At the May 9 budget retreat, Edmonds staff and consultants presented a catalog of revenue options the city could pursue to diversify income beyond property tax, and explained the pros and cons of each path.

Options discussed: staff grouped ideas as already implemented, near‑term active ideas, concept ideas to explore and lower‑priority items. Examples discussed in public detail included paid parking and parking meters for downtown and parks; expanded concessionaire programs for park concessions; a tiered business license or head tax on employers; film‑ and production‑permit fees; and targeted tax or fee changes such as a small sales‑tax increment for specified purposes. Staff also noted one‑time or capital options such as selling underused city property (for example, the current city‑hall footprint) to reduce debt and replenish reserves.

Annexation and sales‑tax credits: consultant Mike Bailey reviewed regional comparisons and described a statutory annexation path (interlocal process under state annexation statutes) for nearby Esperance. He said annexation under the cited statute can carry a sales‑tax incentive: a 0.1% sales‑tax credit for a 10‑year period was discussed as a tool other cities have used to make annexation financially attractive. Staff cautioned the city would need to model maintenance and service costs associated with any annexation; the annexation process involves county and boundary‑review steps and public outreach.

Revenue realism and implementation costs: presenters emphasized implementation costs for several options. For example, a citywide paid‑parking rollout (parking meters or QR payment systems) requires up‑front technology and enforcement costs; concession programs need contract oversight and some capital improvements in parks; business license changes or a head tax require state approval and study and carry political and administrative complexity. Staff also noted some ideas do not address the city’s structural imbalance and would be modest relative to the $6 million gap shown in the budget baseline.

Council reaction: council members asked staff to prioritize options that (1) could be implemented quickly with reasonable net revenue, (2) are politically viable given local business structure, and (3) do not require large ongoing staff additions. Several members favored near‑term parking and concession opportunities while urging careful impact analysis for any business‑facing tax or fee.

Next steps: staff will add estimated implementation costs and projected net revenue to the catalog and return with a prioritized list and public‑facing explanations. The annexation path for Esperance will be modeled with service‑cost projections and assumptions for any state or county incentives.