Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Correction: This article has been edited to note that the projected savings in 2009 for the City of Edmonds contracting with Fire District 1 was estimated at $10 million over seven years.
The Edmonds City Council will consider two resolutions at its Tuesday, May 28 meeting that, if approved, would place Edmonds on a path leading to annexation into the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority (RFA).
As the cost of providing fire and emergency medical services (EMS) continues to increase, ensuring that Edmonds receives these services at a reasonable price has been the subject of much debate in recent years. In late 2023, the city received notice that South County Fire intends to terminate its current 20-year contract with Edmonds, effective Dec. 31, 2025. The move leaves the city grappling with the dilemma of how to provide future fire and EMS services.
As the clock ticks toward this deadline, Edmonds retained a consulting firm – Fitch and Associates – to analyze its options. With an eye toward costs, benefits and ease of administration, Fitch presented three options:
- Annex to the RFA.
- Contract with the City of Shoreline.
- Reestablish an Edmonds Fire Department.
After much discussion, the Edmonds City Council Public Safety-Planning-Human Services-Personnel (PSPHSP) Committee last week recommended annexation to the RFA. On May 28, the committee, chaired by Councilmember Neil Tibbott, will present two draft resolutions for full city council consideration. The first of these identifies joining the RFA as the preferred alternative for Edmonds. The second expresses the city’s intent to proceed with RFA annexation. The difference between the two? The second resolution would formally set the wheels in motion to negotiate terms of the annexation with the RFA. (See more on this below.)
Background
The City of Edmonds started its own fire department in 1904. But after more than 100 years of service, the increasing costs and administrative burdens associated with maintaining an in-house department caused the city to explore other options. One of these was to contract with what was then known as Fire District 1.
After much intense discussion, in November 2009 the city council voted 6-1 to disband the Edmonds Fire Department and enter into a 20-year contract with Fire District 1 to provide these services. The contract cost for the first year was $6.2 million. Supporters praised the move as an opportunity to cut expenses (projected cumulative savings at the time were estimated at $10 million over seven years) while enhancing the level of fire and emergency services. Detractors felt it would be better for Edmonds to maintain control of its own fire department.
The contract was executed on Jan. 1, 2010. Under the terms (see the original contract here), Fire District 1 would provide fire and EMS services to the city for 20 years. The contract included a provision whereby either party may terminate the contract before the 20-year period is up by giving two years’ written notice to the other party.
In the years that followed, cost increases for labor and operations, and the challenge of serving an ever-growing population have pushed up the price tag of providing fire and EMS services. To compensate for this, the contract calls for an annual renegotiation of the contract cost, and Edmonds’ payments to the fire district increased accordingly.
The increasing costs hit home in 2016, when the city received an additional unexpected invoice of $1.6 million over and above the regular fire district contract cost, mostly to cover increased labor costs and retroactive back pay resulting from new labor contracts. This financial jolt prompted Edmonds to retain 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 2016 report, Fitch concluded that Edmonds could cut costs while improving fire and EMS services by changing the staffing model. In 2017, the council voted to amend the contract agreement between the two entities to reduce the total number of firefighters on duty at any given time from 11 to nine, which was estimated to save the city $1.4 million annually.
South County Fire becomes the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Authority (RFA)
While the city council-approved contract amendment saved Edmonds money in the short term by reducing the level of service, the fire district continued to grapple with the issue of unabated cost increases. This was the main driver that ultimately prompted the agency in 2017 gain new funding options and other advantages by reorganizing into what is now the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Authority (RFA).
With its new status, the fire authority no longer had to rely on funding from the jurisdictions with which it contracts for services, but rather allows it to be funded directly through property taxes.
While this had little impact on unincorporated areas, which had been paying for fire and EMS services through property taxes all along, the big change came for the separate jurisdictions – like Edmonds — with which the RFA contracts for these services. While these contracts remained in effect with the transition to the RFA, these jurisdictions now had the option to join (annex to) the RFA. By doing so, these jurisdictions would no longer pay for fire and EMS from city budgets. Payment would instead be shifted to property owners, who would fund the RFA directly through increased property taxes.
But — and it’s a big but — voters in each jurisdiction need to approve this change.
So far, voters in other cities have been mostly willing to do so. In recent years, nearly all jurisdictions in the fire authority’s service territory agreed to be annexed to the RFA (unincorporated areas becoming part of the RFA by default), including Lynnwood, Mill Creek, Brier and Mountlake Terrace. The exceptions are Mukilteo, which operates its own fire department, and Edmonds, which continues as the lone holdout with a separate contract.
But the cost of providing services continued the upward trend. In another stopgap measure, in January 2022 Edmonds agreed to pay the RFA an additional $1.5 million annually to cover an imbalance in service among Edmonds and neighboring cities, raising Edmonds’ annual bill to the current $12 million.
Edmonds again looks at its options
After the RFA announced it would be terminating the 20-year contract, Edmonds again retained Fitch and Associates to explore the city’s options.
In its report discussed during the Edmonds council committee meeting May 14, Fitch outlined three alternatives: annex into the RFA, contract with the Shoreline Fire Department for services or restart Edmonds’ own fire department. The analysis compared costs, benefits, implementation tasks and timelines, and pros and cons.
According to the Fitch report, restarting the Edmonds Fire Department would cost $19.2 million annually, most of which would go to personnel (Fitch estimated a need for 51 firefighters and five administrators to maintain the city’s current level of fire and EMS service.). The report also acknowledged widespread recruiting and retention problems, noting that the city would have to offer wages comparable to or better than the going local rates to attract and retain this workforce. Other expenses include purchasing equipment such as fire trucks and ambulances; debt service; repair and maintenance of fire stations; and miscellaneous other costs, including administration, payroll and human resources.
Regarding the acquisition of fire trucks and other equipment, the existing 2010 contract with the RFA states that rolling stock and equipment sold under the 2010 agreement “shall be purchased back using the same process, methods, and conditions under which the original purchase was made unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.” Any additional rolling stock would have to be purchased from the market, and according to Fitch a “24-36 month lag between order and delivery is not unusual.” — with the sales price determined by the current fair market value. Any additional rolling stock would have to be purchased from the market, and according to Fitch a “24-36 month lag between order and delivery is not unusual.”
While the report does not formally recommend one of the three options, during its May 14 city council committee presentation Fitch representative Bruce Moeller responded to a question about which he favors: “You have a very well-managed and excellent department that provides service right now. My recommendation…would be to annex to the RFA,” he said.
The council on May 28 will consider two draft resolutions, with the option of approving one, both or none of them. The first resolution identifies annexing to the RFA as the preferred alternative. The second expresses the intent of the city to pursue this option, which formally alerts the fire authority of the city’s intent to pursue annexation.
It’s important to note that these resolutions are an expression of the council’s opinion. Edmonds cannot join the RFA without voter approval.
Next steps
Should the council not approve either resolution, the city would return to examining its options.
Should the council approve the second resolution (expressing the intent of the city to pursue annexation), the next steps are as follows, according to South County Fire spokesperson Leslie Hynes:
– The City of Edmonds adopts a resolution requesting annexation.
– The city sends that resolution to South County Fire.
– The city and the RFA meet to discuss terms and conditions of annexation, including revisions to the RFA Plan and interlocal agreements necessary to effectuate annexation.
Examples of interlocal agreements that may be necessary:
- Cost sharing of annexation expenses.
- Assignment of City contracts related to fire and EMS.
- Ownership/control over Edmonds’ three fire stations and other assets (for example, the city-owned fire rescue boat).
Potential amendments to the RFA Plan:
- Governance
- Jurisdictional boundaries.
– A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review is performed.
– The South County Fire governing board adopts a resolution to amend the RFA Plan, if necessary, to deal with the requested annexation, and grant the request of the city to annex.
– The city holds an election putting the question to the voters; a simple majority is required for approval of annexation to the RFA.
According to Hynes, this process could be completed within the timeframe dictated by the remaining term of Edmonds’ contract for fire and EMS services.
Critical unanswered questions include:
- What will happen to Edmonds’ three fire stations? The city currently owns these assets, and SCF uses them under the terms of the 2010 contract. But annexation to the RFA could change this, and the fate of these properties would be among the items under discussion as the city and RFA hammer out the terms of the annexation agreement.
- How would the fire benefit charge be calculated and applied? The fire benefit charge is a separate fee approved by voters that is based on the benefit of having fire-based services. It considers that those who benefit more from fire protection services (i.e. large structures and high fire-risk structures) should pay more for that service. The charge is applied to improvements to real property, but does not apply to land, giving tax relief to owners of vacant land. Learn more about the fire benefit charge here.
- What happens if we come to an agreement with RFA on annexation and the voters reject it? The city would have to find another option that could be implemented before the current contract expires on Dec. 31, 2025. That could include a short-term contract with another fire agency, likely at a higher rate than what Edmonds is now paying for fire and EMS services.
- With Edmonds relieved of the bill for fire/EMS services, would taxes be reduced accordingly? Should the city join the RFA, property owners would see property taxes increase to pay for fire and EMS. The city – which is facing its own financial difficulties — could reduce its share of the property tax now levied in an amount equivalent to the savings realized by not paying for fire and EMS services.
- Is Fitch’s projected cost of an Edmonds-owned fire department based on reacquiring the city’s old equipment from the fire authority, or purchasing new or used equipment from another source? The existing contract provides for Edmonds to repurchase at today’s market price the apparatus (fire trucks etc.) that it sold to the fire district in 2010. This equipment is now 14 years older, and in uncertain condition. New equipment would be more expensive. My Edmonds News has reached out to Fitch and other sources to ask if the quoted figure for an Edmonds-owned fire department is based on new, used or repurchased apparatus, but has not received a definitive answer.
Tuesday’s council meeting will begin at 7 p.m. in the council chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N., in downtown Edmonds. For the complete agenda or for the link to watch the meeting virtually, click here.
— By Larry Vogel
Excellent reporting on a very complex and nuanced issue.
This is a complex subject indeed, but the City must put taxpayers first in solving this problem that was created by South County Fire (SCF) after many years of failing to demonstrate economies of scale in a regional operation, ignoring financial metrics, showing no focus on controlling costs, and ripping off taxpayers with property taxes based on land valuations that have nothing to do with the cost of delivering fire/ems services. Why should taxpayers pay for incompetency? Why should SCF not be held accountable for their mismanagement? How can the City consider SCF as the preferred alternative when the Council has not done due diligence on the cost of re-establishing an Edmonds Fire Department? Why does the City not stand up for taxpayers and demand a State investigation into SCF’s mismanagement? Why does the Council take the word of a consultant that supports a mismanaged regional fire authority and broken business model? Why does the Council not hire a truly independent financial analyst to vett the problem and evaluate the Edmonds fire department alternative? Why does the Council not issue a resolution that SCF’s costs are unacceptable and must be justified by SCF providing an outside audit? When is the Council going to show true leadership in solving this problem and focusing on lowering fire/ems costs and other City staff and operational costs?
Bill, Never. The only way our present Council and Mayor will ever do a true and thorough in house analysis with local volunteer expertise and lots of public input is for the citizens to vote down this RFA proposal. Short of that, it is already a done deal. As for any common sense coming into the over planning and over control by the State of our local housing issues that is not going to happen because our city leadership is afraid of any push back or making a demand for normal local controls that are needed. Regional and State Control of nearly everything is all the rage now and a tough force to change in a one party controlled state, especially with four Democratic Party oriented CM’s elected to our Council.
This is fantastic reporting. Thanks Larry
I may have missed this in the various articles, but what is the employment market like for firefighters? Similar to law enforcement as far as cities/fire districts competing for qualified employees, or??
Kim – a quote pasted from this article ” The (Fitch) report also acknowledged widespread recruiting and retention problems, noting that the city would have to offer wages comparable to or better than the going local rates to attract and retain this workforce.”
I would think Kim that it is very similar to police departments. Completive salaries (like Seattle is suggesting now for Police recruitment is the answer. You know if Seattle wasn’t facing a lot of blow back that probably wouldn’t be happening. I think there are probably many people who would feel it would be wonderful to be a firefighter. It takes a very brave person to be a policeperson or a fire fighter. It is a pretty selfless job. There is dignity in those positions. I think the salary range is pretty darn good for them and the Health and I bet pension benefits too. There is comradery with Firefighters, Veterans and Police personnel. I think many would like to live in or near Edmonds and raise their families. I don’t know perhaps military guys or gals that are finished with that now. It used to be the Post Office was comprised of a lot of Veterans. I knew a few back home. Then the gov took over and well the PO had problems. If I were a young person I would much prefer to live in Edmonds and or be a policeperson or a firefighter or Ferry person here than I would in a larger even more dangerous city or small city or town. What do you think about those thoughts of mine?
Deborah/Kim/David- Not only is the salary ‘darn good’ for firefighters, but the hours and pension pay is extraordinary. If Edmonds sets up its own fire department – that will mean South County will have to lay off all Edmonds firefighters, but they will be hired right away by Edmonds! I don’t believe there is any difficulty attracting new firefighters with the respect and reputation they have. There is no movement at all to defund the firefighters. But there should be a movement to hold management accountable for 50% increases in cost of fire/ems services when there is hardly any population growth. Mukilteo probably sees through the Regional Fire Authority charade of ever increasing costs. Arlington voted twice to not allow increased taxes for EMS service. Ask Brier and Mountlake Terrace residents what they think of 70% tax increases after annexation. It’s not that residents don’t respect firefighters, it’s just that the costs are out of control when property taxes tied to high land valuations have nothing to do with the cost of fire service . It’s time to reform/toss out the broken Regional Fire District business model and have Edmonds run its own efficient operation! Regional fire districts were supposed to demonstrate that scale made for more efficient fire/ems services. Its been a total failure and taxpayers have been left holding the bag!
One question: Mukilteo has had the clear opportunity to join the RFA. Yet, they continue to maintain their own fire department. If the RFA is significantly less costly, how and why has Mukilteo made the decision to go it alone? I’m hoping we have taken a close look at their model.
Dave, the decision to investigate the alternative you mention will be up to Mayor Rosen. This council won’t do it. I have to hold some hope the Mayor will look at this option and report back.
Mike, it will actually be up to the people in the public vote on this to force the issue as I doubt Mayor Rosen is thrilled about the idea of having re-forming the E.F.D. on his plate on top of everything else that’s going on in town. Many of our CMs are really mostly interested in their own neighborhood and State pro liberal housing issues and just want this fire thing to go away as fast as possible. What is going to happen is RFA will be pushed to the hilt and in the highly unlikely event it fails, we will be totally unprepared with any sort of back-up plan. It’s just how we roll here.
I think you’re right the mayor does want the RFA decision go away. He’s too busy with the Landmark speculation scheme, neighborhood busting housing development, degrading the water aquifer, keeping volunteers out of the marsh, and making sure the police chief properly handles her firearm.
I totally agree Dave. I was thinking about that too. I suspect they prefer as much local control as they can get. That is the main reason I support having our own fire department. We should look at Mukilteo. It is a nice place and I think they have a lot going on up there with expansion of beaches and activity etc. Even Everett has their own I think. They too are doing a lot with expansion with beaches and all of that too. I don’t know why Arlington is thinking of changing or has it would seem that that area would see much growth in the years to come too. Happy citizens are vital to the financial success of a city. When the middle class is financially drained they can’t do much more than pay taxes. This causes those citizens to stop buying and go other places. Property taxes alone do not make a city thrive. I don’t think so anyway Hi Dave. I know we have never met and haven’t talked either, but I liked you. I hated to see you leave our CC but I understood that you had a life to live ha.
Arlington finally gave up their own F.D. in 2021 and joined the North County Regional Fire Authority. Arlington still has it’s own buildings and equipment but is financed and run by the Regional Authority. It looks like Everett and Mukilteo are about the only City owned and administered F.D.s in the County anymore. The Regional approach with property tax financial support rather than city fire levies and budgeting based on actual service costs seems to be the favored approach by fire administration people. It’s not too hard to see why this is the case as property tax valuation is a much more sure source of known funding than answering to the whims of citizens passing public safety levies and city councils passing funding measures for what fire administrators claim they need for viable service. I’m sure the Fire Fighters Union would favor the Regional approach as they then don’t have to be overly concerned about accountability from Mayor’s, Council’s, and City Citizens. We no longer tax extreme or excess wealth for our needs (supposedly to protect all the job creators) so middle class income and property taxes are the go to now for all of our various governmental needs and wants. Not owning much valuable property is beginning to look like a smarter way to go perhaps with the modern tax schemes.
I was very disappointed in the quality of the Fitch analysis this year. They mostly rehashed old information. They never did a full cost study of the impact of joining with Shoreline to run a fire/EMS department. They never met with the right people in my opinion. Consequently, the voters of Edmonds have these remaining ‘what if’ questions.
I encourage people to read the Council meeting minutes from 2009 when the RFA contract decision was made. The fire department was tired of being pressed by the City Council to justify their budget funding. They were very happy to leave City employment and be hired by the RFA, which hindsight has shown is an organization with little emphasis on cost containment .