Responding to the Top 10 False Claims About Proposition 1

Edmonds Proposition 1: Separating Fact from Fiction as Voters Decide

As ballots arrive in mailboxes across Edmonds, voters are facing a flurry of competing claims about Proposition 1, a levy lid lift that would increase property taxes to fund city services. With misinformation circulating through mailers and door-to-door campaigns, a clear understanding of the facts has become crucial for residents weighing their decision.

The proposed measure comes as Edmonds grapples with financial constraints that have already forced over $8 million in cuts this year. Supporters argue the levy is necessary to maintain essential services, while opponents claim the city should find other solutions before raising taxes.

At the heart of the debate is whether Edmonds truly needs additional revenue or simply needs to control spending. According to city officials, Edmonds operates with fewer staff members than comparable nearby cities such as Bothell, Issaquah, and Lynnwood. The city currently employs roughly the same number of staff as it did in 2001, despite welcoming 3,000 more residents and weathering an 88% rise in inflation during that period.

One persistent claim from opponents is that Proposition 1 would make Edmonds the most expensive city in Snohomish County. Supporters counter that this comparison cherry-picks data from select cities rather than providing a comprehensive county-wide analysis. They also note that with other municipalities pursuing their own levies and regional fire models, Edmonds’ relative tax position would likely return to the middle range among its peers.

Financial management has become another flashpoint in the debate. Opponents have alleged that Edmonds “lost” $4.5 million, a claim proponents vigorously dispute as a fundamental misunderstanding of municipal budgeting. They point out that city finances undergo annual audits by the Washington State Auditor’s Office, which would have flagged any such discrepancy.

Similarly contested is the assertion that Edmonds has $79 million in reserves it could tap instead of raising taxes. According to city financial documents, only about $1 million of those funds is actually available for discretionary use, with the remainder legally designated for specific purposes like utilities and transportation infrastructure.

For property owners concerned about the tax impact, supporters emphasize that Edmonds currently receives just 9% of total property tax revenue, approximately $0.72 per $1,000 in assessed value. Under Proposition 1, this would increase to $1.65 per $1,000—not the 130% increase across the entire tax bill that some opponents have suggested.

The measure includes exemptions for low-income seniors and disabled residents earning up to approximately $76,000 annually. This provision, combined with recent federal tax deductions for seniors, has led many older residents to support the proposition despite opposition messaging centered around a “Save Our Seniors” campaign.

Public infrastructure represents another dimension of the debate. A comprehensive assessment by McKinstry evaluated all 18 public buildings in Edmonds and categorized them as being in “poor-critical” or “fair-poor” condition, contradicting claims that facilities are adequate as they stand.

If voters reject the proposition, Resolution 1570, already passed by the City Council, outlines additional cuts that would follow—including $3.6 million from the police department and $1.8 million from Parks and Recreation, representing significant reductions to public safety and community services.

The Blue Ribbon Panel, an independent advisory group previously convened to address Edmonds’ fiscal challenges, made three major recommendations: joining a Regional Fire Authority, pursuing a levy lid lift, and implementing other revenue-generating measures. Supporters note that all major recommendations have either been implemented or are in progress, contrary to assertions that the city has ignored expert advice.

As Edmonds voters consider Proposition 1, they face a fundamental question about the community’s priorities and financial future. The measure represents a modest but meaningful investment in maintaining the services and infrastructure that define the character of this growing coastal city.