Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Key takeaways:
- Police, parks, planning, public works and court budget amendments approved with few changes.
- More budget discussions took place Wednesday at 5 p.m. We’ll report on that Thursday.
- City sales tax revenues remain flat.
Edmonds City Councilmembers approved most of Mayor Mike Rosen’s proposed 2026 mid-biennium budget modification Tuesday night, with a handful of amendments to eliminate some requested positions in the 2026 budget.
The amended 2026 budget assumes the $14.5 million property tax levy lid lift before voters Nov. 4 will pass. The lift aims to get Edmonds out of its current budget crisis and on the road to long-term financial stability.
Acting City Administrator Todd Tatum kicked off discussion by acknowledging a year of change and opportunity. “We have been disassembled and have an opportunity to put things back together in a way that’s more transparent,” he said.
The budget hearing and discussion provided more detailed descriptions, impacts and staffing for projects, programs and services for levy lid lift priority areas: Police, Parks, Planning, Streets and Sidewalks.
Edmonds Proposition 1, the $14.5 million levy lid lift, is on the Nov. 4 general election ballot.
Fewer than 15 people showed up in council chambers, another 12 were online and just four people spoke during the public hearing on the budget, which Rosen unveiled during a budget address last week. Public comments focused on transparency and financial accountability.
Councilmember Michelle Dotsch voted against most amendments. “The budget… is without any projections or strategic outlook. It’s very concerning,” she said. “We don’t know where this is going to go, especially in the six years [of the levy lid lift].
Full council video can be found here.
Police budget
The amended police budget adds $1.63 million. Since 2024, the department lost 10 positions, reducing the number of officers from 58 to 48. This budget restores funding for 10 officers, including:
Four patrol officers, a crime analyst, two traffic officers (one is a corporal/supervisor), one parking enforcement officer (non-commissioned position) and a police services assistant. The budget moves emergency management and human services into the police department and restores the now-grant-funded position of victim advocate/social worker.
These positions will enhance response time and crime prevention, focus on proactive policing in high crime areas and address speeding and safety, Police Chief Loi Dawkins said. It also includes additional support for public records due to increased red-light camera requests
With these positions “I would expect to see a level of efficiency that’s increased,” Dawkins said. That comes from having back-ups for public disclosure, managing evidence and processing reports.
There was enthusiastic support for traffic enforcement from all councilmembers, in neighborhoods ranging from Meadowdale to Firdale. “The Meadowdale community has concerns,” said Councilmember Will Chen.
Councilmember Vivian Olson made a motion to remove one of five traffic enforcement positions to free up funds to move around funds as necessary. That motion did not pass.
Councilmember Dotsch asked about expected revenue from adding more enforcement officers. Dawkins said she focuses on the problems to be addressed like speeding, DUI patrols and safety, and couldn’t not provide details on revenue.
The idea was raised about adding more automated cameras. “Ferry traffic issues, neighborhood issues, [cameras] won’t necessarily address those issues, especially in neighborhoods,” Dawkins said, adding those issues are best addressed through a traffic enforcement officer.
Councilmember Jenna Nand said she appreciated the human touch with enforcement. “It’s an opportunity to educate,” she said,
The police budget amendment passed 6-1, with Dotsch opposed.
Parks budget
The parks department lost 33 positions (some very part-time) during the financial crisis. Currently, eight vacancies remain. Edmonds residents saw restroom closures, dry parks, more graffiti and more trash.
Director Angie Feser reminded the council that parks manages 47 parks covering 235 acres and one mile of well-used waterfront.
It’s been a tough year, she said. For example, “April was very dry. We lost a lot of plants. They look dormant. They’re not. They’re dead,” Feser said.
The amended budget adds $1.33 million. It restores funding for four maintenance workers, seven seasonal beach rangers (each of those positions are part time, working 300 hours per year), a program assistant and an environmental education and sustainability coordinator.
It adds two new positions: a new lead maintenance worker to work and manage park maintenance teams and a capital park planner. The planner will focus on trail and bridge design and update projects like the underwater dive park.
It also upgrades the volunteer coordinator from part time to full time.
The parks positions support routine maintenance, create opportunity to plan long-term solutions, maintain the health of natural resources and beaches, ensure continued operations and offerings of parks and recreational facilities, and restore Frances Anderson Center staffing, Feser said
“This budget gives us the ability to plan and manage comprehensive solutions for park amenities and environmental stewardship,” she said, adding it takes about 1,000 hours of work each week to keep parks in shape. Right now, the department has about 650 hours available. That work includes everything from cleaning trash cans to mowing lawns.
One priority project is 45-acre Yost Park, which includes improvements to trails and bridges. “Probably one-year planning and design and permits. Then another year to do the improvements,” Feser said.
Currently, the department is focused on emergency deferred maintenance and looks forward to the bigger projects, she said.
Councilmember Olson wondered why the volunteer coordinator is full time instead of the previous half time. Feser said that person has a unique skill set to organize a lot of people who can generally only work on the weekend or with an Eagle Scout on a big project.
Councilmember Chris Eck strongly supported the full-time volunteer. The community asks “why aren’t we doing more to utilize volunteers who are very eager to help us. It seems to me by installing this staff we’re actually gearing up to be able to do what the community is asking,” Eck said.
Nand asked about using AmeriCorps and other service programs from the federal government. “It would be great if we could offer up our salmon habitat or marsh or other places that desperately need help,” she said.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if this volunteer position could work with other departments and not just parks. Feser said she could see that idea working with rain gardens, which may fall into the public works department, or something similar.
Even with the requested new money, Feser set expectations for recovery. “It takes time to rebuild a program,” she said.
The parks budget amended budget passed 5-2, with Councilmembers Dotsch and Chen voting against.
Planning and development budget
Councilmembers noted this department, which manages everything from code enforcement to permits and the comprehensive plan and housing, had shown the most change in 2025, including new tools and training like LEAN business practices, data and metrics to track progress and new technology to improve customer services. The council also acknowledged new unfunded state mandates for permitting and the changes in housing density.
The amended budget adds $1.6 million to the department.
The funding would proactively manage growth, improve customer service in permitting and code enforcement, and move economic development to planning and development to improve community and business project and program alignment, said Director Mike Clugston.
It returns funding to five positions, including two current part-time administrative assistants, two planners and an environmental programs manager. These positions would, in part, support new unfunded state mandates on quick permit approval. Failure to turn permits quickly would result in lost funds for the city. “We are going to see more larger buildings on Highway 99 and the hubs and centers,” Clugston said, referencing the need for permit experts.
The proposal adds three new positions: housing program coordinator, code enforcement officer and economic development manager – a position recently held by Acting City Administrator Todd Tatum at the director level.
Councilmember Dotsch questioned the need for a housing program coordinator. Councilmember Olson agreed. She said “partnering with others or another agency through an interlocal agreement” might be an option. Other councilmembers saw the position’s duties more broadly, similar to a collector and distributor of housing information and opportunity connecting people to financing and funding partners.
Clugston said he sees the “housing program manager, economic development manager and environmental programs manager as catalysts. They work in planning and development but also go out and cross boundaries. We’ve been siloed to some extent in the past.”
The motion to remove the housing coordinator position failed with Chen, Olsen and Dotsch voting yes.
A second motion was made to remove the proposed structural engineer/plans examiner. Olson said she didn’t see the volume of work. Councilmember Paine disagreed and said she sees green building work in the future. Director Clugston said the engineer would also be reviewing plans.
That motion passed 4-3.
The amended budget – without the structural engineer – passed 4-3 with Olson, Chen and Dotsch voting no.
Public works budget
The public works budget included the “Streets, Sidewalks and Supporting Facilities” portion of the levy.
The amended budget adds $1.8 million. It includes addressing the backlog of street maintenance, building new sidewalks and ADA ramps, and removing trip hazards. It Includes construction work on city-owned buildings and daily janitorial services and long-term planning for larger projects.
It restores funding for five employees, including two concrete workers for sidewalks, a custodian and maintenance workers. It includes new funding for 6.5 employees including custodians, a building maintenance and operations facilities project manager, and an engineering permit tech.
This amended budget passed 5-2 with Chen and Dotsch voting no.
Court budget
Edmonds Municipal Court requested three new court clerks to manage red-light camera infractions and the growing number of public disclosure requests. Red-light camera revenue cannot be used until tickets are processed.
The discussion daylighted an issue regarding ticket tracking. Currently all infractions – red-light cameras, speeding in a school zone and, parking in a disabled spot – are in one ‘bucket’ for accounting purposes. It takes time to separate out the red-light camera infractions. The court, like many courts, is using outdated technology and is waiting on a new system.
Other proposed amendments
Councilmember Nand requested adding $20,000 for audio visual equipment. Currently council AV issues fall to the city clerk. That motion failed.
A second measure to restore funding of $10,000 to the council training budget passed. Councilmembers noted that new councilmembers will benefit from the training. That motion passed 7-0.
What’s next for the budget
The council will tackle a few leftover pieces of budget discussion in a special session Wednesday night at 5 p.m.
The numbers
The 2025-2026 budget had two buckets of money to understand. The first is the $6 million interfund loan for 2025 that must be repaid with interest within two years (2026/2027). The modified 2026 budget pays for that.
The second is another $6 million already factored in to the 2026 budget.
The original 2026 budget assumed a $6 million levy lid lift in 2025 with funds delivered in 2026. That $6 million lift became $14.5 million. That leaves an additional $8 million in new money going forward, not $14.5 million.
If the $14.5 million levy does not pass, the council will use cuts outlined in Resolution 1570 to balance the budget. Those cuts will be debated between Nov. 5 and Dec. 31 when a final balanced budget must be submitted.
In terms of revenue generation, the city is exploring several other taxes, including a business and occupations tax, a transportation benefit district tax and a cultural services sales tax. The council approved a public safety tax earlier this year.
Councilmember Nand asked City Finance Director Richard Gould if there comes a point where Edmonds has too much sales tax and it depresses local business. “I’m sensitive to what our local retailers are feeling with the Trump tariffs,” she said.
“I am working with Todd and the mayor on that right now,” Gould said. “What’s the best use of this and how does it impact the community?”
City financial update
Gould shared the monthly financial update. Sales tax revenues are higher than the same period as last year, but remain flat and are sliding downward slightly for this year.
Gould reported that red-light cameras had generated $1.3 million since June with labor costs at $360,000. The outlook is a slight downward trend in September.
Councilmember Olson asked detailed questions about capital projects, including funding and timelines and who would perform the work. “If we could just get the transparency and see where those numbers slide to… this was one of the commenters’ questions,” Olson said, referring to public comments earlier in the evening.
Gould agreed to provide the council with updated documents.
Throughout the city financial update, councilmembers asked for documentation surrounding vacancies, balance reserves and financial reporting that will make transactions and data easier to understand.
This is why you vote no they already have your money spent. My guess is we will be just fine if the levy doesn’t pass. I mean the citizens will be just fine. Government on the other hand will just have to live with less just like the rest of us. Seems fair to me.
For those who want a textbook example of how a tax-and-spend policy gets rubber-stamped into existence, I strongly encourage you to watch the video linked in this article. What you’ll witness isn’t a deliberative budget process—it’s a performance of compliance masquerading as governance.
I challenge anyone to identify a moment in that meeting where the council seriously engaged with the actual budgetary figures. Not projections. Not cost-benefit analysis. Not even a basic acknowledgment of the long-term fiscal implications. It was as if the numbers were an afterthought—an inconvenient detail to be glossed over in favor of political expediency.
With the exception of Councilmember Dotsch, and occasionally Councilmember Chen, the rest of the council appeared content to nod along with the administration’s proposals. No probing questions. No pushback. No effort to reconcile the proposed spending with the city’s financial realities. I’ve never seen a rubber stamp come out so quickly or so willingly.
CM Dotsch rightly pointed out a glaring omission: the budget modification lacked any forecast, a clear violation of the Finance Policy that requires forward-looking fiscal documentation. That’s not just a procedural oversight—it’s a breach of public trust and a disregard for the ordinances that are supposed to guide responsible governance.
This wasn’t budgeting. It was budgeting theater. And if this is the standard we’re setting, then transparency and accountability are on life support.
Assuming the $14,5 levy will pass? Why would anyone of sound mind invest the time putting together a budget based on a $14.5 million dollar cash infusion that is yet to be voted on? The arrogance is stunning. Where’s the budget if it doesn’t pass? If I wasn’t a no vote before I am now.
The Edmonds’ mayor and council’s voting to spend money that isn’t in the books is a textbook demonstration of how a business goes bankrupt. But not the government, which can just raise taxes and keep spending like there’s no tomorrow.
Never mind those who have to pay those taxes, which usually end up losing their properties, which are taxed before any gains, just on speculative value that varies at the whim of government officials that only look for means to fleece taxpayers’ money. Let’s not forget that the property taxes usually go up following the speculative real estate values, even though their owners did not sell them. Even the Federal Government does not tax unrealized gains. But the state and the municipal governments are too busy spending and concocting with their partners in crime (e.g. developers, “firemen”, etc.) and do not care about it.
I remember Warren Buffet saying he does not invest in a business he does not understand. Right now Edmonds is a business very far from anyone’s comprehension, hence we see unbridled spending and unquenchable thirst for more money, backed by blackmails and fear tactics of “selling parks”, “increasing crime”, etc. Opportunists are flocking around counting on cash-strapped homeowners to get their properties on pennies on the dollar, sign “consulting” contracts, etc.
People better wake up fast.
While the council focuses on the upcoming budget, we still have a city to run—and the monthly financial reports are quietly revealing serious concerns. Councilmember Olson asked Finance Director Gould pointed questions, and Gould had no ready answers. That’s not just unfortunate—it’s unacceptable.
The backstory: the mayor’s proposed budget modification shows a $2.3 million revenue shortfall for 2025 under the vague category “Interfund Services Charges.” Yet this reduction doesn’t appear anywhere in the monthly financial statements. There’s no breakdown, no reconciliation, no explanation. Wouldn’t a $2.3 million drop in revenue warrant council attention?
Instead, it was passed off without analysis. Gould simply reported the figure, and the council—aside from Olson’s inquiry—treated it like a non-issue. This isn’t fiscal oversight. It’s fiscal neglect.
The lack of scrutiny is especially troubling given that the budget assumes the passage of a $14.5 million levy. If council can’t interrogate current discrepancies, how can residents trust them to manage future funds responsibly?
This kind of budgeting theater erodes public trust. We need councilmembers who challenge assumptions, demand transparency, and uphold the city’s financial policies. Anything less is a disservice to the community.
Much appreciated Jim.
I’d like to hear Niall’s opinion on this matter.
We should be able to provide critical feedback to our electeds, respectfully and without concern of harming our standing with them.
Jim, Nick,
I saw that change in the estimate for interfund service charges too and of course it brings up echos of the 2022/23 spend down of reserves which coincided with a similar anomaly in that line item. At the time, then-director Turley assured me that this was a result of an accounting change and had no impact on the net balances in the general fund accounts. I do note that both revenue and expense projections for 2025 are down so it is certainly possible that Mr Turley’s explanation still holds true and this is a wash. There isn’t enough detail for me to discern. However, I would question why we continue to budget for large interfund services charge revenues if an accounting change has been implemented which means that they will always end up being greatly reduced or eliminated.
How can training a new council member cost $10,000?
Why is the labor cost so high regarding the red-light cameras?
$360,000 being spent on labor related to red-light cameras that generated $1.3 million since June? That’s 30% of the income taken away from this revenue stream! Seems rather high.
That’s approximately a $90,000/month spend in labor! (Calculated by counting June, July, August, and September.)
How many humans are processing these tickets? How many tickets are issued? Looks like the tickets (yes, I have one) are automatically being generated and sent out.
Anybody else see this labor cost as high?
Why does the “outlook for September looks like a slight downward trend?” My guess is that Edmonds experiences a drop off in visitors as autumn sets in.
Please weigh in here. Am I alone in thinking this?
The arrogance of this Mayor and the majority of this Council is unbelievable. Why would anyone agree to give more money to this incompetence. I’m a NO on the 14.5 levy and a NO on CM Eck. Two new and hopefully fiscally competent Council Members might be enough to right the ship or at least give more confidence our tax dollars are being spent wisely before we are asked to pony up more.
The world will not end with a NO vote but it will require this Mayor and Council to roll up their sleeves and do what they should have been doing this past year and live and budget within their means, just like every family they are asking to pay more taxes has to do. If the community does not like what that reality looks like we can vote again on a fact based levy number rather than this con job.
It seems like there is never a shortage of energy among those who want to criticize and complain. Am I the only one who remembers how loudly people clamored for details about how the $14.5m was going to be spent? Now that those details have been provided, the criticism becomes, “How can you waste your time debating how to spend money that hasn’t been approved?”
As to complaints that the meeting only served to rubber stamp decisions already made, Will Chen made it clear in his interview with Alicia Crank, live-streamed on September 12th, that much of the time at the Council budget retreat earlier that day was spent discussing the allocation of the $14.5m Levy Lift funds. I’m sure that’s where any push-back and questioning would have taken place. The agenda for that retreat also shows 2 hours were allocated for projections and revenue. Minutes and video of the retreat are posted for all to see.
That said, I do applaud the regular citizens have taken the time to dig into the financial condition of the City. I, too, find the current financial reports are woefully incomplete. Probably 99.9% of the population don’t even look at them and the other 0.1% want the full set of accounts. And please, can we get budgets and reports in a spreadsheet-readable format?
The estimated Social Security COLA for 2026 is projected to be around 2.7% to 2.8%.
Just in time for the Levy Lift..
…Just Sayin’
I wonder will this first 14.5 million actually be more because they get to add the cost of inflation? A reduction of projected revenues would indicate one of two things or both one things are slowing down because of our current economic environment and or our estimators really don’t have a clue, the buying power of the people has been cut the people are spending less on wants, which is largely what Edmonds business depends on and the city wants to add even further burden on the people that are likely to be the ones that provide the basis for these businesses to exist. So on my rare time out in Edmonds today the people I saw patronizing are likely the ones that will be most affected by the tax increase. But hey if the government is well funded who cares if our business and citizens suffer. I got it, the government with all their money after their cut can subsidies people and business to keep them afloat, wonder how long that will work before really bad things start to happen? Our city government needs the taxes less than the citizens of Edmonds, end of story.