Edmonds is worth the investment: Why I’m supporting Prop. 1

1. Hey Rick, – I ran into you a few weeks ago in Downtown Edmonds – outside of the bathrooms next to city hall. At the time, we were just opening the doors to Vertical Wine Collective, which was recently featured in Wine Spectator and Sip Magazine. Event went as far as to email you directly.

   Very briefly, Rick: I’ve worked across policy and tech—ZINO Society for Cathi and Ken Hatch, Former Campaign Manager for State Sen. Rodney Tom in the 48th District (raised $500k; 12k doors), Lobbyist at Gordon Thomas Honeywell, co-founded Startup253, 5.5 years at Oracle, and now Senior Global Cluster PM at AMD, where my team reports directly to Lisa Su, who was just named Time Magazine CEO of the year – and also a proud UW alum.

   Ive filed a complaint with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) regarding the City of Edmonds’ activities around the proposed levy – specifically, RCW 42.17A.555 / WAC 390-05-271.

   So you’re aware, State Senator Marko Liias, State Rep Strom Peterson, as well as State Rep Liu and their leg offices have been contacted. The PDC has the report. The economic development meeting was interesting last night, to say the least.

   And I’ve shared with MEN the next is the Governor.

2. By this logic, if I had just begged my parents hard enough (both were teachers), we could have moved to La Jolla! Or Beverly Hills! Darn it! I thought it took actually having the funds to engineer a move or pay for a home and the corresponding property taxes. Silly me.

   Let’s remember everyone’s circumstances and what a tax hike of this magnitude could mean for those who are perhaps not able to afford to book European vacations, yet live among us in the community. And for those who are able, Starbucks announced 900 non-retail layoffs today, adding to the earlier 1,100 corporate workers laid off earlier this year. Microsoft laid off a slate of software engineers and others a few months ago as apparently AI outperformed them. AWS has signaled layoffs as AI implements. Salesforce. Oracle. The list goes on. The Seattle Times published a piece recently regarding how even if you aren’t technically poor in this area, you may not be able to afford the basics. We just beat CA for highest gas prices in the nation at $5/gallon.

   Edmonds, be good stewards of the taxes you pay. This is your money. Be careful what you vote for.

3. Rick, I am a total fan of yours – but you’re coming down on the wrong side of this issue.

   1. Edmonds homeowners have already approved a large tax increase beginning in 2026: annexation to the Regional Fire Authority, costing the average homeowner an additional almost $900 per year. Prop 1 would be a second big 2026 increase averaging yet another $850 annually.

   2. $14.5 million dollars is more than the city actually needs. The city’s own resolution identifies $6 million as the funding gap that may result in cuts to important services. Not $14.5 million, a shoot-the-moon ask. Prop 1 would position Edmonds as having nearly the highest city property tax rate in Snohomish County.

   The first step in developing a more reasonable and affordable levy amount is to vote down this one.

   3. Cuts to services can be avoided. Prop 1 is being presented as “all or nothing”: either approve $14.5 million OR these treasured amenities will be terminated. An alternative path exists:

   The city has dozens of funds other than the struggling General Fund, some of which have accumulated surplus (taxpayer money) not otherwise needed, that can legally be combined with the General Fund. Such a combination could fund services on the cut list long enough for a new City Council to put a more affordable levy on next year’s ballot.

4. Well said Prop 1 saves the heart and soul of Edmonds.

   Let’s hope that the residents of Edmonds will care enough about their city and community to pass Prop 1.

   • I prefer to hope that the residents of Edmonds will care enough about fiscal transparency and sanity, as well as allowing those on fixed incomes to retain their homes, to vote NO and demand the council, with its new members, will come back with a far better plan. That is caring for the community. And we have the money to tide us over the interim without incurring all the horrors KEV tries to scare us with.

5. Another way to look at it is are we a small quaint town with small government or a small town with big government looking to make Edmonds big to justify their existence. Growth is slowing we could even experience some recession, can we afford this big government approach at this time? Sounds like our local government’s want to make things more expensive for its business and citizens at a time of uncertainty, my opinion if it isn’t already a disaster it has the ingredients to become one. Don’t worry the rich here will still be rich the rich that move here will be fine but the business and people you say you want to be part of the community aren’t going to fair well. It is all good with me I am going to enjoy Deadmonds 2.0

6. I agree. Edmonds is worth it. I will vote yes. I do believe that many of those pushing the no position are not understanding the rules of municipal budgeting. It is different than running a business or your personal budget. They seem to think there is plenty of money, so we can just move it all around. But there are realities like rising inflation (thanks to Trump’s tariffs) and sales tax receipts diminishing as well as funds that are needed for specific things like, for example, replacing vehicles on a rotating basis. If you spend the vehicle fund on something else, what happens in a few years when the vehicles start breaking down and nothing is left in the fund? The other side claims it is all in the budget so we don’t have to worry. It will get replaced. How? There is a 6 million dollar loan to repay. You need to have dollars in reserve for emergencies. I don’t feel the no side has enough relevant experience to understand how to make the City whole again. I hope their alternate budget is checked for accuracy by those who understand how municipal accounts need to work. And people are going to lose their jobs. I feel really bad for the parks workers and the human services workers.

   • Thanks Arlene – well said!

   • Hi Arlene, suggesting inflation is to blame, tells me you haven’t looked at the budgets and assessed the increase in spend yr over yr.

     Very convenient to ignore the only Edmonds elected with a CPA, Will Chen. Will says ‘we have the money’, we only need $6M.

     I’ve sat down with the ‘Yes’ group, I’ve listened to the city, read through the Keep Edmonds Vibrant analysis, it would be nice if you gave the opposition a chance.

     Curious if you have asked the city or Keep Edmonds Vibrant any questions on their budgeting analysis?

     Thanks,

     Nick

     • So why are other cities around us having the same problem? Are they all mismanaged like you claim Edmonds is? Sales tax receipts are down. Inflation is up. And when the No side claims that no cuts are needed I balk. How can we use funds that are designated for something else? Without explaining what those other funds are used for that they want to tap, No people are just looking at number totals and saying we have plenty of money. They don’t explain how to refill the coffers. That is what the levy lift is for. $6 million dollars came from the Utility fund. That will have to go back into that pot. And then we need another $6 million to fill the hole that paying back the utility fund caused. That means we still need much more than just the $6 million dollars you claim. I don’t see any rational logic that would compel me to “give the opposition a chance.” I see your side wants to keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. And I really don’t understand the motive for that.

7. Rick, thanks for your compelling words. Edmonds is worth the investment and there are tax safeguards for the elderly on a fixed income. We have under invested in Edmonds for far too many years and the previous administration over spent to increase the dire financial situation. There are no excess funds sitting there unspent or available for the city to use. Vote YES on Prop 1 to keep our city thriving.

   • Tom, we have a lot of mutual connections via LinkedIn, including the former WA State Attorney’s General.

     Are you comfortable, on this thread, admitting that you know nothing about the $59M Edmonds is sitting on across all funds?

     General Fund – $7.1M
     Special Revenue Funds – $14.7M
     Enterprise Funds – $30M
     Internal Service Funds (ISF) – $6.6M
     Capital Projects – $538K

     To reiterate, Edmonds already has $59M across its funds—including $6.6M in Internal Service Funds that aren’t legally required. Move that into the General Fund and it covers the $6M in “cuts” if the levy fails. No loan, no new tax—just using the money the City already has.

     • Mr. Reeves: So you look at the total numbers and say we have enough, but you don’t explain what those funds are for that you will rob. What happens if you move the money out of those funds? What doesn’t get taken care of or maintained? Do the vehicles break down? Do people get laid off? How do you pay back the $6 million from the Utility fund and then raise the money to fill that $6 million gap without starving any of those other funds of necessary dollars… in the long term. You have a short term mind set, which is a very poor way to run a City. And remember, sales tax receipts are down. Emergencies could happen any day. Inflation is rising… how far will those tariffs push it? There are so many unknowns that a City has to plan for and you are not looking at that.

   • Tom and Rick, although your dedication to assisting the Edmonds community is admirable, you are either underestimating or overlooking the considerable effect that such substantial tax increases will impose on individuals with restricted incomes. It appears that you are overrating the management capabilities of the present administration and certain council members, whose competencies evidently do not meet the demands of managing financial obligations.

     • Brian is right. Edmonds isn’t broke—it’s sitting on $59M across all funds, including $6.6M in Internal Service Funds that aren’t legally required. Shift those into the General Fund and the $6M in “cuts” disappear.

       Tom, with your CFRE credential and 30+ years in nonprofit management, you know how to stretch dollars for donor-driven organizations. But nonprofit fundraising principles aren’t how you run a city budget. Cities can’t rely on donations—they have fixed obligations and reserves that must be managed first. Asking residents for a permanent tax hike while $59M sits unused isn’t fiscal discipline.

       • Closing this thread now. Thanks all.

8. According to the City’s own finacials, Edmonds currently holds $59M across all funds:

   General Fund: $7.17M
   Special Revenue Funds: $14.73M
   Enterprise Funds: $30.03M
   Internal Services Funds: $6.65M
   Capital Projects Fund: $538K

   The point isn’t that money can be ‘moved around freely’ like a personal account. For anyone that does understand municipal budgeting, it’s that the city has multiple funds and revenue streams that require careful prioritization before asking for a permanent $14.5M tac increase.

   Look at the ISF funds alone…ISFs are not mandated by law, meaning the city has discretion to restructure. The funds aren’t currently being fully leveraged. Consolidating ISFs into the general fund creates a stronger, more flexible pool of resources.

   Impact:

   $6.6M infusion into the general fund balance, offsetting the the $6M in proposed ‘cuts’ if the levy fails. Unlike a loan, this is not debt – it’s an internal reallocation of existing reserves.

   Now, I would ask, how do we not have the relevant experience? You’ve been given more information (above) about the state of our city budget than you’ve been given from our council and mayor.

   • ISF’s may not be mandated by law but they’re not a silver bullet to address our issues either. The combined balance in our ISF funds is around $6 million but there are revenues of around $4.9 million and expenses of around $4.6 million associated with those funds which would also transfer to the general fund. So while this move would create an appearance of restoring reserves to the general fund, it would do nothing to address the operational costs that the city is dealing with. It would not repay the loan from the utilities fund. It would not help to address the backlog of deferred maintenance. It would not provide a basis for growing the reserves beyond that initial injection. This is just a smokescreen to try to defeat the levy proposition.

     • The City’s own 2026 budget frees up ~$6M when Fire/EMS costs roll off. Add in $6M from ISFs and you have breathing room. That’s not a smokescreen—it’s a choice.

       And lastly, managing operational costs is the responsibility of city leadership. No different, Niall than IBM leadership managing operational costs…

     • Hi Niall, Do you disagree with Will Chen’s statement ‘we have the money’, ‘only need $6M’? I would support a $6M levy to repay the utility fund, the original proposed amount.

       Love to see your assessment, include some background on the spending rate of the general fund over the last 10 years, salary assessment yr over yr, all available investments & fund totals, with historical comparison over last 10 years and some context of what those funds are used for. Top 10 revenue sources for the city and how they’ve changed. Maybe you can team up with Jim & Becky?

       We’re tired of the same old playbook from our electeds, we need leadership. Spending on the backs of residents, in the nations 2nd most regressive tax system, is getting old. There has to be other options.

       The city is building ‘Edmonds for the elite’.

       Data shows our state has some serious issues (resources below).

       #WA 3rd highest homeless (this crisis is at least a decade old, with billions spent)

       https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-homeless-people

       #WA most regressive tax structure in US, moved to 2nd most

       https://senatedemocrats.wa.gov/alvarado/issues/progressive-tax-reform/

       https://www.opportunityinstitute.org/blog/post/itep-report-washington-regressive-tax/

       #5th most unaffordable state

       https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article308838300.html

       • Nick

         I have a reader view written and ready to be submitted. Look out for it early next week.

9. Evan, Arlene – cc Tom, since he doesn’t think the city has the funds – check out this link which will direct all of you to, which summarizes a practical alternative: consolidate Internal Service Funds (ISFs) into the General Fund to stabilize services immediately—no loans, no new taxes.

   Edmonds is already sitting on all of the funds it needs – $59M to be exact:
   General Fund – $7.1M
   Special Revenue Funds – $14.7M
   Enterprise Funds – $30M
   Internal Service Funds (ISF) – $6.6M
   Capital Projects – $538K

   https://vocal-daifuku-0ffc06.netlify.app/

10. Rick, your family decision those many years ago only affected your family. If you couldn’t have afforded the home, then only your family would suffer. The 14.5 million lift would negatively affect many families and there will be those who will have to leave their home because of it. Others ability to afford necessities would be negatively effected.
    Clearly you haven’t been following the thread in MEN news which explains that their are far less expensive ways to solve this financial problem without loss of services.
    There is a total distrust of most of the Council and the Administration. This transparent Mayor has been anything but. The City gives KEV 30 minutes to address the council while limiting those against to speak for only 30 min. Opponents to Prop 1 believe that the fix is in.
    Those against Prop 1 have no trust in our City Government’s ability to be better stewards of our money in the future than they have in the past. If Prop 1 fails, there is hope that with citizen help the City will make wise budget decisions going forward. At the very least it will protect many of our citizens from financial
    hardship.
    Finally, the upcoming election gives us a chance to bring more financial saavy to the City Council.

11. Hi Rick, an alternative budget exists that prevents cuts & reduces the cost of living burden on residents, are you interested in hearing more?

    I love the work you do for the community & understand why you’d want to vote Yes. I implore you, don’t repeat the cities claims without rolling up your sleeves. Understand that WA State ranks no. 2 for the most regressive tax structure, moved to the 5th most unaffordable state, the 3rd largest homeless population.

    The over-reliance on property taxes, forces residents from their homes. King5 reported a teacher in Sammamish lost her home, ‘everyone keeps voting yes’.

    https://www.king5.com/article/money/economy/king-county-property-taxes-increasing/281-79a95bdf-74b1-4071-815e-36146b525480

    Will Chen the only elected with a CPA, says ‘we have the money’ & only need $6m.

    Let’s sit down together and review the numbers, let’s make Edmonds for Everyone, not just the wealthy. Please consider using your fame, to push for transparency, data driven governance & a more progressive tax structure.

    Appreciate it,

    Nick

    #WA 3rd highest homeless

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-most-homeless-people

    #WA most regressive tax structure in US, moved to 2nd most

    https://senatedemocrats.wa.gov/alvarado/issues/progressive-tax-reform/

    https://www.opportunityinstitute.org/blog/post/itep-report-washington-regressive-tax/

    #5th most unaffordable state

    https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article308838300.html

    • A more progressive tax structure would be an income tax, which Washington voters don’t seem to support. With an income tax, we could make the rich pay a much higher percentage than the middle class. I also think we could change the tax deferral income limits to allow more people a chance to defer some of their property taxes until they sell the property. You have to remember that people who have held a property for a long time are gaining a huge windfall as property values rise. They capture that when they sell. A more robust deferral system could help those on a fixed income to stay in homes until they move. That is the way to fix the problem, not just starve a City of funds.

      • Sounds like we share some level of agreement here. Appreciate the conversation, appreciate your questions & respect your voting decision. Hopeful more folks will ask questions of ‘pro & con’.

        I believe I’ve seen your comments about ‘minimizing development impact, concerns over slope erosion’. Please keep on this, I align with your view on the topic.

        BTW – Teresa Wippel of MEN has my email. Happy to meet up for coffee.

        Take care!

12. Increased city management costs due to inflation is a real issue, however Prop 1 is not the solution. Our property values are already reassessed annually to account for inflation, but by increasing the tax levied per $1000 of value the proposition is double-dipping on inflation. The tax rate should remain as a fixed percentage of property values and not increase over time.

13. I’m with ya, Rick!

14. I agree that Edmonds is worth the investment – – BUT taxpayers need to know and AGREE to exactly what they’re investing in AND exactly where their prior investments are going (if not to fiscally austere municipal operations).

    We all know that MUCH (not all) of the City’s general fund shortfall is due to past financial mismanagement – – what assurance do taxpayers have that additional investments into the general fund won’t again be mismanaged?

    The fact of the matter is $8.5 million of the $14.5million levy lift was a ‘pie-in-the-sky’ number that the City only now trying to account for and they’re using percentage distribution???? – isn’t this more financial mismanagement? Further, the City already received a $6 million dollar INCREASE from property taxes as a result of transferring the City’s fire protection responsibilities to the RFA – where exactly will that money go?

    The levy-lift focus on just the ‘supposed’ general fund shortfall ALSO does nothing to assure taxpayers that other fund accounts were considered in determining the need for additional tax revenue.

    Placing additional financial burdens on ‘soon-to-be’ over-taxed taxpayers without first presenting to the public a zero-based budget for municipal operations (especially considering past overspending and mismanagement) is just plain BAD.

    And let’s not forget that community VOLUNTEER INVESTMENTS were totally ignored as a viable revenue contribution.

15. Starve a city of funds, Arlene? Most financially healthy cities have robust economic development programs that generate sales tax from new investment, innovative business expansion and retention programs, new property tax sources. This “open your wallets yet again, taxpayers” approach is borderline laughable. This is not how you run a sustainable city. And Joe’s comment about a zero-based budget is spot on. What does it cost to run Edmonds? Voters need the truth without an agenda for what certain groups want, which is often opaque – and costly.

    • Oh my goodness… zero based budget is what Elon Musk tried to do with DOGE. It has been an absolute disaster for the federal government. They have wasted so much money, firing, rehiring, firing, rehiring. They cut programs, then brought them back, and the resulting mess has caused great dysfunction in the government. For instance, Noem had to justify every expense herself using this process so FEMA couldn’t get authorization to jump start help during the Texas flash flood disaster this summer. I am sure there are some good budget reforms to try, but please, not zero-based budgeting. Musk has shown how that is not the road to travel.

16. I would like to make one correction to my comment from this morning. I stated that KEV was given 30 minutes to address the Council( which was accurate), but opponents were given only 3 minutes each.
    This was patently unfair, and demonstrates that 5 of the 7 Council Members, and the Administration
    don’t respect the thoughts of those against this Levy Lid Lift.

Comments are closed.