Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Key takeaways:
- The council votes 5-2 to approve a 0.1% Transportation Benefit District sales tax, tying Edmonds with the City of Lynnwood for the highest sales tax in the state at 10.7%.
- Councilmembers heard a proclamation for Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which for eight years has been celebrated with an event in Edmonds. Accepting the proclamation was Edmonds resident Donnie Griffin, founder of Lift Every Voice Legacy, which sponsors the Edmonds celebration.
- Susan Paine was reappointed as the Council’s liaison to the Community Transit Board, a position she has held since 2022.
- After interviewing him during a special meeting prior to the council business meeting, the council appointed Shaun Leiser to the Edmonds Architectural Design Board.
- Mayor Mike Rosen reported that discussions are moving ahead regarding the City of Edmonds’ possible annexation of unincorporated Esperance.
The Edmonds City Council on Tuesday approve a 0.1% Transportation Benefit District (TBD) sales tax aimed at funding transportation-related deferred maintenance and making improvements to city streets and sidewalks.
The Council’s action means that Edmonds is now tied with Lynnwood for the highest sales tax in Washington state at 10.7%. (Lynnwood moved to the higher rate Monday when its City Council voted to approve a 0.1% public safety sales tax.) However, in passing the measure some Edmonds councilmembers noted that several nearby cities are at either 10.6% or 10.5% currently and speculated it wouldn’t be long before other cash-strapped cities were also at the higher rate.
The tax won’t take effect until April 1 this year to comply with State Department of Revenue rules. Scheduled to last for 10 years, it will raise an estimated $660,000 in 2026 and $1 million annually in subsequent years.
Public Works Director Andy Rheaume told the council the funding would be used to hire three positions, bringing the street operations crew back to 2024 staffing levels. One of the benefits of the additional revenue is that the city can return to installing required Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps, Rheaume said, noting that in-house staffing means the ramps will cost $5,000 each rather than $40,000 apiece if the work was contracted out. In addition, the funds mean that the City’s stormwater crew can focus on permit-required stormwater system maintenance and cleaning rather than streets work. Finally, the city will be able to preserve $400,000 in its general fund that had been earmarked for street operations, Rheaume said.
The final vote on the tax was 5-2, and came after unsuccessful efforts by Council President Michelle Dotsch and new Councilmember Erika Barnett to postpone a decision on the matter.
Barnett said that although she recognized that the City’s streets “need attention,” she was concerned about “timing and clarity of this ordinance, given how tax sensitive our residents are right now.”
Noting the Council also just approved a utility tax increase, Barnett said it’s important to “clearly understand what problems this new revenue stream solves and what improvement residents will actually see, and how we’ll measure success before asking them to pay more.”
Acting City Administrator Todd Tatum said that the city does have some metrics in place, including a pavement condition index. Rheaume said that other measurements will include how many additional ADA ramps are installed, how often streets are swept and reductions in trip hazards.
Dotsch stated that the council has received feedback from community members and local businesses “asking us to slow down all these back to back to back tax increases” — not only locally but from the state as well. Instead of piecemeal tax increases, the council should study the issue “in a more comprehensive manner, with more data and projected metrics involved,” she added.
Dotsch moved to postpone consideration of the matter indefinitely, a proposal that drew opposition from other councilmembers, for a range of reasons.
Councilmember Jenna Nand said that while she recognized the burden a higher sales tax could place on local business owners, she pointed to the City’s ongoing budget challenges and the impact on city services. “If we don’t have functioning city government, if we can’t plow our streets when it snows, and we can’t make sure the streets are drivable, how are people even going to get into town to be able to spend money at our businesses?” Nand asked.
“This is a targeted, specific approach to meeting some of our city’s infrastructure needs,” Councilmember Susan Paine said of the tax increase. “We have heard over and over again that our street infrastructure and our public rights of way need a lot of attention.”
Barnett countered that councilmembers need “to do our due diligence first, and we need to put together a comprehensive plan that allows us to be able to demonstrate as a city for all taxes, not just public works, when we collect them, how are we utilizing them? What is the public getting them? We need to be able to start to demonstrate for this revenue, these are the outcomes, and that we are improving against these metrics.”
“With all due respect to a couple of my peers up here on the dais, we’re not a corporation,” said Councilmember Chris Eck. “We are a city government, and as such, we’re responsible for certain core services, and that includes making sure our roads are safe, that they’re kept up and the same with our sidewalks. And that we’re actually complying with ADA regulations. We’re behind on those things.”
Councilmember Will Chen said that while he has taken fiscally conservative votes in the past — including opposing an increase in utility taxes and the City’s property tax levy — he supports the transportation tax because it would fund critical infrastructure services that “citizens, visitors and business depends on, relies on, for the City to function.”
Councilmember Vivian Olson noted that in a budgeting by priorities survey, 92% of community members said street maintenance was very important or extremely important. While stating she agrees it is important to have metrics, she pointed to the analogy of owning a house with a hole in the roof. “You don’t wait until you have the metrics to show that it would be more expensive to do the entire roof,” she said. “We know that we can be making an impact on the rising costs by dealing with it sooner rather than later.”
The council voted 2-5 (Barnett and Dotsch in favor) on Dotsch’s motion to postpone the matter indefinitely, and then voted 5-2 (Barnett and Dotsch opposed) on Nand’s motion to approve the tax.
The sales tax increase was the main order of business Tuesday night, and after an hour-long meeting the Council went into executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation.
The Council also:
– Accepted a proclamation for Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which for eight years has been celebrated with an event in Edmonds. Accepting the proclamation was Edmonds resident Donnie Griffin, founder of Lift Every Voice Legacy, which sponsors the Edmonds celebration — this year on Monday, Jan. 19 at the Edmonds Waterfront Center (learn more here). Griffin invited Edmonds resident Steve Shelton to join him at the podium, and Shelton explained how he had encouraged Griffin — who was then sponsoring an annual Martin Luther King Prayer Breakfast in Seattle — to bring an MLK celebration to Edmonds.
– Reappointed Susan Paine as the Council’s liaison to the Community Transit Board, a position she has held since 2022.
– Appointed Shaun Leiser to the Edmonds Architectural Design Board.
– Heard a report from Mayor Mike Rosen that discussions are moving ahead regarding the City of Edmonds’ possible annexation of Esperance, a 448-acre unincorporated piece of land surrounded by Edmonds. Rosen said he and City staff have met with Snohomish County staff members who handle annexation issues, and also recently met with Esperance community leaders “who have been sort of leading the charge within the community to try to encourage annexation.” The City has asked the County for specific information, ranging from crime statistics to a current conditions index for infrastructure, “because obviously this has to pencil out for us,” the mayor explained. The City is working with Esperance residents to create a specific schedule of milestones to facilitate community engagement, he added.
So unneeded ADA ramps for the few and higher regressive taxes for the many, got it. Do you people running the city have any concern for us taxpayers at all? It sure doesn’t appear so.
About the annexation of Esperance… how is the City going to handle development there? Will it be upzoned? Will there be commercial development? And how will the City protect the aquifer beneath Esperance from that development? Will it be as reluctant to protect that second aquifer as it has been to protect the Deer Creek aquifer? Will the City pay for storm water infrastructure above that second aquifer when they haven’t improved the storm water infrastructure above the Deer Creek aquifer over the years after they annexed it? I would be very nervous about the City having control over land above both aquifers. Esperance residents have to drink the aquifer water too, and if that water in both aquifers gets polluted from too much new development, it will cost more for Esperance residents because that land is all within the Olympic View water district and it will be expensive to find another source of water or to clean it up. Why would Esperance residents even want to pay the higher property tax rates of Edmonds anyway? I don’t see what they will get out of being part of Edmonds except Edmonds police protection. I think that might be too high a price to pay, especially when they will lose more control over their drinking water.
The Council yet again shows its disrespect for taxpayers with another unapproved tax increase. It’s so painfully obvious that the majority of the Council that has disrespected taxpayers for the past 2 years has no intention of changing their ways and implementing good governance reforms. It’s so distressing to see Council President Dotsch get no support from the the majority of Council members and the Mayor – when all she asks for is proper due diligence on historic spending and focusing on performance metrics/results-oriented management. CM Eck uses the lame excuse that “we are not a corporation” to excuse all the mismanagement and excess spending. The ‘old guard’ Council members who persistently overlook good governance principles (fiscal discipline, accountability, transparency, common sense, results-oriented management, and putting taxpayers first) have to be held accountable for their unilateral actions to increase taxes without voter approval, and failure to reduce excess past spending in the 2026 budget while claiming bloated spending levels are essential. The super-majority 59% of residents who defeated the tax levy will defeat any new tax ballot measure and will turn the ‘old guard’ out of office at the earliest opportunity.
Bill – You are, I’m sure, unintentionally mischaracterizing my statement. I was referring specifically to this particular conversation on the dais last night. Anyone watching the video will see that for themselves. I encourage everyone to watch the video for themselves to hear the very detailed responses most of us gave.
Thank you Michelle Dotsch and Erika Barnett for standing up for us! To the rest of the City Council, shame on you! What part of living on a fixed income do you NOT understand? I so wish I lived in Esperance where I would be madly fighting annexation.
I’m going to push back on the storyline that’s forming around this tax increase. Unlike some of the scattershot revenue proposals we’ve seen in the past, this one is narrowly focused and directly tied to a priority the community has repeatedly identified. The Council actually listened this time. This funding goes straight into something every resident relies on—whether you walk, drive, bike, or get pushed down the sidewalk in a stroller. Very few revenue tools can legitimately claim to benefit the entire population in such a universal, practical way.
No one is thrilled about paying more taxes, myself included. But there’s a difference between a tax that disappears into the general fund and one that is dedicated, transparent, and targeted at a core public need. This one passes that test.
And let’s be clear: those of us who track city finances closely aren’t going anywhere. We’ll be watching to ensure that the revenue from this increase stays in its lane and isn’t quietly folded into the justification for a future levy lid lift. If the city wants public trust, it has to honor the purpose of this tax exactly as promised and downsize any levy lid lift accordingly.
Jim I agree that a dedicated tax does help work on the issues mentioned. Assuming we do get $1m, what is not clear on the numbers is the statement “preserve $400k in the GF”. It sounds like we are not adding $1m to transportation issues but only adding $600 to transportation? If so what will the $400k be used for?
It’s good to bring the work inhouse if it saves $35k on each ADA ramp. No detail has been provided on how the $35k is saved? Forms and material are likely the same so is the primary savings just in labor? Bottom line is it is hard to see how we save $35k/ramp.
Now if $1m addition is really only $600m and we are going to rehire 3 people that will be around $300k for the people leaving $300k for materials.
The yet to be launched Citizens Financial Team would have a more robust communication plan that is more transparent and helps us all follow along with our financial recovery.
Agreewith the many of the statement posted; I find it hard to believe the numbers provided in savings ( ie, $5k/ramp) without additional data. I hope there will be ongoing auditing to follow the money and what it really costs. Besides the ADA ramps, sidewalks? Road repairs? Time frame?
And yes, I have already started shopping to elsewhere besides Lynnwood and Edmonds.
With all due respect Jim, just because it is priority, it doesn’t mean it needs to be funded through NEW taxes. That is not the ONLY way to fund the priority. How about funding it by eliminating lower-priority items at the bottom of the community identified list?
I, for one, am going to do the only thing I can in this regard: Not a single shopping trip of mine will be made in Edmonds until the council demonstrates true fiscal responsibility.
Jim, I value your perspective that dedicated tax revenue is more suitable than random proposals.
I also want to express my gratitude for your diligent efforts and the time you have committed as a volunteer to oversee and enhance the City’s financial management.
However, it is important to note that sometimes what remains unspoken carries equal weight, and you did not address the fact that this tax is not without its risks.
It has the potential to “kill the golden goose,” adversely affecting current businesses and deterring new ones.
An additional .2% sales tax (Both) will be particularly burdensome for seniors and individuals with low incomes.
Five out of the seven council members dismissed this concern, treating it as mere collateral damage.
These sales tax increases represent approximately $20 million in extra taxes, occurring right after the community expressed its disapproval of tax hikes.
It is not surprising that there is an increasing erosion of trust in our city leadership.
Raising the sales tax does not guarantee more revenue for Edmonds. When we hit the highest sales tax rate in the state, people don’t magically spend more — they shop elsewhere. Edmonds is a discretionary destination. Lose the shoppers, lose the revenue. Full stop.
What’s missing is basic due diligence: retail leakage data, business impact analysis, and a real discussion about whether lower taxes could actually increase total revenue through higher volume. That conversation never happened.
Even more troubling, the majority of this City Council continues to ignore repeated pleas from residents and local businesses to slow down the back-to-back tax increases and demand clear outcomes before paying more. That feedback has been loud, consistent, and public — and it was dismissed.
Infrastructure matters. But so does listening to the people you represent. Pushing tax increases without fully analyzing the economic impact isn’t leadership — it’s gambling with Edmonds’ future.
Thank you Councilmember Dotsch and Barnett for putting residents first.
Tied for highest sales tax.
Highest property tax rate?
Highest cost for Fire & EMS service.
Highest cost for Police service?
Highest cost for utilities?
Highest insurance costs?
? = let’s start a conversation, fact check.
Chris Eck – Agree with you – the city is not a corporation, it is responsible for ensuring our money is spent responsibly. ADA ramps, sidewalks sound reasonable. But we just increased our utility tax rate, don’t we have unspent bond $$ for maintenance?
We’ve got current / frm. employees on disability, suing us.
$60K/mo. for the city attorney contract, god knows how much in payouts.
Our legal spend is out of control, in my opinion. I don’t hear anyone taking these issues to our State Government where they have some control.
Why can’t we put that $82+ Million in investments to work, building ADA ramps?
No one has answered the question, are we over-allocating dollars to our investment funds?
Thanks for listening 🙂
Nick has hit the nail on the head, and agree with Jim O that we need good streets and sidewalks, but this is yet one more tax levied on a fiscally strained citizenry. If the City had done due diligence on the RFA and the Utility tax, and not wasted money on lawsuits, this sales tax increase would not be needed.
Also, the fact that 5/7ths of the Council is too lazy or blinded to follow Council member Barnett’s regarding regarding how the money raised from this tax is used, and setting parameters for success(above and beyond citizens complaints) is disheartening.
WILL THEY FIX the dang sidewalks finally!?!?
Checked out the new unneeded ADA ramps along my street they are worse to use than they were before now the whole street will have to be regarded to match up with the new ramps. Somebody should get fired
I, for one, would LOVE to have sidewalks in my neighborhood. I’ll gladly pay 0.1% more to not be constantly in danger of being hit by an inattentive driver any time I walk to the store a block away.
I hope you get your sidewalks too!
Least city could do for us – connect dots, the money raised from this tax and the list of sidewalks improved.
Could someone please tell me who these purported Esperanza community leaders are? Who elected them to push for annexation? And, other than. Edmonds police, what do the people of Esperanza get out of annexation? Other than Edmonds’ mayor’s detail lacking report to the Council, what is the mutual benefit to be obtained by annexation of Esperance? Seems to me that with apparent budget concerns, à la the need to raise sales taxes, Edmonds Ouncil is attempting to add significant value to its tax base. Remove the blindfold and just say “NO” to any annexation without full Esperance community opportunity to weigh in. Someone is pushing an agenda and needs to be more transparent and informative.
It would nice to know where each commentor lives in Edmonds. pretty sure that annexing Esperance into Edmonds has been discussed for years. I remember some in Esperance wanted it and some did not. I just don’t remember the whys? I think it would be good but I’m not from Esperance. A really nice park and that smell they refer to, gone would be nice for that area south of 220th. A real park with nice equipment, maybe pickle ball and fun things just like in the Bowl. Retail should be welcomed and housing too retail below and housing above 3 stories like the rest of us. Except the Bowl which is 27 ft. 2 stories?? not a trail thru the woods. Just picnic tables and some plantings that are indigenous to WA not a bunch of annuals that need constant watering. many areas in Edmonds with no sidewalks it’s hard to say where if any are done. sidewalks are way expensive. I know they are needed and yes we should take some cash out of investments. It’s a great time to do that if you are a market watcher. CC Bring that guy back for a new report on how much we have in investments. IF we were smart we should have a lot of gains. Sidewalks more important than street overlays 4 now.
The reason I would like to know where commentors live is I would like to drive around and see your areas and I believe most of you are suffering from no sidewalks at all. In part of 5 corners our sidewalks aren’t too bad. One side of 80th the West from about 214th South to 220th is pretty dangerous and there is quite a bit of traffic there. Not sure about 84th? Even pebble paths would help with walking to school and just walking for anyone. We don’t have bike lanes on 80th. Neither does Esperance really.. It’s hard to plan a city haha. But maybe if we all say where we live and what and why we want anything would be a good start? BTW Birds are back…Robins all over the birdbath today..It’s not going to snow this winter so don’t worry about that at least not here or anywhere in our area. IF it does you may all yell at me. I’m seeing some signs of growth in the gardens just slight..or I am hallucinating…?;)
Regarding “unneeded” ADA ramps above. In my life I have found that many benefit from these ramps. I have often said that young parents and their elders could advocate together for these ramps (required by the ADA-not just a ‘nice to have’). The ramp materials and bumps alert visually impaired people to the corner and a street. The ramp makes it easier for caregivers, parents and grandparents to maneuver strollers to cross the street instead of off and onto a curb. No weightlifting required!
The ramps also make it easier for people of all ages who use a walking aid (cane, walker, walking stick) to be aware of the corners and also the peace of mind knowing that they will have more safety while descending and/or preparing to cross at an intersection. So I’d say the ADA ramps benefit citizens of all ages, as is often the case with a special “something” for people with disabilities.
PS Another example is captions and the new laws for the movies. Millennials, English language learners, and even boomers enjoy captions too, not only the hearing impaired.
No one is against the ramps I am against replacing existing ramps with the latest flavor of the month. We could install the slippery yellow pads if we want for a fraction of the cost. Plus we are not required to put them in unless we are redoing the existing infrastructure. Want to install more sidewalks great I am sure those would include ADA ramps. I don’t know how much the city has spent replacing existing ADA ramps but it has to be in the millions of dollars probably 10s of millions. Spending 5 grand or 35 grand for the equivalent of adding a bumpy yellow pad seems like a giant waste of money
Which of you CM would purchase a Toyota or Honda in Edmonds with a sale tax of 10.7% instead of driving one hour to Burlington with a sale tax of 8.7%? That is a $700 savings for a typical Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. Better reconsider that $660,000 estimate.
Edmonds City tax, a parody
Oh, bravo, Edmonds City Council—you fiscal titans! With a glorious 5-2 vote, you’ve gifted us a 0.1% Transportation Benefit District sales tax, catapulting our rate to 10.7% and tying Lynnwood for “Most Soul-Crushing Shopping Experience in Washington.” Shopping carts now double as voluntary donation boxes. Genius.
Who needs breathing room after the last utility hike? Two council members timidly begged for clarity, timing, and actual proof this fixes anything before the next wallet-raid. How precious. The rest roared back: “Potholes! ADA ramps at a steal—$5,000 each! Stormwater crews doing real work! We’re ‘saving’ $400,000—like we invented money!”
Metrics? Pavement indexes, ramp counts, fewer trip hazards. Nobel-worthy stuff. Businesses and taxpayers pleading “slow down”? “Comprehensive plan”? Laughable. Governments aren’t corporations, serfs—we just take your cash for “core services” starting April Fool’s Day. Perfect timing
.In other triumphs: MLK proclamation nodded at, usual suspects reappointed, new design-board face installed, and annexation fantasies for Esperance so we can tax more turf
.Keep swiping that card, champs. Every receipt is a thank-you note to city hall. You’re not taxpayers—you’re the ATM with feelings.
I don’t much like paying taxes either, but when it comes to local taxes on property and retail sales, I figure I’m paying them with money not paid to a state income tax. Our taxes don’t seem quite so bad, from this somewhat broader perspective.
Hi Roger, should we consider providing more exemptions for both sales and property taxes? Some states provide exemption based on age or income levels.
Income taxes would be more equitable (progressive rather than regressive) than sales taxes. Oregon has an income tax but no sales tax. It is much easier on the lowest income residents.
As far as property taxes, some states have deferrals instead of exemptions. Unfortunately, exemptions do not allow the government to recoup anything even though the value of the property increases over time. Property tax deferrals allow the cities and states to collect the deferred tax when the property is sold and there is money available to pay.
A deferral could even be pegged to just the increases in any new levy so the homeowner doesn’t have to defer all the taxes. That would stop voters from voting down levies that the City needs to keep offering core services. Those that could afford it would still pay the new tax. Those under the income threshold could choose to defer the increase in the tax. And since the City would eventually get the funds at a later date, it would be more equitable to everyone.
There could even be a graduated income threshold, so more people could defer at least some of the new taxes according to the sliding scale. Instead of all or nothing, more people could get a temporary tax break.
This would need a changed in state laws.
Hello Arlene,
“Unfortunately, exemptions do not allow the government to recoup anything“. I’m not sure what you’re thinking of with this statement. for the State of Washington senior/disabled property tax exemption, the most common one in Edmonds, the same amount of tax is collected by the Assessor and remitted to the taxing entity – City of Edmonds for example. The home owner with the exemption pays a lower tax amount (but they still pay quite a bit of tax) and all the other property owner pay a little bit more. In Edmonds at this time, there are about 700 residential properties with this type of exemption, and there are over 15,000 properties who pay a little bit more.
There are other properties that have a different type of exemption and pay no tax. They are Churches and government owned properties.
And to the best of my knowledge it’s only a deferral from paying the taxes. If and when the property is sold the deferred taxes become due.
Washington has both an exemption and a deferral program, but the combined income thresholds to qualify are very low. I think this needs to be tweaked, which is the point I am trying to make. People commenting here keep talking about exemptions. I believe deferral is the better program and should be available to more people. Deferrals are more equitable to everyone across incomes because those people with higher incomes who still have to pay taxes will know that the tax will be collected when the property is sold. Especially for seniors who have lived in their home for many years, there is a huge gain because the property values have risen dramatically. Governments should be able to recoup the deferred tax when that money becomes available. https://dor.wa.gov/taxes-rates/property-tax/property-tax-exemptions-and-deferrals