Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
During my nine years in Edmonds, I’ve tried to be an informed citizen, one who studies the issues and comes to rational conclusions. I attend and participate in public discussions in City Hall and elsewhere. I read the City Council information packets. I read articles and opinion pieces in MEN and their comment threads.
But this Prop. 1 issue, the levy lid lift has been the most challenging. It’s like we’re being fed information by firehose; voters need to acquire useful knowledge but risk being drowned in it. The sheer confusing volume of it all — really two fire hoses each with thousands of words and hundreds of charts and graphs, each trying to convince us to Vote Yes or to Vote No.
I have friends on both sides, financial experts, numbers gurus whom I greatly respect. I can often count on their wisdom, their data to lead to a valid conclusion. But not this time.
I have arrived at my Yes vote by applying wisdom most of us learned in grade school — there’s no free lunch. We don’t get something for nothing in this life. The City has described what services it can deliver if the levy is approved, and they have described the further cuts that will occur if the levy fails.
Some of the Vote No folks have alluded to a Plan B that would depend on voters next year passing a different and smaller levy, $6 million instead of $14.5 million. But what goes unfunded with that smaller amount, the $8.5 million in City services that wouldn’t be delivered under their scenario?
The Vote No folks want to “kick the can down the road,” but they’re not telling us what City services they would pack into that can. What services would they defund from our police, parks and public works departments?
Nobody wants to pay more taxes, but like I said, there’s no free lunch. The most prudent thing now is to pass this levy and get this great little city back on course, on an even keel. I’m voting Yes on Prop 1.
Roger Pence is an Edmonds resident.
Well about 35% get free lunch in Edmonds school district all kids get free breakfast and lunch in the mukilteo school district. Our govenor wants to give all kids a free lunch. This city has proposed to take all my lunch money like a bully who thinks he needs it more than me. I can afford a little extortion but if this levy is passed I’ll have to go without breakfast and lunch for time immemorial, guess I will have to sign up for that government free lunch that you say doesn’t exist. Really how are us on the low end renter or owner supposed to afford between the RFA and this levy the huge increase in just one year on top of inflation other government tax increases and nearly the highest cost of living in the country? The city has a huge disconnect with the majority of the people that are living paycheck to paycheck or worse running up debt to just keep a roof over their heads. Vote no so the people can afford to pay for their lunch.
Edmonds lunch will cost 50% higher than any community in Snohomish County, with a ‘Yes’ vote.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/06/reader-view-opinion-risk-vs-reward-a-look-at-the-levy-lid-lift/
WA Ranks 5th most unaffordable, 3rd highest homeless population, 2nd most regressive tax code, and now King5 reports property taxes are pushing residents from their homes in King County.
Our government should be part of the solution, not the problem. Good leadership can balance the needs of our residents with the needs of government.
https://www.king5.com/article/money/economy/king-county-property-taxes-increasing/281-79a95bdf-74b1-4071-815e-36146b525480
-BTW – Roger is an outstanding guy – We’re lucky to have Roger in the community! I respect his point of view.
Will Chen for Mayor! – Will voted ‘No’ & recognizes the need for balance.
“As an alternative, Chen said he would favor a more modest levy lift of $6 million, which he says would allow the city to maintain critical services while repaying the $6 million internal loan from utility fund.”
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/10/only-small-portion-available-chen-clarifies-his-thinking-on-availability-of-city-reserve-funds/
Roger, I’d like to suggest that we are already committed to paying more to support our city in 2026.
Our city will shed its responsibility to provide fire and emergency medical services next year, a contract that cost the city $12.1 million in 2025. Will our city property taxes next year be reduced by that same amount? No, they will not.
Due to RFA annexation, our city will experience the following financial changes:
— $12.1 million in annual expense goes away
— A piece of property tax revenue will shift to the RFA: $0.28/$1,000, which equates to $4,450,000 next year
— EMS user transport fees of about $1.4 million per year go away
The net result? Our city gains $6.3 million in free tax revenue annually beginning next year. This quiet tax increase is already set to happen.
If Prop 1 fails, our city will add $6.3 million in new tax revenue annually beginning next year. If Prop 1 is approved, our city will add $6.3 million + $14.5 million = $20.8 million in new tax revenue annually.
For our city to thrive, do we need this much tax revenue every year into perpetuity? I don’t think so.
Nice job explaining why we totally do not need a levy lift of $14.5 million.
What a completely phony argument. Nobody in this city is asking for a “free lunch.” What citizens want is responsible government and not to be pushed out by a group of bullies. I often point out that renters with limited incomes have few protections and are seriously threatened by these large tax increases. I’ve yet to hear any response because, frankly, none of the “Yes” supporters seem interested in showing transparency or honesty by addressing this point. Last I checked, senior and limited income renters are bona fide residents who can vote, yet they are being disregarded. I guess we’ll see what happens at the ballot box.
It’s interesting how often “there’s no free lunch” gets used to justify another tax hike — as if the only two options are raise taxes or destroy the city. That’s a false choice, in my opinion.
Edmonds isn’t short on revenue. City evenues have grown over +45% in the past decade, outpacing inflation and population growth. What we lack isn’t money — it’s management. Every time new dollars arrive, spending expands to meet it. When reserves run low, City Hall reaches for another “temporary” fix — internal loans, one-time funds, or now, another $90 million levy.
There’s nothing prudent about giving more money to the same system (and people) that refuses to measure performance, control costs, or publish full financial data. A responsible organization — public or private — tracks ROI, efficiency, and outcomes before it asks for more. Edmonds doesn’t.
And as for “Plan B”? It starts with fiscal discipline, independent financial review, and subject-matter expertise — the very basics of professional management.
We all want Edmonds to thrive, but taxing your way out of inefficiency isn’t leadership. It’s surrender. Before voting yes on another levy, ask whether the city has earned the trust — and the data — to justify it.
There’s no free lunch, true. But there should at least be a receipt.
Roger, these are my sentiments as well. Thanks for the “simple” observation. Ben Cain
If we are going to have to pay for this lunch, how about if the citizens get some input on the menu?
It’s true, there is no free lunch, but I am not willing to continue to support the inefficiency and reckless spending and decisions our mayors and city council members have made and continue to make.
I stand by my comments above. Vote No folks still don’t acknowledge the depths of cuts that will come if the levy fails. The implication is most services will continue anyway without the levy, what I call their “free lunch” model. The best they can say is, come back next year with a smaller levy, $6 million, so the budget shortfall will only total $8.5 million and not $14.5 millions (but only if voters approve a $6 million levy after rejecting one for $14.5 million. BTW it costs the City $100K+ each time they put an item on our local ballot)
Roger:
My assessment is that, since I’m not a masochist, it makes no sense to give this city council even more money to squander. We’ll hopefully have two new council members in November and we can then look at approving a new, much more rational, proposal from truly non-partisan members.
Yes, special elections cost lots of money. The RFA special election cost you at least an unnecessary $250,000, not counting the illegal money Rosen spent on a PR firm to promote that levy, knowing he was going to also have to promote this huge levy ask in the Fall and didn’t want them combined. These are almost all relatively rich people with big egos that spend your money like drunken sailors and are promoting this levy like there is no tomorrow if it fails. (Look at the guy on the Pro side who is a big time multi-family home developer casting aspersions on a well known former CM who has done more for your town than this guy will ever do, except probably make some money off the state take over of local zoning). $100,000K just thrown away on not buying a property no one else even wants. And that happening at the behest of your one Council member with CPA credentials who could have stopped it with a simple common sense vote. People who think $350,000 is just peanuts are going to keep wasting your tax money and then tell you they need more of it a year or two later.
Roger, cuts on services, except police, are preferable to folks losing their homes and businesses. People first!