Our City Council and Mayor have made it clear: As they confront our budget crisis and outline three possible paths forward, tough choices lie ahead. To ensure the next generation gets to experience an “Edmonds kind of day” tomorrow, we must invest in a “vibrant kind of Edmonds” today.
But how will we do that?
Keep Edmonds Vibrant has analyzed several comparable peer cities in our region, and it’s become clear there’s no way of cutting ourselves out of our budget crisis. Edmonds has a significant revenue problem. Our analysis (see pages 31-37) clearly demonstrates that we are disproportionately understaffed in vital areas including our police force, parks, planning and development departments, and our executive’s office. Recent information we learned after our May 27 City Council presentation shows that fewer police are actually employed in Edmonds than we thought (due to a combination of recent cuts and unfilled vacancies), making this problem even more acute than we originally thought. Additionally, as the City and others have already shown, we have a growing backlog of maintenance on our facilities, a multi-million dollar loan to pay back, and depleted reserves that we must replenish in a timely fashion under state law. To match the operating budgets of these comparable peer cities, to fully staff our departments to set them up for long-term success, and to protect and maintain our beloved Frances Anderson Center and other city amenities and greenspaces, we require significant growth in new, sustainable revenues.
Instead of continuing to talk about the problem as it grows even worse, let’s find solutions and get to work creating the future we want for our city. Keep Edmonds Vibrant proposes a three-part solution:
1. Implement $9 million in new, community-supported, non-property tax revenue policies by the end of 2025 – including a modest increase in the sales tax rate (to be on par with Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Mukilteo), a local B&O tax (similar to Issaquah and Bellevue), smarter parking policies, and pursuing more grant funding, to name a few. Each of these proposals, as well as others we’ve recommended, have broad community support in our community visioning initiative, What Should Edmonds Be? (see page 48). And pursuing these revenues only diversifies our tax base to be less reliant on property taxes.
2. Pursue one property tax levy lid lift in the amount of $12 million on the November 2025 ballot to help temporarily close the budget gap and ensure Edmonds can thrive — not just survive. A levy of this amount would cost the median homeowner less than $53 per month (see pages 53-56).
3. Pursue mid- and long-term revenue-generating policies in the next 1-3 years to decrease reliance on levies in the future. These recommendations include annexing Esperance, growing and diversifying our property tax base (while simultaneously reducing the burden on single-family homeowners) by promoting the growth and development of strategic neighborhood hubs, and growing and diversifying our sales tax base by permitting more ground-floor retail/commercial and hospitality services within our city limits. Again, all the proposals we recommend also have broad community support (see pages 50, 52).
What’s more, Keep Edmonds Vibrant has committed to councilmembers (see page 57) that we will proudly take on the role of the citizens group that advocates on behalf of the city’s levy should the Council commit to our community that it will generate $21 million in new revenue through some combination of property and non-property tax policies before the end of the year.
We find ourselves in this dire situation not for lack of good intent, but because of past failures to seize upon opportunities to benefit our city. We’re encouraged to have heard at this past Tuesday’s council meeting the Mayor offer his own, slightly different, proposals to move Edmonds forward. We’re similarly encouraged to hear at this past Thursday’s council meeting a majority of councilmembers both acknowledge that our city has a structural revenue problem, and desire to take the necessary steps to steer us forward with immediacy. As councilmembers meet again in the days and weeks ahead, we call on them to act with urgency and courage.
If there’s anything Edmonds cannot afford, it’s more delay. Let’s work together to keep Edmonds vibrant for generations to come.
Elise Hill is an Edmonds resident and co-founder of Keep Edmonds Vibrant!
Ms. Hill, I strongly object to you passing off your figures as ‘analysis’.
I encourage you to do more research about how this dire situation came to be.
Also, if Edmonds City Council votes to “run a LEVY”, a “Citizens Group” can’t take on the role of advocating in favor of a levy. City Council Appointment is required.
The related RCW refers to “persons”. RCW 29A.32.280 states: “Each committee shall have not more than three members, however, a committee may seek the advice of any person or persons.” Maybe KEV can apply to be one of three members – it is hard to know.
We just went through this process. The city requested that individuals apply.
The following is taken from the City’s related January 15, 2025 Media Release:
Edmonds City Council has the legislative responsibility to appoint two committees to write ballot measure argument statements that appear in the election voters’ pamphlet. The pro committee writes the statement supporting the measure; the con committee writes the statement opposing the measure.
Each committee is allowed up to three volunteer members who must be residents of Edmonds.
Individuals interested in serving on either committee can submit their application to Scott Passey at scott.passey@edmondswa.gov.
Applicants need to announce which committee – pro or con – they are applying for, provide a statement that supports their position, and whether they are willing to be the committee spokesperson.
This KEV superficial ‘analysis’ is based on false/biased peer city assumptions and data, superficial budget information from the Mayor and Council, survey questions lacking context/cost information, and statistically invalid survey responses. The City does indeed have a structural problem from a long history of inadequate fiscal discipline and bloated costs. Before the Mayor concludes that $19million in new tax levies is the solution, he needs to a) recover $9M PER YEAR wasted expense on basic fire/ems services by analyzing true ‘best practices’ peer cities that can deliver current fire/ems service quality and responsiveness for $12.5M. not the confiscatory/unjustified $21M that resulted from RFA annexation. Staff with single-role paramedics and/or private ambulance services to respond to 85% of all 911 calls that are for medical services. b) Re-imagine police services that use the Shoreline County contract model to save 30-40% of the current $19M internal Edmonds’ police department cost (saving $6-$8M PER YEAR), c) re-coop >$10M owed by RFA for withheld GEMT/hospital transport fees, d) include $7M savings in City budget as residents start paying fire/ems taxes direct to the RFA, not the City, starting June 1st. Vote No! on any tax levy increase until the Council does the above to rebuild the trust that has been lost due to non-transparency, illegal PR advocacy for annexation, and flawed/superficial budget planning. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes
Thanks, Ken. Two quick points:
1. From your statement…”Applicants need to announce which committee – pro or con – they are applying for, provide a statement that supports their position, and whether they are willing to be the committee spokesperson.” When council put this into motion for the RFA vote most but not all of the candidates for the committees provided the information requested. There were at least 3 citizens apply for each committee who fully complied. But council selected one member who had not submitted the requested information.
2. For the actual election anyone can work to “get out the vote” or do their best to get yes or no voters to vote instead of not voting. What is the tricky part is while one can talk with their neighbors if an organized group raises and spend money there are campaign laws requiring the formation of a formal group. PACs can participate, and all sorts of support “for” or “against” can emerge.
With all the candidate elections including a primary for some, we will have an exciting time until Nov. My hope is folks do their job to more fully vet all things on the ballot and not just read the pro and con statements and things sent to their homes. Complete, Transparent, Data is needed for us to make an informed decision.
Thanks Darrol. I am not surprised that Council didn’t comply with their own rule and that they selected one member who had not submitted the requested information. Council has Rules and Procedures and a Code of Ethics but there seems to never be any enforcement of these Codes and Rules.
Council recently adopted Rules of Procedure that are not even consistent with our City Code when it comes to how Council’s Agenda is prepared. The City Council did so even though what they were about to do was brought to their attention in front of their vote.
I strongly agree with your concluding point that Complete and Transparent Data is needed for us to make an informed decision. I place an emphasis on the “Complete” requirement, including the full accurate history of the current “dire situation”.
Hopefully the Edmonds City Council does not vote to “run a LEVY” until after evidence is provided that the Code of Ethics and Council’s Rules of Procedure are respected and enforced.
That’s a big NO to more property taxes. The city has a lot of nerve to saddle us with the RFA increase and then turn around and ask for a bunch more.
Yes Nancy!!! Agree 100%!!!
We cannot, and should not continue to pay for mismanagement of city $.
Taxpayers get tapped again!
Me on repeat….No thanks on property tax, yes on new revenue stream.
The Edmonds Elite are out of touch. Seattle times reports WA is facing an affordability crisis. WA has lost tens of thousands of high-paying jobs. The over-reliance on property tax is known to force out long time residents and adds hurdles for first-time homeowners.
#WA residents struggling to afford basics on a $138,000+ income
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/struggling-afford-basics-study-says-you-are-not-alone/5PUDD3PUEFGPLI6VIHQBTLZKZQ/
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/wa-households-cant-afford-basics-even-if-theyre-not-poor-report-says/
#Property taxes forcing out a teacher in King County
https://www.king5.com/article/money/economy/king-county-property-taxes-increasing/281-79a95bdf-74b1-4071-815e-36146b525480
The levy-lift is step 1 in the cities plan to ‘Ballard-ize Edmonds’, usher in the big ugly boxes that blot out the sun and encroach on our sidewalks.
We see the ‘scary’ signs up at our Parks. I challenge city council, our Mayor & KEV (Adele) to meet me at a park of your choice with a shovel, rack, & some gloves. Time to roll-up your sleeves and pitch in for our community.
I had a visit with friends from San Francisco this weekend. We enjoyed a tasting at Scratch, a visit to the Cascadia Museum, and then the Jazz Walk and dinner at a local restaurant. A thoroughly delightful Edmonds day, showcasing many of our town’s delights. Our friends from San Francisco were impressed by the charm, ease of getting around, and entertainment available. I treasure Edmonds and appreciate the energy and efforts of the Keep Edmonds Vibrant group. I think their suggestions for the budget will help us keep charming, enjoyable Edmonds. I don’t think we can only cut services in the budget crisis and am willing to pay more to retain the many opportunities in Edmonds.
Hi Judy, none of the great things you’ll enjoy will disappear, if the fall levy lift fails. Brier hasn’t passed a levy lift in 30 years, Brier thrives. In fact the entertainment you enjoy, ask the small business owners of Edmonds, if they can handle more costs.
We can have our ‘cake and eat it’, we don’t need to displace our neighbors, businesses on low or fixed incomes to achieve the Edmonds we desire.
Just take a look at this recent thread, all the people willing to volunteer at our parks.
You may be willing to pay more, but there are many that don’t have the means to pay more.
No levy lift, yes to new revenue streams.
-Nick
Here’s that recent thread of residents willing to volunteer.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/06/reader-view-opinion-the-value-of-community-volunteers/
Please talk to your favorite business owners, ask them if they can afford the proposed taxes.
Thank you
Mayor/Council/KEV are driving the Edmonds ‘Chevy’ to the levy, but the levee is dry!!
…Just sayin’
KEV collaborated with Mr. Bailey, the mayor’s financial consultant, prior to revealing their “analysis”. The “analysis” that KEV claims to have done is nothing more than reiterating the Price of Government benchmarking model that Bailey has been preaching, and the mayor has bought into. KEV did nothing new and is just carrying the water for the administration.
However, I do agree that the FIRST thing the city needs to do is to implement the $9 million in new revenue before they ask for additional property taxes. Now that we’re saving $7 million for the remainder of the year in contract payments to the RFA (our contract terminated on June 1st when we were officially annexed), this money can be used to offset our 2026 shortfall. A levy lid lift is not needed at all this fall and the city can use the time to implement new revenue and revisit a new levy for 2027. It also provides the time to recoup over $15 million in unreimbursed payments from the RFA for transport fees that they have been withholding from us over the last nine years. Why didn’t KEV discover, and “analyze” the impact of either of these two scenarios on our budget? Or for that matter, why hasn’t the city disclosed it to us?
Elise,
Please answer the question I previously asked KEV members. Why did KEV’s Erik Houser reference the Harbor Square Master Plan as a “missed opportunity” when ALL of the Port of Edmonds property is located in a huge seismic hazard area and, per Edmonds code, “residential”, “places of employment” and “places of public gathering” are not allowed in seismic hazard areas?
You’ve lived in Edmonds for only 3 years, so weren’t involved in Council deliberations regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan in 2012 and 2013 when Council voted against the plan. For full transparency please let the public know who mis-informed KEV about Harbor Square, ignoring the serious environmental impingements to development there.
As I said in another comment, this was a “dodged bullet” not a “missed opportunity”:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/05/council-mulls-middle-housing-code-updates-hears-report-from-keep-edmonds-vibrant/#comment-548737
My Reader View provides links to code and to mapping of Waterfront seismic hazard area:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/04/reader-view-opinion-the-seismic-hazard-elephant-at-our-waterfront/
Typically, the annexation of developed, residential neighborhoods does not generate enough municipal revenue to cover the jurisdiction’s cost of expanded services. This math will improve with the upcoming removal of fire and ems expenses from the City’s General Fund (due to the voter-approved Regional Fire Authority).
So, the concept of annexing the Esperance county island (which is nearly fully developed and not particularly annexation-friendly) may only make financial matters worse. An excerpt of the Snohomish County Zoning Map is offered here for informational purposes. The Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report evaluates the potential for new development and redevelopment throughout the County.
the last time Edmonds explored annexing Edmonds they asked the County for 1-time compensation that equated to the cost of a police unit. The county refused to pay, so annexation didn’t happen. Since then Edmonds has significantly increased their police staffing. It would not be difficult for the Finance director to accurately forecast the increase in property tax and sales tax revenue, and any additional policing expenses that are needed. What’s the net financial impact? South County Fire provides Fire/ EMS service there already. Olympic View is the water and sanitary sewer utility. There are very few feet of stormwater pipes in Esperance, just like the surrounding Edmonds streets.
Does anyone know how much Esperance residents pay now for fire/ems and police services? I believe there are about 4,500 residents in Esperance? Does their County tax bill break out police and fire/ems services? If not, how does the County calculate the costs per resident? This is critical information as it should give Edmonds residents valuable information on the ‘peer’ costs of both fire/ems and police services. The RFA promotes ‘economies of scale’ due to size of operation – but they are unable to show any evidence of that – and in fact , their per capita expenses always grow after annexation. Is the RFA going to increase Esperance residents’ fire/ems bill by 75% like they did after annexing Edmonds? For police services, King County Sheriff’s office has proven how to deliver real police economies of scale – and has provided individual cities with 40-50% annual savings for contract Sheriff services vs. individual municipality police department costs. Shoreline has the same number of police officers as Edmonds, but they serve 40% more residents! Edmonds’ Council needs to do proper due diligence to learn why the Sheriff’s contract model can provide 40-50% savings, and why the RFA can’t do the same. Intelligent analysis and a will to be efficient are the answer – not tax levy lifts! Join 110 residents who understand that – https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes
Mr Krepick, the Esperance area of unincorporated south snohomish county is annexed into the RFA. They are taxed for fire/EMS service just like any other property owner that was annexed- Brier, MLT, Mill Creek, other unincorporated areas in the RFA’s service territory – all paying the same levy rate.
Theresa-
Thanks for the clarification. If Esperance residents are paying the same RFA tax rate as other annexed customers – then it emphasizes how Edmonds taxpayers will be subsidizing all other annexed customers because Edmonds’ property values are so much higher than the other cities. My rough calculations show that Esperance residents pay approximately $377 per resident per year (4,500 residents paying $1.7 million per year for RFA service). Edmonds residents will be paying $488 per year per resident ($21 million RFA annexation price divided by 43,000 residents). Why should Edmonds’ residents pay 30% more for the same fire/ems service when a 2,500 sq ft house has the same costs for fire suppression and for ems medical service regardless of where it’s located, and regardless of the value of the land it’s on. This is yet another failure of the RFA to prove they can control costs and run an efficient fire/ems operation. It’s another reason why the Mayor and Council should do proper due diligence on true peer cities’ ‘best practices’ fire/ems service and set up an Edmonds-run fire/ems service and ditch the RFA ASAP. Edmonds residents deserve better. Vote No! on any tax levy lifts. Join 110 other concerned citizens and petition the Council. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-45-million-in-new-taxes
KEV,
Have you provided the details of your poll to the City Council as promised? I’ve asked Mackey for a Pareto diagram of the number of times individuals accessed the poll and how many statements they voted on. Analysis details I’m sure the software captures. This will help all of us better understand the results of your poll.
Thank you
KEV’s analysis only scratches the surface. Their own data doesn’t back up their conlcusions. Example, pages 33-34 police staffing & compensation. Only 1 of 3 cities compared, have greater staffing & compensation, Lynnwood.
https://keepedmondsvibrant.org/slides/5-27-25.pdf
What they fail to mention, Lynnwood Police call volume is consistently greater than Edmonds. In 2022, (latest stats published by Snohomish County 911), Lynnwood police department’s call volume is 57% higher than Edmonds. Data is reported back to 2018, see the link below.
https://sno911.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SNO911-Annual-Report-2023.pdf
KEV fails to lend a voice to low & fixed incomes, to small & medium size businesses. KEV fails to show empathy for those caught up in WA’s affordability crisis. It’s a myth that everyone in Edmonds is wealthy, research the stats.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/wa-households-cant-afford-basics-even-if-theyre-not-poor-report-says/
The Mayor/Council/KEV want to plug the Edmonds budget deficit of 6-19 million$$$$ with your wallet!!
…Just sayin’