Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Editor:
As a former mayor of Edmonds, I’ve had the honor of guiding our community through both times of progress and moments of challenge. I know firsthand that decisions like putting a levy before voters are not made lightly. That’s why I stand with Mayor Rosen and the City Council in supporting Proposition 1 — because it’s essential to safeguarding Edmonds’ future.
Over the years, Edmonds has grown into a thriving, vibrant community, known for its charming downtown, safe neighborhoods, beautiful parks, and strong civic spirit. But this didn’t happen by accident. It was the result of thoughtful investment, sound planning, and a shared commitment to the common good.
Today, that legacy is at risk.
The city is facing a structural revenue shortfall that cannot be ignored. Costs have risen dramatically, our infrastructure continues to age, and city resources are spread too thin. Despite significant cuts, layoffs, and creative efforts to stretch resources, our city simply cannot continue providing the essential services we rely on (public safety, parks, and infrastructure) without new revenue.
Proposition 1 is a responsible step to keep Edmonds safe, and strong. It will fund the services that residents expect, and preserve the quality of life we’ve all worked hard to build. And importantly, it protects our most financially vulnerable seniors with qualified exemptions.
Leadership requires tough decisions and doing what’s right even when it’s not easy. For Edmonds, this is one of those moments.
I hope you’ll join me in voting Yes on Proposition 1 this November.
Dave Earling
Former Edmonds mayor
Dave,
Thank you for your service to Edmonds from 2011-2019.
Edmonds isn’t out of money — the city is holding $59M across all funds, including $6.6M in Internal Service Funds that could be shifted into the General Fund right now.
The issue isn’t a lack of revenue, it’s spending discipline. Yet Prop 1 locks in a permanent tax hike — over $900 a year for the average homeowner — on top of the new $6M Fire/EMS tax coming in 2026.
We don’t need higher taxes, we need people in office who know how to operate a municipal budget. Prop 1 isn’t leadership, it’s deflection.
.. the reality is, decisions made 6 years ago are impacting our community today. We need change..
Vote NO.
Well Mr Earling i’m a definite NO here’s a few reasons why; my coffee at Costco used to be $9.99, now it’s $19.99 (folgers), my heating oil for the last couple years hovers around 5.00 a gal the Edmonds sales tax alone on it now equals what it used to cost to fill the whole tank, gasoline for car outrageous, car insurance double, and so many other things , plus the City of Edmonds has charged me and my neighbors more each year on the stupid storm water billing than they charge other City residents and always has, they know it and they like it . So, this is not a City that I feel has the residents interest in mind, well “maybe” if you live in the Bowl. And seems to me most if not all of the amenities they keep threatening will end, are also in or around the Bowl. I have lived here 53 years and have watched the City change and some of the dumb things, especially in the last few years, it has been involved in. I have little to no confidence in its being efficient or responsible. And they want way too much money, with a guaranteed 6 year run of max increase’s which is another example.
Posting this on behalf of Theresa Hutchison as she is having trouble:
Former Mayor Earling, I respectfully disagree with you. Mayor Rosen and most on Council have failed the residents of Edmonds. I know you supported Mayor Rosen for mayor even though his qualifications were only being a retired PR executive and had no municipal financial experience. Yet your judgement was that he was qualified to run our city.
CM Wil Chen in a recent interview with Alicia Crank on a NW Civic Circle Podcast told everyone that the City is not broke. His words, “we [City] have money”.
Mayor Rosen has not been transparent and refuses to look at alternative budgets i.e. Diane Buckshins, former City CM, and bank examiner, and Jim Ogonowski, former Boeing Structural Engineer have presented a budget that does not require an outrageous 14.5 million dollar levy lid lift. We can have a sound and viable budget at 6 million dollars.
A vote for Prop 1 will raise our property tax rates by 130%. Since 2022 the mayor’s office budget has gone up 45%; the City Attorney’s budget has increased by 53%; and the City Compensation has gone up by 33%. This 14.5 million dollar levy lid lift is a permanent tax increase. This may be good for developers but is not good for all of Edmonds.
Save our Taxpayers. Note NO on Prop 1.
And one more comment from Theresa Hutchison:
It is hard to have confidence in our mayor when he has violated the public trust. He asks us to trust him. He ran on being transparent and yet he is not. On April 17, 2025, the Public Disclosure Commission issued a warning to the City based on a complaint I filed in February 2025 during the campaign to annex Edmonds into the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) for violations of RCW 42.17A.55. Mayor Rosen hired Liz Loomis, a PR firm, and paid her $64,000 of taxpayer dollars to promote the RFA. This is illegal use of taxpayer monies and the PDC issued him a warning. Last week Lee Reeves, an Edmonds resident and businessman filed a complaint with the PDC against the City and Keep Edmonds Vibrant for improper use of public resources and campaign coordination. Lee has given me permission to post his email should anyone care to contact him and get additional information on this PDC complaint. Lee.reeves.3@gmail.com
The mayor continues to follow the same playbook he used during the RFA annexation campaign. His Town Halls allow only his side of the property tax levy lid lift to be presented and refuses to allow the Vote No to present their side. There is another budget for Edmonds to consider – a 6 million dollar budget and levy lid lift.
We’ve lost trust in our elected officials, in our mayor. So much for integrity, ethics, and being open and transparent.
Vote NO on Prop !.
Theresa, Jean, Lee-
You have all summarized the $14.5M tax levy lift issue very well. There are just too many red flags waving re the City’s lack of fiscal discipline/good governance over the past 4-6 years, and residents are being asked to shoulder the burden with a blank check. It’s high time that the Mayor and Council do proper due diligence, evaluate all alternatives, and actually make tough decisions to get spending under control and stop the knee jerk reaction to the manufactured budget crisis by raising taxes 130%. Leadership means putting taxpayers first, demonstrating fiscal discipline, accountability, common sense, and transparency. That is all sadly lacking with the current administration. In the City’s Town Hall meeting, they refused to allow those who oppose the tax levy to present and discuss Jim Ogonowski’s alternative budget that shows the City can deliver all essential services without a $14.5M tax levy lift. Why are they not following the State Public Disclosure Laws and allowing equal time in public-sponsored meetings for opponents to present their concerns and their recommendations for alternative solutions? The only way to safeguard Edmonds’ future is to keep the city affordable for all residents, not just the top 10% who are well-off.
Well said everyone.
I believe there is no logical rational reason to vote yes for the levy – but I am still going to vote yes. I understand the City thinks one time grants for permanent costs and programs math. I am even formulating a conspiracy theory where the new excess funds will be used to acquire the Burlington property and redevelopment there – probably totally irrational but much more rational than my yes vote. At any rate – a Florida 5 bedroom 5 bath house in a gated secure community on a golf course (about 900k) – the HOA would cost about 1,500 – 2k per month – so I look at it as Edmonds HOA – where the return is watching what global problem we solve through splash pads and urban walkability and flavor of the month grants and proclamations. Maybe there is some validity in the excess levy funds being used to acquire property…..hmm, you can never trust the Man.
I have been under the impression that a significant number of individuals in the town are casting their votes in favor, supported by elaborate justifications that are not based on any financial considerations, but rather stem from an unthinking tribal allegiance to the existing administration. Certainly, collateral damage to seniors and those of limited income is completely being disregarded or downplayed. Furthermore, I suspected that the proponents of the levy are counting on a significant number of people being too busy, too lazy, or simply not informed enough to understand the extent of the city’s financial mismanagement, its costs, or lack of reasonable path forward to reverse this malfeasance.
Brian, please don’t assume that a yes vote is based on allegiance to our current electeds. I’m not a fan by any means, nor did I support the previous mayor’s approach. I’m not swayed by developers. The fact that I don’t comment on MEN in detail about the financial analysis I’ve done, which includes reading the alternate budget Jim O put together, doesn’t mean I am busy, lazy, or not informed. It means nothing more than the fact that unlike the handful of people who are commenting over and over on every story, multiple times a day, on why they’re voting no, I’ve chosen to have these discussions offline. And like many, I am juggling a 50+ hour/week day job, caregiving responsibilities, living with a disability, and, yes, spending a lot of time reviewing city financials to educate myself. A lot of time.
And a shout out to my friend Roger Pence who is doing a good job of messaging for the pro folks and encouraging meaningful dialogue.
Kim, great to hear that you’ve taken the time to review city financials to educate yourself and make your own informed decisions. However, for some the phony argument that anyone opposing this idea just wants a “free lunch” seems rooted in blind tribal loyalties, as it’s a completely nonsensical claim with no basis in fact. It seems clear that this argument is intended to manipulate those who haven’t taken the time to consider both sides.
Kim, I appreciate your comment. And I acknowledge the time and care you are investing in studying our city’s current situation.
I’m one of those folks who comments regularly. I’ve never done anything like this before in my life and hardly recognize myself.
But as a retired CPA, it so bothers me that the predominant message out there is so carefully worded and so selective with facts, that my neighbors in Edmonds are not getting the whole picture.
These two tax increases coming together are going to be a shock for many people when they receive their property tax statements in February. Many folks are struggling already.
My purpose as a professional accountant was to provide information that is accurate, complete and timely, to support users in making an informed decision.
I’m passionate about that, which is why I keep commenting.
I agree with everything that you are saying. Admittedly, my logic is irrational. I am voting to reduce my own personal funding to give to a City that has proven itself less than responsible or good stewards of the funds the Citizens provide to them. I dont agree with the development focused soft ball approach, I didn’t agree with being told to “get in line” and hence resigning from the Planning Board, I don’t agree with 50% of what is happening; so perhaps it’s a touch of the Stockholm syndrome – but I suspect its like g8ving money to a junkie at both the State and Local level – it’s never enough to meet their insatiable appetite.
I make a living fixing private equity portfolio Companies and SPAC acquisitions. I am pretty good at reading the awesome budget Jim put forth. I cannot explain why I am voting yes other than that I am voting yes. It is 100% counterintuitive to protecting myself and voting in my best interest- but heck, I’ve done dumber things, and based on the recent news, it’ll get me good and primed for when Strom and Company come a knocking for the next round of tax increases to cover the most recent shortfall their team has managed to create. Practice makes perfect.
If there weren’t so many questions regarding yes, there’s money, no, there’s no money, I might be willing to again tighten my belt, but as it stands now, I do not trust anything that being said to we citizens. My vote is no. And by the way, what’s the status on searching for the 4.3 million dollars that’s unaccounted for? It’s not rocket science, just follow the money. You’ll find it, if you really want to.