What kind of city are we willing to pay for? Do we want to live in a city where we don’t have to pay an increase in taxes, but our roads are crumbling, there are insufficient police officers to ticket speeders and we lose our prized community spaces? Or do we want to live in a safe, vibrant and thriving city that we will have to pay a little more for? There has been a lot of discussion on this topic over the past few weeks. But ultimately this should be our decision to make as residents of this city, and not city council’s.
As a concerned Edmonds resident I have been trying to follow what has been going on with our city’s budget by attending the Keep Edmonds Vibrant community engagement discussions and attending several recent city council meetings. What has become abundantly clear to me is that:
-
The city of Edmonds is underfunded and understaffed.
-
Several of our city councilmembers are trying to decide our future for us, without allowing us to be part of the decision.
The city’s significant budget deficit is driven more by the city being underfunded rather than excessive spending (ref pages 31-37 of Keep Edmonds Vibrant Report). Due to past failures to grow and diversify our revenue base, we bring in significantly less revenue than what is required to run a city of our size, and now we are stuck with the consequences.
To address the city’s budget deficit, city council is currently evaluating a combination of new, revenue-generating, non-property tax policies, as well as a levy lid lift this November. Three independent assessments have been provided by 1) the mayor, 2) city staff, and 3) the city’s budget consultant to determine the appropriate size of the levy. These assessments all recommend a levy lid lift ranging from $15 million to $22 million (depending on who performed the estimate and the extent of contributions from new revenue) to fund Edmonds at levels comparable with nearby cities of similar size, home value and household income — levels that will help correct our staffing levels so that they are no longer disproportionately lower than our peer cities.
This is welcome news. It’s time we fully fund our city and get it back to the city we expect and love!
But a handful of councilmembers think residents shouldn’t get to vote on any of these recommended levy amounts. Instead, they have indicated that they either want no levy at all, or would prefer a bare bones levy that would lock us into the diminished level of staffing and services we’re currently experiencing (not to mention the severe backlog of maintenance on our cherished amenities and facilities) for years to come.
Perhaps worse, they are essentially saying they know better than the mayor, the city’s departmental directors (who effectively run our city), and the budget consultant they themselves requested (someone who has made a career in resolving city budget deficits just like ours).
The people who know the needs of our city better than anyone are the ones who operate and care for it on a daily basis. They keep Edmonds running. They are our expert eyes and ears. Yet, some of our Council members are essentially saying: We don’t trust your recommendations, and we don’t want our residents to have the opportunity to vote on them.
They’ve got it backward.
Residents of Edmonds ought to decide whether we’re willing to fully fund our city. That’s our job, not council’s.
Let voters decide. It’s the democratic way.
Philipp Witte lives in Edmonds.
The author’s push for another property tax increase, will further exacerbate our regions well documented ‘affordability crisis’. I’ve seen this in Seattle, long time residents will be displaced, and new dense development will take its place.
Here’s a King 5 article highlighting the property tax burden. In this case forcing out a teacher from her Sammamish home.
https://www.king5.com/article/money/economy/king-county-property-taxes-increasing/281-79a95bdf-74b1-4071-815e-36146b525480
WA ranks no.5 in the ‘unaffordable index’.
https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article308838300.html
Please make sure to dive deeper than the author. His opinion is based off a ‘skin-deep’ survey conducted by a developer.
Take Police for example, only Lynnwood surpasses staffing & compensation of Edmonds (KEV pg. 33 – 34).
https://keepedmondsvibrant.org/slides/5-27-25.pdf
Lynnwood 911 call volume is 57% higher than Edmonds (I support EPD, but don’t believe we need additional officers). Nuanced issues, comparing number of employees & total budgets is not sufficient.
#Call Volume
http://sno911.org/public-records/annual-report/#2022-2023-annual-report
Maybe the author hasn’t seen the comments in this article; numerous residents willing to volunteer in our parks, and our roads? Our roads are excellent.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/06/reader-view-opinion-the-value-of-community-volunteers
We should join forces and advocate for a fair tax system, revenues other than property taxes. I do agree with the author, the decision should lie with the voters.
As a 39 year Edmonds resident on a fixed income, please note these numbers: 2024 county assessment tax liability: $6936.00. 2025 tax liability: $7873.00 ( + 13.5 % ) using the RFA calculator adds $1051.00 ( up 28.6% from 2024 ) adding in the levy lift estimate @ $9343.00, means a 34.7% increase in two years. This is not sustainable for many Edmonds residents, so it might be a stretch to stay Vibrant.
While everyone wants Edmonds to remain a safe and vibrant city, the idea that a major tax increase is the only solution requires careful scrutiny. Before asking residents to approve a $15–22 million levy, the city should first demonstrate fiscal responsibility by enacting financial reforms to address our structural imbalance and by pursuing alternative revenue sources. Additionally, the recent annexation into the RFA is projected to save Edmonds about $7 million this year—savings that should directly offset any proposed levy amount.
Comparisons to other cities can be useful, but we need solutions tailored to our own unique needs and financial realities. The choice should not be presented as either fully funding everything or facing decline; there are responsible, incremental approaches that can meet our needs without placing an undue burden on residents.
Caution from some councilmembers is not undemocratic—it is a call for a clear, justified, and responsible proposal from the mayor. Residents deserve full transparency about what we’re being asked to fund and why, along with the opportunity to consider other alternatives. Right now, what’s being debated amounts to a tax-and-spend approach from city hall, lacking a comprehensive plan. While staff and experts offer valuable input, residents have every right to question, seek accurate data, and demand accountability.
A vibrant Edmonds must be built on transparency, trust, and fiscal responsibility.
Edmonds Median household income (1+) is $116,095, barely above the income needed to live comfortably in WA according to a new survey show in the link below (~Half of Edmonds households are below the Median). Let’s not continue to burden our neighbors without exhausting all other options.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/edmondscitywashington/PST045224
https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article308838300.html
The US Treasury offers citizens the opportunity to donate, to reduce public debt. If the money is weighing you down, happy to setup a GoFundMe. All proceeds to the city of Edmonds.
https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
The real problem is that Edmonds city government is really good at wasting money as opposed to being adept at properly managing money. Failed Landmark purchase; money wasted. Missing Link legal battles; money wasted. Deer Creek Drinking Water Aquifer Protection battle with EEC; money wasted. Bungling of Police Chief hiring process; money wasted. Tree Code litigation and loss; money wasted. Civic Field Park Do Over cost over runs due to bad environmental planning of land use; money wasted. RFA special election; money wasted. Failed Connector to the Marine Sanctuary; money wasted. I could probably come up with more but you get the drift. We could have afforded to stay in Edmonds and put up with all this but I got tired of subsidizing the waste and constant bad management. There are lots of nice places in the world to live other than Edmonds. Much safer and less congested even. Just saved $40 on travel trailer lic. tabs by just not living in the light rail transportation corridor. That savings will apply to all our vehicles too. This will be eaten up with ferry costs and driving, of course, but that’s more fun than paying for Rosen’s new City Manager to do his job – which will just be more of your money wasted.
Toward Edmonds Financial Stability:
1. Come under budget
2. Finish ahead of schedule
3. Quit spending like drunken sailors; no offense to sailors
4. Quit hiring overpriced extra staff
5. COVID money is gone; go back to pre-epidemic levels
6. Mayor/Council/KEV driving the Edmonds ‘Chevy’ to the levy, but the levee is dry.
7. Work smarter
And
Cut ✂️Cut ✂️ Cut ✂️Cut ✂️ Cut ✂️Cut ✂️ Cut ✂️Cut ✂️ Cut ✂️Cut ✂️
Cut ✂️Cut ✂️ Cut ✂️Cut ✂️ Cut ✂️Cut ✂️ Cut ✂️Cut ✂️ Cut ✂️Cut ✂️
Meanwhile fill the freakin’ potholes!!
…Just sayin’
Donald, your wish list is pragmatic . i try to track headcount in this town, where the HR department can’t or won’t report actual headcount by department. the budget documents tell us that the 2025 headcount budget is the same as the 2022 headcount budget. But the pre-Covid year of 2020 had a headcount budget that was 17 fewer staff. (that budget was built in Nov-Dec of 2019 before the pandemic started). I think calling 2020 the base year and then adding program layers and exogenous changes will be a reasonable way to do financial planning in Edmonds. The consultant’s advice to use dollars per population is just plain ignorant. ( i was a senior mgr in the financial planning and analysis dept. of the largest private utility in the state). The Mayor hired the flavor of consultant that would tell him to dramatically raise taxes. It’s a good strategy if the voters trust that the Mayor knows what he’s doing. we’ll know what the voters think about that in November. By the way, where’s the millions in GEMT fees that the fire district owes us?
very good advice but you might have included…Stop hiring consultants!
Great point Gerald. It would be one thing if they hired truly open minded and unbiased consultants but they don’t even manage to do that. They hire consultants and PR firms to come up with the results they want in the first place and most of your CMs just go for it rather than asking tough questions and demanding answers. Watch your Mayor soft soap the Council to get his City Manager position thru and then watch the $14M levy money evaporate into thin air; if the citizens are crazy enough to vote for it in the first place.