The Edmonds City Council took a first step Tuesday toward deciding how the city will receive fire and emergency services when one of the council’s three committees recommended a draft resolution that Edmonds join the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Authority (RFA).
The recommendation came from Neil Tibbott, chair of the public safety-planning-human services-personnel (PSPHSP) committee, and committee member Chris Eck. It followed a presentation by two officials from Fitch and Associates, a consulting firm the council hired last year to analyze fire and emergency services (EMS) options for Edmonds.
Joining the RFA is one of three options the council is considering, and Tibbott stressed on Tuesday that the committee’s recommendation starts “a transparent public process among councilmembers regarding this resolution. This is our opportunity for us to discuss openly what we found in the [Fitch] report and any questions that we have as well any observations that are important to the decisions before us.”
The committee’s draft resolution on the preferred alternative will go to the full city council for deliberations May 21. If approved by the council, it would authorize Mayor Mike Rosen to “begin going down the track of getting either the information or identifying what that process is,” Tibbott said. “We are not obligating the city to any particular option at this point and we’re not discontinuing any further public dialogue or input.”
Tibbott also noted that the council has been studying the fire services issue for 10 months. “We’re not making a quick, knee-jerk selection,” he said.
Edmonds had its own fire service until 2010, when financial pressures related to operating the fire department convinced the Edmonds City Council to contract with South County Fire (then known as Fire District 1). The fire district in 2017 reorganized into what is now the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Authority. 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 to fund emergency and fire services. To move from an individual contract to being part of the RFA, voters in each jurisdiction need to approve this change. So far, the cities of Lynnwood, Mill Creek, Brier and Mountlake Terrace have voted to join the RFA.
In December 2023. South County Fire sent a two-year termination notice to the City of Edmonds, noting that Edmonds still is “paying less for service under the current contract than the rest of the RFA.” Edmonds currently pays South County Fire $12 million annually, and fire and emergency medical services costs are a concern due to recent city budget challenges.
The council has been considering three options proposed by Fitch: joining the RFA, contracting with the Shoreline Fire Department for services or restarting Edmonds’ own fire department.
Bruce Moeller of Fitch and Associates noted that forming an Edmonds Fire Department would result in annual costs of $19.2 million, with the bulk of that going to personnel. In its report, Fitch said that the city would need to hire 51 firefighters and five adminstrators. Nationally, “recruitment and retention has continued to be a problem in many areas,” Moeller said. Fitch recommended that the city offer wages and benefits that are comparable to what South County Fire provides, otherwise the city will experience “a revolving door” of staff turnover.
The cost for personnel alone is just over $13 million annually, plus $6.7 million required for capital equipment such as fire trucks and ambulances. Also factoring into the cost is debt service for any required fire station relocation or repairs (Edmonds retained ownership of the fire stations), construction and other capital equipment — for a total of $2.2 million annually. The city would receive an estimated $1 million annually in ambulance billing revenue.
There would also be city administrative costs associated with human resources, finance and payroll, Moeller said.
Another challenge for the city in starting its own department would be the delay in acquiring fire apparatus. Moeller said that “24 to 36 months is not unusual, and that’s from the time you place the order.”
The city’s cost to annex into the RFA, according to the Fitch report, would be $17.8 million. Contracting with the Shoreline Fire Department would be nearly $25 million.
Tibbott then asked Moeller to provide his opinion on which of the three options would provide Edmonds with “the best continuity of service as well as ongoing long-term service.”
“You have a very well-managed and excellent department that provides service right now,” Moeller said. “My recommendation…would be to annex to the RFA.”
Tibbott then asked Eck what her recommendation would be, and she explained her determining factors: cost to the city, given the current budget situation; cost to the community in terms of a future levy to cover fire costs (which Fitch estimated would be almost identical when comparing a city fire department levy vs. the RFA’s levy — known as a benefit charge) and the high-quality services the city is already receiving from the fire authority. Eck also said she doesn’t believe the city should get into the fire service business. “It’s not our set of expertise, it’s not the day-in, day-out responsibilities that I think our community members are looking at us to handle,” she explained. Finally, she said she worried about how long it would take to hire personnel and purchase fire equipment.
“I also concur in moving forward with the RFA,” Tibbott said, noting that the fire authority has “achieved a certain economy of scale that allows a certain amount of efficiency,” as well as providing high-quality service. Tibbott also said it was important that the RFA is already involved in long-range planning to ensure that future fire and EMS service can accommodate the region’s population growth. In addition, “it’s not lost on me that they have a funding mechanism for the revenues needed to run the fire service,” he said.
The PSPHSP committee also heard a proposal from Councilmember Jenna Nand to consider a ban on “the deliberate breeding and the sale of companion animals for profit.” After a lengthy discussion, councilmembers agreed to bring the matter to the full council for a future briefing.
In other committee discussions Tuesday night, the parks and public works commitee ran out of time to discuss the addition of bike lanes on Main Street as part of the Main Street overlay project. That committee did receive an update on the costs for undergrounding utilities as part of the Highway 99 Revitalization Project but staff explained that they didn’t want to move that discussion on to the full council until they determined whether state funding would cover the cost.
The parks and public works committee also recommended sending to a future consent agenda a proposal to extend the city’s job ordering contract (JOC) program with Gordian for a year — until May 2025. A report on the program was also scheduled for Tuesday but the committee ran out of time, so that will happen at a future committee meeting. The objectives of the JOC program, according to the council agenda, are to “rapidly engage contractors in the performance of small to medium sized public works projects; to reduce construction, design, and planning costs; and to develop relationships and contracts with contractors to more quickly and efficiently respond to emergency situations.”
The finance committee also wasn’t able to get through its full agenda, due to a long discussion of a draft financial policy framework for the city. The policy covers topics ranging from how often and in what form the council should receive financial reports, to the city’s fund balance policy, to the reserve levels for major operating funds. The commitee agreed there was still work to be done on the policy, and that it would be discussed at a future committee meeting before presenting it to the entire council.
— By Teresa Wippel
Fitch consultants have presented 3 alternatives for fire service. When asked at Tuesday’s meeting which alternative they preferred they replied that based upon the importance of continuity and time being of the essence their choice would have to be the RFA. That should not be a surprise to anyone because their presentation stated that it was the only alternative that could be implemented in 18 to 24 months. Forming an Edmonds Fire Department, according to Fitch, would take 36 months. The reason it would take that long is because they presented a scenario of no fire service existing today. Fire service continued smoothly when FD1 took over in 2010 because FD1 acquired the personnel and equipment from our city. The reverse of that could happen to re-establish an Edmonds F.D. In fact the original contract with FD1 envisioned exactly that possibility happening. I watched the meeting yesterday. The consultants were asked many questions, but nobody asked why they did not present, under the Forming Edmonds Fire Department alternative, a scenario of acquiring personnel and equipment from South County Fire.
Consultants are often hired simply to affirm to a broader audience a decision already preferred by those retaining the consultants. It seems like that is what is happening with this fire service decision. The expense for being part of the RFA would be borne by payers of property taxes – more than $1,000 annually for the average homeowner. City Council can decide to join the RFA, but it must be approved by the voters.
Again I urge someone with some common sense to listen to Mr. Wambolt. How is Ms Eck an expert on Edmonds fire needs having lived here a couple years or so? Oh, that’s right she was endorsed by the Fire Fighters Union. Never mind we had an Edmonds fire Dept. for years so it is in our wheelhouse. Do an inter local agreement with Shorline for 6mos. While we reactivate E.F.D. It’s going to cost a fortune anyway you slice it. Edmonds specialty for the past 30 years has been selling and giving away Edmonds.
Both Eck and Tibbott made the same recommendation. Why are you only calling her out?
Good point Alicia. I disagree with both of them on this but Mr. Tibbott’s statements are true and some of Ms. Eck’s are not or at least make little to no sense. Ms. Eck tells us that fire service is “really not our set of expertise,” when Edmonds had it’s own fire service for about 50 years before she showed up on the scene to tell us all what we are good at and what we aren’t and how we should spend our tax money. When it comes to Fire Ms. Eck is all about saving some money for the budget’s sake but when it comes to the city getting into the private land development business and contractors being allowed to dig storm drain wells into our clean aquifers, money and budgets are no object. She’s confused about who her constituents are supposed to be. Hint: Her constituents aren’t supposed to be the Firefighters’ Union over the other citizens. That’s the difference in my view.
Fifty-one firefighters! Is there a break down of the no of calls, types of calls / incidents and the locations somewhere?
Ron, you make good points. If the voters don’t agree to annex into the RFA, I hope the city is developing a Plan B. And the Plan B is likely reinstating our own FD. Unfortunately, we won’t have much time to accomplish this, which is why baseline planning for this option needs to be happening now. And I truly hope the RFA will be gracious in letting us reacquire fire/EMS equipment on the same terms we transferred equipment to them when we began contracting with So. County Fire. Otherwise, the RFA will force us squarely into a bind. Finally, I don’t understand why Fitch would suggest we need to invest now to move or remodel one or more of our three city-owned fire stations. All three are perfectly functional now and have been well maintained over the years. If we end up reinitiating the Edmonds FD, we should simply continue to use those three stations in the near term which have served us well for decades. Then, we can do long range planning about future modifications or relocation as we can fit those things into the budget.
I won’t vote yes. I think we should have our own FD. I see no reason to spend a fortune somewhere else. I would rather spend a fortune in Edmonds. If new fire stations are needed, I am sure that we will pay for them one way or the other whether it be for an annex with RFA or our own owned and our own owned equipment. I watched the committee meeting too and I thought Bruce was very nice, but it did seem a bit leading in the direction of the RFA. I think the RFA has plenty to do with all of the other cities it services. We today are smaller than Everett and a little bigger than Mukilteo. They both have their own FD Arlington does too but may go to N county. Besides that’s Skagit county as you all know. We have the Hospital here. I would think South County Fire and the RFA would consider that little issue of the hospital and ER etc. It wouldn’t be nice or a good idea for RFA to put us in a bind. I am sure they will have plenty of work to do with Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace Mill Creek and Brier King CO for those last 2. This is Sno. Co. In serious situations different FD help each other out.
Dave and Ron, why couldn’t we look into the possibility of some sort of an ongoing partnership with Shoreline – maybe a Sno-King Combined City FD with Edmonds supplying the equipment that suits it’s type buildings and Shoreline theirs with Shoreline Edmonds Fire on some and Edmonds Shoreline Fire on some to share and not duplicate needs and services. They could use the same HR and training programs with an inter local agreement of some sort with Edmonds paying more until it all jells together. Fire, budget, and environment are our biggest issues and someone needs to become the adult in the room and take control. Mayor Rosen are you listening? This Council is way to inexperienced and ideological to do this stuff properly.
The consultants determined that a deal with Shoreline would be much more costly, even when compared to the inflated cost of forming an Edmonds F.D.
There are three people on our current Council that have the ability to work cooperatively with Mayor Rosen to set our priorities straight. A good city government is first and foremost about providing excellent necessary services as efficiently as possible. That’s not always the cheapest and it isn’t always wise to listen to only the budget hawks on every topic. That’s why we are where we are now with highly critical fire service. Things like public/private development projects should be dead last bottom on the list. Four and sometimes even six of our Council say one thing and vote another, placing development and state government agenda items ahead of what is really the most important things for all in town.
At a time when our city (and so many others) are facing budget problems, annexing into the RFA really looks like the best decision. I don’t understand what the city gains from restarting its own fire department that we couldn’t accomplish more easily and cost effectively than the RFA. The RFA is ready to have us. We’re not ready at all for our own fire department, and we’re broke.
RFA is asking for a 70% increase from 2024 rate of ($12.5 million vs $17.8 million (proposed)). How do we know RFA is capable of managing costs in the future? Edmonds FD, might provide greater cost oversight. I think it’s worth exploring in greater detail. Could an Edmonds FD perform with less than the proposed 51 fire-fighters? Interesting to have some insight into calls for service.
Agreed Mary that our current status appears dicey, and our safest way forward may be RFA annexing. I also think that if we could time-travel and go back a decade, staying with what we had then might have been the better long-term option. Point is that it’s hard to say sometimes how things will play out.
Mary, it’s pretty simple. When we have our own fire dept. we have direct control thru our Mayor and Council over who’s hired, fired and how it gets run. With RFA we will have one voting Rep. who has to convince all the other members to vote with him/her if our town is having a problem with a chief or people getting the services they need and pay for. No matter what we do there has to be lots of increased taxation just to maintain what we have now in the way of service so why not have people who answer to us as our employees, just like our police do?
Not quite so simple, Clinton. We have our own police department too, and look what happed to the costs over the past 4 years. Up $5 million per year. Police is the number 1 cost increase that lead to this current budget crisis. For those who missed the committee meeting this week, the new police contract puts our chief of police pay at more than what the City of Seattle pays their chief and huge raises for the rest of police management. Massive unbudgeted cost increases, under a new mayor. How’s that for local control and cost management, during a “budget crisis” no less.