Whether the Edmonds City Council should change the amount levied for the general property tax in 2026 if the City of Edmonds joins the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) is the topic of a public hearing during the Tuesday, Sept. 10 council meeting. The public hearing will provide community members with the opportunity to comment on this question.
The 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?
The council meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the council chambers at 250 5th Ave. N., Edmonds.
To make a public comment during this public hearing, you may appear in person at the meeting or participate over Zoom on an electronic device or phone. You may provide a written public comment using the online form.
Visit the city website to view the meeting agenda and agenda packet.
To view a meeting in session via Zoom, click here or paste the Zoom meeting link into a web browser using a computer or smartphone.
If we were to join it creates a windfall for the city ending our budget crisis. So no need for a tax increase unless our city leaders just want to spend spend on every little want. Or voters say no to both putting the city in a bind forcing them to make the hard choices they should have been making all along. Myself I say no to both let’s cut out all the fat after that if we need some adjustment I would be open to consider something.
Full agreement with your comment.
The link to the meeting agenda and agenda packet comes up empty. We have to wait until probably Friday afternoon for them to be posted.
Let’s see, perhaps the hottest public hearing topic to be discussed this year in Edmonds regarding joining the RFA or not and all it’s possible tax implications for Edmonds property owners will occur virtually at the same time as the first and possibly only Presidential debate between DJT and Kamala Harris. Since at least four of the City Council and our Mayor have suggested that joining RFA is the most viable and good option for the city, one has to wonder about the timing of this most important local public hearing. If it’s just a coincidence it sure looks like a really convenient one in the interest of pushing the most popular plan from the politicians’ viewpoint. Funny how these convenient little opportunities for diluting potential public push back just seem to come out of nowhere all the time.
Please reduce the general tax levy if RFA approved. We’ve been getting hit left and right from the city, state. Water rates are soaring, increased car registration fees, list goes on.
BTW has everyone seen the water & sewer rate changes for the upcoming years? It’s crazy.
The high cost of Public Safety, both Police Service and Fire Service is a major, if not the major reason OUR city is in dire straights financially and the Mayor and Council will definitely be asking us to approve (by ballot) spending lots more money on performing this most vital part of what a city is supposed to do. There are some very smart citizens in town (I’m not one of them because I don’t have the math smarts or patience to do it) who have actually gone to the work of calculating what the different approaches to providing these services will actually cost in real numbers when we write our property tax checks or pay our mortgages that go up due to rising property taxes. Our city leadership needs to look for the most cost effective way to provide both of these services and they need to listen to the citizens who can give them the honest answers and follow their guidance as to what the levy ask will be or it will fail and the city will have to face the real possibility of insolvency and court control over who gets paid and who doesn’t. Can we afford a COP that gets paid over 1/4 million $s a year? Can we afford a fire service that gives us no say in it’s operation?
Please respectfully contact the city if you’re concerned. I reached out regarding returning the tax dollars if RFA option is selected. Sounds like they’ve already made up their mind to hold onto the funds.
The Mayor and Council should not even be considering a tax levy increase until they have taken action to reduce spending by at least $10-12 million/year – that’s $3+ million in police, $6+ million in fire, and $2+ million in general operations/staff, etc. . The RFA is a disaster, as it has increased Edmonds’ fire/ems contract price by 50% in the last 4 years, and has indicated it will increase it another 50% after 12/31/2025. The RFA has no answers about inefficiencies and costs that have outrun population growth and cost of living. The police department has increased costs by 50% in the past 4 years. Edmonds residents pay 40% more per year for police service than Shoreline residents pay for Sheriff’s protection. Edmonds police chief cites 2 research studies showing the County Sheriff has a 50% cost saving advantage over individual cities’ police because of economies of scale. If that’s true, why doesn’t Edmonds contract with Snohomish County Sheriff’s office? Edmonds’ city staffing is based on unnecessary programs and bloated salaries. It’s ludicrous to even suggest that the city has the right to keep the current fire/ems property tax levies if residents were to vote for direct taxing through fire/ems annexation! Voters should oppose any tax levy increase, or any move to annex into the RFA until the City shows dramatic cuts in spending.
Mr. Krepick – thanks for your detailed comment on this article – including dollar ranges. I share your opinion. I was a resident of Shoreline when they incorporated, and decided to maintain police services from King County’s Sherriff’s dept. instead of setting up their own dept. Hindsight shows what a sound financial decision that was. And I don’t think the residents think they are getting sub-par policing service from the County compared to what they would get from a local police dept. they control. Would Snohomish County Sheriff’s dept take on the policing work in Edmonds? There’s a entirely different set of issues for fire/EMS services. South County Fire is not fiscally responsible to their customers in my opinion. The voters of Edmonds should learn the RFA issues and be very careful about how they cast their vote if an issue is put on the ballot.
maybe it was better before but that is not the case. They come from Marysville and respond times are horrendous. I’ll never forget when they were chasing a person that broke into a house right at the edge of Edmonds and shoreline. The Edmonds cops had everything sealed tightly and the sheriff showed up hours later after. The Edmonds cops caught the guy a few hours later while the sheriff was probably sipping a latte. you’re going to get what you pay for as the sheriff office is spread thin as nail polish and they are never around for anything.
Interesting. I just noticed police cars in Shoreline still say “Shoreline Police” as the people that drive them are King County Deputies assigned to duty and stationed in the Shoreline Incorporated area. The Shoreline COP is actually a high ranking KCSO Commander who the City Manager appointed as the designated Shoreline Chief of Police. Shoreline’s line officers are King County Deputies. Cities like Stanwood and Snohomish in Snohomish County use or have used a similar system of operation with the SCSO. Paul, I have a hunch you don’t actually have all the facts about the incident you mention here and you have no idea what the “sheriff” was doing at the time of the incident. Criticizing City Police management is one thing but disrespecting the Police is another thing altogether.
Clint Wright is 100% correct. Shoreline contracts its police services to KCSO (King County Sheriff’s Office). The police cars are all driven by Sheriff’s deputies, and the police chief works for KCSO and reports to Shoreline City Manager. They have a top notch police force and the crime rates and response times are comparable to Edmonds. But Shoreline’s per resident police costs are 40% below Edmonds because they have the same number of police officers as Edmonds has, but they have 60,000 residents compared with Edmonds 42,000! Edmonds’ Chief Bennett says Shoreline has lower police costs due to economies of scale in management, training, uniforms, equipment, cars, investigative services, etc. She cites two legitimate research studies that confirm County-level contract services can save individual cities over 50% in police costs! I don’t understand why Edmonds won’t work with the County Sheriff to switch to this more efficient contract model, transfer its 51 police officers to the County, and save more than $3 million per year? This is just one example where the Mayor and Council just want to stay with the status quo irrespective of how much taxpayers will benefit from change.
Council public hearings often serve a perfunctory role, as the council members typically have predetermined stances on most issues. Some local citizens, who may have a limited understanding of issues, become quite enthusiastic when the mayor distributes candy at the Saturday market or pens an upbeat column in the newspaper, despite substantial pending tax increases. Barring a public outcry, I remain skeptical about local leadership deviating from the path of significant tax levy increases that are approaching. It seems there are no indications of noteworthy budget reductions or any initiatives to decrease spending in police or fire services, despite bureaucratic excess.
Great point but we elected them. It is because we have limited choices? Maybe. One case as an example we have a CM who has never run a campaign as she was appointed for her first term and then for a second term ran unopposed. Any way, we have what we have and many of them still have multiple years on their term, so we need to make our voices heard. The financial solvency of the city is and will affect the financial solvency of all of us due to the tax/cost increases as clearly described here by the others. Stay safe.
So we gave away all our stations and equipment and now this …….not a surprise
Just a clarification — the city still owns the stations, is my understanding.