Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
As small business owners who’ve built our livelihoods here in Edmonds, we know how much this city means to us — and to the customers, neighbors, and visitors who walk through our doors every day. Edmonds isn’t just where we work — it’s home. That’s why we’re supporting Proposition 1.
When Edmonds thrives, our businesses thrive. But without the funding from Prop 1, the city is facing deep cuts — cuts that will affect many parts of what makes Edmonds a great place to live, visit, and do business.
Here’s what’s at stake, according to Council Resolution 1570:
- $3.6 million will be cut from public safety, reducing our already stretched police force to just 0.84 officers per 1,000 residents — well below state and national averages. More police resources mean fewer thefts, less vandalism, and a safer shopping and dining environment that encourages customers to return.
- $1.8 million will be cut from parks and recreation, forcing closures of key community spaces like Yost Pool, the Frances Anderson Center, and the City Park Spray Pad. Well-maintained parks and public spaces draw residents and visitors downtown, supporting foot traffic for retailers and restaurants. Their loss will be felt by generations of Edmonds residents.
- $693,000 will be cut from the Planning Department, meaning slower permitting, delayed approvals for new development, and a major hit to the city’s efforts to attract and support businesses. Strong city planning creates predictable, responsible development so small businesses can invest and grow without lengthy delays or disruptive projects.
- Overall, city staffing would fall below 220 full-time employees — the lowest level since 2001. With fewer staff, even routine permits could be delayed or denied — including those needed for vital events like the Saturday Market, Fourth of July Parade, and Holiday Tree Lighting. These aren’t just feel-good events — they’re crucial drivers of our local economy.
These numbers aren’t abstract to us. We feel them in our daily operations — in the events that bring visitors and customers to Edmonds, the public spaces that make our downtown vibrant, and the safety and infrastructure that allow us to serve our community.
We’re writing this as local business owners who depend on Edmonds being a thriving, safe, and welcoming place. Prop 1 is a necessary investment to protect the heart of our city — and the small business community that helps keep it going.
Edmonds is worth it. We’re voting yes on Prop 1, and we hope you will too.
Liz Morgan is an Edmonds homeowner and owner of FIELD. Beth Sanger is an Edmonds homeownerand owner of Ombu Salon.
I would argue that if Edmonds government is so vital to your success than just maybe you should pay a larger portion of the cost. Just maybe a no vote and increased business taxes and a smaller levy in the future is the right recipe? Apparently you think residents with less money to spend is good for business. Residents get a triple in taxes and business owners get a pat on the back. Smh.
Jim, I’m a resident and a small business owner in Edmonds. I will see the impact of this in various ways and feel that Prop 1 is the best solution to address this issue NOW. We have to stop kicking the can down the road. I am not wealthy. My husband and I actually sat down last week, considered the financial impact (both personally and potentially my business) to create a new household budget. Personally, this was a decision that was not come to lightly. When I speak with others that have a differing perspective on this issue, I find I respond with respect and understanding because we’re all in this together and it’s a bad situation to be in. No one is getting a pat on the back.
Thank you Liz for stepping up and speaking out. I will have to recommend your businesses. Yes, it can be hard to rework a budget to adjust to rising costs, but Edmonds is a good investment. In fact when people asked me what my plans were for this past summer, I told them I didn’t need to go anywhere else. Edmonds is a great place to hang out and I didn’t have to stay in a motel or fly on a crowded plane and look at how much money I saved. Everyone makes their own choices of how to spend their money. I prefer to keep my money local. And that means I vote yes to help Edmonds out of the financial trouble.
As small business owners, we measure success in data — efficiency ratios, margins, and return on investment. If Edmonds were a business, it would be failing every metric that matters.
Over the past decade, city revenues have climbed roughly 45%, outpacing both inflation and population growth. Yet service delivery and core performance indicators haven’t improved. That’s not under-funding — that’s operational drift. In business, when expenses rise faster than output, you don’t raise prices; you fix the model.
Instead, City Hall keeps choosing short-term patches — internal loans, consultant contracts, and now another $90 million property-tax lift under Proposition 1. And waiting right behind it is the City’s next revenue lever: a new B&O tax on local businesses. That means every shop, café, and contractor in Edmonds will soon be paying more simply for the privilege of operating here.
Raising prices on your customers doesn’t fix inefficiency — it drives them away. The same holds true for government. Until Edmonds applies performance discipline, measurable ROI, and professional financial management, new taxes—property, utility, or B&O—only mask the underlying problem.
Hey Lee:
Do we really want to go down the road of arguing that a City should be run just like a business? I’m sure those metrics you reference can reasonably be applied to the city operations reported in the Enterprise Funds, but what’s the ROI on Yost park, or a pool, or the Frances Anderson Center? A “business” would sell off under-performing assets, but I can still hear the howls of outrage and “scare-mongering” when that idea was floated.
As for the metric you cite–a 45% increase in City revenues over the past decade–I don’t see the data to back that up. 2015 General Fund revenues were $38.5m and 2024 closed out with revenues of just over $50m. I make that about 30%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI calculator shows that to equal the buying power of $1,000 in Dec 2014 you’d need $1,344 at the end of 2024, a 34% increase. But the City’s major costs are labor-related and those costs increased an average of 5% per year (WA Dept of L&I) from 2015 to 2022, raising the wage index from 100 to 153, without counting the last couple of years.
Shops and cafes operate where the customers are, not just where the taxes are lowest. It’s in everyone’s interest to maintain the value of that location.
Hey Pete,
Morning and happy Friday.
Fair point, but cities still need to operate with business discipline. Public services like Yost Park or FAC aren’t profit centers, but they do depend on sound financial management—clear ROI in the form of community value, fiscal transparency, and sustainability.
When a business spends faster than it brings in, that isn’t fiscal discipline. Should be simple for any business owner to understand.
Edmonds can be both community-minded and financially accountable. I think we can all agree on the former – it’s the latter that concerns me.
As a business owner, I would have to ‘shut down’ this business months ago…
I would ask the authors if they represent any businesses other than their own(FIELD, AND OMBU SALON). If so, would you list them please list them.
Liz Morgan and Beth Sanger didn’t claim to represent anyone but themselves. I’d like to ask the No voters if they “represent” any seniors on fixed incomes? They are certainly making a big deal about protecting them and as a member of that group myself, I don’t appreciate them trying to do that in my name. Besides, trying to live on a “fixed” income is not a problem if the income is big enough. I’m sure there are retirees living in Edmonds for whom a property tax increase will be a challenge. I’m also sure there are retirees who have a yacht berthed in the Marina, have two or three expensive cars at their house and enjoy good vacations and leisure travel.
For some people “tax” is just a four-letter word.
I wonder what it might mean for the small businesses in Edmonds when residents have less disposable income to spend; I’m already having to cut back on meals out and planning a much leaner holiday season because of inflation, increases in utilities, and the increase to next year’s property taxes due to RFA and increased county taxes. If Prop 1 takes even more out of my budget, there will be very little left over to spend on extras like shopping or dining out.
Jennifer – good morning. And great question… I actually have an LTE being printed this week in the beacon on this very topic.
You’re absolutely right to raise that point — it’s one of the most overlooked impacts of Proposition 1. When residents’ disposable income drops, small businesses feel it first.
In our own shop, every purchase matters. We just hired a new employee and provide full benefits — a real investment in our community. But when property taxes, utilities, and insurance all rise at once, families naturally cut back on dining out, entertainment, and local shopping. Those “extras” are what keep Edmonds’ small businesses alive.
The city talks about “protecting essential services,” but small businesses are an essential service — we employ neighbors, activate our downtown, and generate the sales-tax revenue that funds the city in the first place. When spending power shrinks, everyone loses: fewer customers, fewer hours, fewer jobs, and less money cycling through our local economy.
The City’s dishonesty and scare tactics being used to get yes votes on the “pie-in-the-sky” $14.5 MILLION tax increase is causing a rift in this City that really troubles me. The fact of the matter is the cuts being cited in Parks, Planning, etc. are all based on a $6M levy-lift necessary to balance the 2026 budget- – NOT the $14.5M which includes a $8.5 million “slush fund” for lack of a better term.
Nobody wants to see priority, essential services cut in this City that we all love! But, taxpayers are NOT being asked to vote on a $6M levy-lift for ESSENTIAL municipal services – – taxpayers are being asked to drain their pocket books to pay MORE for non-essential City costs.
I would readily support a $6M levy-lift to prevent losing the services cited in this (and many other ‘Yes’) letters to the editor – BUT the City is not giving us that choice!
It’s ironic that I was the only citizen in Edmonds that commented during one of the public hearings on the 2026 budget – – and my only ‘ask’ was for the Council to look-out for the great ‘on-the-ground’ City staff and ensure they would not be penalized by past overspending by City Directors.
So vote NO and demand the City give voters a chance to vote yes on $6M.
Respectfully, I would suggest that some of the more negative characterizations you and others on the NO campaign have either said explicitly or have insinuated about our staff or city government at-large — “dishonest,” “bloated,” resorting to “scare tactics” — are incredibly disrespectful and undermine the trust and confidence in our government, something that we’re seeing eroded at the federal level and now creeping into our town thanks to these largely unchecked claims.
It’s also important to recognize that many residents see things differently: Edmonds voters have consistently supported investments in our community — from school levies to, most recently, the RFA — both of which passed with supermajorities, despite strong opposition from a similar “anti” crowd.
Last year’s budget included a placeholder $6M levy, but that figure merely allowed the City to appear balanced on paper. It does nothing to restore the $8M+ in staffing and service cuts we’ve already absorbed this past year, it does not provide the opportunity to replenish depleted reserves that have triggered a budget emergency under state law, nor does it give the city room to set aside funds for deferred maintenance on our aging infrastructure. It maintains the status quo, which is an underfunded City that is growing and aging. In contrast, the $14.5M levy now before voters is designed to address the City’s full $20M revenue shortage.
Respectfully Adel, I do not think it is disrespectful at all to ask questions and demand that our city leaders are good stewards of our tax dollars; voters have a right to ask how the city ended up in such dire financial straights that they need not just a $14.5 million levy, but a permanent levy that will increase each year for the next 6 years. We also have a right to demand details (specific details, not just “buckets” and pie charts) on how the city plans to spend that windfall. Trust is earned, and the city hasn’t done a lot to earn that trust in recent years.
Adel — it’s clear you don’t understand how small businesses actually function. When you frame a $14.5 million tax increase as simply “an investment,” you ignore the cascading costs that local businesses will absorb the moment this passes.
Margins aren’t theoretical — they’re real. Rising property taxes drive up lease rates. Insurance premiums follow suit. Delivery and supplier costs increase as commercial landlords pass on their higher bills. Add the upcoming B&O tax and utilities already climbing, and you’re stacking costs on the very employers who generate the sales-tax revenue that keeps this city running.
We just hired another employee and pay full benefits. That’s a direct reinvestment into Edmonds — into local wages, spending, and stability. But every additional tax erodes that ability. When residents tighten their budgets, local spending drops. When business costs rise simultaneously, hiring slows, investment halts, and community vitality suffers.
You can’t keep taxing the base of the economy and expect it to thrive. In business, when revenue and costs diverge, you fix operations — you don’t raise prices on your customers.
Anyone with a real business background should understand that.. City Hall should be held to the same standard.
Respectfully, based on my observation of Edmonds City Government for roughly 20 years, I’d argue that Edmonds City Government has disrespected our citizens for years. For example, hundreds of emails I sent to Edmonds Mayors between March 9, 2012 and December 31, 2023 were not responded to by an Edmonds Mayor.
I’d argue that the city government has undermined trust and confidence by not doing what the Code of Ethics requires:
“Keep the community informed on municipal affairs and encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens.”
For example, please read the following Reader View and the comments made in response to the Reader View:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/11/reader-view-more-on-those-red-light-cameras/
From my years observing Edmonds City government, I feel I must vote no. I believe city government must address the dysfunction and improve the culture before citizens trust them with a large, permanent increase to revenues.
Another example, the code rewrite has been budgeted for several times since 2006 and that budget has never been executed. Nobody has been held accountable for that failure.
Sadly, the dysfunction and culture seem to just continue year after year. Council recently tried to ratify action it took that violated our City Code. Resolution 1575 provides the details.
Another point: I know from direct experience that Edmonds City Government will expend huge resources opposing its own citizens when city officials know those citizens have done nothing wrong. For example, please consider the Ebb Tide. The Ebb Tide granted the city a 10-foot-wide easement for $1. Years later, the city challenged the extent of that easement in court. The city’s challenge was not for a need. It was for a want.
The city attorney spent over 4,000 hours on this matter. Taxpayer funds paid for those hours.
Was that huge effort related to a “want” warranted? And please consider the financial and emotional impact on the property owners. All for a want, something not needed and something the city probably can’t build without securing additional easement rights and spending significant taxpayer money.
See more details in the following Letter to the Editor and the related comments:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/07/letter-to-the-editor-ebb-tide-thousands-of-legal-hours-and-counting/
Knowing what I know about this city government’s historical conduct, I must vote no on the levy lid lift. I would strongly consider voting yes in the future if leadership can address the dysfunction and improve the culture.
Adel, where I went to University, questioning authority, and debating issues was not considered disrespectful. The Mayor has been dishonest regarding funding for the PR firm he hired to push the RFA, and was caught by the PDC. So much for honesty transparency! Our City Attorney may be a honest fellow, but I believe he’s made expensive mistakes including not understanding the agreement which the City signed with RFA.
The evidence I’ve seen from citizen watchdogs clearly shows that the City has not used our tax money judiciously in the past. We can argue these points, and may never agree, but that doesn’t make me/us disrespectful. At the very least, why should we believe the City has it right this time?
Robert,
I also attended a university where questioning authority and engaging in debate was encouraged. I’m not sure why university is being brought into the conversation here.
What I’m referring to is something entirely different: the broad-brush demonization of city staff and local government.
If there are specific instances of wasteful spending, if there are examples of inefficiencies, if there are times when transparency can be improved, that’s all fair game and deserves to be called out.
But sweeping statements like “the city’s dishonesty,” or claims like those made by former Councilmember Buckshnis, also a member of the NO group, explicitly stating that “staff cannot be trusted with their comments” or that it’s “time to stop trusting government,” move the conversation away from a specific complaint of tax money being used judiciously, and more towards the suspicion and distrust of government in general.
Please do not insinuate Edmonds property taxpayers are akin to our federal government that my friend will not get you a yes vote from anyone. Do not call the no voters the “anti-crowd”. Tell the voters who you are and what your interest in all of this is. I know. I am an undecided. I will decide when I fill out my ballot. However, I would prefer a lower amount this time and bring it back year after year to see how we did the year before. People it seems have lost their trust in our Government here in Edmonds and they are wary…Getting some is better than none and if this insulting talk continues it will probably be none. We have some very smart people here in Edmonds who are a no on the Levy. And we have some really smart people who are a yes for the levy vote. Thank you for listening Adel.
Deborah,
Thanks for your comment. I’d like to start with your request: “Tell the voters who you are and what your interest in all of this is.” I’m happy to, though I’m also curious what exactly you’re implying with the statement. I’m a resident, like you, who cares deeply about Edmonds and wants to ensure its long-term health and sustainability. I’ve always believed in assuming the best in others unless given a reason not to.
Re: the “anti-crowd” — I do think it’s fair to characterize it that way. Many of the supporters and donors to the No on Prop 1 group were also part of the anti-RFA group “Edmonds Can Do Better.” One of the No group’s most prominent supporters, former Councilmember Buckshnis, has opposed a range of proposals intended to support and invest in our city:
Regarding levies:
-Against the Parks and Public Safety Levy (Prop 1)
-Against the RFA
-Did not endorse ESD school bond
Regarding tools to grow and diversify revenues:
-Against Neighborhood centers and hubs
-Against Red-Light cameras (initially)
-Against a B&O tax
-Against Paid parking
-Against hiring a city grant writer
I’m not saying that each of these policies is right for our city, but, taken together, these examples reflect a conspicuous trend of opposition to both revenue measures and long-term investments in our growth.
Adel,
Deborah asked “Tell the voters who you are and what your interest in all of this is.” Your reply is disrespectful and evasive. You are Vice President of Acquisitions and Development for Evergreen Point: https://www.evergreenpoint.net/aboutus
As a developer, you obviously have an interest in future development opportunities in Edmonds. Instead of answering Deborah’s question you say you’re “curious what exactly you’re implying with the statement” say you are “a resident”, and that you assume “the best in others” yet go on to attack a fellow resident and Community Supporter of KEA demonstrating that you only assume the best in those who agree with you.
You continue to conceal the fact that you are a developer. You implied “nefarious intent” on the part of developer Mike McMurray, a Community Supporter of Keep Edmonds Affordable https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/supporters and upon Clearwater LLC, a Lynnwood based real estate company who contributed to KEA’s no on Prop 1, when I replied to your RV with the link to Evergreen Point, above.
Your answers to No on Prop 1 voters are evasive, dismissive, and accusatory. You consistently demonstrate that you and the KEV PAC campaign have been completely lacking in transparency since KEV was allowed a 30 minute presentation to Council on 5-27-25.
That’s not true Joan. He’s mentioned multiple times in many different comments across MEN that he’s a developer.
You may disagree with him and others that are pro levy, but this non stop barrage of accusations that anyone who votes yes must have nefarious intentions is tiring at best and just plain nasty at worst.
Joan,
As I directly replied to you in another thread, yes — I work in development. Just like several No on Prop 1 supporters. That’s been publicly disclosed, including in my PDC donation filing. I’ve never hidden it. People who take the time to know me already know this. So I’d ask — are we ready to move on?
I’m also a parent, a volunteer, and a neighbor who, like you, cares deeply about this city. That’s why I’ve contributed time and energy to supporting Prop 1, not because of some hidden agenda, but because I believe this levy is what’s needed to sustain Edmonds now and in the future.
You’ve said the quiet part out loud: that I “obviously have an interest in future development opportunities in Edmonds.” Respectfully, how do you know that? And more importantly, what does development have to do with a parks and public safety levy?
As for KEV and the Yes campaign: they are separate organizations with separate missions. Again, I encourage you to review their respective websites. Once you do, you’ll find that Yes for Edmonds was never provided 30-minutes in front of Council.
Joan – if you’d like to meet and get to know me, I’m happy to arrange a coffee with you.
@ Sheryll Schuppisser, I’ll step out as well – and make the offer to you, just as Adel did to Joan. Happy to meet at a coffee shop of your choice – will gladly offer up all of the information I have in my inbox – it might surprise you – you might be surprised to find the PDC violation I filed was not political – at all – but data driven – using public available data via the City of Edmonds. I’d be happy to share the email thread about the $43M missing from the Nelson / Rosen transition – the illegal surplus activity as it relates to the sale of our assets like FAC, Hummingbird Park, and Wade James.
If you feel inclined – feel free to email me: lee.reeves.3@gmail.com. I’m sure Teresa from MEN would also share my email address.
@Lee, frankly your demeanor and your interactions here have soured me from ever wanting to sit with you or hear anything you have to say outside of your repeated talking points (which I’ve read some odd dozens of times so far here in MEN). You are one of the handful of repeat offenders who have solidified that the no campaign has a “me first” mentality that I believe would lead to a rapid decay of the life and city I love.
Even in your offer to meet, you have decided I’m just must not be informed, and that if I just had YOUR information, I’d feel differently. It’s an arrogance that I’m not interested in engaging with.
Sheryll,
I never have and never would use the word “nefarious” to describe developers. Adel Sefrioui used “nefarious” when referencing developer Mike McMurray’s and Clearwater LLC’s support of Keep Edmonds Affordable’s https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com campaign to vote No on Prop 1.
That’s why “nefarious” is in quotes. As I said when Adel used “nefarious” I have enormous respect for Mike McMurray who has contributed immensely to Edmonds.
Joan, you quite literally accused him of being deceitful and hiding his true identity.
It’s fruitless to pretend otherwise. It’s literally in this comment thread.
Now someone is accusing him of being paid to respond to comments in MEN. If you can’t start to see why the no campaign has been feeling like one large witch hunt, then you really are missing out an opportunity to see that some of your neighbors really do just think differently than you.
They don’t need financial benefits to want to see fully staffed police dept, green lawns at our parks, clean and open bathrooms at said parks, the pool for their kids and grandkids, city events like the parade and the tree lighting, etc etc.
Hearing folks just repeat “the city lied and none/few of the cuts will happen. The pool will stay open, we don’t need police (being absorbed by county would be adequate just like cities that chose to do it 30 years ago), etc etc” just doesn’t hold water to me.
As much as it may be hard for the no campaign to believe, I’m not a paid mouth piece. I’m just a regular old citizens, I support prop 1, and I’m not the only voter like that.
Deborah, please be advised that Adel has in no way really told you who he is and all of why he is so outspoken on all of this levy business. Just google his name and you will find out that he is Vice President of Acquisitions and Development with Evergreen Point Group of Bellevue WA. What his company specializes in is promoting and financing multi-family dwelling units. This guy can’t even give you a straight answer about who he really is but he can sure tell you all about how great current Edmonds government is and why Diane Buckshnis is anti growth and anti Edmonds and is “undermining faith in the government” of the town she absolutely loves and has given hours of work for. I left Edmonds to get away from people like this guy and Mike Rosen – late comers to the party – who claim to just know what is best for you.
Folks, please don’t drink the Kool Aid regarding Resolution 1570, that scary list of cuts. It looks objective and neutral, but I would like to suggest that it is not.
The one financial professional on our City Council, Will Chen, CPA/MBA, offers a more balanced and practical view of what would happen if Prop 1 is rejected
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/10/only-small-portion-available-chen-clarifies-his-thinking-on-availability-of-city-reserve-funds/ :
“… the city MAY have to implement SOME of the austerity measures outlined in Resolution 1570…”
He goes on to elucidate what might happen if Prop 1 is rejected, the city proposes a smaller levy, and that subsequent smaller levy is then rejected:
“… SOME of the more severe austerity measures outlined in Resolution 1570 could be implemented…”
This doesn’t sound to me like the sky would fall if Prop 1 is rejected.
Prop 1: it’s permanent, it’s huge, and once approved, can never be undone. Let’s not.
Becky,
I understand you’re trying to offer reassurance, but what you’re essentially saying is that those who view the cuts listed in Resolution 1570 are foolish (drinking the “Kool Aid,” as you state), and folks like you know better. I hope you can appreciate why this could be viewed as condescension.
Suggesting that residents shouldn’t take seriously the list of cuts already approved by City Council this past June, based on the opinion of a single councilmember, seems difficult to justify.
There are six other councilmembers, the mayor, and multiple department directors, each with subject-matter expertise in areas like parks, police, planning, and public works, who have all conveyed that these cuts are real and whose impacts will be felt.
It’s worth asking: should voters place their confidence in the broader set of voices responsible for implementing these decisions, or rely on one perspective that contradicts them?
Adel — you keep invoking “subject-matter expertise” at City Hall, but let’s be honest — if that expertise actually existed, we wouldn’t be missing core financial data or struggling with basic transparency. Would you do a development deal without incomplete data? Likely not.. Why should we do a deal with the city when the data is incomplete?
Professionals in finance and operations track performance through measurable metrics — per-capita service cost, capital project ROI, labor utilization, and reserve ratios. None of that exists in any consistent, public form in Edmonds. Instead, we get shifting narratives, incomplete data sets, and after-the-fact explanations once money has already been spent.
You reference “multiple department directors with expertise,” but where is the evidence of data discipline? Where’s the financial dashboard or quarterly reporting that shows accountability for taxpayer dollars? If anything, the absence of this information proves how little operational rigor there actually is.
Adel, the threatened cut list is central to the Yes/No voting decision. Who would approve a huge tax increase if not worried about what will be lost if they don’t?
Neighbors, please consider the source of campaign messaging, in two respects:
• Financial expertise: How deep and complex is a source’s understanding of our city’s financial situation and resources?
• Objectivity: What motivates a source to advocate one way or the other?
The “broader set of voices” Adel refers to — city administration and majority Council – are, for the most part, the very folks who proposed and approved the deficit spending 2022 through 2024 that got us into our current fiscal emergency.
Whose financial expertise should we rely on regarding our city’s resources and resiliency, whether Prop 1 is approved or rejected? These folks? Or a CPA who has been our Council’s voice of fiscal reason for years?
Whose objectivity is greater? I believe that “broader set of voices” would be happy to have this crisis affirmed as a purely revenue problem and fixed by an enormous revenue influx. Are they objective? I don’t think so.
Why does the cut list include so many of the very amenities we Edmonds residents most treasure? As a retired CPA who understands our city’s finances, I am much more inclined to believe Will Chen’s perspective.
I believe citizens locally are getting pushed to their limits when it comes to taxes. Sadly, there is a pattern from the top down in Washington state government to find ways of creating more revenue. In Edmonds we have seen increases in property taxes, utilities (all of them), sales tax (most recently the huge sales tax increase on the service industry), gas tax, etc. The list is endless. The citizens just passed the fire department/Ems service annexation. This will cost homeowners around $1,000 more per year in property tax for a million-dollar property and now the levy. Which will increase costs even more for the average citizen. If you aren’t seeing your income rise then an additional $2500 a year in property taxes plus the other taxes will be extremely hard for some families to handle. $200 a month less at a time when food prices are still high is not a good thing and it will hurt all businesses in the surrounding region. This situation isn’t about one group versus another group or scare tactics from either side. It is about the city and each of us personally having less money to spend each month to pay our bills with. If you are ok with spending more than go ahead and vote yes. If you aren’t ok with it then vote no.
Again you get the pro side accusing the anti side of “undermining the trust and confidence in our government.” The anti side has definitely lost trust and confidence in their local government because most of them, like myself even tho I no longer live in Edmonds by choice, have seen and documented the waste and mis-management way back before Mayor Nelson, who people on the pro side have no problem pointing their fingers at since the long botched city governmet really came to a head under his watch. This is in no way disparraging the rank and file workers in Edmonds in anyway. When the anti side talks about staff, they are referring to management staff, all of whom serve at the pleasure of any mayor and are hence fair game for criticizm and certainly public scrutiny as they are supposed to serve the taxpayers as well as the mayors. I spent years living in Edmonds being told to be quiet and that I was wrong and that people like Mike Rosen just know what is best for me. Balony! That’s just what the pro side is serving up to you. If this passes, they will hit you up again next year, telling you it wasn’t enough. The anti’s are trying to look out for you whether you accept that or not.
Adel – You’re not wrong that there have been some harsh comments made, but have you truly taken into account the level frustration in our community? The average overall property tax increase for 2026 will be approximately 35% and three-quarters of that amount will be due to the RFA annexation and the $14.5M Levy.
Our mayor and city council completely dropped the ball when it came to negotiating a fair deal with the RFA. Instead, they seemed more focused on absolving themselves of the responsibility for funding fire/EMT services going forward. This resulted in our city leaders and the RFA running an effective PR/scare campaign to convince residents that not only was it in our best interests to vote for Annexation, but that we may actually lose Fire/EMT services if we didn’t vote yes.
This same type of PR/scare campaign is now in overdrive to convince Edmonds residents to vote YES for the Levy Lift because if we don’t, we’re being told that much of what we need, enjoy and love about this city will be lost. This is simply not true. Moving forward, we need our city leaders to take real ownership to solve the city budget issues, but that will only happen if we vote NO!
Chris,
I hear your frustration. And at the same time I interpret things different than you.
From what I recall, City staff, our councilmembers, and mayor appear to have looked hard at multiple different options before settling on the RFA path. While I personally would have loved to see Edmonds return to having its own fire department, and the control that would afford, I also understood that the regional fire model is a model that is becoming increasingly adopted, as evidenced by other neighboring jurisdictions. Could there have been better negotiations – I’m not sure. I wasn’t in the room. Neither were you. But to suggest that the people who were at the table didn’t pursue what was best for our city – from both a practical and financial sense – and instead resorted to “an effective PR/scare campaign,” that’s where you lose me.
At the end of the day, I think we just have fundamentally different views on how we think about our elected representatives and our city staff. I believe they do take real ownership of issues, I admire the often thankless role they fill on our behalf, and I think they’re being genuine in communicating the needs of our city for it to thrive in the future.
Hi Liz & Beth – thanks for sharing your perspective. I’m certain you care about our community. Wondered if any of the following were part of your decision making?
.’Yes’ = a 50% higher property tax rate than any community in Snohomish County.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/06/reader-view-opinion-risk-vs-reward-a-look-at-the-levy-lid-lift/
.Property taxes in King County are pushing residents from their homes.
https://www.king5.com/article/money/economy/king-county-property-taxes-increasing/281-79a95bdf-74b1-4071-815e-36146b525480
.After reading Mayor Rosen’s Blue Ribbon Panel summary on our budget crisis causation & recommendations, do you feel the city has met all the recommendations around ‘rebuilding trust’ & ‘transparency’?
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Memo%20re%20recommendations%20and%20conclusions%20final.pdf
.Have you asked how the city funds the ~$77,000,000 in public investments? Or checked on the earned interest rate as suggested by the Blue Ribbon Panel? Are we overfunding this account, what good is it doing for us? The Mayor touches on a few of these items, below;
https://d38u6hukd4et5m.cloudfront.net/investments.png
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/10/mayor-staff-respond-to-questions-on-levy-lift-and-budget-proposals/
.Do you feel the legal costs to residents are justified in the Rimmer case, where the city blocked an Edmonds resident from building on their property over 2 small trees? The city appealed the verdict. This case has gone on for years. Have you asked the city how much this civil case has costs residents?
https://pacificlegal.org/case/rimmer-housing-forever-trees/
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/judge-rules-city-must-pay-damages-in-tree-code-case/
How do you feel about a smaller $6M levy as suggested by Will Chen, the amount I support.
Appreciate the dialogue!
-Nick
Scare tactics. That’s all this is. Edmonds needs to do better with what they have. There may be cuts, but permits for the 4th of July parade will be issued.
Right, Adam?
Gotta respect business owners — it takes grit. But the numbers behind Proposition 1 don’t add up for the local business community…
Let’s talk in real terms. The median commercial lease in downtown Edmonds runs $32–$36 per sq. ft. annually. When property taxes rise by 30–40% over the next six years (the combined effect of the RFA levy, county increases, and now Prop 1), landlords will pass that through. For a 1,200 sq. ft. florist or salon, that’s roughly $9,000–$11,000 more per year in rent alone. Add the upcoming B&O tax, utilities up 8-10%, and insurance increases, and you’re easily looking at $15K-plus in new annual costs — before a single new customer walks in the door.
Now multiply that across hundreds of small shops and service providers in Edmonds. That’s millions of dollars in local spending that will instead be diverted to City Hall — money that could have gone to wages, benefits, upgrades, or simply keeping prices stable for our neighbors.
A healthy city doesn’t grow by taxing its producers; it grows by managing efficiently, reducing waste, and letting small businesses reinvest locally.
Edmonds isn’t asking for efficiency — it’s asking for more money. And for many of us, that’s money we simply don’t have to give.
Same old tax and spend. Spend more, waste our money then ask for more. When does it stop. I also heard they are considering a local Edmonds B&O Tax. And we just received a tax increase for Sno County Fire. Who votes yes for this kind of taxation!! Hello California.
How can we support Prop 1, when there is no limitation on the increases for years to come? Those on fixed income will not be able to afford to live here, if they rent or stay here if they own their home. Compared to Shoreline, our taxes are astronomical.
“Voting NO on Prop 1 isn’t voting against parks or safety, it’s voting for fiscal responsibility and to protect Edmonds’ affordability for all of us. I wholeheartedly believe we are being led to believe our city, that we all love so much, will hurt if this levy lift isn’t passed, and that does not have to be the truth. We need accountability from those we elected to represent us, we deserve to stay in our homes affordably. The burden of making up for funds that were mismanaged by elected representatives should not fall to the already stretched thin residents.”
Please rethink the Prop 1, and vote no.
Adel,
Lee Reeves has earned my trust by consistently demonstrating, in words, in actions and in his openness to listening to ALL points of view, that he has the best interests of ALL of Edmonds’s stakeholders in mind as a Community Supporter of Keep Edmonds Affordable Vote No on Prop 1: https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/supporters
Quoting Sheryll Schuppisser’s reply to Lee’s offer, now mine to you, Adel:
“Even in your offer to meet, you have decided I’m just must not be informed, and that if I just had YOUR information, I’d feel differently. It’s an arrogance that I’m not interested in engaging with.”
Adel, I have two simple questions. 1.Are you being paid by anyone for all your online time, and talks?
Yes or No .
2.Will you or your employer, Evergreen Point Group where you are the Vice-President of Acquisitions and Development, benefit financially in any way if the Levy Lid Passes? Yes/No
Yes or No works. We’ve all seen that you are quite a wordsmith, but ultimately a Yes/No answer will suffice.
Robert,
No to both questions. I, like all of the dedicated volunteers with Yes! for Edmonds, are residents who cares about the future of Edmonds — nothing more. Going forward, let’s keep the personal stuff out of this and focus on the proposition at hand.
If you’d like to connect in person, or continue the conversation, feel free to send me a message.
Adel, Thank you for answering. No need for us to discuss this further. I’ll take you as a man of your word.
More police does not equal less crime. Decades of statistics show exactly the opposite of that. We don’t need more cops in Edmonds. We need more social services.