The Edmonds City Council moved one step closer to putting the $14.5 million levy lid lift on the Nov. 4 ballot. By a vote of 5-2, the council Tuesday night approved sending Proposition 1, the Property Tax Levy for Police, Parks, Planning, Streets and Sidewalks, to the council’s July 8 consent agenda for a final approval vote.
The six-year levy lid lift is part of the city’s solution to a $13 million budget deficit.
Nearly 30 people were in council chambers and another 30 people joined online to share their thoughts during the public meeting.
Before the public hearing began, Mayor Mike Rosen recapped the current financial picture.
He shared the new ballot title to address residents’ concerns that the city wasn’t specific enough on how levy funds would be spent. He said the new title reflects the legally binding levy funding focus: police, parks, planning, streets and sidewalks. Each title slide included specific descriptions of to-be funded projects and programs.
Public comments were spirited, measured, empathic, thoughtful and angry.
“It’s great that there will be some consideration for those with hardship,” Robert Chaffee said, referring to an amendment to reduce the burden on seniors and low-income residents. “But what about the new homeowners who can barely pay their mortgage?”
Elise Hill, a member of the Keep Edmonds Vibrant group that has advocated for putting the levy measure before voters, talked about the current state of maintenance in the city. “It’s been disheartening, going to the parks with my young children, seeing all the trash and the bathrooms are closed, graffiti isn’t cleaned up,” she said. “I don’t think that’s the city we want going forward.”
Kelly Haller said she supports the levy. “We’re not wealthy, but I would rather invest in my community than a fancy vacation”.
Resident Don Randall said he appreciated the city making the tough decision to look past the next couple years and thinking a decade or two ahead instead.
Janelle Cass said the city should do a better job of tracking expenditures going forward to prevent the city from finding itself in this position again.
Added Patricia, commenting via Zoom: “It’s just scare tactics. We want a line-by-line accounting or a la carte voting [on projects].”
Still others, like residents Jim Ogonowski and Joe Scordino, said $14 million is just too big a number. “It’s a double digit. It’s a huge risk [of not passing.]. I urge the council to vote yes for $6 million, not $14 million,” Scordino said.
Councilmember Michelle Dotsch agreed the number was too big and did not support the resolution. Council member Will Chen also did not support the measure.
Councilmember Vivian Olson shared a longer view of Edmonds’ financial history and accountability to justify the need for the big number.
“We have been underwater for a very long time. Since 2008. We never dealt with that backlog. We are way in arrears in our responsible government activity. It is sticker shock. As a resident myself, I feel it. I know it. I am not disregarding the impact that you will have on a household level.”
“If you want a city that we are used to, this is where the numbers are,” Olson said. “And if you want a city that’s delivering less, then you know that’s where we will be next. I think it’s fair to ask the community where they stand.”
“This is not a decision my colleagues and I are going to make for you,” Councilmember Nand said to residents in the room. “This is a question we are putting to you and it is a responsible question,” Nand said.
The current resolution calls for $1.65 per $1,000 of assessed property value. To see an estimate of your property tax bill under the proposal, use our calculator here. The measure includes a qualified low- income senior and disabled homeowners deferral or exemption.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday will add the amendments to the current resolution and council will vote next week whether to put the decision before voters in November.
Where is the performance data behind how the City currently spends our tax dollars? In what ways has the City proven that they have rooted out all inefficiency and waste or are we just being blindly led to throw more money into a mismanaged City?
Be informed. Listen to the mayor’s State of the City address to hear how the state limits cities’ taxing authority despite how much costs have risen. City has done extensive research, analysis, and considered every alternative. Without additional funding from this levy proposal, cuts to essential services and facility maintenance will just keep getting more drastic.
Valid concerns, though all Washington municipalities face similar constraints. Yet Edmonds is proposing a property tax increase nearly 50% higher than neighboring cities. Why is Edmonds unable to diversify its revenue streams in the way other cities have?
The City previously violated public disclosure laws, and it took a resident Jim Ogonowski conducting his own due diligence to uncover a $7 million savings opportunity in the RFA contract. His findings prompted the City to pause payments to the RFA.
Sorry if we’re a little skeptical.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/06/city-pauses-payments-for-fire-ems-services-under-terminated-rfa-contract/
https://www.edmondsbeacon.com/stories/edmonds-violated-law-in-promoting-annexation,123415
Sad to see a repeat of what our family recently experienced on Capitol Hill & Ballard. Residents priced out, and the big box developers swooped in.
The levy supporters don’t seem to understand, you’re spending your neighbors money without consideration for their circumstances.
Keep Edmonds Vibrant influenced this levy decision, with flawed data. Many of us have pointed out examples in recent MEN articles.
In this example, KEV’s headcount numbers don’t match their own report, left out critical information like 911 call volume. Our Parks director called out the picture of the park under repair, is actually being fixed under a warranty issue.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/06/reader-view-opinion-edmonds-is-at-a-crossroads-why-city-council-made-the-right-call/
Instead of pursuing new revenues and demanding fiscal accountability, levy supporters have enabled city electeds to continue down the ‘it’s too hard’ path. If this levy passes, Edmonds property taxes will be 50% than surrounding communities. A hardship for many who have expressed affordability concerns, and another barrier for first time buyers, our kids and grandkids.
My family frequents our parks, if we see trash we pick it up. I will reach out to our parks department requesting to volunteer, suggest KEV climbs out of their ivory towers and does the same.
Folks, please read this MEN comment. This is the solution to our budget woes, now and for our future.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/06/city-council-to-hold-public-hearing-tuesday-on-14-5-million-edmonds-levy-lid-lift-resolution/#comment-550773
BTW – If KEV comes up with a volunteer opportunity, happy to work alongside & lend my truck. MEN has my contact info.
It appears that the City Council has chosen to “jam up” the voters with a higher $14.5 million levy, rather than the previously agreed-upon $6 million levy, to force the voters to choose the repercussions of having a failed levy, which would lead to financial devastation for the city. It’s a shameful tactic. The long-term solution for the Council’s management of the budget will involve electing new council members in the fall, who possess greater ethical standards and business experience.
Appreciate the coverage—but I’m still waiting to see a forward-looking plan from the city. What happens after the levy passes? A sustainable financial future requires more than a short-term fix. We need a clear strategy, not just a stopgap.
As a parent, I don’t want to see our parks closed or core services cut— but I’m also concerned about how our city is operating. If you ran a business this way in the private sector, you’d be in serious trouble.
Levy or no levy, I’d like to encourage some innovation from our local elected officials..I also sent this program to the Mayor recently.
Bend recently launched a Childcare Expansion Project in partnership with the local chamber and business community. It’s already making an impact by helping address a critical shortage in childcare access—one of the biggest barriers for workforce participation and small business stability. Here’s the link with details: Bend Childcare Expansion Project. This kind of initiative not only supports families, but also drives local economic growth. Might be worth exploring, especially as we continue to look for creative, non-tax-based solutions to strengthen the community.
https://bendchamber.org/childcare/child-care-expansion-project/
All well and good; actually a pretty neat demonstration project. But this is not a project funded by or supported by City of Bend. Know as a former employee of Bend the way this worked and it was completely done via a State Grant. Also Bend Parks & Rec s completely and totally a separate taxing agency from City of Bend. There is not overlap. Finally, and sadly, what a difference 18 months makes. Oregon legislature just completed the 2-year budget and this was not fully funded for FY 25-26; FY 26-27 with State funds.
It seems to me the City has lost sight of fixing the budget crisis on providing ESSENTIAL MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS that otherwise could “supposedly” lead to bankruptcy.
Instead, the City is going to risk wasting more taxpayer dollars on a ballot measure to see if taxpayers would agree to creating a ‘Slush Fund’ to allow continued mismanagement of public resources.
The Council has also lost sight of what public input means in representing the public. Where was the Council discussion and deliberation on what concerned citizens pointed out during the Public Hearing? What is the purpose of having a public hearing if none of what was said by the public is used in Council deliberations?
And ‘conveniently’ lost in all of the budget ‘crisis’ discussions was use of community volunteers to reduce burden on taxpayers. The City should not need more money to maintain Parks when there are citizens willing to help defray costs by volunteering. There are numerous examples of successful volunteer programs that Parks management could emulate with no additional costs to taxpayers.
Rather than asking taxpayers for more ‘slush’ money, the City needs to resolve the gross mismanagement of our Parks, Open Spaces and Facilities first! – – and then get public input on if and how much additional dollars would be agreeable to taxpayers.
Three Thoughts:
1. Math – the city passed a budget with a proposed $6M levy. The city “retained” approximately $6M in taxes that were earmarked for fire/ems with the passage of the RFA. Council has identified $5M in non-property tax revenue (although it appears no progress has been made on implementing any of these ideas to date). How does -6 (proposed levy) + 6 (retained taxes) + 5 (revenue sources IDed) = 14.5?
2. Fund restrictions and more math: We are being told that part of the levy need is because of deferred maintenance. (No specific numbers or long or short term plans have been submitted.) But, according to the Mayor’s presentation the levy money would used for “the legally binding levy funding focus: police, parks, planning, streets and sidewalks.” Is our general fund so flush that we can pay for millions of dollars in maintenance without levy funds? Although some maintenance may fall under the vague parks focus, not all of it does. Again, I’m concerned about the allocation of proposed funds and the math that gets the city to their huge number.
3. Confusing messages and even more math: Some council members seemed to claim this would be “all that we need” to get the “city we want,” while others appeared to intimate this wouldn’t totally get us out of our hole.
Another photo and long paragraph about KEV by MEN. My gosh the horrible graffiti. More MEN space than CM’s in this posting which is unusual. More than Jim and Joe. Obviously a trend. Do you want me to provide the numbers?
Comment edited because someone pointed out separately that calling out one person could be viewed as bullying, which we agree we try to avoid when it comes to individuals (as opposed to elected officials). But I wanted to point out that we want to represent all voices here by including a range of testimony from those speaking last night. — Teresa Wippel
We just had the RFA levy passed, which added a hit to our household budgets.
Yesterday, the state’s gas tax increased by 6 cents per gallon.
Insurance premiums have increased dramatically.
Inflation and tariffs are increasing the prices on everything.
The Big Bill in Congress is almost set to pass, with cuts to food assistance and Medicaid, and places a greater burden on the working class.
Now, the city of Edmonds wants a huge $14+ million in additional property taxes.
How much can the average citizen of Edmonds be expected to bear? A lot of us live outside the “vibrant” Edmonds, and have to budget for gas to get to work, and groceries and heating bills and prescriptions and home repairs.
Or maybe we aren’t the Edmonds they want anymore.
I hear you Jennifer! We all want a vibrant Edmonds, but the way our city and KEV are going about this is so ‘uninspiring’ and detrimental to many residents. We are witnessing folks put their desires above the needs of the community.
We have heard nothing from KEV on the impact to renters and businesses. Pushing flawed data as many have called out, puts their intentions at question.
It’s critical we start talking with our neighbors, and get the word out to our renters and businesses, their costs will go up too.
Hi Jennifer,
No Disrespect to You. All good points and If a council member were commenting here, you would hear they would make most of the same points about the city’s expenses as you make about family expenses. A deep dive into the city budget to see the factors that set into motion what has happened to our city revenues and city services over the last 15 years would give us all some understanding on how we got to this point and what are our options for the future.
When we were Solvent in 2000-2005 we should have formed a citizen drive effort to Keep Edmonds Solvent. When the 2008 recession hit, we did not just tighten our budget we stopped doing some basics. When revenues returned instead of restoring some basic services, we kicked that can down the road. Any effort to KES now will have to wait for us to decide how to make us solvent once again. Pay back the $6m loan, Rebuild Reserves, Decide what we want govt to do and how do we want to pay for it. $14.5 along with a “hoped for” $5m of new Revs will not Keep us Vibrant. The current course will not provide enough $ to do all the items listed. It is time to do the math and sort this out. Thanks Jennefer!
The city of Edmonds ceases to exist without stable families & businesses. As with many aspects of life, budgeting is a balancing act. Property taxes 50% greater than neighboring communities, tip the scales.
WA ranks No. 5 on the ‘unaffordable’ index. Edmonds median household income barely surpasses the $109,658 required to live comfortably. Using the MEN calculator, we’re talking about more than 2 months take home pay for the median Edmonds household to pay their property taxes.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/06/thinking-about-your-future-tax-bill-try-our-updated-calculator/
https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article308838300.html
Share the pain, open the books, allow residents to supplement city staffing, don’t enable the ‘it’s too hard’ governance model.
I find it difficult to believe Edmonds lacks the knowledge & creativity required to fund city government while keeping costs in line with neighboring cities. In fact, I’m confident if you & Jim Ogonowski were at the helm, Edmonds would find it’s balance.
Correction: > 1 mo. take home salary
$116k – Net ~ $7,337 / mo. take home
$900k property value ~$8087 / mo. in taxes
(Avg. AV varies on source, feel free to substitute a better source, taxes after $14.5M levy lift).
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/06/thinking-about-your-future-tax-bill-try-our-updated-calculator/
What I have not seen, is the structure of this levy. I admit that my knowledge is very limited on this subject, but I think that I’m not alone in that.
I realize that if, for example, you have a levy of $20mill to build a police station over 5 years, you expect the money to be raised w/in the tenor of the levy, and then that levy payments to stop at the end of the 5th year.
Here you’re talking about a fixed sum AND a levy lid lift, so:
• What are the mechanics?
• Will the lid lift continue after you raise $14mill, or will everything reach the previous rates?
•What rate (expressed as $$/year and %increase in property taxes) would you use, over what time period, to raise the $14mill ( or any other sum you propose for the levy)?
•If the lift stays, after raising the $14mill, what is the actual % increase on property taxes?
Thank you!
Significant questions. The amount of the levy is 14.5 million per year for a period of 6 years. Therefore, the city is indeed requesting a vote on a levy increase, which totals additional $87 million overall being billed to homeowners’ property tax.
Hi Brian,
I recall that the levy plan is to start with $14.5M and it will grow by the rate of inflation for 6 years. One CM estimated it would grow to $17M in 2031. That’s around $500k/yr. If that is the math, then the total for the 6 years would be $94.5M. For taxes in 2032 council could increase the $s not the rate by 1% without a vote.
We need lots more data, but it is important to remember that beyond covering the “gap” (yet to be quantified), we need to repay the $6m loan in two years, and we need to rebuild the reserves that were spent. Not easy to know what that number is without further data on the current and projected condition of the GF at the end of this year.
This is great information thanks for the update. I’m just interested in letting the voters know exactly what they’re in for not just the yearly cost but the total cost of the levees.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Darrol, we need more data. The city won’t cough it up because they’re afraid of citizens who will actually analyze it.
In the next week, or two at most, the Finance Director will be presenting the June financial statement. That will be the mid-year point and should have updated year-end projections on fund balances. Judging by the relatively poor performance highlighted in the May report, we could be in for more surprises. It should also provide insight into how the city intends to use the $7 million in fire contract cost savings this year now that we’re officially annexed into the RFA as of June 1st and no longer needing to make payments since our original contract was terminated upon annexation and the RFA assumed all responsibility. A budget amendment should be part of that process (if we follow financial processes at all in this city).
Let’s see what the next couple of weeks bring us – transparency or more smoke.
I have to at least have some respect for Vivian Olson’s honesty for acknowledging that the irresponsible management of Edmonds actual “Needs” vs. “Wants” started long before the disaster that was the Nelson administration. Bad decisions and kicking the responsibility can down the road started long before he ever arrived on the scene. Now they are asking you to just take their word for it that Rosen and crew have a better plan (to the tune of $14.5M) and won’t engage in the same tactics of being sure some get what they “want”, while others just put up with not having what they need a viable town to provide them, like ample parking, disabled parking, revised codes that conform to State law, clean, accessible and well maintained parks, streams and drinking water systems that aren’t polluted and blocked to salmon passage and more. Scordino has it exactly right. Make sure they can handle the $6M combined with responsible revenue enhancement and use of all the volunteerism and free public service input they can muster before you hand them any big money to possibly squander. Chen’s no vote makes me suspect he’s a little worried now about getting re-elected. Remember he could have saved you $100K and chose not to. You have to start demanding accountability or you definitely won’t get it.