Speakers explore pros and cons of levy lid lift during Monday event

Nearly 200 people filled the Edmonds Waterfront Center ballroom Monday evening to hear the pros and cons of Proposition 1, the Nov. 4 ballot measure requesting a $14.5 million levy lid lift aimed at getting Edmonds out of its current budget crisis and on the road to long-term financial stability.

Speaking for the measure was Treasure Mackley, an Edmonds resident who leads an advocacy organization for progressive tax policies. Speaking in opposition was Edmonds resident and former City Councilmember Diane Buckshnis.

Jointly hosted by My Edmonds News and the Edmonds Civic Roundtable (ECR), the event was aimed at fostering a discussion about Proposition 1.  A full video of the event is available here.

“I think we all know there are a lot of very important decisions coming up in our election on Nov. 4,” said ECR board member Matt Cox as he welcomed attendees. “One of those important decisions is how to vote on Proposition 1, the ballot measure for the property tax levy lid lift. Some of you may have already reached your decision, but some of you might feel like you need more information. That is the goal here tonight.”

Cox noted that the speakers “have educated themselves on this issue, and through that process, they’ve come to view it through very different perspectives.” He added that the Edmond Civic Roundtable “is not just a civic organization; it’s also a civil organization. We recognize that this issue is inspiring considerable passion in the community, but please understand that we are committed to civil, respectful discourse at our events.”

Cox then introduced the event moderator Teresa Wippel, President and CEO of the My Neighborhood News Network – of which My Edmonds News is a part.

After thanking and welcoming attendees, Wippel provided a brief overview of the ballot measure, what the requested $14.5 million would pay for, and why the City Council determined it was needed. She detailed the sequence of events that led to this point, noting external pressures including inflation and COVID, relevant decisions made by voters and City officials, the Council’s 2023 declaration of a fiscal emergency, the appointment of a Blue Ribbon Panel to advise on options, and Council’s decision in August of this year to place a $14.5 million levy lid lift ballot measure to voters. For full details of this presentation, refer to the PowerPoint prepared by My Edmonds News.

Wippel then introduced Buckshnis and Mackley, who provided opening statements.

Buckshnis began, describing herself as a “myth buster” who served for 13 years on the Edmonds City Council.

“Prior to serving on City Council for 13 years, I had an extensive 20-year career in banking and auditing, then a decade in the Treasury Department working to put white collar criminals in jail during the savings and loan crisis,” she said. “I then spent another 15 years in international banking helping restructure the banking systems of Lithuania and Kazakhstan, where I helped write policy.”

Mackley described herself as committed to community engagement and public service, adding she is participating in the forum as a volunteer to advocate for Proposition 1.

“I am an Edmonds resident and a mom,” she began. “My husband and I moved here eight years ago, and I have a fourth grader in the Edmonds School District. I have spent the last 20 years of my professional capacity working to build stronger communities and focusing on policies that help us all live the best lives that we can. This has included working to expand access to health care, fighting to protect and defend reproductive rights and freedoms, marriage equality, and building a more fair and equitable tax code.” Mackley currently serves as executive director of Invest in Washington Now.

Wippel then launched into the discussion, built around asking the two participants the following questions:

• To Mackley: Why should people vote “yes” on the levy? To Buckshnis: Why should people vote no?
• To both: What will happen to Edmonds if the levy does not pass?
• To both: What will happen to Edmonds if the levy does pass?
• To both: What further recommendations do you have for the city if the levy fails: to increase revenue? to cut more expenses?

While their responses to these frequently covered much of the same ground, the basic arguments are summarized below. Refer to the video linked above for the full response.

Because Buckshnis gave the first opening statement, this part of the program began with Mackley.

Here are her main arguments in favor of Proposition 1:

• Edmonds is facing a significant budget crisis, which is not the fault of any one person or administration, but the result of decades of systemic issues and an outdated tax system that limits revenue growth.
• The City’s main sources of revenue (sales tax, business and occupation tax, and property tax) are insufficient, especially since Edmonds lacks a large business footprint and is heavily reliant on property taxes.
• Proposition 1 is the final major recommendation from the Mayor-appointed Blue Ribbon Panel to address the budget shortfall, following other implemented measures and cuts.
• She described the proposed property tax increase (from $0.72 to $1.65 per $1,000 of assessed value) as a manageable cost for most residents — comparable to a night out or a family dinner — and is necessary to maintain essential city services.
• If Proposition 1 passes, it will fund parks, recreation, public safety (including police), economic development, planning, and maintenance of streets and sidewalks. It will help avoid closures of community amenities like Yost Pool, the splash park, and the Frances Anderson Center.
• The City has already made significant budget cuts (about $8 million), and further cuts would impact public safety, increase 911 response times, and close valued community facilities.
• There are property tax exemptions and relief available for seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, as well as new federal tax deductions for seniors, to help mitigate the impact on those with fixed or lower incomes.
• The alternative plan proposed by opponents is not viable or sufficient to address the budget gap.
• Passing Proposition 1 is an investment in the community’s future, preserving the quality of life, safety and amenities that make Edmonds special.

She further argued that should Proposition 1 be defeated, the consequences to Edmonds would be significant, severe and immediate. She pointed to Council Resolution 1570, which details an approved list of cuts to be implemented if the levy fails, calling out the following examples:

• There will be $3.6 million in cuts to public safety, including reductions in police staffing. The Edmonds Police Officers Association president has warned that the department is already understaffed, and failure of the levy would drop the number of officers per 1,000 residents to a level far below state standards.
• The domestic violence coordinator position would be eliminated, reducing support for families facing domestic violence.
• The traffic unit would be cut, and 911 response times would increase due to fewer available officers.
• Community amenities such as Yost Pool and the spray park would be closed.
• The City has already made $8 million in cuts, and further reductions would adversely impact essential services and the quality of life in Edmonds.

Mackley emphasized that these outcomes are not hypothetical but based on official City Council resolutions.  She also stressed that the pro arguments are supported by a host of community leaders – including European travel guide Rick Steves and former mayor Dave Earling. She also stressed that the city is not alone in this, and these same challenges are being faced by other jurisdictions across Washington state and nationwide. She framed the situation as a choice between maintaining vital city services and facing substantial reductions that would affect public safety and community amenities, saying that “we’ve kicked the can down the road and ducked the issue as far as we can – it’s time to take action.” More details for those supporting Proposition 1 are available on the YesForEdmonds website and the handout materials distributed at the event.

Buckshnis’ arguments to vote no on Proposition 1 are summarized as follows:

• The City is not truly in a financial emergency: The Council already passed a balanced budget based on an anticipated $6 million levy, and the need for raising that levy to $14.5 million is not justified. She said the City’s financial management lacks transparency and is a result of poor governance.
• There are concerns about financial transparency and management: She pointed to what she calls unresolved discrepancies in the City’s finances (for example, a $4.3 million decrease in the general fund that was not explained), and that changes in the City’s financial reporting formats have made it harder for citizens to track spending and accountability.
• Alternative funding sources and cost savings exist: Buckshnis pointed to other potential revenue sources (for example, red light camera revenue, internal service fund transfers, and uncollected funds from the Regional Fire Authority) and suggested that combining these with more cuts or reallocations could meet the City’s needs without raising taxes.
• The proposed levy is excessive: Buckshnis strongly argued that the $14.5 million amount is too high. She suggested a smaller levy or waiting until 2027 to determine a more justified amount.
• Negative impact on residents, especially those on fixed incomes: The increased property tax, combined with other rising costs (like utility rates and the new Regional Fire Authority tax), could result in a “mass exodus” of seniors and lower-income residents from Edmonds. She noted that only a small percentage of seniors currently qualify for property tax exemptions.
• Lack of trust in City leadership: A major point made repeatedly is her concern that without improved transparency and governance, any additional funds approved by voters are likely to be mismanaged by City officials or go missing.
• The threat of drastic cuts is exaggerated: She argued that the City has weathered financial challenges before without closing essential services and that new councilmembers that may be elected in November could find alternative solutions. She expressed skepticism of the City administration’s and council’s warnings about immediate cuts, describing them as “scare tactics.” She believes the council has the authority to reject the Mayor’s proposed cuts and reorganize the budget to avoid closing parks, pools, or reducing public safety.
• Calls for citizen involvement: She advocated for forming a citizen levy committee to determine the true need and amount for any future levy, rather than relying on the current administration’s proposal.
• She advocated for “pressing pause” and using the next year to improve governance, increase transparency, and plan for a more justified levy in the future, rather than approving the current $14.5 million proposal.

In summary, her arguments against Proposition 1 focused on concerns about lax financial management; lack of trust in Edmonds elected officials; the size and necessity of the levy; the impact on vulnerable residents; and the need for greater transparency and citizen oversight. Buckshnis maintained that the City can get by without Proposition 1 by using alternative funding sources, improving financial management and involving citizens in future decisions, rather than making the severe cuts described by proponents of the levy and enumerated by council in Resolution 1570. More details on arguments against Proposition 1 are available on the Keep Edmonds Affordable website and in the handout materials distributed at the event.

The formal presentations and responses to questions were followed by a question-and-answer session where attendees who wished to ask questions were drawn at random.

The first questioner, Norma Middleton, is a senior on a fixed income and she expressed her concerns about the impact of Proposition 1 on older residents.

“Norma, I can feel your pain,” responded Buckshnis. “I volunteer to help seniors apply for the property tax credit, and so far only 894 seniors have successfully qualified. What we need to do is press pause and require them [City elected officials] to have some good governance and get citizens involved in the levy. I have no response to you other than that – if this passes you and other seniors will have a difficult time paying. And if you rent you can expect that rent to go up every year because landlords will be bearing the cost of this tremendous property tax increase.”

“If your income is $75,000 or less, there are property tax exemptions available for you,” responded Mackley. “It’s a pretty easy thing to do. It’s not difficult.”

The next questioner was Joe, who expressed frustration that the two presenters could not even agree on a pie chart of City revenues, specifically as to the huge discrepancy in the amount of City funds that come from property taxes. The two charts he referenced were the one based on official city data, used in Wippel’s introductory PowerPoint, and the one provided in the con side’s information packet supplied by Buckshnis.

Pie chart showing city income based on official city data

Pie chart from con side packet

“Why don’t you just get together, open the books to all sides and come up with something you can both accommodate?” Joe asked.

“I love this question,” Mackley replied. “When the Mayor and the City Council put this together, they actually held hearings, they had a process, they took a vote, and ultimately council voted 5-2 to put Proposition 1 on the ballot. The opposition had their opportunity to weigh in at those hearings, but they didn’t make their case for the $6 million lift they say they wanted. If you have a question on that, you can go back, you can watch the footage of the City Council hearings [archived on the council website].”

“I just want to say there are many charts to look at,” Buckshnis responded. “So Joe, it’s not that we’re trying to not get together. There are many charts, and the complexity of the municipal government is very difficult. And if you were to look at the budget, you would see them all. The point we’re trying to make is, yes, the City Council passed a balanced budget that showed $6 million and then suddenly, out of the blue, they added $8.5 million and they have not justified it. You can buy a campaign, you can get people to endorse you, you can do whatever you want. They’re attempting to confuse people, and that’s the problem that I have. Please read the packet that I’ve provided. I’m just trying to educate people.”

The next question came from Lee Reeves.

“My question is specifically around the $5 million that the City has agreed to identify,” he began. “Can you tell me a little bit about where that $5 million is expected to come from. And more importantly, can you tell me a little bit about the process that the City has followed to identify that $5 million of new revenue?”

While Mackley identified the red-light cameras, Buckshnis went into greater detail.

“I was told that there’s $1.6 million on the balance sheet for the red-light cameras alone,” she began. “And as of June, $624,000 had been realized. So that’s for like three months, and if you annualize that you get about $6 million in this proposed budget the Mayor gave (which should be rejected by Council and replaced with a new budget). They’ve also put in $200,000 for parking fees, which I don’t think that they’re going to be implementing. I certainly hope they don’t. And then they talk about $200,000 in grants. I don’t know what grants they plan to apply for, but basically the revenues they have discussed for this are not correct. But the red-light cameras alone give you your $5 million.” Buckshnis added that she has personal experience with this, having been recently ticketed by a red-light camera.

The next audience member to speak was Meadowdale resident Stephanie McLaughlin, who addressed the issue of crime. She related that an immediate family member had been the victim of a violent assault, and detailed other violent crimes in her area.

“And my question to Diane is, how do we expect our Edmonds Police Department to keep up with the rising tide of violent crime?” she asked. “My own postal carrier in Meadowdale was carjacked at gunpoint. There was a murder at Lynndale Park in January. There was a fishing pier murder and a spree of 11 drive-by shootings within the last two years. I don’t like taxes, but I am willing to pay to keep myself and my family safe. And so my question is, how do you expect the police to keep up?”

“We have had a difficulty keeping police officers, but thanks to the City Council providing a $25,000 bonus for new officers we have been able to create two units,” Buckshnis said.  She then offered the idea to have a dedicated police levy, “but it’s not going to be for $14.5 million, I’ll tell you that much.” She also pointed out that Edmonds has recently added three new police commanders, resulting in “more people managing the beat cops.”

“But I totally agree with you,” she added. “We do have crime issues, and I don’t know why we are not retaining police officers, because we are very competitive.”

“Among the challenges facing Edmonds Police Department is that they are underfunded and understaffed,” Mackley responded. “That’s part of the reason we have a hard time keeping officers. It’s easier for officers to go to another jurisdiction where they’re not trying to do 14 jobs at a time. Today we’re basically at the same staffing levels as 2001, almost a quarter century ago. And yet Edmonds has continued to grow. This [funding police] is all part and parcel of the cost of running our government.”

The next question came from Kimberly Bailey, who questioned why taxes need to go from $0.72 to $1.65 per $1000 assessed valuation.

“That’s over double,” she pointed out. “That’s huge. I’m really surprised you’re thinking of that. How can you justify do we need that much money five years?”

“I totally agree with you,” Buckshnis said, recalling the $17 million surplus in 2020 when Mayor Earling left office.

“I wish that we had other levers that we could pull,” Mackley said. “But we don’t because of the way our tax system is structured. We really only have a couple of viable sources: sales tax, B&O (business and occupation) tax, and the property tax. And because Edmonds doesn’t have a significant business footprint, because we don’t have big box stores, because we don’t have some of the things that our neighboring communities have that generate sales and business taxes, the only lever for us to pull is property taxes.”

The next questioner was Jerry.

“I’m curious again about how the levy number was generated,” he said. “From your explanation I take it that the mayor said, ‘This is the number I want [$19.5 million],’ and the city council said, “Let’s knock it down $5 million and find that in non-levy ways.’ What was the process that generated that number? And what do you think about the process and perhaps what should have been done differently?”

Mackley responded, saying that council had already made $8 million in cuts, noting that the mayor initially put out $19.5 million out there. This was followed by deliberations and public hearings, and in the end the council decided to seek $14.5 million through a levy lift and find the additional $5 million from other sources.

“They decided that right now they need to get us out of bankruptcy but also make sure that we can make progress towards the future and fund the things including the infrastructure that we have not been maintaining for multiple years,” she explained. “That’s how they came up with that number.”

“First of all, we’re not anywhere near bankruptcy,” Buckshnis responded.  “We have contingency reserves in place. There’s plenty of everything. The Strategic Action Plan approved last year began with $6 million. Suddenly, four months later, we need $8.5 million more. And it was more them talking to us. We didn’t get to ask questions. That’s not democracy, and so that is why I say we need to pause. You need to see what your property tax is going to be. We do have an alternatives.”

Jeanne Thorsen was next.

“I’m a senior, and I’ve lived here a long time, and I really rely on and value the city services,” she said. “Since 2001 I’ve been waiting for the City Council to address these issues. Everybody knew it was coming. I want to know if you are now supporting business and sales tax increases and other options in fees that will help raise that money?”

“There is already a sales tax on the books,” Mackley responded. “I’m not in favor of a B&O tax. We have small businesses that would be hit hard. But there is a new sales tax that can be utilized for streets. And as I said, I still think that red-light cameras are under the budget amount, and we’re going to make way more money than expected. I recently got two tickets at the same intersection, and from Diane’s earlier remarks we know she got a ticket too.”

This exchange was accompanied by a moment of levity when Buckshnis shared that “those rolling stops really get you,” and Mackley mentioned that her “husband was not happy.”  This led to some good laughs and a high five.

Mackley then pointed out that sales taxes are notoriously regressive, hitting low-income folks the hardest.

“Increases in sales tax are actually going to have a more detrimental effect on folks who are low income than a property tax would,” she said. “By comparison, a property tax is much fairer and more equitable.”

Christy was the next citizen to speak. She posed a question to Buckshnis, referencing the former councilmember’s earlier comments that city staff can’t be trusted and that it’s time to stop trusting government.

“Tell me your feeling about city staff,” she asked.

“I believe in good governance,” Buckshnis responded. “I brought up the example of $4.3 million that is missing, and Mayor Rosen said, ‘I don’t care about it.’  I know people in the Blue Ribbon Commission who wanted to investigate that, but they didn’t. There also have been numerous complaints by city employees filed against the city, we have spent a lot of money on attorney fees for these. My issue here is good governance.”

Mackley then added that she feels city workers are doing their jobs.

“It’s important work and it breaks my heart to hear people say that they can’t be trusted,” she said. “They’re our friends and our neighbors.”

At this point, Buckshnis clarifed that in her remarks about trust, she was referring to elected officials.

The final question came from former Edmonds Planning Board member Roger Pence, who asked how the city would meet its obligations should the levy fail.

“How do we pay off the utility fund loan that comes due next year?” he asked. “How will we restore the depleted reserve funds that were drawn down by the previous administration? How would we restore cuts to vital services, how do we tackle the huge backlog in capital, facilities, maintenance? There’s no free lunch. We learned that in elementary school.”

“Should the levy fail, I don’t think we’re going to be able to be able to honor our commitments,” Mackley said. “We’ve kicked the can down the road as far as we can, we’ve literally out of options. We are now at the place where we have to do something different, we have to try something different. We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.”

Responded Buckshnis: “You know that we still have $1.3 million in a bond that has yet to be even used for infrastructure improvement. If we use this internal service fund, we can plug the hole. But in my opinion, we need clear financials, and we need strategic forecasting that’s accurate and in the end we may not even need the $6 million. We need to start seeing the city perform metrics on these and all the other stuff that needs to be done and isn’t being done. So my point is we do not need $14.5 million just to throw up and do anything, because you know how a detailed budget is done and put together It was put together last year, and everything balanced with a $6 million.”

With this, Wippel concluded the event, thanking all who participated.

“We’ll continue to cover the issue,” she added. “Edmonds is a lovely place, and we all want the best for it, even though we don’t always agree. Thank you all for coming tonight. Have a great evening.”