.png){kind=logo}
In 1955, Medina’s residents voted to incorporate their community as a city, declaring “independence” from the newly booming city of Bellevue. Their goal was to preserve “local character,” a quote directly from Medina’s charter, and break free from the urbanization and density Bellevue represented. Medina’s founders believed that self-governance would protect their peace, their property values, and their way of life. Seventy years later, that independence has become a burden they can’t afford.
Despite boasting some of the highest property values in Washington, as the average home now sells for over $2.5 million within city limits, Medina’s property-tax rate of about $0.69 per $1,000 of assessed value (roughly 0.069 % of market value) is among the very lowest in the state. The city is, thus, speedily running out of money. Even though billionaires like Bill Gates live behind its hedges, Medina has found itself unable to fund its own police department, road maintenance, or stormwater infrastructure without asking residents for tax hikes.
In practice, while Medina remains an independent city, it depends heavily on Bellevue: for example, the city contracts with the City of Bellevue Fire Department to provide fire and emergency services under a service-fee arrangement where Medina pays a share based on Bellevue’s total fire-service cost. And in Medina’s 2025 budget, fire and medical service fees paid to Bellevue account for approximately $935,000 of intergovernmental payments (about 10 % of Medina’s General Fund & Street Operations spending).
The “richest town in Washington” is paradoxically broke.
The problem is, unfortunately, not unique to Medina. Neighboring enclave towns like Clyde Hill, Yarrow Point, and Hunts Point were also formed to escape Bellevue’s growth and governance, and in doing so, they too severed themselves from the revenue streams and economies of scale that make full-service cities sustainable. Today, these micro-cities depend on the city of Bellevue for essentials like water, fire, and emergency response, yet keep their own tax rates artificially low, enjoying the perks of big-city infrastructure without paying the full cost of independence.
This arrangement might have made sense in the 1950s, when “local control” (another quote from Medina’s charter) meant keeping suburban life quiet and predictable. However, in 2025, that local control is simply inequitable and unfair for Bellevue’s residents.
If Medina and its neighbors can’t afford to exist without Bellevue’s backbone, the logical question is: why remain separate at all? The Eastside doesn’t need a patchwork of miniature city halls pretending to be sovereign while riding on Bellevue’s infrastructure. It needs unity, and a regional system where wealthier communities carry their share of the weight, rather than passing the bill to others.
After all, independence loses its meaning when you can’t even afford to stand on your own.
