A public hearing about City of Edmonds options for fire and emergency medical services (EMS) is scheduled during the Tuesday, May 7 Edmonds City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the council chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N.
In December, the City of Edmonds received a two-year termination notice from South County Fire, advising that the city’s current contract for fire and EMS services would end Dec. 31, 2025. In April, the city council received a presentation and final written report from Fitch and Associates, outlining three main options for the city to receive fire and emergency services: joining the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) by annexation, contracting with another fire department or creating its own department.
During the May 7 public hearing, community members will have an opportunity to comment on these alternatives.
To make a public comment during the hearing, you may appear in person at the meeting or participate over Zoom using an electronic device or phone. You may also provide a written public comment using the web form at www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment .
You can view the May 7 meeting agenda and agenda packet, including the Fitch report with detailed analysis of fire and emergency service options, here.
Option 3 Edmonds own Fire Department. That way we make the decisions and I would like to think that there might be some people living in Edmonds that would like this job and feel proud doing it too. I would think that the 2 million difference would be worth it. Thank you.
Deb, I totally agree with you, but we might as well be whistling Dixie even talking about it. There are at least four people on the City Council that have already made up their minds on this – favoring loss of local control where there might be some opportunity for economizing, charging more for actual services rendered as needed and inserting more essentially free volunteer programs using local knowledge. I always ask why, if regional control of fire is such a great benefit, why not regional control of police too? The politicians never really answer that question. The obvious answer is we want local control of fire for the same reason we want local control of police. We can get rid of bad actors in a more timely manner and we have more say in how and on what the money is spent. Regional control of fire was a bad idea when they did it and it’s a bad idea now, but that really makes no difference in Edmonds government group think where professional staff directors always manipulate legislative decisions. Oh well, prop taxes are going to skyrocket no matter what; so no need to over think it.
So joining gives the city a huge relief in expenditures but costs the taxpayers about a additional 800 per year in taxes joining shoreline cost the city way more but the city has a limit on how much they can raise taxes, having our own isn’t that much more but creates a whole other set of problems. So my guess is they will put the joining on the ballot it solves the city’s spending problems and passes the cost onto us as a increased property tax. Win lose the city wins because they don’t have to cut spending and the taxpayers lose because we get the increased cost. The bureaucracy isn’t held in check and out of control city spending continues. Sounds like we been had yet again. I vote for in house because it would force the city to cut spending in other areas because they can’t raise the taxes on us that fast. But I know y’all well healed and a significant increase in taxes is no burden especially since we look at everything through a DEI lens? Right. I give up government has no intention of being fiscally responsible its goal is to continue its growth until it runs out of other people’s money. Thinking my grandchildren’s having a good future is in serious jeopardy.
I think we should take RFA option. When Edmonds had volunteers working with full-time firefights, they were trained the same but the problem was, once trained the volunteers didn’t stay long & coverage was effected. One reason they moved away from volunteers.
I’m worried we would be unable to cover all of Edmonds effectively. Who will be there to support us if we have a major fire at the port? Would we incur additional costs if this happens? What about water rescues? Are they included in the costs list above? Will we have to charge everyone that needs a trip to the hospital via aid-car or expect the patient to wait for an ambulance?
What would we be paying for our own leadership; Fire Chief, Battalion chiefs etc.? How long will it take to hire all those we need to cover on day one?
I’d like to see the chart updated with the employee pension and healthcare under the Edmonds column along with what do we pay now in taxes for the RFA. We need more information so we can all be better informed to help in making this decision.
Lastly has anyone read the article in the “South County Siren” Benefit charge renewal on the ballot in primary election? It talks how to provide more fair and balanced way to fund crucial emergency services. It’s based on building size, risks and hazards and NOT property value. It does not current apply to us as we are on a contract, But will if we go with RFA.
You can learn about this at http://www.southsnofire.org/electioninfo.
The crux of the problem is because South County Fire has no transparency and no accountability. They layer property tax levies on top of ems tax levies on top of fire benefit charges. They never report on what the annual cost is per resident or per fire response or per ems call. They do nothing to control costs. They just increase costs with no accountability. Taxpayers have no visibility into historic annual cost increases that exceed population growth and exceed cost of living. Why does it cost Edmonds over $1,900 per fire/ems call? Why does the fire department dispatch fire trucks and ems trucks for a medical emergency with no fire? Why did Brier residents suffer a 79% increase in annual costs when they voted to be annexed? Why did Mulkiteo and Arlington voters reject ems tax levy increases twice? Taxpayers are being ripped off by bad (or no) fiscal management. It’s high time taxpayers put a stop to the endless annual cost increases and demanded that fire districts replaced their Boards with cost conscious and effective management. Vote ‘no’ on every fire benefit charge and every tax levy ‘lift’ until the fire departments prove to you how they are controlling costs, introducing efficiencies, and reporting on annual cost increases for per resident costs and per response costs.
The FBC (Fire Benefit Charge) is a hoax. It is designed to appeal to homeowners who don’t understand that they are being ripped off by assessed value based fire and ems tax levies. Assessed values are heavily based on land valuation – which has absolutely nothing to do with fire or ems costs. The FBC is a good idea, but it should be used to replace tax levies, and not supplement them. Fire departments suggest that taxpayers save money by voting for extended FBCs. That couldn’t be further from the truth because taxpayers pay astronomical and never-ending tax levies for fire and ems services. Just ask Brier residents why they paid 79% more for fire/ems service after they were annexed into South County. It’s high time taxpayers demanded cost control and efficiency from Fire District Boards and not apple-pie and hot dog open houses for PR. Fire Districts should be held accountable for the unsustainable annual cost increases that dwarf cost of living and population growth statistics. Fire Districts should be forced to report on per capita and per response costs on an annal basis and forced to show productivity increases every year. Fire Districts have had a free ride with their tax levies for far too long. It’s time that taxpayers speak up and vote ‘no more’ on tax levies and FBCs.
I agree with other comments to this article about the apparent lack of cost control at South County Fire District. At the recent City Council meeting a commissioner bragged about their large reserves, and the amount of land they own. There was no credible info about why their cost structure should be supported by the voters in Edmonds. I read the Council meeting minutes from 2009 when the city sold their equipment to South County and signed a contract for services. The Edmonds Fire Dept was tired of being told by City Council in the annual budget process that they were subject to headcount reductions. The city had tax under-runs during the Great Recession and couldn’t afford their own fire dept. any longer. On the surface, it always seems good to have a regional service provider where the overhead costs are shared among several cities. But has So County Fire gold plated their operation? How can they be reined in? Personally I think the die was cast in that 2009 decision and now we have to be annexed into the RFA when the current contract ends. Millennials- if you want a high paying career- become a fire fighter.
Going regional got rid of one layer of administration. The exchange for supposedly saving one to two million $’s per year (depending on who you listen to) is having to pay the RFA pretty much whatever they say they need to provide their “wonderful” service with little to no say in how they provide this and control over making them justify their ever inflating costs, what they are spending their money on and why, and how they decide whether to provide a given service or not in any given situation. Personally, I don’t mind paying my property taxes to get good CITY CONTROLLED fire, police, parks, water, and sewer management, etc. but I hate like Hell to be paying the big salaries of Administrators who run special interest sales seminars for bum mayors trying to get re-elected by catering to the CMs and Some of the citizens living in a certain part of town and just close down the access to parks and facilities instead of fixing them or worse yet not letting volunteers have access to fix them with free labor and expertise. In the end you always get what you are willing to pay for and what you are willing to put up with in the name of “Good Government.”