U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen (D-2nd Congressional District) made two stops in Edmonds Wednesday morning — at the Edmonds Food Bank and the Edmonds-Kingston ferry terminal.
Larsen first visited Edmonds Lutheran Church at 23535 84th Ave. W., where he met with Edmonds Food Bank Executive Director Casey Davis, pastor Tim Oleson, and other officials. They briefed him on food bank services and plans for relocating the Edmonds Food Bank to the church property.
Davis said that the move will almost double the size of the food bank and ensure it reaches more customers with expanded hours and facilities.
“In addition to the larger size, it will also include a commercial kitchen, which will allow us to directly support the Annie’s Kitchen program already operating at Edmonds Lutheran,” Davis said. “We would be able to be open during the hours that our customers need us, including evenings, which we can’t do at our current location [Edmonds United Methodist Church]. Many of our customers work during the day, so they need early mornings or evenings to shop at the food bank. It will also allow us to better support the City of Edmonds human service activities and those of our 30-plus other partners in the community.”
Davis went on to explain that the Edmonds Food Bank currently serves more than 1,400 households weekly comprising an estimated 4,000 individuals.
“I would say 25% of our customers are seniors,” she said. “Most are retired, have worked their entire lives, and with the rising cost of everything, age-related health care issues and threatened cutbacks to federal programs, they’re facing increasing food insecurity and need what the food bank can provide.”
Plans call for the new food bank to be housed in a $12 million building constructed on the site of the church’s present community garden, which will be relocated to another part of the church property. Rep. Larsen has been instrumental in requesting $2 million in federal funding to help move the project forward.
Referring to the federal cutbacks proposed in what he terms “the Republican Rip-Off Budget Bill,” Larsen pointed out that the impact of these cuts goes beyond the individual, spreading throughout the community. “They’re really going to be impacting your neighbor, your friend, a friend of a friend,” he said explaining that the proposed budget cuts will cause an estimated 14,000 people in Northwest Washington State to lose access to affordable food.
Larsen’s next stop was the Edmonds ferry terminal, where he joined federal, state and local officials in launching the Congressional Ferry Caucus, a bipartisan group advocating for investments in marine highways and multimodal transportation. The caucus aims to unite members from across the U.S. to support ferry systems, which have received over $158 million in federal funding for 2025-2027.
U.S. Rep. Emily Randall (D-6th District) who leads the caucus, and Washington Deputy Transportation Secretary Steve Nevey emphasized the importance of reducing climate impact and increasing transportation accessibility. Larsen discussed the bipartisan support needed for the surface transportation bill, which includes funding for ferry systems.
Other activities of the caucus include addressing ferry system-related challenges like deferred maintenance and workforce development.
The caucus’s key goals are to:
1. Advocate for investments in marine highways.
2. Reduce environmental impact by promoting ferry transportation.
3. Bring together local, state and national stakeholders to support ferry systems.
4. Create bipartisan support for ferry infrastructure.
After thanking and welcoming attendees, Randall explained the group’s mission to “bring together folks from the local, national and state levels to ensure that we’re advocating for the needed investments our marine highways that allow us to get around beautiful regions like this by traveling across the water and avoiding intense climatic impact of driving.”
Larsen, a key member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, pledged to work specifically to:
1. Advocate for ferry systems throughout Washington State, including routes in Edmonds, the San Juan Islands and Skagit County;
2. Work to reauthorize the surface transportation bill, which funds transportation infrastructure;
3. Secure federal funding for ferry projects, including:
– $4.9 million to electrify the Clinton ferry route.
– $115 million for ferry boat maintenance.
– $4.8 million for ferry refurbishment.
– $5 million for a new Southworth terminal.
“It is important that that Congress understand that the ferry programs exist, that ferries move people and goods and vehicles, it’s part of their job to create and support this infrastructure,” he said. “And it is not just Washington state or just the East and West Coast systems. There are critical ferry systems running on waterways in the Midwest too, and hence many members of Congress have a direct interest in funding these program. The ferry caucus will help ensure that Congress hears about how important this type of infrastructure is throughout the country.”
Larsen was followed by State Sen. Marko Liias (D-21st District), chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, who outlined his priorities of:
– Maintaining Washington’s leadership role in transportation policy — specifically ferry systems
– Investing in new ferries
– Advocating for diversity in ferry employment
– Recognizing the critical role of federal funding for ferry systems.
“The federal government deeply impacts our ability to operate ferries,” he said. “We work in partnership, and it is entirely appropriate that the federal government help us meet those commitments with dollars on the ground. We have an aging fleet, and we’ve got to keep those boats on the water. As we transition our fleet to low and no emissions, it’s going to be the federal partnership that helps deliver that as well.
“Getting a bipartisan group of Congresspeople from around the country to understand and bring support to it is critically important,” Liias said. “I look to see a surface transportation bill passed and reauthorized so that we can continue to make investments around Washington, and the ferry caucus playing a key role in this.”
Rep. Randall summed up the event by reiterating the bipartisan nature of the ferry caucus.
“I’m so pleased that we have just as many co-chairs who identify as Republicans as those who identify as Democrats,” she said. “Regardless of party, we have so many similar challenges to face, and I think ensuring that we’re representing communities across the country is one of the best ways that we can build the kind of momentum that we need to continue advocating for the current ferry funding we enjoy, increase funding to keep us moving forward, and find ways to advocate for all ferry systems.”
In one sentence he has secured funding from this administration and in the next sentence he calls it a rip off budget he then goes on to explain about more federal funding. Sorry a little disingenuous if you ask me. Must be that no king virus. I hear it has been going around.
You can’t just be happy that the Food Bank will be able to do even more with this move can you Jim? Our Food Bank was at risk because of the big ugly bill of the felon in the White House. Nothing anyone says will nudge you out of bitterness & naysaying. Even so, hopefully you somehow support the Food Bank.
I think the food bank is a good thing and getting federal funding to help with its expansion is a good thing. The rise in need over the last several years has nothing to do with Trump or the current bill one could argue it has more to do with local and state issues. The cuts coming to Medicaid and snap is going to be about 10% which the feds consider to be the amount of expense going to people that don’t deserve it. Our local and state government could have chosen to cut spending like the feds but instead has chosen to raise the already regressive taxes, maybe that is why we have such a high need at the food bank? The irony is the feds won’t be be taking anyone’s help away it is the state who will determine who gets help, so it will be the state that kicks people off not the feds, the stae could choose to continue to cover these people if it wants to do so, I would think with all the tax increases it should have plenty of money to do so.
Sorry, Jim, you are so wrong. The federal government is going to reduce Medicaid payments to the states. The states will have no choice but to cut payments to or raise taxes from their residents. States would not have to cut payments if the federal government held up its part. There are, of course exceptions as with the 10 states that have not expanded Medicaid for their residents. There is no credible study siting 10% payment excesses. Only ones without a basis in fact. People who need food assistance are not there because of high taxes. They are there because our tax dollars do not come into the government to cover assistance programs. We need to tax the rich, apparently not you, a lot more.
Yes Michael the state is going to decide not Trump, the state knows there is waste and fraud in the system and it will force the state to do its due diligence and clean up their rolls, the deserving will still receive help. Is there something wrong with that? Or I guess they can just raise taxes and not worry about people grifting off the system.
Oh, yes it is Trump who wants to decide. Let there be no doubt. He set Doge on departments to cut without reason. There were inspectors general already digging into government saving billions of dollars. Trump fired them without cause and Speaker Johnson did nothing. And why would you ask the question, “Is there something wrong with that?” Haven’t I always been in favor of honesty and efficiency in government? You twist facts to suit your persuasion. Good governance cannot run on the cheap, which seems to be the way you want it.
Yes inspectors general did report hundreds of billions for years but nobody did anything about it, they, government never lifted a finger to do anything about it. reforms are coming now. Trump and Republicans have chosen to make cuts in funding nothing criminal about that and it is the state’s that administrator funding not the federal government we live in one of the most regressive tax states why haven’t our own local and state leaders raised taxes on the rich? The feds tax the rich at 37% on earned income what percentage do rich people pay in this state? On the federal level Google says the top 10% pay 72% of taxes, how much more is a fair share? 600 billion in cuts over 10 years divided evenly between states is a cut of 1.2 billion a year Washington state receives 13 billion a year in Medicaid funding so the cuts is about 10%, Washington state being a fairly well to do state probably has less percentage of people on Medicaid than other states so our cuts may actually be less than 10% of what we receive now. But I know every cut is bad and every tax increase is good in this upside down state.
https://www.hca.wa.gov/assets/program/medicaid-in-washington-state.pdf
Enough of Google and AI to find your facts. The website for Apple Health is an improvement in your research. Thanks. And it very much contradicts your arguments. The federal government needs to take in more revenue, If the top 10% pays 72% of taxes, they can pay more. They are not hurting. And don’t stop there. Increase taxes on the top 40% while not spending on parades, excessive arrests and detentions, and putting soldiers in the streets.
The top 10% of taxpayers are already paying too much of the total. The bottom 50% pay about 2.3% of the total and net-net get far more n government benefits than what they pay in. The country doesn’t have a revenue problem; rather a spending problem that exists under both political parties, just for different so-called priorities.
What would be helpful in the reporting on cuts is just exactly how much of the purported 10% cut to Medicaid and SNAP is finally stopping the TEMPORARY increase in benefits due to The Pandemic by the Biden Administration in 2021 and 2022,
Since when is it logical for the poor to only get the amount of benefits that they pay into the system? What kind of social safety net is that.? The top 10% can afford to pay more in taxes. They are not hurting. The pandemic disrupted lots of lives, especially ones who did not have the luxury of working from home. If some are still getting benefits from the pandemic, I could see sense in it. How much do you know about these people, Kurt? What I read was that many were going to lose coverage because enrollment was not automatic as it was previously.