In a pair of Dec. 19 letters to Edmonds Mayor Mike Nelson, South County Fire Acting Chief Robert Eastman and South County Fire Board Chair Micah Rowland put Edmonds on notice that the agency intends to terminate the current interlocal agreement for fire and EMS services effective Dec. 31, 2025.
While the present contract between the city and South County Fire still has seven years remaining, a key provision allows either party to terminate by giving the other two years’ notice. With the receipt of these letters, the two-year clock is now ticking, giving Edmonds until the end of 2025 to put in place a new plan for fire and EMS services.
The current 20-year contract was executed in 2010. Since that time a range of factors — including increased traffic, higher density, population growth and higher labor costs (largely the result of new labor contract agreements) — have driven up the cost of providing these services.
Partially to gain the necessary flexibility to remain financially sound as costs increase, South County Fire in 2017 reorganized into what is now the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Authority (RFA). As a fire authority, the agency can be funded directly through property taxes rather than receive payment from the individual jurisdictions that contract for fire and EMS services. In essence, this means that property owners would fund the RFA directly, rather than pay taxes to the city, which would use these funds to pay for emergency and fire services from the RFA. To move from an individual contract to being part of the RFA, voters in each jurisdiction need to approve this change.
Edmonds maintained its own fire department until 2009. Then, in an effort to cut costs, the city council decided to sell city equipment and transfer fire personnel to what was then known — prior to the fire authority’s creation — as Snohomish County Fire District 1. Edmonds joined the cities of Brier, Mill Creek and Mountlake Terrace in contracting with Fire District 1 for these services. In recent years, all jurisdictions in the fire authority’s service territory agreed to be annexed to the RFA (unincorporated areas became part of the RFA by default) with the exception of two cities: Mukilteo, which operates its own fire department, and Edmonds, which contracts with South County Fire.
In his letter to Mayor Nelson, Acting Chief Eastman said that as South County Fire costs have continued to increase, “better strategic planning needs to be supported by stable funding.” While fire and EMS costs are rising and putting a strain on the city’s budget, Edmonds still is “paying less for service under the current contract than the rest of the RFA,” he said. “South County Fire is committed to providing rate parity moving forward, so everyone we serve pays the same rate for the same service.”
The issue of increasing costs for fire and EMT services is not new, and in 2016 – after receiving an unexpectedly large $1.6 million invoice for fire and EMT services – Edmonds contracted with Fitch and Associates to study the issue, develop options and make recommendations for how the city should proceed (see Fitch’s 2016 presentation to council here). In its final report, Fitch concluded that Edmonds could cut costs while improving fire and EMS services, and the council voted in 2017 to amend the interlocal agreement between the two entities to change the staffing model. The amended agreement reduced the total number of firefighters on duty at any given time from 11 to nine, with the goal of saving an estimated $1.4 million annually.
But in 2021, the council agreed to pay the fire authority an additional $1.5 million annually to rectify what the RFA identified as a service imbalance between Edmonds and neighboring cities.
Earlier this year, the city council approved a resolution to explore the benefits of annexing to the RFA, and in November voted to again contract with Fitch — at a cost of $44,500. (See scope of work here.) The intent is to have Fitch evaluate the current fire service delivery models and the efficacy of the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) proposal and also to review the pros and cons of returning to an internal fire department or a potential contractual relationship with another provider.
Upon receipt of this week’s letter informing him and the city of the fire authority’s intent to terminate the contract, outgoing Mayor Nelson immediately responded. In an email to My Edmonds News, the mayor accused the city council of “losing our fire department” and deriding its decision to “waste time and money” on hiring the same consultant to further study the issue of annexing to the RFA. Nelson stressed the critical importance of maintaining these services at a high level, concluding that “scraping the bottom of the barrel for fire and EMS services is a risk we cannot afford.”
In a statement regarding the matter, Councilmember Jenna Nand said she disagrees “with the mayor’s statement that we will be ‘losing our fire department’ due to the actions of city council,” adding she believes “that this inaccurate claim will cause confusion and consternation among the public at a time when public safety is of paramount importance to Edmonds.
“By providing us with two years notice of the intent to terminate Edmonds’ contract for fire services, the RFA is signaling that they would like us to come to a final resolution about whether we wish to be annexed into the RFA or seek fire services elsewhere within the next two years,” Nand said.
— By Larry Vogel and Teresa Wippel
This may impact Edmonds property tax in a significant way. I did some research when our Lynnwood council was debating a recent property tax increase here. I compared my Lynnwood rate vs. Edmonds for a house of similar value. Edmonds property tax was twice mine, but my overall tax bill was still $800 higher because of RFA fees.
Typical
Raise the building height limits
Increase tax base and provide services.
Vote out woke politicians
Hire fire and police.
Fire worthless council members
I was warned that this would happen by a friend in the know. I suspect Mayor Nelson and others knew as well. It’s a move to force us into the more expensive RFA. It’ll be tempting for the City, because it’ll make their books look better, but it’ll really harm the taxpayers. The taxpayers need to speak up loudly.
The current contract provides a subsidy to the city at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers of the RFA. It’s fundamentally unfair given the large cost increases over the past few years and is unsustainable into the future. So in that sense, the contract is already harming taxpayers -just those outside of Edmonds. The alternative choices to joining the RFA are unpalatable because they will likely both cost more and require a significant reduction in service level (ie. longer response times for emergencies with fewer responders – literally gambling with people’s lives).
-South County Union Firefighters
If this is the case, then why not renegotiate the contract rather the terminating it? Something else is at play here.
Hi Jim,
As in all of the other municipalities who currently constitute the RFA, a renegotiated contract is not on the table.
To my understanding, the RFA has decided that contracts aren’t beneficial or fair to all the municipalities it serves. It might benefit Edmonds, but at the expense of others in the region. Fairness is all that is at play as far as I’m aware.
-South County Union Firefighters
Zack, All the stakeholders involved want to have high quality services at a reasonable and fair cost. Unfortunately, the Union Firefighters getting mixed in one-sided hyper-partisan politics this past election hurt your credibility, alas eroded some trustworthiness.
Robert, what would be your position if you were on the opposite end of this scenario? Say Edmonds was part of the RFA (not a contract city) and all the other cities were contract cities paying far less for the same service would you be upset if your taxes were subsidizing the rest of the service area?
This is why Nelson, Paine, and Eck, were aggressively endorsed by the Firefighter’s Union. Follow the money. It’s always about the money.
I wasn’t endorsed by the firefighters union this time around. Maybe the firefighters union makes endorsements because their members have opinions about the health and safety of our communities? They are on the front lines, as first responders.
If PACS that are controlled by management and shareholders can make endorsements and campaign donations in election campaigns, why not unions? What is wrong with workers wanting a seat at the table?
What options are left? The mayor and city council botched this and we’ll be on the hook with higher taxes or terrible emergency services
Brian, how is it bad that the firefighters are wanting to support people in support of public safety? I think it’s crucial in a time when we are in a public safety crisis. Look where supporting candidates who were against public safety got us.
Eric, are you saying that the other candidates were weak on public safety including our new mayor? Of course, that’s utter nonsense. Firefighter candidates were also endorsed by the 32nd district Democrats This was a partisan play, and it was about the money. Merry Christmas.
Brian,
I can tell you as the person who met with and interviewed each of the candidates that our union endorsed that money was the last thing on my mind. We endorse people who understand our issues and can be fair and open to discussion about the impact their decisions have on our members. We’re willing to put our money, and labor, where our mouths are in defense of the candidates we select.
Council member Nand seems to understand these issues pretty well, and maybe if we’d had a chance to meet prior to the election we would have supported her too. But then I suspect she’d just be getting shade for that endorsement instead of her “wokeness”.
A constituent reached out to council to ask whether anyone in the city had “advanced notice” of the RFA’s intent to provide notice of termination to the City of Edmonds..
I just wanted to remind everyone that we have a contractual relationship with the RFA that either party was at liberty to provide notice of termination on when they wished.
Any speculation that anyone in the city had “advanced notice“ is unsupported by the evidence, as far as I’m aware. Since I am someone who was raised in a union household and has great respect for our firefighters and emergency first responders, it certainly came as a shock to me.
Jenna, it really didn’t take a lot of clairvoyance to figure it out a pending contract termination with certain candidate’s firefighter endorsements on their signage all over town, and why would the union be asserting themselves into local politics. I’m a former Teamster, and have friends that have firefighters, none those things are relevant. I guess as usually is the case, we’ll trust you to do the best you sincerely can, trying to figure things out.
Brian, I’m just a 39-year-old millennial who serves on my city council, which is a part time job. Again, I don’t understand why everyone is so upset at my existence.
Happy holidays!
Jenna, we’re not “upset at my existence” but instead alarmed with your politics. You have stated you’re an activist and we have observed what an activist city council has done to the City of Seattle over the last decade. Our concern is that your activism will impact your decisions as a member of the City Council.
Jenna my friend, Edmonds City Council should’ve had advance notice of this decision by the Fire District (RFA) board. On Sept. 26th, City Council approved Resolution 1561 expressing interest (but not commitment) in annexing to the RFA. So it should not come as a surprise that the RFA board has discussed that issue in recent weeks.
Some weeks ago, I spoke with a Fire Commissioner who confirmed that they would indeed send this termination letter to Edmonds by the end of this year, thus taking a step to prod the city into annexing to the RFA. This was no secret; it was knowledge openly available to anyone following the business of the RFA.
RFA policy is that elected officials talk to elected officials, and staff talks to staff~ the RFA has kept in contact with Edmonds’ mayor and/or staff, or at least I’ve been so assured. Advance notice existed, so It’s unfortunate that you and City Council were not informed. Under our new Mayor Rosen, I believe City Hall will operate in a more transparent manner.
This issue of annexing to the RFA is complicated and confusing, and it’s going to take much civic conversation to arrive at a sound decision. The MEN article above by Larry and Teresa is a good overview of the current situation.
Roger:
Do you know why the RFA now has an Acting Chief.
I asked about that — Chief Thad Hovis is on leave but will be back after the first of the year. — Teresa
Thank you for that additional background, Roger. I was aware of the ratcheting up of tension between the different bodies of electeds, that I had no advanced knowledge if or when the notice of termination would happen. I can only speak for myself as one of seven council members, and certainly not on behalf of any of the more senior council members or the mayor.
There are two citizens in town who really understand the history of how our fire service got to where it’s at and why. These people are Darrol Haug and Ken Reidy. Mr. Haug is one person who really understands the ramifications of what the RFA wants to get us to do in relation to how we receive their services. They want us to become full members of the RFA, rather than contracting their services, so they can essentially lower the rates of their current members while practically speaking making ours higher in the form of property taxation. At least that is my simple understanding of the situation. Mr. Haug will correct me if I’m wrong about any of this. My real point here is that our new Council and Mayor would be wise to seek these two citizens’ input on all the ramifications of what RFA is doing here, in order to make the best decisions for us. Two alternative options would be bringing back our own fire dept. (my preference if we are going to pay a bunch more anyway) or contract with Shoreline or maybe even Mukilteo which have their own departments. This is a big deal; and a real test for our new leadership in 2024.
Clint, there may be knowledgeable citizens on this topic. But…. City Council just hired a consultant. My comment is only partially tongue in cheek. After complaining for 2 months about the amount of money spent by Parks and Planning Directors on consultants in 2023, the city council spent their 2023 contingency funds on their own consultant.
I agree that this choice on how to provide fire/EMS service starting in 2026 is a test of City leadership.
Hopefully the hiring of a consultant doesn’t take away listening to the inputs of very knowledgeable citizens.
Why would shoreline want to “partner” with or bail out Edmonds when Edmonds is in another county, pays a ton less in taxes than shoreline and king county residents do, pay less for their homes, and send a ton of their kids to shoreline school district schools! I moved to shoreline to raise my kids for the emergency services and schools. I knowingly paid more for my house and taxes for a better life for my kids. It’s also why we left queen anne/seattle.. schools are horrible, crime and politics i won’t even comment on.. we left seattle before that mess exploded thank god.. Time to pay the piper and start carrying your own water. Literally. Happy holidays. It’s high house fire, windstorm season. So pray you get pd or fd to come to your house if you need them.
Pete, I’m not advocating contracting with Shoreline or not. Obviously, if Shoreline City didn’t see such a thing as a win-win financially with Edmonds, they shouldn’t and most likely wouldn’t accept it. In fact, I agree with you that it’s time for Edmonds to, “pay the piper,” and start carrying our own water. I think Edmonds’ Mayor and Council, at the time, made a huge mistake giving up local control of fire to supposedly save a couple million $’s. That set the stage for what’s happening now. What they should have done was determine the level of service that could be sustained on a per capita basis for the people of Edmonds with the funding available at the time; told the people what they were going to get for their money, and offered to put a tax levy on the ballot to see if people wanted a higher level of service and were willing to pay for it. Instead, the short sighted, magic working, bean counters sold a bill of goods to the Mayor and Council for giving up local control; they did it, and here we are. If we weren’t trying to build glorious parks and walkways on the beach, we could probably actually afford the basics; like Fire and sidewalks and park maintenance,
Following are links to older articles that provide some history for those interested:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2014/09/surprise-city-edmonds-gets-1-67-million-bill-fire-district-1/
https://myedmondsnews.com/2014/10/improve-communication-on-contract-expenses-councilmembers-tell-fire-district-1/
https://myedmondsnews.com/2014/10/fire-district-1-chief-says-retroactive-pay-amount-expected/
https://myedmondsnews.com/2016/12/fire-service-contract-draws-crowd-to-council-chambers-2017-city-budget-approved/
Following is an excerpt from one comment made by Ron Wambolt in 2014:
An RFA introduces the not-remote possibility of double taxation for fire services. When Edmonds joined the Regional Library District some years ago, their taxes did not go down when the district started collecting taxes from them.
The following is from Mayor Mike Nelson’s budget message for 2024:
Nothing is more important than protecting your health and safety. The City has had a contract for many years with South County Fire for Paramedic/EMS and Fire Services. Unfortunately, the cost of these fire services is increasing at an unsustainable rate. In the last two years, it has increased approximately $4 million. We brought this to the attention of the City Council but a majority of them have refused to take action. Without Council action soon, we risk losing fire and emergency medical services to our community. It is my belief that you, the voters, should have a say on this critical lifesaving service. I wanted to alert our residents to this important issue and remain hopeful Council will start working on this in the coming months.
$4 Million is roughly a 50% increase over 2 to 3 years.
The following was published September 27, 2023:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/09/council-oks-resolution-to-explore-regional-fire-authority-annexation-hears-salary-report/
I agree 100% with the notion of double taxation for RFA. In my mind, most Fire Districts do nothing to control costs. They just ride the annual escalating property tax bandwagon. 80% of fire service calls are for EMT. Why shouldn’t communities have private EMT services rather than pay the outrageous ‘bundled’ cost of fire and emt property taxes? Lake Forest Park and Kenmore residents pay $328 per resident per year for fire/emt services. Medina residents pay at $224 per capita and Clyde Hill residents pay $204 per capita for fire/ems contracts with Bellevue. The City of Fircrest pays $110 per capita to Tacoma Fire Department, and the City of Steilacoom pay $113 per capita to Pierce County Fire and Rescue. Why do Lake Forest Park and Kenmore residents pay such a huge premium? What do Edmonds residents pay per capita? Why not change the conversation to per capita costs rather than annual property tax costs? Why not think out of the box and contract for EMT and fire services separately – and manage costs on a per capita basis, just like you budget police on a per capita basis?
Bill that is factually incorrect, because no two houses pay the same rate it’s all variable based on home value not a fixed amount as you’re suggesting in your post. King County Residents pay EMS fees to King County Medic One(not
Private) for paramedic services. For example our friends in Lake Forest Park based on their home value pay $272.40 to King County Medic One and they pay $719.27 to Shoreline Fire for Fire and Basic EMT services. The thing is with Paramedic Service through King County Medic one is they are a regional service and they only have a certain amount of medic units roughly around 10 to cover the whole North/East King County (Shoreline/ Kenmore/ Bothell/ Woodinville/ Eastside Fire/ Kirkland/ Redmond/ Bellevue/ Snoqualmie Pass). They pay around $991.67. A similar house in the RFA pays $1,225.54 but South County Fire offers so many more services and close Paramedic Services compared to King County.
Eric-
that’s precisely the problem. Taxes on assessed valuations are not used to fund police departments – and they should not be used to fund Fire and EMT operations. 80% of Fire/EMT service calls are for emergency medical responses. Those responses are 100% population-based. Taxpayers should be demanding that Fire Districts demonstrate more efficiencies in operations every year – and should be demanding that 80% of those services be paid for on a per capita basis – since medical services are population-based. Why are your friends in Lake Forest Park paying for two medic services (King County Medic One and Shoreline Fire District)? That makes no sense at all. Again – if 80% of service calls are for medic services that should be a population-based fee, not a tax on assessed value. You seem to be promoting South County Fire. Are you with South County Fire?
Update: 10 Medic Units to cover the cities of Bothell, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, Woodway, Woodinville, Duvall, Carnation, Snoqualmie, Sammamish, North Bend, Fall City, Preston, Snoqualmie Pass, Kirkland, Redmond, Bellevue, Medina, Clyde Hill, and Mercer Island.
South County Fire has 11 Medic units in the RFA itself.
Eric
the question is -how many EMT medic units and how many EMT professionals are needed per 1,000 people? Fire/EMT district revenues are derived from property taxes based on assessed values, but the question is , why? There’s no reason, other than the historical precedent of using Fire and EMT taxes as an easy ‘out’ for fire departments, so they don’t have to justify their annual operating costs. I’m suggesting that it’s time to put Fire and EMT operations under the microscope every year – and make them answer to taxpayers and be more efficient – rather than just allowing them to get a free ride on ever-increasing assessed valuations. EMT service calls reflect 80% of the fire department calls and they are 100% population based, and not correlated to land values, or size of house, apartment vs. single family residence, or any other real estate assessed valuation factor. Fire and EMT department budgets are out of control, and radical budgeting surgery is required.
The problem with hiring “consultants” is that they tend to want to dance really close with “the ones that brought them to the Ball.” This is sort of similar to when defense attorneys hire “expert” witnesses. Our city government has a history of hiring “expert” witnesses while ignoring local knowledge that can be had for nothing or next to it. Why buy Darrol Haug, Joe Scordino, Ken Reidy, Jim Olganowsk or Theresa Hollis a cup of coffee or schooner of beer; when you can pay some consultant, with a vested interest, a couple hundred K to tell you what you may just want to hear?
Well said! Someone who gets it!
I believe that tonight (early tomorrow) at around 2 AM marks the three year anniversary of the fire shown in the photo from 2020, if memory serves. I remember it quite well. Meanwhile, trivia aside, Merry Christmas and many New Years of safety for fire fighters and the citizens they keep safe.