Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Editor:
Another resident has pointed out to me that it’s not at all clear what the council approved utility rates are!
Here is Council President Tibbott’s motion:
“I would like to make a motion that we adopt this ordinance that’s in our packet with the 10% increases in section F, section H and section I.”
There were no amounts in the ordinance. There were only blanks (highlighted in yellow) to be filled in. Ten percent increases in what? The council didn’t decide on any tax percentages in the ordinance.
Additionally, the adopted ordinance struck out the Solid Waste Haulers tax. Should all residents look forward to refunds of 6% on our utility bills as of Dec. 2, 2025?
Here is a portion of the ordinance that was in the council packet:
What did the council approve? What is the tax rate on water, sewer and solid waste?
Ann Christiansen
Edmonds
Just an FYI that we received this letter as we were working on an article aiming to address the questions raised by readers. That is why they are published at around the same time. — Teresa Wippel
Hello everyone — just a heads up that we have put on hold the article we published briefly Tuesday regarding council rules and last week’s vote on the utility tax. The article was based on the opinion of a parliamentarian who thought they were providing background information when we thought it was OK for publication. Our hope is to get clarification from a different parliamentarian on the record and republish the story. Thanks for your understanding. — Teresa Wippel.
As we continue to wait for a different parliamentarian, it’s important to note that RCW 35A.12.130 requires ordinances to be written, definite, and properly read—and the utility tax ordinance wasn’t. Four tax rate fields were left blank, so it wasn’t a valid first reading under state law.
In the article that was put on hold, the Council President made claims about a “Section 3.5B” in the Council’s adopted Rules of Procedure. Does such exist? Section 3.5 is the only section I can find, and it clearly states that ordinances require two readings, with exceptions allowed only when the Council President authorizes it for emergencies or unexpected items. It does not provide a general ability to waive a second reading by motion, nor does a long discussion make one reading adequate.
Ordinances adopted in Edmonds used to require three readings.
If the rules don’t authorize one reading adoption, then a parliamentarian saying “that’s fine” doesn’t make it so.
And since the tax rates were never inserted into the ordinance text by our elected City Council, the Council did not actually adopt a definite utility tax increase.
In my opinion, the City Council should reintroduce and properly adopt a complete ordinance that complies with both state law and the Council’s own rules.
That ordinance should require two readings and then be subject to a referendum.
There was full compliance with the council’s adopted rules of procedure, the relevant Section 3.5 being copied here ver batim:
“Except when the Council President has authorized an exception for items of an emergency or unexpected nature requiring immediate action, ordinances scheduled for Council action will receive a minimum of two readings. Action by the Council (by the consent agenda, or council motion and vote) will always be one of the readings. Other reading(s) will be in the number the topic warrants, and could include any or all of the following: 1. publication on the extended agenda 2. presentation of the topic by staff 3. discussion at council committee and/or meetings of the full council 4. public hearings (sometimes mandated by law).”
There were 4-6 readings on this topic. In addition to any of the times that the item was cited on an extended agenda (AKA agenda planner), it was discussed at the budget retreat on 11/14/25. Then the following three readings 1) Presentation and discussion at the 11/18/25 Committee of the Whole, 2) On 11/25/25, there was a public hearing on non property tax revenue sources for 2026 (of which the utility tax was one), and 3) discussion and action on 12/2/25.
My understanding is that state law requires all essential terms to be fully included in the Ordinance document the Council is voting on.
Utility Tax Rates are not minor details; they are essential elements of a Utility Tax Rate Ordinance.
Wouldn’t it have made sense for the City Council to complete the four blanks before voting? The Council should make every legislative decision, including exact tax rates.
Should the City Attorney be allowed to fill in blank tax rate fields after a City Council vote based on the attorney’s interpretation of what the Council’s Main Motion meant? This Main Motion only mentioned three of the four utility tax rates under consideration. The Main Motion referred to 10% increases, not 100% increases. The Main Motion only addressed three of the four utility tax rates the Council was supposed to define.
If the City Council reintroduces and adopts a complete ordinance, it will protect legislative integrity and ensure that the Council has voted on a definite tax measure. I believe this benefits both the city government and the taxpayers.
I also hope the City Council reinstates the requirement for three readings of ordinances. I hope the Council considers its constituents when it defines what qualifies as a “reading.” For instance, why would publication on the extended agenda (Agenda Planner) count as a reading?
What makes Tibbott’s motion so confusing is that the adopted ordinance had blanks and strikethroughs where the tax amounts were supposed to go. Nothing was filled in. So when he motioned for the council to approve the ordinance “with the 10% increases in section F, section H, and section I,” I’d like to know: “10% increases” of what? There were no numbers to increase. Does “10% increases” mean a new rate of 10% of 10%?
And because they approved the Solid Waste Haulers tax (Section G) with a strikethrough followed by a blank, is that now 0%? If so, thank you!
Now our mayor says they actually meant an “additional 10%,” which would take the current 10% rate and bump it to 20%. Wow! That’s a 100% increase! Even with this after-the-vote explanation, the motion never explicitly said that, which would have been easy to spell out. At this point, I’m wondering whether the council was trying to mislead us (intentionally or just through sloppy wording), whether they purposely made the ordinance vague so we wouldn’t immediately catch on, or whether they inadvertently approved a new 10.1% rate. Either way, we deserve clarity, not confusion.