Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Edmonds City Councilmember Will Chen said Saturday that he did not mean to imply during a recent interview that the city has unrestricted access to more than $70 million in investment pools that could be used to address the city’s financial troubles.
During a My Edmonds News interview, Chen provided his take on the impending levy lift vote, the mayor’s recently proposed 2025-2026 biennial budget amendment, and statements he made in his recent interview with Alicia Crank as part of her Candidate Connect 2025 series archived on YouTube. Chen is a licensed CPA and runs his own accounting business.
Since his interview with Crank three weeks ago, Chen’s remarks about the city maintaining reserve fund balances in excess of $70 million have elicited significant public interest. Many people have asked why these funds could not be used to offset or even solve the current budget crisis.
Chen explained that while some of this money might be made available, much of it is restricted by law and/or city policy.
He described the city’s various funds as follows:
- General Fund and Contingency Reserve: These are the primary sources for day-to-day operations. Chen noted that the city currently has about $3.6 million in the General Fund and reserves that could be tapped for operating needs.
- Enterprise Funds (including water, sewer, utility): These are legally required to be kept separate from the general fund and are intended for specific purposes. The city has previously borrowed from these funds (for example, this year’s $6 million loan from the utility fund), but any borrowing must be repaid and is limited by policy and legal requirements to maintain healthy reserve levels.
- Special Reserve Funds: Some of these are restricted by law for specific uses (gas tax revenue, for example, must be spent on roads). Others may have more flexibility, but legal and policy restrictions still apply.
- Internal Service Funds (e.g., equipment and technology rental funds): These are set aside for replacing vehicles or upgrading technology. If there is more money in these funds than needed for their intended purpose, the city could potentially tap the excess for operating expenses, but this would require council action and legal review.
Chen emphasized that while some funds are tightly restricted, others could be accessed with proper legal and council approval, especially if there is a surplus beyond what is needed for their designated use. However, he cautioned that tapping these funds should be done carefully to avoid jeopardizing the city’s ability to meet future obligations.
Chen clarified that he never said the city could easily tap into the entire $70 million-plus in these city funds. He explained that the amount refers to what is in the city’s investment pool, and if monthly operating funds are included, the total cash balance is about $77 million. He stressed that most of this money is restricted for specific uses or required to be maintained as reserves and is not available for general spending.
“I never said we can take the whole $77 million – that is not what I said,” Chen clarified. “While these funds exist, only a small portion is actually available for discretionary use, and the rest is legally or practically committed to other purposes.”
City Finance Director Richard Gould told My Edmonds News during a Friday interview that the total amount potentially available from the $70 million-plus in these special funds is about $1.5 million. Responding to that information, Chen said that “this is probably what we could use freely,” and that to get more would require seeking legal advice from the city attorney and exploring options through council action.
Chen then transitioned into his reasons for opposing the $14.5 million levy lift measure. He started by reviewing the potential tax impact of the proposed levy lift on property owners, putting it in context with the new Regional Fire Authority (RFA) tax that will come due next year. He pointed out that the original 2025-2026 city budget did not include RFA costs because of the voters’ decision in April to approve RFA annexation. As a result, property owners will pay the RFA directly for these services and thereby remove the financial burden from the city. However, Chen pointed out that while the city will no longer be paying for fire protection and EMS in 2026, taxpayers will pick up the bill through a new RFA tax, which will appear on property tax statements due to be mailed in February.
He estimates that by not paying for fire services, the city will save approximately $19 million in 2026 — the estimated annual cost of a new fire contract to replace the $12.5 million existing agreement beyond its December 2025 termination date. But again, because voters approved annexation, the cost of fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) will be picked up by property owners and paid as part of their annual tax assessment, and not by the city out of its general fund.
Should voters approve the city’s proposed levy lift, they would be agreeing to an additional $14.5 million on their property tax bill.
“I felt and continue to feel that the combined impact of the RFA and the levy lift would be too much for many of our senior and fixed-income residents,” Chen said. “This is the main reason I cast one of the two council votes against putting the levy lift on the November ballot (the other no vote was from Councilmember Michelle Dotsch).
“My concern as a councilmember and as a citizen is for those people who are on fixed incomes, and those people who purchased their house 30 to 40 years ago at a very modest price, and now the value of the house – and the taxes based on that value – have significantly increased,” he said. “And this tax increase is permanent and will rise with inflation for six years”
Chen went on to say that if the levy lift fails, the city needs to “go back to the basics of providing essential services” and not fund many of the “nice to have” things such as Beach Rangers and gymnastics programs.
“We have funding to cover these basics,” he said. “We already have the budget to maintain these service levels through 2025.”
As an alternative, Chen said he would favor a more modest levy lift of $6 million, which he says would allow the city to maintain critical services while repaying the $6 million internal loan from utility fund.
“While a $14.5 million lift would fund many nice things, a $6 million lift combined with the $5 million in new non-levy revenues and savings that the council agreed to find, would be sufficient to operate at a basic level,” he said.
Chen projected that should the $14.5 million levy lift fail at the polls, the council would be able to put a $6 million lift before voters in early 2026 in a special election or in the general election.
If a $6 million lift was approved in 2026, the city would not get this money immediately. The funds would not become available until 2027, when the Snohomish County Treasurer invoices property owners via their annual tax bills. This is like the RFA tax, which was approved in the April 2025 special election but will not be billed to taxpayers until 2026.
To bridge this gap, Chen said that the city would need to rely on a combination of strategies: using available reserves, seeking non-property tax revenue sources, and reducing expenses. He added that the city may have to implement some of the austerity measures outlined in Resolution 1570, which could mean cuts to non-essential services, carefully managing cash flow, and delaying or scaling back certain projects until the new funding becomes available.
And should voters also reject a $6 million lift, Chen predicted that the city would need to take “significant steps” to balance the budget, including reducing services, possibly contracting out some services instead of hiring city employees, and relying more heavily on existing and yet-to-be-determined non-property tax revenue sources.
“Even with these measures, there would likely be a shortfall (about $1 million), which could require tapping into limited reserves or making further cuts,” Chen said. “The city would also need to consider both revenue and expense adjustments, and some of the more severe austerity measures outlined in Resolution 1570 could be implemented, leading to a reduction in non-essential services and a more austere city budget.”
In closing, Chen emphasized the importance of the city and residents working together, and his personal commitment to financial stability.
“I believe that being a good steward of public money means carefully balancing both revenue and expenses, much like running a business or household,” Chen said. “This means going beyond just seeking more revenue. We also need to control and scrutinize spending to ensure the city lives within its means, because even large reserves can be quickly depleted if spending is not managed responsibly. I will always be a strong advocate of thoughtful, prudent decision-making to protect public funds and ensure long-term financial health for the city.”
Please share what happened to the savings from of the portion of Fire/EMS that the city now doesn’t have to pay. Since residents get billed separately and the money was kept by the city and not returned to us, how much is the amount, what is the plan for its use, and why isn’t that enough to reduce the $14.5M to a levy of about $6M?
My respect for Mr Chen has been damaged by this “oh but it might be hard” essay. Yes, policies and council approval and perhas some legal consulation with a law firm thaat serves many similar cities as a second opinon (in addition t the current small firm) would be necessary. That is exactly the what the mayor and council should already have done before putting this huge levy lift on the ballot. I can support six million, never the current boondogle. Mr. Chen does state the city can provide “essential sevices” with significant cuts and perhaps only a one million dollar shortfall. If a six million dollar levy lift is sucessful, after this first request of the voters fails, just think how many non essential but benefical services could continue with the left over five milllion. Thank you, Mr. Chen for continuing to support a sx million dollar lift. I wll vote for you again but to suggest that city “policies, legal uncertainities ( the certainities should have alreadybeen fully investigated) and council approval are strong barriers just reflects what preasure you must be under.
The City has an investment policy that Council passed in 2015 prior to Will being on Council. This article summarizes the various funds identifying the complexities of the General Fund and investment portfolio. The investment portfolio provides stability to the City and is a component for achieving a good bond rating.
I agree with Will’s assessment that a more modest levy should be determined. As recommended by that Blue Ribbon Commission, Council should convene a citizen financial commission to determine a reasonable amount like the City’s levy committees formed in both 2009 and 2010.
Council is lacking in leadership right now as financial policies are not being followed. We must have financial transparency and it needs to return to the monthly financials so citizens can see the complete financial picture of the City’s operating. Also forecasts and assumptions are not supported and trust is no longer an option.
Vote no on this Prop 1 as we have a healthy balance sheet and an alternative plan exists to plug the $6.0 million levy that was identified in the balanced 2025-2026 biennial budget. The modified 2026 budget just introduced is inadequate and incomplete and lacks a strategic forecast or displays all funds and it should not be accepted.
Good reporting, Larry. Thank you.
Anyone wanting to look at the source data behind Director Gould’s interpretation of the readily available money in our big fat nest egg only being $1.5 million can read pages 17 and 19 of the July monthly financial report.
Assets (par value of the liquid investments) = $71mil
Liabilities (bonds the city issued )= $64mil.
I appreciate that Will Chen is running for reelection now. I appreciate that in the next news cycle he is adding more color to his earlier public statements at the N W Civic Circle candidate interview that ‘we have money’. I appreciate that many reply on him as a CPA to tell us what’s going on, in simple terms we can understand.
My perspective is that the City is spinning around in their desk chairs right now because the members of the public who want the facts about municipal finance came to the town hall that Diane Buckshinis and Jim Ogonowski did at the library last week and are asking the right questions.
(see presentation materials here: https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/post/understanding-the-budget-and-the-levy-lid-lift)
Gosh darn it – this city DOES have money. I wish they’d spend a little of it in Director Feser’s department now and empty the porta potties more often. The politics of this upcoming vote on the property tax levy is starting to stink.
I agree with Councilmember Chen’s thinking and approach. It parallels what has been proposed as an alternative to the current $14.5 million levy lid lift ballot measure.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/09/reader-view-understanding-edmonds-levy-lid-lift-budget-choices-and-alternatives/
As CM Chen says, the City Council would need to take legislative action to implement the approach. But isn’t that what we elected them to do? To act in the best interest of the citizens and not some special interest groups.
The RFA tax increase will be sticker shock to many residents next year as it is. There is no need to compound it by another $14.5 million when other less costly options are available.
Thank you for this clarification council member Chen. A lot of confusion was generated by the original report of your comments.
However, I take issue with the claim that the city is saving $19 million by not paying for fire/EMS. While it is true that the residents of the city will be paying $19 million for these services, the city was never on the hook for those costs once the RFA annexation occurred. In fact, since the city dropped the separate EMS levy, the true savings to the city are actually much lower than even the previous $12.5 million contract cost. I understand the actual number to be closer to $6 million.
Yeah I agree, framing it as $19 million in savings isn’t accurate. Repeating that as a talking point just adds further confusion.
So if the city had not done that and kept the money that was paying for Fire/EMS, would the levy ask be 14.5+6 = $20.5M and increasing for 6 years? The math doesn’t add up. Still interested in understanding what happened to $6M (as you say) or $12.5 or clear declaration of the actual amount from the city (transparency) AND the plan on where it is going to be spent AND clearly showing how it impacted the levy amount being asked of us. We shouldn’t have to be guessing at all this stuff!
Jack, as it happens the blue ribbon panel identified the funding gap at right around $20.5 million.
We need some definition of terms and data in order for us all to be on the same page before we start all the spin, misleading statements, and all the pro and con talking points. The best starting point is Mayor Rosen’s State of the City address March of 2024. “2024 Budget Patches” was the starting point. At that point the Mayor’s slide said Total “Problem” $20.50 Million.
Note: The only reference to RFA was the fact that we had used $6.25M of on time ARPA money to pay a reoccurring bill. None of the above show numbers for the RFA Levy.
Before the Fire Levy work by council more data was presented. And a 2025 State of the City updates and adds to the data. Then we borrowed $6m to keep us from insolvency. Niall and Jim have done a great job of trying to show much of all this with charts tables and graphs.
But before we get all tangled up in “spin” etc, one should look at what the BRP actually recommended. We should not just pick what we want to use for supporting the Yes or No positions, we should look at what was really recommended in total.
We should evaluate what we mean for “Sustainable Funding” and the impacts on all 43,000 people who live here.
Darrol, as I recall one of your BRP recommendations was for the establishment of an on going citizen financial advisory council or something to the affect that would actually look out for the financial interests of all 43,000 citizens who live in Edmonds. To date, I don’t think I’ve heard anything from the Mayor or any Council Members regarding being for or against that proposal with the possible exception of Michelle Dotsch. Perhaps you should press CM Chen to expound a little bit on that subject – Publicly.
If anyone wonders why I’m personally staying engaged in all this a bit, my heart condition has worsened lately and I could easily find myself back living in Edmonds in some sort of assisted living context in the not too distant future. I think if your elected officials would actually start listening to people like you, Jim Ogonowski, Diane Buckshnis, Joe Scordino, Joan Bloom, among others, better economic decisions would be made for all down the road.
How dare we suggest a rational ise of language that places specific definitions and goals and cleae usage/metrics. That defies all of the rules of Government Accounting – and developers and planners hate when language is “too limiting”. Lets stick with obfuscation…
CM Chen voted against the $14.5 million levy lift because:
“I felt and continue to feel that the combined impact of the RFA and the levy lift would be too much for many of our senior and fixed-income residents,” Chen said.
“My concern as a councilmember and as a citizen is for those people who are on fixed incomes, and those people who purchased their house 30 to 40 years ago at a very modest price, and now the value of the house – and the taxes based on that value – have significantly increased,” he said. “And this tax increase is permanent and will rise with inflation for six years”
CM Chen, thank you for standing up for Edmonds’ residents.
CM Chen you deserve recognition for having empathy for seniors and effects of these taxes on both their emotional and financial well being Thank you for that. Your colleagues remain silent, duly noted.
What exactly did the Blue Ribbon Panel in the beginning suggest Edmonds do about their financial situation? Did we follow their suggestions? Who were or are the members that I believe volunteered for the most part? Who are all of these people who have lived in Edmonds for as little as say 6 years or less and what do they really know about Edmonds as far as how we have spent our taxpayer money for all of these years? Why did they move here and leave places like Seattle for instance? Why are we listening to them? And finally Oh! what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive! A paltry thing, and full of care, Upon our backs to bind a load, Were it not easier to go bare, Than thus to feel the galled goad? This stanza is part of a much larger work, “Marmion: A Tale of Flodden Field,” which is an epic poem written in 1808. The poem tells the story of Lord Marmion, a favorite of Henry VIII of England, and his attempts to win the favor of a wealthy lady, Lady Heron, through deceit and manipulation. The famous line reflects the theme of the consequences and complexities that arise from acts of deception. Sir Walter Scott.
This is what I read in CM Chen’s remarks “some funds are tightly restricted, others could be accessed with proper legal and council approval, especially if there is a surplus beyond what is needed for their designated use.” And his concern for those on fixed incomes, cautioning this $14.5M “tax increase is permanent and will rise with inflation for six years.” Followed by Diane Buckshnis “Council is lacking in leadership…financial policies are not being followed. We must have financial transparency…return to the monthly financials so citizens can see the complete financial picture…forecasts and assumptions are not supported and trust is no longer an option.” And Jim Ogonowski’s “the City Council would need to take legislative action to implement the approach. But isn’t that what we elected them to do? To act in the best interest of the citizens and not some special interest groups.” Long before I met CM Chen, I believed strongly “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.” It’s time for our elected to sharpen their pencils, muster the will and lead the way out of this mess. The burden of fiscal mismanagement doesn’t belong on the backs of our city’s less affluent. Hopefully, a NO vote will bring our elected back to the fiscal fundamentals of needs over wants. It’s basic and it’s fair. Keep Edmonds affordable for everyone.
I honestly don’t think Will Chen is trying to fool anyone at all. He is running unopposed for reelection so why would he do that? I like Will I see he does try, and he is good with numbers and he does ask questions a lot when people present etc at CC. Now it seems to me that sometimes all CC members who run for office and such do lean in favor of their own neighborhoods sometimes they do. Sometimes that benefits the entire city sometimes it doesn’t. Honestly and I am honest if I had ever tried for a bid for CC would I have wanted betterment for 5 corners where I live? Of course, I of would have and I also would have wanted it for other areas in Edmonds too. I think all of that is just sort of normal don’t you all? Now I have a football game Seahawks to watch and cinnamon rolls to put in the oven. Carry on Edmonds and BTW don’t give up on the Mariners yet no matter what the Seattle Times says haha. XO Deb.
I still don’t know what the RFA tax would be on my house, or how to find out. Can anyone tell me?
We have developed calculators at this link to help you with that:https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/09/the-edmonds-levy-lid-lift-decision-what-you-need-to-know-what-will-it-cost-me/
I have listened to Will Chen at many meetings, and I find he does not seem to understand many things, and I feel there’s a lot of back talk with him. I’m sad that he is running unopposed.
Competition for elected office is good for our democracy. It’s not too late to organize a write in campaign for Will Chen’s seat on the City council.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/candidates/frequently-asked-questions/write-candidates
Hi Clint, sorry to hear about medical things. Yes, the BRP made several recommendations which taken all together were designed to essentially continue the work that they had started. Remember that those recommendations were made in July 2024, just 6 months into the new administration. The recommendations were more than short term; they tried to address not only the immediate problem summarized by the mayor in the March State of the City address but to discuss ways to deal with the backlog of deferred maintenance and future inflation and our capital program needs.
Had council started with a BRP replacement plan they would have had a more complete set of data and fresh ideas before making their Fire Levy decisions and the current Fall Levy decisions. More than a year has been lost for that sort of citizen group work.
Take care Clint!
Can you imagine how panicked some of our residents must be facing an additional $300 a month with RFA and Prop 1 along with increased Home Owners Ins, Auto Ins and grocery prices, utility increases etc., on a fixed income it could be enough to push them over the edge financially and then where are they suppose to move to? Better start construction on more housing for the homeless and displaced. It is that serious. Vote No for all the reasons Mr Chen outlines, do better Edmonds!
Hi Clint, I’m sorry to hear about your heart issues.