2026-08-12 Council Study Session Packet
Edmonds City Council Agenda
August 12, 2026
Posted: 8/7/2026 11:56 AM Page 1
Agenda
Edmonds City Council
Study Session
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
121 - 5TH AVENUE N, EDMONDS, WA 98020
ZOOM: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 MEETING ID: 957 9848 4261
AUGUST 12, 2026, 3:00 PM
STAFF AND COUNCILMEMBERS ATTEND STUDY SESSIONS VIRTUALLY, AND MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND THE SAME WAY.
IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CANNOT ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING WITH THEIR PERSONAL
DEVICES, A MONITOR IS PROVIDED AT THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AT 121 5TH AVE N,
EDMONDS WA.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. STUDY SESSION ITEMS
1. Final Fiscal Analysis of Potential Esperance Annexation Third Reading – Planning
and Development Services (45 minutes)
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
4. ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSENT
ADJOURNMENT
For disability accommodations, materials in alternate formats, accessibility information, or language interpretation/ translation needs, please
contact the City Clerk at 425-775-2525 at your earliest opportunity. Providing at least 72-hour notice will help ensure availability.
City Council Agenda Item 2.1
August 12, 2026 - Study Session
TITLE:Final Fiscal Analysis of Potential Esperance Annexation (Third
Reading)
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Development Services
PRESENTER:Brad Shipley, Michael Clugston, Josh Linden (BERK)
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Input
RECOMMENDATION:No decision to initiate or approve annexation is requested at this
meeting. The purpose of this item is to receive BERK Consulting’s
completed Esperance Annexation Fiscal Analysis, discuss the
study’s findings and remaining areas of uncertainty, and provide
Council an opportunity to ask questions, offer feedback, and
identify any additional information it would like considered in
evaluating whether to proceed with annexation.
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:TDB ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):General Fund;
Transportation-related
funds; Stormwater
Utility Fund; Parks and
applicable capital funds.
☒ Budget Reallocation Required
☐ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
Esperance is an approximately 464-acre unincorporated area located within the Edmonds urban
growth area. The area includes roughly 4,500 residents and is the only Municipal Urban Growth
Area assigned to Edmonds for potential future annexation. The City has evaluated potential
annexation of Esperance at various times in the past. In 2026, the City retained BERK Consulting
to update the fiscal analysis using current City financial and budget information and to evaluate
the potential effect of the annexation sales and use tax credit authorized under RCW 82.14.415.
BERK has now completed its analysis, which evaluates operating revenues and costs over a 15-
year study period, potential staffing implications, selected capital revenues and costs, impacts
to Esperance residents, the annexation sales tax credit, potential risks, and phasing
considerations. The final report is intended to inform Council's consideration of whether
annexation should proceed and, if pursued, what additional due diligence or conditions may be
appropriate.
Esperance has developed as a neighborhood that is functionally integrated with Edmonds.
Residents use City streets and other municipal infrastructure to access commercial areas,
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 2/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 2/44
schools, parks, and services. Annexation would bring the area into the City's municipal tax and
service structure while also adding responsibility for providing City services and maintaining
infrastructure within the annexation area.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
BERK's final analysis projects a positive General Fund impact under both staffing scenarios
modeled, although the magnitude of the result is highly dependent on staffing and service-level
assumptions.
Under Scenario 1: No Staff Increase, the analysis estimates a net General Fund impact of
approximately $3.8 million in Year 1, $19.1 million during Years 1–5, and $48.9 million during
Years 6–15.
Under Scenario 2: Limited Staff Increase, which assumes 7.75 additional FTE primarily for
Police, Public Works, and Parks, the estimated net General Fund impact is approximately $2.0
million in Year 1, $9.7 million during Years 1–5, and $25.4 million during Years 6–15. The
addition of 7.75 FTE reduces the projected surplus by nearly half, illustrating the sensitivity of
the analysis to staffing decisions.
These results should continue to be interpreted in the context of the study's assumptions.
Neither scenario allocates to Esperance a proportional share of all existing City services and
expenditures. Consequently, additional staffing or expenditures needed to maintain existing
Citywide service levels could reduce the projected General Fund benefit. BERK notes that actual
results will depend substantially on future staffing decisions, service-level expectations, growth,
economic conditions, and costs not included in the model.
Annexation Sales and Use Tax Credit
RCW 82.14.415 provides a potential state-funded sales and use tax credit to qualifying cities for
the cost of providing municipal services to newly annexed areas. BERK estimates that the
maximum credit potentially available for a qualifying annexation area would be approximately
$1.26 million in Year 1, although actual distributions could be substantially less.
Importantly, eligibility depends on the City's projected cost of municipal services exceeding
projected general revenues from the annexed area. Because BERK's modeled General Fund
revenues exceed the costs included in both scenarios, the City may receive only limited
distributions or potentially no distribution under the program. Additional clarification may also
be needed regarding whether certain capital costs, such as major bridge or park improvements,
qualify as "municipal services." If annexation were structured in two qualifying phases
completed within the statutory timeframe, each area could potentially qualify for a separate
0.1 percent credit, subject to the same eligibility requirements.
Accordingly, the sales tax credit should be considered a potential funding source rather than
assumed revenue in evaluating the fiscal feasibility of annexation.
Capital and Infrastructure Considerations
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 3/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 3/44
The study estimates approximately $1.36 million in capital-related revenues in Year 1, primarily
from stormwater fees, REET, vehicle license fees, motor vehicle fuel tax, and the Transportation
Benefit District sales tax. Estimated capital costs during the City's six-year CIP period include
approximately $930,000 for stormwater, $1.33 million for transportation, and $137,000 for
parks.
Capital costs remain one of the principal areas of uncertainty. The analysis uses generalized City
investment levels rather than detailed engineering or condition assessments for most
Esperance infrastructure. Snohomish County currently identifies no transportation projects
within Esperance in its adopted planning documents; however, this does not establish that
existing infrastructure is adequate or that significant future investment will not be needed.
Additional assessment of transportation and stormwater infrastructure may therefore be
warranted if the City chooses to proceed.
The 84th Avenue W bridge is a particular long-term consideration. Snohomish County currently
rates the bridge in "fair" condition, and BERK did not include repair or replacement costs within
the six-year capital estimate because the County does not presently identify the bridge as
requiring urgent capital work. BERK recommends that the City consider independently
evaluating its condition, likely repair or replacement timing, and potential funding before
assuming responsibility for the asset.
Impact on Esperance Residents
The final analysis also evaluates how annexation could affect a typical Esperance household.
Based on current rates, the difference in property taxes is relatively small, as is the estimated
change in sales taxes. The more significant changes relate to City stormwater charges and
Olympic View Water and Sewer District payments associated with the City's utility tax.
For a typical detached single-unit property owner, BERK estimates total annual taxes and
charges could increase by approximately $364 to $480 per year, depending primarily on
whether the City's utility tax ultimately returns to 10 percent or remains at 20 percent.
Potential Phasing and Strategic Considerations
The final report continues to identify phasing as an option rather than a recommendation.
Potential benefits of phasing include aligning the timing of new service and infrastructure
responsibilities with City capacity, allowing additional due diligence regarding significant assets
such as the 84th Avenue W bridge, and potentially allowing separate qualifying annexation
areas to access the state sales tax credit if statutory requirements are met.
If annexation moves forward, the City would need to negotiate an interlocal agreement with
Snohomish County addressing the transfer and timing of services, permitting responsibilities,
infrastructure and maintenance obligations, and potentially financial arrangements associated
with the transition.
RECOMMENDATION:
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 4/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 4/44
No decision to initiate or approve annexation is requested at this meeting. The purpose of this
item is to receive BERK Consulting’s completed Esperance Annexation Fiscal Analysis, discuss
the study’s findings and remaining areas of uncertainty, and provide Council an opportunity to
ask questions, offer feedback, and identify any additional information it would like considered
in evaluating whether to proceed with annexation.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
If annexation is pursued, the action could have significant future impacts to the General Fund
and applicable transportation, stormwater, parks, and capital funds. BERK's analysis indicates
a positive General Fund cash flow outlook under the assumptions modeled; however, the
analysis remains subject to refinement of operating cost, staffing, utility tax, and capital
assumptions, and does not account for service level reductions, however modest those might
be.
The results should not be used as the basis for future City budgeting until the fiscal analysis and
service-cost assumptions are further evaluated.
ITEM HISTORY:
The City has studied potential annexation of the Esperance area at various times over the last
several decades. Esperance residents have previously voted on annexation five times, most
recently in 2005. More recently, a group of Esperance residents contacted County and City
officials expressing interest in advancing annexation.
In 2026, the City retained BERK Consulting to conduct an updated fiscal review using current
City financial information and to consider the annexation sales and use tax credit authorized
under RCW 82.14.415. Council received BERK's preliminary fiscal findings on July 14, 2026.
Following that discussion, BERK and staff continued refining the analysis and assumptions,
resulting in the completed Edmonds Annexation Analysis presented with this agenda item.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Edmonds Annexation Analysis – A Financial Assessment of Annexing the
Esperance Area, BERK Consulting, August 2026
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 5/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 5/44
August 6, 2026
1
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 6/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 6/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 2
2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1000
Seattle, Washington 98121
P (206) 324-8760
www.berkconsulting.com
“Helping Communities and Organizations Create Their Best Futures”
Founded in 1988, we are an interdisciplinary strategy and analysis firm providing integrated, creative and
analytically rigorous approaches to complex policy and planning decisions. Our team of strategic planners, policy
and financial analysts, economists, cartographers, information designers and facilitators work together to bring
new ideas, clarity, and robust frameworks to the development of analytically-based and action-oriented plans.
Project Team
Lisa Grueter · Principal in Charge
Josh Linden · Project Manager
Katherine Goetz · Senior Analyst
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 7/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 7/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 3
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Study Purpose and Goals .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Context Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Fiscal Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................21
City Budget Overview ...........................................................................................................................................................21
Growth .......................................................................................................................................................................................22
Staffing Implications ..............................................................................................................................................................22
Revenues ...................................................................................................................................................................................22
Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................................24
Estimated Financial Impact .................................................................................................................................................26
Sales Tax Credit .......................................................................................................................................................................28
Capital Revenues and Costs ................................................................................................................................................31
Findings .................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
General Fund ............................................................................................................................................................................32
Sales Tax Credit .......................................................................................................................................................................32
Capital Revenues and Costs ................................................................................................................................................32
Impact on Esperance Residents .........................................................................................................................................33
Unknowns and Potential Risks ...........................................................................................................................................35
Phasing Options ......................................................................................................................................................................35
Other Financial Tools that Support Growth..................................................................................................................36
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 8/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 8/44
August 6, 2026
4
Executive Summary
The City of Edmonds is exploring an annexation of the Esperance community, an unincorporated
Municipal Urban Growth Area of roughly 4,500 residents that is surrounded by the City. Snohomish
County’s Comprehensive Plan encourages annexation consistent with the State’s Growth Management
Act, and Esperance has been studied in the past for potential annexation. This study of potential
annexation focuses on the fiscal impacts to the City, and presents updated projections for operational
revenues and costs over a 15-year study period, along with estimates for capital revenues and costs for
several specific areas.
Under the modeled revenue, staffing, and cost assumptions, annexation of Esperance is projected to
produce a positive General Fund impact. These results assume steady growth and stable economic
conditions that facilitate a favorable revenue outlook for key sources like property tax, sales tax, and
utility-related payments. However, the cost assumptions for the General Fund have a higher level of
sensitivity, meaning that a slight change – e.g., in assumed staffing levels or levels of service – create
larger downstream effects on total costs. To illustrate these cost dynamics, this study evaluated two
General Fund cost scenarios: (1) a baseline scenario with a limited set of costs directly related to
population growth and no staff increase; and (2) a limited staff increase (based on conversations with
several City departments) on top of the baseline cost scenario. Both scenarios produced a net positive
General Fund impact; however, projected costs for scenario 2 are an order of magnitude higher than
scenario 1, highlighting the impact of hiring new staff. Because both scenarios do not estimate the cost of
allocating to Esperance a proportionate share of existing City services, these results suggest that
maintaining existing levels of service after annexation – which could involve additional staff above what
this study modeled – may significantly decrease the revenue surplus from the Esperance area.
Per RCW 82.14.415, the City may apply to the State for a sales tax credit to provide, maintain, and
operate municipal services to the Esperance area. Several conditions apply, most notably the requirement
that the projected cost to serve the annexed area exceeds the projected general revenue on an annual
basis. If the City can demonstrate this – and following an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County – it
may impose an additional 0.1% additional sales tax for each annexed area with a population of at least
2,000. This means that the Esperance area could provide the City with an opportunity to receive a
cumulatively 0.2% credit. However, the Department of Revenue only distributes funds if the costs to
serve the area exceed revenues, and there are legal questions about whether costs typically categorized
as capital costs would count as eligible “municipal services”.
This study evaluated five sources of capital revenue and projects roughly $1.36 million in combined
capital revenue in year 1 and $7.71 million by the fifth year after annexation. However, there is a higher
level of uncertainty around capital costs. Existing City CIP spending per capita was used as a proxy for
potential capital costs to serve the Esperance area, rather than an asset-specific assessment. Although the
study reviewed County documents that assessed the 84th Ave bridge in fair condition and not in urgent
need of capital repairs, the bridge was not independently evaluated in detail, and other transportation and
stormwater needs have also not been evaluated in detail. The County does not currently have any
transportation projects in Esperance in its planning documents. Should the City move forward with
annexation, further evaluation of capital needs may be necessary to better understand the scale of
potential capital costs and associated risks.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 9/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 9/44
August 6, 2026
5
Study Purpose and Goals
The City of Edmonds is about 8.9 square miles in size, originally founded in 1890 at nearly 1 square mile in
area. The City is reviewing the potential fiscal impacts of annexing the Esperance neighborhood, a 0.7-
square-mile unincorporated area surrounded by the City (see Exhibit 2 for a reference map). Annexation
by code cities is authorized under RCW 35A.14. There are several potential methods for annexation,
including by interlocal agreement with the neighboring County, by direct or alternative petition, or by
election.
Exhibit 1: Edmonds Annexation History
Source: City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, 2024
The Southwest Urban Growth Area (SWUGA) is an urban unincorporated area that has been divided to
show where each city may annex the area in the future, and these divided portions of the SWUGA are
called Municipal Urban Growth Areas (MUGAs). Esperance is the only MUGA assigned to the City of
Edmonds as a future annexation area.
The Snohomish County’s Comprehensive Plan encourages annexation consistent with the State’s Growth
Management Act:
▪ Objective LU 1.E The County shall continue to support the annexation of unincorporated urban areas
into cities and towns.
Likewise, the City’s Comprehensive Plan supports planning and annexation of the Esperance area:
▪ Policy LU-27.1 Support Joint planning and urban development standards for urban unincorporated
areas.
▪ Policy LU-27.2 Coordinate with the county to plan for annexation of unincorporated areas of the
MUGA as necessary.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 10/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 10/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 6
The Esperance area has been studied for potential annexation in the past. This report presents updated
estimates of the potential fiscal impacts of annexation, including consideration of the sales tax credit
currently available to cities. Additional considerations include current and potential land uses and growth,
capital facility needs, and the effect on City public services.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 11/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 11/44
August 6, 2026
7
Context Analysis
Exhibit 2: Map of the Esperance Area
Source: Snohomish County; OpenStreetMap; Microsoft; BERK, 2026
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 12/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 12/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 8
Population Characteristics
Roughly 4,500 residents lived in the Esperance area as of 2025. The community has grown by nearly 900
people since 2010, representing a 25% increase in those 16 years, or a 1.5% annual average growth rate.
Annual growth has been steady over this period, with the brief exception of 2023 to 2024, when the
Esperance community experienced a 7% increase in population (see Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 3: Population Growth in Esperance, 2010 to 2025
Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, 2026; BERK, 2026
The population density of the Esperance area is roughly on par with lower density residential
neighborhoods in Edmonds, with some additional small pockets of moderate density along the edges of
the area. Exhibit 4 shows population density per square mile across the City of Edmonds and the
Esperance area, at the Census block level.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 13/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 13/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 9
Exhibit 4: Population Density in Edmonds and Esperance
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2024; Snohomish County; BERK, 2026
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 14/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 14/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 10
Overall, the race and ethnicity characteristics of Esperance are similar to the City of Edmonds, with a
couple of notable exceptions. The share of the community identifying as a person of color is slightly higher
in Esperance (29.8%) compared to Edmonds (27.5%). However, there are larger differences among three
specific communities. Esperance has more people identifying as Asian alone and Hispanic or Latino, while
Edmonds has more residents that identify as Black alone.
Exhibit 5: Race and Ethnicity in Esperance and City of Edmonds, 2024
Source: American Community Survey 2020-2024 5-year Estimates; BERK, 2026
Esperance has a relatively young population, with a considerably higher share of residents under the age
of 40 (55%) than the City of Edmonds (41%), and fewer residents close to or at retirement age.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 15/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 15/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 11
Exhibit 6: Age Distribution for Esperance and City of Edmonds, 2024
Source: American Community Survey 2020-2024 5-year Estimates; BERK, 2026
Esperance has a greater share of households earning more than $100,000 per year than the City of
Edmonds. Most of this difference is for households earning between $150,000 and $200,000, which is
roughly 135 to 180% of the Snohomish County median income. The Esperance area’s median household
income ($148,640) is also higher than the City’s ($122,449). Notably, the Esperance area has only 7% of
households that earn under $50,000 per year, less than half of the City’s share at that income level.
Exhibit 7: Distribution of Household Income, Esperance and City of Edmonds, 2024
Source: American Community Survey 2020-2024 5-year Estimates; BERK, 2026
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 16/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 16/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 12
Housing
Esperance has seen moderate housing growth since 2010, commensurate with the area’s population
growth. The community added nearly 300 units in the last 16 years, with a 1.2% average annual growth
rate and a 20% overall increase since 2010. About 75% of these units are owner occupied, higher than the
71% owner occupancy rate in the City of Edmonds. Average household size in Esperance is larger than the
City of Edmonds – and renter households in Esperance have a much larger household size (3.36) than
owner households (2.49).
The housing stock in Esperance has some notable differences from the City as well. Esperance is a lower
density community with single, detached units comprising 80% of the area’s housing (compared to 60% in
the City). There are limited pockets of moderate or higher density housing in the Esperance community.
And overall, the housing stock tends to be slightly older than the City of Edmonds, with a median year
built of 1964.
Exhibit 8: Units in Structure, Esperance and City of Edmonds, 2024
Source: American Community Survey 2020-2024 5-year Estimates; BERK, 2026
Jobs
Unlike population growth, job growth has been variable and less solidly positive since 2010. Overall, the
Esperance area has added about 20 jobs over that period. The decade leading up to 2020 saw larger
growth, which was entirely negated by pandemic-era job losses. The post-pandemic period has seen much
slower job growth.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 17/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 17/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 13
Exhibit 9: Jobs and annual job growth in Esperance, 2010 to 2024
Nearly 40% of local jobs are in the wholesale trade industry, followed by 20% in professional, scientific,
and technical services, 13% in construction, and 11% in retail. Many of these jobs do not require advanced
degrees; nearly 30% of local workers have a high school diploma or less. The jobs are largely concentrated
on the southeastern side of the Esperance area, close to the Pacific Highway corridor.
Capacity and Growth Allocations
Snohomish County assigns growth targets in consultation with cities for both the city limits and the
MUGAs. For the period 2020-2044, the County assigned the Esperance area a net growth of 792
population, 474 housing units, and 76 jobs.1 This annexation study uses these growth targets – adjusted
for the study period of 15 years – to calculate growth-related revenues and costs.
The Snohomish County 2021 Buildable Lands Report also estimated housing and job capacity throughout
the county, including within the Esperance area. This was a parcel-level exercise that attempted to
identify land that could be developed based on site-specific characteristics, including existing uses, zoning,
and future land use. The methodology classifies parcels with development potential into one of three
categories: (1) vacant; (2) partially-used; or (3) redevelopable. The output includes a capacity estimate for
every parcel. This represents theoretical capacity given those site characteristics and market conditions;
it does not represent an expected development outcome over a certain period of time.
Based on Snohomish County data, the growth capacity results for the Esperance area include:
▪ A capacity of 575 housing units (32% of the existing housing stock)
1 Population and Employment Element, Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan:
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/148229/Snohomish-County-Comprehensive-
Plan_Current_2026#page=37 and Housing Element:
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/148229/Snohomish-County-Comprehensive-
Plan_Current_2026#page=160
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 18/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 18/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 14
▪ A capacity of 110 jobs (58% of all current local jobs)
This indicates that there may be additional capacity beyond the area’s growth target, under current land
use conditions.
Land Use and Zoning
In its 2024 Comprehensive Plan, Snohomish County supports annexations that have a minimum level of
density:
▪ Land Use Policy 1.E.2: The county shall not support any proposed annexation by a city unless and
until an annexation agreement has been signed by the county and said city ensuring the continued
implementation of Policy LU 2.A.1 for the area to be annexed.
▪ Land Use Policy 2.A.1 Maintain development regulations that will require that new residential
subdivisions achieve a minimum net density of 6 dwelling units per acre in all unincorporated UGAs,
except (1) in the UGAs of Darrington, Index, and Gold Bar as long as those cities do not have sanitary
sewer systems and (2) in areas without sanitary sewers …, or (3) where a lower density is necessary
because of the existence of critical areas that are large in scope, with a high rank order value, and are
complex in structure and function. Lot size averaging, planned residential developments, sewerage
regulations and other techniques may be used to maintain minimum density or to ensure later
development at minimum densities is not inhibited when sanitary sewers become available.
The County’s land use designations primarily include:
▪ Urban Medium Density Residential (UMDR)
▪ Urban High Density Residential (UHDR)
▪ Urban Commercial (UC)
▪ Public/Institutional Use (P/IU)
The County’s Zoning that implements these designations are:
▪ R-7,200
▪ PRD-R-7,200
▪ Low Density Multiple Residential
▪ PRD-Low Density Multiple Residential
▪ Townhouse
▪ Multiple Residential
▪ Mobile Home Park
▪ General Commercial
The County’s land use designations can be seen in Exhibit 10, below.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 19/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 19/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 15
Exhibit 10: Snohomish County Land Use Designations applied to Esperance MUGA
Source: Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan, 2024
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 20/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 20/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 16
Exhibit 11: Equivalent City Land Use and Zoning Designations
County Land Use City Land Use County Zoning City Zoning
Urban Medium Density Residential
(UMDR): This designation allows a
variety of housing types, including
detached homes on small lots,
townhouses, and apartments in medium
density developments. Implementing
zones: MHP, LDMR, PRD-LDMR,
Townhouse, R-7,200, PRD-7,200 and
WFB.
Low Density Residential 1:
Residential uses. Buildings
are primarily single family
detached, with some
accessory dwelling units and
low-scale middle housing
types.
R-8,400 RS-6, RS-8
Urban High Density Residential
(UHDR): This designation allows high
density residential land uses such as
townhouses and apartments generally
near other high intensity land uses.
Implementing zones: MHP, MR, PRD-
MR, LDMR, and PRD-LDMR.
Moderate Density
Residential: Housing types
consist of a mix of detached
and attached housing,
including townhouses,
multiplexes, courtyard
apartments and other smaller
scale multifamily.
Low Density
Multiple
Residential
Townhouse
Multiple
Residential
Mobile Home Park
All RM zones (RM
1.5, 2.4, 3.0)
Urban Commercial (UC): This
designation identifies commercial
designations within the UGA which allow
a wide range of commercial as well as
residential uses. Implementing zones:
Neighborhood Business, Planned
Community Business, Community
Business, General Commercial, and
Business Park. In the Southwest County
UGA, no rezones to General Commercial
shall be approved outside of the State
Route 99 corridor.
Highway 99 Mixed Use: Mix
of office, residential, and
retail or other commercial
services with a focus on
higher-density multifamily
residential and supporting
retail and services.
General
Commercial
General
Commercial (CG)
Public/Institutional Use (P/IU): This
designation can be applied to existing or
planned public and privately owned
and/or operated properties including
churches, schools, parks, government
buildings, utility plants and other
government operations or properties
within UGAs or adjacent to UGAs. The
P/IU designation can be applied to
existing areas within a UGA, as well as
areas being added to a UGA concurrent
with a re-designation to P/IU.
Public
Parks & Open Space
Not applicable P, OS or related
classification
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 21/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 21/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 17
Public and Institutional Uses
Esperance Park is approximately 9.6 acres in size and is managed by Snohomish County. It contains
athletic fields, a sport court, off leash dog areas, outdoor art, trails, a playground, and a parking lot.
Acquired in 1986, more land was added in 2016 and it is currently classified as a Community Park. The
county used funds from Conservation Futures and the Washington State Recreation and Conservation
Office (RCO) program for acquisition. A recent County renovation of the park was completed in 2020.2
The Robert F. Leary Open Space/Preserve is 1 acre in size. It was acquired in 2008 as a donation and is
considered a future neighborhood park.3 The County notes in its Parks and Recreation Element: The
county encourages and promotes the transfer of neighborhood parks in UGAs to the cities or towns within whose
boundaries, or potential annexation area, they are located.
South County Fire operates Station 20 at 23009 88th Avenue W. Olympic View Water and Sewer District
offices are at 8128 228th St SW.
Several churches are in the annexation area including Edmonds Church of God, Edmonds Unitarian
Universalist Congregation, and Evangelical Chinese Church of Seattle.
Commercial Uses
Along SR-99 there are a variety of retail and service businesses including:
▪ Produce stand
▪ Roofing company
▪ Used car dealer and other auto repair
▪ Self-storage
▪ Services
▪ Bakery
▪ Tire shop
An aerial image in Exhibit 12, below, shows business names in the area to the west of SR-99. Most of the
area is developed and the County’s allocation of new jobs is low at 76 jobs (2020-2044).
2 See: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/48d9c37812474ba7b4b0baf9ab5e7825 and
https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/Facilities/Facility/Details/Esperance-Park-84.
3 See: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/facilities/facility/details/robertlearyopenspacereserve-180.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 22/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 22/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 18
Exhibit 12: SR 99 Vicinity Businesses
Source: Google Earth, 2026
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 23/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 23/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 19
Critical Areas
Similar to other areas in Edmonds and the SWUGA, the Esperance annexation area contains mapped
critical areas including a wetland complex, steep slopes, an earthquake fault, and wellhead protection area
(that limits the types of land uses that could locate to avoid contamination of potable water). Both the
County and the City protect critical areas and public safety in their development regulations.
Exhibit 13: Esperance Vicinity Critical Areas
Source: Snohomish County GIS, 2026
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 24/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 24/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 20
Other Infrastructure
The Esperance area sits wholly within the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. The City therefore will
not incur any additional costs or service needs associated with those utilities should annexation move
forward. However, Esperance has a fairly extensive system of surface-level and enclosed pipe stormwater
management. Exhibit 14 shows these stormwater facilities throughout the area, classified by type.
Exhibit 14: Stormwater Management Facilities in Esperance
Source: Snohomish County; BERK, 2026
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 25/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 25/44
August 6, 2026
21
Fiscal Analysis
Fiscal sustainability and impact to the City’s operating and capital budgets is the focus of this study, and a
key consideration when evaluating a potential annexation. This section provides an overview of the
estimated impact of annexing the Esperance area, based on projected revenues along with costs to serve
the Esperance community.
Methodology
The project team used the City’s historical revenue and expenditure data, the assessed value for all real
and personal property in Esperance, the City’s historical taxable retail sales, staff input on potential
staffing needs, and assumptions about how future growth over 20 years will impact revenues and
expenditures. Assumptions for annual growth in revenues and costs – described in more detail below –
are based on input from staff, City documents, and historical trends.
While forecasting revenues and costs over a long period has limitations, it is important to consider the net
financial impact beyond the first year of annexation for several reasons: 1) growth patterns over time will
change the fiscal impact; 2) certain costs or revenues may increase at faster or slower rates; and 3)
limitations in the annual growth of the property tax levy will influence the net impact of annexation over
time. Actual future revenues and costs will be impacted by changing economic conditions, local policy
direction, state and federal budget decisions, changes in tax or fee rates, changes in levels of service, and
the pace and type of growth. The methods listed below reflect a set of assumptions that aim to
approximate future conditions based on historical information and projected growth. The financial
outputs from this method are therefore intended to highlight likely patterns if these underlying
assumptions remain valid. The results are not intended to predict the future with 100% certainty,
particularly if underlying assumptions (which include various market and economic conditions) change
significantly.
City Budget Overview
Overall, this financial analysis focuses primarily on general fund revenues and costs, and capital revenues
and costs. The project team used the City’s modified 2025-2026 biennium budget to establish a general
fund revenue and cost baseline. This modified budget accounts for recent changes in the City’s property
tax levy (following the City’s annexation to the South County Regional Fire Authority and associated
removal of the EMS levy) and other changes to the general fund. The budget notes that the City is in a
difficult financial position due to structural imbalances and service delivery costs rising faster than
revenues.
The team also used the City’s 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Program to understand planned capital
expenditures for parks and public works, as a basis for estimating a similar set of potential capital costs in
the Esperance area should annexation move forward.
The team’s approach to estimating the impact of annexing Esperance on these funds and cost categories is
described in more detail, below.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 26/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 26/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 22
Growth
To align this study with previous planning work by Snohomish County to plan for housing and jobs, the
team adopted the County’s current 2044 growth targets for the Esperance area. Housing development
and job growth was assumed to progress evenly over this period. This expected growth influences several
pieces of the financial model, including property taxes, sales taxes, and overall population which then
impacts the model’s per capital calculations in several places.
Staffing Implications
The project team engaged several City departments to understand how annexation may impact their
internal workflow and staffing needs, quantified in terms of full-time equivalent positions (FTE). These
estimates impact ongoing operational costs in the general fund, and may have initial one-time costs
associated with onboarding. Based on these conversations, several departments may need staffing
additions to maintain similar service levels to pre-annexation Edmonds levels of service. These potential
staffing additions include:
▪ Department of Public Works: 1 FTE
▪ Department of Parks, Recreation, and Human Services: 1.75 FTE
▪ Police Department: 5 FTE (4 police officers, 1 support staff)
The study assumes that incremental demands to other departments will be absorbed by existing staff,
including within Planning and Development Services, Finance, Information & Technology, Human
Resources, the City Clerk, communications, records management, code enforcement, and general
administration. Staffing considerations are ultimately a policy choice, and the assumptions driving this
study’s model may need to be re-evaluated in the future based on observed impacts to levels of service
following annexation. More information about how the study incorporated staffing assumptions into
different scenarios is described in the section on costs, below.
Revenues
The analysis includes the following ongoing revenues:
▪ General Fund revenues include the following: property tax, sales tax, amusement and utility taxes,
licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenues, charges for goods and services, and other
revenues. The analysis uses a 2022-2026 five-year revenue averages as a baseline for utility taxes,
licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenues, charges for goods and services, and other
revenues. This is intended to smooth out annual variations that result from economic changes, new or
expiring intergovernmental grants, or internal or external factors.
Property tax revenue is based on the total assessed value in Esperance and a projected levy rate
for the first year. There is a one-time increase in the total citywide assessed value as a result of
annexation, which impacts the total levy and therefore the levy rate. The model then assumes
that the levy amount increases 1% annually and assessed values increase annually by 6%. The
property tax revenue from new construction is added as well and the assessed value from new
construction is incorporated into the projected levy rate calculations.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 27/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 27/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 23
Sales tax includes revenue from online purchases and revenue generated by retail jobs. Sales tax
is collected at the point of sale, so households that become part of the City would contribute to
sales tax revenue from online purchases. This revenue is estimated using the City’s historical
sales tax revenue per capita and the estimated share of online sales.4 There are existing
businesses in the subareas that collect sales tax revenue; this would go to the City after
annexation. This revenue is estimated using taxable retail sales per city retail job and an
estimated share of retail jobs in the subarea.5 Annual growth in sales tax revenue is estimated at
1% in 2027 and 2028, and 2% for each year thereafter.
Sales tax from new construction is a less regular but still notable contribution to the general
fund. Sales tax is collected on the cost of services and materials associated with construction.
Estimated sales tax revenue from new construction is based on the estimated value of new
housing units. The value of new housing units increases annually by 6%, which is the estimated
annual increase in assessed value. Construction-related sales tax revenues are highly sensitive to
market conditions, including interest rates and the local and regional housing market, among
other things.
Amusement and utility tax revenues use per capita estimates based on current population and
assumed annual growth. For utility taxes, the team assumed a rate of 20% through 2028 (to
match the City’s recently adopted schedule), followed by a 10% rate for the remainder of the
study period. This applies to Esperance customers of the Olympic View Water and Sewer
District; the City has an interlocal agreement under which Olympic View makes payments to the
City in an amount equal to the amount that would be generated from utility taxes, at the City’s
current utility tax rate, if those tax rates were applied to Olympic View’s business within the
City. This study assumes an annual increase of 4% for these payments.
Licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenues, fees and charges, and other revenues are
calculated based on per capita estimates and current population. Revenues are assumed to grow
with the population. License and permit revenues increase annually by 5%, intergovernmental
revenues by 2%, charges for goods and services by 3%, and other revenues increase 2%.
▪ Street maintenance revenues include the transportation benefit district sales tax, license fees, and
the motor vehicle fuel tax (MVFT). Future MVFT revenues are assumed to remain flat due to the shift
toward more fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles. The current per capita MVFT revenue is
assumed going forward.6
The transportation benefit district sales tax is set at 0.1%, and the project team used a per capita
approach to estimate potential revenue from Esperance residents. License fees are estimated using
the City’s most recent baseline of license receipts. This baseline year was used to estimate the annual
number of total vehicles that pay the fee, which was then converted to a vehicles per population
ratio. This ratio was applied to estimated population growth in Esperance to produce future year
revenues.
4 The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that e-commerce sales in 2024 accounted for 16.1 percent of total retail sales,
https://www.census.gov/retail/ecommerce.html.
5 Based on data from Census on the Map, the share of retail jobs in the Esperance area is approximately 13%.
6 The State of Washington is evaluating alternatives to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax. If an alternative is implemented, jurisdictions
may receive more revenue than they currently receive from MVFT. Assuming a constant amount of MVFT revenue per capita is
a conservative approach.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 28/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 28/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 24
▪ Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue is a source of funding for capital projects. It is estimated as a
percentage of assessed value based on 2025 values to reflect current market activity.
Costs
Our analysis categorizes costs as operational (general fund) or capital (Capital Improvement Program
costs, street maintenance, etc). General fund costs are ongoing, and capital costs are typically one-time,
irregular / on demand, or project-based, with the exception of a more regular street maintenance
program. The methods for estimating these costs are described below, along with a qualitative discussion
of other cost considerations.
Ongoing Costs
Our analysis includes the following ongoing costs:
▪ General Fund costs incorporated in this analysis are based on the City’s 2026 modified budget.
Annexing the Esperance community impacts the general fund in two ways: (1) cost increases that are
directly related to population increases; and (2) cost increases that could occur if the City chooses to
maintain a particular level of service across one or more areas. To address category one, the project
team, in collaboration with City staff, identified general fund accounts that are directly impacted by
population growth, including several professional services and communications general fund
accounts. To address category two, the team created two general fund cost scenarios that show
different approaches to staffing, which is a general proxy for different choices around service levels
for the purpose of this study. These scenarios are:
Scenario 1 – no staff increase. This cost scenario assumes that the City would not hire additional
staff following annexation. The only general fund costs included are therefore the baseline,
growth-related costs described above. These costs were converted in a per capita rate and
applied to the Esperance population with corresponding growth factors each year.
Scenario 2 – limited staff increase. This cost scenario incorporates input from several City
departments about potential staffing needs to serve Esperance, with its characteristics and
4,500 people. These staff increases include:
▪ Department of Public Works: 1 FTE
▪ Department of Parks, Recreation, & Events: 1.75 FTE
▪ Police Department: 5 FTE (4 police officers, 1 support staff)
Together, these positions equal 7.75 FTE, which is converted to ongoing costs for salaries
(commensurate with position level) and benefits.
Moreover, this scenario factors in additional general fund costs that relate to an increase in
police officers and police-related activity. This includes costs associated with prosecution, public
defense, court filings, training, equipment, and other activities that could increase as a result of
more police patrol hours.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 29/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 29/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 25
These staff and staff-related costs are added to scenario 1’s base general fund cost assumptions.
Scenario 2 costs therefore reflect both population-related costs (from scenario 1) and staff-
related increases, which together creates a higher general fund cost level for scenario 2.
Capital Costs
Capital costs largely reflect transportation, facilities, stormwater and other infrastructure costs the City
may incur as a result of annexing Esperance. Some of these costs may be one-time, such as park
improvements to increase the level of service and level of amenities. Other costs may be more
generalized and/or irregular, such as potential costs to fix or upgrade stormwater facilities as needed.
Street maintenance and transportation costs are also included in this category, which involve everything
from overlay, to sidewalks, to upgrades to street design to meet City standards. County street standards
have been the basis of design for all streets in Esperance, resulting in a street network with limited curb,
gutter, sidewalks, and stormwater infrastructure. If incorporated into the City, street standards will be
consistent with the rest of Edmonds and will therefore require curb, gutter, sidewalks, and stormwater
infrastructure where those facilities are not present or not up to City standards.
The project team estimated these costs in several ways. First, the City’s Parks & Recreation Department
has done a preliminary assessment of needs for the Esperance Park should annexation move forward, and
estimated the associated one-time capital costs for improvements at $100,000. The project team adopted
this estimate and then applied an adjustment factor for follow-on years to reflect the need for a much
smaller level of capital support for the park, after the initial investment.
Second, the project team relied on the City’s 2026-2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to generate a
per capita level of existing City investment. Although the CIP does not include projects in Esperance, and
the City would likely need follow-on evaluations of Esperance infrastructure needs to inform future CIPs,
this per capita level of existing City investment is a useful proxy for potential future capital costs within
Esperance. If the City wishes to provide a similar level of service for stormwater and transportation in
Esperance, significant investment will be necessary to get Esperance to the same level of service.
However, this is simply a high-level estimate of overall capital costs, and a more detailed analysis of
Esperance area infrastructure needs – transportation and stormwater in particular – would be necessary
to more accurately calculate the costs associated with annexation.
Third, the team incorporated maintenance and operation costs for streets, which is based on the City’s
current expenditure per centerline mile and the number of centerline miles added through annexation. It
should be noted that the City’s current expenditures per centerline mile may not be sufficient to
adequately maintain existing assets over time. Should the City determine that greater funding is
necessary, the maintenance costs for Esperance assumed for this study will increase. From the study’s
current baseline, these maintenance costs were assumed to increase 2.5% annually.
One-Time Costs
There are other one-time costs regarding the annexation process that may impact the City’s budget, such
as legal fees and staff time managing the process. These one-time costs are not explicitly included in the
analysis, since they likely won’t impact the short- or long-term general fund outlook.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 30/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 30/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 26
Estimated Financial Impact
This study produced estimates for several timeframes within each cost scenario (no staff increase, and
limited staff increase). Detailed and summary results – shown below – provide a look at expected
revenues and costs in year 1, years 1 through 5, and years 6 through 15. The intent of these timeframes is
to show how a combination of assumptions around inflation, growth, and annual revenue/cost escalators
changes the magnitude of the net impact over time.
Overall, based on the modeled approach with the assumptions listed above, this study estimates a net
positive general fund impact from annexing Esperance, under both the no staff increase scenario and the
limited staff increase scenario. This largely results from assumptions around general fund costs, which
were limited to a selection of accounts that are most sensitive to changes in population. It also partly
reflects a deferral of a question about level of service; whether employing a similar level of staff and
spending a similar level of funds to serve 10% more population would decrease overall City level of
service, and if so, would the City choose to prevent that scenario through more general fund spending.
This study does not address that question, which means that these results do not estimate the cost of
allocating to Esperance a proportionate share of all existing City services provided to residents. The
general fund results therefore only speak to the assumptions and methods listed above.
General Fund Revenue
As discussed above, expected general fund revenues include property tax, sales tax, utilities tax, licenses
and permits, intergovernmental transfers, charges, and a set of other revenues. Property and sales tax
both include revenues from existing property and consumer activity, along with revenues from new
construction (which results primarily from growth). Exhibit 15 shows the breakdown of these revenue
categories by timeframe.
Exhibit 15: Estimated General Fund Revenues across Revenue Sources
Property Tax Sales Tax
Existing
New
Construction Retail
New
Construction Utilities*
Licenses &
Permits
Inter-
governmental Charges
Other
Revenues
Total
Revenue
Year 1 $908,000 $10,000 $283,000 $143,000 $1,193,000 $251,000 $193,000 $586,000 $295,000 $3,862,000
Year 1-5 $4,630,000 $52,000 $1,498,000 $808,000 $5,364,000 $1,411,000 $1,022,000 $3,163,000 $1,558,000 $19,505,000
Year 6-15 $9,980,000 $116,000 $3,780,000 $2,522,000 $14,661,000 $4,373,000 $2,527,000 $8,432,000 $3,854,000 $50,245,000
Sources: City of Edmonds; State of Washington; BERK 2026
*Note: Utility revenues assumes the equivalent of a 20% utility tax for year 1, followed by 10% for remaining study period
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 31/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 31/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 27
The study estimates that property and utility tax (in the form of transfers from Olympic View Water and
Sewer District, per the City’s interlocal agreement) will be the largest sources of revenue throughout the
study period, together comprising about 55% of all expected revenues from the Esperance area in year 1.
Sales tax contributes another 11%, and the remainder comes from the other revenue categories. The
share of the combined property tax and utility transfers are expected to decrease slightly to 49% during
the period from year 6 to year 15, which reflects differences in assumptions of inflationary factors for
these different revenue categories. Overall, the expected $3,862,000 in year 1 revenue is about 7.5% of
the City’s expected revenue from its modified FY 2026 budget.
General Fund Costs
Estimated general fund costs are quite different for each staffing scenario. The assumed base general
fund costs from annexation – which constitutes the entirety of scenario 1 – are just $76,000 in year 1,
rising to a combined $1,330,000 in years 6 through 15. Adding a limited number of new staff, with some
associated new general fund costs, increases the year 1 cost total to just over $1.8 million, and a combined
year 6 through 15 total of $24.9 million. Salary and benefits are the primary driver of the scenario 2
increase; however, the expected general costs that result from new staff also contribute a fair amount to
that scenario’s total. Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 17 show the estimated general fund cost breakdown.
Exhibit 16: Estimated General Fund Costs for Scenario 1 (No Staff Increases)
Baseline GF
Marginal Costs Additional Staff FTE New GF Costs (driven by
new staff) Total GF Costs
Year 1 $76,000 $0 $0 $76,000
Year 1-5 $429,000 $0 $0 $429,000
Year 6-15 $1,330,000 $0 $0 $1,330,000
Sources: City of Edmonds; State of Washington; BERK 2026
Exhibit 17: Estimated General Fund Costs for Scenario 2 (Limited Staff Increases)
Baseline GF
Marginal Costs Additional Staff FTE New GF Costs (driven by
new staff) Total GF Costs
Year 1 $76,000 $1,517,000 $247,000 $1,840,000
Year 1-5 $429,000 $7,974,000 $1,393,000 $9,796,000
Year 6-15 $1,330,000 $19,229,000 $4,315,000 $24,874,000
Sources: City of Edmonds; State of Washington; BERK 2026
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 32/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 32/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 28
Net General Fund Impact
The results for both scenarios show a net positive general fund impact in year 1 and across the entire
study period. However, the magnitude of this positive result is quite different, demonstrating the impact
that staffing decisions have on the financial picture associated with annexation. Staff and staff-related
costs are a large portion of the current City budget, and the study’s annexation model is therefore
sensitive to small changes in assumed staffing levels. In this case, an additional 7.75 FTE decreased the
annexation-related surplus by nearly 50%. However, with scenario 2 still showing a $2 million surplus in
year 1 and a cumulative $25.4 million surplus from years 6 through 15, there may still be some room for
addition staff should the City choose to explore other scenarios.
As noted, these results do not estimate the cost of allocating to Esperance a proportionate share of all
existing City services provided to residents. The City may wish to address that level of service question
during follow-on policy conversations. Ensuring a proportionate share of City services to Esperance –
which may entail a higher level of staffing increases, among other things – could lead to a higher estimated
cost to serve the newly annexed area.
Exhibit 18: Net General Fund Impact, Scenario 1 (No Staff Increase)
GF Revenues GF Costs GF Net Impact
Year 1 $3,862,000 $76,000 + $3,786,000
Year 1-5 $19,505,000 $429,000 + $19,076,000
Year 6-15 $50,245,000 $1,330,000 + $48,915,000
Exhibit 19: Net General Fund Impact, Scenario 2 (Limited Staff Increase)
GF Revenues GF Costs GF Net Impact
Year 1 $3,862,000 $1,840,000 + $2,022,000
Year 1-5 $19,505,000 $9,796,000 + $9,709,000
Year 6-15 $50,245,000 $24,874,000 + $25,371,000
Sales Tax Credit
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 33/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 33/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 29
In 2023, the Washington Legislature passed HB 1425, establishing a sales and use tax to support
municipal annexations. Per RCW 82.14.415, a city may apply to the State for the tax credit following an
annexation of an area with a minimum population of 2,000 residents. However, several other conditions
apply. First, per section (1)(a) of the authorizing RCW, the tax may only be imposed by a city if the city
determines by resolution or ordinance that the projected cost to provide municipal services to the
annexed area exceeds the projected general revenue on an annual basis. Second, the city must enter into
an interlocal agreement between the city and its neighboring county, as provided by RCW 35A.14.472,
RCW 35A.14.296, or RCW 35.13.470. Third, if the city is determined to be eligible, it may only impose a
0.1% additional sales tax for each annexed area with a population of at least 2,000 and a 0.2% credit for an
area with a population of at least 10,000. The maximum cumulative rate a city may impose is 0.2% if the
city annexes multiple eligible areas. Finally, cities may no longer initiate a new claim for the sales tax
credit after July 1, 2028. If eligible and initiated before that deadline, a city may collect distributions for
up to 10 years, subject to the additional conditions discussed below.
Esperance’s population of roughly 4,500 allows the City of Edmonds to apply the 0.1% credit for a period
of no more than 10 years from the date the tax is first imposed, or potentially a total of a 0.2% credit if the
City chooses to pursue two annexations of separate Esperance areas (assuming each area has at least
2,000 residents). However, the first two conditions listed above must still be satisfied in order to establish
eligibility for distributions.
All revenue collected from the sales tax credit may be used solely to provide, maintain, and operate
municipal services for the annexation area. The City would need to estimate the total revenue from the
annexation area and the total costs to serve the area on an annual basis to determine if there is an
operating deficit. The maximum amount the City could receive is the total operating deficit, capped by the
amount of the sales tax credit (i.e., the maximum revenue available under a 0.1% or 0.2% scenario).
Importantly, as noted, the state Department of Revenue (DOR) only distributes funds if costs to serve the
annexed area exceed revenues. No later than March 1st of each year, a City must provide DOR with a
certification of the City’s true and actual costs to provide municipal services to the annexed area for the
next fiscal year, notice of any applicable tax rate changes, and also a “threshold amount” that establishes
the point at which collected revenues from the annexed area equals the estimated costs to serve that
area. If the City begins the fiscal year showing an expected deficit to serve the annexed area, distributions
from the State continue until the City crosses the threshold amount or June 30, whichever is sooner.
Revenues generated by the tax in excess of the threshold amount belong to the state.
To estimate the total value of the sales tax credit, the team assumed a 1% growth in total taxable retail
sales for 2027 and 2028, followed by a 2% annual increase starting in 2029, in line with City assumptions
about sales tax revenue in the latest 2025-2026 budget. Exhibit 20 below shows the estimated maximum
revenue available under this program for each annexed area of 2,000 residents, regardless of City
eligibility. The City still needs to establish eligibility, and if the State authorizes distributions, actual
revenues will likely be less than the maximum amount available. If the City chooses to annex Esperance in
two phases, with each phase containing an area with at least 2,000 residents, the amounts in the table
below would double.
Exhibit 20: Estimated Maximum Annexation Sales Tax Credit Available from the State
Estimated Maximum Sales
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 34/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 34/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 30
Tax Credit Available
Year 1 $1,257,000
Year 1-5 $6,490,000
Year 6-10 $7,152,000
Sources: City of Edmonds; State of Washington; BERK 2026
Because this study’s net positive general fund estimate does not attempt to allocate a proportionate
share of the cost of municipal services to the Esperance community, the project team cannot say whether
or how much sales tax credit would be available to the City. There are legal questions about whether costs
typically categorized as capital costs – such as a bridge repair or replacement, or park improvements –
would count as eligible “municipal services” per the authorizing section of the RCW, which simply defines
“municipal services” as those services customarily provided to the public by city government. Additional
clarity on these issues may be important if the City’s annexation decision relies on its ability to use the
sales tax credit for items typically seen as capital costs.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 35/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 35/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 31
Capital Revenues and Costs
The study modeled five sources of capital revenue: real estate excise tax (REET), motor vehicle fuel tax,
transportation benefit district tax, license fees, and stormwater fees. Altogether, these are estimated to
bring in about $1,358,000 in year 1 following annexation. Stormwater fees – currently set at bimonthly
rate of $59.90 per housing unit in 2026 – are the largest contributor of capital revenue post-annexation,
followed by REET. Meanwhile, although the motor vehicle fuel tax will bring in substantial revenue in the
first several years, this revenue source may be less stable and reliable than the others in the long run as a
result of vehicle electrification and the State’s exploration of shifting from a gas tax to a vehicle miles
traveled fee.
Exhibit 21: Estimated Capital Revenues from Esperance
Real Estate
Excise Tax
Motor Vehicle Fuel
Tax
Transportation
Benefit District License Fees Stormwater
Fees
Year 1 $428,000 $78,000 $19,000 $156,000 $676,000
Year 1-5 $2,354,000 $396,000 $102,000 $793,000 $4,068,000
Year 6-15 $6,696,000 $843,000 $249,000 $1,687,000 16,215,000
Capital costs for stormwater and transportation are estimated using a per capita rate calculated from the
current CIP, with an adjustment factor. Transportation adds on overlay and maintenance costs, based on
the City’s average cost per centerline mile. For park costs, the team started with the $100,000 one-time
estimate from City staff for improvements to Esperance Park, and then added on a smaller level for
follow-on years.
The project team assessed the current status of the 84th Ave bridge in northern Esperance. Snohomish
County currently rates that bridge in “fair” condition per its latest bridge report from 2024, which places
it in a category that is not eligible for County funding. Although the bridge will likely require capital funds
for repair or possibly replacement at some point in the future, this study did not include those costs in the
6-year time-horizon presented below (to match the CIP cycle) since the County does not currently view
the bridge as in urgent need of capital repairs. The City may want to defer the annexation of the area
contain this bridge until it is able to: 1) perform an independent analysis of its condition; 2) estimate the
likely cost and timing of any needed repairs; and 3) confirm that funding is likely to be available for those
repairs when they are needed. A deferred annexation of the area surrounding the bridge would have the
co-benefit of creating a second annexation area, with its own potential 0.1% sales tax credit on top of the
0.1% sales tax credit from the first annexation area. The City would also want to analyze whether the
sales tax credit could be used to fund the bridge repairs.
Exhibit 22: Estimated Capital Costs for Esperance
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 36/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 36/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 32
Stormwater Transportation Parks
Year 1 $162,000 $216,000 $100,000
Year 1-6 (CIP Period) $930,000 $1,333,000 $137,000
Findings
General Fund
Under the modeled revenue, staffing, and marginal-cost assumptions, annexation of Esperance is
projected to produce a positive General Fund impact. Actual results will depend substantially on staffing
decisions, service level expectations, and costs not included in the model. These results reflect specific
assumptions about both revenues and costs – growth and stable economic conditions on the revenue side,
and a limited set of cost drivers to serve the newly annexed area. However, the cost assumptions may be
more sensitive than the revenue side, meaning that a slight change – e.g., in assumed staffing levels or
necessary City services – can create larger downstream effects on total costs. Annexation will produce
relatively consistent revenues from property tax, utility-related payments from Olympic View Water and
Sewer District, and sales tax. It is somewhat less clear whether this study’s cost assumptions will remain
reliable beyond the first several years, since the budget cycle is an annual opportunity to reassess service
levels, staffing, and policy priorities, all of which could change the City’s cost to serve the annexed area.
Sales Tax Credit
The City may be eligible for state distributions of the annexation-related sales tax to support the cost of
serving the Esperance area. The available amount could support several known needs, along with other
needs that would be identified following annexation. However, given the requirements and limitations
under the RCW, the City may only receive limited distributions each year (or possibly none at all) since
estimated revenues from annexation far exceed the cost of service. Once the City applies to DOR for
eligibility, it must submit documents annually that estimate revenues and costs and establish a threshold
amount. More conversations with DOR may be necessary to understand which costs are eligible under
the program, and how the state determines when distributions stop each year. Annexing Esperance in two
phases – assuming both phases could be completed before July 1, 2028 – would likely double the
maximum sales tax credit available to the City if the City is eligible for distributions.
Capital Revenues and Costs
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 37/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 37/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 33
This study estimates a moderately high level of capital revenues from REET and various transportation-
related sources. These revenues may be relatively stable in the short-term, but could face less certainty
over time, particularly the motor vehicle fuel tax. Capital costs, however, have a higher degree of
uncertainty, primarily because the City has not yet done a detailed assessment of capital needs in the
Esperance area. The County has no Esperance area transportation projects in their Annual Construction
Program, their 6-year IP, or the comprehensive plan’s transportation element. This does not necessarily
mean that capital needs in Esperance are low, but the City may need to conduct a more thorough review
of transportation and stormwater needs to understand the medium and long-term impact on capital
budgeting.
Impact on Esperance Residents
A change in jurisdiction brings the potential for financial impacts to residents of the annexed area. These
may include changes in tax rates, charges, and service costs, among others. For this study, the project
team assessed possible changes to a typical resident’s property tax, annual cumulative sales tax,
stormwater charges, and utility costs for water and sewer.
For property tax, the team calculated a current year estimate for a median detached single-unit home and
a median townhome, within an Esperance tax code area. For sales tax, the team estimated the sales tax
per capita based on the tax rate for unincorporated Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds.
Stormwater charges used annualized fees for the unincorporated county and the City. And utility costs
were based on the current base rate and usage charges from the Olympic View Water and Sewer District,
along with an additional fee on top that equals the City’s utility tax rate (with two estimates for the latter,
one at 20% and another at 10%).
Exhibit 23: Comparison of Annual Taxes and Costs for a Typical Resident of Esperance and Edmonds
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 38/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 38/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 34
Esperance Edmonds Difference
Median Detached Single-Unit
Property Tax (based on $821,700
median property value)
$6,485 $6,491 +$6
Median Townhome Property Tax
(based on $694,100 median
property value)
$5,478 $5,483 +$5
Sales Tax Per Capita $268 $295 +$27
Stormwater Charges $144 $359 +$215
Utility Costs (Water/Sewer) $1,161 $1,277 / $1,393* +$116 / +$232
Total (Single-Unit Property
Owner)
$8,058 $8,422 / $8,538 +$364 / $480
Total (Townhome Property
Owner)
$7,051 $7,414 / $7,530 +$363 / $479
Note: The utility cost estimate on the left reflects a reversion to a 10% utility tax after 2028, and the estimate on the right reflects
a continuation of the 20% rate.
Based on current property tax rates, the difference for a median property owner in Esperance and
Edmonds is small. The difference in cumulative annual sales tax is similarly small; the gap is entirely
related to the 0.1% transportation benefit district sales tax in Edmonds. The larger differences are for
stormwater charges and utility costs. The latter reflects the payments Olympic View Water and Sewer
District makes to the City per customer that lives in Edmonds, with the assumption that Olympic View
would pass those costs on to their customers in Esperance. The low estimate reflects a 10% Edmonds
utility tax rate, and the high estimate reflects a continuation of the City’s 20% utility tax.
Altogether, a typical Esperance resident could have $364 in additional costs per year on the low end, or
possibly $486 per year on the high end.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 39/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 39/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 35
Unknowns and Potential Risks
Growth Potential
Esperance has low residential and job capacity, given current zoning and land use characteristics. Despite
this limited capacity, Snohomish County has given the Esperance area a housing target that represents
about 82% of the area’s capacity, a fairly high assumption. This study has used the County’s target as the
basis for its growth assumptions that drive several important revenue estimates. However, it is possible
that growth will be more limited due to one of several factors: constrained land supply, limited demand for
redevelopment, or unfavorable market conditions. If slow growth happens, the revenues will be closer to
baseline levels adjusted for inflation factors.
Impacts on Service Levels
Both cost scenarios – no staff increase, and limited staff increases – could have an impact on city service
levels and responsiveness (either to the Esperance area specifically, or the City as a whole). The extent of
the impact may not be known until the City goes through one or more budget cycles. It may be important
to regularly assess various City functions across departments following annexation to understand how
the added population is impacting staff and services.
Specific Capital Needs
This study relied on a general estimate of capital costs for the Esperance area, with the exception of
improvements to Esperance Park. The 84th Ave bridge represents the largest potential capital cost in the
area. However, per recent County documents, the bridge may not require urgent repairs. It is not known
how soon the bridge may need capital funds, and other capital needs in the Esperance area are unknown
as well since the County does not currently have many Esperance area capital projects in County plans
(Esperance Park is the only prominent project mentioned in the CIP, and no area transportation projects
are located in County plans). This uncertainty means that there is a relatively higher level of risk
associated with capital needs, and the City may benefit from a more detailed assessment of area
infrastructure and a prioritization of needs.
Phasing Options
Pre-Annexation Zoning
▪ In advance of annexation, the City could consider a zoning study to support the conversion or
translation of County zones to City zones. This could result in the adoption of zoning regulations for
Esperance before the annexation is complete, which would aid the process of efficiently transitioning
the area to the City’s land use regulatory system. Part of this may include engaging with Esperance
residents to explain the purpose of the zoning changes and what if anything may change for their
neighborhoods.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 40/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 40/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 36
Interlocal Agreement Negotiations
▪ The City will need to engage Snohomish County to develop an interlocal agreement to coordinate the
transition of Esperance from County to City authority. Among other things, this agreement can set
the terms for the timing of the transfer of certain functions, such as permitting and development
review and capital projects and maintenance. It can also govern financial arrangements such as, in
some cases, mitigation payments or payments to support certain services or capital needs.
Other Financial Tools that Support Growth
This section describes other funding and financing tools that could support some future costs to serve the
Esperance area. These include:
▪ Impact Fees
▪ Tax Increment Financing
▪ Local Improvement Districts
▪ Latecomer Agreements
Impact Fees
Impact fees are authorized for use by cities, towns, and counties planning under the Growth Management Act (see RCW 82.02.050-110
and WAC 365-196-850).
Impact fees are one-time charges assessed to new development projects that attempt to recover the cost
incurred by a local government. This provides the public facilities required to serve new development.
Impact fees may only be imposed for public facilities included in a capital facilities plan and are designed
to provide service to areas within the community at large, such as transportation, parks and recreation,
school, and fire protection facilities. Impact fees cannot be used as the sole funding source for public
improvements and must be used in conjunction with other sources of public funds. Importantly, impact
fees must also be reasonably related to the new development and its impact on public facilities.
Impact fee rates are determined by local governments based on factors such as the cost of public facilities
required to serve new development, inflation indexing to account for changing costs, and the availability
of other public funding sources. Impact fees are generally paid before construction of proposed
development begins. Upon developer request, local governments may provide deferrals for new single-
family detached and attached residential construction up to 18 months from when the construction
permit was issued. Local governments may also provide exemptions, waivers, or reductions for certain
types of development such as affordable housing or day care. In general, impact fees must be expended or
encumbered within 10 years of collection.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
TIF is authorized for use by cities, towns, counties, port districts, or any combination of these local governments (see RCW 39.114).
Through TIF, local governments designate an increment area where property taxes on the increases in
assessed value (i.e., the increment above the baseline assessed value at TIF creation) are used to pay for
public infrastructure improvements. Increases in assessed value within an increment area are not subject
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 41/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 41/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 37
to the 1% levy limit. These public improvements, which can be inside and/or outside the increment area,
directly support potential new development and may also benefit other properties inside the increment
area. There are several restrictions for the creation of TIF districts, including the allowable number per
jurisdiction, the overall size (in terms of assessed value), and the duration of the program (a maximum of
25 years from the first year when tax allocation revenues are collected from the increment area).
TIF legislation in Washington State was passed in 2021. Prior to 2021, the State had already adopted
several programs similar to TIF, but more limited in scope than the current legislation (see box on the next
page for the example of Community Revitalization Financing). In 2023, the TIF legislation was amended to
address relocation or reconstruction of a facility with TIF and to specify additional notice requirements
for a TIF ordinance. In 2024, ordinance requirements were added to address impacts to public hospital
and emergency services and fire services. In 2025, the TIF legislation was amended to allow for TIF areas
of greater valuation ($200 million to $500 million) for larger cities of 150,000-170,000 in counties of over
1.5 million residents (i.e. King County). TIF is often most effective in areas with high redevelopment
potential that would, upon completion of redevelopment, increase assessed property values.
Local Improvement Districts
LIDs may be formed in cities, towns, counties, or other local governments (see RCW 35.43-56 which addresses LID processes for cities).
LIDs are specific geographical districts where property owners benefiting from capital improvements
finance the cost of these improvements through special property assessments. The local jurisdiction
undertakes all aspects of design, financing, and construction of improvements and sells bonds to provide
cash for the project, which are repaid by property owners within the LID when construction of the
improvements is complete or nearing completion. The duration of the LID varies from project to project,
depending on the bond repayment period.
A LID may be formed through a resolution of intent initiated by a legislative body, or by a petition initiated
by property owners. Under the resolution of intent method, the LID is prevented from continuing if 60%
or more of property owners based on the dollar value of assessments in the LID protest the formation of
the LID.
Jurisdictions may choose any method to determine the LID assessment per parcel, as long as: (1) the LID
assessment per parcel does not exceed the difference between the fair market value of the property
before and after the improvement; (2) LID assessments are proportionate to one another; and (3)
properties not benefiting from the improvements are not assessed.
Latecomer Agreements
Latecomer agreements can be formed in cities, towns, counties, and water-sewer districts (see RCW 35.72, 35.91, and 57.22).
Latecomer agreements (also known as recovery contracts, developer reimbursement agreements, or
assessment reimbursement contracts) allow property owners who have installed street and/or utility
improvements to recover a portion of the original improvement costs from other property owners in the
area who develop later. The improvements must be required in ordinance as a condition for property
development.
Unlike LIDs which reimburse the local jurisdiction, latecomer agreements reimburse property owners
who contributed to the original cost of the improvements. In addition, latecomer assessments are only
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 42/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 42/44
August 7, 2026 City of Edmonds | Esperance Annexation Study 38
triggered if a property owner submits an application for development within the reimbursement period,
while LID assessments apply to all properties within the LID area regardless of if the property is
developed.
In general, the process of establishing a latecomer agreement begins by formulating an assessment
reimbursement area, informing property owners in the proposed assessment area which includes the
opportunity for property owners to request a hearing, then recording the contract with the county
auditor’s office. Reimbursements are calculated based on the benefit of the improvements to the property
owner. Local jurisdictions can join in on the financing and receive reimbursement in street and utility
latecomer agreements. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is also authorized
to participate in street latecomer agreements.
Summary
Exhibit 24 provides a summary of these financing tools including their opportunities and limitations.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 43/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 43/44
August 6, 2026
39
Exhibit 24: Summary of Financing Tools
Tool Opportunities Limitations
Tax increment financing enables local jurisdictions to finance
public improvements with “increment” property tax revenues
gains from development in designated increment areas, which
are areas where public improvements are expected to
encourage private development. An increment area can last for
a maximum of 25 years.
TIF revenues can be used for debt service, which can enable
public improvement projects to start sooner.
TIF revenues may increase by more than 1% per year since
increases in assessed value within a designated increment area
are not subject to the 1% levy limit.
TIF does not require approval from other taxing districts, unlike
previous TIF-type programs.
Revenue captured from “increment” assessed value may not be
sufficient to finance entire projects. The use of TIF may need to be
packaged with other funding sources.
Increment gains are dependent on the intensity of development,
which may be less viable in a high-interest rate environment.
Added costs to the local jurisdiction to administer the TIF.
Impact fees subsidize the cost of public improvements through
fees assessed on new development. Impact fees typically
support transportation, parks, schools, and fire protection
facility improvements. Impact fees generally must be used
within 10 years of collection.
High-growth areas can produce significant and sustained revenue
to recover costs of public facilities. This may also decrease the
need for public dollars in budget-constrained environments.
Support build-out of planned improvements from capital facilities
plans.
Impact fee collection depends on the pace and consistency of
development. There may be large variations in fees year over
year, depending on market conditions.
There may be a timing gap between fee collection and public
improvement construction that impacts the feasibility and
affordability of public improvements.
Revenue captured from impact fees cannot finance entire
projects.
Local improvement districts (LIDs) enable local jurisdictions to
issue debt for public improvements that is repaid by property
owners directly benefiting from the improvements. LIDs
typically support transportation and utility improvements. The
duration of the LID depends on the repayment period of the
bonds, such as 10 years.
Long-term financing option for public improvements at relatively
lower interest rates.
Spreads improvement costs among benefiting property owners in
the LID area.
Does not depend on increasing the assessed value of land to
generate revenue.
Added costs to the local jurisdiction to administer the LID, as
contracts are required to be designed and awarded by cities.
The process to authorize a LID requires buy-in from property
owners.
Though local jurisdictions can borrow money at lower interest
rates compared to developers, jurisdictions would still face higher
financing costs (and less money for projects) in a high-interest
rate environment.
Latecomer agreements reimburse the costs of a public
improvement project over time from new developers in the
area. Typically, latecomer agreements are formed between
private first-in developers and future developers, with the local
jurisdiction acting in a facilitating role, for street and utility
improvements. Latecomer agreements may extend to a
maximum of 15 years for street agreements and 20 years for
utility agreements.
Addresses the “first in” challenge, as early developers are not
solely or mostly responsible for improvement costs.
Spreads improvement costs among benefiting property owners in
the assessment reimbursement area.
Does not depend on increasing the assessed value of land to
generate revenue.
Assessments only triggered after a development application,
which could lead to unpredictable and delayed reimbursement.
Adds costs to development after the initial agreement, which
could disincentivize some projects.
There are still large up-front costs for first-in developers, which
could impact the feasibility and affordability of financing
improvements.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 44/44
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 44/44