Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
As ballots arrive, we want to directly address misinformation you may see from the No on Prop 1 group — whether in your mailbox or at your door. Much of it is designed to shake your confidence in voting Yes on Prop 1. Let’s walk through the facts:
1. Claim: Prop 1 will make Edmonds the most expensive city in the county.
Not true. The No campaign presents a limited comparison using select cities. But when you zoom out across the entire county, Edmonds is not at the top. And with other cities pursuing levies and regional fire models, Edmonds will soon be back in the middle of the pack.
2. Claim: Edmonds has a spending problem.
False. Edmonds has a revenue problem. We operate leaner than similarly-sized cities like Bothell, Issaquah, and Lynnwood — all of which have more staff. Edmonds has roughly the same number of employees today as it did in 2001, despite 3,000 more residents and an 88% rise in inflation.
3. Claim: Edmonds lost $4.5 million.
That’s simply not how public budgets work. City finances are audited annually by the Washington State Auditor’s Office. If $4.5 million was missing, the auditor would have flagged that. This claim is unfounded.
4. Claim: Edmonds isn’t following the Blue Ribbon Panel’s advice.
False. The panel made three “major” recommendations, among them being joining the RFA and pursuing a levy lid lift. All major recommendations have either been implemented or in progress.
5. Claim: The city has $79 million of tappable reserves.
Debunked. Of that amount, only $1 million is available for transfer. The rest is earmarked for specific purposes like utilities and transportation. Even Councilmember Chen, who first cited the $79M, later corrected himself.
6. Claim: Edmonds is bloated with property tax dollars.
Also untrue. In 2026, Edmonds GF will receive just 9% of your property taxes — about $0.72 per $1,000 in assessed value.
7. Claim: Prop 1 would raise taxes by 130%.
No. In 2026, your total property tax bill is $7.99 per $1,000 AV. That number is not going up 130% to $18.38. Rather, the tiny portion ($.72) that goes directly to the City will go up to $1.65.
8. Claim: Seniors will be priced out.
Prop 1 exempts low-income seniors and disabled residents — those earning up to ~$76,000/year — from paying the levy. Furthermore, the federal law passed this summer offers a significant senior tax deduction. Many seniors have expressed support and shared their offense at the “Save Our Seniors” slogan being used politically to somehow represent the position of all seniors as a monolithic voting block.
9. Claim: Our City’s public facilities are just fine.
False. A comprehensive McKinstry report evaluated all 18 public buildings and found that all are in “poor-critical” or “fair-poor” condition.
10. Claim: Identified cuts are being used as a scare tactic.
Over $8 million in cuts were already made this year. Resolution 1570, passed by Council, spells out additional cuts that would go into effect if Prop 1 fails — including $3.6 million from the police department and $1.8 million from Parks and Recreation.
When the facts are clear, so is the choice. Prop 1 is a modest investment that protects public safety, preserves our parks, and stabilizes city finances. Please vote Yes on Prop 1.
If you have any questions, or would like to learn more about Prop 1, please visit our website. We’ve also assembled a broad and diverse list of supporters. See our endorsements at yesforedmonds.org/endorsements.
And thank you!
Elise is an Edmonds resident and volunteer with Yes! for Edmonds
I am pretty sure there are things here that aren’t actually factual. But enough back and forth “I am pretty tired… I think I will go home now” while I can still afford one.
I find it noteworthy that, among the 28 comments posted so far, none have directly addressed or refuted the specific false claims that Ms. Hill identified as misinformation from the opposition. Instead, the comments seem to focus largely on general complaints about the city, or dismissals of the positive impact of the exemption for low-income seniors with annual incomes up to ~$76,000.
Still absent: no concrete alternatives to address the $20+ million revenue shortfall by January 1, 2026.
What is their solution? We only hear complaints.
Adel, I find it quite intriguing that you have persistently refrained from discussing the issues surrounding inevitable rental increases that are a result of the levy imposed on low-income renters and senior’s homes and apartments. To be frank, you have overlooked this matter time and again. Having countless words, you have nothing articulated regarding the effects on renters. I assume this topic simply does not fit within your narrative. One thing for sure renters are bona fide voters, and their choices will not be ignored at the ballot box.
Exactly right — and he keeps dodging the central fact: this levy isn’t $14.5 million a year, it’s nearly $90 million over six years when you include the CPI escalator. That’s a staggering sum for a city of just 43,000 residents — more than $2,000 per household in new taxes when combined with the RFA annexation.
This isn’t abstract policy; it’s a direct hit to renters and homeowners alike. When property taxes rise 130% on the City portion, landlords will pass those costs through. Seniors on fixed incomes, single parents, and working renters will all see higher rents. That’s how displacement happens — one “small” levy at a time.
Meanwhile, Edmonds sales tax revenues are already down 6% year-over-year, and business activity is softening across the downtown core – highway 99, Perrinville. Every extra dollar the City takes out of the local economy is a dollar not spent at local shops, restaurants, and service providers.
He talks about compassion, but real compassion starts with sound fiscal management and policies that don’t push people out of their homes. Until the City demonstrates that discipline, it doesn’t deserve a $90 million blank check from its taxpayers.
Brian,
I’m not making a conscious effort to dodge. Thanks for asking directly.
The assumption that rents will inevitably rise across the board doesn’t take into account the broader dynamics of the regional rental market.
The Edmonds rental market is not an island. It operates within a competitive environment. If neighboring cities like Lynnwood, Shoreline, or Mountlake Terrace are not seeing comparable rent increases due to levies of their own, landlords in Edmonds risk pricing themselves out of the market if they raise their rents disproportionately greater than those cities. Raising rents could lead to higher vacancies or tenant turnover, which in many cases is more costly than absorbing modest increases in expenses.
In other words, market forces place a natural limit on how much, and how quickly, rents can be raised.
Of course, affordability is a serious and ongoing issue, but I don’t see any atypical increases happening as a result, precisely for the reason of opportunity-cost.
Brian-
But let’s say opportunity cost is not a factor, and costs are indeed passed down to tenants. I hope you’ll be open to a quick case study to investigate your claim about the likely effect on renters:
The Bracket Apartments, located at 501 244th St SW, was constructed in 1987 and I believe is considered to be the largest apartment complex in Edmonds with 386 homes.
The assessed value is $96,689,000. The owner’s property tax next year, based on the 2026 numbers ($7.99/$1,000AV) will be $772,545.
If Prop 1 passes, the landlord can expect an increase of $.93/$1,000, which amounts to $89,920.77.
Let’s say the landlord chooses to pass this cost down to tenants. Divided equally amongst 386 apartment homes, that would equal $19 more in monthly rent, the equivalent of 65 cents per day.
Keep in mind that these apartments currently range in rent from $1670 – $3,943 per what Google is telling me.
If there’s an increase passed down from the landlord to the renter in this example (and that’s a big IF), $19/month is actually 29% of what it would be for the median Edmonds homeowner at 65/month.
This is just one example of course, and I don’t have time to run more examples, but I fully suspect that, when compared to homeowners, renters will be even less impacted.
Thank you, Elise Hill, for this summary.
I think you might be misunderstanding the concern about seniors. I think what is on the No-on-Prop-1 supporters’ minds is about seniors with more resources than $76,000 a year.
If I’ve got this wrong, maybe a No-on-Prop-1 person can explain what is really needed to “save our seniors.”
Last year, one very long-term resident couple sold their 2,000 square foot home for $1.5 million and moved to a smaller town on the water, because they didn’t feel comfortable spending $12,000 a year on property taxes. With an income over $76,000 a year, they didn’t qualify for the property tax exemption.
For seniors who have incomes over $76,000 who live in homes that have increased in value five-fold or even ten-fold since they bought them, it’s very hard to leave the town of your friends, where you were a member of a congregation, where you know all the stores and restaurants, and where you volunteered at the food bank and at the historical museum. And not everyone is comfortable moving into a 500 square foot condo on 5th.
No-on-Prop-1 folks: Do I have this right?
Nick,
You raise an important concern about residents who own their homes outright but live on fixed incomes — yet don’t qualify for the state’s low-income senior exemption. That situation deserves compassion and thoughtful policy.
That said, perhaps there’s another perspective to consider. If someone purchased a home in Edmonds decades ago for, say, $150,000 and it’s now worth $2 million, a few things are likely true: they’ve enjoyed the benefits of living in a safe, vibrant, and desirable city, and they’ve accumulated significant home equity over time.
So the real question is: how do we build a fair system — one that honors our financially vulnerable seniors and helps them stay in their homes, while also ensuring we’re investing in the services and infrastructure that make Edmonds livable for everyone, across generations?
There are other factors worth considering, too — like Washington’s lack of a state income tax, which ostensibly benefitted retired folks when they were working, or the significantly increased federal deduction for seniors ($6,000 additional per person). These don’t solve the issue entirely, but they do help ease the burden for some.
Finding balance isn’t easy, but acknowledging these different angles helps us move toward thoughtful, inclusive solutions.
Nick – I think you hit on an important part of the issue concern. Those over 65 with incomes over $ 76,000. a year have “real” concerns – this increase takes a big bite out of “discretionary spending” within a household. It might mean no longer donating to the Edmonds Food Bank, to Salvation Army, to Red Cross, to the religious institution of their choice, to PAWS. It may mean no trips to see grandchildren. Any number of those things that are important for the well-being of our communities because of charitable giving or to the well-being of the individual who must give up something that keeps them active and using their minds and hearts. I know I must have glossed over some other types of “discretionary spending” that impacts the local community when it drops but this gives folks an idea of the source of concerns many seniors, and quite frankly, young families as well, have as to how this huge tax increase may impact their lives but also the overall community.
Vote no. Edmonds in fact does have a spending problem just like the entire WA state legislature. Cut wasteful programs before imposing one of the largest property tax increases Edmonds has seen. My family and I moved up out of King County and Seattle to amazing Edmonds over a decade ago to get away from the unreal taxing and spending. Now it’s making it way into every little city and town. Sad.
Nick,
Can you please tell me one “wasteful program” currently funded by the city?
Ha! Don, I’ll give you a whole department, Human Services, Covid creation in 2020 , it can go away now.
Well, you have provided an interesting idea: cut the suicide hotline and the phone bank that connects hungry families with food banks: https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/human_services
Not everyone would support such a move.
The credibility gap is too large. I will vote no. A failed Proposition 1 may force a credible “Proposition 2.” My home value has increased 4.6 times since 1995. Why can’t Edmonds live within that? Ms Hill states “Edmonds has roughly the same number of employees as in 2001.” I hope my point is clear.
Well boils down to those who don’t care about money or costs or accountability will vote for prop one. Those who do care, believe in or have to live within a budget and expects the City to also operate efficiently since it’s our money and not interested in throwing more money at them, since asking for too much for too long and no stop guards to protect us thereafter, will vote against it. I guess we’ll find out how wise the residents are. Sadly so
many so busy with their lives and own finances they are not even aware of this prop 1 and the effect it will have on them. And that’s scary.
Elise isn’t just a resident of Edmonds. Shes one of the four major players in KEV. The other are Adel
Sefrioui, Erik Houser and Mackey Guenther.
Claims Discussion One.
Claims and Counter Claims. We should try to get data, share it and help each other understand the data. Then we can make an Informed decision. But we won’t do that because both Sides are trying to get 50% plus 1. Little is being done represent all or citizens: young, old and in between.
Some thoughts about the Claim Statements above. The goal is to help clarify each issue not take sides for Yes or No. We owe that to our citizens and cherry picking only the supportive data for political purposes is not Vibrant, Affordable and the Kind of Edmonds We All Want. KEWAW is a new slogan.
Claim 1. The voter should see the comparisons presented by both the No and Yes teams along with discussion of why a city should be included in the comparison or not. Each city has unique characteristics. Some may have their own fire dept or library. Others may have big box stores and others may have little retail at all.
Claim 2. From BRP report.
Year 2019….2020….2021….2022….2023
Rev $42.3…$40.9…$43.7…$41.6…$50.0
Exp $41.2…$43.3…$41.7…$45.4…$59.7
Claim 4: On next comment.
Claim 5. BRP offered observations and some tasks to consider. What is the progress?
Claim 7: Tax for Fire, Police, Parks, Sidewalks:
2025:$1.00/1000, 2026:$2.98/1000
Claims Discussion Two
Claim 4: BRP made 15 primary recommendations and 3 additional recommendations to address Budget imbalance (expenses greater than revenues). Joining SCF was discussed but not a recommendation. A review of all 15+3 is in order. Which have started and are continuing, and what is left to be done? We should discuss them all not just our individual favorite to make a pollical point.
Claim 8: Household with income of $75,000 or less = 7000.
Number of Seniors 65 years or older = 9600
4800 households if all have partners. Probably 7-8000 households.
Number of Seniors on fixed income $75,000 or less group not fully researched.
How many own vs rent?
Typical Edmonds rental unit has AV of $500k. New tax to landlord estimated at $80/month per unit.
How many seniors are income challenged (30% of income used for housing)?
It is rational to estimate Senior Households making less than $75,000 could be 3-4000.
Will all these seniors not pay the new levy tax?
How will the city collect $14.5m if 3000 senior households will not pay any of this new levy. Will other households have to pay a larger rate to make up the difference?
Claims Discussion Three
Claim 9: BRP reviewed the extensive list of assets and their condition. As citizens you should hope all sorts of ideas were discussed. With the budget issues top of the mind we should all review all the recommendations of the BRP not just the ones supporting a voting position. Mayor Rosen’s March 2024 State of the City address highlighted several things including fixing roads and fixing the roof leak at the library. Sell, Repair, Replace, and Lease were all on the table. Classic cost benefit analysis was recommended with an eye on reducing expenses and increasing revenues streams are key. Hard to lease a new police car to another city so they were sold. Too many “what ifs” to outline them all but can we take an asset that we are now are subsidizing with expenses and turn it into an revenue stream and put it back on the tax rolls to save us all on future taxes by increasing our total AV?
As voters we should know some of this data before we vote. But it is not likely to happen. Each side wants to win and little is being done to work together. We would not be in this position had council followed all 15+3 BRP recommendations.
I am one of those seniors that bought in Edmonds 43 years ago. My husband died 5 years ago so went from 2 incomes to 1. With the new RFA tax, the enormous raise in all other costs, the amount of this levy lift and the fact that it is a permanent tax amount, living here becomes financially scary. Please think of everyone when deciding how to vote.
Where’s the meat? By the time I got to point two I gave up looking for the facts to back up the counter claim. Does anyone have a spreadsheet or summary to back up the claims (from either side)?
Regarding claim 7, the writer states the current tax of .72 is rising to 1.65 if prop 1 is approved but further claims this is not a 130% increase….do the math:
The difference between.72 and 165 is 93. Divide the 93 difference by the base 72 starting point and you end up with 1.29 or a 130% increase.
In conclusion, the writer’s claim that prop 1 would not result in a 130% tax increase is the false assertion, not the inverse as the writer claims.
The portion that goes up 130% is only 7% of the total tax bill. So your taxes do not go up 130% is the point I was making
Ms. Hill-
Please don’t dig yourself a deeper hole. Local property taxes are the subject of the tax levy lift – not County taxes, not State taxes. Claiming the 130% increase is just 7% of the total tax bill is totally misleading, as is the avoidance of discussing the back-to-back impact of the new RFA annexation tax. Both tax increases could have been avoided by better governance which includes more due diligence, more analysis, more fiscal discipline, more accountability, and more common sense. Taxpayers need to understand the cumulative affect of the two taxes, because they have not yet received the RFA tax bill. The YES group has inappropriately dealt in half-truths and false narratives to scare and confuse residents into thinking they will lose police protection, street maintenance, and parks service. And the YES leaders have tried to say the environment will suffer, too – just to add more fear into the YES campaign propaganda. Budgets are always driven by priorities – and the City has failed to provide adequate financial analysis and justification for stack-ranking all the options. The $14.5M tax levy is really a $90+ million blank check over 6 years – and until the City demonstrates good governance and fiscal discipline, it doesn’t deserve such a massive blank check.
Thanks, Bill, for pointing out the discussion is, and should be, centered on the math related to what prop 1 impacts which is the local portion of the total property tax bill.
However, Elise’s perspective of looking at the totality of the bill prompts other concerns for which I’m grateful to her for pointing out. King 5 reported on October 9th that Sound Transit may exercise it’s right to increase their rate by the State maximum of 1%. And school districts including our own Edmonds school district continue to experience financial pressures with operational and capital costs. It would be naive to think that other, worthwhile needs will not be presented to voters to fund via the levy process. If prop 1 passes, Levy fatigue is not an unimaginable outcome which risks other worthy considerations.
Voters should scrutinize each issue carefully, ask what other options have been explored to address shortfalls, and vote keeping in mind that the next element to impact our taxes will be presented most likely sooner than later.
MEN editor: Why was my first reply deleted? Ms. Hill clearly does not understand the fact that the tax levy lift is based on local property taxes, not sales taxes, not RFA taxes, not County taxes, not State taxes. Why would you try and minimize the tax impact by saying it is a tiny percentage of your ‘total’ tax bill? It’s disingenuous and deceitful, just like so many other half-truths and false narratives that the YES campaign has spun into confusing and scaring residents into thinking they will lose police protection, parks, and street maintenance (and even harm the environment) if the $14.5M tax levy lift is defeated. It’s all a matter of budget priorities – and the City will have to prioritize services and staffing based on what the residents feel are the most important services to maintain. The City hasn’t disclosed any financial analysis that shows the costs of different services – so how can they determine that Service A stays, and Service B is cut? Get back to good governance basics – fiscal discipline, accountability, transparency, common sense – and above all, putting taxpayers first.
Mr. Krepick. Your reply was posted. If there was another reply, I didn’t see it here to approve. — Teresa Wippel, publisher
Ms. Hill — you’re a COO, so you know numbers tell the truth. Trying to spin a 130% property tax hike as “only 7% of the total bill” might work in a boardroom PowerPoint, but not here. The City’s portion is the issue — it’s the one residents actually feel.
When you stack that with the new RFA annexation tax, homeowners are facing two major increases in less than a year. That’s not smart governance — that’s bad fiscal management. An issue that a COO should absolutely consider when considering ‘impact’ to customers..
Bill’s right. These hikes weren’t inevitable; they were avoidable with better planning, more analysis, and less politics. Until the City can prove it can manage what it already has, it shouldn’t be asking taxpayers for another $90 million blank check.
Ms. Hill you are simply lying with statistics at worst or trying to mislead at best. Anyone with half a brain commenting here knows we are talking about Edmonds’ portion of Property tax not the whole thing. When I found out that our Edmond’s portion of Prop. taxes alone were going to go up at least $2000 when you factored in RFA I said enough is enough and got out of town. It wasn’t a matter of not being able to afford to stay; it was a matter of concluding it was dumb to stay in a town with such deteriorating livability (my old neighborhood) and general horrendously bad management history that wasn’t getting any better. You are also making claims about the BRP that one of it’s members apparently has some issues with based on his comment above. The real problem in Edmonds is top down oriented really bad management and this levy ask is the bottom of that ice berg in my unsophisticated perspective. History suggests the more they get; the more they will just waste; and I think it’s kind of dumb to keep being a party to that if you don’t have to.
Suggest Elise quit before being further outed.
Clearly, Prop 1, if passed as written will increase the Edmonds Property Tax by 130%. And that is only in the first year as subsequent years are tied to CPI for automatic tax increases.
She also conveniently leaves the RFA tax increases already authorized from her counter argument. I can assure you the run-of-the-mill property owner does not.
In regards to Resolution 1570 – Please consider this, why hasn’t Edmonds done what Everett recently did – provide a survey to residents – lending them a voice in budget reductions / spending priorities?
Or why not map out the outcome of a smaller $6M levy – that combined with the $5M in non-property tax revenues?
This is our city, residents should decide if any cuts are needed and what those cuts may look like, not a few electeds.
Please stop shoving this down our throats, let us all get involved, Yes & No folks.
#Official City of Everett Reddit account: – mentions voice in budget reductions
https://www.reddit.com/r/everett/comments/1eubp75/2025_budget_community_outreach/?rdt=55359
The Reader Comments above have debunked EVERY claim made by the YES proponent! Not surprising because the YES propaganda has consistently headlined essential services and then used scare tactic narratives to say services will disappear if the tax levy is defeated. Just look at the recent LTEs and Opinion articles written by the YES/KEV leaders. All lament the fact that the City will lose services and the City has done its best to run a tight ship. All hogwash. Ms. Hill’s 10 claims were designed to do the same – to cast aspersion on the Vote No! advocates while providing no data driven evidence to back her claims. No 360* view presenting legitimate taxpayer concerns. No mention of $300K insurance inflation due to failed litigation; or since 2021, a 40% increase in staff salaries and 60% increase in police budget; or millions of dollars in a failed waste water treatment plant; or millions in legal fees wasted to defend confiscatory tree rights and flawed storm water ground filtering specs; or $12.5M in prior fire/ems contract payments taken from business and local property taxes – and not returned to citizens; or $21M in new RFA annexation fire/ems taxes for the SAME service. Reform, good governance, and affordability are the only answers – NOT a 130% increase in local property taxes as Michael Mar commented. https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/
The rebuttal to claim 2. is misleading because the headcount in 2001 included 54 Fire employees that were moved from the city to Fire District 1 in 2010.
Ron,
In fact, Fire was already taken into consideration. In 2001, the city employed 268 employees. When you deduct 54 fire employees, you do indeed get roughly the same number of employees today as you did in 2001. Hope this helps.
Thank you Elise; what is the source of your figure for 2001?
The real problem in recent years is Police salaries. The 2025 budgeted headcount for Police is essentially flat with 2021, but budgeted salaries are up by 45% – from $6.951M to $10.082M.
Elise:
We are still waiting to hear your source for the city’s 2001 employment of 268.
Regarding Prop 1’s annual escalator calculation. In choosing the CPI factor for the calculation, the drafters of Prop 1 chose 100% of the regional CPI-U (Urban) over the lower CPI-W (Wage) which is typically used in determining cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for both social security recipients (seniors) and wage earners (our younger neighbors still in the workforce). For example, a Google search on the 2024 COLA for Edmonds employees indicated that represented employees received a roughly 3% increase (93% of the CPI-W for that year). In other words, the escalator for Prop 1 gives the City more revenue than it pays out to its own employees (which typically make up the largest percentage of a City budget),
Edmonds employees are typical of how COLAs are calculated: in almost all cases, wage earners receive a percentage of the CPI-W increase in any given year-they don’t get 100% of the increase. Social Security COLA is a bit more complex but, again, it’s tied to the lower of the two CPI indexes.
So, both seniors and younger wage earners paying this local tax lose ground each of the 5 years the Prop 1 escalator is in effect. And the effect is made worse by compounding over each year the escalator kicks in.
This is not an issue just affecting seniors but anyone paying the tax.
So now we learn, according to Nick Maxwell’s comment, that little old Edmonds has it’s very own suicide hotline and a phone bank that connects residents to the food bank? I think what Edmonds actually has is a paid staff person who possibly made up the City Website referral sheet that Mr. Maxwell is referring to and who answers a city phone, then refers people to other agencies that actually do the work. This person might also take people off police hands and do referrals for them to other agencies. Of course you really don’t know exactly what your social services department does because there has never been such a totally transparent account to the public from upper city management as far as I know about just what this agency does, day in and day out. I suspect it is just a glorified referral service, but MEN might want to do some investigative journalism on this; if there is any resource time and money to do it. Is this something Edmonds really needs and can afford? Is this duplicating what private charity groups are already doing?
PSA – There is an extremely effective National Suicide & Crisis Hotline number staffed 24/7. Simply pick up the phone and Dial 9-8-8. They also have bilingual staff counselors on hand.
Simply put, Vote NO on Prop. 1. I’m tired of the scare tactics displayed in the recent 4-sheet, full-color ad mailed to everyone in Edmonds. Maybe you (city council) thought that scare tactics like those used in the recent fire protection campaign would work again. I hope not. One of my main concerns is that there has been no “forensic accounting” done for the last 3-4 years of the Edmonds budget (by a non-interested 3rd party). I’m not interested in pointing fingers, we just desperately need a full accounting of how the city lost/mis-allocated all this tax money. Don’t tell me to trust you (city council) if you haven’t accounted for the losses we’ve already incurred. Until you do that, I seriously hesitate to trust you with anything more. Further, the county cap on tax rates was established to protect us, the citizens, from spending that is way beyond citizens’ (as a whole) needs with no explanation. Why not be creative (as opposed to lazy) instead of proposing to “break the cap”? When it comes to financing any size city, citizens need regulations in place. We, the people, want regulations when it comes to how OUR public monies are raised/spent.
BRAVO, Jennifer. You are so right. All the hand-wringing about the ‘unfair’ 1% cap is why Edmonds is in the situation it’s in. The City rejected the citizens’ Blue Ribbon Panel recommendation to implement best-practices zero-based budgeting (do not assume current level of funding is necessary) and Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) that would have detailed all budget choices and eliminated non-essential, low-priority services. Also rejected were: a) objectively evaluate the value to City programs and related costs to the community b) develop annual performance/productivity measures that enable effective evaluation of programs and staff and incorporate into budget process c) emphasize taxpayer perspective when evaluating services and programs d) improve transparency. The City has disrespected residents by not implementing the Blue Ribbon Citizen Panel of recommendations. See full report:
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Memo%20re%20recommendations%20and%20conclusions%20final.pdf
The City has done no due diligence on alternative business models for fire/ems and police services – both of which combined could save taxpayers more than the $14.5M/year tax levy!
The City has wasted millions of dollars on legal expenses and lawsuits that were of their own making: employee terminations; substandard storm water toxins specs; and confiscatory property rights. And how about the hundreds of thousands (or millions?) invested in a non-functioning waste water treatment system? Citizens need major REFORM – good governance, fiscal discipline, accountability, transparency, common sense – and TRUST. No blank checks!
Jennifer Gill is correct. Let us not forget that taxes are coerced revenue. If you don’t pay you risk incarceration. Over the last few years Edmonds has paid $2+ MILLION EACH YEAR for consulting fees. It begs the question of how deep the lack of knowledge is of our city leaders.
The Prop 1 issue is getting tiresome with both sides accusing the other of misrepresentation and outright lying. I plan to vote no and believe we can do better if this measure is rejected and a more moderate one is brought to the voters next year. Here are two final thoughts:
1) if Prop 1 passes, the city states it intends to reinstate the Beach Ranger program. Remember, we are in a financial crisis and need to focus city resources on the essentials. It’s not clear at all how Beach Rangers can be considered essential. It’s very bad optics at this critical tine.
2) the pro statement in the voters guide regarding Prop 1 states low income seniors and the disabled will be exempted from the Prop 1 tax increase. This statement is highly misleading and seems to convey seniors will be shielded from this major tax hit. The exemption is absolutely not automatic (as the statement implies) and most will either not qualify or will not understand how to complete the very complex application process for the exemption (or won’t have all the required documentation). This is insulting to voters. Instead of this sort of misleading rhetoric, it would be far better to simply present voters all the unvarnished facts and let them decide.
What is lost in all the commotion is that before there was even a whisper of RFA or potential levy lid lift. our 2025 property taxes went up 13.6 % from 2024, or $936 per year. Now we know that RFA will be paid directly, at anther approx. $900 per year, so there’s a big fat NO on Prop.1. Also, just got an email that our Medicare & dental insurance premiums are going up by $700 in 2026. What the YES group must also understand is that should this pass and along comes another anticipated school levy ( which BTW my wife works for Edmonds School Dist. & we have voted to support each one ) we and many seniors may have no choice but to vote no……..which is very sad.
For years, I have asked Edmonds City Council to adopt procedures to follow when it becomes known that false, misleading, incomplete or inaccurate information was provided to Council in front of a vote. All Councils have refused to adopt such procedures.
I believe the willingness of Council to let its votes stand after it is known that the Council voted under the influence of false, misleading, incomplete or inaccurate information is one of the reasons we are facing financial challenges.
On November 19, 2023, Councilmember Neil Tibbott documented that he and Councilmember Will Chen “were stonewalled and given false or misleading information when we asked for it”.
If Councilmembers themselves were denied financial information, how can voters be expected to trust the financial narrative that is being argued?
And now we see misleading, incomplete information in a Voters’ Pamphlet. Does this surprise anybody?
The rebuttal to the Argument Against Proposition 1 states that “Low-income seniors are exempt.” The truth is that low-income seniors MAY be exempt—but only if they meet strict eligibility criteria and successfully complete a complex application. Exemptions are not automatic.
Any exemptions granted will not reduce the city’s revenue. If some taxpayers are exempt, the cost is redistributed to other property owners.
Voters deserve transparency. Oversimplifying the exemption process and ignoring the cost-shifting effect misleads the public and undermines informed voting.
Thank you Dave. I have been particularly disturbed by the Pro Prop 1 folks minimizing the effect
of this major tax on low income seniors and the disabled. Anyone who doubts this should “Google” Snohomish County Property Tax Exemptions.
I am a lifelong Edmonds resident, and I will be enthusiastically voting NO on this. The citizens of Edmonds are not an endless piggy bank for the city to raid when they are short on funds. It’s time for the city to own their shortcomings and financial mis-management over the years.
Citizens and businesses are forced to make hard decisions, to get creative, and to drive our costs down to survive. It’s time for city government to do the same. Roll up your sleeves and get creative, but DO NOT increase our taxes.
Learn to operate on what you have, we all must do that.