The Edmonds City Council will meet in its committees starting at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 17, followed by a 7 p.m. discussion on the future property tax levy implications of a regional fire authority (RFA) annexation.
All of the meetings will be held virtually via Zoom at this link: https://zoom.us/j/95798484261. Or join by dial-up phone: US: +1 253 215 8782. The webinar ID is 957 9848 4261. Members of the public who can’t access the virtual meeting using a personal device can view via a monitor at the city council conference room located on the first floor of Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave. N.
The 7 p.m. discussion follows a Sept. 10 public hearing — which drew just one commenter — regarding what the Edmonds City Council should do about property taxes if voters agree to join the South County Fire regional fire authority.
The city’s current contract with South County Fire for fire and emergency medical services (EMS) will end Dec. 31, 2025. The city council has been considering options for future fire and EMS services, including Edmonds’ starting its own fire department, contracting with a fire service provider or joining the South County Regional Fire Authority via annexation.
Annexation changes the way fire and EMS are funded. If approved by voters, city property owners would pay the RFA directly for these services. The city would no longer fund fire and EMS out of its general fund.
If annexation is approved, what will Edmonds do with the money it has been spending on fire and EMS? Will Edmonds reallocate those dollars to other city programs and needs? Or will the city reduce its general property tax levy?
Here are the other meeting agendas:
1:30 p.m. Parks and public works committee
1. An ordinance granting to New Cingular Wireless a nonexclusive master permit agreement to install, operate and maintain macro wireless telecommunications facilities within a certain designated area of right-of-way.
2. Public pedestrian easement along Sunset Avenue North adjacent to 326 Sunset Ave. N.
3. Resolution to approve placement of lien on Civic Park Property (related to the Edmonds Boys and Girls Club).
4. Council Rules of Procedure Sections 10, 11, 12 and 14
3:30 p.m.Public safety-planning-human services-personnel
1. Comprehensive Plan Update
2. Update to Edmonds City Code 2.10.010 – Acting Appointments
3. Update to Promotion Policy – Compensation
4. Social Worker Supervision Contract
5. An interlocal agreement with the Edmonds School District to provide police services at district events such as athletic events, dances and graduations.
6. Flock camera presentation (Edmonds police)
1. Comprehensive update to contracting and purchasing policies and procedures
2. August 2024 monthly financial report
If property owners are responsible for paying for fire and emergency medical services, does that mean that the owners of apartment complexes will be paying the fees for their renters, on a scale depending on the size of the complex, or will individual home owners cover that cost? And will the cost be the same for all home owners regardless of how big your property might or might not be?
Hi Brenda, Today we have two taxes that cover the cost of fire service. Both are assessed on and the assessed value of a property. The combined AV for all of Edmonds is $15.4B. We pay an EMS levy of $.30/1000 which raises $4.6m. We also pay a levy for the General Fund and from the GF we pay $5.9m which equates to $.38/1000 for assessed value. For a $1m home or business the combined rate would be $.68/1000 or about $680 for fire service. The apartment owner would pay the taxes, and it would be part of the rent.
The City/Council really needs to do a survey on what the citizens of Edmonds want regarding fire and EMS service.
Past surveys have indicated public safety is the number one priority for City government – so why would the City want to “dump” that municipal responsibility on citizens to obtain fire and EMS services directly from the RFA? Is this really better for Edmonds citizens or is it a “cover-up” to fix a mismanaged budget from the past Mayor?
Before the Council spends more time and money planning a referendum that may fail, they should ask the public these simple questions.
1. Do citizens want fire and EMS responsibility to be transferred to the RFA with understanding that citizen’s property tax will increase AND separately, the City also will propose additional property tax increase to fix remainder of budget shortfall?
or
2. Do citizens want fire and EMS to continue to be the City’s priority responsibility for public safety (i.e., contract with RFA) with understanding that City will have to propose a levy that increases property taxes to account for the increased cost of this service AND may include increased property tax to fix other budget shortfalls BUT uses a budget priority system that puts actual fire and EMS costs as highest priority.
My vote is let’s keep RFA on City contract and resolve overspending.
Hi Joe, in every city I’ve lived in over the last 70 years both the fire and police services have always been included in the public safety responsibilities of the local town or city. It does feel in this case the city may be trying to abdicate responsibility for this service simply to free up funding. Since we are community with common interests, it would seem to be logical that we should join together within the city to negotiate what is an important service to us all as community members. The city should be in a better position to negotiate a fair way to provide these services than to have each property owner in a position to have to negotiate individually. Otherwise, what does being part of Edmonds really mean.
It may be better for us to tax ourselves to cover the added fire cost but stay on a contract model instead of converting to an Assess Value model. We should negotiate our “fair share”. Paying via the AV model who have us pay more than our fair share. Edmonds represents about 25% of the if the total and just has it has for many years would look out for our collective interests.
My vote would be another short term contract with RFA at a firm negotiated price using the money already in the G.F. plus whatever they say they need to do it (they have us over the barrel right now) and a long term attempt to form a Salish Sea Adjacent Fire Co-Op with Mukilteo and Everett via ILA’s. We have common interests as two Sea Port communities, a long integral land and sea border, and being similar communities over all. We still own our fire stations and could purchase back our equipment from RFA to facilitate this long term. For policing we could change to a County Contract at least short term with little effort and apply whatever savings that produced toward the now more pressing Fire service needs. In an unlikely event this proves to be a false economy (like RFA has,) that can be addressed later. User fee cost sharing on EMS needs to be part of this conversation too, if we ever hope to control spiraling out of control costs since EMS is the vast majority of the services requested. The majority of our current City Council have ties to the Fire Service Union having been endorsed by it, so that is a complicating factor in what to do about all this too. Good luck Mayor Rosen.
NO NORE TAXES PLEASE! I already have 4 neighbors who have sold their Edmonds homes and oved out of their beloved Edmonds……due to property taxes and ther HIGH cost of living here.
Trudy, the number of families in Edmonds who are income challenged seems to be growing. I have heard the data but cannot cite it off hand. Others may know and can help us understand that part of the discussion. Their income is not growing as fast as costs are going up. Some may have equity in their homes and may want to downsize but have few choices to stay in Edmonds.
Now someone will jump on the add housing discussion but unless that housing is truly affordable these folks will have a hard time downsizing in Edmonds.
Fire is only a part of our budget issue as clearly pointed out and reported on by MEN. Sources: State of the City, Blue Ribbon Report, Council Budget Retreat, and now the Fire discussion. There is a large Gap between revenues and expenses of the GF. The latest report shows the city intends to borrow $ to balance the 2025 budget. The total Gap is estimated to be $25-30m after the 2025 budget is balanced. Fire is about $9m of the total Gap.
The GF is around $51m with $15.7m coming from property taxes. It is helpful to know how our Property Taxes work.
Taxes are based on Assessed Values. AV for Edmonds is $15.4B and our current assessment is $1.02/1000 or $1020 for a $1m home. If the total Gap turns out to be $25m the added new tax assessment would be $1.62/000 or $1620 for a $1m home. Total city tax would then be $2640 for a $1m home. Fire would be about 36% of those numbers. $.58/1000 or $580 for a $1m home.
When talking about taxes we need to talk about the total GAP and how we will fix it. Taxes are not the only way, New Revenues and Cuts can be part of that mix. We should be talking about the total Gap not just Fire.
The total property tax statement should be part of the discussion. That should include taxes due to ESD for education and taxes to the state for education. Too often the focus from those wanting more revenue is just their portion of individual parts of property taxes not the whole statement and bottom line how taxpayers will be impacted.
Increased costs are hitting our neighbors to the north hard, especially seniors. Edmonds needs to make some hard decisions to prevent further stress on it’s residents. I’m not sure our voices are being heard in this forum.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/bellingham/poverty-rate-skyrockets-bellingham/281-e52640d0-3d3d-4d11-a9c1-afb41ed2fc2c
The city of Edmonds is facing a severe financial crisis, further complicated by public safety funding dilemmas. The local electorate opted for a few council members who were devoted partisans, backed by special interests, yet lacked financial literacy. Their sole budgetary strategy appears to involve increasing taxes or relying on the receipt of gifts and grants. This situation has left the mayor with few options; while he excels at public relations, his decision-making has been lukewarm so far.
Agree. But: where do we go from here, and how do we get there – in practical terms? Identifying the problem is only the first step to solving it.
Significant belt-tightening measures, even if painful, are necessary to demonstrate to the electorate that leadership is fully aware of the dire current situation. This will be followed by some inevitable, reasonable tax increases. Additionally, there should be significant changes in representation at the next election, so we avoid digging a new hole just as we’ve climbed out of the previous one.
I should hope four of the people on our city council who tend to vote as a block too often to be a coincidence are figuring out that solving all this with big time revenue hikes simply isn’t going to fly no matter how much they cry wolf and say, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Our good person Mayor with the help of our good person CP needs to propose huge staff directed spending cuts and controversial methods for saving money along with benefit based user fees to increase badly needed revenue. In my view, if they aren’t making everyone in town a little bit (or maybe even a lot) equally MAD, they aren’t doing their jobs and the city will go bust as a result. I also suspect advice from past Mayors won’t help much with getting this thing solved as Strong Mayor’s for the past quarter century using their power unwisely is a lot of the reason we are in a predicament now. Hopefully our new Mayor will use his strong powers wisely for the painful good of all.
Per Mike’s request above:
Here are the rates and taxes for a $1m Edmonds Home that is in the Port District
Hopefully the data is somewhat aligned.
Taxing District…………………Rate/1000……..Tax $1m Home
SCHOOL DISTRICT……….2.73………………..2,730
STATE………………………………..2.25………………..2,250
SNOH COUNTY……………..0.50…………………500
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY……..0.32…………………320
CEN PS REG TRANS…….0.16………………….160
CITY OF EDMONDS …….1.02………………….1,020
PORT OF EDMONDS……0.07…………………70
PUB HOSP #2…………………0.05………………..50
TOTAL……………………………….7.11…………………..7,110
MEN also posted an article about the underfunding of schools. That underfunding for schools would add around $2/1000 to make up that difference. Also the building program is also underfunded and will have to be adjusted in coming years.
Mike, I hope that helps?