Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
I attended Monday night’s co-sponsored event hosted by My Edmonds News and Edmonds Civic Roundtable on the proposed levy lid lift. I left feeling proud to live in a city where both sides of a major issue can engage in respectful, civil debate — a refreshing contrast to the tone sometimes seen, and aspersions cast, in the comments here. Kudos to everyone who made the event possible.
I left the event with a big question that, in my view, went unanswered by the no campaign, represented by Diane Buckshnis.
Ms. Buckshnis and opponents of Proposition 1 have rallied behind an “alternative plan” developed by Edmonds resident Jim Ogonowski. This plan includes three key components — and for the plan to work, each piece must hold up:
- Transferring $6.6 million from the Internal Service Fund (ISF) to the General Fund;
- Passing a smaller levy, instead of the proposed $14.5 million; and
- Banking on $5 million in new non-property revenues currently being pursued by the City Council
Ms. Buckshnis reaffirmed her support for this plan during Monday’s event. However, the discussion revealed serious holes that call its feasibility into question.
First, Ms. Buckshnis proposed transferring $6.6 million from the ISF fund. But as Councilmember Will Chen recently conceded, only about $1.5 million from that fund is realistically transferable. That leaves a $5 million gap in the math — a gap that I didn’t feel was acknowledged or reconciled.
Second, the “alternative plan” supports Council’s current pursuit of, and is dependent upon, $5 million in new non-property tax revenues. The City has made clear that the path to get to $5 million is achievable only through a city B&O tax, expanded red-light and school-zone cameras, paid parking downtown, increased fees, and a small sales tax increase. But here’s the irony: Ms. Buckshnis herself has publicly opposed many of these policies. And she did again at the event. She pointed to red-light cameras as a potential revenue source — but once implementation and administrative costs are factored in, they fall far short of closing the gap. They simply won’t generate anything close to the $5 million needed.
Add that to the already overstated $6.6 million ISF transfer — which realistically yields only about $1 million — and we’re now looking at a potential $10 million shortfall in the alternative plan.
Finally, Ms. Buckshnis stated that the cuts outlined in Resolution 1570 — the City’s contingency plan if the levy fails — won’t happen. The facts do not support that conclusion. In fact, Councilmember Chen recently conceded that if the levy fails this November, the city won’t be able to secure replacement revenues until 2027. In the meantime, “the city would also need to consider both revenue and expense adjustments, and some of the more severe austerity measures outlined in Resolution 1570.”
If the no campaign wants its alternative plan to be taken seriously, it must be built on sound math and credible assumptions. This just isn’t.
I came into the event open to new information. I left even more confident that voting yes on Proposition 1 is the best choice for me — and for Edmonds. To me, Edmonds is worth it.
Heather Damron is an Edmonds resident.
Heather, sounds fair. It’s a tough choice. What do we tell residents that are concerned with their own financial well-being? Is Edmonds, not for everyone? Are we incapable of balancing the needs?
We have reports WA ranks 2nd most regressive tax structure & King5 reports property taxes are forcing residents from their homes.
https://www.king5.com/article/money/economy/king-county-property-taxes-increasing/281-79a95bdf-74b1-4071-815e-36146b525480
Did you ask Will what “some” of the cuts outlined in Resolution 1570 would look like?
Have you scrutinized city spending, no areas that might seem unreasonable?
Have you read Mayor Rosen’s Blue Ribbon Panel summary, outlining the causation & recommendations surrounding the budget crisis?
Pushed for the guardrails to prevent another such crisis as outlined by the Panel?
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Memo%20re%20recommendations%20and%20conclusions%20final.pdf
Dive into any details of the $77,000,000 the city has invested?
https://d38u6hukd4et5m.cloudfront.net/investments.png
If we’re not willing to take a comprehensive view of the issues and demand luxuries from our city, the least we could do is partner with Treasure Mackley’s investwanow org. to fight for a more just tax system.
https://www.investwanow.org/
Heather, are you publishing as a resident of Edmonds or as a representative of the 21st legislative district Democrats? Please clarify – you know like Angie Feser did in her recent column. And why didn’t the 21st district Dem’s respond to my request last month to present the Keep Edmonds Affordable platform to your group? You made meeting time for only the other guys. Isn’t there even the bare minimum of analytical thinking in the endorsement process in this town- listening to both sides of a ballot measure? How is a property tax dollar either a Democrat dollar of a Republican dollar?
Regarding your column’s premise that there’s an unanswered question. It’s unanswered by DESIGN. Why would the City of Edmonds both put the largest tax levy on the ballot in the city’s hundred year history, make it permanent, and then calmly walk the inquiring voter through their set of books to show where there’s money outside of the general fund?
They’re no dummies. They’re campaigning from their positions of strength, just as I am campaigning from our positions of strength as the campaign manager of Keep Edmonds Affordable. Fact of the matter is that we’re not campaigning much in MEN.
Heather is a representee of the tax and spend contingent. Far past time for a much past due ‘needs v wants’ top-to-bottom assessment. Unfortunately that can only occur now with a NO vote. Any other vote is irresponsibly kicking the can down the road as there are no assurances that fluff has been excluded from the current and proposed budget. There are no new policies, procedures in place to keep the profligate overspending from happening again.
Thank you Heather. You explained so well the problems I am having with the “alternative plan” the No campaign has been talking about. I have never understood how it would work and you are right that this event did not give us any new information that clears up my questions. Their numbers don’t add up, plain and simple. There will have to be cuts if the levy lift doesn’t pass. I will vote yes because I don’t want to see those cuts.
Will Chen is repeatedly misquoted or misinterpreted. I’d like to clarify, using his language:
How much city funding is available if the levy fails?
Chen emphasized that … some funds … could be accessed with proper legal and council approval, especially if there is a surplus beyond what is needed for their designated use.
…. 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.
Note: more than $1.5 million is available with proper legal and Council approval.
How will the city balance its books if the levy fails?
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 …
To bridge this gap, Chen said that … the city may have to implement some of the austerity measures … which could mean cuts to non-essential services.
Heather, the quote you include about “some of the more severe austerity measures outlined in Resolution 1570” is what CM Chen said might need consideration if a second smaller levy also fails.
The picture of levy failure is not that dark.
Can anyone suggest where, exactly, the additional funds beyond the $1.5M would come from? Which specific funds and in what amounts? Waving around a vague notion that there’s more money available doesn’t constitute a plan.
The utility funds have been suggested as a possible source of extra funds and, after further study of these funds, I understand that they include what is called an unrestricted net position that can legally be transferred if there is a surplus. However, the balances in these funds were swollen by a bond/debt issue last year and current spend exceeds revenue so any unrestricted net position in these funds wouldn’t appear to be surplus at this time.
It appears that neither the internal service funds nor the utility funds are a viable source of additional funds. Even if they were, a one time transfer doesn’t solve the problems. Our budgets for the past two years have relied on $6M of one time funds in the form of ARPA money in 2024 and a loan from the utility funds in 2025 which has to be paid back with interest.
If the levy fails, even to maintain the current level of services would require another short term loan and then another and then another.
Niall,
Let me help you walk through the numbers yourself.
Start with the 2025–2026 adopted budget. Review each account and identify the expenses transferred to the Internal Service Funds—these are labeled as “Interfund Rental.” Add up the contributions from the Utility Funds, then compare them to those from other governmental sources, including the General Fund. Once you’ve done that, we can compare your findings with mine.
This exercise reveals the minimum percentage of the ISF fund balance that could be transferred back to the General Fund without risk. No services are jeopardized—because year after year, the ISF is overfunded, which is precisely why its balance keeps growing.
As for the rest of your comment, I’d encourage you to revisit the alternative plan. At no point have I claimed that the proposed transfer alone “solves the problem.” That’s a misrepresentation. The plan is multifaceted, and the transfer is one component—not a silver bullet.
Let’s keep the discussion grounded in facts and analysis. That’s what the public deserves.
Jim,
Your argument appears to be predicated on the idea that any money paid into the ISF from the general fund can be returned to the general fund by the ISF but that simply isn’t the case. Internal Service Funds are a means for centralizing and controlling the spend by multiple departments on high cost items like vehicles and IT equipment. 90% of the money paid into the ISF is paid back out again to provide those services. Yes, there is a reserve in the ISF but, as I have argued before, if we dissolve the ISF and return those reserves to the other funds then the reserve requirements for those funds would also increase – there’s no free lunch there. So other than the modest excess that exists within those funds, I just don’t see how this approach yields anything to address our larger issues.
As for the other parts of the alternative plan, I was responding to a comment that specifically addresses the transfers part of that plan. I don’t feel obliged to bring those other elements into my response which is limited to 225 words. But, since you ask, if the levy fails, and the transfer part of the plan doesn’t pan out, how would you balance the books in 2026?
Niall,
You obviously haven’t looked at the budget and run the analysis that I outlined. When you do, then let’s return to this discussion.
At the ECR, Diane tried to take a 360* view of the problem and the solution. The problem is a $14.5M proposed tax levy added to a $21M RFA tax levy added to a sales tax increase and to other miscellaneous State taxes. A permanent 300% increase in taxes! It’s the result of ‘tax and spend’ policies that show no fiscal discipline, no accountability, no transparency, and no common sense. It has resulted in lack of trust and credibility in Edmonds governance. Edmonds engineered a sleight of hand by keeping $6.5M in local property taxes and $6M in business/other taxes that used to pay for contract fire/ems services, and added them to the 2026 budget as ‘incremental revenue.’ They failed to reduce the cost of the RFA annexation by giving away 2 fire stations valued north of $8M to the RFA and not collecting $15M in unpaid hospital transport fees that were owed by the RFA. They claim to have reduced staffing and salaries by $7M, but the budget shows only $1.7M reduction between 2024 and 2025! The City has refused to answer taxpayers’ questions and dealt in misinformation. The State Public Disclosure Commission has filed a case of election interference against the City. The City was found guilty in similar case leading up to the RFA election. These are the real tax levy issues.
Here’s another way to view the out come of our current fiscal crisis, whether you believe it’s due to years of fiscal mismanagement or not raising taxes enough.
When we look back on this time, say 5-6 years hence, and consider some possible outcomes, the one that troubles me most is the likelihood that by raising this tax PERMANENTLY, some of our neighbors will be forced out of their homes or will experience financial insecurity.
Not only the fixed income folks, but likely families- especially single parents, and others as well. I think that likelihood weighs on me more than delaying some of the projects and programs that would likely need to be scaled back or delayed for a few years. If we adjust our goals now, it would allow us some time to rebalance spending and reach a balanced budget with less impact on the financially vulnerable who stand to lose the most.
In this case, I think the risk of long term harm to our vulnerable citizens and business owners is greater than the risk of immediate reward in the pleasure of continuing all our city projects as hoped for.