembers.
“To me, everything we’re talking about in this segment about is not fluff,” observed Councilmember Chris Eck. “I think a lot about our no-to low-income seniors who are struggling to pay rent. They are our community members, they vote, they’re struggling, and they really need our help. The bare minimum for some is not enough for others, especially when you pay the kind of rent and mortgage that a lot of us do here.”
Councilmember Dotsch echoed the views expressed earlier that the city needs to prioritize and maybe not go for the “shiny new thing” like a waterfront walkway and think about instead addressing the expense gap and things that aren’t being funded anymore.
Councilmember Vivian Olson spoke of enhancing the community conversation with some actual figures about the tax impact cost of various wants and priorities.
“The price of just running the government could increase to where we’d be unable to address deferred maintenance and provide all the services that we’d love to have,” she said. “It’s super valid that people are bringing up what they value, but you need to include how much it will cost, and that having it may mean you can’t have something else. That makes it a different conversation. I will use the Frances Anderson Center, which had a huge amount of deferred maintenance, as an example. If we decide to take care of this, we might not have the money to replace Yost Park pool. If we do the pool, we might not have the money for the park that we don’t have in the Gateway neighborhood. We must start assigning some costs and prices to things. That makes it a whole different conversation.”
In summary, the key aspects of the Scenario Two discussion were the need for a sustainable and vibrant city, the importance of community feedback on services like outsourcing police and selling assets, and the challenges of comparing cities due to differing demographics and services. The discussion highlighted the need for strategic financial planning, including addressing both revenue and expense gaps, and the importance of transparency and community engagement in budget decisions. Specific metrics such as the price of government and the impact of infrastructure maintenance on long-term costs were also emphasized, with the overall goal of creating a vibrant, sustainable city that meets community needs while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
When councilmembers reconvened after breaking for lunch, they addressed what Rosen described as “the depressing part of the day” — Scenario 3. That’s what happens “if there is no levy lift, or if it were to fail at whatever level it is,” he said.
In addition to not having the money generated through a $6 million levy included in the budget plan, Edmonds would be facing additional financial realties, Rosen said. “There’s the additional $2 million that you had all guided us to reduce the 2026 budget,” he said. And, he added, there’s $3 million in payback due on the city’s $6 million interfund loan.
Department directors were then invited to share what would happen to their program areas without levy lift money. Tatum, who oversees areas that include economic development, the arts and public information, said he “struggles to see a place, with that level of cuts, where my department still exists.”
Parks Director Angie Feser said she would have to cut her parks maintenance crew, which would mean “closure of park restrooms, drinking fountains, facilities and some amenities; minimal to no litter and garbage removal; delayed or no vandalism responses, including damage for graffiti, biohazard waste, dog waste and human; decrease in eliminated vegetation management — that’s lawn, shrubs, trees, invasive plant species would go unchecked in our parks. reduction in or no irrigation, which would cause plant dormancy or failure; minimal to no athletic field preparation, minimal to no special event support or park preparation.” Other possible impacts include loss of the downtown white lights and holiday tree lighting, the hanging flower baskets and corner parks. Not maintaining athletic fields would affect Sno-King Youth Club, which runs their programs on city fields.
Interim Police Chief Rod Sniffen said that the department would focus on 911 calls, “and everything else would fall off.” That includes elimination of proactive traffic safety work, community academies and presence at events. Police may also need to begin deciding “what types of crimes we’re actually going to investigate,” the police chief said, which could mean putting a minimum dollar value limit on stolen items or on credit card fraud cases, before investigating. In a community “that’s used to kind of full service, I think [Edmonds] would really, really feel that,” Sniffen said. There is also the issue of retaining existing officers in a very competitive job market and the length of time it takes to replace those who leave.
Interim Public Works Director Williams noted that his streets division “is already at half staff” and that further cuts would cause a continuing decline in road conditions, with very few spot repairs.” Daily building maintenance would turn into weekly maintenance. Sidewalk maintenance would also be reduced.
“The level of customer service that residents and builders in Edmonds have come to expect would no longer be possible,” added Planning Manager Mike Clugston. Whether it’s a permit for a deck or an apartment, “that would take longer to review, permit, inspect and get to build,” he said. “So the things that we need to really do we wouldn’t be able to get done. And I think that that’s, that’s a pretty tremendous impact.”
The council plans to talk more about the various budget impact scenarios during its Tuesday, May 13 meeting, but Mayor Rosen stressed that there are some core activities that the city is required by law to do. “You can’t say [cut] 10% off of everything, because there’s stuff we have to pay for.”
Next, the council considered a draft list of possible revenue opportunities. (See PDF link here.) Some (in green) have already been implemented, such as selling police cars and increasing park program fees and engineering permit fees. Others (in purple) are actively being considered/advanced. They include increasing the pet licensing fee and pursuing tax increment financing. Those in yellow are options the city has an interest in but have not yet explored advanced. These include selling the current city hall building to a hotel developer, charging for police response to false alarms, annexing unincorporated Esperance and the Town of Woodway, and installing parking meters. Finally, those in blue are items the council has considered and postponed or rejected, such as electric bike registration, parks entrance fees and the sale of parks properties.
Mayor Rosen asks councilmembers to identify the one or two revenue generation activities they favored.
Among those that rose to the top were charging for parking, selling city hall, Esperance annexation and tax increment financing. Councilmember Eck said she believed that selling city hall “probably has minimal impact on our community. And then, potentially, the ROI (return on investment) is really high. We know we’re not filling the building. We probably won’t anytime soon. We know it’s an older building that needs help, and in my view, it might be a neater, cleaner thing to pursue. We also know there’s lead time involved, so the sooner we can start the process, the better.”
When it comes to Esperance annexation, councilmembers noted that the area would also require some financial investment by the city so that would have to be weighed.
Consultant Mike Bailey said that whatever assets the city can sell can be used “to reduce the amount of operating resources you have to dedicate to pay back your [interfund] loan.” Other regular revenue streams, meanwhile, can be used to ensure future budget stability.
Levy Lid Basics
The final presentation of the day was devoted to Levy Lid Basics, with Council Executive Assistant Beckie Peterson described the different options available, from a single-year to multi-year lid lift. (See slide presentation here.) The next step will be to discuss the various options with the community to prepare for placing such a levy on the Nov. 5 general election ballot. The council agreed to two such meetings — one in the afternoon and the other in the evening — on May 22.
Here’s the legislative timeline:
1. Council determines dollar amout to meet budgetary requirements
- Discussion, study, evaluation of options.
- Public engagement and input.
- Collaborative work with staff and mayor
2. Draft resolution to place a ballot measure on Nov. 5 ballot.
- Ballot title
- Explanatory statement
3. Public hearing
4. Adopt resolution
5. Appoint pro and con committees
6. Clerk files with county election office deadline Aug. 5.
7. Election Tuesday, Nov. 4.
Here’s the council schedule proposed for levy lift consideration:
I attended the morning session of this meeting in person and zoomed the afternoon. It was very informative and everyone there was working hard to solve difficult issues. This is a great summary of the day – thank you.
It might help to sort the list by revenue type (one time or ongoing or both) and by fund (there is a big difference between the broad general fund and hotel tax revenue that can only be spent on tourism promotion).
I watched the entire meeting, and it was nothing short of painful. Once again, the majority of the discussion was around admiring the problem rather than making real progress toward a solution. There was little substantive effort dedicated to developing meaningful strategies, and instead, the groundwork was laid for a “vibrant Edmonds” via a property tax levy lid lift this fall.
Alternative suggestions for expense reductions or revenue diversification were dismissed, making it clear that the city is fixated on a singular path—raising property taxes—rather than exploring other possibilities. It was evident that little effort had gone into identifying new revenue streams that could help offset the burden of a tax increase. Instead, the revenue discussion consisted of a recycled list of ideas from last year, with no clear progress made on advancing any of them.
At this point, one has to wonder, what exactly has been happening in City Hall? The meeting itself seemed carefully orchestrated, with department directors once again stepping forward to present their predictable narratives, attempting to justify their financial needs without offering meaningful solutions. The cycle continues. We need fresh ideas, and a willingness to engage the full range of possibilities—not just the most convenient one.
This is important: “the city budgeted $17 million for professional services, but actual spending is not even reaching $6 million. Gould noted that he hasn’t had enough time to fully investigate why,”
I hope Finance Director Gould will post on the City’s website a list of all of the professional services contracts of the last 3 years, how much was paid on each of them, and how much was covered by grants, so we can all see how much of that $17 million is needed from the general fund.
The conversation about sidewalks did not work well. People are not asking for Jersey dividers. We can start with the the kind of “sidewalks” that are provided on 84th Ave between 228th and 238th, and on 224th St between 84th and 80th, plus bright paint.
Great idea on the professional services contracts!
Suggest everyone email Mayor, City Council and Finance Director, request this.
According to the county assessor, Edmonds’ average assessed home value for 2025 is $925,000; the highest in the county with the exception of Woodway. This should be taken into account when determining the level of the proposed levy, as it will have a direct impact on what Edmonds taxpayers must pay. Also, the city’s presentation listed “affordable housing” as one of the priorities reported in the recent citizen survey. The term is problematic as it means different things to different people. For some, it means subsidized housing. For others, it means rent control. For still others, it means keeping property taxes at reasonable levels so owners can afford to remain in their homes. So, this term can be used to support many arguments—some of them conflicting. Bottom line: it is my sincere hope the city exhausts all revenue generation options other than property tax increases when deciding on how much to ask voters to approve in the fall levy ballot measure.
A little known fact is that our City’s Finance Director came to Edmonds by way of Port Townsend, which has been, for a few years now, implementing its award-winning Financial Sustainability Initiative. PT credits its Initiative with preventing them from falling off a fiscal cliff, one they projected would happen in 2028. The time has come for our City to look at inventive ways to make sure that any financial decision made today will be sustainable. Please, no more asking directors to cut even more from their diminishing departments’ budgets (and I hope that the City is not serious about some of those cuts that will likely impact public safety). And, please, no more reliance on the results of a community survey that had only 400 respondents. I would like to hear more about Port Townsend’s Initiative from Director Gould’s personal experience of working with that program. If the prior significant cuts still aren’t going to be enough, then the City must at least make sure that whatever steps it does take will fix the problem in the longterm so that we, and especially the department directors, don’t have to go through this painful process again.
Excellent article with important information – thank you MEN
I’m surprised the “use of community volunteers” is not being discussed to replace some of the City services that are affected by the budget situation. We have a great community of citizens in Edmonds who care about their Parks and maintaining the beauty and uniqueness of Edmonds – why isn’t the City ‘organizing’ this resource to help the budget situation?
The City is going to have a tough time convincing taxpayers to pay more property taxes (i.e., levy lift) unless they show they really have taken cost-cutting measures and are utilizing reduced cost approaches where possible such as use of community volunteers. And, if increased liability insurance is really necessary (verses waivers of liability), then the City needs to present such information and costs to the public so we can evaluate it.
The Edmonds Marsh Volunteer Restoration Project has proven the “power of community volunteers” over the past 4 years – let’s use that “power” and community dedication to address other City budget problems. The City needs to stop turning away citizens who volunteer to help the City in our Parks (such as fixing the bridge in Yost Park) and preventing community organization involvement such as the Floretum Club’s flowerbasket program.
Joe, I completely agree with you. Recently, then Interim Director of Planning & Development, Shane Hope, made a presentation to the city council on the status of the City’s climate policy. Council member Chris Eck asked, “What is the realistic cadence to work on the Climate Action Plan?” to which Shane Hope responded, “It’s hard to do more with staffing shortages. We need to work with the community and the community can step up to do a lot of great things.” There are groups that are ready to step up and I would suggest that the City at least explore the possibilities by meeting with the Edmonds’ nonprofits who would like to help the City in its time of need. Together, we can lay out a strategic plan to see what our volunteer groups can do to support the City staff in their work. It is an option I would suggest the City consider as there are so many in our ranks whose expertise, dedication, and professionalism would be of great value, and such a resource has to date been untapped by the City. Also, with so many of the public-facing commissions, boards and committees being paused, a chasm has developed between the City and the community. By engaging with volunteer nonprofits now,, it will provide the opportunity for us to work together, not apart.
It would be good for the city leaders to listen to Joe for once. Instead of giving your well paid Mayor someone to do his job for him while he plays the town PR man, why don’t you create a Volunteer Coordinator position that works with the various Dept. heads to get all the free volunteer labor they can in action to defray some of the costs they just want to dump on the taxpayers with a levy lift. To bring any sanity back to your city financials, the first two things you need to do is first vote down any GF levy to force a true attempt to create revenue from your huge assets with user fees and some serious traffic control and fines action. The second thing you need to do is vote out the incumbents running for your CC.
YES! AGREEING WITH Joe Scordino!
We need real numbers—now more than ever. Edmonds Activated and Keep Edmonds Vibrant are both pushing for concrete data from the city so residents can make informed choices about the budget. Take the Keep Edmonds Vibrant poll and make your voice heard.
As Councilmember Vivian Olson said, transparency means showing the actual figures—so we know exactly what we’re agreeing to and what we might have to say no to.
Jessica Bachman, a strong advocate for Edmonds city financial transparency and now running against Will Chen, has made this a priority. Keep an eye out in the coming months to hear her vision for how to keep voters informed.
When faced with financial exigencies, what does an average family do?
…Just askin’
Why do the Mayor and Council not acknowledge that the RFA annexation will double taxpayers’ local tax bill and will cost $9 million per year in new taxes? Why should residents approve a tax levy lift when their local taxes have just been doubled by RFA annexation? Why does no one demand that the RFA pay back $7 million+ in withheld GEMT hospital transport fees that are owed to the city? Why is there no common sense suggestion that peer cities’ ‘best practices’ show that Edmonds Can Do Better with its own fire/ems solution that would save $9M per year in incremental taxes, or $45M over 5 years? Even if it cost the City $3-$5M for start up costs of an alternative fire/ems system that would provide a 10X return on investment. How can anyone ignore that compelling business case for taxpayers? Why do the Mayor and Council and police chief fail to explain that Shoreline runs an equivalent police operation for 60,000 residents at a 35-40% lower cost than Edmonds? Where is the common sense focus on efficiency, cost effectiveness, and reducing resident taxes? Why is the City staff’s answer to efficiency always hand wringing and public safety liability? Why is there not an annual budget mandate for every department to demonstrate and quantify efficiency and productivity gains? Make your voice heard: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes
Dave Teitzel,
The problem is not that “affordable housing” means “different things to different people” as you said. It’s that our legislators lied to us, saying upzoning will create affordable housing when only market rate housing will be built.
The definition of affordable housing is crystal clear in the RCWs. See Definitions; https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.185A&full=true#43.185A.010
RCW 43.185A.010
Definitions.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) “Affordable housing” means residential housing for rental occupancy which, as long as the same is occupied by low-income households, requires payment of monthly housing costs, including utilities other than telephone, of no more than thirty percent of the household’s income. The department must adopt policies for residential homeownership housing, occupied by low-income households, which specify the percentage of family income that may be spent on monthly housing costs, including utilities other than telephone, to qualify as affordable housing.
Joan, with due respect, I disagree with you and stand by my statement. I truly don’t believe most people could articulate what “affordable housing” means in the legal sense, and without going to the RCW to read the definition, the term will mean different things to different people. That’s the danger with surveys. I may respond that “affordable housing” is a high priority, thinking it means I prefer to keep my tax rate at a reasonable level so I can afford to remain in my home during my golden years. Others may respond that “affordable housing” is a priority thinking it means they can afford to pay in rent no more than a third of their income. But if our policy makers interpret the survey result to mean “affordable housing” aligns with the statutory definition, policies can be effectuated that may not be what the majority of the survey respondents had in mind.
Budget needs more cutting: Cut ✂ Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut
…Just sayin’
Unfortunately, we voted in a Mayor who’s professional accumen [prior PR CEO] is in selling tax increases and not solving City cost and efficiency issues. The fix was in from the beginning. Never a focus on reducing expenses and, instead, a strategy of moves has been deployed that would convince a majority of taxpayers to vote in property tax increases. The “City property is for sale” red herring was used to prop up the RFA vote. I’m watching to see what tactics are planned for the levy lift vote as you can be sure that Mayor Mike has a plan.
Terry-
You’re 100% right on. The City spent $300,000 to promote the RFA annexation and double your local property taxes – for no improvement in fire/ems service. The Mayor and Council refuse to spend $100,000 for proper due diligence to implement ‘best practices’ ways to deliver fire/ems services and save taxpayers $45 million in incremental RFA fire/ems taxes over 5 years. What kind of fiscal leadership does that show? Please sign the Petition to make your feelings known to the Mayor and Council:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes
Please pass along the link to all your friends. The Mayor and Council need to hear from ALL residents!
Terry Douglas, exactly. If this is getting financial problems fixed in Edmonds, I’d hate to see what, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” would look like. When the Mayor asked for my support, I told him no, I’m supporting Buckshnis who has the CC experience and financial background that we really need and that he should run for Council first to get some experience. He informed me he was a manager by nature and not interested in being a legislator. Now he wants to hire a “manager” to do his work for him while he does the PR stuff. Edmonds blew it! That’s why I’m out of here. It’s not going to get better and will get very expensive for everyone with the policies that are coming down.
It has become clear that Mayor Rosen’s ‘special sauce’ is a public relations strategy aimed at shaping perceptions of questionable financial policies. Additionally, this method seems to be an effective tactic, as public voting indicates an almost limitless pool of money available to tackle any problem.
Budget needs more cutting: Cut ✂ Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut ✂Cut
…Just sayin’
Dave,
I agree with your statement:
“Bottom line: it is my sincere hope the city exhausts all revenue generation options other than property tax increases when deciding on how much to ask voters to approve in the fall levy ballot measure.”
And would change:
“policies can be effectuated that may not be what the majority of the survey respondents had in mind.”
To:
‘policies HAVE BEEN effectuated that ARE NOT what the majority of the survey respondents had in mind’
The up-zoning our state legislators have imposed upon Edmonds will create only market rate housing. Perhaps a small # units for those of “low income” (80-115% of AMI) that are slightly below market rate will be available.
The Snohomish Cty 2021 Adjusted Median Income (AMI) is $115,700/year. This chart hasn’t been updated since 2021. For the wonky, here’s a link:
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/73940/Spring-2021-NOFA-Income-and-Rent-Limits—SnoCo?bidId=
Thank you Larry and Teresa for a nice detailed article. Reading city official comments here, I feel the need to comment. Concern is now expressed for no or low income seniors and other citizens with regard to rent and mortgage payments. Where was this concern when taxes were going to be significantly raised with RFA annexation process? It seems the feeling here is that RFA annexation was a big success. The vote was 8478 in favor and 5109 not in favor. In my opinion, not that big. Another view could be the city and council missed a golden opportunity to properly engage and communicate with 5109 citizen voters.
That sure is a lot of extension cords in that photo. The only reason I comment this way is that Government Accounting is an Enigma. Olympia hands down unfunded mandates and creates strains on businesses and residents by leeching every possible revenue stream, loans between accounts are about as explainable as an Appalachian family tree, and the only thing concrete I can grasp from this article is that the there are a significant number of extension cords in the opening photograph.
I am readying myself for one of two things. One, the rapture. I am not certain this will happen in my lifetime, but will be prepared. Two, more creative taxes and levies out of the State, County, and City. I am pretty sure the rapture is the only thing that will save Washington residents from those taxes.
I propose we create a Powerball Number Picking Committee and the City devote 99$ per week on buying 33 tickets, because it appears that’s about the only concrete plan out there with similar results, but at least we know something is happening to try and stave off the taxes, and it has about the same chances of making Government more efficient.
I am a consultant and will not charge for that tangible and possibly lucrative solution. This is humor in light of the forthcoming levy.
Mike-
Another view could be that the City paid $200,000 to the County to hold the special RFA annexation election, $64K to a PR firm to illegally advocate for annexation, and many thousands of dollars of staff time to draft and publish false and misleading narratives. In addition, three Council members did not recuse themselves from the annexation decision after taking prior campaign funds from the firefighters’ union. And the Council and RFA management condoned the firefighters’ union spending over $50,000 in campaign mailers and robo-calls to mislead voters into thinking they would lose fire/ems services if they voted ‘no’ on annexation. In total, over $300,000 of taxpayer funds were spent to ‘buy’ 1,685 ‘yes’ votes to get to a majority of ‘yes’ votes for annexation. The City condoned and supported this level of expenditure and refused to undertake proper due diligence on ‘best practices’ alternative (and modern) peer city fire/ems business models way that provide quality and responsive fire/ems services costing 70% less than the South County/RFA. Please sign this Petition asking the Mayor and Council to help taxpayers save $45 million in RFA incremental property taxes over 5 years: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes
Please also ask the Mayor and Council why the City is paying 35% more for police services compared to what Shoreline residents pay for equivalent services. Demand more from our civic leaders!
Share the Pain! Communities all over WA are making sacrifices, from laid-off Federal employees to tens of thousands of private sector job cuts. Households are being asked to budget, make cuts, so should the city of Edmonds.
.WA has lost a NET 1,500 high earners, impacting tax revenues.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/washington-is-falling-behind-in-attracting-retaining-high-earners/
Stop the over-reliance on property taxes. We know this will push residents out and dense housing will take it’s place.
https://www.king5.com/article/money/economy/king-county-property-taxes-increasing/281-79a95bdf-74b1-4071-815e-36146b525480
City of Edmonds should make some short term cuts, until we get new revenue streams. Some options below:
1. What’s the status of the ~$8m owned to us by the Regional Fire Authority?
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/01/reader-view-wheres-the-money/
2. If the RFA doesn’t pay up, across the board pay cuts of 6% (this is common in both public & private sector, happened to me twice, avoids layoffs, reinstate down the road, plus 1 time bonus).
.Rough savings for 25′ & 26′ – $2.7 Million
.it should be noted, Edmonds city salaries are ~30% higher than regional average
https://govsalaries.com/salaries/WA/city-of-edmonds
3. Petition state to end pension spiking (27 other states have).
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/inflated-seattle-public-pensions-for-retirees-cost-tens-of-millions/
4. Develop new revenue streams apart from property taxes
Nick-
Great ideas for the City to tackle substantive budget issues and not just look at cosmetic marginal changes. I think you left out two major budget items that could contribute to long -term sustainability: excessive spending in both police and fire/ems services. The City has chosen to punt both of these and not do proper due diligence to ensure that the City’s costs reflect peer cities’ ‘best practices’ and ‘efficient’ operations in each area. The Council doesn’t want to address the elephant in the room, and doesn’t want to do the proper due diligence to show how Edmonds can deliver more efficient services at much lower cost. In prior Comments, I have pointed out the $9 million per year tax saving opportunity for fire/ems services and have provided specific recommendations on how the Council can do proper due diligence: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes
Police services are as controversial as regional fire/ems services, but the $19M annual police budget could be trimmed by $4-$5M per year by moving to a different business model. Shoreline’s residents pay 30-40% less per capita than Edmonds resident do. Shoreline contracts with King County but has ‘Shoreline logos’ on police cars and officers’ uniforms, and contracts for # of police officers and custom services. Shoreline has equivalent response and crime levels. Why won’t the Council find a way to save $5M per year?
And for those who have the financial means to bail out the city of Edmonds. I’m more than happy to help setup GoFundMe fundraiser, all proceeds to city of Edmonds.
https://www.gofundme.com/
Sorry Nick, great idea, but we are spending all our spare cash right now trying to “literally” bail out (of) the city of Edmonds. Your great ideas are falling on the deaf ears of our elected officials who just know better how to solve our financial problems than people with actual skills in solving financial problems. It seems like the main goals for them are to first meet all the state up zoning demands, make sure the RFA is well funded and growing, make sure all the developers are happy with the rules, and protect all the city employees from any adverse consequences of a city going broke. With the average home price in Edmonds hovering at just about $1M, within five years it will cost the average home owner 15K/Yr. just to live in this city and county. And these people have the audacity to talk about creating “affordable housing.” This is all beyond absurd. It’s a form of madness and the very denial or reality.