Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Updated with a statement and photo from the No on Proposition 1 campaign.
Proposition 1, the $14.5 million City of Edmonds levy lid lift aimed at addressing the City’s budget crisis, was failing by a large margin in early returns released Tuesday night from the Snohomish County Elections Office.
Three Edmonds City Council races were also on the ballot. Position 1 Incumbent Chris Eck was leading challenger Glenda Krull Tuesday with 62% of the vote after initial returns. Eck had 7,303 votes to 4,444 for Krull. In Position 3 — an open seat — Erika Barnett was ahead of Alex Newman, with 54% (6,340 votes) compared to 46% (5,452) for Newman.
“Win, lose or draw, we’re all in this together,” Barnett said during a speech at Salish Sea Brewing Co.’s Boathouse taproom, which she owns with her husband Jeff. “We may come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives, but we are united in our love for this community, its small-town character, natural beauty and the kindness of the people who show up for one other. That’s the spirit that makes Edmonds really special and what I’m proud to represent. As we look ahead, my focus will be on clarity, accountability and community. “
“You have shown what happens when neighbors come together because they care about our city and they want to see us thrive,” Krull said to supporters. “So you haven’t heard the last of me.”
“I am just so incredibly proud and honored of all of the committee members that have helped me since January,” Eck said. “This is all about making sure that everybody in Edmonds feels included, and I feel like we really got information tonight that’s exactly what Edmonds wants.”
Position 2 incumbent Will Chen — who initially faced a challenge by Jessica Bachman — was also winning handily, with 88% of the vote. Bachman announced she was withdrawing from the race but her decision came too late to remove her name from the ballot. Instead, the voters pamphlet indicated she was not actively campaigning for the seat.
City of Edmonds Municipal Court Judge Neil Weiss ran unopposed.
For Proposition 1, Tuesday night returns indicated 40% (4,911) voting for the measure and 60% (7,497) voting against it.
In a debate that divided the community, Prop 1 proponents had argued that increasing the city’s property tax levy rate would prevent painful cuts to the city’s budget, including facilities closures, ongoing deferred maintenance and staffing reductions. Opponents said that the $14.5 million levy amount was unaffordable for many, especially those on fixed incomes, and that the city needed to come with a more affordable alternative plan.
Under state law, municipalities are restricted to increasing property taxes by 1% annually and it requires a public vote to “lift” that levy amount. The Edmonds City Council voted 5-2 in August to place the permanent, multi-year levy on the November general election ballot.
Regardless of the outcome, Yes! for Edmonds campaign manager Adel Sefrioui told supporters Tuesday night that the campaign was “filled with joy, kindness and hard work” from myriad community volunteers.
“We are immensely proud of the campaign we ran — one rooted in respect, integrity, kindness and joy,” the campaign said in an official statement. “The multigenerational support, the positive messages and the spirit of participation we experienced throughout will stay with our team for years to come.”
“I am very pleased with the election result,” said the No on Proposition 1 campaign manager Theresa Hollis. “Although levy lid lift measures usually fail, this one was unprecedented in size and that is why the margin was so large. Proposition 1 affected everyone — renters, homeowners and small businesses. The Edmonds voters could not have been more clear — the government can spend only what they get in regular revenues.”
Now that the measure has been defeated, Mayor Mike Rosen is expected to immediately submit a revised 2026 mid-biennium budget modification for council consideration.
“While I’m personally disappointed that Proposition 1 did not pass, I want to thank everyone who took the time to learn about the measure and participate in this important decision,” Rosen said in a statement. “We’ve heard the community. This result raises challenges for the City and our employees. Our commitment to keeping Edmonds safe, and financially sustainable, remains unchanged. I will be working with the community, council and staff to begin planning how to sustain essential services.”
Under state law, municipalities are restricted to increasing property taxes by 1% annually and it requires a public vote to “lift” that levy amount. The Edmonds City Council voted 5-2 in August to place the permanent, multi-year levy on the ballot.
In other local races, Edmonds Port Commission District 1 appointed incumbent Janelle Cass was leading challenger Chelsea Rudd, receiving 57% of the votes (3,676) to 43% for Rudd. Port District 3 Commissioner Jay Grant and at-large Commissioner Ross Dimmick were running unopposed.
In the Town of Woodway, Mayor Mike Quinn and three councilmembers — Position 1 Rajeev Thakur, Position 3 Steve Gunn and Position 4 Laura M. Murphy — were running unopposed.
In the only contested position on the Edmonds School Board of Directors, District 4 appointed incumbent Thom Garrard had a large lead over challenger Jason Moore, earning 19,184 votes (69%) to 8,408 votes (30%) for Moore.
“I am extremely appreciative of everyone who supported my campaign,” Garrard said. “The community has made it clear that they support public education and inclusive schools. Students are my top priority and I will work to ensure that they can be successful.”
Incumbent School Board District 2 Director Keith Smith was running unopposed.
In the race for South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue RFA Board, incumbent Jim Kenney was leading challenger Zoe Pilgrim-Placey for District 5. For Commissioner District 2 — an open seat — Joseph Wankelman was leading Harmony Crawford. District 3 Commissioner Mark Laurence was running unopposed.
For Hospital District 2, incumbent Position 2 Commissioner Bob Knowles was running unopposed.
Those leading for election to the Charter Review Commission, representing County Council District 3, were Janelle Cass, Patrick Decker and David Preston.
For Snohomish County Court of Appeals, Division 1, District 2, Tam Bui had a narrow lead over Karen Moore (51% to 49%) for Judge Position 1.
Returned ballots were at 39% for Edmonds and 29% for Woodway as of Nov. 4.
The County Elections Office will release updated vote totals at 5 p.m. Nov. 5.
You can see all county election results at this link.
In the Court of Appeals race, I believe Judge Bui has the lead.
Thanks Kim — we may have those numbers reversed. Will check and correct if necessary.
Fixed
Disappointed to see the results of Prop 1 – the older generations in this city continue to hold us back with their entitlement. Their refusal to spend money on anything that doesn’t directly benefit them is going to eventually destroy what makes Edmonds great.
I’m old and tired. How about a few days off with no one attacking the other side, no sour grapes about the election, no moaning that one’s own side didn’t get what they wanted, and no scapegoating. Just a few days?
Please?
Good comment. My preferred outcome isn’t winning, but this is how the process works.
But now the no levy side has to live with the consequence of winning. It will be a big argument about what to cut and what to save. We already know what some cuts will be. It will hit the Parks department hard as well as impact the planning department. Developers will be at an advantage there. I am so sad to see that. And then the voters will say… but the no side said there wouldn’t be cuts and be furious. The ugliness will continue. So the winners reap the benefits but have to live with what will happen because of it. That is the way democracy works. There is no time off.
Gosh, but your grapes are sour!
A big argument about what to cut or save is a very healthy thing to have, and the encouragement of volunteer help with parks for example, will help, as well as weld the community together.
The NO side never said there would be no cuts. We did say that there needs to be serious re-evaluation of where we spend our money. That’s just good house keeping.,
I’m glad you believe that the “winners” will reap the benefits; I believe we all will, through better spending.
There is time off – can you give us one thing helped or forwarded by next-day sour grapes – and not one positive suggestion?
Yawn. I wouldn’t even give the them a dollar a year. It’s not the money, it’s their attitude. Citizens don’t get to fleece someone else every time they’re short on cash – neither should any government.
Dan, Your statement is totally off base. I am not the ‘older generation’. The thousands of ‘No’ voters bridge multiple age groups, I met and talked with them.
The city lacked the data to backup their claims. The ‘No campaign’ published an alternative budget in MEN, Edmonds will do just fine.
Be thankful you don’t have to worry about the ever increasing cost of living burden, that was the driving force behind the Prop. 1 results. Residents are concerned with their financial well being.
2nd
Agreed. Dan Jensen forgot that it was predictable when ‘wants’ became confused with ‘needs’. The City council and mayor have been given a sharp rebuke, primarily because they refused to listen to wise counsel and input advising to put a clear accountable plan together showing the public such rampant overspending would not occur in the future.
Mr. Jensen, you are looking at this all wrong. It’s not the older generation that defeated Prop 1, it’s the living within your means generation, the not greedy generation. If you don’t like it get more voters to participate. Or move.
I’m a senior and over the years I’ve paid nearly 3x in property taxes what I paid for the house. You call that entitlement!?
Buying your house for pennies in the ‘70s and repeatedly voting ‘no’ on things that will benefit future generations in this city, is exactly what I would call entitlement, yes.
Can you tell us how you know how we repeatedly voted? I bought my house in the early 80’s and have repeatedly voted “yes” until this ridiculous levy threatened to tax me out of house and home. But I gather you’d prefer all us older people with fixed incomes to move elsewhere? How are you “entitled” to decide what I can or can or can’t afford? How are you “entitled” to know more about my voting history and personal situation than I do?
That’s what I would call arrogance and describe as rejection of functioning democracy.
Dan, it’s not the fault of the people who bought homes who later saw them appreciate massively, but the federal officials who have repeatedly increased our money supply and federal debt. It forces the states to raise taxes to offset ever more expensive nominal costs, while the federal gov can simply print more dollars. All the while, asset prices decouple from wages. If you think the solution is simply more taxes, you’re myopic.
For a PR guy, you’re not very persuasive. Sour even. I only bought 10 years ago and my property taxes have doubled – sure, the rate hasn’t doubled, but outgoing amount still has, which is all that matters. “Assessment” isn’t exactly money in the bank. I’m close to the “let it all burn” mentality.
You sound bitter, Dan.
We bought a split level in the ‘bowl’ in 1986, a young couple with two toddlers, not unlike many of the “yes” group members. We DID vote ‘yes’ on every bond issue and school levy, and still do. If a Prop 1 had come up back then, we would have voted for it (by the way, a school levy IS coming up, but that was never mentioned by the “yes” group as an additional amount that will be added to property taxes). If Prop 1 had passed, folks would have been less likely to pass that school levy.
It gets tough when you get older. I hope you are fortunate enough to get there.
We downsized in 2013, moving to a nice little rambler, and have budgeted to (hopefully) make our money last into our 90s.We paid off our mortgage long ago. We lived on $77,000 last year, just over the $75,000 cap for exemption and that’s a tough target to reach for two people on fixed income.
Thousands of people are making less than the median income in Edmonds, and I seriously doubt any of them are holding you back with their “entitlement”.
The truth is, most of us (older or not) can’t afford to have our property taxes tripled. Why wasn’t the allotted money spent in a way that wasn’t going to bankrupt us or make us move. Is Edmonds trying to be another Bellevue. In the 40 years we have lived here we have never received any benefits from increased taxes. No sidewalks, Nothing.
senior citizen with a sense of entitlement? I live on small fixed income and was born in Edmonds 68 years. Just because I own a house and one of my biggest expenses is my property tax. Just because I don’t give more of my limited income to taxes to pay for more government waste, larger police and government, and fund your children’s schooling and playgrounds.
You’re exactly the type of entitled senior I’m referring to. Do you even hear yourself? “Fund your children’s schooling and playgrounds.”? Do you not think that good parks and good schools are a net benefit to the community, making it a safer and more desirable place to live, and a primary factor in the increase of your property’s value?
Don’t know if you’d consider us older; we’re 50 which seems squarely middle age, but my wife and I were both “no.” We often differ in our votes but this one was easy. An 130% increase struck us as absurdly high. We agree costs have increased, including for government. But there was also poor management / budgeting decisions. I’ve managed multimillion dollar budgets in government and my wife has managed much bigger budgets in the private sector. Never have we ever even thought to consider a 2.3x increase. We would have been yes votes for a 40, 50, 60 maybe even 70% increase. Because indeed costs are up. But 130%? Right in the heels of the recent RFD annexation increase? Easy no. The Yes side’s eyes got too big and they overextended their ask beyond reason or at least beyond the threshold where this household would have been a yes.
There wasn’t any effort to discover the reason for the financial debacle that had been created. Latest budget seems to have been constructed with a big wash of money that would cover up the (ongoing) spending issues.
I look forward to transparent financial records by the city.
Thank goodness that Will Chen is staying on, after he had revealed the emergency when he first took office.
Agree %. I voted for prop 1 with mixed emotion. But after one of my family members did a deep dive on Edmonds finances over the last decade I was disappointed in the lack of transparency to the real issues of excessive spending. I should had looked for Will Chen’s opinion as he is close to the facts and knows his numbers. He didn’t endorse it and proposed a more modest $6M investment citing the need to have transparency and reign in spending. My mistake for not digging deeper and just trusting our leadership. Transparency is needed…citizens shouldn’t have to do deep dives to find the facts.
That was my problem as well. I also voted yes, although I’m in my eighties, but I did so with mixed feelings. Yes we need to fund many important projects and services, but I agree that the city did not act with the transparency, and because of that I expected the proposition to fail. It was up to the city to make an honest case. They didn’t and they lost because of it.
Well Mr. Jensen, I am stunned at your remark. Don’t pass the buck (or lack of) to the “older generation holding things back” blame the City that has problems handling finances and both young, old and in-between , THANKFULLY said oh no we can’t break the bank pouring money down a hole and first and foremost
once that’s lifted and Humpty Dumpty off that wall we can never put him back on it, all the safeguards it gives us as taxpayers would be gone. Don’t you understand 1% at todays inflated assessments is a lot of money and should be able along with other income to more than fund this City in its operation if smart people are handling it. Im so proud we have citizens smart enough to know that, and stepped up to explain it and it has nothing to do with seniors, just common sense.
According to this morning’s preliminary (almost final) voting results from Snohomish County elections, Edmonds had a voter turnout (39.4%) far exceeding any other cities in the county. I think a very positive reflection of our city and shows a well-rounded representation of our overall judgement of Prop 1. The no vote is a clear and unambiguous decision not limited to us seniors.
can you share your link for city turnout? i can only find county results. i am searching for Lynnwood. thank you.
To all the candidates, thank you for running, whether you won or lost. The goal was always the same: to make Edmonds a better place to live.
I echo Brian here. It takes guts to stick your neck out and put your name on the line for the betterment of the city. Thank you all!
I am absolutely gutted over the rejection of prop 1. This now means massive cuts to Edmonds spending which will inevitably make us less safe and the quality of life here worse. No more spray park for families and a 20% cut to the staffing at the police department. Wow Edmonds, Good Job.
It’s very disappointing – the potential closure of places like Frances Anderson and Yost Pool are things that likely can’t be undone down the road, either. Voters gave away part of what makes Edmonds a great place to live, just to save $2 a day.
The change in my taxes would be close to $40 per day….3-Times what I’m paying now. As it is there is no accounting for how the money is spent…
Well you and all your yes supporters can always write the city a check for your 2 dollars a day nothing stopping you. If you add it up it is likely 4 million a year to help pay for your wants
That is an excellent idea Mr. Fairchild. If all the YES voters that think our quality of life and safety are threatened then have them write a check to the COE and pay up or shut up.
Dan, maybe you should come after the city for not prioritizing those things in their spending. That is not the community’s fault as to where and how they are spending the money and how they mismanaged it to get us here in the first place. This levy was on the highest end to see if they could pass it. There is a smaller levy option that they are now looking into because they have to. The fact that you blame seniors in our community is appalling as many are on fixed incomes and couldn’t foresee property taxes triple. Hopefully, if your vitriol doesn’t get ya sooner, you can grow old to realize their situation and have some empathy. I for one am not a senior citizen and am so sick of the government passing the buck to us especially without transparency.
I agree with Nathaniel, the voters are holding the city officials accountable for past over spending. Buying twenty new police cars paying personal gas and insurance for officers to use at off times, employees working from home so they need more employees than when they had to work at city hall doesn’t make sense and city paying for computers, desks, electricity, internet, office chairs, etc. parks has double the amount of people but can’t complete their jobs. They received a lot of extra money from the government for the COVID era and spent it unwisely. I’m proud of the voters, they are finally looking at the whole picture instead of what bogus information is given.
Thank you for being wise!!
Hi Connor, no that’s not what this means. You read the city’s position and that’s where your research stopped. The city has options and they have been discussed on this site.
Dan you likely moved to Edmonds to escape Seattle. Just sit back and enjoy. If you really want too, write a check to the city.
I think “No” ran a dishonest campaign, focusing on how much peoples’ taxes specifically to the City of Edmonds would have risen instead of focusing on the overall property tax bill, of which they are just a portion. Perceived financial malfeasance or not (and I’ve seen no proof of this innuendo), Edmonds is in a hole because municipalities are extremely sensitive to inflation, given that most spending is mandated by law and can not be quickly adjusted. The real rate of inflation in the last few years is much higher than most people wish to acknowledge.
I’m upset that the police department is almost certainly going to experience painful cuts. The worst outcome, which is that we end up outsourcing policing to the County, can hopefully be avoided. Ironically, I’m someone who has been on the receiving end of a fair amount of policing the last few years – my own self-interest would have dictated that I vote No, in hopes that an under-resourced police department leaves me alone.
The fact stands that EPD is an exceptionally professional and responsive department, and have always treated me fairly, even though I’m not always happy to see them. I voted to retain Judge Weiss, too, even though he has ruled against me. The greater good demands it. Would that more could see past their own wallets!
Hi Michael, you prefer the ‘No campaign’ focused on taxes not related to Prop 1?
-Are you aware WA ranks 2nd most regressive tax code? Have you seen King5’s report property taxes are pushing King County residents from their homes?
https://www.king5.com/article/money/economy/king-county-property-taxes-increasing/281-79a95bdf-74b1-4071-815e-36146b525480
No proof of financial mismanagement or you don’t want to hear it? Please explain to us why the Mayor convened a ‘Blue Ribbon Panel’?
Explain to us, the number of funds the city maintains and which fund(s) was strained?
Tell me how many times the words ‘trust’ & ‘transparency’ appear in the Blue Ribbon Panel findings?
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Memo%20re%20recommendations%20and%20conclusions%20final.pdf
Inflation is an excuse, a challenge yes – the ‘No’ campaign debunked inflation issue as the primary cause.
FYI – The city has options to prevent cuts – feel free to read up.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/09/reader-view-understanding-edmonds-levy-lid-lift-budget-choices-and-alternatives/
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/10/reader-view-edmonds-not-ballard/
Hopefully your mayor and council will now go back to the drawing board and follow up on the advice of the BRP and get a permanent citizen’s finance commission going to determine exactly what the real needs are to get financed first and foremost and purchase the “wouldn’t it be nice,” stuff with any possible surplus’ which there won’t be any of, anytime soon. Stop the wasted consultant money outflow immediately.
Cities should be all about public safety, good sanitation and water service, codes that work and building proper construction. Edmonds has been wasting money on fluff and political boondoggles for years (think Connector, Landmark, Police chief hiring debacle, Police Chief exorbitant salary, Missing Link, Civic Field Park over build and cost overruns, rehiring people who were part of the source of many ongoing problems in the first place, and so on). Make your mayor and council listen to and tap the excellent volunteer financial and environmental talent that is begging to be heard and figure out more ways to monetize all the freebies you are just giving away now to visitors like me (think dog park, dive park, marine sanctuary, petanque court, skate park, and Yost hiking park. I’d happily pay an annual $50 family Edmonds park or Environmental fee just like I pay for a Discover Pass for example.
The thing that astounds me is people saying oh your house value Went up so much if you bought in the 70’s or 80’s or probably 90’s. That house value raises our property taxes and insurance costs and since we want to continue living in our homes we don’t recognize a penny of that increase in price unless we sell. Most want to stay here in their forever homes too. So that is just a silly selfish thing to say. When we do sell, older folks, that money will be used to pay for our end of life living costs. It won’t be free at all. Some will give that money to their children and grandchildren to help them buy a home and or shop and live in Edmonds. That my young friend is how it has always gone everywhere in our country. Senior citizens in this city paid a lot and we continue to pay a lot. Most in Edmonds get no breaks on the cost for anything. Most of us don’t even ask or complain. We just wanted to live in our forever homes until we know it is time for us to go to our final chapter in life. Be respectful to us and maybe we will pay for things in Edmonds on occasion to help you young people out. Be Nice.
I would also like to Congratulate all of our winners in the election and thank those who didn’t win too. It’s not easy usually to run for office it takes time money and emotional highs and lows. It’s not for the faint of heart. So yes, I expect our CC to work well together get away from that block voting and really think about what you are asking of your citizens here when you cast those votes. Don’t vote on your wants and ideals. Vote on what your city can afford and want to pay for anything any issue. CC is not there to further causes it’s there to represent the citizens and as elected remain nonpartisan regardless of the issues. For instance, don’t vote for things that will only be used by a very small % of our pop. Wait until the actual need is there. Bike lanes are an example of this. We have very few here and that is fact and maybe someday there will be more and more that is when you spend not in anticipation of what your ideals might want.
Help where we can but don’t feel you must give everything away to be a good person. Some things have to be earned and learned, or they mean nothing in the present or the future. Personal growth is important.
Well in spite of all the sour grapes and crazy remarks like “only 2.00 a day” for now we are back to the correct, installed by an emergency legislature meeting in 2007 ( not Tim Eyman altho he was behind the orig bill for it that got rejected by a court). Now i’m going to put my faith in the City and see if they can’t figure it out and start working on what they HAVE not what they wish they had and get things fine tuned and efficient because that’s what the future is going to demand. If they can’t then we will have to replace them one by one till we get it right and so do they. It’s a burden no doubt about it but not unusual for cities. And when we vote them in we assume they have the knowledge, expertise and our interest at heart, so let’s wait and see. They got a clear picture where the majority stands, and for a reason. Now let’s see how good they are…
Yes there will need to be cuts and the CC should decide who and where. We should lay off employees not furlough as furlough is a whole different thing. We still pay for those high insurance premiums on a furloughed employee. If and when we can rehire and those folks mainly young who wish to re apply or being young go elsewhere with impeccable references, and help elsewhere in our state or not That is one of the great things about being young. In my day many stayed in the same job forever but that as pointed out by young folks is not the case anywhere anymore. So, fly with those ideas and ideals it doesn’t matter where as long as you find your happy helpful places to in the case of staff help citizens. That is the life you have chosen. Also help Edmonds find ways to bring in revenue for our city so we don’t have to fight all of the time. Everyone in a city benefits from increased revenue all over our city. We will see this now. So, get your thinking caps on and let your creative sides shine. Fear no one. But don’t be a bully that won’t work. Let’s try Edmondites to all be on the same side. No 2 sides. Work together in harmony and UNITY.
Edmonds will get through this folks. Be patient, volunteer, do what you can to help our community.
I just want to thank everyone who ran in this election. Good people ran for office, some good people won and some good people did not win. We need to thank every single one of them for taking the time to campaign (including time away from their families), for making the considerable effort required, for expending the personal resources, for having ideas on how to improve our community, for being willing to put themselves and their ideas out there for all to see (and often to deep criticism), and for being willing to endure the abuse that so often comes from running for public office in this city. This was perhaps the most consequential local election that I have experienced in my 35 years of being a resident. For those who won, I expect that going forward you might come to see that as having been the easy part … and to those who didn’t win, thank you for doing your part to make this process actually work. I am so very grateful to every one of you.
Mayor Rosen is an experienced PR professional/salesman. He produced a fairly compelling propaganda campaign fully equipped with scare tactics of “Give us more $ or else we’ll cut services!”.
Stated again: https://www.keepedmondsaffordable.com/
Since January 2022 the City of Edmonds:
-Mayors Office budget has increased 45%
-City Attorney budget increased 53%
-City of Edmonds employee compensation increased 33%
Be sour with basic math, if you’d like. Blame inflation, if you’re gullible. This was/is very clearly a spending problem. Not a tax/revenue problem.
Hopefully the Mayor and the City Council will learn from this loss. Maybe the biggest lesson is that there are many able and willing residents who have a lot of worthwhile knowledge to share. Those include Ken Reidy, Jim Ogonoski, Council Member Will Chen, Diane Buchshnis, and others. These citizens have been repeatedly ignored even before the Council made the ill advised 5-2 vote to go forward with Prop 1.
Had they done so they wouldn’t have had to deal with this failure. Good leaders need to be willing to listen to all sides and consider them carefully.
I’d suggest citizens who are concerned about where ‘cuts’ are made (i.e., Police Dept., Parks, and City facilities such as the Frances Anderson Center) need to get directly involved with City budget decisions.
The problem right now is the City Council is only hearing from the City staff who created the budget mess in the first place. And in the “spirit of good working relationship”, the Council rarely opposes how the City is spending and overspending the budget that the Council approved.
The City Council needs to hear from citizens (i.e., the taxpayers) on where and how the City spends its money. For example, right now, the Parks Director is asking Council to approve an expensive $630,000.00 Yost Park study (WHAT A WASTE!) and no one is asking if that money would be better spent on fixing KNOWN safety problems with Park bridges, removing a stream destroying weir in the Park, and maintaining the Park as the Dept. was budgeted to do (YES – the Parks Dept has funding, the question is HOW are they spending it, if it isn’t for maintaining our Parks?). What about FREE labor – Volunteers?
Now that the levy has failed, the Mayor is going to develop a new 2026 Budget. Let’s have Citizens tell him where to the cuts should be made – and NOT ‘scare tactic’ cuts.
Certainly a 630 thousand dollar study doesn’t make any sense. This is what happens when government gets to much money this is what you get. The people that benefit from the study are the people that are getting paid to do it.
Joe:
Where can we find the details related to this $630,000 request? Thanks.
Ron – it is in the Parks Dept. 2026 CFP/CIP (Capital Facilities Projects) that was presented at the City Council’s last public meeting on Nov 3rd. It’s in the Agenda Packet (which if this link works) is at file:///C:/Users/joesc/Downloads/Meetings51Packet_20251030165825283-2.pdf .
These CFP/CIPs are another budget document that citizens can and should be providing input on and asking the question “What priorities and criteria are being used to determine which capital projects and improvements are funded? Are they consistent with budget priorities? Are they padding the pockets of expensive consultants? And, why aren’t they addressing deferred maintenance issues (which everyone says is essential)?
My point through this whole levy-lift issue has been the need to fix the entire budget (not just General Fund) and REAL priorities so that the budget indeed is structured to adequately fund essential municipal operations BEFORE “making-up” increased taxing of residents – especially residents who are already having a tough time with their living expenses.
I’m so disappointed the levy failed… but I can understand why folks voted against it, with the RFA annexation happening in the same year and that also raising property taxes. Now our city services will suffer for it. I’m skeptical the city can raise $5 million in non-property tax revenue, for one, and I dunno what appetite the electorate have for another smaller levy vote in 2026.
As a side note, thank you to the MEN staff for such excellent coverage of elections this year!
Did Dan just dis one of the many groups, including his, that make up the citizenry of this city? Even the candidates for this election were more civil about their opponents. I’m looking really hard, but I don’t find Spray Park on my list of budget priorities, for a vibrant city, especially when I’m sure it operates only 3 months out of the year. Compared to today’s house prices, I’m sure it seems that homes were purchased for pennies in the 70s, but they were a major purchase relative to incomes at the time. I hope that efforts to redefine the budget take a long, referenced look to the city’s comprehensive plan and ensure that budget, and any future decisions, are tied back to that document. In the Mayor’s own words from this MEN article, “Our commitment to keeping Edmonds safe, and financially sustainable, remains unchanged.” However that gets accomplished, we’ll have to go with that.
I don’t agree with some of the tactics either side used to pull an emotional string (parks vs. seniors), since what was at stake was much more than either of those. However, both sides provided amazing output based on personal efforts and MEN boldly reported on all of it. There was plenty of information outside of emotions to make an informed decision, regardless of which side it was on.
Editor -I am the campaign manager of the Prop 1 opposition campaign. You did not publish the full statement I sent. You published a truncated statement and the photo at Bucatini’s for the election night watch party. You solicited this content from me. Why not publish it in full?
Readers – the few missing sentences from my campaign’s statement are: The City Council controls the budget – not the Mayor. This Council gave the 2 police unions 23% and 12% raises. City Council – go solve the employee compensation problem that you created. I feel no more safe today than I did in 2022 when the Police had a normal budget. Live within your means, like we voters do.
We did not publish full statements from anyone who sent them in and we never do — just like we don’t publish full quotes of every single person who ever speaks at a meeting or other event we cover. We edit them all to pull out we judge as the most relevant parts. But now people can see your full statement. — Teresa
Editor – thank you for the prompt reply
“To pull out we judge as most relevant parts.”
Exactly why I feel MEN in partisan.
At the moment Prop 1 is failing. With that I hope the city council and mayor will use the city’s Program Coordinator Jennifer Leach to reach out to more volunteer groups and other civic organizations (churches, scout troop and packs) to help upkeep the parks, etc. Most of us can pitch in now and then. I also hope the city looks at alternative revenue streams. I provided a list of ideas at an August city council meeting. People can also donate money to the city government as well which I believe is tax deductible, but check with your accountant. 🙂 I appreciated the informative meeting at the senior center this fall and the packets that were provided.
MEN does an admirable job with all the tons of emails, quotes, etc. that they handle.
Kudos to Teresa and the MEN team in handling such diverse views.
…Just sayin’
I can see both sides of the situation here, but overall I think Teresa W. does a very good job of seeing that everyone gets heard fairly and accurately. Sometimes I’m sure it’s a tough call about what to include and what not to. In this case the key thing is that “the City Council controls the budget – not the Mayor.” Ms. Hollis was right in taking issue with that not getting printed as that is (sadly) something that both elected CC officials and many, if not most, ordinary citizens fail to understand. With notable past and present exceptions like Bucksnis, Teitzel, Wambolt, Bloom, and Dotsch, most of the people that consistently get elected to your City Council simply aren’t prepared of qualified for the job they end up getting. I would have included Chen in my list of “qualified,” but he often has an inappropriate allegiance to the Democratic Party and bias for the people living in the part of Edmonds where his day job is, which sometimes gets in the way of his otherwise very good financial decision making skills regarding city business. My point is, if you don’t have lots of financial/banking/economics/meeting payroll knowledge and experience and you end up on any CC, you will likely do more harm than good by just becoming a Mayor/Staff rubber stamp.
The budget process is more complicated than that. The Mayor and staff produce the preliminary budget. This sets the tone, and gives Council a starting point. Then the Council goes through the budget, proposing changes, but there is never enough time to do a really proper job. In this regard, the Mayor and Staff have a very large influence on the process, direction, and priorities of the new budget. Some Council members are more tuned into the details and specifics than others. As the executive, the Mayor does not have a vote on anything. The Council is the legislative branch and do all the voting. Ultimately, it is up to them. Clint is spot on in his point, “…if you don’t have lots of financial/banking/economics/meeting payroll knowledge and experience and you end up on any CC, you will likely do more harm than good by just becoming a Mayor/Staff rubber stamp.” That is why attending or listening to the council meetings is so important. There is no other way to learn who has the budgeting skills needed for such a huge responsibility. Get involved. Show up. Make yourself heard. Support good candidates.
Mr. Brock-
I’ve heard you pontificate on the wonderful job that you, the Woodway Mayor, and Woodway Council do to manage Woodway’s budget. It always amazes me how you and the others seem to think you answer all questions raised by involved taxpayers (myself included) and always do proper due diligence on budget issues and strategic spending. Yet just like the Edmonds Mayor and Council you ignored taxpayer questions and failed to provide solid data analysis, while ‘selling’ residents on a 76% tax levy lift for police and fire. You used the same playbook the Edmonds Mayor and Council used to scare residents with the threat that police would not be adequately funded if the tax levy was defeated. Fortunately, the Edmonds taxpayers were more involved and exposed the City for its flagrant misinformation and inadequate analysis. Too bad Woodway residents didn’t question how Woodway failed to prove that doubling the police force was worth it to write more traffic tickets – when the perceived speeding problem could have been solved with a few more stop signs, speed humps, and electronic speed monitoring signs at a fraction of the cost of doubling the police force to write more tickets. Edmonds’ residents are demanding good governance reform – fiscal discipline, accountability, transparency, common sense, performance metrics, and putting taxpayers first. Woodway residents should do the same.
Local government, in my opinion, works best when it reflects the full diversity of the people it serves, not when it’s reserved for those who happen to have worked in banking or finance.
I concur that it is feasible to include individuals from various backgrounds beyond banking and finance; however, possessing a fundamental understanding of common-sense financial principles is certainly crucial. I can identify three partisan council members who appear not to fulfill that criterion.
Jeremy, totally agree that diversity of perspective matters — but that also includes professional experience. When a city is managing million dollar budgets, capital projects, and economic development plans, it helps to have people at the table who actually understand how money moves.
Council Member Tibbott is out. Nand needs to go. Great legal experience – SU grad. But no business experience (again). Will Chen is in. Dotsch is in. Erika Barnett brings real business chops. Maybe now our city will start operating more like a business — with actual metrics, KPIs, and accountability for how taxpayer dollars are spent.
Let’s bring some transparency and performance back to City Hall. And yes — maybe it’s time to help Nand, Olson, and Paine find new jobs. If Mike Rosen runs for Mayor (again), I will run against him. If Vivian Olson runs for Mayor, I will run against her.
Eck has more time, until we find another candidate with business experience to replace her. Again, a non-profit exec with no real experience that I can see – starting, operating, or scaling a business.
Civic diversity and fiscal competence aren’t mutually exclusive — Edmonds needs both.
Nonprofit is just a tax designation… And Eck is a senior executive at a large nonprofit that, yes, is scaling up and doing capital projects, managing government contacts, etc. This is such an ignorant and disrespectful take.
There is an attitude that taxpayers have pockets that are never empty and that we can keep giving and giving and giving. The first lesson we teach our children about money is to budget what they have. If they miss manage it, they don’t automatically get more. They have to learn what is important and what they can go without. Maybe our elected officials need to go back to money management 101 and re-learn this lesson.
@Mary, disrespectful and ignorant? Nonprofit is a tax designation, not a management philosophy.
Running a city is fundamentally different — you’re accountable to taxpayers, not donors, and your success should be measured in outcomes, not intentions.
Eck’s nonprofit experience is valid, but municipal governance requires operational discipline, budget transparency, and performance metrics. That’s not disrespect — it’s reality. Edmonds needs leaders who understand both mission and margin.
I’d like to see a surplus..where we have too much money to invest… you don’t get there operating a city like a non-profit.
And 60% of the electorate agrees – fortunately, or unfortunately.