Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) opened a case Tuesday, Oct. 7, against the City of Edmonds regarding the city’s work on Proposition 1, the $14.5 million property tax levy lid lift that will appear before voters on the Nov. 4 general election ballot.
The complaint, filed by Edmonds resident Lee Reeves, alleges the city violated RCW 42.17A.555 regarding the “use of public facilities or resources for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot measure.”
This first phase is an assessment of facts. It is case number 179717. The entire complaint can be found here.
In his complaint, Reeves alleges the City of Edmonds used city staff time, official presentations and public communications platforms to present the “necessity” of the levy lid lift and “consequences of its passage or failure.”
Reeves states internal emails also support the allegation.
Specifically, Reeves alleges the city:
- “Employed persuasive, emotive and repetitive language.”
- “Linked passage of the LLL (levy lid lift) to the only positive outcomes and failure only to exclusively negative consequences.”
- “Consistently framed the LLL as the sole responsible or reasonable option without providing truly neutral analysis.”
Reeves’ PDC filing includes links to city presentations and YouTube videos for the public and copies of emails.
My Edmonds News contacted the city about the complaint, and was told it was received Wednesday at the close of business. The following is the city’s preliminary response:
- “Cities are responsible for providing the public with information about ballot measures. Providing education is not equal to promoting a position.”
- “Opponents of ballot measures often use PDC complaints as a tactic to create doubt and confusion around a measure.”
- “We are confident that our public outreach has been informative and fully compliant with legal requirements.”
The PDC has 90 days to either resolve the case or take it to case status review, which is an investigation.
During the first 90-day initial review they can:
- Dismiss as unfounded or frivolous.
- Resolve through a reminder or warning.
- Remediate through a reminder, which is less severe than a warning.
- Create a statement of understanding in which the complainant admits the infraction and pays a small penalty.
The commission may also choose to convert the matter to a formal investigation and matters are resolved through an administrative hearing or a full commission hearing.
Here is a link to the PDC enforcement guide.
In my opinion the city hasn’t been fair or balanced that said it is hard to work against your interest so I wouldn’t expect it but I could expect some of our elected leaders to be outspoken against the proposal, I don’t seem to hear much about leaders decent so they must all be truly vested in the proposition and have no true concern for their constituents. Facts of life, not surprised at all. Drain the swamp.
I do not see anything in the “evidence” that proves a violation. This seems like a tactic from the No side to muddy the waters. What was wrong with putting on the town halls? I don’t get it. The City has a financial problem. The No side had been complaining that the City is not telling them anything. When the City tries to tell us what is going on, the No side files a complaint. I am really surprised that the No side is feeling so antagonistic that they decided to go to such extremes.
Arlene, I am the campaign manager of Keep Edmonds Affordable, the registered campaign opposing the tax levy. The No campaign did not file this complaint. And we do not plan on hunting for campaign finance violations done by the City or the vote Yes folks in the future weeks. We are quite busy running our campaign and engaging voters to discuss the issue of affordability in our home town. As a practical matter, we don’t have time to follow at any level of detail what the other guys are doing. This election season is going to be over in a little over 3 weeks.
The reporter stated that the complaint was filed by an Edmonds resident.
Lee Reeves is prominent part of your group, and Jim Ogonowski is the architect of your alternate plan and in the comment below he supports this complaint as well. Lee Reeves has a prominent photo at the top of your supporter page. He applied to be part of the Con committee last summer, though he wasn’t selected. So he does reflect poorly on the No campaign since he is tied to your group. You can see how it is very hard to understand who really stands for the No side, since they both seem to be an integral part of your No campaign. I am glad you have come out as not supporting this complaint. That is very important for voters to understand.
Hi (again), Arlene..
You are correct – on all of this – nothing to hide from me.
Reflect poorly? Not sure if I’d agree with that. I would argue the opposite – small business owner (business was recently featured in Sip Magazine and Wine Spectator), UW Alum.. ran former State Senator Rodney Toms’ re-election campaign to the WA State Senate (48th LD) – prior to him becoming Senate Majority Leader..back when Marko Liias was a State Rep… worked at Gordon Thomas Honeywell (lobbied for red light cameras before they were even a thing..) Spent 5.5 at Oracle, and now I’m at AMD.
It’s campaign season, Arlene. Credibility matters.
Lee is an honest, hard working person. I enjoy reading his opinions as opposed to yours. At least he is talking truths and facts, and your opinion is just whiney. Do you work for the Prop 1 yes committee? It’s ok to give your opinion but stop slandering the people of this no on Prop 1 including Lee Reeves and me.
Hi Arlene, please read my comment again. And do not make things up. My statement is black and white. The Keep Edmonds Affordable campaign did not file the complaint. Have a nice day, and try to stay dry. The cloudbursts are starting.
Arlene,
I’ll take your comment about me being the architect of an alternative plan as a compliment—because it’s true. After a 40-year career managing increasingly complex and high-stakes projects, many of which dwarf the scale and complexity of our city’s budget, I’ve developed a strong grasp of what effective program management looks like. It’s not just about spreadsheets and forecasts—it’s about foresight, accountability, and the ability to adapt before a crisis hits.
Over the past five years, I’ve invested significant time studying Edmonds’ financial structure, tracking trends, and offering constructive suggestions to city leadership. These weren’t off-the-cuff ideas—they were grounded in data and aimed at preventing exactly the kind of fiscal cliff we’re now facing. Unfortunately, those efforts were met with silence or dismissal.
So yes, I’ve become more vocal. Not out of frustration alone, but out of a commitment to responsible governance. The alternative plan I’ve proposed isn’t radical—it’s a pragmatic, more affordable middle ground compared to the mayor’s $14.5 million permanent levy. It’s built on existing resources, smarter fund management, and a willingness to legislate rather than default to taxation alone.
If we want sustainable solutions, we need to stop treating dissent as obstruction and start recognizing it as civic engagement. That’s what I’m doing.
Seems ironic that someone who is so concerned about waste of taxpayers money would force the city to defend against a lawsuit.
Rob,
I find your comment incredibly off-base. Are you genuinely suggesting that we should turn a blind eye when elected officials misuse their authority and public resources to influence voters? That kind of complacency is exactly what erodes public trust in government.
Let’s not forget: the City of Edmonds was already found in violation of Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) rules earlier this year. They got off with a warning. Now, with Proposition 1, the allegation suggests they may be pushing the boundaries again—using city staff time, official presentations, and public platforms to frame the levy as the only “responsible” option, while painting failure in exclusively negative terms.
This isn’t about opposing the levy—it’s about ensuring the process is lawful, transparent, and fair. When public agencies use persuasive language and selectively frame outcomes, they cross the line from education into advocacy. That’s not just unethical—it’s potentially illegal under RCW 42.17A.555.
The complaint filed with the PDC isn’t a distraction—it’s a necessary check on power. This process exists to uncover the truth and, ideally, hold those responsible accountable. If we don’t demand integrity from our institutions, then we’re complicit in their failures.
Accountability isn’t optional. It’s the foundation of a functioning democracy.
RCW 42.17A.555 allows:
(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry;
(3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency.
There were many inquiries about what the 14 million dollars of the levy lift would be spent on. They tried to answer that. Also, explaining the issue of the financial problem through a town hall is a normal part of the City’s duties. The No side just asks for information and then turns around and says the City should not be saying anything. I don’t get it. They have not said to vote yes on the levy lift. There is a real problem and the City officials proposed a solution to let Edmonds’ voters decide if they want to cut services or raise the property tax. It is up to us to decide by a democratic process what to do. Just because the No side doesn’t like the Council decisions, doesn’t mean they should accuse the City of this. I think it puts the No side in a very negative light. It makes you seem overly aggressive, instead of reasonable, thoughtful people. It makes me trust less what you say.
Arlene,
At this stage, it’s simply a complaint—one the PDC has determined may warrant further review. Let’s allow the process to unfold and give the commission the time to do its job. Once they’ve reached a conclusion, we can revisit the conversation with the benefit of their findings.
Thank you. Irregardless I will vote no. As many have stated in the past the government does not pay reckless overspending on our behalf. Why would I pay off their reckless habits??
I certainly see your point. On the national level the Democrats are constantly wasting our time and money in the courts. We voted President Trump in and he is doing a fine job.
How is this relevant to the discussion? I’m undecided on prop 1 but if you’re saying that Trump ha anything to do with a side then that side has instantly lost credibility in my eyes.
Josh, I agree this is not relevant at all, but I don’t think we can know which side he is on. I don’t see him listed on either of the websites, Yes or No, and I don’t remember previous posts by him. I would just write him off as a random voter who doesn’t like Democrats, but that doesn’t say which side he will vote for, unless he wants to clear that up himself.
Josh Winskill. I am undecided myself, but I can assure you the Levy Lift situation might have more people who are Dems who own here that are concerned about displacement as to many the money for the levy and the RFA are too much. It’s a free country and I am not a fan of DT myself. Carl is a nice guy I’ve never met him but he has lived in Edmonds for a very long time and he is a darn good artist too. I am not a republican I am sure this levy lift situation isn’t about liking or disliking any State or Federal officials etc. it’s a local thing. I have lived and owned here in Edmonds for 33 years. I have watched the way things have been handled here for a long time and it’s no longer sustainable. I am a registered Dem, but I view myself as a Centrist now in my politics. I think of the Levy No voters, I do know they are Dems. A few republicans splattered in there too. That’s a good thing to a Centrist as both sides both views are equally as important to property taxpayers. Have a nice weekend. Mariners rocked whew! and tomorrow wow Seahawks, Cinnamon Rolls Cocoa and the Mariners again! Yes! Fun awaits. Are you from Edmonds Josh?
Part 1 of comments: The City has responded to MEN in regards to Mr Reeves PDC complaint by saying “Opponents of ballot measures often use PDC complaints as a tactic to create doubt and confusion around a measure.” Laughable. More smoke and mirrors from the mayor and his excellent PR skills at work. “Trust me” he tells us.
I filed a PDC complaint on February 24, 2024 regarding the City’s, Mayor Rosen’s, misuse of public funds. He had hired a PR firm – Liz Loomis Public Affairs (LLPA) – and paid $64,000 of taxpayer dollars to promote the annexation of Edmonds into the Regional Fire Authority (RFA). I stated in my complaint “Based on the evidence outlined below, it appears that public funds may have been improperly used for advocacy purposes, rather than neutral education, in violation of Washington State law and constitutional principles”. The mayor cried ‘innocent’ when he responded to my complaint just as he is doing now in Mr Reeves PDC complaint. However, the PDC didn’t believe him and issued him, the City, a warning on April 17, 2025. The PDC case file is #167685 if anyone wishes to research and verify my words.
Today it appears that the mayor and most of council are again using city resources to promote a ballot measure – a 14.5 million levy lid lift – a total affront and unnecessary burden to the taxpayers of Edmonds. This time they have the YES! Campaign backing the mayor’s ballot measure along with the Edmonds Police Officers Association (EPOA) which has donated $10,000 to the YES! Campaign. It was only back on December 9,2024 at a city council meeting when the EPOA President Will Morris stated “We don’t feel great about our department’s spending and we want to be the ones to step up and say, ‘We should cut more,’” htpp://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/Edmonds-police-officers-assicaition-well-take-more-budget-cuts-to maintain-our-department/ Why the 180 degree turn to now support the 14.5 million dollar levy lid lift – turning their backs on the citizens of Edmonds whom have supported them many years and whom the EPOA has said many times they love serving? EPOA President Morris, please respond to the citizens of Edmonds.
Part 2 of comments: Mayor Rosen ran for election on transparency, integrity, and respect. Yet it appears that he has failed on all three. He tried to hide his backroom deals with Liz Loomis Public Affairs (LLPA) to promote the RFA annexation causing a homeowner with a million dollar property to pay an additional approx. $1000 for fire/EMS – check your tax bill in January. And so much for respecting the folks who elected him on the basis that he was a man of integrity and would be honest and transparent. The PDC warning showed he was anything but transparent and honest. Now he is asking us to trust him and vote for his absurd 14.5 million dollar levy lid lift with no justification for it – no transparency, honesty, or integrity. And no respect for the electorate.
Perhaps the PDC will pass on the mayor and City’s dishonest dealings to our State Attorneys General Office since the April 17, 2025 warning wasn’t enough to stop his apparent duplicity.
Theresa Campa Hutchison
Edmonds Resident
I am surprised that Arlene doesn’t know who Carl is he’s on FB or was and his posts I saw were mainly Art related with sites to view Artists all over the world. I haven’t looked for a long time as my FB is all messed up and I basically only have family and a couple friends from my hometown far far away from WA state. I don’t much care for Social Media as it became so politicized I no longer had much fun looking at the main feed. I didn’t even join FB until 2014 and it was fun then just mainly friends reconnecting from all over the country. To be honest if I could figure out how to do it I would cancel my FB ha. But its just not that easy. I’m not that into computers but I do like MEN. It’s a great place to get the beat on local issues and events and during election times it gets pretty hairy. The Levy lift is about costs to individual property owners both parties. Many have lived here a very long time and some you see post a lot are not longtime Edmonds property owners or renters…Most of the short timers it seems are from Seattle area or CA. It does encourage research that helps to show which side of the coin.
To me Josh extreme politics and or ideals are dangerous. The far R is to me dangerous, the far Left the same, dangerous. I love the walk down the center it opens doors to much more as far as friends or just acquaintances are concerned. Apparently 48 % of the country now identify as Centrists or maybe some are registered as Independents but there are not enough of those to do much on a Fed level. For instance, Bernie Sanders says he is an Independant but runs as a Democrat. Lots of that going on ha. I talk with people all over the United States L and R and in the middle. I get along with most of them and those who are mean spirited I just ignore. That’s easy on a broad national media scene but not as easy in your own nest I have found. I do prefer to be nice but sometimes I am not nice especially if I see self-interest in a comment rather than interest and caring for all of our citizens in our entire city. I live in 5 corners and we have a lot of nice people here, all cultures, all ages, all income brackets. I love it here in my area and hope to see it grow with businesses and inclusions and markets all that stuff.
Arlene,
You say: “You can see how it is very hard to understand who really stands for the No side, since they both seem to be an integral part of your No campaign.”
KEA, the “No side” has an impressive list of community supporters, including their background, years of residence, profession:
https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/supporters
Each supporter has their own voice. Lee’s PDC complaint is one of his ways of supporting a No vote.
Contrast this with KEV’s support of a Yes vote. You are a Yes voter. Can you find anything on KEV’s website about who they are, years of residence, professions. Anything?
https://keepedmondsvibrant.org
If so, please share with us. I know their backgrounds, professions, years of residence, development stance, only because I watched their 5-27-25 presentation to Council.
KEV’s lack of transparency mirrors Mayor/Council lack of transparency. Aren’t you the least bit curious why that is?