Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
“Trust is broken with many in Edmonds – and rebuilding it will require reengineering how we engage with our citizens,” says long-time resident, community volunteer and professionally trained facilitator Kevin Harris.
“We can’t keep relying on three minutes at the microphone and a few town halls, that many perceive as performative and checking boxes,” Harris said. “It’s out of sync with our changing, more diverse population. It fuels polarization, is disproportionately influenced by the loudest voices and leaves many residents either alienated or absent. Citizens feel powerless and leaders feel threatened.”
Harris’ solution? A complete reboot of the public engagement process — the way we listen to and involve people in Edmonds.
And Harris doesn’t just talk about it. On his own time and initiative, he has developed an engagement assessment that he thinks would do just that, laying out a preliminary stage of a path toward this end.
A seven-year member of the city’s Economic Development Commission, Harris’ resume details a discipline-spanning professional career. Now retired, he has a depth and breadth of experience that allows him to speak with authority on not only how and why citizen engagement is broken, but the steps community members need to take to build a viable, robust and effective engagement process in Edmonds.
Harris and his wife Barbara have lived in Edmonds for nearly 40 years. After a globe‑trotting childhood as the son of an adventurous Hollywood art director, he studied agricultural economics at UC Davis then earned a quantitative master of business administration in finance from San Francisco State University, and later an executive master of public administration from the University of Washington’s Evans School.
Professionally, he built a national consulting career in health and human services policy, expert‑witness litigation, and Medicaid work with dozens of states, eventually helping grow a firm to 300 professionals in 12 offices. Along with that, he trained and practiced as a community mediator. He later joined the UW–WSU William D. Ruckelshaus Center to apply impartial, collaborative, problem solving to “wicked” public policy issues, and he continues to voluntarily serve as senior facilitator/mediator and WSU associate professor emeritus. He has taught leadership classes in graduate-level public health programs, served as a guest lecturer on collaborative governance in public policy and nursing graduate programs at several universities, and teaches a mediation clinic at the UW School of Law.
While serving on the Edmonds Economic Development Commission, he designed participatory processes including the recent B&O tax workshops – experiences that further inform his call for a deeper, relationship‑based model of community engagement.
His assessment report – completed in December – is based on more than 40 interviews with residents, community leaders, city staff and elected officials. Interviewees described civic participation in Edmonds that is ineffective, overly reactive, dominated by a vocal minority and inaccessible to many groups – particularly younger families, immigrants, renters and Highway 99 neighborhoods. Harris noted that he has shared the report with all of those he interviewed and said he has received requests from elected officials and others to discuss his process recommendations further.
Major gaps include limited public understanding of city processes, weak feedback loops, inconsistent engagement practices, staff capacity constraints and the absence of the “moderate middle” from civic life. These challenges create a culture where residents feel unheard, staff feel overwhelmed, leaders feel attacked and everyone feels growing frustration.
Despite these barriers, the report identifies numerous strengths in Edmonds. These include high volunteerism, strong voter turnout, existing educational organizations and the feeling that while residents are frustrated with the current model, they are eager for more respectful, productive dialogue. The report takes these strengths as a strong indication that Edmonds is ready to shift from its current “transactional” model of engagement toward a more “relational,” predictable and inclusive civic infrastructure.
As Harris sees it, Edmonds leans heavily on “transactional” engagement – brief comment periods and one-way presentations – when what the city really needs is to add a deeper, relationship‑based approach. Harris argues that the city’s current model isn’t broken because people don’t care, but because the model is built on the wrong kind of engagement. Instead of box‑checking, he says, Edmonds needs sustained, relational dialogue with residents.
“Three minutes at the microphone in a City Council meeting is transactional,” he explained. “Yeah, it is a form of community engagement, but it’s not terribly satisfying to anybody, elected officials or the public. Likewise, PowerPoint presentations that push information out without designing for effective dialog reinforce the alienation. It’s not that these are not important – it’s that they’re not enough.
“On the relationship side, the bottom line is listening to learn,” he continued. “Are you listening to learn, or are you listening to respond? There’s a huge difference in my world.”
“It’s a two-way street where everyone collectively is responsible for relationship building,” he added. “The public has a responsibility to become better educated so they can ask more meaningful questions and maintain a civil dialogue, and the city has a responsibility to listen, process, feedback and accommodate.”
His report recommends a comprehensive “civic reboot” that improves process clarity, builds trust, expands participation, strengthens staff skills and creates sustained structures — not one-time events. It suggests that third-party facilitation to support high-conflict or long-term “wicked” issues might be needed along the way, but relationship-building between leaders and residents must be direct and consistent. He concludes that with intentional design, Edmonds can rebuild trust, broaden participation and collaboratively address the complex challenges ahead.
So how do we get there from here? How do we go about this “reboot”?
“You can’t just do a one-off town hall and expect that that’s going to create durable results,” he said. “You need to start small, invest in design, use third-party facilitation when needed, follow through with feedback, broaden and diversify participation, and – most importantly – view this as a long-term reboot and not a quick fix.”
In summary, Harris says that reboot process should include the following:
1. Start small, then demonstrate.
— Use small, well‑designed pilots (like the B&O tax workshop or the listening session recently sponsored by Councilmember Vivian Olson) to show that deeper engagement can work.
— Success in these pilots is what eventually convinces leaders to adopt new methods more broadly.
2. Invest heavily in design, not just facilitation.
— He emphasizes that good processes are “95% design, 5% facilitation.”
— That means planning for diversity at the table, how they talk, ground rules for civil discourse and how input will actually be used.
3. Use neutral, third‑party facilitation for the big issues.
— For contentious topics (such as budget, Regional Fire Authority annexation and land use), he suggests bringing in impartial facilitators to rebuild trust and help design consensus‑oriented processes.
— Elected officials should participate but not necessarily lead these efforts at the outset.
4. Create real feedback loops and implementation.
— Engagement must lead to visible action: recommendations, changes in policy or at least a clear, respectful explanation when ideas aren’t used.
— Without this, engagement feels “performative” and further erodes trust.
5. Broaden who is invited and how.
— Rethink the ways that people are invited to participate, especially those who never come to Council meetings — for example, informal gatherings (the “mayor at a pub” idea), digital tools, different times/places, and methods used in other cities.
— The aim is to reach the “silent middle,” not just the loudest voices.
6. Treat this as a long-term reboot, not a quick fix.
— Harris is explicit that rebuilding trust and culture takes time.
— The goal is a “culture of engagement” in which ongoing, relationship-based processes are normal, not exceptional.
The timing of his report isn’t incidental. For Harris, recent city events have added immediacy to the need to address this. He sees Edmonds’ budget crisis and tax debates as accelerants of a deeper problem: trust that’s already frayed.
“The budget crisis has further accumulated mistrust,” he stresses. “Unwinding and rebuilding trust is not a quick process.”
In his view, the same transactional habits that helped create the current stalemate aren’t likely to solve it. His prescription is a rewiring that starts small, brings people into well‑designed conversations, uses impartial facilitation on the hottest issues, and ultimately proves that resident input can genuinely help shape what happens next.
“This assessment isn’t perfect,” he said. “It’s not meant to be a statistically representative sample of all of Edmonds. It’s not a how-to guide or one-size-fits-all template for engagement. It’s a starting point before moving forward.
“This work is hard. Involving those who don’t engage isn’t easy. And convincing folks who have become ‘conflict-normalized’ to try something different takes a lot of effort. But repeating the same things over and over and expecting different results – we all know how that quote ends.
“It’s slower and messier than a single town hall or an online survey,” Harris concluded. “But if Edmonds wants durable solutions on money, growth and services — solutions that can survive the next election or economic dip — then we must invest in the relationships that make those decisions stick. For me, it boils down to a simple question: ‘How is the current model working for you?’ If the answer is ‘not very well,’” – and this is what Harris heard in his interviews – – “then it’s time to try a different way of listening and deciding together.”
Thank you Mr. Harris and reporter Larry Vogel for this timely and thoughtful piece, especially the outlines of solutions and problem solving steps. This also helps me understand better why I accept and/or reject the opinions of others based on differing types of narratives.
Thank you for this timely article! I support implementation of Kevin Harris’ proposal. I like the recommendation that we look at this as a reboot, start small and think long term.
I agree with the “philosophy” being expressed in this article. Edmonds has become somewhat polarized. This isn’t just a local issue. It is a national issue, and maybe even global. There’s no middle ground on issues these days.
Having said that, I am curious to know if Larry and Mr Harris can cite EXAMPLES of where this type of governance in a relatively small town has been successful in recent years?
I totally agree. I don’t respond to printed flyers or meetings in the shiny Waterfront Center. I sit in the car after picking up the mail and instantly toss anything written that isn’t important into the recycling bin (this usually leaves about two bills). It never gets into the house. I like communication like this reporting. I can scan each item and overlook the things that don’t interest me. I view the city government and especially the mayor as the leader of a “clique” of people. Always the same folks responding, with the same tilt, and nothing that attracts me to reading further. Does the mayor even read My Edmonds News? I’ve never seen a comment or really anything from him. He was raised in the old school way of things (and I’m 73). They talk talk talk so they can hear themselves and think they are communicating. Like a lot of the podcasts today. I am so sad that we passed the Fire Department issue (people are so used to voting for the fire department) and got ourselves into this financial mess. I’m getting less and less happy with the fire department when I see seven fire vehicles at an incident where there is one car crash. They need to tighten their belts too.
Your real problem is you have an antiquated Strong Mayor/ Weak Council system of city government that just doesn’t work well for the average “Joe Citizen” or “silent Middle” as this guy puts it. The too Strong Mayor with his self serving almost no cut contract City Attorney constantly sets the tone for what is supposedly good for everyone in town and the too Weak Council generally goes along with it. This is just another elaborate PR stunt and things won’t become any more well run until you have a system with built in public input from distinct Council District Representatives who know what their own community needs in the way of just basic services and reasonable amenities. Right now Edmonds is run by and for the entertainment, arts and development special interests and that needs to change or your home owners will be taxed out; or just smart to cash out on the Edmonds myth of being the perfect place and move on to where they have more of their real needs met at a more reasonable price.
Larry, that’s a good article with good ideas. However, it misses a fundamental point about “rebooting” and “rebuilding trust”. As they are today, the mayor and council have absolutely zero credibility and have been demonstrating a massive degree of dishonesty and even criminal behavior in their actions.
Talking is cheap and the mayor and council must demonstrate, with measurable actions (not just talk) that they even deserve that the Edmonds’ population start trusting them again. Right now, their backdoor arrangements make them not different than those fraudsters that graft billions in taxpayer money for “childcare” in Minnesota. They already concocted with the RFA’s “firemen” and “consultants” to take our hard-earned money, and God knows what else they are doing behind closed doors now.
So, yes, I agree with the “rebooting”. However, we already have gone to meetings and watched colorful presentations and gave feedback that simply disappeared in a black hole. Therefore, the ones who broke the trust must prove that they are worth of that reboot. Show it. Enough talk.
Kevin has done an incredible job here
and I’m grateful! There’s a lot of actionable conclusions.
It’s important to say that MEN isn’t an official forum for city government to reply to community member questions and concerns. It’s, however, a good forum for community members to express themselves and share opinions and ideas.
The best way to contact a Councilmember is via this link, and then click on each CM to see their contact info – https://www.edmondswa.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalId=16495016&pageId=17260737
Or through this link to send to all CMs – https://www.edmondswa.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=16495016&pageId=17296176
Or to the Mayor – https://www.edmondswa.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalid=16495016&pageid=17238708
Councilmember Eck, Thank you for reading and commenting here. (MEN means My Edmonds News for new readers) Does the Council have a goal or a time standard to respond to citizen comments? DANA TWIGHT
Very informative and thought provoking article. Than you MEN and Larry for publishing this.
I really like this suggested plan! I would definitely be interested in participating in areas that are very important to me, and would trust decisions coming out of this process as more thoughtful, inclusive, and equitable.
Kevin, Thanks for the thoughtful approach to solving the engagement concerns our city faces. This is a quality first step toward better communication and understanding of the problems and opportunities for Edmonds.
Is there an email list to be on regarding the development of this plan?
This is an incredible “snake oil” sales job from the very people who haven’t chosen to really listen to the people of Edmonds for over 20 years. The vote to absolutely protect your pristine drinking water supply (that any normal town would die to have access to and protect at all cost) should have been 7 to 0, not 4 to 3 and now one of those same three who voted development over your health are telling you to buy into what is just a reboot of the Edmonds Civic Roundtable concept in another disguise. Go to Vivian’s ad-hoc meeting and tell her, Will and Jenna what YOU think about it all and what YOU want from YOUR city leaders before you lose it all to Regional and special interests.
Clint, I think we need to get you involved in a bowling league or something of that nature. May be beneficial to take the frustration you have of Edmonds imperfect government from across the pond on some pins. Do they have a bowling alley in Hansville?
Jeremy, your personal comments and innuendo that I should be minding my own business are becoming borderline pathetic. It speaks volumes that you didn’t respond to my comment about protecting Edmonds, Esperance, Woodway drinking water or the fact that I urged people to go to Vivian Olson’s community meeting with two other City Council members to tell them what they want from THEIR city government. I’m sure your friend, Mr. Harris, is a nice guy, well educated and means well and his efforts will probably do no harm, but I still think he is just re-inventing the ECR wheel, (based on the other people commenting here and where they have come from in relation to Edmonds City government) and his efforts will bring no more effective city government. No one is talking about “perfect” here. The critics, like myself, are just asking for honesty, accountability, and doing things legally. I think that will require a change of government system but I also think Edmonds has kind of learned to embrace it’s dysfunction by just covering up and repeating the past mistakes. Getting together and singing “Kumbaya” led by an expert conductor isn’t going to solve anything, but good luck with that approach anyway.
Well outrage and absolutism aren’t substitutes for participation or solutions either. Your frequent critiques appear to frame every effort that doesn’t begin with your conclusion as dishonest, illegitimate, or captured, and that guarantees exactly zero progress. If the only acceptable outcome is that everyone agrees the system is irredeemable unless it’s blown up and rebuilt to your specifications, then constructive dialogue is impossible by that design. As our current form of government allows, people can support drinking water protection and believe that improved civic engagement is part of how you prevent bad decisions in the first place. You can opt to dismiss every attempt at civic collaboration and partnerships to improve upon or resolve complex issues, but that pathway doesn’t build votes, policy, or trust, the three large things required to actually change a government system. You’re free to keep criticizing either locally or from afar. Others are free to try something new that’s constructive. Time will tell which approach produces results. I stand behind the bowling recommendation. Stepping away from the keyboard time-to-time and knocking down a few bowling pins can do wonders for perspective.
Jeremy, you need to learn to read and respond to what people actually do and say, rather than your perceptions about what they are doing or saying. As to what I do or don’t do in my spare time (which I have lots of now days); that’s just quite frankly none of your damn business as far as I’m concerned and I suspect that’s pretty much how most of the other readers see it too.
Clint, having been at last week’s meeting, listened to the back and forth on the motions relating to the Deer Creek aquifer, and spoken at length with Chris Eck and Susan Paine after the meeting, I think there is a nuance to the vote tally that you may be unaware of. Both of them intended to vote for the immediate implementation of the stricter groundwater controls above the CARA–ie Option 2–but wanted to add an immediate moratorium on development in that area. That would have been the next motion proposed had the 4-3 vote gone the other way.
Pete, I didn’t attend the meeting so I certainly agree I may not have been aware of that nuance, as you put it, but even if the nuance is true, it’s not necessarily in the best interests of the citizens to try to put in the moratorium just because the City Attorney and the Staff tell them it would make the staff’s job easier. Indeed, that has been a big part of Edmonds’ governmental problems, the city council thinks they are working for the mayor and staff, rather than the citizens who, it this case, have to drink the Deer Creek CARA water that the wrong sort of development could cause to be unsafe. The EEC isn’t anti development. Indeed, the right sort of development that required the developers to install proper storm water sewer infrastructure would be a very good thing. The apartments, condos and DADUs on subdivided lots are coming to Edmonds and there is nothing anyone can do to change that. Another reason I moved to a grandfathered in HOA community.
Kevin, thanks for your well-reasoned effort to lay out a better process for civic engagement. I wonder: have any other cities in the state adopted this approach and if so, how is it working for them?
Thank you to all who have commented on Larry’s piece about the assessment interviews I did last summer/fall, and this report that synthesizes what people told me. To be clear, I am an impartial facilitator/mediator, do not work for the city (but do volunteer work within the city) and am certainly not a ‘shill’. Like each of you, I care deeply for this city and our future, which is why I chose to do this assessment. Please look into my background if you don’t believe this. To those who are skeptical about what I’m proposing for Edmonds: PLEASE READ this report (Larry provides a link towards the top of his article) and question WHY your interests and opinions aren’t adequately heard and responded to. It’s a quick read – 15 minutes of invested time to understand what I’m proposing….I understand that you’re hurt by a system and status quo culture that doesn’t provide the right type of genuine space for real dialogue, commitment to feedback and a reason to want to come back to the ‘table’. My recommendations point out what needs to be done to begin to break this vicious cycle, based on four decades of experience helping diverse participants at state, regional and local levels do this around public policy ‘thorny’ issues….environmental health, healthcare, land use, emergency (and COVID) response, and other seemingly
Kevin is scheduled to participate in Councilmember Vivian Olson’s “listening session” tomorrow (Sunday) 2:30-4:00 pm in the Edmonds library meeting room.
Given the work and thoughtfulness that Kevin put into his paper, I look forward to his contribution to our discussion tomorrow afternoon.
Did you pay for this advertisement, Kevin? It is not journalism.
Regarding Mr Harris’ proposals, I sense a ‘let’s jump on this bandwagon’ to solve our civic problems. But I would like to see MEN gives equal coverage to what working with John Bernard at Washington Policy Center could offer for results-driven Edmonds governance. He is their Senior Fellow for Government Accountability. For a preview go to WPC’s website and see JB’s five short videos from 11/05/25 through 12/03/25. To find his videos, click Research then Watch. See if you agree that he knows what works.
(2nd part) intractable issues. My process recommendations in the report are intended to change the status quo and help put all of us on a path to CIVIL discussion, shared policy recommendations to support better decision making, and actual implementation (with necessary feedback loops). This requires agreed-to commitments from everyone, including elected officials, staff and the public.
Informed ideas are always worth discussion and potential action, but stuck positions will never move the needle forward in a durable way. I’m suggesting experienced processes that gets people ‘unstuck’ and out of polarized positions, to truly collaborate (requires good faith) to find shared interests that can actually be negotiated.
PLEASE read the report, if you’re curious about what can be done to break this vicious cycle. And to the skeptics: WHY I’m proposing that it’s obvious that the city isn’t the right facilitator/host for these most difficult types of discussions, as there isn’t yet enough collective trust built between people.
I agree with Clinton’s suggestion to come to Council-member Olson’s listening session tomorrow – hopefully with open minds. I may stop by to answer questions people have about this report, or what it will take to move forward. Happy New Year – we can all do better for Edmonds! Thank you for considering.
Shirley, thanks for your comments and suggestion. I think it’s great for people to look for different ways to improve governance. The difference between what I’m suggesting (no ‘bandwagon here!) is a truly impartial way to CREATE THE SPACE to begin to de-polarize the issues locally. The Washington Policy Center is a self-described conservative think tank. The Washington Budget and Policy Center is a self-described progressive/liberal think tank.
So…..those organizations provide good, discussion-worthy ideas around things like how to improve local governance and measure results…..and that can all be part of the type of processes and discussions I’m recommending. None of this is mutually exclusive – but getting ‘stuck’ in political and cultural corners won’t get us all to durable results!
For context, I know Kevin Harris and have worked alongside him in community settings. I’m commenting here as a resident, not on behalf of any board or commission.
One thing I think we gloss over in these conversations is the difference between engagement and volume. Edmonds doesn’t lack people who want to weigh in. What we lack is a way to distinguish broad community input from the same small group of vocal people showing up again and again because they have the time and stamina to do so.
I’ve watched what that does over time. When the same voices dominate meetings, email chains, and comment sections, it can feel like “the community has spoken” when, in reality, persistence is often winning out. Others notice that pattern and quietly disengage: people with full-time jobs, people newer to Edmonds, people outside the Bowl, and people who don’t want every civic issue to turn into a fight.
I’m seeing this happen right now among people who care deeply about Edmonds and who have contributed for years. They’re not apathetic. They’re worn down.
That’s why the loss of experienced volunteers matters. When engagement becomes repetitive and adversarial, people don’t leave because they stop caring. They leave because participation becomes exhausting.
Edmonds has no shortage of civic energy. The question is whether our engagement patterns truly reflect the whole community.
Mr. Townsend–
11,000+ residents do not reflect “the same small group of vocal people!” Your comments are reflective of the tone-deaf majority of Council and the Mayor. You and they simply refuse to accept input from 59% of the residents. They have used negative PR and fear mongering to avoid tackling the real issues of overspending and putting themselves first – ahead of taxpayers. When the Mayor and Council stonewall residents and violate the Public Disclosure Commission’s principles and State laws for fair and equitable public discourse and when they illegally advocate for tax levy lifts or RFA annexation, you wonder why the public is frustrated and becomes cynical? The question is not whether “engagement patterns truly reflect the whole community” but why you or anyone else would support the Mayor and majority of Council who ignore the 11,000+ residents who have been disrespected and ignored – and have worked for over a year to shine a spotlight on the missing good governance principles that would help rebuild trust and would lead to sustainable budgets that make Edmonds affordable for all residents?
Bill – Those are the Edmonds community members who voted against the Levy. That is about a different and very specific issue. It is not logical to contend that everyone who voted “no” feels the same way about everything else.
Matthew- all due respect, the 59% super-majority voted AGAINST the levy and FOR reform in good governance principles- fiscal discipline, accountability, performance metrics/result-oriented management, transparency, common sense, and putting taxpayers first. 197 of them have signed their names on a public petition that outlined their demands for good governance: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/enough-utility-tax-increase-is-last-straw
Other than the handful of MEN commenters that support the Mayor and majority of Council, why have the other 41% of voters not petitioned the administration to continue with their mismanagement and overspending?
Background info: https://extension.wsu.edu/economics-community-development/wsu-profile/kevin.harris2/
Chris & Dave: Here are examples of some of the cities that have successfully implemented, or in the process of implementing, and/or are being trained by my prior employer, the William D. Ruckelshaus Center and the Assoc of WA Cities in the ‘collaborative governance’ principles my report speaks to: WA cities- Kent, Pullman, Auburn, Renton, Port Townsend, Arlington, Sequim, Port Angeles, Selah, Bainbridge Island, Tacoma, Liberty Lake and others are actively participating in the principles I’m proposing – some part of the WA-CELI (WA Collaborative Elected Leaders Institute, training via Ruckelshaus Center and AWC), to break the current ‘vicious cycle’. Seattle uses community assemblies tied to its Comp Plan update. On a statewide level, People’s Economy Lab and the Collaborative Roadmap Project (GMA) examples using collaborative governance principles. A few other cities that have implemented more advanced processes: Ft Collins, CO; Gainesville, FL; Chicago; Jackson, MS; several Hawaiian cities; Bronx, NY; Milwaukee; Boston; Indianapolis; Raliegh, NC; Baton Rouge, LA. ….in addition to others I reference in my report. Community Assemblies and Juries; participatory budgeting; community cultivators; place-governance efforts are a very few of the different consensus-building processes used to open up constructive and civil dialogue to achieve REAL and measurable results, and to begin to regain community trust…..not ‘feel good’ academic exercises. More to come for those of you who are interested.
Shirley- you’re so right to ask for the a similar article that discusses an alternative, proven method of rebooting cities and other public agencies as John Bernard has documented. What’s missing from Edmonds’ civic leaders’ vocabulary is ‘good governance’ and results-driven management. Their knee jerk reaction to any taxpayer criticism is to discount it and label it coming from an anti-tax minority. When 11,000+ residents’ super-majority voted against Prop 1, the Council responded with by discussing another tax levy lift! Mr. Harris’ proposals are all logical, but unfortunately Edmonds’ political leaders cannot even be trusted to listen to taxpayers and reform their out-of-touch governance. If they actually listened, the Mayor and Council majority would have taken action on CM Dotsch and Chen’s suggestions to reboot and gain trust by doing due diligence on the 2021-2025 spending to understand how police spending increased by 61% and general staff wages rose by almost 40% over these 4 years. They would have formed a Citizen Financial Advisory committee to correct the excesses in the 2026 budget. They would have listened to 190 petitioners who gave them an 8-point plan for reform. They would never have approved the utility tax increase. Mr. Harris’ plan is a non-starter unless the Mayor and Council show evidence of putting taxpayers first and rebuilding trust through good governance.
Thank you for the effort invested in this engagement assessment and its focus on improving listening and decision-making. Solid work on a much-needed long-term reboot.
According to the Open Public Meetings Act, the people insist on informing the people’s public servants of their views so that the people may retain control over the instruments they have created. Sadly, the people trying to inform are often disrespected. For instance, when the City Council recently adopted Ordinance 4400, they disrespected seven years of public input and adopted a version that substantially differed from the Planning Board’s recommendation. Additionally, the City Council’s Legal Assessment Subcommittee does not allow for citizen participation. It should.
I request a different take on “loudest voices” and “vocal minority”. In an open civic process, most residents have a similar opportunity to comment and contribute. Those who choose to engage should not be cast in a negative light simply because their contributions are visible or frequent. Their willingness to read agendas, devote time, and speak up reflects a commitment to Edmonds. Let’s broaden participation without diminishing those already at the table and respect that passion is not a flaw. The path to trust is to value all voices—quiet and loud—and to show clearly how input, from any quarter, informs decisions. That is how we strengthen our civic fabric and move forward together.
Mr. Harris is saying that there is some sort of “silent middle” in the Edmonds’ population that isn’t being heard with the assumption that you are just desperate to hear from them to finally get government right somehow. When you approach your communication and understanding of the governance problem from an assumption like that, you are really saying there are the good guys in town (ECR, overworked staff, underpaid and overworked City Council, dedicated Mayor, understaffed police department, and well versed in municipal law contracted city attorney on one side) doing everything right; and a bunch of overly outspoken, too much heard, and over complaining NIMBY malcontents just out to make trouble on the other side.
This “missing silent middle” construct reminds me a little of the 1970’s Republican Vice President Spiro Agnew who referred to a “silent majority” with no evidence that such a group even existed. Until you analyze what city government has done wrong in the past and the bad or misguided actors acknowledge it and their part in it, I don’t think you have much hope for that allusive better future. It would probably be more productive to analyze the towns where things are done well; with no need for special tax levies or bloated regional fire services, for example, and set up a similar government system.
Kevin,
You’ve produced a solid and thoughtful report. That’s why I’m a bit taken aback by some of the reactions you’re receiving. If anything, the pushback only seems to validate the conclusions you drew from your many interviews—people are clearly reacting from the very patterns you identified.
Regarding the first recommendation in this article—Start small, then demonstrate—I’d like to offer a concrete next step. It would be enormously helpful for the City Council to begin an open discussion, from the dais, at next week’s council meeting about the Blue Ribbon Panel’s suggestion to establish a Finance Committee. Such a committee could provide the Council with the expertise and structure needed to work through a genuine financial recovery plan.
Although the topic isn’t currently on the agenda, there is ample room to add it. Even a brief, initial conversation would signal to the community that the Council is willing to explore new approaches and is serious about doing things differently. A simple, transparent dialogue among councilmembers—held in public—would be a good first step and go a long way toward rebuilding trust and demonstrating that the city is ready to move beyond business as usual.
I hope the City Council can take the lead in this transformation.
Jim, I’m not suggesting that Mr. Harris is an evil person or that at least some form of good communication (like he is trying to get started) isn’t better than no communication, or worse yet, hidden legislative meetings billed as “executive sessions” taking place rather than open and honest public CC meetings. I am suggesting that he is just re-inventing the ECR and newly elected mayor’s meetings with “the over represented” wheel. I just have a lowly B.A. in Sociology, but I am smart enough to know when a study with a flawed “good guys” vs. the “bad guys” assumption as it’s basis is being presented. Other than that, I agree with you 100% as usual. I just don’t think there are 100’s of people in the Edmonds’ “silent middle” who aren’t being heard because people like you and I are sucking up all the oxygen in the room. You would not believe the money the EEC had to spend and the games we had to play just to get four people on the CC to do the right thing in protecting the Deer Creek CARA. And you are still having to beg to get the CC to just do it’s job properly with open honest (and no back rooms games) public debate.
Ok. There is opportunity for everyone to comment in this MEN. I am hoping that most who contribute with comments donate to MEN on a regular basis however it is a free newspaper so that helps many who can’t afford to subscribe to our other city newspaper. I subscribe to Beacon to help them. I get my news mainly here at MEN. CC meetings can easily be zoomed I do it every week free. People some attend but some don’t like me. Its also available on the television and at our gov web site to watch a recording. So regardless of whether you work or not there is a way to know a bit about what happened or is going to happen. There are many commentors here from Planning Board, Climate action folks, Some people are more aggressive with comments and I see nothing wrong with that. Its a way to vent especially when you see the same things occurring over and over again. I for instance that B&O taxes are a horrible idea for our city businesses. Cont.
Cont. Part 2. I do want parking meters in the DT core. When people park all day for nothing maybe not even to shop but just to get a place to park to walk to the beach for the day or whatever those spaces are gone for our business shoppers. For evening diners who may want to stick around and drink alcohol etc. Most probably eat after 4PM regardless of where they come from. In Seattle meters were fed about every two hours. After 6 PM they were free + free on Sunday. Dining you can park at 4 pm have your two hours paid and at 6 its done. We have parking issues in our DT core and that is where all of the meetings are taking place. Not everyone infact I suspect few walk to everything unless of course you live very nearby. Often the squeaky wheel gets the grease..Sometimes the wheel just falls off Kevin. I say Thank you for trying to help. Everyone is trying to help in their own way. But Freedom of Speech is one of the only things left for all of us in our nation and this is just free speech. Some are more excitable and more determined. Nothing wrong with that either. Let’s not use thinly veiled insults. I am registered a Centrist.
Woops that’s a registered Democrat who has a Centrist attitude. I mentioned in my previous comments about B&O and Parking as I think the group you represented EDC wanted both. Is that correct Kevin? SO yeah, do your thing but don’t expect all hearts and flowers and extreme sensitivity in comments from everyone and don’t assume people who want a little less in taxes are conservatives or nimbys etc. I don’t complain too much about taxes I am complaining about the danger with B&O for our merchants and parking for our citizens who will gladly pay to patronize those businesses. And for those who simply are taxed out fearing they might have to move. I am not one of them, but I do feel sorry for those people. I have screamed for Unity in this city for years. I have tried to help other areas get a bit of guiding of their Lillys instead of always the Bowl. City had options. Civic was a big spend. Too many parks in one area of this town and everyone knows this. I like the Bowl. But I don’t like a lot of many things that many can’t use since they don’t live DT. Chairs the night before for July 4th parade? No way to park for many during Christmas Season. The Tree.. on and on I go.
Presently, the trust in Edmonds City government is at an all time low judging by the loss of the pro-Prop 1 campaign. Now, MEN appears to be fomenting the divisiveness by presenting articles pushing more pro-Prop 1 agenda disguised as educational in nature. Furthermore, it is disturbing when articles written when Commission volunteers push facilitation while also displaying outright self promotion. MEN can do better by seeking articles that include the entirety of Edmonds. There is a wealth of human capacity in Edmonds, and there are many individuals who humbly serve. They are the unsung heroes of Edmonds.
Part 1: Thank you Mr Harris and Larry Vogel for this thoughtful and informative report. I have a couple of takes on your presentation. First, Ken Reidy’s words above bear repeating: Ken writes, “I request a different take on “loudest voices” and “vocal minority”. In an open civic process, most residents have a similar opportunity to comment and contribute. Those who choose to engage should not be cast in a negative light simply because their contributions are visible or frequent. Their willingness to read agendas, devote time, and speak up reflects a commitment to Edmonds. Let’s broaden participation without diminishing those already at the table and respect that passion is not a flaw. The path to trust is to value all voices—quiet and loud—and to show clearly how input, from any quarter, informs decisions. That is how we strengthen our civic fabric and move forward together.” This report is welcomed but a bit late to get back the trust that has been lost over the last several years and especially the last two. I’m hopeful we can get it back but I fear it will take a lot of work and time. Mayor Rosen ran on “honestly”, “transparency”, and “respect”. To his credit he began his campaign 18 months before the November vote, and I’m certain knocked on thousands of doors. (continued in Part 2)
Part 2 of 4 What I find disheartening is that I’ve known Mike Rosen for many years and find him to be very pleasant, I had the security code to his and his wife’s home. I did not support him for mayor as he did not have the municipal financial experience and had never run a business. So it was disappointing to see him promote himself falsely. See https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/10/letter-to-the-editor-asking-mike-rosen-for-clarification/. The owner and founder of PRR the business he said he was CEO of was Rita Brogan, an Asian woman. She received the Jay Rockey Lifetime Achievement Award honoring her outstanding career in PR. She was also a veteran public relations professional, civic leader, civil rights activist and social entrepreneur based in the Puget Sound area. This is the woman whom Rosen decided to take her accomplishments and call them his own. So he started his tenure as Mayor on a falsehood. Hence, loss of trust. Second, he decided to champion the annexation of Edmonds into the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) without allowing the residents of Edmonds to participate in fair, open dialogue at his City held open meetings. At these meeting Mayor Rosen, CP Neil Tibbott, CM Vivian Olson, and the Reps from the RFA spoke ad infinitum on why annexation was the ONLY was to go. (Continued Part 3)
Part 3 of 4 The opposing side to RFA annexation were given 2-3 minutes at the podium. We were frozen out of any city group discussions when the PRO RFA side presented. I asked several groups if Jim Ogonowski and I could speak and were turned away. Most notably at the Noon Rotary meeting where we were told only the Pro side would be heard. It was a well coordinated campaign by RFA, firefighters union, and the City. Days before the vote the firefighters union sent out a text to all of Edmonds: “I’m Conner, a firefighter … I want to be there for you on your worst days…. Our contract ends next year and without a solution, we could lose critical services. Vote YES for fully staffed fire stations, and stable, affordable costs.” Translation, ” if you don’t vote for us we may not show up to put your fire out or to your 911 call. Pure intimidation. RFA won, Edmonds was annexed as Mayor Rosen and most of council had voted. Edmonds went from paying 12 million dollars to 21 million for the same level of service. How’s that for “affordable”? More loss of TRUST. But Mayor Rosen wasn’t through with taxing Edmonds. He ran a 14.5 million dollar levy lid lift. Edmonds defeated it – 59% Voted NO. (Part 4)
For any skeptics out there, I offer these additional links which describe PRR, Ms. Brogan’s business. From the awards piece about Ms. Brogan, (In prsapugetsound), “At the helm of PRR, she built a thriving, employee-owned business with a national presence committed to engaging communities in meaningful ways to advance people, planet, and place”. And this one from the Seattle Chamber: PRR is ‘woman-owned’.https://www.seattlechamber.com/news/2024/07/30/community-news/member-feature-prr/ And of course your 2023 letter referenced above.
I concur that the Mayor has not been ‘transparent’. In fact, appointing a City Administrator seems to intentionally take him further away from leadership and accountability for our city. (To say nothing of the poorly timed expense.)
After reading another comment in MEN, which asserts a strong Mayor, weak Council governance model is used in Edmonds; I remain skeptical of the addition to staff during a financial deficit.
Part 4 of 4 No sooner had the votes been tallied to defeat Prop 1 that Mayor, CP Tibbott and Council voted to impose yet another tax on Edmonds – a Utility Tax – others in the making, B & O taxes for our already strained business community. Folks are taxed out, homes on the verge of being lost due to increased taxation, lines at the Food Bank continue to grow and still there is no consideration for the will of the people. Edmonds has spoken. Rosen and Council aren’t listening. He has a huge ego and is simply overwhelmed, incompetent. He just hired an administrative assistant to “help him”. Previous Directors, now gone, used to hire consultants at $250,000 to “help them” with their job, How about hiring folks who know their job!
Mr Harris, if only you would have voiced these thoughts two years ago and implemented them then. It doesn’t help that some folks promoting your ideas are the same folks who helped promote Rosen’s false, dishonest, campaign (original ECR leadership) and one in his administration recently. It appears to some that your report are efforts by Rosen supporters to use this forum to help salvage a mayor’s tenure whom has destroyed all trust, shown zero transparency, and forgotten and turned his back on those he took an Oath to represent. Tragic.
Kevin has missed the only plausible conclusion, “Edmonds has reached an obvious nadir.”
It’s not all gloom and doom for Edmond’s future. Three great things happened last week. Michelle Dotsch became the new Council President where her common sense and thinking out of the box will be a breath of fresh air and the City Council had the courage to do the right thing on protecting the Deer Creek CARA. The vote in favor to protect the CARA included Will Chen who has had a tendency in the past to vote in concert with the other three staunch Democrats who sit on the Council and that show of independent thinking on his part is a very good sign that he is getting much better at the job you gave him. There’s some good talent on the bench for future mayor and even if it’s slanted a bit in support of the current administration, the Harris Project may get a little more honest communication and trust going which is badly needed. That said, Edmonds’ taxes are going to go up substantially and there is going to be lots more expensive housing built on the scarce land available and there is no way to avoid either of these things happening. Good city management and accountability for money spent will be a MUST.
Hello Kevin,
this is a very thoughtful assessment and I appreciate it very much. I always check the context that advice is given in. And so I read the list of interviewees. I know many of them, and I have talked about City business with many more of them. I am concluding that the context of your assessment is the subset of a city’s population that WANTS to monitor city business or volunteer at the city, and the approximately 20 people that are either elected officials, Directors, or Deputy Directors. My observation is that those folks are a small percent of the population of a city. Further – that’s not a bad thing.
Please comment.
thank you
Part One: Theresa, thank you for your thoughtful response. The intent of assessments are to capture the thoughts and perceptions of as diverse a group as possible, in order to understand different perspectives on what the strengths, gaps and weaknesses currently are in Edmonds’ community engagement….and there are certainly many. As the report states, the 40+ people interviewed are not meant to be a statistically valid sample of our city…..just a start, that includes several folks who don’t normally engage, different age groups, different parts of town, different professions, etc. It’s a start, nothing more. No intentional bias in my scheduling folks for interviews – just the opposite. In this case, there is a bit of an organic bias in who agreed to meet with me – mostly those already engaged in some way in civic life. Please allow me to address some of the points that people chimed in on yesterday:
– Again, this is an assessment to find out what people think. This is what I heard from others. It is not a summary of my opinions, other than the process recommendations I make at the end of the report to try to impress the need for a more structured and agreed-to process to improve civic health and community engagement in our town.
-(continued)
Part Two:
– As an impartial facilitator/mediator, I always strive to include all voices at the table – in this case, those who regularly engage, and those who don’t. Those in the bowl, and those on other parts of town. Young and older. Wealthy and poorer. That is fundamental to being a ‘neutral’.
– Several folks interviewed (including some who engage regularly) told me they were concerned that the current status quo has resulted in polarization and lack of civil discourse, and were worried that was turning people off to engaging civically in Edmonds. I believe their observations should be discussed and taken seriously, if we hope to start to turn the ship towards more productive conversation and improve our collective democratic principles and engagement.
– ECR and other local organizations provide an important role, including public education in the form of ‘pro/con’ and other types of presentations. What I’m proposing is different – a structured, facilitated process (when it makes sense) to deepen civil conversation, expose people to other’s perspectives in a respectful way, and seek to find real common ground to make publicly-driven recommendations to decision-makers that lead to tangible and measurable action. The report suggests some of what will be needed to make that practical, including commitments from electeds, other leaders, staff and the public.
(continued)
Part Three: Some of those commitments have been raised by others in this comments chain. – I agree with Jim O’s comment above- and that’s the overarching point I’ve been trying to make – that the frustration in many of your comments supports the conclusions in the assessment report. The lack of structure and agreed-to frameworks to productively engage is holding us back! Structure drives behavior. Behavior drives culture. If we don’t change the way that engagement is structured, there’s no logical hope that the status quo ‘us versus them’ will change. Let’s have some collective courage to try different processes that could break us out of this vicious cycle. How many of you that work hard to further your causes keep beating your heads up against a wall, trying to persuade leaders to listen and respond? How many city staff feel they keep getting “punched in the face” when they put together and present public material? How many Edmonds residents don’t want to get in the middle of a process they don’t feel is productive or civil? – Most people haven’t experienced a genuine, collaborative and facilitated process before. It’s a LOT of work (for everyone). If it’s well-designed, and people are willing to ‘try again’ in good faith within a different type of engagement, and commitments can be negotiated…..
(continued)
Part Four:
…….and strong facilitators can move people off their POSITIONS, and onto common-ground INTERESTS…..then there is a strong chance that real progress can be made. And it will take time. Good things take time.
That’s it.
Please read the report, so you have the full context.
I’m happy to respond to people face to face, or voice to voice. Ask Teresa for my email if you’re interested. Thank you!
One should question why are we in this situation? How is it that our city and its citizens are now having to have this type of “facilitated intervention”? What kind of broken system and leadership leads to this outcome? Why not hold leaders accountable (and why do they refuse to respond to their constituents) and now we are the ones having to “engage” in this process? I want to hear from the leaders on their own self-assessment of how they lost people’s confidence and what they are going to do to regain it – if that even matters to them. So far, there is not even the slightest acknowledgment of the problem and their role in it. – only business as usual
Jack-
you’re 100% right. The Mayor and Council don’t do their job, they don’t listen to 59% of taxpayers, they violate Public Disclosure laws, they saddle taxpayers with double the cost of fire/ems protection, they spend 61% more for police between 2021 and 2025 without justification, they waste millions of dollars on misdirected litigation and costly contract lawyers, they institute unapproved tax increases. And taxpayers are the ones who are supposed to swallow it all , and drop their demands? “Facilitated intervention” is yet another smokescreen and excuse for flawed governance. The Mayor and majority of Council need to acknowledge all their management failures – and show they are wiling to reform – by embracing a citizens’ financial committee, rescinding the utility tax, dropping all discussion of another tax levy, providing full 360* transparency on all subjects, revisiting the 2026 budget after analyzing why it was necessary to grow budgets by over 4X the cost of inflation during 2021-2025. The taxpayers aren’t responsible for the mess the City is in – and the City leaders need to fix the situation. Taxpayers have clearly told them what they need to do. Continued stonewalling, overspending, and clamoring for more taxes is not acceptable, regardless of what ‘get along, go along’ and ‘kumbaya’ consultants recommend.
Very good question Jack Masters….
As someone who occasionally engages on Edmonds issues, I have been called out by some of the very people who have monopolized this discussion. With respect to the levy lift, a select few who were highly motivated to defeat the levy shouted down almost all pro levy lift voices. It was clear they had a defined agenda. Now the City has limited funds unless they substantially cut staff and services.
So when a new issue arises that likely requires attention and possibly funding the city is in a bind. For example, the city, under the 5th Amendment cannot just impose a ban on the development of privately owned property. This is an unconstitutional taking of the private owner’s land without compensation. Instituting such a blanket ban on development will likely result in litigation which will cost the City increased legal expenses. Furthermore anything more than even a short temporary delay, measured in months, can expose the City to liability. Waiting until 2026 does not stop liability from attaching.
The fact that there is other developable property in the city is irrelevant to the 5th amendment issue. The development rights for the current land owners has now been impacted.
Now when I state these legal facts, I have been criticized. However, those individuals have not addressed the legal issue. Boston College Law School Class of 1987.
The Washington State Appeals Court Division One will soon be ruling on a US 42-1938 unconstitutional takings case: Nathan Rimmer v. Edmonds. The oral argument was heard on Wednesday, January 7, 2026, at 11:30am. You can watch the proceedings at https://tvw.org/video/division-1-court-of-appeals-2026011134/?eventID=2026011134
While it hasn’t been decided, there is a strong presumption that the city will be paying Mr. Rimmer damages. The Judges’ Posture Strongly Suggests Skepticism Toward the City’s Procedural Arguments.
*Challenged the City Attorney’s logic,
*Offered alternative procedural pathways Rimmer could have taken,
*Questioned the City’s characterization of LUPA exclusivity,
*Expressed irritation at the City’s framing of the stipulation,
*And openly rejected the idea that the appellate court must accept the procedural posture the parties “stipulated into.”
….and how much did this cost taxpayers? why couldn’t common sense on the Council prevail to stop litigation by modifying the City code to be more reasonable for property owners? why did City lawyer, Taraday, push for failed litigation and what may be a failed appeals court action? why did the Council not approve the appeal? when is the City going to be 360* transparent with taxpayers and manage with common sense? when is the City going to reign in the $1.3 million legal budget by putting the general counsel job out to bid? when are the Mayor and Council going to rebuild trust with specific good governance reform initiatives?
I have worked with Kevin for a number of years on the Economic Development Commission. His work with the EDC has been very helpful and informative. Like many other boards and commissions, the EDC is on hold. Council last summer asked the EDC to examine two issues: Paid Parking and the creation of a B&O tax for Edmonds. Those reports were presented both in writing and with extended time granted to the EDC to present a full set of ideas. Kevin’s work on these efforts was very helpful.
Presented here are some ideas on how to “reboot citizen engagement”. Folks were certainly engaged this weekend with the ICE protest. The 40 comments were all well done and thoughtful. Two points of view emerged and had comments continued for another 40 we likely would have made little cooperative agreement between the two points of view.
I was about to post on that thread asking if the “reboot engagement” process would be helpful for the ICE discussion? Hopefully Kevin will post some ideas of how the process could be used to bring folks to a common ground on the ICE issues.
If so, this could be a real test of the “reboot engagement” process.
There you go Mr. Harris. Mark has solved it. All you have to do is get out there and find all the “silent middle” citizens who have been shouted down by “the very people who have monopolized this discussion.” When that happens, everyone will have been heard, it will be proven all the taxes were needed after all and the mayor, staff and city attorney were right all along about everything and everyone in Edmonds will live happily ever after. Man, Kevin, I do not envy you on what you have taken on here. Good luck, my friend.
Kevin, I read all of it everything including finding the list of people you chose? So I guess you chose and what called these people and asked their opinions? Did you meet them in person? I knew most of the names on the list. Most I only know thru gov but some of the other names I am very familiar with having lived in Edmonds for 34 years. So anyway, when are you going to interview more people. I would love to respond to questions. I live in 5 corners. What you are trying to accomplish is a good thing I think but I don’t know that it will help too much. If you look at comments on other issues besides these you will find there are arguments about almost everything. I wish people would work across aisles too but it’s going to stay heated with elections in 2026 and well then 2028 outta be a scream haha. Are you coming back to address comments now? I hope you do. And I do thank you for trying to make citizens a little calmer. I am trying to be a lot nicer than I used to on here. I just felt like a whistle blower for a long time trying to help Edmonds…I will continue to try to help all of Edmonds.
I was one of the very small number of citizens who showed up last night at Vivian Olson’s public feedback meeting at the library. Three council members were present, and I believe them to have been genuinely interested in input from the Edmonds citizens in attendance.
So, I take some exception with several comments implying that the entire Council is not listening to the public. Having said that, I agree with Jack Masters that there are some fundamental problems that exist between the public and Edmonds government. My personal opinion is that unless the entire council and mayor ‘acknowledge’ that there is a significant trust and communication problem with Edmonds citizens that we will not move forward.
For me personally, I believe there are people on the Council who wish to do the best for our City. The real question is how to rebuild trust and public engagement in constructive ways. To me, that is the biggest issue facing this city right now. We need leadership in whatever form that it takes to move us forward.
I am hopeful that we can regain some of the public trust needed, especially as we watch what is happening nationally.
Chris, I’m sad to hear there was a low turn out to Vivian’s public feedback session. I guess that “silent middle” that, in theory anyway, isn’t getting heard was too intimidated or too tired out to make it.
Regrettably, I was unable to meet with Kevin Harris, even though I had received an invitation. I would have expressed to him that a significant portion of the distrust in local government arises from hyper-partisanship, particularly among certain council members. These individuals frequently appear to place party loyalty and allegiance above the interests of the community, which can be quite alienating for independent or nonpartisan local residents. These local council representatives were elected through a fair process, so in the end, I hold the voters accountable—especially those who are either too busy, too apathetic, or simply operating on autopilot, consistently marking the box for the endorsed partisan candidate without taking the actual policies into account.
What is lost in this discussion is that Edmonds has lost a 5th Amendment takings case at the Trial Court level in Rimmer v. Edmonds. The City has appealed and oral arguments were heard January 7, 2026. The basis of the Court’s decision was the failure of the Board to approve the development application unless the developer agreed to the boards’ demands.
In the case of the aquifer, the current zoning regulations allow for discharges of filtered storm water into the aquifer. This is evidenced by the Madrona School site plan. This result may not be the best environmentally. However, the Town must act expeditiously to come up with a new alternative to allow development. A moratorium for a year or more is not a reasonable resolution. If PFAS are that important the City must find a resolution as soon as possible and amend the zoning regulations to implement the new storm water runoff solution. It is emergencies such as this that the defeat of the levy lift failed to consider. Many of the individuals who oppose almost all spending issues should remember the saying, “penny wise, pound foolish.”
Mark,
You say; “The basis of the Court’s decision was the failure of the Board to approve the development application unless the developer agreed to the boards’ demands.”
What “Board” and “board’s demands” are you referencing? The Mayor is responsible for enforcing our laws and ordinances. Directors/staff, under Mayor’s administration of the city, approve or deny development applications. All of Edmonds’ boards and commissions are advisory only, providing advice to Council regarding legislation, economic development, climate change, diversity, etc.
So, again, what “Board” are you referencing?
Mark, I’m not a big time law school grad; but I would hazard a layman’s guess that there is a difference in the law of takings in regards to trees vs. drinking water and how that affects the potential for harming human health. For example we actually know for sure that PFAS in drinking water has caused illness and death in animals and humans (ref. the book Dark Waters written by a lawyer) while we haven’t exactly proven without any doubt that cutting down tress causes illness and death in animals and humans. So I would conclude that this Rimmer “emergency”, was created by Edmonds poorly constructed and implemented tree code in the first place. Maybe the city could have used a little good legal knowledge and input at that point to avert the “emergency.” Also, I don’t think the folks who are, “monopolizing the discussion,” are saying there should be no spending. I think they are saying there should be wise spending that reflects the true inflation rate and the cost of a vital service like Fire/EMS shouldn’t double in the space of a year and the cost of Police service shouldn’t go up over 50% in the space of about 3 years. Might want to have a look at that over half million dollar/yr. plus benefits police chief salary as a starter.
Since you went personal Clinton I will respond. Your argument is wrong. The issue is not the importance of the regulation but rather the impact on the ability to develop the land. The City lost Rimmer not because it was trees but because the city was not allowing reasonable development. So the issue with PFAS is important but if there is zero opportunity to develop a property it is a taking and the City must pay compensation. You would know this if you had, in fact, gone to law school. The City Attorney is correct in raising this a huge concern going forward. If PFAS and protecting the aquifer are that important the City can condemn the property and pay fair market value to the owner. Oh no, since we are in a budget crisis with no levy lift there is no money to pay to condemn the property. Penny wise, pound foolish.
Clinton maybe you should have taken a college level economics course. Price is not determined by the rate of inflation. It is determined by supply and demand. With the BLM protests there was a push to defund the police. This lead to an over supply of police officers. They likely sought employment in other careers or other parts of the country. This lowered the supply of police officers. Fast forward and the mood now is to re-fund the police. This has caused increased demand which causes salaries to go up. Depending on demand, salaries can move substantially. If you want more police officers you have to pay the going rate. Recently the going rate has been set by Seattle as they rebuild their police force. So yes, the price for police officers has increased substantially.
So before throwing out misinformation, maybe the way to promote civility is to do some research to get the correct set of facts so we can work to solve issues. For example, the correct discussion on police is not the rate of pay but rather staffing levels. Or if PFAS contamination is so important, maybe we should condemn the property to prevent development.
Mark, please refresh my memory about the big “defund the police movement in Edmonds” and our city council cutting police wages and getting rid of dozens of police officers and command staff. I seem to have somehow missed that happening when I lived there. I do sort of recall a big scandal in hiring a police chief and then publicly humiliating and firing him before he even took office which caused our self insurance rate to about double when he won his lawsuit. I do recall the city next hiring a recently retired former King County Officer for way more than the previous chief was paid and her proceeding to about double the command staff to over see less police officers. You will have to pardon me for not bending over backwards to apologize for “throwing out misinformation.” Are you on the payroll of the home builders association or something, or do you know something the rest of us don’t about some project in the works? You certainly seem to have ruffled feathers over this PFAS thing supposedly preventing some sort of development.
Mark- your comments about police costs driven by supply and demand don’t explain why Edmonds residents pay 35-40% more per person/per year compared with Shoreline residents. Police costs can be controlled with proper management focus on economies of scale, just as Edmonds officials claimed South County/RFA delivered with regional organization. Edmonds officials have allowed unjustified 61% increases in police costs since 2021. Statistics show that 911 calls have actually decreased over the past 5 years. Officials haven’t done proper due diligence on alternative business models. Edmonds doesn’t have to pay hiring bonuses like Seattle, because Edmonds has nowhere near the crime rates or officer risks that Seattle has. Edmonds City officials failed to team up with Mountlake Terrace and Mukilteo to gain leverage in negotiating union wages. Edmonds’ police costs have been allowed to balloon since 2021 by over-hiring and overpaying. Police Chief Bennett was paid $290K and she retired within 3 years to pad her retirement. Police union president William Morris stated in Dec 2024 that Edmonds could reduce staffing by 10-15 personnel and provide excellent service. Within 12 months he reversed his statement and said police needed a much higher budget with the $14.5M tax levy lift. Net, net – there is no extraordinary demand for higher paid or more Edmonds police officers.
The complaint is that police costs have gone up 65% since 2021, yet the result is that Edmonds pays 35-40% more than Shoreline. To me that proves that almost half of the increase has been justified increases in police costs. My comment was based on using the rate of inflation alone to argue against wage increases.
As you state it is multifactorial. Maybe teaming up with other local communities might help. Staffing levels can be reviewed. Edmonds residents may want faster response times than other jurisdictions.
Mark, you have gone from the definitive statement, “Price is not determined by the rate of inflation,” in a rebuttal to me to (in reference to police wages going up in response to Bill), “it is multifactorial.” So, if you are talking to me, inflation has nothing to do with the issue; only supply and demand. But, when talking to Bill inflation is one of the factors that drives up the price of hiring the police. It appears to me that you are trying to have the argument go in your favor by making up economic rules to fit the occasion. Maybe you should go back to take a refresher course in college level economics so you can get your arguments straight, logical and consistent. I think you are grasping at straws my friend and trying to defend the indefensible.
Bill I said that staffing levels was a legitimate issue to discuss relative to the police budget.
My point is the price is determined by supply and demand of Police Officers. Municipalities wanting to hire more officers raises the price. In addition, the overall cost of Policing can be influenced by the staffing levels; more officers cost more money. Finally, inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index is not a major factor it the rise in cost for police officers.
You ended a previous comment by stating your legal credentials for some reason. If my stating that I don’t have that legal knowledge is going personal, then I apologize, but you did made it a point to let people know your have that credential. I probably am wrong about the minute legal technicalities, but even if Edmonds lost the case because they were preventing development, they were preventing this development to protect trees based on legislation that the city attorney could have questioned before it became an, “emergency.” In the aquifer case they aren’t purposely preventing development, they are trying to prevent potential human health harm and I’m suggesting that, that might be a mitigating factor in terms of whether it is a true “takings” or not. Speaking for myself and the EEC, we aren’t out to curtail development but we are out to make sure it’s done right and won’t be a threat to a pristine drinking water supply. It’s really kind of a matter of environmental protection laws conflicting with constitutional “takings” law, from my limited knowledge layman’s viewpoint. Now, feel free to tell me I’ve got it all wrong again because I don’t understand the law as you are probably right about the me not understanding the law part. What is right and what is legal are frequently two different things.
Joan Bloom – I thought the Rimmer issue had been resolved. I can’t believe the City of Edmonds is pursuing it further. My understanding is that Rimmer wanted to develop his own property and the City of Edmonds with its new tree code decided not to allow Mr. Rimmer to remove the tree and add new trees later, but wanted to put a lien against the property until the end of construction. This was his own property, he is not a developer, but at the time the code applied to anyone developing their land whether an owner or developer. This was not a new issue when Rosen took over, it had been going on. I’m not certain of all these details and I have no way to look it up now. Rosen must have decided to take it further rather than just paying the settlement to Rimmer. Rimmer deserves the money he was awarded and this situation is what is probably going to happen in a lot of places with draconian tree codes…. Edmonds should have just paid up rather than paying more court and attorney fees. Another avoidable disaster….
Tracy,
Thank you for your response to my comment, and for your questions.
It’s not over. See Finis Tupper’s comment above: “The Washington State Appeals Court Division One will soon be ruling on a US 42-1938 unconstitutional takings case: Nathan Rimmer v. Edmonds. The oral argument was heard on Wednesday, January 7, 2026, at 11:30am. You can watch the proceedings at https://tvw.org/video/division-1-court-of-appeals-2026011134/?eventID=2026011134”
The rest of Finis Tupper’s comment is also worth reviewing.
You are correct that it’s Rimmer’s own property, he is not a developer. The lawsuit started before Rosen but it’s not his decision whether or not to appeal. It’s Council’s decision.
I’m not certain of all the details either but I think you are generally (ie: perhaps not using correct legal terminology) accurate in what you’ve stated.
Thanks again.
Tracy, I’ve heard thru the grapevine that the Rimmer appeal was not even done according to city code. Mayor Rosen and/or Council President please advise the public if the city council authorized the Rimmer appeal, or did CA Taraday simply draw up the appeal on his own. Maybe Mark O. can inform us if this appeal was done according to city municipal code or not. Be a good place to start this new openness and integrity, and flat out honesty maybe.
Thanks both Joan and Clinton for the additional information…. As the owner of trees, I’m sympathetic to the ordeal the City has put him through.
Hi Tracy, I believe one thing the city tried to do was require the property owner to record a notice on the title about ongoing tree-replacement obligations, which raised constitutional issues.
A 21-minute replay is available of the City of Edmonds challenging the trial court’s decision to grant Nathan Rimmer’s request for partial summary judgment regarding land use conditions on his residential building permit (COA #876449, Snohomish County Superior Court #23-2-05426-31). The replay can be accessed via a direct video link:
https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2026011134
or by visiting tvw.org, navigating to the “Schedule” section, selecting “Replay,” setting both the start and end dates to 01/07/2026, clicking “Submit,” and choosing the Division 1 Court of Appeals Hearing listed fourth, which began at 11:30 AM. Video and audio options are both available.
I’ve watched it multiple times. I’ve noted no mention that the Edmonds City Council did not vote to approve this appeal. During the hearing, the Court raised questions about whether the appeal was “moot” and discussed a separate legal action at the Federal Court level concerning a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. One judge remarked that the 1983 lawsuit could proceed regardless of the outcome of this appeal.
For those pressed for time, I believe the closing arguments by Edmonds City Attorney Jeff Taraday are especially fascinating, beginning at the 18:00 mark and lasting for three minutes.
Thank you so much Ken Reidy!
We want to acknowledge what we are hearing: some residents feel their opinions, expertise, and volunteer contributions are not always as welcomed as they should be. We take that concern seriously.
A healthy city government depends on trust, transparency, and meaningful two-way collaboration. Collaboration means listening carefully, respecting different perspectives, and working together toward the best outcomes for the community. Here’s a little of what we’ve done to foster that over the past two years.
Edmonds relies heavily on resident expertise through more than a dozen boards and commissions. Even during suspensions, numerous boards continued meeting so they could continue to help inform policy, planning, and decision-making. Beyond standing boards, the Mayor convened short-term community groups and subject-matter experts for major initiatives, including the Blue-Ribbon Panel, Neighborhood Organization Task Force, Community Priorities review panel, Comprehensive Plan Community Champions, and multiple interview panels for senior leadership roles. Over two years, the Mayor has met one-on-one with dozens of community members, had countless informal conversations, and responded to thousands of resident emails.
Collaboration also extends beyond City Hall. City leaders and Council regularly work with more than 50 nonprofit, educational, cultural, business, and regional partners, many volunteer-driven, strengthening capacity and bringing valuable expertise to Edmonds.
Can we do better? Yes. And we will. The City continues to have daily conversations on the best way to engage.
Talk about distrust – after a Judge finds, the City of Edmonds violated the rights of an Edmonds citizen (and continue to spend our tax dollars appealing this verdict);
-they fine a single family resident $102,000 for the removal of 1 / 7 ‘large’ trees on their own property (yes city made a change to code back in April).
Their 2025 assessed property value = $726,000 – how does the city assess the tree at $92,000?
https://edmondswa.primegov.com/viewer/preview?id=0&type=8&uid=8cda28d9-7058-499a-ade2-2157a0d6e6ee
https://edmondswa.granicus.com/player/clip/41?redirect=true
I’m a fan of trees, but these fines are unreasonable. Our Constitution protects against ‘excessive fines’. Adjust, work with the property owner to replant, don’t bankrupt a family.
https://ij.org/issues/private-property/fines-and-fees/the-excessive-fines-clause/
Bad governance, shame on the city.
https://pacificlegal.org/case/rimmer-housing-forever-trees/
The Rimmer tree saga is absolutely outrageous – and shows the lack of common sense and lack of respect for taxpayers that exists among Edmonds politicians. A simple solution would be to ask the property owner to pay $250 for a replacement tree – and to have the property owner pay for the replacement and decide whether to plant the new tree either on his/her property, or on City property (parks, right-of-way), or make the tree available to other residents on a first come/first serve basis. Seems like that would solve everyone’s problem – whether they’re an ardent tree hugger, environmentalist, or homeowner-rights person, etc. This would eliminate lawyers from the equation – which is totally needed in Edmonds and all other cities. Good bye Mr. Taraday! It would also sustain the tree canopy in Edmonds. Why not be bold and use common sense in revising the tree code?