Edmonds leaders outline $6 million levy ask and cuts if voters decline

Mayor Mike Rosen and Council President Neil Tippett presented three budget scenarios May 22 as the Edmonds City Council sought public input on a proposed levy and other revenue ideas to close a structural budget gap.

Rosen said the city is constrained by a cap on property‑tax increases, noting, “we are limited, to increasing property tax by 1% a year.” He described depleted one‑time pandemic funds, higher insurance costs and staffing competition as causes of the shortfall and gave an initial picture of three choices: adopt the budgeted levy in the amount included in the current proposal, ask voters for a larger package to restore some services, or make deeper cuts if the community rejects a ballot measure.

The nut graf: the council is weighing a plan that would ask voters for about $6 million to maintain current service levels and begin addressing deferred maintenance, while warning that a no vote would require roughly $8 million in additional cuts and further reductions to services residents use.

Most important details

The city’s finances. Rosen said Edmonds’ general fund is roughly $50 million in round numbers and that about $16 million of that comes from property tax. He said the police starting budget this year was about $19 million and that only about 14 cents of every property‑tax dollar paid by residents goes to the city: “The last time last year when we did the calculation, it's about 14¢ of every dollar you pay in property tax. So that bill, only about 14¢ of that comes to the city.”

Debt and one‑time funds. Rosen said the city borrowed $6 million internally from a utility fund to get through the current year and that the current budget assumes a $6 million levy ask to balance 2026. He said council previously directed $1.5 million in savings and has asked for an additional $2 million in savings next year; together those would raise the amount of cuts needed to about $8 million if voters reject a levy.

Three scenarios explained. Rosen described the options as: (1) proceed with the $6 million levy included in the current budget to keep services at today’s reduced level; (2) ask voters for a larger amount that would restore selected services and begin to reduce maintenance backlogs; and (3) do not place a levy before voters or the community rejects it, requiring deeper cuts that could include facility closures or program eliminations.

Service and maintenance impacts. Citing a McKinstry facilities assessment, Rosen said Edmonds has a backlog of deferred capital work and maintenance he summarized as roughly $40 million and warned that delayed repairs raise long‑term costs. Council President Neil Tippett said the likely impacts of further cuts would be “rather sobering.” He listed consequences the administration identified, including reduced park maintenance and programming, longer police response times and reduced detective and prevention work, fewer planning and economic‑development activities, reduced art and visitor programs, and cuts to building and road maintenance.

Public safety staffing. Tippett said cuts could require eliminating about seven to eight police officer positions, which the council presentation said would reduce proactive policing and lengthen response times.

Revenue options and process. Rosen and Tippett said staff and council have identified about 100 potential revenue opportunities, some one‑time and some ongoing. Rosen said he had compiled a “mayor’s hit list” of roughly 30 items to bring to council for decisions and that the city would use community input, department priorities and comparisons with peer cities to propose a draft levy number to the council on June 3.

Public comment highlights

Adele Seffriwe, an organizer with the resident group Keep Edmonds Vibrant, urged the council to pursue “new sustaining revenue sources” rather than rely mainly on property‑tax increases and said more than 500 residents had completed a community survey the group launched.

Public commenter Jim Oganowski criticized the timing and urged revenue development before a levy. He said, “We knew we had an emergency. We knew a path forward, but we just kicked the kick the can down the road.” Rosen responded that the city has taken some revenue steps that generated under $1 million and that the recent packet presented roughly 100 ideas for council consideration.

Joan Longstaff, who serves on the cemetery board, said the city owns the cemetery and urged the council not to sell the Francis Anderson Center, which she called “vital to our community.”

Business and analytic questions. Elise Hill, identifying herself with local business groups, asked whether staff had modeled the downstream revenue impacts of cutting services such as parking enforcement and marketing — for example, fewer events or visitors reducing sales tax. Rosen said the city tries to look at net effects and that some functions historically do not fully cover costs. He described a longer strategy combining short‑term revenue steps and mid‑ and long‑term economic development.

Process, next steps and meetings

Rosen and Tippett emphasized continued public engagement: Rosen said staff will return a draft levy number to council on June 3, and Tippett pointed to additional community sessions, including a 6:30 p.m. meeting the same evening, to gather more input.

Discussion versus formal action

The May 22 session produced no formal votes or ordinance actions. The meeting was a public briefing and input session; the council discussed directions taken in past budget cycles (an internal $6 million loan, prior fee increases and permit‑fee changes) and described options to bring to voters and future council deliberations. Rosen said some revenue items will require council action and others are administrative, and he recommended that one‑time receipts be used to pay down debt and rebuild reserves rather than to fund ongoing operations.

Ending

Council members and staff will use the community feedback and the three data inputs — public input, departmental cost estimates and comparisons with peer cities — to refine a levy proposal in early June and return to the council for formal decisions. A public session is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. the same day for additional comments.