Reader view: Why the City’s proposed levy is the right choice

1. Tom, similar to other advocates, you conveniently neglected to mention, whether intentionally or through oversight, that if you are a tenant, you are at a disadvantage. It is highly probable that landlords will need to transfer these significant tax hikes onto your rental payments.

2. Coming from one of the ring leaders who got our city into this mess in the first place – reads like a press release for City Hall, not an honest assessment of Edmonds’ finances.

   The $4 million gap didn’t “disappear” — it went missing during the transition between Nelson and Rosen, and everyone knows it.

   If you were still a City Council Member, I’d be voting you off the island, come November….

   • Lee, those state audits that Mr. Mesaros mentions as proof that no money is just missing are pretty much a joke. You can sum virtually all of them up as, ” we have found that Edmonds has not documented the spending of certain funds properly and “overtime” hasn’t been accounted for properly but Edmonds has identified the problem(s) and is taking corrective action.” I made that up, but I think if readers take the time to research past state audit report results they will find it’s a pretty accurate characterization. Readers should also remember that this is the same Tom Mesaros who threw Diane Bucksnis under the bus as being part of the failed Nelson Administration to help his ECR selected candidate Rosen win the last Mayor’s election. This characterization of Diane couldn’t have been further from the truth so I’d advise taking anything Mr. Mesaros has to say with a huge grain of salt.

3. Tom, NO, the City isn’t just asking for a bigger budget this year because they are in a hole. They want it all for the next 6 years and then some. We know we can’t trust them to do the right thing with our money and they are putting most of us in a financial hardship it’s not just seniors that will be squeezed and they may or may
   not have an out but lots of others do not. Nor do they have a source to pull a rabbit out of their hat to be able to afford it. Plain and simple they want too much and once that levy is lifted they are free wheeling and we no longer have the protection it has given us, because the city won’t. We may already live on a tight budget the City needs to rework theirs like the rest of us have to. They are already a very costly City to live in and do nothing to try and get a handle on it. Their demands are unreasonable and for six years plus! No way.

4. I wish people would quit saying since you are a senior you get an exemption. The exemption only works if you make less that $75,000 a year. Then they look at your past tax returns to go over those, I believe there are more steps to go through. I don’t qualify, I bet only about 5% of Edmonds residents qualify. If you would like to know all the details of how it works I would be happy to pass your name onto the person that leads people to help with those exemptions. She has been helping people for years.

5. The senior exemption is not guaranteed. The requirements are very strict and only a small number of seniors will be able to take advantage of this exemption.

   • Yes the requirements are strict but if you meet them, you are entitled to the exemption. For Seniors they will look at your Social Security benefit. In addition, any annuity payments, dividend payments, rental income, veteran benefits.
     The reality is that seniors are asset rich but cash income poor. The primary asset is their home which was likely bought decades earlier and has significantly appreciated since it was purchased. This is the specific scenario the senior exemption was designed to address. In comments on MEN I have seen the figure of over 700 seniors in Edmonds have received some level of property tax relief.

     • Course if you’re a senior and you rent you’re out of luck. The landlord can’t absorb these large tax increases. Rents are going to go up because of this Levy.

6. Tom,

   “Diane repeated that $4 million is “missing” from the city’s budget. In truth, this concern has been addressed publicly by both city staff and councilmembers. It’s not accurate to suggest that funds have vanished. The City is audited annually by our State Auditor’s Office. It’s improper to undermine public trust without evidence..”

   Winner winner.. the above you reference, is in fact with the State Auditor (I’m on the emails with the office;)… it’s also with the PDC, etc. It’s got your name written all over it..

   You’re above ⬆️ statement has to be one of the most false, misleading pieces of information I’ve seen thus far during this process..

   The mayor knows… it’s only a matter of time until you are outted..

7. Thanks for the clarifications Tom. Very helpful.

8. Thank you Tom. I’ve done quite a bit of research on this topic and you have provided an excellent summary. I am also a senior and strongly support the levy.
   By the way, you may want to check the regulations for senior property tax exemptions – eligibility is decided on a number of factors. More people qualify than I originally assumed. See the document at: https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1387/Senior-Citizens-and-People-with-Disabilities-Exemption-Program-Publication?bidId=

   • Are you sure you have read the qualifications? VERY narrow. Just stating Low income seniors are exempt is misleading. There is a process and sadly many may not know this and/or be able to navigate the forms to try. And what about our MANY residents under 61 that really need the help – too bad, your not 61. So a 50 something barely getting by at $74,000 can’t even apply. It is only For SR citizens and those with disabilities. That leaves out a lot of people.
     By December 31 of the assessment year, you must be any
     of the following:
     • At least 61 years of age.
     • At least 57 years of age and the surviving spouse or
     domestic partner of a person who was an exemption
     participant at the time of their death.
     • Unable to work because of a disability.
     • A disabled veteran with a service-connected
     evaluation of at least 80% or receiving compensation
     from the United States Department of Veterans
     Affairs at the 100% rate for a service-connected
     disability.

     • Agree many do not know about these exemptions – we should publicize it extensively! Whether the levy lid is passed or not.

       • Again – I think you are missing the point, it isn’t even that they don’t know, it is how hard it is to actually qualify. AND we are leaving out MANY folks under 62 with income lower than $75,000 that cannot even apply for it. Also if their income is less than $75,000 but they have a good chunk put away intended to live on into their really senior years that is taken into account and they do not get the exemption – instead they are forced to dip into their life savings until they have to re-evaluate staying in Edmonds as they will run out of funds much sooner because of this.

9. Lee, if you have evidence, present it. Otherwise you’re just posting “false, misleading pieces of information.”
   Jean, yes, they want it for the next six years and then some. We need to dig ourselves out of a hole; do you want us to fall back into it after one year? The city’s expenses have gone up all round just like everyone else’s; that doesn’t change after one year. Saying that you can’t afford the increases you face doesn’t magically make it possible for the city to afford those it has to pay.
   Sherry, you suggest that only 5% of Edmonds residents would qualify for the low-income exemption. How many Edmonds residents truly NEED the exemption, not just want it? I’d be surprised if it was that high.

   • Hey Jon – good morning. I’d be happy to – here’s my email: Lee.reeves.3@gmail.com. Feel free to send me an email and I’ll fwd you the email(s).

   • Yes. City expenses are UP, why?? Oh, maybe insurance increase due to law suit for Police chief debacle? Still cannot wrap my mind around how that happened, yet it did and it is costing us dearly. And how is no one having an issue with our police chief being paid significantly more than the state average?

10. We have not seen any logical reason for the proposed tax increase, only scare tactics.

11. How much paperwork is involved in the Senior exemption? Or is it automatic? Just curious. Thanks.

    • Delores, I’ve been a volunteer helping seniors complete the application paperwork for the tax exemption program. It is not simple and requires a lot of documentation. Seniors and disabled persons can contact the Waterfront Center to request an appointment for assistance with the paperwork. And please don’t let anyone lead you to believe “seniors on fixed incomes should support Proposition 1 because they can get tax exemptions and not have to pay the significant property tax increase.” That may be true for some, but not most.

      • Dave is right on with what he is saying here. Before I left Edmonds, I worked with Dave on this assistance program and soon realized that I did not have the personal expertise or accounting intellect to responsibly help these seniors avail themselves of this program and I dropped out. If any part of a Senior’s income, is derived from stocks and bonds, the accounting to qualify for the program gets complicated real quick. The County will of course do the accounting part but you have to plug in exactly the right numbers or you will not get the exemption. So, to get the numbers right you will probably need competent help. Also if you do get an exemption, some other lucky Senior who can afford the tax hike will have to pick up the slack. That was the position I’d have been in had I stayed in town. I notice Mr. Mesaros didn’t bother to mention that part of the deal as he supports this outrageous demand for higher property taxation by the guy he was instrumental in getting elected Mayor. Except your Mayor’s number on what he wanted to extract from you was 19M plus which he baited and switched down to 14.5M. with the complicity of an economics understanding challenged CC majority. (Chen and Dotsch excepted).

    • Delores,
      Here is a link to the guidelines: https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1387/Senior-Citizens-and-People-with-Disabilities-Exemption-Program-Publication?bidId=

12. Part 1 of 3 Tom Mesaros, how unfortunate that I should read your words in this Opinion Piece. You write: “As voters weigh their decision about whether to support Proposition 1, it’s critical that we separate facts from wishful thinking, or downright falsehoods, especially when proposals are being presented as alternatives”. You also write:
    “Some of the claims made by the no campaign — including several shared by their representative, former Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, during the Monday, Oct. 6 levy conversation — were based on inaccurate or incomplete information. As former Edmonds City Council President, I’d like to provide clarification on several key points”.
    Tom, allow me to point out some “downright falsehoods” you have had no problem promoting.
    You may recall that I was one of five folks who founded the Edmonds Civic Roundtable (ECR) about 8 years ago with you. I immediately bought into the idea that creating an organization to recruit folks of integrity, with Edmonds best interests at heart, to run for local elected office was our goal. But within a short time you showed your true colors. What you wanted was to recruit folks to promote YOUR ideas of what Edmonds should look like. I left the ECR about four years ago as I simply didn’t want to be associated with an organization that lacked integrity, lacked respect for the folks of Edmonds, treated truth like a piece of refuse, and promoted it’s own goals at all costs no matter the damage to our community. That is why I turned down the offer to become a board member of the ECR when Former Mayor Earling and Jay Grant approached me.

13. Part 2 of 3: Let me say right now, there are some very reputable members of the ECR today whom I know and respect – and frankly I question why these good folks choose to be associated with an organization, with Tom Mesaros and other like-minded folks in leadership.
    You promoted Mike Rosen to run for mayor knowing full well he didn’t have any qualifications to be mayor. He had no municipal financial experience. He was a retired successful PR executive. Diane Buckshnis was running for this position as well and you ran a nasty hit piece against her. Win at all cost -right Tom? Truth and integrity appear to mean nothing to you in your quest to get what you want. You supported Mike Rosen for mayor. He knocked on thousands of doors over his 18 month campaign for mayor and told folks he was a retired business owner and CEO of a well-known Seattle based company. NOT true. A ‘downright falsehood” Tom. I’ve known Mayor Rosen for many years, well enough and trusted enough to have had the security code to his home when he and his wife left on extended vacations. And I know that he was not a retired business owner or CEO – but a retired PR executive. When I read the Voter’s Pamplhet and read what Mayor Rosen listed as his qualifications I immediately brought it to his attention in a MEN article. Mike responded to me in a comment and said that he had promoted himself as such – a blatant lie perpetrated on the residents of Edmonds because (paraphrasing) “My campaign told me to promote myself this way”.

14. Part 3 of 3: Perhaps Teresa Wipple of MEN can find this LTE and post the link. This was two weeks before the November vote and too late to correct this fraud, this lie, perpetuated on the Edmonds voters. You were part of Mike Rosen’s campaign Tom. So IMO you are not to be believed on any level, on anything, or “fact” you think you have as you’ve written in this Opinion Piece. This is rich on your part – even for you.
    Today, in large part, we’re in this financial mess due to your and your cabals maneuvers and goals to achieve what you want Edmonds to look like. You join the ranks of those former Council Presidents who have turned their backs on those who elected them.

15. Jon, I can’t believe I am answering you, but your reply stuns me. So, you have a City that admits funds have been mismanaged, not sure how or where , lost a few million, don’t know how or where , etc etc but 6.5 mil will fix it so let’s go for 14.5 just incase we misplace some more, oh and ask to lift levy it will give us a 6 year open door. So, your answer is sure let’s do that ? Not, well first let’s see if you can balance a budget, figure out what went wrong so it doesn’t happen again, ask for the right amount for a well worked realistic budget for next year AND then work on operational costs and efficiently using funds not shooting for extra just incase we lose track…again. We need a fine tuned city, very important not a run by the seat of your pants one. Yes costs have gone up and most are struggling with that fact. But isn’t that what we hire them for & vote them in for, their knowledge & expertise? Now let’s see it in operation & proven. Not throw more money at them.

16. It is very difficult for seniors to qualify for the tax exemption. I went through the process with a family member. There is quite a bit of paperwork and income qualifications for you to qualify for it. It is misleading to make seniors think if this levy passes seniors can qualify for lower taxes. It puts a huge burden on those on a fixed income . Some might need to sell their homes due to being taxed out of Edmonds. That doesn’t seem right or fair. What concrete measures are being put in place to assure the money would be properly used this time? We are all tired of broken promises that affect us financially.

17. Tom,

    You’re overlooking several critical components in your argument. First, let’s not ignore the $6.5 million the city is now reallocating thanks to the RFA annexation—freed up by no longer paying for fire services. Add to that the mayor’s public commitment to generating $5 million in new non–property tax revenue. These aren’t speculative figures—they’re part of the city’s own budget narrative.

    Then there’s the Internal Service Funds (ISF). I’m puzzled by the claim that only $1 million is available for transfer. That figure doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, the ISF receives contributions from both Utility Funds and the General Fund. If you take the time to review the adopted budget and trace the “Interfund Rental” expenses, you’ll see that the majority of ISF revenue originates from General Fund sources. That means a significant portion could be reallocated—without risk to services—because the ISF is consistently overfunded year after year.

    Now, about this idea of “guarantees.” What guarantees do residents have that they’ll be able to afford a PERMINANT levy lid lift that starts at $14.5 million and escalates indefinitely? Once enacted, there’s no sunset clause, no built-in review mechanism, and no assurance that future councils will exercise restraint. That’s not fiscal responsibility—it’s a blank check.

    A $14.5 million levy isn’t needed when other more affordable options are available.

18. Why do we have to demonize those who think differently than us?
    Diane Buckshnis resorted to it last Monday night with her lack-of-trust-in City-leadership remarks. According to the summary published in MEN on Oct 10, she said “… any additional funds approved by voters are likely to be mismanaged by City officials or go missing.” Later she clarified that “she was referring to elected officials.” Diane served on the City Council for 13 years. Does she include herself as one of those not-to-be-trusted officials?
    Jim Ogonowski, on the October 11 MEN, charges that “special interest groups” plus city policy makers are the forces behind Prop 1, and only those opposing it have the interests of middle-class citizens at heart. In Jim’s view, others do not really care about Edmonds?
    In today’s MEN, Lee Reeves accuses the author of this Opinion piece of making false and misleading statements and then predicts that the author will be “outted” (what’s that about?).
    Why is this happening? Could it be that those opposed to the Proposition are worried that they are losing the battle for voters’ hearts and minds? Could it be that they are not the only ones who care about the future of Edmonds, are not the only ones who take pride in their single-family-home neighborhoods, are not the only ones who worry about rising taxes?

    • Mr. Fuell- it’s not a case of demonizing anyone. It’s a case of the Mayor and Council violating the principles of good governance – no fiscal discipline, no accountability, no transparency, no common sense, and failure to put taxpayers first. Why do our leaders condone violating State laws dealing with elections? Found guilty in using taxpayer funds to hire a consultant to advocate for the RFA annexation. The State is now investigating the City for using public resources to advocate for the tax levy. Twice in a year? The City further violates the election guidelines that prohibit cities from advocating for a ballot measure and not allowing the opposition to have equal time, equal space, equal opportunity to present their side of the story. Examples being the sham 1-way Town Hall meetings and the 4-pg/4-color mailer that was produced by taxpayer funds and mailed to thousands of Edmonds residents. The City and its cohorts (KeepEdmondsVibrant/YES on Prop1; Police Union; Firefighters’ Union) are using scare tactics to confuse voters into thinking they will lose police services and parks if they defeat the tax levy. The City offers no credible analysis and can’t explain why the police budget increased by 61%, and general staff increased by almost 40% between 2022 and 2025? More accounting flaws and misinformation are documented throughout these Reader Comments and at: https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/

19. From Theresa Hutchison: Here is the link I refer to in my comments above regarding Mike Rosen falsely promoting himself to as a retired business owner and CEO, which was not true.https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/10/letter-to-the-editor-asking-mike-rosen-for-clarification/ and here is Mayor Rosen’s response to me: Mike Rosen October 9, 2023 At 5:22 pm Rita is amazing and it was a pleasure to work with her. However, there some few details in Ms. Hutchinson’s this letter that I would like to correct/clarify. • I joined PRR in 1991, as the 7th employee. • At the time it was called Pacific Rim Resources and was rebranded as PRR in 2001. • I was promoted to Managing Principal in 2008 and began acquiring shares. • In 2015 Rita sold her company to the new ownership group which included five women, me and our employees. • The firm no longer qualified as minority owned. We structured ownership to retain woman owned business certification. • In addition to my existing shares, I purchased additional shares, and as stated by Ms. Hutchinson, I also benefited as an employee through the ESOP. • I also received annual K-1 Forms because the IRS considered me an owner. Several individuals encouraged me to use the term CEO to explain my position and responsibilities. They advised that the term was more generally understood than Managing Principal and the responsibilities similar.

20. Mr. Fuell, are you aware that there are no longer any single family only home neighborhoods allowed anywhere in the state of WA. unless the home comes under the protection of an H.O.A? That’s one of the big reasons we left Edmonds and moved to a non-incorporated H.O.A. protected community. That’s the only defense against your neighbor knocking down his house, building two condos in it’s place and selling one off to pay for the other. Or your neighbor building a DADU or two to rent out. If you think this outrageous property tax ask by the Mayor and his staff passing is going to protect your single family property (if it isn’t already subject to an HOA like Woodway,) you have another think coming I’m afraid.

21. Thank you Tom – as like I used to say “we have to agree to disagree” and I really had to laugh hard at your “spin” since you should know, I keep source data and have lots.

    So, let’s clarify some governance issues like #6: CM Chen can support me since he also was an auditor. Auditors have specific scopes and the multi-year General Fund reconciliations was never scoped.

    What the City’s Audits have shown year after year is serious comments about internal controls in the financial area. An amendment report dated 7/2023 reports General Fund Beginning fund balance at $16.7M and then in 12/2023, City reported $11.9M or difference $4.8M and no footnote appeared to identify this discrepancy and when asked the Administration ignored the question. One member of the Blue Ribbon group wanted a reconciliations but it was not scoped. So, the oversight of internal controls and continued audit exceptions identifies bad governance and this needs to change.

    The GEMT is $15M and source data exist. Sure, it can be risky with this City Attorney that continues to appear weak since two fire stations with $5.7M assessed value were given away or giving them $6.0M of expired contract when RFA annexation had been initiated 6/2025. It could be risky with this attorney but source documents are on our side.

    vote no, please!

22. So, if I understand this correctly what Diane is saying is that the state auditors never even looked at what Mr. Mesaros is saying proves his case that no money has ever been just missing from one year to the next. That’s apparently $4.8M that is just unaccounted for and that Mr. Mesaros apparently wants you to think is no big deal anyway. This is starting to smell sort of like all those trucks full of stink that continually drive by the Marsh project coming from the new state of the art waste treatment plant on their way to the landfill in Oregon.

23. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed a growing trend in these opinion pieces—where the author publishes a bold or provocative article, then disappears entirely from the conversation that follows? It’s starting to feel less like a good-faith effort to inform or persuade, and more like a rhetorical drive-by: shoot from the hip, hope to hit a target—any target—then vanish before anyone can ask a follow-up.

    This kind of one-way communication undermines the very purpose of public discourse. If you’re going to put forward strong claims, especially on complex issues like municipal finance or public policy, you should be prepared to engage with the community that responds. Otherwise, it comes across as performative—more about scoring points than fostering understanding.

    To me, credibility isn’t just about what you say—it’s about how you show up after you’ve said it. If you’re unwilling to answer questions, clarify your data, or respond to reasonable challenges, then it raises a red flag. Are you confident in your position, or just hoping no one looks too closely?

    Public trust is built through dialogue, not monologue. And in a time when civic engagement is more important than ever, we should expect more from those who step into the public square.

    • In fairness, it’s a Reader View, and after some of these comment threads, a brief hiatus might just be an act of self-preservation and not evasion. There has been good points made by both sides and facts can stand on their own or inform thoughts or discussion without a response needed.

      • Jeremy, I’d say after using a LTE Reader View to accuse a fellow citizen of being a liar and trying to undermine the public confidence and then going on a brief hiatus is definitely an act of self preservation on the part of Mr. Mesaros, rather than an act of evasion. I’m often amazed at how often you actually stumble onto some truth in your various comments supposedly defending your positions. Mr. O. has called this one for exactly what it was. Another verbal hit job on Diane B. And I think she defended herself quite well, thank you very much. He now owes her two public apologies, but you will never see that I suspect.

        • I’d note that the traffic on this ‘verbal hit job’ street doesn’t flow one way. Some of the same folks demanding apologies have been known to issue their own rhetorical fender benders now and then. I’d say it’s because we all care about this place and do want to see it thrive. The interpretation of ‘thrive’ may differ from person-to-person which underscores the complexities cities are up against to represent the whole.

24. Jim, it sure seems like certain people in your town are really interested in making sure certain types of financial information don’t get out to the public and they will do or say just about anything to keep that information under wraps if possible. Just like they will do or say just about anything to get someone elected who won’t make any waves or dig up any past actions of financial impropriety other than what they can associate with former Mayor Nelson who’s bad actions are pretty low hanging fruit. I suspect lots of people are reading this stuff and figuring out that all the motivators and their motives for passing your massive tax hike aren’t acting in the best interest of everyone in town, let alone being transparent in any meaningful way.

Comments are closed.