Council asks city attorney to draft levy lid lift resolution; public hearing set for July 1
by Teresa WippelPosted: June 18, 2025 305
The Edmonds City Council listens at Human Resources Director Jessica Neill Hoyson (second row, far left) discusses a proposal to add a city administrator.
Key takeaways:
Council directs city attorney to draft a levy lid lift resolution for consideration June 24.
The draft resolution will include a multi-year, permanent levy lid lift with exemptions offered for seniors and those with disabilities.
A public hearing has been scheduled for July 1 on the levy lid lift.
The council continued to discuss revenue-generation ideas but there was an ongoing desire for more details.
Human Resources Director Jessica Neill-Hoyson presented a proposal for creating a new city administrator position.
Lobbyist Debora Munguia provided an overview of the now-completed 2025 session of the Washington State Legislature.
With the clock ticking on deciding whether to place a levy lid lift before voters on the November general election ballot, the Edmonds City Council’s Committee of the Whole Tuesday directed City Attorney Jeff Taraday to draft a resolution for council consideration next week.
Meeting remotely, councilmembers — who are considering a levy to address the city’s $13 million budget deficit — agreed Tuesday on some elements that should be included in the resolution, but not others. The consensus was to ask for a multi-year, permanent levy lid lift with exemptions offered for seniors and those with disabilities. The levy dollar amount was a sticking point, however. Councilmember Jenna Nand had proposed starting with Mayor Mike Rosen’s $19 million ask — but in the end City Attorney Taraday said he would leave the dollar amount blank after some councilmembers said they weren’t yet comfortable with identifying an amount.
According to the Municipal Research and Services Center, a permanent multi-year levy lid lift allows municipalities — with voter approval — to collect more than the state-limited 1% in property taxes each year for up to six years. The lift must state the total tax rate for the first year only. Subsequent years must identify a maximum “limit factor,” which the total levy amount must not exceed. Councilmembers agreed Tuesday night to state in the draft resolution that the “limit factor” be annual inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
Under this type of levy lid lift, once the levy expires (after up to six years), the levy amount does not revert to what it was prior to the lid lift. Instead, the maximum levy is used as the base to calculate all future 1% levy limitations.
In discussing the exemption for seniors and those with disabilities, Taraday explained that the exemption “redistributes the tax burden among the community,” adding that “the amount that’s lost through those exemptions is redistributed to those who are not exempt.”
Councilmembers also agreed that it would be helpful to have an interactive spreadsheet for the next meeting so they could model different levy amount scenarios.
The council is scheduled to review and potentially approve the draft resolution at its next meeting June 24, and it has scheduled a public hearing on the levy lid lift July 1. A vote on whether to adopt the resolution could come on July 8. The filing deadline is Aug. 5 to place the measure on the Nov. 4 general election ballot.
The decision to draft the resolution came after a lengthy discussion about non-property tax revenue generation ideas. As in past discussions on the topic, not much progress was made as councilmembers continued to ask for more details on various options — from paid parking to pet license increases to greater use of speed-zone cameras.
Community, Culture and Economic Development Director Todd Tatum explains revenue-generation options during Tuesday’s meeting.
Community, Culture and Economic Development Director Todd Tatum noted that most of the revenue options presented so far “require a legislative process to define program details, costs and revenues, but due to staff shortages and just in general, we’re not able to give you the detailed analysis that you need necessarily to make decisions on them right now.”
To address the issue, Tatum proposed taking a “portfolio management approach,” with the various revenue-generating ideas grouped into three main categories: taxes, operational revenue and long-term economic resilience. Each revenue idea in that category includes phases for implementation with timelines. “Some could be as long as a year. Some could be, you know, within a month,” Tatum said. Each item would be reviewed over time for performance metrics, he added.
Councilmember Nand reiterated her concern that the council still needed additional details to make good decisions. For example, while annexation of Esperance is identified as producing $2.2 million via a sales tax credit, it’s still not clear what long-term costs the city will have to bear with annexation, she said.
Councilmember Susan Paine asked how quickly the city could implement some of the ideas to begin generating revenue, and Tatum replied that a number of them could be completed by 2026. She also stressed the importance of publishing the information presented Tuesday night an addendum to the council meeting packet so that the community can see the numbers.
Councilmember Vivian Olson expressed frustration that the council was “getting in the weeds” when it came to deciding on revenue-generation ideas. Pointing to information indicating that Edmonds is not generating as much revenue as cities that are comparable in size, Olson said the city can’t rely on property tax revenues alone. “We’re going to have to come to this and work really hard to make up the balance [through revenue generation], she said.
Councilmember Michelle Dotsch said she doesn’t see any “long-range planning priorities” for the revenue-generation options mentioned, adding those should be itemized so the money doesn’t end up in a general fund.
In other business Tuesday, the council heard a presentation from Human Resources Director Jessica Neill-Hoyson on a proposal to add a city administrator, which would report directly to the mayor. The proposal calls for the position to be filled by Todd Tatum. His current director role would be eliminated, although the city would establish an economic development program manager position to be filled later, when the council determines the city has resources available.
The idea behind the change is to provide “continuity and stability, improved accountability and oversight and support for the mayor and for staff,” Neill-Hoyson said. The bottom line is that under Edmonds’ strong mayor form of government, the mayor acts as the city’s chief executive with administrative management of many departments — and that isn’t sustainable for any elected official, Neill Hoyson explained. Many cities comparable in size to Edmonds have city administrators that assist the mayor, she said.
“Edmonds should have considered getting a city administrator quite a while ago,” she added.
Because Tatum’s promotion would be internal, his pay would be limited to an increase of 5% — approximately $888 a month.
Council reaction to the idea was mixed. Nand admitted she had initially been opposed to the idea, but after speaking with Neill Hoyson was comfortable if certain safeguards were put in place, such as requiring a year-long probationary period so the council could gauge if the position was working as intended.
Councilmember Chris Eck said she believed it would be important that the city’s “top HR leader” be engaged in monitoring the reorganization but had concerns since Neill Hoyson is “in transition” — she is resigning from her job effective July 8.
Councilmember Chen said that the idea of adding a city administration was a good one, but “the timing is wrong,” given the city’s budget woes.
Councilmember Olson, meanwhile, said during her time as council president in 2024, she noted that the mayor was on call 24/7, didn’t take any vacation and worked 11-hour days. “So I really do believe that this isn’t Mayor Rosen making a change for himself, but really a change for the city that is more in line with the obligations,” she said. “Anyone has a problem, it’s the mayor’s problem. So it’s a really huge job.”
Council President Neil Tibbott said that the council will continue to discuss the idea at a future meeting.
The council also:
– Received an overview of the now-completed 2025 session of the Washington State Legislature. Lobbyist Debora Munguia described the “extremely challenging” legislative session with lawmakers facing shortfalls of $16 million in the state operating budget and $1 billion in the transportation budget. The city did see success with some specific legislative priorities. Among them were retaining money for stage three of the Highway 99 Revitalization Project and the right of first refusal in the transportation budget for possible future acquistition of the Edmonds Marsh.
– Heard a summary of the latest updates and key decisions remaining for the council to make regarding the city’s middle housing code update. The code update is designed to ensure Edmonds’ compliance with HB 1110, state legislation that mandates cities increase the range of housing types permitted in single-family residential zones to include duplexes, triplexes or other multi-family dwellings.
Senior Planner Brad Shipley, upper right, discusses some of the middle housing code issues still on the table for council consideration.
At its June 3 meeting, the council made the following amendments to the draft language:
– Accessory dwelling units: Modifications to the reduced rear setback allowed for single-story ADUs. For LDR-S zone, the setback changed from 5 feet to 7.5 feet. For LDR-M, the setback changed from 5 feet to 10 feet.
– Lot coverage was reduced from 45% to 35% for all lots, regardless of density.
Key decisions remaining:
Frontage types. A limited set of private frontage standards (for example, porches and building orientation) remain in draft form for council consideration. These are intended to enhance compatibility and walkability but require further refinement. While the Edmonds Planning Board supported the concept, it did not have time to fully review the draft standards, Senior Planner Brad Shipley said.
Staffing to support the code’s affordability component. To implement and manage the affordability provisions, additional staffing is needed, likely a full-time position, and ongoing compliance for 50-plus years) will require dedicated resources.
Design standards for townhouse-style buildings. New provisions have been added to improve design quality and neighborhood fit.
Design review flexibility. A new provision allows departures from design standards when applicants demonstrate equal or better compliance with the intent. Staff would be required to document their rationale in the project record.
Cottage housing density. Language was added to allow cottage housing density to scale with lot size, enabling more cohesive development on larger lots without requiring subdivision.
The council will have additional discussion on the draft code and make final revisions at its June 17 meeting. Ordinance adoption, including a zoning map, is scheduled for June 24.·
The revenue master plan consists of more traffic cameras, dog license increase, and paid parking? Is this Mayberry RFD?
Deputy Barney Fife is going to be pretty busy writing parking tickets and arresting dogs without a license. The Council might want to take another look at that proposed cat leash law that was voted down some years ago. Might have been an opportunity missed.
What’s concerning, both to me and to several other council members, is the absence of any plan for how this new property tax revenue will actually be used. Which departments will benefit and by how much? What services will be expanded or improved? Right now, this looks like a “tax and spend” proposition built on blind trust rather than transparency or accountability.
We’ve already saved $7 million this year by joining the RFA as of June 1st. Why isn’t that reflected in any financial projections or levy discussions? Likely because it undermines the current narrative about what we allegedly “need.” That $7 million should play a vital role in stabilizing our financial footing—especially with additional GEMT revenue clearly on the horizon.
Instead, there’s a rush to push through a substantial new property tax while alternative revenue options barely move forward. Only now are we talking about modeling fiscal impacts with an interactive spreadsheet—something that should have been step one. This lack of foresight is exactly how we got here.
If we account for these savings and projected revenues responsibly, we may discover that a sizable levy lid lift isn’t necessary at all. Unfortunately, our Finance Director has been conspicuously absent during these conversations. The “fill in the blank” should be a small number.
Comment is misleading: We have not already saved $7m, we might (I hope) save $7m depending on what the lawyers and/or judges determine. I don’t see anybody rolling over on this.
The city has stopped paying South County Fire since our voter-approved annexation agreement now takes precedence. Since payments were budgeted for the entire year, if it’s not a “savings” then what is it? Where is this money going? The city does not have a contract (having been terminated on June 1st) to make a legal payment against. At this point the city should be providing a budget amendment highlighting the reallocation of these funds and updating the fund balance accordingly.
This is not our problem. It may be a problem for the RFA if they didn’t read and understand the documents they negotiated and signed.
This comment isn’t meant to be critical of Council, as this is complex work. However, it seems that they are slow rolling the new revenue ideas other than the levy lid lift. It should be just the opposite to trim the levy lid lift request down to a level voters are more likely to approve. I hope to see the pace of implementation of creative revenue generation ideas ramped up very soon for the benefit of us all.
For about 25 years or so I kept saying the city needs to scrap the strong mayor/weak council system and go to the system of a Strong full-time (non-partisan job worth having)Council/City Manager/Weak Mayor and now that’s what your current mayor wants to do; only in disguise. In his system he still runs the show but someone else does the real work and takes the blame when things go South; which they often do in Edmonds. Edmonds has basically been a one man/woman show since the mayor position was made full time and that won’t change anytime soon without a full re-vamp of city government. It’s going to be really fun to watch now that I don’t have to be a part of paying for all the folly.
Less than a month ago MEN had mentioned city comments of a possible 6 million dollar levy lift maybe more. The article included a calculator to see how much your taxes would increase. I plugged numbers into the calculator using the $6 million lift and was not pleased with the number. At least the number was lower than the RFA debacle.
So now, less than a month, the city is talking 19 million.
6 million to 19 million seems dramatic.
What am I missing here?
What you’re missing, and we all are, is transparency from the city. The city is rushing through a levy lid lift without providing a plan on how the money would be used. Instead of determining what alternative revenue streams could be used to partially offset the levy amount, they are working backwards through what should have been a straightforward process. As a collective body, the City Council is all over the map on this – deer in the headlights. And the mayor is providing misleading and incomplete information, which isn’t helping.
To answer your question, what you’ll probably be missing is more money from your bank account than you should.
This levy-lift process is mind boggling and totally misses what taxpayers need to be SHOWN to justify any increase in property tax. Will the levy-lift resolution have an accompanying line-by-line budget detail that shows the 2026 budget with and without the levy-lift? If it doesn’t, taxpayers should vote NO to any levy.
City Administration seems to have lost sight (maybe intentionally) of cutting back low priority budget items and costs resulting from mismanagement by the prior Administration. Instead, the City is proposing NEW, more-costly staff (e.g., a City Administrator) and started a ‘race’ to achieve a maximum levy-lift without first determining (and SHOWING taxpayers) what is the actual cost in Edmonds to maintain priority municipal services (and exactly what those services are).
Isn’t this ‘maximum’ levy-lift approach going to just perpetuate the misaligned, overspending culture in this City?
Well Shannon, when you suddenly need a City Manager as well as a full-time fairly well paid Mayor and a full time replacement for the Cultural Director (for whatever reason you needed one in the first place) who will now be the City Manager you just have to ask for a little bigger kick in on the old property tax bill. In this thread alone two very intelligent people I respect a whole bunch (Ogonowski and Teitzel) have told the city Council, putting the levy lift ahead of perfecting all the revenue sources you can muster is a huge mistake. Will this Mayor and Council listen at all. I doubt that with the exception of Michelle Dotsch. Elections matter and you have an important one coming up.
Drafting a tax levy lift ballot measure is premature. The City has FAILED to: 1) properly analyze the budget and realistic “alternative” revenues with adequate details so taxpayers and business owners know the cost and services implications, 2) acknowledge a material change to the budget as a result of annexation into the RFA – specifically, the $7 million dollar savings in expense as a result of the fire/ems contract termination on June 1st, 3) resolve the known issue of South County/RFA withholding $8+ million in hospital transport/GEMT fees, 4) submit a list of performance demands to the RFA to ensure they track and report on specific ‘economies-of-scale’ and performance metrics that can be benchmarked to track actual cost improvement gains on a per capita, per 911 call, per station, per firefighter basis, 5) produce due diligence analysis re potential $14 – $17 million in annual tax savings from ‘best practices’ fire/ems and police services.
All of these failures of basic fiduciary responsibility and public disclosure of funds and property taxes require the City to disclose and vet these issues and collect the money owed BEFORE putting a tax levy lift on the November ballot. It’s high time the Mayor and Council put taxpayers first. Make your voice heard. Tell the Council you will vote ‘No’ on any tax increase until the above prerequisites are resolved.
The best thing about a levy is that it isn’t a loan. They can basically set a number and as long as they get the votes in November the property owners have to pay it. Something tells me they have the votes to do a levy. If they didn’t have the votes then they would be cutting programs during these meetings instead.
Buckle up Edmonds because between the fire/ems annexation and a 19 million dollar tax levy you all are going to be paying another $2-$3K a year in taxes.
What if they don’t get the votes in November? What then?
jim- the city was anticipating the ‘what if’ question. they spent a month listing the budgets cuts by department and the related dramatic language to scare you into voting ‘yes’ on the tax levy. they passed this write up as an Ordinance. so it’s official. see the May city council meeting minutes for the ordinance
Jim
please don’t assume the Council has the votes. It is up to all hardworking and tax conscious Edmonds’ residents to mount an opposition campaign and Vote No! on any November tax levy. The Council and Mayor are quite simply not doing their jobs and showing no fiscal discipline, no transparency, no accountability, and no respect for taxpayers. Please sign the anti-tax levy Petition at https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes and forward the link to all your friends and neighbors! We must mount a sustained anti-tax levy campaign now and get thousands of supporters long before November!
It appears we could have a wholesale change in the Council majority in November if everyone votes for Glenda Krull, Jennifer Bachman, and Erika Barnett. These three ladies are running on a FACT3 platform that stresses Fiscal discipline, Accountability, Common sense, and the three T’s – Transparency, Taxpayers first, and Trust. If they win, Tibbott, Eck, and Chen will no longer be on the Council – and these ladies will join Council Member Michelle Dotsch to make a common sense and fiscally responsible majority 4-3 vote on the issues that concern all taxpayers. Please do what you can to keep Petition pressure on the Mayor and Council – and work to change the Council majority!
The hubris underlying the levy lift on part of the Mayor and certain Council members is mind boggling. In what ways has the Mayor and Council built trust with citizens on their ability to manage spending? The revenue discussion seems more like a diversion tactic to me.
Has the City looked at surrounding community impact fees, franchise fees, transportation impact fees, school impact fees, administrative burden costs, technology fees added to City costs, going to actual costs plus administrative fees for permit/ROW/engineering reviews versus flat rate? We are moving to hubs and centers – why not create Transportation or Business Improvement districts in each of thise areas? It seems to me (I ain’t good with math so I could possibly be wrong) that Edmonds charges less in fees than surrounding communities. Whether we like it or not, how about parking fees instituted in the centers and hubs and downtown? Ballard, UDistrict, and other “urban walkable” areas have it. The City is going to strip away, by law, barriers for development, the development will come, so why not be the cutting edge of not only capturing the costs of the impacts at the highest rate possible, but also ensuring the administrative burden and overhead costs are fully absorbed? The levy, although an expedient and probably necessary solution, can’t be the only one out there. For instance, in my experience, an engineering firm is charging a 2.5 to 3.0 multiplier on direct labor plus administrative costs – 132$ per hour seems to be a pretty low cost to pay. Are we the low cost City providers regionally? I am sure these have been considered?
Posting here in the hopes the mayor / and/or city council members read this:
Appreciate the conversation around new revenue ideas for Edmonds—without relying on new taxes. I recently emailed Mayor Rosen suggesting we explore a digital kiosk program, inspired by what Seattle is rolling out downtown: https://www.geekwire.com/2025/seattle-digital-kiosks-city-council-vote/. This is a public – private partnership, that doesn’t rely on taxpayer funds..it’s obtainable and executable..but will require someone – or some org – to drive it.. I even offered to reach out to Jon @ Seattle Downtown Association to see if he’d come to Edmonds and talk about how this program works.
These kiosks could support wayfinding, promote local businesses and events, and enhance access to city services—while generating advertising revenue for the city. It’s a scalable, low-footprint idea that could align with Edmonds’ walkable, visitor-friendly downtown vibe.
Would love to hear what other creative, business-minded solutions people are thinking about. …and hoping it’s not ‘more taxes’…
Very concerned that the only streategy here is ‘more tax’ to support a spending problem, without a clear line of site to get out a $13M hole. Time to start tuning outside the box a bit…
There are so many considerations and budget issues. I really think paid parking could help with things. I just came back from spending four days up in Harrison Hot Springs in BC and their whole entire front street was paid parking only. Every time we went into the small little town area we had to pay, but it really was no big deal. I can see that generating income for the city of Edmonds. I hope people from the city read our comments.
I recently spent some time at an East Coast suburban community which seemed similar to Edmonds demographics. On the commuter train line to NYC so lots of high earners have moved in and jacked up property values.
Anyway, the property taxes were DOUBLE what we currently pay here in Edmonds, for a comparable house. My brother lives in the smallish 1920’s house my mother grew up in (3 bedrooms) and pays $1500 per month in property taxes. I took that as an example of where we are headed.
No matter how much ground floor retail or paid parking is brought in, Edmonds is headed down the path of unaffordably high property taxes. Those taxes will be needed to pay for the infrastructure improvements supporting all the growth pushed by groups like the legislature, the planners and KEV.
The mayor, department managers or KEV offer no alternative path forward other than doom and gloom if they don’t get their additional money. I don’t know if a reasonable alternative exists after all the state mandates but it would be nice if one of them would explore alternatives to avoid unending tax increases eventually driving us retirees away.
Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.
The revenue master plan consists of more traffic cameras, dog license increase, and paid parking? Is this Mayberry RFD?
Deputy Barney Fife is going to be pretty busy writing parking tickets and arresting dogs without a license. The Council might want to take another look at that proposed cat leash law that was voted down some years ago. Might have been an opportunity missed.
What’s concerning, both to me and to several other council members, is the absence of any plan for how this new property tax revenue will actually be used. Which departments will benefit and by how much? What services will be expanded or improved? Right now, this looks like a “tax and spend” proposition built on blind trust rather than transparency or accountability.
We’ve already saved $7 million this year by joining the RFA as of June 1st. Why isn’t that reflected in any financial projections or levy discussions? Likely because it undermines the current narrative about what we allegedly “need.” That $7 million should play a vital role in stabilizing our financial footing—especially with additional GEMT revenue clearly on the horizon.
Instead, there’s a rush to push through a substantial new property tax while alternative revenue options barely move forward. Only now are we talking about modeling fiscal impacts with an interactive spreadsheet—something that should have been step one. This lack of foresight is exactly how we got here.
If we account for these savings and projected revenues responsibly, we may discover that a sizable levy lid lift isn’t necessary at all. Unfortunately, our Finance Director has been conspicuously absent during these conversations. The “fill in the blank” should be a small number.
Comment is misleading: We have not already saved $7m, we might (I hope) save $7m depending on what the lawyers and/or judges determine. I don’t see anybody rolling over on this.
The city has stopped paying South County Fire since our voter-approved annexation agreement now takes precedence. Since payments were budgeted for the entire year, if it’s not a “savings” then what is it? Where is this money going? The city does not have a contract (having been terminated on June 1st) to make a legal payment against. At this point the city should be providing a budget amendment highlighting the reallocation of these funds and updating the fund balance accordingly.
This is not our problem. It may be a problem for the RFA if they didn’t read and understand the documents they negotiated and signed.
So much for the affordability crisis in WA. Our electeds appear to be vying for the number 1 spot in the ‘unaffordable index’ (we’re no.5 now).
https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article308838300.html
https://www.king5.com/article/money/salary-needed-live-comfortably-washington/281-8d6dda4c-61a6-490b-80f1-12e6c70ad868
Price residents out of Edmonds, build the big ugly boxes like we see on 5th Ave. ‘Ballard-ize’ Edmonds, that’s the plan or at least the outcome.
This comment isn’t meant to be critical of Council, as this is complex work. However, it seems that they are slow rolling the new revenue ideas other than the levy lid lift. It should be just the opposite to trim the levy lid lift request down to a level voters are more likely to approve. I hope to see the pace of implementation of creative revenue generation ideas ramped up very soon for the benefit of us all.
For about 25 years or so I kept saying the city needs to scrap the strong mayor/weak council system and go to the system of a Strong full-time (non-partisan job worth having)Council/City Manager/Weak Mayor and now that’s what your current mayor wants to do; only in disguise. In his system he still runs the show but someone else does the real work and takes the blame when things go South; which they often do in Edmonds. Edmonds has basically been a one man/woman show since the mayor position was made full time and that won’t change anytime soon without a full re-vamp of city government. It’s going to be really fun to watch now that I don’t have to be a part of paying for all the folly.
Less than a month ago MEN had mentioned city comments of a possible 6 million dollar levy lift maybe more. The article included a calculator to see how much your taxes would increase. I plugged numbers into the calculator using the $6 million lift and was not pleased with the number. At least the number was lower than the RFA debacle.
So now, less than a month, the city is talking 19 million.
6 million to 19 million seems dramatic.
What am I missing here?
Shannon,
What you’re missing, and we all are, is transparency from the city. The city is rushing through a levy lid lift without providing a plan on how the money would be used. Instead of determining what alternative revenue streams could be used to partially offset the levy amount, they are working backwards through what should have been a straightforward process. As a collective body, the City Council is all over the map on this – deer in the headlights. And the mayor is providing misleading and incomplete information, which isn’t helping.
To answer your question, what you’ll probably be missing is more money from your bank account than you should.
This levy-lift process is mind boggling and totally misses what taxpayers need to be SHOWN to justify any increase in property tax. Will the levy-lift resolution have an accompanying line-by-line budget detail that shows the 2026 budget with and without the levy-lift? If it doesn’t, taxpayers should vote NO to any levy.
City Administration seems to have lost sight (maybe intentionally) of cutting back low priority budget items and costs resulting from mismanagement by the prior Administration. Instead, the City is proposing NEW, more-costly staff (e.g., a City Administrator) and started a ‘race’ to achieve a maximum levy-lift without first determining (and SHOWING taxpayers) what is the actual cost in Edmonds to maintain priority municipal services (and exactly what those services are).
Isn’t this ‘maximum’ levy-lift approach going to just perpetuate the misaligned, overspending culture in this City?
Well Shannon, when you suddenly need a City Manager as well as a full-time fairly well paid Mayor and a full time replacement for the Cultural Director (for whatever reason you needed one in the first place) who will now be the City Manager you just have to ask for a little bigger kick in on the old property tax bill. In this thread alone two very intelligent people I respect a whole bunch (Ogonowski and Teitzel) have told the city Council, putting the levy lift ahead of perfecting all the revenue sources you can muster is a huge mistake. Will this Mayor and Council listen at all. I doubt that with the exception of Michelle Dotsch. Elections matter and you have an important one coming up.
Drafting a tax levy lift ballot measure is premature. The City has FAILED to: 1) properly analyze the budget and realistic “alternative” revenues with adequate details so taxpayers and business owners know the cost and services implications, 2) acknowledge a material change to the budget as a result of annexation into the RFA – specifically, the $7 million dollar savings in expense as a result of the fire/ems contract termination on June 1st, 3) resolve the known issue of South County/RFA withholding $8+ million in hospital transport/GEMT fees, 4) submit a list of performance demands to the RFA to ensure they track and report on specific ‘economies-of-scale’ and performance metrics that can be benchmarked to track actual cost improvement gains on a per capita, per 911 call, per station, per firefighter basis, 5) produce due diligence analysis re potential $14 – $17 million in annual tax savings from ‘best practices’ fire/ems and police services.
All of these failures of basic fiduciary responsibility and public disclosure of funds and property taxes require the City to disclose and vet these issues and collect the money owed BEFORE putting a tax levy lift on the November ballot. It’s high time the Mayor and Council put taxpayers first. Make your voice heard. Tell the Council you will vote ‘No’ on any tax increase until the above prerequisites are resolved.
Edmonds is missing a BIG revenue generating opportunity…
Build Casinos, just like Mountlake Terrace..
And the $$$$ will roll in…and then no levies.
What happens in Edmonds stays in Edmonds!
…Just sayin’
The best thing about a levy is that it isn’t a loan. They can basically set a number and as long as they get the votes in November the property owners have to pay it. Something tells me they have the votes to do a levy. If they didn’t have the votes then they would be cutting programs during these meetings instead.
Buckle up Edmonds because between the fire/ems annexation and a 19 million dollar tax levy you all are going to be paying another $2-$3K a year in taxes.
What if they don’t get the votes in November? What then?
jim- the city was anticipating the ‘what if’ question. they spent a month listing the budgets cuts by department and the related dramatic language to scare you into voting ‘yes’ on the tax levy. they passed this write up as an Ordinance. so it’s official. see the May city council meeting minutes for the ordinance
Jim
please don’t assume the Council has the votes. It is up to all hardworking and tax conscious Edmonds’ residents to mount an opposition campaign and Vote No! on any November tax levy. The Council and Mayor are quite simply not doing their jobs and showing no fiscal discipline, no transparency, no accountability, and no respect for taxpayers. Please sign the anti-tax levy Petition at https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes and forward the link to all your friends and neighbors! We must mount a sustained anti-tax levy campaign now and get thousands of supporters long before November!
It appears we could have a wholesale change in the Council majority in November if everyone votes for Glenda Krull, Jennifer Bachman, and Erika Barnett. These three ladies are running on a FACT3 platform that stresses Fiscal discipline, Accountability, Common sense, and the three T’s – Transparency, Taxpayers first, and Trust. If they win, Tibbott, Eck, and Chen will no longer be on the Council – and these ladies will join Council Member Michelle Dotsch to make a common sense and fiscally responsible majority 4-3 vote on the issues that concern all taxpayers. Please do what you can to keep Petition pressure on the Mayor and Council – and work to change the Council majority!
The hubris underlying the levy lift on part of the Mayor and certain Council members is mind boggling. In what ways has the Mayor and Council built trust with citizens on their ability to manage spending? The revenue discussion seems more like a diversion tactic to me.
Has the City looked at surrounding community impact fees, franchise fees, transportation impact fees, school impact fees, administrative burden costs, technology fees added to City costs, going to actual costs plus administrative fees for permit/ROW/engineering reviews versus flat rate? We are moving to hubs and centers – why not create Transportation or Business Improvement districts in each of thise areas? It seems to me (I ain’t good with math so I could possibly be wrong) that Edmonds charges less in fees than surrounding communities. Whether we like it or not, how about parking fees instituted in the centers and hubs and downtown? Ballard, UDistrict, and other “urban walkable” areas have it. The City is going to strip away, by law, barriers for development, the development will come, so why not be the cutting edge of not only capturing the costs of the impacts at the highest rate possible, but also ensuring the administrative burden and overhead costs are fully absorbed? The levy, although an expedient and probably necessary solution, can’t be the only one out there. For instance, in my experience, an engineering firm is charging a 2.5 to 3.0 multiplier on direct labor plus administrative costs – 132$ per hour seems to be a pretty low cost to pay. Are we the low cost City providers regionally? I am sure these have been considered?
Posting here in the hopes the mayor / and/or city council members read this:
Appreciate the conversation around new revenue ideas for Edmonds—without relying on new taxes. I recently emailed Mayor Rosen suggesting we explore a digital kiosk program, inspired by what Seattle is rolling out downtown: https://www.geekwire.com/2025/seattle-digital-kiosks-city-council-vote/. This is a public – private partnership, that doesn’t rely on taxpayer funds..it’s obtainable and executable..but will require someone – or some org – to drive it.. I even offered to reach out to Jon @ Seattle Downtown Association to see if he’d come to Edmonds and talk about how this program works.
These kiosks could support wayfinding, promote local businesses and events, and enhance access to city services—while generating advertising revenue for the city. It’s a scalable, low-footprint idea that could align with Edmonds’ walkable, visitor-friendly downtown vibe.
Would love to hear what other creative, business-minded solutions people are thinking about. …and hoping it’s not ‘more taxes’…
Very concerned that the only streategy here is ‘more tax’ to support a spending problem, without a clear line of site to get out a $13M hole. Time to start tuning outside the box a bit…
There are so many considerations and budget issues. I really think paid parking could help with things. I just came back from spending four days up in Harrison Hot Springs in BC and their whole entire front street was paid parking only. Every time we went into the small little town area we had to pay, but it really was no big deal. I can see that generating income for the city of Edmonds. I hope people from the city read our comments.
I recently spent some time at an East Coast suburban community which seemed similar to Edmonds demographics. On the commuter train line to NYC so lots of high earners have moved in and jacked up property values.
Anyway, the property taxes were DOUBLE what we currently pay here in Edmonds, for a comparable house. My brother lives in the smallish 1920’s house my mother grew up in (3 bedrooms) and pays $1500 per month in property taxes. I took that as an example of where we are headed.
No matter how much ground floor retail or paid parking is brought in, Edmonds is headed down the path of unaffordably high property taxes. Those taxes will be needed to pay for the infrastructure improvements supporting all the growth pushed by groups like the legislature, the planners and KEV.
The mayor, department managers or KEV offer no alternative path forward other than doom and gloom if they don’t get their additional money. I don’t know if a reasonable alternative exists after all the state mandates but it would be nice if one of them would explore alternatives to avoid unending tax increases eventually driving us retirees away.