Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Editor:
While in no way suggesting that Diane Buckshnis was telling lies at Monday night’s Edmonds Civic Roundtable event, her handout and responses were long on statistics and short on facts.
Despite the excellent reporting where CM Chen walked back his unfortunate “we have the money” comments, Ms. Buckshnis continued to make the argument that the city has money to cover its needs, even while acknowledging that no more than a one-time transfer of perhaps $1.5 million is available rather than the claimed $6.6 million and without acknowledging that the so-called alternative plan also relies on $5M in non-tax revenue and a $6 million levy lift.
Ms. Buckshnis also claimed that property taxes make up only 12% of city revenue and that overall city revenue has outpaced CPI. But these statistics consider all city revenue including utility funds and other revenues that are legally separate from the general fund, which is where the problem lies. The fact is that property taxes make up 26% of the city’s operating budget in the general fund and these revenues have failed to keep up with inflation.
Finally, Ms. Buckshnis stated repeatedly that only 894 people qualified for the available property tax exemptions and noted that this was only 1% of the city population. Not only is that incorrect but this number represents almost 5% of all Edmonds households and the more appropriate statistic would be what percentage of households in eligible categories (seniors, disability etc.) qualify, which is sure to be much higher.
Niall McShane
Edmonds
Hello Niall, I think you are conflating a lot of issues that Treasurer stated and she misunderstood Will Chen’s article which related to the Investment Portfolio in which Mr. Gould stated that $1.5 million maybe available. You must not of heard me bring up the Internal Service Funds actual numbers (#511 and #512) which as of July 2025 had a combined balance of over $6.4 million. The alternate plan reallocates funds in those accounts and move them to the General Fund. The City moved $1.5 million in 2020 from the Equipment Rental Fund (511) and it was legal then and would be legal now. Also, I relied on a fellow tax exemption volunteer for the number of senior citizens and Michael Tabor of Snohomish County stated that only 786 of the 16,854 residences which equates to 4.6%; but are all those residences seniors? My number came from the taking the age group of citizens 65 or older which is about 9,600. My point that all revenues should be looked at is because the General Fund and Utilities Funds both pay salaries of employees of the City. As I stated, the General Fund is underfunded, but citizens should not trust good governance of any large levy based on past discretions that Nelson and Rosen have exhibited. Financial transparency, good governance, accurate forecasting needs to happen first.
I can’t tell you how much your knowledge and research are appreciated Niall.
Thank you for taking the time and energy to educate. Whether it’s received and understood or not, is out of of your hands, but I want you to know that it is very appreciated to have a counter to repeated incorrect and misleading statements that keep getting perpetuated by the same folks day after day.
Unfair. Many on the no have provided links & offered their time to present, some serve as volunteers helping seniors with tax break process. Teresa Wippel of MEN has contact information, I’d suggest you reach out to the ‘No’, sit down for a drink of your choice and go over the data, then you can decide.
Nick – unfair? Seriously? That is precisely why every time I read a comment from a “no camp” person, I’m that much more resolved to push back.
The KEA group has proven themselves to use misleading tactics to achieve the goal- which is exactly what they accuse the city of doing.
If you go to the keep Edmonds affordable site, they have a picture of the Edmonds Police Union President, followed by what seemingly looks like an endorsement- that twists and perverts the messaging that he put out in the winter. And because of that, I’ve seen folks here repeating things from that page that are simply not true. Now that’s unfair and deceptive.
I don’t trust the folks behind KEA or their agenda. And the behavior I’ve see from them in the comments section of MEN only cements that.
They have a “me first” mentality that I can’t get behind if I want to see a city that thrives.
I see what you’re saying about the website, though I must say they include a link to the MEN article with Officer Morris full comments, and it’s not on the ‘supporters’ page. Officer Morris was very gracious, offering up solutions at the time.
It’s a tough, emotional roller coaster for some. I’ve gone out and talked to folks and monitored in email distribution back in April. Residents are concerned for their financial well-being. If you like I can send you dozens of reports from King5 & Seattle Times highlighting the regions affordability crisis, including over-reliance on property taxes?
Respect your opinion, the police for example are put in a tough position by the city, I sympathize for EPD. That said vote ‘Yes’, but also try and put yourself in the shoes of folks who have financial concerns.
I hope we all support Treasure Mackley’s organization https://www.investwanow.org/ – she recognizes the ‘upside-down tax code’.
Take care!
https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/supporters
https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/the-voice-of-citizen-leaders
Interesting how you trust his numbers.
Niall, suggest sitting down with the ‘No’ folks, level set on data.
I’d suggest residents read Mayor Rosen’s Blue Ribbon Panel summary. ‘Inflation’ & ‘I-747’ are not mentioned. Mentioned are, ‘transparency’, ‘rebuilding trust’, ‘cutting expenses’, new revenue streams, ‘creating a budget committee’ The report paints a clear picture, the previous administration overspent by nearly $20M in 2 years.
It seems the city prefers we ‘keep-quiet and color’. Residents deserve a deeper dive into how their dollars are being allocated. If not for Will Chen, citizens may not have been aware of the $77M in investments. If not for Jim Ogonowski, residents may not have been aware of the 34 city funds, or the 13 revenue streams.
Are we overspending in one fund, are their opportunities to reduce cost to residents from one tax revenue stream to offset the property tax levy?
Why are our city utilities so high? It’s my understanding the utility fund pays for infrastructure, how come that’s not discussed? We borrowed from it to help the General Fund, why are we writing it off?
Director Gould states $1.5M of the $77M investments is ‘potentially available’. Residents deserve a deeper understanding of city financials. Questions like, how are the investments used; interest rate earned; legal requirements around these funds; are we over-allocating our tax dollars to these investments?
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Memo%20re%20recommendations%20and%20conclusions%20final.pdf
Appreciate you,
Nick
Nick makes a great point here. Mayor Rosen’s forte is P.R. and Sales and he is a master craftsman. For P.R. and personality appeal he emphasizes the popular concepts of transparency, cost cutting, trust building to get elected and start the whole process off with the BRP to convince everyone of his sincerity. Then, here comes the old “bait and switch” after the BRP does it’s thing. Suddenly it changes from being mostly a big spending problem of the prior administration to being mostly a big inflation and lack of proper higher property taxation problem. You will notice that the BRP recommendation for an ongoing citizen expert advisory panel to the Council and the Mayor was conveniently and happily just ignored. In fact, qualified citizens who want to be part of the solution; indeed are begging to be part of the solution; are cast aside as the usual bunch of troublemakers. The only transparency here is how transparently inept, hypocritical and self serving your city government as now constituted has become. You can’t possibly be a successful town unless you more than double your property taxation (including RFA) right now. POPPY COCK!
Thanks, I had put in a lottery ticket as well, hoping to have the chance to bring up how misleading the 12% statistic is. Most people walked away confused, but the discrepancy is easily explained (and I have tried before when KEA folks bring up this talking point). As you state, unlike the city graphs which focused on the beleaguered General Fund, which is the fund that pays for police, parks, etc, they attempt to dilute the impact by comparing it to completely unrelated funds with separate revenue streams. They do this to make the point that slow property tax revenue growth couldn’t possibly explain the budget failures, but if you look at the fund that is actually underfunded, this is quite apparently what’s happening. I think Diane owes a comment on why she would lump in unrelated funds like Utilities, because that feels frankly dishonest to me.
Part 1 of 2
Hi Jordan, Please read the summary of Mayor Rosen’s Blue Ribbon Panel of financial experts (link below). You might find the experts report, makes mention of the ‘utility fund’, and several references to the ‘use & scrutiny’ of non-general funds.
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Memo%20re%20recommendations%20and%20conclusions%20final.pdf
‘Inflation’ is not mentioned. The 1% cap existed since 2001, the general fund was healthy until 2022, when the city went on a spending spree, of ~$20 Million in 2 years.
Take off the blinders, residents deserve a holistic approach to budgeting. You prefer we ignore,
-the fact the city replenished the general fund by borrowing from the utility fund? Utility fee revenue is up 259% since 2003. Are residents overpaying, how does the fund benefit residents, the budget, can we reduce spend to offset a levy?
-the $77 Million in investments? Director Gould states $1.5 Million ‘potentially available’. How come the city never mentioned these funds? How are these funds benefiting residents? What’s our interest rate? (Page 5 of the Blue Ribbon Panel, ‘review investment rates’).
-the 34 other funds, including the ISF funds? It’s my understanding the city has transferred (not borrowed) fund from the ISF to the general fund in the past.
Continued…
Part 2 of 2
The Blue Ribbon Panel summary mentions, ‘transparency’, ‘rebuilding trust’, ‘cutting expenses’, new revenue streams, ‘creating a budget committee’. How are you helping keep the city accountable? Do you ask them questions about the budget?
Where’s is the allegiance to the greater community, to those less privileged?
I haven’t heard anyone call out the cities claim they cut $8 Million in expenses via headcount? Where’s the data?
Here’s data from the city budgeting docs. Can you show me the $8M in cuts? Happy to look at other data you may have found.
https://d38u6hukd4et5m.cloudfront.net/laborexpenditures.png
No-one is saying borrowing or transferring from other funds fixes the problem entirely, it should be part of the solution. We should be questioning each other data, the city. No-one has all the answers, but be willing to roll up your sleeves and find your own budgeting data, sit down with folks you don’t agree with, be objective.
Thanks,
Nick
Nick, I read both your messages, and am still unsure how it answers my question. Why would we evaluate the impact of property tax by diluting it across other funds that have completely different revenue streams?
You seem to want to bring up a bunch of unrelated KEA talking points. We can discuss those at some point, but for now, I am keeping the discussion focused on the misleading statements made on Monday night. Can we please keep the discussion fact-based? Edmonds residents can choose for themselves when they have accurate information in front of them.
Jordan Rudd: “I think Diane owes a comment on why she would lump in unrelated funds like Utilities, because that feels frankly dishonest to me.”
Nick Lopez: ‘You’ll find your answer in the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Panel Executive summary.’ – The city brought this panel together to identify these very issues.
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Memo%20re%20recommendations%20and%20conclusions%20final.pdf
Nick, I cannot find anywhere in the document provided that explains why one would evaluate the impact of Property Tax by diluting it across independent budgets with separate revenues streams. Maybe you can help me out and summarize the answer.
Jordan, just as you had trouble with my comments. I’m a bit confused with your question. FYI – I DO support a $6M levy & $5M in new non-property tax revenues.
I believe Diane answers your question in this article.
https://www.edmondsbeacon.com/stories/does-the-city-need-to-bankrupt-citizens-with-high-taxes,145288
She has also stated,
“because the levy is not specifically a “general fund” supplemental levy, we must include ALL revenues and expenses” – Diane B.
“But because salaries, professional services and attorney fees can be charged to utilities; and utilities, are a major portion of capital improvement plan and capital facilities plan, one should include this revenue. Your utility rates along with the transportation, benefit district fees, and Real Estate Excise Taxes all help fund our city operating.” – Diane B.
“More importantly, every three years the projects that make up the enterprise funds are evaluated and rate recommendations take place. This practice started in 2010 and rates are predicated on these studies. So why would we not include the entire revenue stream to review since it is an integral part of City operating.” – Diane B.
Nick – yes, of course, utility funds can pay for salaries, professional services and attorney fees which are related to the ongoing operation of that utility: and our utility funds do exactly that. But they cannot pay for police or parks staff etc.
Nick, I cannot read the Beacon article, but appreciate the quotes and the good-faith effort.
That said, Diane’s rationale here is a non sequitur.
1) The levy raises property tax. Edmonds presents this lid lift as funding police, parks, streets, ie General Fund services, not utility capital. Framing the impact with an all-funds denominator (swollen by utilities and capital) obscures the question at hand.
2) Yes, some overhead can be charged to utilities, but only for utility related work. This does not address the conflict, which is that the depleted fund is highly dependent on taxes.
3) Looking at the entire revenue stream doesn’t resolve the core issue: the GF is where service levels live, and it’s the fund constrained by the 1% property-tax cap.
Thought experiment: if the utilities fund tripled for benign reasons, the percentage Diane quotes would fall. If utility costs collapsed, that percentage would rise. In both cases, the GF’s ability to fund police and parks doesn’t change, only the all-funds percentage swings. For 2026, property tax is 33% of GF-revenue but only 15% of all-funds, because all-funds is dominated by restricted utilities/capital. That’s why all-funds is the wrong denominator for a GF-services question. All-funds tells you how big the whole city enterprise is, it doesn’t tell you whether the General Fund has enough revenue to fund police, parks, streets, etc
I too have looked at your handout. You state that 75% of families are below the average income in Edmonds yet statisticians state the mean can be misleading as a limited number of very high income individuals can skew the result. A better number is the median which is $116,095. The proper demographic to look at is seniors as they are the most likely demographic to have high equity in their dwelling yet low actual income making property tax in general difficult. The high equity is due to the fact these dwelling units were purchased years if not decades ago and have significant amounts of appreciation. The low actual income is due to being retired and receiving pensions and Social Security instead of wages. It is likely a large majority of seniors fall below the median income. If there are 16854 residences, then 8,427 households fall below the median income. At 786 households with tax relief, that indicates 9.5% of households fall below the median income and are seniors or disabled individuals entitled to tax relief. Roughly 20% of the population of Edmonds is over 65.
The point is if you are using facts, use the correct and relevant facts. For example, at the meeting you attacked MFTE properties without actually knowing the details of the program. Let’s stick verifiable facts.
And the No side simply doubles down on the same tired misrepresentation of the data.
That’s easy to say, but show us your data. Sit down with us. How come no mention of the Blue Ribbon Panel findings?
They state ‘rebuild public trust’ – do you believe the city had no responsibility in the general fund crisis?
Do you believe the city has enacted proper guardrails to prevent another ‘crisis’?
Nick, The BRP also said that the city was facing a $20.5M annual shortfall.
A council member commented to me on Monday night at the ECR event that it is ironic how the No side, which accuses the city of mismanagement and lack of transparency, is advancing a plan that advocates the dissolution of the internal service funds. Those funds represent a best practice that serves to improve management and provide transparency over high cost expenses like vehicles and IT equipment. As I said in my earlier reader view column, if there is an excess of reserves in those internal service funds then that can and should be moved into the general fund. However, all the data suggests that the amount of any excess available at this time is not more than $1.5M which barely covers the projected shortfall in sales taxes for 2025 which is approaching $1M. Arguing that this magically solves the structural issue with our general fund without even acknowledging the necessity of $5M in non-tax revenue and a levy of at least $6M is disingenuous. If the ISR funds aren’t truly available (as even CM Chen acknowledges), then that minimum levy increases to at least $12.6M in the alternate scenario. This proposal is so obviously flawed that we have no option but to accept the numbers advanced by the City and vote yes on prop 1.
Spot on. Thanks for your careful attention to detail. It is stunning to me that the KEA folks resort to misinformation. They’re the ones convincing people not to vote for more taxes, their job should be easy.
On a separate note, I notice that another misrepresentation getting passed around (Diane mentioned this multiple times at this event) is that there is $3.5M mysteriously missing from the General Fund. Diane’s supporting materials don’t document this very clearly, and in fact, the change Diane references seems to be a change of accounting, nothing more. I noticed her supporting materials include emails from you (in one you seem to acknowledge this change in accounting, which implies to me that Diane is aware no money is actually missing). Do you have anything to add about this talking point, since you seem to have been there from the beginning? Thanks.
Jordan, that refers to the rapid depletion of funds in the 2022/23 period where I identified a line item in the budget for Interfund Service Charges revenue that was budgeted in both 2022 and 2023 but zeroed out in the final numbers. According to former director Turley, this was the result of a change recommended by state auditors in how the city accounted for expenses in the engineering department for work done on behalf of other departments and there was zero net impact to the overall budget. I am not a finance professional but I never fully understood his rationale which may because the details are buried much deeper in the day-to-day operations of the city which I did not have access too. However I am still somewhat concerned that while this line item was zeroed out in 2022 and 2023, it continues to be forecast as revenue in budgets for 2024, 2025 and beyond. I cannot say whether there is any real issue here but I think there is a need for further clarity on this topic and I would urge the city to put this issue to rest once and for all with a statement explaining what happened.
Niall,
It may be time to revisit this issue with the city—because it’s happening again. In the mayor’s 2025–2026 Biennium Budget Modification documents, there’s a newly projected $2.3 million shortfall in Interfund Service Charges revenue for 2025. Yet the monthly financial statements show no such reduction.
At this week’s City Council meeting, Finance Director Gould was asked to explain the discrepancy. He couldn’t. And aside from Councilmember Olson, who raised the concern, the rest of the council appeared indifferent—even after being notified in advance.
This isn’t a minor accounting quirk. A $2.3 million gap directly impacts the city’s bottom-line fund balance. So how can the council responsibly adopt a new budget when they don’t even have a clear understanding of their starting point?
This kind of disconnect between budget projections and financial reporting demands scrutiny—not silence. If the city can’t reconcile its own numbers, how can residents trust the fiscal decisions being made on their behalf?
I’ll be curious what you learn as I’ve been probing too.
Jim,
I saw that change in the estimate for interfund service charges too and of course it brings up echoes of the 2022/23 issue. 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.
I’m not seeing a wash here. I was told that it had to do with delayed utility work requiring engineering, however I see only a $400K reduction in Engineering expenses – a far cry from the $2.3 million in revenue reductions. Something else must be in play here that I can’t pinpoint yet. I agree with you that it would be nice for the city to explain it.
Jim, I’m not a finance professional so I don’t fully understand what follows but, here is an excerpt from Mr Turley’s email explaining the previous occurrences.
“Now instead of a debit to the department using Engineering services and an offsetting credit to revenue in the general fund, they asked us to start recording a credit to the salaries in the Engineering department, offset by the debit to the department using Engineering services. The end result is pretty simple, you could say we are just reporting the Engineering department at Net instead of Gross. At the end of the year we essentially reduce both revenues and expenses in the general fund by the same amount to zero out the Engineering costs.”
Could this explain what you are seeing? It seems like it could.
Mr Turley’s email also said: “ We may in the future look at how this impacts our budget process as well, but if we do make a change, it would only be to change in which funds those activities are budgeted. We may create an internal service fund for Engineering, for example, because we are removing their related revenues and expenses from the general fund for financial reporting.” Perhaps this explains why we are still budgeting these interfund service charges in the general fund even though we are accounting for them differently. If that is the case then I would strongly urge the city to make the change to the budgeting process to clear up this confusion once and for all.
Appreciate you sharing this, Niall. That said, the numbers still aren’t lining up for me. It’s possible that the reduced transparency under the new Finance Director—despite what’s outlined in our Finance Policy—is making it harder to trace and reconcile the data than it used to be. Regardless of the reason, the city owes the public a clear and thorough explanation of what happened which resulted in a $2.3 million reduction in revenue.
If this is simply a matter of accounting of money movement between the Utility Funds and General Fund, it further underscores the interrelationship between funds and why the citizens deserve to see the whole financial picture of the city, not just a narrow view.
Niall, great feedback. Looks like our messaging was lost in the sea of comments. The ‘No’ side DOES support a $6M levy & $5M in non-property tax revenues. Jim mentions at the bottom of his ‘alternative budget proposal’.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/09/reader-view-understanding-edmonds-levy-lid-lift-budget-choices-and-alternatives/
Will you please answer my questions to you above on city responsibility?
Thank you!
-Nick
Nick, I will try to address your questions. First, re the BRP report. I cannot speak to why they didn’t mention I-747 other than that they were trying to address the problem as it is and not as they might wish it to be. The 1% cap on taxes is real and it is not something that the city can change so why bring it up in that context? The BRP did also recommend that the city needed to raise more revenue and identified a budget gap of $20.5M.
You also raise the question of our utility costs. I have not dived into that fund in any detail but I do know that the city cannot legally tap those reserves to pay for the general fund expenses. If the reserve balance in the utility funds is excessive then a reduction in fees may be appropriate. However, the 2025/26 biennial budget shows expenses in the utility funds exceeding revenues so we should be very careful about what assumptions we make regarding those funds.
Niall,
I’ve heard the same talking point—likely from the same councilmember you did. The one who just rubber-stamped the mayor’s budget “modification” without hesitation over the past two days.
Let’s be clear: Internal Service Funds (ISFs) were never intended to be growth vehicles. Yet that’s exactly what they’ve become. Year after year, these accounts have quietly accumulated taxpayer dollars, sitting idle instead of serving the public. And it’s not unprecedented to reallocate those funds. In 2020, $1.5 million was legally transferred from the ISF to the General Fund—without any documented rationale.
Now look at the 2025 budget: the ISF received roughly $5 million in “revenue,” almost entirely from internal transfers. Only about $1 million came from utility funds—just 20%. The remaining 80% came from other governmental sources, primarily General Fund accounts. The Police Department alone transferred nearly $1.5 million.
So let’s do the math: if 80% of the ISF’s balance originated from General Fund sources, then a significant portion could be reallocated back—if we actually did the analysis. But instead, the idea is dismissed out of hand. That’s not fiscal responsibility. That’s avoidance of doing the hard work of leading a city, particularly during difficult times.
Best practices only matter when they’re managed well. In this case, they’re not.
Jim,
I’ve said repeatedly that if there is a surplus in the internal service funds it can and should be transferred to the general fund.
You speak of the revenues in the ISF but what of the expenses? There are almost $4.5M of expenses against those funds too and presumably those are also split 80:20 in favor of the general fund. So yes, there is a net positive balance in the ISF and it can and should be transferred back to the funds from which it came, either annually or every few years but lets not pretend that this relatively small annual surplus can resolve the issues that the city is dealing with.
Jim,
As I have already said, if there is an excess in the internal service funds, it can and should be transferred to the funds that pay into that fund.
But let’s also talk about the expenses in those funds too. The 2025/26 biennial budget shows almost $4.5M in expenses; presumably also mostly associated with the general fund.
That does suggest there is a surplus that could be transferred but it’s not $6.6M and it’s not going to resolve the structural issues in the general fund.
It is clear from the facts that the present property tax is not sufficient to support the Edmonds most people want and love. There are two ways to increase property taxes. The first is to increase the assessment rate. Nobody has talked about the second method, increasing the value of the property that is taxable in Edmonds. This would not result in an immediate change but should be looked at again given that 1% increase without voter approval will never be a long term solution.
Edmonds has the ability to increase its’ taxable real estate base along Route 99. At present this is not desirable for redevelopment due to zoning regulations that limit the potential scope of redevelopment. A change in zoning along Route 99 could potentially bring in significant, high value real estate development that would expand the property tax base. However, residents would need to approval radical changes in the zoning and building regulations in that area.
The easiest first step is a significant increase in the height of multifamily housing along route 99. Each additional floor of rental housing increases the value of that lot significantly. Furthermore, a requirement for retail on the first floor will substantially change the retail available on 99 and potentially allow some moderate income housing units to be included. We need to think long term.
Mark, I like this idea. Hope more folks chime in. Would love to hear from city electeds on the topic.
Thanks,
Nick
No matter how much the total value of Edmonds property increases each year, without a levy lid lift, the assessed taxes can only be increased by 1% plus the value of the new construction in the assessment year.
Clearly, Highway 99 is not being utilized for the “highest and best use” of the real estate. Implementing mixed-use zoning would probably yield the most effective revenue increase, preferably with housing that is not subsidized, since there is limited tax revenue generated from it. In fact, there is considerable potential for the area to embrace its international cultural identity, creating a very positive improved neighborhood.
We have enabled this to happen already. This is the current CG zoning ordinance (CG-75) for that area. And, there was literally a planned action ordinance in place to incentivize re-development along the corridor and council repealed it.
Jeremy,
Did the planned ordinance to “incentivize” redevelopment include Multi-Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) incentives? If so, that raises serious concerns—because the MFTE program in Edmonds has consistently failed to deliver on its promises.
Originally designed to encourage affordable housing and urban revitalization, MFTE has instead become a developer-friendly loophole. Property owners receive substantial tax exemptions – up to 12 years -while the burden shifts to everyday taxpayers who see no meaningful return in affordability or infrastructure improvements. The program’s structure allows developers to claim exemptions even when the “affordable” units are priced well above what low- to moderate-income residents can reasonably afford.
This isn’t speculation—it’s documented. Reports and analyses have been shared with the City Council showing how MFTE projects in Edmonds have underperformed, both in terms of affordability targets and community benefit. Yet the city continues to entertain policies that recycle these same incentives under the guise of “redevelopment.”
If the ordinance in question includes MFTE provisions, then it’s not an incentive for the community—it’s a subsidy for developers. And unless the city is prepared to overhaul the program with strict affordability metrics, transparent reporting, and clawback provisions for noncompliance, it’s hard to justify its continuation.
Redevelopment should serve residents—not just pad developer margins. Let’s demand policies that reflect that.
The MFTE concept is not the issue if you understand the issues that impact the program. However, specifics may render projects less “affordable”. First affordability is based on the area’s median income. Snohomish/King County has the highest AMI in the state. It has the highest rents in the state. Because Edmonds lies within this geographic area, the income and comparable rents are compared with income and rents in Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland and Seattle. The AMI is $126,100. An income that qualifies for MFTE housing in Edmonds may not in Aberdeen where the AMI almost half at $65,000.
Currently the Edmonds MFTE program requires 10% of units be rented to individuals earning less than 80% of the AMI and another 10% to renters earning less than 115% of the AMI. However, there is no reason the Edmonds program cannot be amended to require lower income units. However, as with all private sector programs, the program must be profitable or in the case of non-profits generate sufficient operating income. The new Housing Hope complex has 50% of the units capped at 50% AMI for a family of four or $57,800.
Also, all commercial space in the building is not subject to the tax exemption and is fully taxable. It also does not apply to the underlying land value. It applies only to residential development.
Thanks Mark. I guess that’s the difference between a non-profit that is actively trying to address affordability and a developer that is taking advantage of a program intended to address affordability. If the city has the ability to adjust the terms for their MFTE program to make it more effective, they should do that.
The planned action ordinance for HWY 99 wasn’t an MFTE measure, it was a planning and environmental streamlining tool meant to encourage reinvestment by pre-addressing traffic, infrastructure, and SEPA requirements along the corridor; the layers of red tape that make a project difficult to realize.
The goal was to make redevelopment predictable and consistent. Repealing it isn’t going to protect the community from bad development. It will however guarantee more piecemeal projects and missed opportunities for coordinated improvement efforts. It fits the historical way the city has dealt with land use though, make adjustments to enable opportunity and then walk it back through appeal or emergency interim ordinances.
Jeremy, my comments are directed at two parts of this thread. One increasing the tax base of commercially zoned areas like Highway 99. The more this zone contributes to property taxes and hopefully sales taxes, the less the burden of property taxes falls on single family homeowners.
The second is that there are already properties within the zone that are subsidized for low income seniors and families. The subsidies coming from either Federal HUD programs or city MFTE programs. Edmonds could use more moderate income housing so that the people who work at the shops and eateries of Edmonds can actually live close to work. I would like to see the height limit increase to 90 feet and 8 stories if possible.
I’m with Jim on this – I looked at the data last year and found that market rental rates at both Hazel Miller and Westgate, the two major beneficiaries of MFTE tax treatments in Edmonds, are below the limits set by the MFTE program. This essentially means that the developers are getting favorable tax treatment for committing to rent levels that are actually above market rates. In other words, this program is doing nothing to help ensure affordability in housing.
Yes data at the time showed less than 50% of the tax savings for the developer were used to offset rent. A plan that would direct up to 100% of tax savings would be more beneficial.
Two quick comments. Westgate only has 3 floors of apartments making any multi-family residential development expensive. Second units rented at 115% are the highest level of moderate income in Snohomish county. In all of the counties in Washington outside of King/Snohomish, it exceeds “moderate” income. That is whynmoderate income families are moving to Pierce and Skagit Counties.
To make them more affordable, yes we need to change the percentages but still make sure they are still profitable with other zoning changes, especially along Route 99.
Appreciate the dialogue. Hard to get all my thoughts through with this format. I believe the 1% cap is worth talking about, among the other issues we’ve raised.
Personally I believe a $6M levy & $5M in non-property taxes serves both the city & concerned residents needs, a good balance.
Regardless of outcome, I hope we can push forward a citizen budget committee. Niall & Jim (Yes & No votes) would be a great start. They could help educated on these complicated issues.
Here’s the screenshot of our $77M in investments – love to learn more about them.
https://d38u6hukd4et5m.cloudfront.net/investments.png
I totally agree with Marks comment. It is the perfect place to encourage more building and heights. No reason the city can’t change that code too. The idea of housing with nice new retail spaces on the first floors of these would great for those residing in the buildings as well as those strolling along the new sidewalks and more beautified area. Eyes on everywhere will help with crime. It will help bring in property and sales taxes and encourage larger businesses to stay here like the car lot for instance. It gives visitors the opportunity to also shop where they visit friends and family in that area too. It is good for the S end of Edmonds as I believe they want some nice in their area too. YES Mark talk to the Mayor about this and changing those zoning codes or whatever they are. It would be good for the international district too as maybe more businesses all of it. Yes, this is forward thinking that harms no one at all. More markets, more interaction for citizens, a bus line right there, so many great reasons to do this since we already are building the foundation. Don’t have too cut many more trees as they aren’t there. Its a win win Edmonds. Thanks Mark.
Ans 1
Mark, interesting thought about added to our total Assessed Value for Edmonds but it does not make the impact on tax revenues that one would thing. Ron W above pointed out part of that above. Keep in mind that that one’s personal AV is just a percent of the total. 10 homes 1m each total AV is 10m and each is 10% of the total. A new home is built and let’s say it has an AV of 10m. That would make the new AV 20m total and that home is now 50% of the total. And the other 1m homes are now 5% of the total. A 50% reduction of the total AV.
This is what the county assessor does. If the city has voted on a $1m levy and in the first year with 10 people, each would pay their share, 10%, so their bill would be 100k each.
But in year two the city with the 1% increase would get $1m+$10,000. But with 11 taxpayers now the new $10m property would pay 50% of the taxes or $505,000 and the other 10 folks now with 5% of the bill would pay $50,500 down from the year before of $100,000.
Adding new construction primarily changes the share of each and not the total city tax.
Darrol,
My understanding is different and borne out by the data that I used from the County Assessors office to prepare my earlier reader view column about the impact of I-747. In your example of 10 $1M homes each paying 10% of a $1M property tax levy, the levy rate would be $100/$1000 of AV. As I understand it, the hypothetical $10M home would pay the same levy rate of $100/$1000 of AV, increasing the city’s overall tax base to $2M. That $2M base would then be used to calculate future 1% increases.
Ans 2
Keep in mind the “share” concept above and let’s put that into prospective for the $14.5.
Yes we already voted for Fire and will be billed directly for around $20m.
Our current total AV for all of Edmonds is $16B. The city tax rate for 2026 is $.72/1000 or around $11.5m. Yes or No, that will still be collected. For the $14.5m levy that tax rate with our current AV of $16b would be about $.97/1000. But the $14.5m will be adjusted annually by CPI (about $500,000/yr).
The total taxed collected are based on the above. Remembering the “shared” concept, we all pay our share based on our share of the total AV. Magically let’s assume new construction adding $16b and the existing individual AV stays the same. New total AV $32b and with the same tax bill our taxes would go down by 50%.
Nice idea but will the city cost go up as a result of the added $16b? Water and Sewer yes so utility fund will be impacted and the expenses in the General Fund too. Police, Parks, Roads, etc.
New construction, (added AV) may help to slow future tax increases but we need to do a more complete job of creating those estimates.
BRP work should have been followed. We would be in better place now.
Like I said, the BRP was all just a big political bait and switch game where a pretense was made of listening to the voices in town who were demanding more open and transparent city government and answers as to why money that had been allocated to solve problems somehow got spent on other things and the problems never got solved (code re-write, building updates, proper new and working human waste management facility, grant funded bike lanes that got redone on the city dime, over re-building an already perfectly good city park, a grossly over paid COP, etc). Now you have friends of the Mayor in this thread accusing people like Diane B. and Jim O. of dishonesty and misrepresentation of finances and facts instead of insisting that these fine and dedicated people get put on a citizen advisory board as recommended by the BRP; so the politicians could be held accountable for how they want to spend the money. What you are going to get, if you vote yes on Prop 1, are much higher taxes and someone doing the Mayor’s job for him. Gook luck with that program because you will need it.
This is a lot to digest. I’m going for my bottle of Tums.
If we dust off the work that was done by the Affordable Housing Commission for Edmonds what would we learn? Much has been said about Affordable Housing but it is hard to see a clear path to more affordable housing with all the GMA changes, Code changes in Edmonds and tools like MFTE. More fixed income folks are not keeping up and many are already income challenged (30% spent on housing).
What does the data show? And how will that data be impacted with the new tax bills for Fire and City at $6m, $14.5m, (some of the proposed $5m may also impact fixed income folks with new sales taxes).
ECR had two presentions about affordable housing and some of the data shared was about the same. But what was not discussed are ideas that will help income challenged folks, (young, middle aged, or older) find affordable housing. Beyond finding, how do we increase the supply in Edmonds?
Many of the tools once thought to be helpful no longer work or are broken.
We are creative and mostly caring folks so we should put some energy to this task.
Darrol, my 33 year old son lives with me. That how a person gets affordable housing in Edmonds. And it’s happening in many, many households. That’s the creativity that gen X is using. Frankly I hope he’s still here in 20 years to help me when I’m a tottering 90 yr old who can’t even find her eye glasses in the morning.
All the GMA changes have done is make already expensive dirt in Edmonds that much more expensive and sought after by developers and would be developers. (Having just sold a property in Edmonds for about twice what it would be worth anywhere else in the area). As Darrol indicates there ere are some creative and caring folks amongst us (Rick Steves) who have done creative things and made creative donations to solve some affordable housing issues for the lowest on the economic ladder but the political solutions have mostly just benefited housing developers as opposed to younger people or anyone who aspires to be part of the ever shrinking “middle class.”