The Edmonds City Council on June 3 reviewed a draft resolution summarizing the operational impacts the city would face if property-tax revenue is $6 million less than budgeted for 2026 and directed the city attorney to return a final version for adoption.

City staff and elected officials portrayed the resolution as a transparency measure, not a final budget decision. The administration outlined three scenarios: the adopted 2026 budget assuming added property-tax revenue (scenario 1); a service-restoration scenario based on additional revenues and new programs (scenario 2); and a “no levy” scenario listing cuts the city would implement if a future levy fails (scenario 3). Council voted to have the final resolution return on a consent calendar for a future meeting.

Why it matters: Council members said residents should understand concretely what services could be reduced or eliminated if the city does not secure additional recurring revenue. Staff and council repeatedly described the proposals as painful and long-lasting, noting that reductions to staffing or programs can take years to reverse.

Staff told the council the adopted 2026 budget assumes roughly $6 million in additional property-tax revenue. In public comment, resident Jim Oganowski urged the council to await updated financial impacts tied to a recent annexation and an imminent State Auditor’s Office (SAO) audit, saying, “The premise of that scenario is that the budget will be short $6,000,000.” Another commenter, Bill Krepik, presented a petition with about 100 signers asking the council to pursue alternatives to the RFA annexation terms, urging a citizen oversight committee and more aggressive revenue or cost-savings work.

Administration and department directors then summarized a broad list of service needs and gaps developed from staff input, consultant work and prior council direction. Examples included increased street and sidewalk maintenance, additional building and planning capacity to shorten permit timelines, investments to address a backlog of facilities maintenance, enhanced parks maintenance and restoration of public-safety training and investigative capacity. Staff presented a post-cut “backlog” estimate of about $3 million in deferred capital or maintenance work that the city would continue to carry forward unless additional, ongoing revenue is secured.

Council and staff reviewed three approaches to set a levy target: (1) community priorities and proposals presented by local civic groups; (2) a “price of government” comparison with peer cities (per-capita spending); and (3) a staff analysis of department needs. Those three lenses produced different recommended levy lifts: roughly $11.7 million (community group assumptions), $16.5 million (peer-comps), and $22 million (staff needs). Mayor Mike Rosen said those three estimates frame the decision and recommended a middle ground of about $19.3 million as a discussion starting point; that figure splits the difference between the peer-comps and the staff analysis and reflects staff-identified program needs plus an allowance for the backlog and modest other revenue assumptions.

Councilmembers debated tradeoffs. Some members warned a large, single-year ask might be politically difficult; others said the city needs a recurring revenue stream large enough to restore services and address deferred maintenance. Several councilmembers emphasized spreading revenue increases across multiple sources rather than relying solely on property taxes.

Council also asked staff to prepare and refine a menu of nonproperty-tax revenue options (parking fees, business-license adjustments, permit fee changes, automated enforcement expansions, and other ideas). A separate list of revenue concepts and estimated net yield — prepared by staff for council review — will be circulated and be a focus of an additional special meeting scheduled for Thursday, June 5. The council voted 6–1 to direct the city attorney to return a final resolution for consideration outlining the impacts if $6 million is not available to the 2026 general fund.

What’s next: The mayor and staff proposed a timetable that would allow council to adopt a final levy proposal this summer if they choose to proceed: additional public workshops, a June 10 council meeting with public comment, committee review in July, and action in early August to meet county ballot deadlines. Staff emphasized implementation timelines for alternative revenues vary; many require ordinances, contracts or capital investment and would not produce near-term revenue before 2026.

Council members concluded the discussion by scheduling follow-up meetings and asking staff for more detailed revenue estimates and scenario modeling.