Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
As a 30-plus-year citizen of Edmonds, I sincerely want our city to continue to thrive. In addition to a strong and disciplined focus on expense control, our city needs increased revenue to provide city services. With Proposition 1, the city has proposed an increased local property tax package of about $14.5 million per year for six years plus a CPI adjustment. If inflation averages 3% over that period, the net property tax increase for Edmonds would total approximately $90 million. If approved by voters, Proposition 1 will result in an annual increase for 2026 of about $1,000 for an Edmonds home of median value (this amount will escalate over time by the CPI factor.)
If the focus was strictly Proposition 1, this $14.5 million amount may be reasonable. However, other increases will be directly impacting taxpayers in 2026 and beyond. Voters approved annexation to the Snohomish County Regional Fire Authority (RFA) — which will result in an annual increase in taxes/fees of about $1000 for the average home. The city’s utility prices for water/sewer/stormwater will very likely be increasing significantly. Snohomish County recently announced County taxes will increase by 4%. The state is working on a range of tax increases that will increase the load on Edmonds taxpayers in 2026. I’m hearing the Edmonds School District is planning on bringing a levy forward in 2026 that will directly increase local taxes. And these effects don’t even consider price increases from recent federally mandated tariffs that that will be causing substantial price increases in 2026 and beyond.
When considering the big picture of all the very significant tax and fee impacts that will be affecting Edmonds residents, now is not the time for a property tax increase of over $90 million during the next six years. Rather, Proposition 1 should be rejected and a smaller levy lift — in the range of the $6 million originally proposed by the city — should be brought to Edmonds voters in 2026.
As noted by Councilmember Chen — who is a Certified Public Accountant and past chair of the council’s Finance Committee — the city has other sources of funds (including access to funds in our city investment pool) that can be used to augment the general fund in 2026 as well as pay down the $6 million loan the city took from our utilities fund. Over $10 million may be forthcoming from the RFA for back payments for emergency medical transport due Edmonds under the terms of our contract with the RFA. The city has identified over $5 million in new revenue that will be generated in 2026 and beyond through programs such as paid parking, sales tax increases, etc. These revenues can bridge the gap in 2026 while longer-term financial strategies are developed.
Finally, I’m concerned with recent proposals to reinstate programs such as Beach Rangers, kid’s gymnastics and the waterfront information center. These non-essential programs should be put on pause for 2026 and not reactivated until our finances have stabilized or until they can be self-supporting. At this challenging time, the city should focus squarely on providing essential services and deferring taxpayer support for “wants.”
A ”no” vote on Proposition 1 does not mean taxpayers don’t support our city. It does mean we expect our city leaders to take the path Councilmember Chen recommends in considering the big picture of all taxpayer impacts, utilize all means available to stabilize our city’s finances and refine strategies for future years to ensure Edmonds continues to thrive. I will be a no vote on Proposition 1 in November but plan to be a yes vote for a scaled-back levy in 2026.
Dave Teitzel is a former Edmonds City Councilmember.
Thank you Mr. Teitzel. There are also other factors many are not aware of that will affect us. Effective October 1 the DOR is requiring many service based businesses to collect/pay sales tax on on things that were not previously taxed. Many classes that folks enjoy here are now will sales tax added on to them. At 10.5% that is not an insignificant increase for folks to add to their budget along with the things you mention. The added sales tax may not directly impact business owners – though it could if they have to hire someone to assist them in setting up and learning how to ensure proper collection & payments. It could also have an impact on their sales if folks decide the additional 10.5% means they pass on a class or service as a result.
AND the city is considering a B & O tax on Edmonds based businesses, many of which are owned by residents who will have that additional burden to add to their tax load.
Hi Karen. I do often agree with your comments so with this comment I have a question and a little response. What classes exactly are you referring to? While I don’t like the idea of B&O taxes as I feel they might have too much effect on our merchants especially small businesses and small stores in the Bowl and beyond I do wish that larger businesses like grocery stores etc. could handle that load as food isn’t taxed anyway and non-food items can be purchased elsewhere for less expense. I was a little surprised to see that at all Universities and community colleges sales tax is applied to books in WA state. So, I figure that extra 10% for sales tax on classes that may be not really necessary is ok. Just my thoughts. I think Seattle (although I could really care less) has B&O but want to also not have those on small business like I mentioned doing above? Have no idea if that can be split for our small business owners but…I watched a YouTube debate with Harrell and Davis today that is where I got this info. If I lived in Seattle I would be voting for Harrell for sure. I looked up the taxes on books for schools somewhere else out there in cyber world. Have a nice weekend. Deb
One example I was thinking of is the art classes offered at some of our local galleries. Live presentations are one of the services that must now charge/collect sales tax. Here is link to DOR site to give more info.
https://dor.wa.gov/taxes-rates/retail-sales-tax/services-newly-subject-retail-sales-tax
I think non-profits are exempt from this.
This is separate from the potential B & O tax that the city is considering. The sales tax took effect on the 1st. The B & O tax is being considered and can be enacted without vote of citizens/businesses. The Economic Development commission is holding workshops on the B & O tax – but doesn’t seem like this will prevent it from happening but rather may guide how it will work? Not sure they have only had one so far.
So residents that are also business owners in town will really get hit with a lot if all these taxes happen.
It would be nice to see Rick Steves & other prominent residents team up with Treasure Mackley and her investwanow organization, to push for a more fair & equitable tax system.
https://www.investwanow.org/
Thank you Karen. The Economic Development Commission has three more scheduled workshops for businesses to attend:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/10/city-hosting-local-business-and-occupation-tax-workshops-in-october/
For clarity:
– Our commission is facilitating these sessions, which are structured as full participation around breakout sessions.
-We are interested in hearing business perspectives, whether you support or oppose the concept/implementation of a B&O tax.
– We are impartial facilitators – we were asked by City Council to reach out to businesses and hear their feedback. Our workshops are not presentations, they are participatory discussions.
– We will summarize the feedback from the four sessions, and present our findings to City Council in November.
Please come join us to express your thoughts and opinions as a business owner. Your participation gives you an opportunity to share your voice in this early stage of the policy making process. Our next workshop begins at 7:30 am this morning at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Please see the link above for more details. We hope to see businesses attend! Thank you.
Kevin,
As a member of the EDC, here are some constructive ‘next steps’ I’d like to propose to the commission before the commission continues its work:
Please share the below with Matt Cox as well – he’s the Chair, I believe. The below request is not rocket science, it’s business. This is simple, simple data that any business owner should be interested in, to fully understand the potential economic impact of B&O on their business – also, please tell Matt we need an updated Economic Development plan, as the last update was 2015:
– Publish three 5-year models: (1) $14.5M Levy only, (2) B&O only, (3) Paid parking only; then a fourth: (4) Combined impacts.
-Break out micro/small/medium businesses and key sectors (retail, food & bev, services, personal care).
-If B&O advances, include de minimis thresholds and phase-ins to protect micro-businesses.
-Pair all of this with a real economic development plan (retention, recruitment, foot-traffic growth) so we’re growing the base, not just raising rates.
-Prioritize enforcement/ops fixes (consistent ADA/parking enforcement) that improve access and compliance without taxing commerce.
Bottom line: separating the models avoids policy confusion and finger-pointing; the combined model shows real-world wallet pressure. We need both to be credible with small businesses and voters.
Mr. Teitzel, thoughtful, well-articulated summary of the choice before us: I agree completely. Thank you.
Thank you, Dave, for your thoughtful commentary – something I consistently appreciated during your time on the council. I’ve mostly stayed out of the comments here, as they’ve become increasingly difficult to engage with and at times unbearable to read. However, a few points in your post prompted me to speak up.
The proposed levy lift and other tax increases don’t just affect seniors or low-income households. As a family with two working parents and two school-aged children, we’ve seen a significant decline in disposable income over the past three years due to rising costs. For example, our monthly utility expenses—when water/sewer, electricity, gas, and garbage all align—have jumped from around $350 to over $750. This is just one of many, many examples of significant cost increases which cannot be avoided. The difference with the levy lift however is that I have a choice to weigh in.
While I agree that a “no” vote doesn’t mean “no forever,” I also believe there’s a segment of voters myself included – who are open to a reduction in city services if it means long-term sustainability. I’m not asking to pay less and still receive the same level of services. Sometimes, right-sizing is difficult, but necessary, to protect core services in perpetuity and not find ourselves in this situation again.
Dave – thanks so much for your excellent article that logically lays out the reasons to defeat the $14.5M tax levy in November. It is indeed a complicated and emotional subject, but historic financial data clearly shows that in the past 4 years, City leaders have lacked the fiscal discipline, accountability, transparency, and common sense for good governance and have allowed the City to spend beyond its means. $14.5M per year in new local property taxes ($90M in 6 years), combined with all the new State taxes and the RFA annexation tax, is a back-breaker for the majority of Edmonds residents. They may be equity rich in home valuation, but most are cash poor, and simply can’t afford the doubling and tripling of their local property tax. Edmonds residents should follow your sage advice. They all deserve a comfortable and affordable Edmonds. https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/
Thanks Dave, as always, very well said with supportive reasons as to why we must defeat this $14.5 million levy. Bravo!
On a side thought: I think the City Council should look back to what Finance Chair Michael Plunkett and I did in 2010, where the Finance Committee included as part of their oversight responsibility a seven member levy committee to work with the Administration to set forth a levy recommendation. In 2010, the citizen levy committee recommended three separate small specialized levy targeting one item only, like police, parks or streets. Our EMS levy was written that way. More importantly Council needs to start driving the car and demand financial transparency, accurate forecasting and descriptive amendments so we can understand exactly where taxpayers’ money is being spent. To achieve this small step towards transparency, I hope CM Chen or CM Dotsch will be voted Council President and Council President Pro Tem next year.