Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
I am a retired CPA interested in how our city manages our taxpayer dollars to provide the wonderful range of services which we all rely on and enjoy.
On Nov. 4 we will be voting on a tax increase to support our city. I am concerned that many of us don’t know what this tax increase — or the earlier one we approved in April — will cost our own household. So here is a quick guide:
- Find your assessed property value on the chart.
- The amount in yellow — RFA annexation increase — will be added to your tax in 2026.
- The amount in pink will also be added in 2026 if Prop 1 is approved.
This chart is my own. (Note that your RFA tax increase could vary by $9 for every 500 sq ft your home is different from assumptions I made.)
For those just catching up, we voted in April to annex to the Regional Fire Authority and pay for their services directly through our property tax beginning in 2026. This is a change from fire and emergency services being included in our City of Edmonds property tax, as it has been through 2025.
It concerns me that information about Prop 1 is routinely presented with no mention of the earlier-approved RFA tax increase. In preparation for writing this and a previous editorial, I surveyed 18 Edmonds neighbors and found that not one knew the dollar amount of the RFA tax increase for their household. Several did not know RFA annexation would increase their taxes. We voters need all material facts on the table to make an informed decision.
Two tax increases in a single year — together with rising city utility rates — would stress many of our fellow residents.
Also note that Prop 1 will position Edmonds as having almost the highest property tax rate in Snohomish County.
A misconception is circulating that folks on limited incomes may be eligible for exemption. Per the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office, Prop 1 exemption is available only to qualifying seniors and the disabled.
We need a balance between the cost of what our city provides and what our residents can afford to pay. Prop 1 is aspirational: It would increase the size of city government and add new services and amenities. Is now the best time for that? I don’t think so – not when our more vulnerable residents will already struggle with multiple increases next year. Let’s ask our city management team and Council to sharpen their pencils and come back with a proposal that is a better fit for our community.
Please take note of the voices urging you to vote “yes” on Prop 1: Current and former city employees, developers and the economically advantaged.
Our two most fiscally responsible councilmembers — Will Chen, CPA/MBA, and Michelle Dotsch — voted against putting this $14.5 million proposal on the ballot. Note the number of financial professionals with a deep understanding of the city’s financial condition and history who also find the amount and timing of Prop 1 problematic:
- Diane Buckshnis, former longtime city councilmember, retired bank examiner
- Jim Ogonowski, retired Boeing VP & senior chief engineer
- Theresa Hollis, retired CMA & senior manager of financial planning & analysis
- Myself, retired CFO, specialty in not-for-profit financial management
We all live here and treasure the quiet safety of our city, our wonderful parks and community events, just like you. Our recommendation? Prop 1: not the right amount, not the right time. We can do better.
Thank you Becky for this thoughtful analysis! Now is not the time for another tax increase
Thank you Becky for making the impact of these two taxes easily understandable by everyone!
Thank you for the EZ guide to figuring out how all the tax increases will affect us. It is not usually an aspirational goal to live in the city with the highest tax rate in the surrounding region. I will vote No until the City Council proposes a lesser increase that keeps Edmonds affordable for all of us.
Becky- thanks for the comprehensive analysis of the devastating tax impact of both Prop 1 and the new RFA tax. Clearly these onerous (and unjustified) taxes will make Edmonds unaffordable to 75% of residents, renters, and businesses. That will suck the life blood out of the community. The saddest part of Prop 1 is that the Mayor and Council have not been transparent and have refused to allow opposition residents to present their case in Town Hall meetings. The State PublicDisclosureCommission has opened a case against the City for violating election laws. The City used taxpayer money to mail out a 4-pg/4-color brochure that is designed to scare residents into thinking they will lose parks, police, and road maintenance if they defeat Prop 1. Not true. Police budgets increased 61% since 2022. Edmonds residents already pay 40% more for police coverage than Esperance and Shoreline. The City says they cut general staff by $7M between 2024 and 2025. City budget documents show only a $1.7M cut. Mayor Rosen is a PR executive, not a business person. Millions have been wasted in litigation and appeals for employee lawsuits, inoperable water treatment plant, uncollected RFA hospital transport fees, property owner tree rights, sub-standard storm water toxin specs. Yet the Mayor complains insurance costs have skyrocketed. Good governance is the answer to Prop 1, not more taxes.
https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/
What a simple, straightforward explanation of the issues!! I only wish every Edmonds resident took the time to read the articles in My Edmonds News along with the comments!
I noticed on the pro Prop 1 literature it states that voting yes will increase the city’s revenue by $14.5 million in 2025. It does not state that it will collect that $14.5 million+ EVERY YEAR.
Once voted in, it becomes permanent. No going back!
Becky, thank you for the EZ guide. I will be voting NO on Prop 1.
The banner at the top of this page implies that MEN supports Prop 1. This is unfair and says that if you have money, your message is more important. It aligns with the City’s position and does not provide the proper balance. I want to believe MEN is not endorsing either position, but it is hard to believe otherwise when we see that banner every time we open the web page. As a public service, it would be easy to add another banner that says MEN does NOT endorse either position and provide the websites for each side.
The advertisement is marked as paid and also says who is paying for it. Advertisements are what help us stay afloat and pay our staff. As I’ve said before, there is complete separation between the editorial and advertising sides of the organization. — Teresa Wippel, Publisher
Editor- ‘ya can’t win. These campaigns will be over in three weeks plus one day. Just hold on and continue to run the most active digital town square in Edmonds. There’s a reason you were named Citizen of the Year a couple years ago – you deserve it!
With respect,
Theresa Hollis
Campaign manager of Keep Edmonds Affordable
https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/
As part of Team ‘No’, totally understand the grievances, but Teresa’s MEN needs every dollar. I’m okay with it.
News outlets, more than ever, rely on advertising dollars to stay afloat. This is pretty standard. What isn’t standard, sadly, is that there are outlets who also put up a paywall or require subscriptions for their content, in addition to advertising dollars.
Be grateful that (by choice or by circumstance) My Edmonds News and their sister online publications hasn’t put up paywalls, though they could.
Advertisements are, of course, a necessary part of keeping the publication running. However, the size and placement of the ad “YES” at the top of the heading could easily make it appear as though the advertiser is the actual publisher, leaving “My Edmonds News” looking like an afterthought. Additionally, the disclosure that it’s a paid advertisement is nearly impossible to read on a mobile device due to its tiny font size. The message of the ad is clearly about size, color, and location, and has absolutely little to do with the wording or any editorial content.
Thank you Becky! I was planning on voting No anyway, but your excellent presentation/analysis just confirmed my thinking for me. I think of Edmonds as a “Tale of Two Cities”. One represents The Bowl, Emerald Hills, and a couple of smaller neighborhoods. These residents are likely to shrug off $2,000+ per year for RFA and Proposition 1 as a big “oh well”. Then you have the other part of Edmonds that would consider an additional $1,000+ per year to be a major financial burden. It would be interesting to see a post-election reckoning of how each neighborhood voted.
Interesting that the City has no such separation of editorial and advertising. The Mayor has spent probably $20,000 of taxpayers’ money to design and write the City’s 4-pg/4-color Prop 1 marketing mailer which is loaded with half-truths and false narratives and features scare tactic messages
to confuse residents into believing a tax levy defeat will defund police, parks, and streets, leaving residents without adequate police officers, with park closures, and with unsafe streets in disrepair. The City hasn’t informed residents about the extraordinary budget increases that these services have had in the last 4 years – police up by 61%; general staff – up by 40%. Given the recent years’ spending excesses, the City has more staff than needed to provide essential services. The City has not shown how they prioritized which services would be cut back, and which would have higher priorities. The Mayor claims he cut $7M in staff reductions, but the City’s budget shows a $1.7M cut in salaries/wages from 2024 to 2025. The City advocates for the tax levy, ignoring State laws and PublicDisclosureCommission guidelines that do not allow ballot promotion . The Commission has opened an elections’ violation case against the City. Mayor Rosen shows disrespect for the laws and for taxpayers, and uses his advertising/PR skills to advocate for the tax levy and frighten taxpayers with misinformation. https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/
Nancy, the tax increase will be $14.5 million in 2026. After that, there will be annual increase over the next 5 years pegged to inflation. The estimated increase in the 6th year will be between $17-$19 million.
The Prop 1 folks would rather that we don’t understand that.
Becky, I hope the “Town Hall” Saturday Oct 25 will give you a seat at the table, but I suspect not. Transparency is not a skill set for the majority of City Council or the Mayor.
Thank you for your work in this endeavor to try save Edmonds from another massive mistake.
I will vote NO.
This article and analysis is right down the middle. Everyone who reads this and thinks through it logically is going to arrive at the same place. It makes no sense to pass this prop for anyone.
Robert, you’re right. Becky, thank you for your easy to read chart and Bill, for further elaborating. But there’s more and it’s not good news for those trying to determine the full extent of their tax liability. Within the City’s ask of $14,500,000 per year, there are some not-so-convenient details they don’t want to talk about. First, there’s the annual rate-of-inflation rider they tacked on the levy. It’s currently 2.8% in Snohomish County. If the annual state cap of 1% on property tax is applied, that would total nearly 4%. On top of that, there’s the county’s biennial property assessment which will likely increase your taxes even more. Unfortunately, the “about $65/month for the median Edmonds home” touted in the Vote Yes mailer – which doesn’t consider the monthly RFA cost the city already passed on to property owners – gets a lot more expensive as it progresses. I’m saving my Yes vote for the kids in February’s education levy. If Prop 1 passes, they’ll need all the Yes’s they can get.