Edmonds — The City of Edmonds’ Committee of the Whole spent most of its meeting reviewing four budget scenarios and a range of nonproperty-tax revenue ideas as officials prepare for an impending decision on a potential levy lid lift.

Council President Neil Tibbitt opened the discussion by reminding members that the meeting was for information-gathering only: “This is a committee meeting. So this is not a time for us to make decisions or take action,” he said.

The mayor’s office summarized four approaches councilors received earlier: a community proposal called “Keep Edmonds Vibrant,” a comparables-based scenario derived from consultant Mike Bailey’s work, a staff-generated list of service restorations and revenue ideas, and a mayoral “split-the-difference” levy proposal. During the meeting staff and consultants provided numerical illustrations tied to those options: the mayor’s largest levy lid‑lift scenario was shown at roughly $22 million (estimated levy rate about $1.38 per $1,000 of assessed value), Mike Bailey’s comparables scenario placed the levy rate near $1.03, and the Keep Edmonds Vibrant community proposal was discussed in the neighborhood of $9 million (about $0.73 per $1,000).

Why it matters: council members said they need more clarity on what each number buys, how quickly revenues would materialize and what implementation capacity the city has. The mayor flagged several budget offsets and constraints not reflected in the scenarios: a $6 million loan repayment obligation (not included in the operating scenarios), the need to replenish reserves, and an anticipated eight‑year loan payback that could effectively stretch to about ten years when combined with other obligations.

Council questions focused on three recurring themes:
- Staffing and implementation capacity. Several council members said higher revenue targets would require additional staff to design and implement new revenue programs. The mayor acknowledged that some revenue options require little ongoing staff time (for example, certain sales taxes), while others—like new enforcement programs or a central grants manager—would need extra staffing.
- Deferred maintenance and the backlog. Staff and councilors discussed a backlog of maintenance and capital needs. The mayor described an approach that included a $3.7 million “whittling” contribution toward the backlog in the scenario materials but said other estimates put the true backlog far higher; a prior consultant study was cited as showing much larger, multi‑tens‑of‑millions shortfalls. Staff noted that recurring operating resources are generally used for ongoing maintenance, while large deferred items could be capitalized and financed separately (for example, by bonds).
- Nonproperty revenue options and timing. The meeting reviewed a menu of potential nonproperty revenue sources (sales tax options including cultural and criminal‑justice sales taxes, parking revenues, business license adjustments, development fees, tax increment financing, and annexation). Staff presented an initial spreadsheet with an estimated subtotal of roughly $9.2 million in potential nonproperty revenues (as a range and subject to validation). The mayor and staff emphasized that many of these concepts require further legal analysis or state approvals and will take time to implement, so they would not generate full proceeds immediately.

Cameras, equity and enforcement: Traffic‑enforcement cameras (school‑zone speed cameras and red‑light cameras) were discussed both as safety tools and as potential revenue sources. Several council members framed school‑zone cameras as safety measures; others urged caution about using cameras primarily for revenue. Councilmember Jenna and others raised equity concerns about concentrating enforcement cameras and revenue generation in the Highway 99 corridor, urging that any enforcement‑generated proceeds be considered for reinvestment in the communities where the cameras are placed. Chief Sniffen (police) confirmed that other jurisdictions use cameras to enforce normal speed limits outside of flashing school beacons and that such uses are operationally possible after council designation of school walk zones.

Annexation and other near‑term opportunities: Council discussed annexing nearby “aspirant” areas (including Esperance) as a possible revenue lever; staff said state law has simplified some annexation processes but cautioned that political resistance, required planning review and current planning‑department capacity would affect timing. Multiple council members urged pursuing available grants immediately and emphasized that some revenue changes (for example, certain fee increases or business license adjustments) could be adopted more quickly than other changes that require state action or voter approval.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded one formal, on‑the‑record motion during the meeting: a motion to extend the meeting to 8:45 p.m. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote (ayes). (Mover and seconder not specified on the record.)

What’s next: Council and staff compiled about 15 follow‑up questions at the meeting for further analysis. The Committee plans additional sessions on the topic in the coming weeks, including meetings in chambers where councilors said they may be asked to decide a levy amount.

Ending note: Councilors repeatedly asked staff for clearer materials showing—by scenario—what would be added or restored (positions and services), the timing for revenue realization, the assumed reserve policy treatment, and a clearer division between recurring operating needs and capitalized backlog work.