Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
With the defeat of Proposition 1, Edmonds voters sent a clear message: Before asking taxpayers for more money, the City must demonstrate discipline, accountability and operational focus. In short, Edmonds must begin functioning more like a business — and less like a nonprofit.
When businesses face financial constraints, they prioritize:
-
- Needs over wants
- Measurable outcomes over hopeful projections
- Efficiency over duplication
- Accountability over ambiguity
- Performance over sentiment.
Nonprofits, by design, operate differently. They pursue mission and service goals, often relying on grants, donors, volunteers and partnerships. They are not built around financial self-sufficiency; they are built around purpose, even when the numbers don’t pencil. City government should not operate like that. Edmonds has increasingly moved toward a nonprofit posture, outsourcing core operational functions to outside organizations that — while well-intentioned — are not required to deliver against key performance indicators, financial targets or measurable returns for taxpayers. These groups are not elected, not financially accountable to the public and not required to justify outcomes the way every small business in this city must.
That model may feel collaborative, but it is not sustainable when the City faces long-term structural budget gaps. This is the part voters clearly understand: You cannot outsource essential work to groups that are not KPI-driven, not bound to performance metrics and not accountable for financial results — and then claim the only solution is a $14.5 million levy.
Cities across Washington — including Shoreline, Bothell, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and others — maintain economic development, mobility, permitting and community engagement functions in-house, staffed by professionals who must deliver measurable outcomes tied to adopted plans, metrics and financial frameworks. These cities publish clear goals, track performance and adjust based on results. Edmonds must move in that direction.
Operating as a business means:
-
- Setting KPIs for departments
- Tying budgets to performance, not hopes
- Prioritizing core services before expanding programs
- Publishing quarterly operating metrics
- Eliminating duplication
- Using data, not assumptions, to drive decision-making
- Ensuring every contract, consultant, or partnership has clear deliverables
It means asking, every time: Does this generate value for the residents who pay for it? Voters were not rejecting community investment. They were rejecting a system that continues to ask for more while producing less clarity, less transparency and fewer measurable outcomes.
It’s time for Edmonds to modernize its operating model and rebuild trust by acting the way every successful small business does: With focus, accountability and a commitment to results. Edmonds doesn’t need more studies. It needs a plan, execution and performance. That’s what taxpayers expect — and what they just voted for.
Lee Reeves lives in Edmonds.
Well said. And couldn’t agree more!!
Yes! Thank you Lee! The start of all this is listening! Communication with city officials is barely acknowledged. When constituents are ignored they do not feel represented. If we keep talking long enough, maybe, just maybe the powers that be will start listening to the voters.
Great point and wish Ann!
Since I put the turkey in the oven and we have no guests this year, the exchange is welcomed.
For about five decades I have had the same conversation with mayors, city and county commissioners and a few governors. Goes like this…
Me. Why are you planning to spend an exorbitant amount on outside services for a study? You already have a Planning Department and other departments that can contribute information specialized to the community.
Government Person: Because nobody believes staff recommendations.
Me: You mean you hired the wrong people?
GP: We hired people because it was in the budget, and if we don’t use the budget, we loose it.
Me: But what do they do if they are not contributing to the safety of
citizens?
GP: We hired people because our managers need to have more people, more people expands their value and justify raises.
Me: What if I told you there was an easy way to get your study done, without the cost of outsiders who don’t know the community, and the extra cost that includes taxpayers paying for someone else’s overhead?
GP: (Blank stare. Like the bobble head in your car).
A lot of those bullet points the city already does. KPIs in municipal government measure service performance and not profitability, and they inherently have obligations and liabilities that are pretty much forever, something that KPI’s have difficulty measuring on a quarterly basis. I would think that the mission of a city is public wellbeing and not financial return, but I could be wrong.
I agree Jeremy. Running a municipal government the way you run a business sounds good in theory, but isn’t always practical or wise. The city of Seattle had to learn this the hard way decades ago when paying out billions in law suit payouts since the early 1900s. That’s why a government is called a government. Leaders govern(babysit). A business is called a business because owners have different rules to work with than government leaders. It’s not always possible to run a municipality like a business even though it sounds like a much needed thing (and a common republican talking point). Also, previous experience running a business doesn’t necessarily make a politician a better leader either.
I think both you and the author are correct … its really a combination of both(imo)…that happy medium that will get things done smoothly. The evidence is in our pendulum politics. Sleepy spoiled Edmonds has a lot of growing up to do before it can be run exactly like a business.
I’m a registered Democrat, and this isn’t ideological. Cities aren’t businesses, but Edmonds can’t keep operating like a nonprofit with no KPIs or accountability. Voters rejected Prop 1 because they saw no plan. We need metrics, results, and real governance.
If expenditures > revenue, the city is subsidizing that activity. The city must and citizens deserve to know what the city is subsidizing and maybe those subsidies would be better directed to non-profits for affordable housing, more affordable day care for those in need, or shoring up the budget/building reserves. Every cost avoided through efficiency may also prevent a reduction in staff. 1099 or term employees may enhance staff when funds are available or terms decreased when revenue dips or costs increase elsewhere. Also, some expertise is only required on a part-time basis. Term employees may cost less as benefits are not required and some professionals do not require benefits or may not be available for full-time work (i.e.: I am familiar with retired military/government or spouses). Although this may be a controversial issue (I am not advocating either side), while in the service, we were required to follow the A-76 program (“government not competing with its citizens”). The Program established policies for agencies to determine if commercial activities performed by government employees could be provided more economically by the private sector.
Jeremy, a lot of what you listed are things the city claims to do — but the results show otherwise. KPIs in municipal government absolutely measure service performance, but when half the city’s core services are running deficits, when basic maintenance is deferred year after year, and when staff reports don’t even include cost-per-output metrics, we’re not measuring performance at all. We’re just measuring activity.
And yes — cities exist for public well-being. But public well-being collapses when financial management fails. Mission and money aren’t opposites; they’re tied together. If the city can’t demonstrate outcomes, can’t quantify what programs deliver, and can’t justify new taxes with real data, that’s not “public service” — it’s wishful thinking.
Edmonds isn’t being asked to operate like a for-profit business. It’s being asked to operate like a competent public agency — one that knows what things cost, what things produce, and whether taxpayers are actually getting value.
Right now, they can’t answer those basic questions.
That’s the problem.
I think Mayor Rosen captured this need for budget accountability and performance with his simple Campaign slogan “Stop the Crazy”.
Question now is why is the “Crazy” continuing and how can citizens help get this City back to good governance and fiscal austerity (since majority of Council members sure aren’t).
Just watch Council response to the Park’s Director’s 2026 proposal for a wasteful megadollar study of Yost Park and you’ll see firsthand how the “Crazy” perpetuates.
Have not seen or heard about the proposed study, but there’s been a bridge across Shell Creek that’s fenced off in there for several years now. We don’t need a consultant to tell us that needs to be replaced.
Agree !!!
I know a resident who offered to replace the bridge FOR FREE a few years ago, and the City refused his offer. How insane is that? I’ll ask the resident if he wouldn’t mind giving the details of his offer and the City rejection. On a totally unrelated spending question – why does the City pay over $1 million/yr to maintain the cemeteries? Why shouldn’t they just sell off the land and outsource cemetery management to a private firm? $1 million – that could pay for a lot of parks and toilet maintenance! The fact is – there is only one person on the Council who has steadfastly question every hire and every expenditure and ask for performance/results metrics. That’s Michelle Dotsch. Will Chen has been inconsistent in following good governance fiscal discipline. The Mayor and the others never ask how to quantify benefits for taxpayers, or how to measure results. Just rubber stamp and spend above the City’s means and protect staff instead of managing them.
And thank you Bill for remembering the effort. That’s very kind of you.
I have 50 years on both the public and private side of urban planning and development.
This was not the first time my opinion was rejected, and certainly not the most wasteful.
That goes to one City that rejected my opinion for “preventative maintenance” and it cost them $3.7B.
Correction and amplification – it cost the tax payers.
By the way … did anyone correct the council minutes?
When there is already a 10 percent tax on utilities, and you add another 10 percent, that’s not a ten percent increase.
It is a 100 percent increase.
Best,
Joel Patience
152 residents have already signed a Petition demanding good governance reform from the Mayor and Council. Please join them in sending a strong message to the Mayor and Council that they need to stop their foot dragging, their disrespect for taxpayers, and their constant whining about the 1% annual cap on property tax increases, and do something to reverse the excessive spending of the past 4 years, and to make Edmonds Affordable to All. Good governance reform starts with a willingness to listen, be transparent, and stop fear mongering about losing services. It starts with a willingness to establish and follow recommendations of a Citizens’ Financial Advisory Committee comprised of community volunteer professionals who will work with Council and Staff to analyze essential programs and services and develop sustainable budgets. Please sign the Petition which gives a roadmap for ‘success’: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/enough-utility-tax-increase-is-last-straw
A couple of points of information:
There are two funds for the cemetery (capital improvements and maintenance). The former was initiated by a trust (of which principle may not be expended) with expenditures from it sourced from interest and 10% of cemetery operations, such as sales, donations and fees for service. The other 90% from operations funds the operations and maintenance. There is no contribution from Edmonds taxpayers.
Also, per pages 147 and 148 of the 2025/2026 budget, operating expenses were 330k in 2025 and 340k in 2026.
I know you follow the numbers-
Do you mind my asking where you got the million/year figure? Staff has interest in correcting the misinformation.
I always go to the word govern. City should act as a steward of the citizens tax money. If they don’t they will find themselves in the situation they are in. Outsourcing everything from the fire department to legal cancel to architects to companies that do studies is killing the financial welfare of the city and creating a lack of trust from the citizens. But that is my own opinion and I agree with Lees request for a direction that is more business focused.
Part 1: CM Olson. Thanks for clarifying the two cemetery funds and for correcting my misunderstanding of the $1 million figure. After rechecking page 5 of the Mid-Biennium Budget Modification, I recognize that number refers to fund balance, not annual maintenance cost. Sorry for the error.
That said, the broader concern remains: the cemetery budget numbers vary across documents, reinforcing the frustration many KEA supporters have expressed about the City’s inconsistent and frequently shifting data. A full-day, open budget session—where residents can directly query staff about historical data, assumptions, and analysis—would be a meaningful step toward true transparency.
For example: Why do maintenance-fund operating expenses drop from $272K in 2025 to only $25K in 2026? What is the actual steady-state annual maintenance cost? With a year-end fund balance exceeding $1 million and revenues that generally match expenses, why shouldn’t this fund help support the general fund, at least temporarily, as suggested in Jim Ogonowski’s alternative 2026 budget?
These inconsistencies highlight why the public struggles to trust the City’s budgets. A transparent explanation of revenue flows, 5-year spending history, and assumptions—along with justification for why certain funds can or cannot be redirected—would strengthen public confidence. Until then, it’s reasonable to ask whether the cemetery maintenance fund should be among the potential sources considered to stabilize the general fund during this budget cycle.
Part 2: I remain interested in whether the City could contract out cemetery maintenance or even sell the property under conditions requiring continued cemetery operations, potentially generating both sale proceeds and ongoing revenue for the City.
Taxpayers deserve clarity on which funds can legally support the general fund. CP Tibbott and others have resisted these discussions without providing the applicable State-level financial/legal guidelines. Edmonds holds multi-million-dollar balances across numerous funds—REET, streets, street construction, gifts catalog, and others. All should be evaluated transparently as possible budget-stabilizing revenue sources.
REET in particular merits scrutiny. State rules have substantially changed, allowing cities to use REET for far more than road projects. Edmonds’ choice to split street construction into separate funds may unnecessarily limit REET’s flexibility. How can the revised State guidelines allow Edmonds to have a more flexible funds’ structure to support GF salaries, equipment, parks, or other services?
Lastly, the City should publish 5-year historical analysis of all major funds, and line-item revenues/expenses. Edmonds’ staffing expenses have risen 37% since 2021 and police by 61%, yet the City continues citing $8 million in “cuts” that budget tables do not reflect. Before approving the 2026 budget, Ogonowski’s alternative budget deserves genuine due diligence, and zero-based budgeting should replace incremental assumptions.
Edmonds needs 360° FAQs, not one-sided narratives, and a Council committed to true transparency.
Keep pushing and asking the tough questions, Lee. You are spot on in your analysis and recommendations for changing how Edmonds officials “run” the city.
The defeat of prop 1 should be recognized as a clear message. Edmonds taxpayers have reached their limits and now council and the current administration need to live within their means. I’d like to see our city government get off the outside consulting agencies cloud and start trusting the people you have hired to perform these functions. In my years at corporate America I witnessed many examples of consulting agencies charging exorbitant prices yet delivering zero value over what internal employees were capable of. Do we really believe these consulting agencies have all the smartest people in the room? Thanks Joe for bringing the Yost Park proposed study to our attention. Yost park doesn’t need a costly study in this economic downturn, it needs a bidding process (RFP) to find a competent yet reasonably priced pool company to maintain the pools integrity. As a pool owner for 25 years I can attest to staggering differences in bids by pool companies. Hold off on a major remodel until we have the financial resources in place.
Run government like a business? What utter nonsense. A business is driven by profit; no profit, no business. Government operates to serve the public good, often on unprofitable but necessary projects and services. Businesses are free to discontinue any service that is unprofitable while government must balance many competing interests including need, available resources, political considerations etc. none of which are profitable. Run like a business? What business would you suggest? Perhaps auto repair that never gets done, used car dealers with their bait and switch tactics, credit card company to wait for hours on hold, cable TV service that never shows up. My personal favorite has to be an airline where the customer (a citizen) is charged for everything except the recycled air you breath. Imagine dialing 911 for any service and being asked for your credit card number? Street or signage repair; what address should we send the bill to? Parks or recreation on the beach; where`s your park pass or ticket? Senior Center; sorry, for paying members only. In my opinion, no sane person would ever want their local government run like a business. Edmonds isn`t perfect, far from it but it`s a very desirable place to live and much better than any of our neighbors.
You ran a recycling business, so you know better than most that “profit vs. mission” isn’t the real distinction. Recycling rarely survives on profit alone — it survives on efficiency, accountability, and a clear operational plan. When those break down, the whole system breaks down.
That’s the point many of us are making about Edmonds. Not that government should chase profit, but that it should function with the same discipline your industry required: measure performance, reduce waste, fix what’s broken, and be transparent about outputs.
Nobody is asking Edmonds to behave like an airline or a cable company. We’re asking it to stop operating like an organization with unlimited resources and no metrics. The levy failed because there was no plan, no KPIs, no roadmap — just a request for more money.
Good government can’t be run like a for-profit business. But it also can’t be run like a grant-dependent nonprofit with no performance standards. Cities all around us manage to balance mission and management. Edmonds can too.
Loving our city doesn’t mean ignoring its shortcomings. It means demanding a government that uses resources wisely, communicates clearly, and earns trust — the same fundamentals any well-run operation relies on, profit or not.
City Council members – Please help Mayor Rosen to live up to his campaign promise to “stop the crazy” and start listening to your citizens. The majority are telling you no more taxes. Making cuts to “wants” is what is required right now. You have financial professionals in the community ready to dive in and help you. Many already have pointed out obvious moves you need to make yet, you refuse to adopt their solutions. Why? The quickest way to find additional revenue is to make further cuts, have a hiring freeze (including consultants ), and eliminate non-essential positions that are not revenue generating. Say No to more taxes tonight.
Governments should absolutely not be run like a business as the two institutions are inherently different. Governments are supposed to prioritize providing public services, whereas businesses have no such endgoal. Has no one learned from what has been happening at the federal level?
Governments aren’t businesses, but Edmonds can’t ignore basic economic discipline. Surrounding cities have real economic development; we don’t. Voters rejected the $14.5M levy because there was no plan.
Without one, our local economy—and revenue—shrinks.
Lee, your premiss that surrounding cities have real economic development and Edmonds does not, is the real issue. But what is the solution? Edmonds is primarily a bedroom community with most of the city having low density single family dwellings. Furthermore, multifamily developments such as condominiums or apartments have significant height limitations. This type of development causes the city to have a low value tax base. Even multimillion dollar single family homes have less tax value than higher density commercial/ multifamily development would have in the same location. Neighboring cities have significantly more high density commercial/multifamily development.
But do the residents of Edmonds want to turn their city into a higher density clone of our neighbors, or do they want to keep the single family charm that is the present city and makes Edmonds special? If the desire is to keep Edmonds quaint, then how does the city fund necessary and highly desirable city services? The cost of maintaining city streets is dependent on road frontage, not the density of development. This is also true for sewer and water infrastructure. The number of parks is based on the area of the city, not density. The only solution is higher tax rates on lower valued properties than neighboring cities. With this in mind, it was a mistake not to approve the levy lift.
ou’re absolutely right that Edmonds is a lower-density community — that’s not in dispute. But density isn’t the only lever for economic development, and it’s simply not true that Edmonds has no other options. We haven’t exhausted even 20% of them.
Surrounding cities aren’t thriving just because they have tall buildings. They’re thriving because they have active, coordinated, professional economic development strategies. Edmonds does not.
Density and economic development are not mutually exclusive — cities like Kirkland, Walla Walla, and Sequim show that small-scale revitalization works when leadership prioritizes it.
The choice isn’t density or collapse.
The choice is: Do we finally build an economic development strategy — or keep relying on taxpayers to backfill leadership gaps?
I’m trying to identify a more balanced solution favoring residents pocketbooks over funding activities that are not required or highest priority. You mentioned above, “The only solution is higher tax rates on lower valued properties”… Based on the city’s Q3 report, property taxes make up less than 27% of the General Fund revenues. Sales, EMS and other taxes make up the remaining 73% so there are other areas to focus. Also, the city just rezoned 4 Centers and 5 Hubs to accommodate an additional 13,000 residents (> 30% increase) and 10,000 housing units (> 50% increase). This upzone wil shift the current 60/40 split from single family to 40/60 for higher density. Also, all parcels within Edmonds are allowed two units per parcel or a primary home with 2 ADU’s. These Hubs/Centers are upzoned to allow 30’+ heights and higher density housing. Also, Highway 99 has room for development. Hopefully we can responsibly grow while maintaining charm.
People commenting on Edmonds’ low density development pattern should keep in mind that in 2017 the City rezoned a wide swath all along Highway 99 to the higher-density “general commercial” zone allowing buildings up to 75 feet tall. So far only two projects have taken advantage of that relatively new zoning, the Hazel apartment block and Edmonds Village on 212th at 72nd.
I’m sure City Hall could do more to encourage redevelopment under this generous and flexible zoning, but it’s not fair to describe Edmonds as some kind of exclusive low-density community. Opportunities are there to expand our tax base with higher density development.
There’s a caveat, however. Last I heard, those low-density auto dealerships on 99 are a major portion of Edmonds’ current tax base. We should be careful about wishing them away in the name of economic development~ let’s hope that higher-density replacements generate more tax revenue than what’s there already.
Roger, respectfully — Highway 99 being upzoned in 2017 doesn’t change the core issue. In the eight years since, we’ve produced two projects. That’s not a zoning problem. That’s an economic development failure.
Zoning is just the starting line. Cities that succeed pair zoning with business attraction, redevelopment tools, corridor strategies, BIDs, incentives, and public/private partnerships. Edmonds has none of that, which is why nothing is happening.
No one is trying to “wish away” auto dealerships. But healthy cities diversify their tax base while keeping existing revenue sources. That’s addition, not subtraction.
We don’t lack opportunities. We lack execution. Until Edmonds develops a real economic development strategy, Highway 99 will continue producing exactly what it has since 2017: almost nothing.
Edmonds isn’t suffering from low density.
It’s suffering from low imagination and zero economic development execution.
Once the City gets serious about:
Activating Westgate
Turning Perrinville into something
Unlocking Hwy 99’s commercial backbone
Exploring the creation of multiple BIDs
Working more closely and strategically with the Port of Edmonds, Edmonds CC
Using the Burlington property strategically
…the revenue picture changes without changing a single zoning map.
Those are interesting ideas, but vague, and difficult to implement in the short term. How exactly is “Using the Burlington property strategically” going to backfill the budget shortfall for this year?
It likely won’t happen overnight — but medium- to long-term, strategic development that protects the charm we value while actually generating revenue.
Cities that plan ahead, diversify their tax base, and make smart land-use decisions don’t find themselves in constant crisis cycles. Edmonds can do the same, but only if we start treating economic development as a priority instead of an afterthought.
Mark, some good points. Adding development that adds to our total assessed value is one way to help keep PT at bay. The multi family tax exemption is an interesting issue. It exempts large portions of a new development for a several years in the hope that it provides affordable housing. The new development at 220th and Hwy 99 is around 400 units. At $500k/unit that would be $200,000,000, most of it tax exempt. At $750k it would be $300,000,000. For a $200,000,000 development that would be about $1.5m in total taxes with $200,000 going to Police, Fire, Parks and Roads at today rates and soon to be more than $400,000 for those same services.
With MFTE we are forgoing those taxes $’s and not getting truely affordable housing. Council has been shown the analysis for Westgate and others and should immediately stop the use of MFTE.
The city already has data on the MFTE program, council should review the data and if they need more analysis, a Citizens Finance Committee could get it for them.
The $14.5m levy lid lift would have added an additional $1.00/1000 and less if we add to the AV and if we examine ALL property that current has exemptions.
With community input we need to decide how best to use PT exemptions.
If economic development is truly essential to our financial future — and it is — then we need to be honest about the structure we have today. We are spending more than $200,000 a year on an Economic Development Director role that is not producing measurable outcomes.
At the same time, we are relying on an Economic Development Commission that, in the middle of a fiscal crisis, resurfaced only two ideas: a B&O tax and paid parking.
Those are not economic development strategies. They are revenue mechanisms presented in the absence of a plan.
Meanwhile, the core areas that actually determine Edmonds’ long-term tax base — Westgate, Perrinville, Highway 99, the Burlington property, hospital-district partnerships, business retention, recruitment, and corridor activation, Port collaborations, creative programs with Edmonds CC — remain untouched.
If we need both a Citizens Finance Committee and an Economic Development Commission on top of a six-figure Director role just to diagnose the basics, then the problem isn’t capacity — it’s direction.
Edmonds is at an inflection point. We cannot tax our way out of structural problems that stem from the lack of a real economic development framework.
We need a strategy, with KPIs, accountability, and clear outcomes — or the next levy discussion will look exactly like the last one.
I’m commenting just to correct a couple of misstatements – We don’t have an Economic Development Director currently. The position has been open a while. And the EDC, that’s still on pause officially, was directed to look specifically at two things: a B&O tax and paid parking. The intent wasn’t for them to come up with additional ideas in the limited number of meetings they had.
Chris.Eck@edmondswa.gov
Thanks for the correction. I heard you presented an idea – or suggestion really – that we should fund a grant writer. Is that instead of building a real economic development plan? Grants aren’t sustainable, and they won’t fix a structural gap.
A comprehensive economic strategy would actually grow the tax base and reduce the burden on residents. That’s the missing piece.
True our Economic Director was Todd Tatum. So, I believe we created a new position for Todd as The Mayors Assistant. I don’t know his current title. I like Todd just fine and he seems to be doing a good job, but I don’t think Edmonds will be able to hire another Economic Development dept or director for quite a while. Todd was still in that position as recently as 2024. This ” Edmonds will no longer have an economic development director, and that savings is mostly funding the new position. Tatum’s current pay is $199,970 and the internal promotion will be limited to a salary increase of 5%.” This was in MEN In August of 2025. https://myedmondsnews.com/. No offense Chris Eck but if you want citizens to consider taxes to help Edmonds best be real clear and realize it seems to me that hiring anyone at this point is not on the radar really. Maybe I am wrong but that seems to be the gist of what I am reading and hearing around here. Happy Thanksgiving.
I agree that the MFTE is not a good fit for Edmonds and council should consider how to end it. I believe the MFTEs are mostly helpful to cities that have or are attempting to attract significant industry with long-term operations who need housing for a local work-force. I recall the discussions from my Edmonds EDC days that not many Edmonds residents work in Edmonds.
How is a municipal government not a type of business that should be run in a business like manor? Municipal government has clients (citizens with a bunch of common needs like water delivery and sanitation); just like Fedex or Comcast has clients who have individual needs like getting something sent somewhere or procuring leisure time entertainment. The only real difference is the municipal business doesn’t have to make a profit. Therefore in theory it should be much easier to run a city than a business. Where Edmonds city government has failed for years is instead of trying first and foremost to just meet basic client needs, it has constantly financed a bunch of special interest gimmicks and show pieces – a fountain in the middle of Main Street, a continuous beach walk and a silly big tree code that are costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuits. Add in a $650,000 Yost Park study to tell you what you already know and 100K not to buy a piece of property nobody wants and pretty soon you chalk up some real wasted money. And still you elect and re-elect the type of people who just love to promote this stuff and make these bad decisions. Better jump on that citizen expert advisory board while the iron is hot!
Lots of issues to unpack. First MFTEs are not completely tax exempt. Only the residential units that are utilized for moderate to low income housing are tax exempt. Commercial units and market rate rental units plus all of the land is taxed normally. In addition tax breaks have a sunset. If MFTEs were such a “give away” why are there so few developments. The most recent MFTE included support from the Lutheran Church, the non-profit, Housing Hope and the use of MFTEs.
The Neighborhood zoning update allows only 3 to 4 stories of development. This is 2 stories too short. It does not really provide enough square footage for commercial development on the first floor. This is why there has been little development in the neighborhoods.
On route 99, the density needs to 6-7 stories with commercial space on the first floor. Route 99 has great potential since the Swift Blue Line goes from Everett to the Shoreline North 185 Link station.
Yes the Burlington property has huge potential. Yet it may require a large temporary investment from the city. I was shocked when the city did not move forward. To expect an independent developer to come in and build a significant development without government or major non-profit assistance is wishful thinking.
Without more development, homeowners will bear the tax burden.
Mark,
Let me correct a misconception. “Commercial units and market rate rental units plus all of the land is taxed normally.” While the commercial space is taxed normally, ALL residential units (market rate and moderate/low-income housing) are tax exempt.
I can’t believe the Fantasyland thinking of some people. MTFE hasn’t produced much more development because most young people can’t afford even the down payment to buy or the first, last and damage deposit required just to rent these, “affordable,” units. I suggest your mayor call the Paulsbo mayor and ask how that city of 13+K people can still afford it’s own police and fire departments. Hint: as of January the mayor there will be part-time earning 50K/yr. with 11K in paid benefits. The town will be run by a F.T. City Manager chosen by the mayor and approved by the council and answerable to the mayor and full council. They cover needs first and foremost and the wants are largely volunteer based and completed. If the Edmonds town leaders had listened to the build higher and denser people 60 years ago, the Ebb Tide would be 12 stories with progressively taller buildings up the hill to Maplewood Dr. Good luck with that keeping Edmonds charm thing going with the people you have in charge now.
Concerns about Yost Park are pretty straight forward and repetitive enough to not demand a complex expensive study. Trails, safety, maintenance. Don’t screw it up … That’s pretty much it. The bridge in question has been closed for over four years. It is central in the trail system. and was mired in comments and excuses long before voters mandated cost controls. And while there is a maze, with layers of rules and how to manage an environmentally sensitive park; provisions are included to maintain existing structures without creating a back lash of agency. coss fire. For example … I found a pedestrian bridge, hinged in the middle, delivered. It would have simply covered the same foot print of the failed one, just a bit longer to reduce the threat of the sidewalls of the drainage deteriorating. The idea was to then file for design permits for footings to make it a perminant structure. The cost – nothing. The interest on the part of the City – nothing. The level of my civic pride at the spontaneous rejection – nothing. The chances that I would put such a deal together again – nothing. As for volunteering our expert hiking club for trail and bridge maintenance – withdrawn.
This is super frustrating to hear, particularly in the absence of any plan the city has put together for replacement of the bridge (at least, any I have heard about).
Four years is too long. It does basically divide the trail network into two parts. I use the park less without it there, there is no question.
Jim you are correct. I would point out that commercial units are valued higher than residential units.
Lots of good comments, suggestions, information from everyone. I think I am much better informed now about how much incompetence seems to run Edmonds (the simplest example given: The bridge in Yost Park.)
So what are the specific ACTION ITEMS that can be taken to “FORCE” the City employees and elected officials to change course now.
One take-away I got from this exchange, is that the City does not have an overarching “plan” for anything. If that is correct, then surely this is the first order of business for changing course ??? Specifically (action item) how do we get a plan drafted ??? (And please don’t suggest we ask the City to “do a study” or “hire a consultant” – those are not action items, they are expensive delay tactics.)
Great question. If we want Edmonds to change course, here are a few actual action items:
1. Force a workplan. Council can require staff to produce a 90-day plan with owners, timelines, and reporting. Right now there is no plan for anything.
2. Create a resident “shadow plan.” If the City won’t draft one, residents can. Present it publicly and make Council respond on the record. Note that we are working on this actively – this will be the next phase of Keep Edmonds Affordable.
3. Unified public pressure. The same ask, every meeting: “Where is the plan, who owns it, and when will we see progress?” Bureaucracies respond to repetition and volume.
4. Use OPMA and public records. Requests for documents, status updates, and internal communication force transparency and accelerate action.
5. We need commissions with a real charters…. Economic Development, for example, should deliver a strategy in 90 days—not just pitch taxes.
None of this requires consultants or new spending. It requires structure, accountability, and residents who won’t let go of the demand for an actual plan.
Lee-
Excellent action items to make Edmonds Affordable to all. It’s all part of good governance reform (fiscal discipline, accountability, transparency, performance metrics and results orientation, common sense, and putting taxpayers first). Sadly, the Mayor and most of the Council do not subscribe to good governance, and they refuse to listen to the 59% of taxpayers who voted against Prop 1. They just want to make excuses and speak in false narratives. 152 taxpayers have signed a new Petition for good governance. It has 8 demands that will lead to providing essential services with no utility tax increase or tax levy lift for the 2026 budget It requires a new Citizens’ Financial Advisory committee that will work with the Council to introduce good governance reform and a 2026 budget that will make Edmonds Affordable for everyone. If you are one of the 11,000+ voters who voted to defeat Prop 1, and if you want to register your displeasure with the Mayor and Council, please join 152 of your neighbors in signing the “Last Straw” Petition and recommending a way forward: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/enough-utility-tax-increase-is-last-straw
Sometimes it seems to me like Edmonds city government overall just loves to develop complex and controversial circumstances and dilemmas ahead of and without just figuring out the basic information. For, example the Council and city staff are currently working on a Critical Areas Ordinance required by state environmental and growth management law but I have never seen just a basic list of what Edmonds’ critical areas are exactly and where they are located exactly. It seems like before you can write a usable ordinance, you would need to know exactly what you are protecting with the ordinance, why you are protecting it and where it is that needs protection. In the same vein; Edmonds citizens, council and staff are fighting over how much money they need to tax themselves for just the basic services that a city needs to provide, yet I’ve never seen a list of what the absolute basic services are. It seems like you are all sort of randomly shooting bullets at targets you can’t see and have made no real effort to see. As a consequence you have no idea of how many bullets you really need and what type of guns you need to hit the targets you can’t see (metaphorically speaking on the guns and bullets thing). And you all wonder why your finances are a mess.
Edmonds GIS. Look it up! Tells you all you need to know about the list you’re looking for and their locations. And, yes it was reference during the ordinance update!
https://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=Edmonds_SSL.HTML
Your absolute basic service list is outlined in the biennial budget. Look it up! Each one has their own section.
I did and I pushed all the little squares and it worked pretty well Jeremy. The one thing I always notice in any map just about is there are no streets defined. So how about you at least add the main streets and the main feeder streets. That way we can really tell where all of the spots are. For those who might need to know. But it is a very colorful and detailed map so thanks for that. Just a little more with the words and numbers would be good. Hi there Jeremy. Deb.
Well then I stand corrected and am looking forward to seeing all the great resolutions to things like the Perrinville Creek diversion problem created by faulty permitting in the past and a lot of cost cutting by getting rid of what isn’t absolutely essential in terms of good city government. Doubt I will see any of these things in my lifetime; but I’d welcome the surprise as would about 60% of your citizens who just said NO to more property taxes beyond the 1% hike your Council just passed and they(constituents) had no control over.
I was reviewing this thread as it contains numerous ideas and two comments just hit me. The first comment was that most residents in Edmonds do not work in Edmonds. This is the definition of a bedroom community. It also said MFTE properties are a good fit for communities with significant industries that need to attract workers. The most significant industry in Edmonds is retail. Talk with the employees at the QFC, the shops and restaurants downtown and you will learn they do not live in Edmonds since it is too expensive. This to me says that the MFTE program is what’s needed. If anything, it may be necessary to revisit the target income qualifications along with the mixture of income restricted to market rate units.
Edmonds can continue as a bedroom community or it can adapt. If it wants to continue as a bedroom community it can either restrict tax increases with the corresponding reduction in services or it can continue services but that will require ever increasing taxes. What will not happens is expanded services and a decreasing tax rate unless there is a fundamental shift in the taxable property within the city. This is where a high density pro development plan along highway 99 makes sense.
Mark,
You’re misinformed about MFTEs. ALL residential units in the Westgate MFTE are tax free for 12 years in exchange for 19 units (20%) that aren’t affordable as defined by the Department of Commerce because the AMI (adjusted median income) in Snohomish County is so high.
In his comment above, Darrol Haug says:
“With MFTE we are forgoing those taxes $’s and not getting truely affordable housing. Council has been shown the analysis for Westgate and others and should immediately stop the use of MFTE.”
I agree with Darrol that Council “should immediately stop the use of MFTE” to end the shift of tax burden to other taxpayers. I suggest you read this article: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/seattles-multifamily-tax-exemption-has-outlived-its-usefulness/
And my RV: https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/reader-view-the-myth-of-affordable-housing/
How many city workers have 6 figure annual incomes?
…Just curious
Joan I was already corrected and acknowledge the error in an earlier post. As I have always known the tax exempt status applies to all residential unit, it does not change my support for the program. The program does in fact work to provide low income seniors and families with housing. Yes it is challenging in King/Snohomish Counties because of the huge income disparities due to tech salaries. They work well in Thurston, Pierce, Skagit and Whatcom counties since the median income is not skewed by the tech industry wages.
But the solution is not to just throw our hands in the air.
The present system is unsustainable. Many of the workers in Edmonds do not live in Edmonds. Furthermore, many actually visit the foodbank on their way to or from work. Sooner or later lower paying jobs will remain unfilled. Stores will close for lack of worker. Elder care facilities may be force to close due lack of workers providing housekeeping and food services. The area could become a food desert as groceries can no longer hire enough workers. City Government could face increased difficulty staffing lower paying positions.
Finally many of our seniors want to stay in their homes as long as they can. But what if caregivers can’t afford to live close enough to provide services?
Mark, I definitely don’t think you’re misinformed. It appears to me there are regional examples where MFTEs create a pay-off to taxpayers by fulfilling some of the ideals you’ve mentioned, such as development incentives and more affordable housing. To date, it does not seem that Edmonds has figured out how to leverage MFTEs to get that equity pay-off. I don’t think we need to give up on discovering new ways to include more affordable housing in Edmonds, but the current model looks like a give-away to developers who probably don’t need our generosity, especially considering our property taxation woes.
Could Darrol, or Lee, or Jim O., or anyone else in town with some REAL financial “smarts” explain to me how greater density and population in and of itself is going to do anything to help Edmonds financially speaking? The more people you have to serve, the more police, fire, sanitation facilities, schools and teachers, parks and water workers and everything else associated with just the necessary city and school district services you will have to have. And, assuming you pull it off, how will a bunch of “affordable” housing units with relatively low paid workers contribute to the higher tax base to meet all the needs, when they can barely afford the “affordable” housing they have, let alone way higher utility bills and school levy needs. Apparently what you really need are more car dealerships and/or some real manufacturing or you can count on ever escalating tax asks, especially when you factor in some really bad past and present government decisions by “hobbyist” town officials.
My focus has been solely on the real estate levy lift proposal that failed. The key factor in determining whether a plan is viable is to determine “who” the taxpayer is. In Edmonds today, the primary taxpayers are individual home owners, either as single family homeowners or condominium owners. Edmonds has very little rental housing developments in the city. However, where those exist, the landlord is the tax payer. With most commercial properties, the landlord is the tax payer.
In Edmonds, lower paid workers are the labor that run much of the city. They are the landscapers who keep the lawns beautiful. They are the checkout clerks at the retail establishments. They are the waitstaff that bring the food we ordered at our local eatery. Most of these individuals do not own a home, they rent. But where do they rent?
These workers likely earn less than $25 per hour. This is $4330 per month before taxes. But how much after taxes? The cheapest apartments in Edmonds for 1 bedroom is $1500 per month. What about a small family needing 2 bedrooms, $1750 per month? Very quickly up to half of your income goes to housing. Experts say it should be no more than 30%.
I hear anecdotes that workers are driving to Edmonds from Marysville and beyond. This is not sustainable. Solution?