What is Proposition 1 and how much will it cost me?
Proposition 1 is a city-proposed levy for the specific funding of Police, Parks, Planning, Streets and Sidewalks. Qualifying low-income seniors are exempt. The $14.5 million measure will appear before voters on the November 2025 ballot.
If approved, the property tax rate would increase .93 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation in 2026. Based on this rate, the median homeowner would pay $65/month - or just $2.14 per day.
Washington state law provides important protections for low-income residents, including our seniors. Those with annual incomes up to 70% of the county’s median income (around $76,000/year) may qualify for exemptions that can significantly reduce possible financial strain, helping ensure Edmonds remains affordable to them.
Why is a levy needed?
A levy is required to address the structural revenue shortage our city faces, which is currently causing a budget crisis and leading it to future financial insolvency.
What will happen if the levy fails? What will happen to existing services?
The city has already cut over $8 million in services, staffing, and community programs this past year. Without the levy, the city will be forced to cut $8 million more, losing community programs at Frances Anderson that generations of Edmonds Kids have benefited from, neglecting our parks and places our children play in.
On June 5, 2025, in an effort to provide maximum transparency to voters, the City Council passed a resolution to identify and earmark cuts should this levy fail. Cuts include:
Cuts to Parks & Recreation maintenance ($1.8M in additional cuts)
Recreation programming will be eliminated at the Frances Anderson Center.
Yost Pool and Spray Pad at City Park will close.
Trash and litter pickup in certain areas will cease, and several public restrooms will close.
Special event support will be eliminated for the Summer Market, Edmonds Arts Festival, July 4th parade and other events.
Downtown white tree lighting will be eliminated. Holiday Tree decorating and lighting ceremony will be eliminated. Downtown flower baskets and corner park planting will be eliminated.
Vandalism responses will be delayed (damage, graffiti, biohazard waste, etc.).
Police reductions ($3.6M in additional cuts)
Response times will be longer, based on lower staffing.
Property crime investigations will be limited.
Proactive community engagement will be reduced.
The Human Services program will be eliminated.
Elimination of Cultural Services ($228k in additional cuts)
The Edmonds Arts Commission city liaison and performing arts programs will be cut.
Maintenance of public art and support to the creative district program also will be eliminated.
Near-Elimination of Planning & Economic Development ($693k in additional cuts)
Economic development, tourism, public information and intergovernmental relations will be eliminated.
Permit response times will increase and permit acquisitions delayed, disincentivizing future construction and the attraction of new businesses, which will further frustrate the city’s goals of increasing economic development in our city.
Public Works cuts ($160K in additional cuts)
The maintenance backlog on public facilities will continue to grow without funding, causing further deterioration.
Road maintenance will be limited.
Safety issues will increase with street potholes and cracks, and poorly maintained sidewalks.
How do we have a structural revenue shortage?
For years, Edmonds has faced challenges in investing in its long-term future. The City has been reluctant to adopt policies, such as increasing housing density in certain strategic areas of the city, that would vastly expand and diversify its property and sales tax base. This has resulted - for better or worse - in the reliance on homeowners to fund city government. Edmonds has also avoided pursuing otherwise popular and sustained non-tax revenues, such as paid downtown parking, the implementation of a B&O tax, and increased development impact fees, to name a few, that could have shifted some of the financial responsibility to non-residents, businesses, developers. These past decisions have all contributed to our current situation: a city that now depends heavily on property taxes to stay financially stable.
Shouldn’t we just spend less and tighten our belts?
The issue isn’t overspending or waste — Edmonds runs an extremely lean operation. In fact, for years the City has lacked the resources to fully staff essential departments like parks, police, planning, and economic development. Compared to similar cities, Edmonds has far fewer full-time employees, which limits our ability to deliver the quality services residents expect and deserve.
To make matters worse, in an effort to avoid insolvency this past year, the City was forced to cut an additional $8+ million from an already bare-bones operation. These cuts have taken a real toll: staff morale is low, attrition is high, and the vacancies left behind are increasingly difficult to fill. If we want to maintain a healthy, functioning city that can serve this community effectively, we must face the reality that continued underinvestment is not a sustainable path forward.
Source of Edmonds FTE count: City of Edmonds, June 2025 Financial Report
How much more revenue do we need to fully fund our city government?
Several independent groups have analyzed this issue and have arrived at the same conclusion that we have a structural revenue shortage. City staff, a city-hired budget consultant, and two citizen groups—the Blue Ribbon Panel and Keep Edmonds Vibrant—all estimate the budget shortfall to be between $15 million and $22 million.
Weren’t we able to balance our budget just a few years ago? How is it that we now have a $20M shortfall?
At first glance, pre-pandemic budgets may have appeared balanced—but they fell short in critical ways. They failed to account for the ongoing maintenance of our valued public assets, like Yost Pool and the Frances Anderson Center, to name a few. They also overlooked the need to modernize our critical infrastructure — expanded sidewalks, protected bike lanes, connected trails systems, and increased access to parks and green space, especially for residents outside the Bowl, many of whom currently lack access to a public park within one mile of their homes.
In short, those budgets were focused on the needs of the moment, not the demands of the future. But the future is no longer down the road—it’s here.
And that was before the pandemic. Since then, the cost of running a city has risen sharply; inflation pushed up prices for materials, equipment, wages, benefits, insurance, and utilities. While inflation has eased, those costs have not returned to pre-COVID levels. The reality is simple: doing more with less is no longer possible. If we want Edmonds to remain a vibrant, safe, and equitable city, we must invest accordingly.
So, who’s to blame?
Blaming any one thing for our current financial crisis oversimplifies a complex reality and distracts from real solutions. The truth is, past city leaders made good-faith efforts to maintain the level of services our community has come to rely on. However, they faced opposition from a small group of residents who were cautious about growing and diversifying the City’s revenue streams, often out of a desire to preserve Edmonds’ character and scale. While well-intentioned, this cautious approach limited the City’s ability to build a sustainable financial foundation—one that could keep pace with the rising costs of delivering essential services.
Today, that approach is no longer sustainable. Encouragingly, the current City Council and Mayor have embraced a broader, more inclusive dialogue—one that considers the voices of all residents and prioritizes long-term stability for our city’s future.
Another major challenge has been state law. The Tim Eyman Initiative- 747 has capped property tax increases at just 1% annually—far below what’s needed to keep pace with real costs. Over the last decade, inflation has averaged 2.65%, and in the past four years, it has averaged 4.8%. The math simply doesn’t add up.
That’s why our peer cities—those with similar populations, land area, regional context, and household wealth—have already taken steps to diversify their revenue and, in many cases, asked voters to approve levies to override the 1% cap. Edmonds is not alone—but it is behind. This proposed levy is about catching up, creating stability, and protecting the future of the city we all care about.
Who are our comparable peer cities?
Lynnwood, Issaquah, Bothell, and Redmond share many characteristics with Edmonds. Like Edmonds, they are suburban cities with similar population sizes, geographic size, median household incomes, median home values, and proximity to major employment centers. All of these cities—including Edmonds—are experiencing significant growth fueled by an influx of new families seeking livable, well-connected communities with strong schools, access to parks, and vibrant downtowns.
How much do our peer cities spend annually?
All of our peer cities invest more than Edmonds to keep pace with growth and to fully fund the staff, services, and programs their communities rely on. They recognize that meeting the needs of a growing population requires consistent, sustainable investment—and Edmonds must do the same to remain competitive and responsive to its residents.
Annual General Fund Spending
Per Capita Spending
How does the levy work?
The City Council authorized placing on the November ballot a multi-year permanent levy lid lift of $14.5 million. If approved by voters, it would take effect starting in 2026. In the 2nd through 6th years (2027-2031), the levy amount would be adjusted to keep pace with inflation annually. In 2032 and beyond, the resulting levy drops back to a rate increase of 1 percent over the prior year’s levy.
Will Frances Anderson Center be sold if the levy fails?
It’s uncertain. What we do know is that if Proposition 1 fails this November, Frances Anderson Center will close indefinitely beginning in 2026 to all recreational activities. Unless Edmonds secures stable, long-term funding, the threat of selling public assets will continue to loom over us. That’s why it’s critical that we grow and diversify our revenue base. One of the ways we can do this is to approve Proposition 1.
Doesn’t a large chunk of my property taxes already go to the city?
It’s a common misconception that most of your property taxes go directly to the City—but in reality, Edmonds’ general fund in 2026 will receive only ~9% of the total property taxes you pay ($.72 / $7.99). The rest goes to fund schools and other regional services. It can feel frustrating when the majority of one’s property taxes don’t make their way to cities and municipal budgets get stretched thin. This is not a problem unique to Edmonds. That’s why many cities choose to propose levies, and many, like Kirkland, Bothell, Shoreline, and Seattle, have passed them —so they can raise funds that go directly to the city and are used specifically to support local services and priorities.
The other side claims my property taxes will go up 130%. Is this true?!
This claim is false and is intended to mislead. If approved, the property tax rate would increase .93 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation in 2026. This increase amounts to 10% - not 130%. In real, everyday numbers, the median homeowner would pay $65/month - or just $2.14/day more.
And Washington state law provides important exemptions for low-income residents, including our seniors to help significantly reduce any possible financial strain, helping ensure Edmonds remains affordable to them.
How can I get involved or volunteer?
Thanks for your interest! There are many ways to get involved in this year’s campaign to support Proposition 1. Check out the opportunities here!
When is the election?
November 4, 2025.
Who is part of the Yes! for Edmonds campaign?
Yes! for Edmonds is comprised of resident-volunteers working to keep the Edmonds we love thriving and vibrant. Get in touch with us at info@yesforedmonds.org!