By a vote of 6-1, the Edmonds City Council Tuesday night signaled its support to retain in 2026 the money that the city has been collecting — via property taxes — for fire and emergency medical services. The council directed the city attorney to draft a resolution stating the city’s intent in 2026 to collect the taxes, a collection that would occur regardless of what both the council and Edmonds voters decide about how to pay for future fire and EMS services.
Councilmember Michelle Dotsch voted against the measure.
The council also learned during Tuesday’s remote meeting that due to planning and development department staffing shortages and other factors, Edmonds is likely to miss the state-mandated deadline for completing its 2024 Comprehensive Plan update.
The council’s decision about property tax allocation follows months of discussion about the state of city finances and the impact of fire and EMS costs on the city’s growing budget deficit. In December 2023, South County Fire — a regional fire authority (RFA) that contracts with Edmonds to provide fire and emergency medical services — notified the city it intended to terminate its contract effective December 2025. In response, the council in June 2024 passed a resolution initiating the process of requesting annexation to the RFA. If the council eventually decides to proceed with annexation — a process that will take several months — the measure is likely to come before voters in April 2025.
Prior to the vote Tuesday night, Councilmember Neil Tibbott repeated the points he had made during last week’s council meeting. Under the city’s current contract with South County Fire, Edmonds pays the RFA to provide fire and EMS — and that amount has increased significantly in just two years. Meanwhile, the percentage covered by the city’s annual EMS levy (a 1% increase per year) and transport fees has remained static. In 2022, the city paid $9 million for fire and EMS services and by 2024 the cost had risen to $11.5 million. In 2025, assuming a 5% increase, the cost for fire and EMS is estimated at $12.1 million, Tibbott said. But by 2026, the fire authority estimates the cost will be $19.5 million — regardless of whether Edmonds votes to join the RFA or negotiates a new contract with the fire authority.
While the city has been able to piece together funding in past years to pay for fire and EMS services, in both 2025 and 2026, “we don’t know where that money is going to come from,” Tibbott added.
If the RFA is approved, starting in January 2026 voters would be charged directly for fire service. As a result, the city would no longer need to cover that service with the $6.3 million that property owners now pay to the city via property taxes. The city would also lose $4.4 million in emergency medical services (EMS) levy fees.
For a city with serious budget problems, officials have said that losing that funding would be a challenge. Edmonds’ budget gap for 2024 is in excess of $20 million — an amount that city officials say can’t be met by cuts in services and spending alone.
Under two scenarios discussed by the council, if the city doesn’t reduce the general fund levy (Scenario 1), the total annual increase to taxpayers would be $809.24 annually, or $67.44 per month. Under Scenario 2 — the general levy reduction — taxpayers would see a total annual increase of $484.33, or $40.36 monthly.
The difference between the city collecting the property tax dollars and not doing so is “about $27 per month,” Tibbott said.
Given the recent budget crunch, the city has already been using the property tax dollars that would normally be allocated for fire and EMS services for other general fund needs, Tibbott said, adding that the budget will have to be adjusted “even more in the coming years.”
Mayor Mike Rosen “has indicated he’s worked with the city staff to trim approximately $4 million out of the budget already,” Tibbott said.
Rosen is scheduled to deliver his draft budget to the council Oct. 1. In preparation, he had requested that councilmembers make a decision now on the use of future property tax dollars for the 2025-26 biennium — even though the council has not yet decided whether to place the RFA annexation on the ballot.
Tibbott said that “retaining the full amount that the city is already using for our general fund and putting forward a very clear proposition for our city to consider is one way to eliminate ambiguity. We will be fully focused on whether or not joining the RFA is a good idea for our city and how annexation would provide fire and EMS services. It would eliminate the general fund tax question in the equation that we put in front of voters.”
In stating her opposition to the measure, Dostch disagreed with the Tibbott’s reasoning, stating she would prefer to keep the general fund budget separate from the fire and EMS allocation.
Other councilmembers, however, supported the motion, which was introduced by Councilmember Jenna Nand and seconded by Council President Vivian Olson.
Nand said she was hopeful that residents would “support the city retaining its full levy lift in an attempt to forestall unnecessary layoffs and program cuts and be able to provide level of service to our community members and constituents that we do right now.”
Prior to the vote, Councilmember Susan Paine asked if someone could explain why the fire and EMS price tag is increasing “so dramatically” with $19.5 million in charges expected in 2026.
“South County Fire has consistently said that their service requirements across the [fire] district have increased in ways that our previous contract did not address,” Tibbott replied. This includes inflation, higher costs for EMS services, education and preventive services, and planning for future staffing and equipment to meet population growth. “They are saying that the rest of the South County Fire cities that are in the fire authority are paying that amount already,” Tibbott added.
Currently, the cities of Brier, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Mill Creek, as well as unincorporated portions of South Snohomish County, belong to the RFA.
If Edmonds doesn’t join the RFA — either because the council chooses not to place it on the ballot or the city’s voters reject it, Edmonds would still be on the hook for paying for fire services in 2026. During the council’s budget retreat in August, Rosen proposed the idea of a possible future public safety levy to raise additional funds.
“As a city, what it comes down to, we are not going to be able to cut our way out of services and still maintain our sustainable and comfortable level of city services that our citizens have become accustomed to,” Councilmember Will Chen said. “Inflation has been in the double digits for a couple of years and our tax levy as allowed by law was only 1%. Wages and everything increased. It’s just a reality.”
After the council vote on the property tax question, Acting Planning and Development Director Shane Hope updated the council on Edmonds’ 2024 Comprehensive Plan, which will guide the next 20 years of development in the city.
Hope, who worked as Edmonds’ Development Services Director until her retirement in 2021, was hired after the departure of Planning Director Susan McLaughlin in August.
Under the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA), the City of Edmonds needs to accommodate the expected growth of 13,000 people over the next 20 years. These new residents will require 9,000 new housing units. Edmonds currently has the capacity to add 4,862 units. The city will also need to add 1,642 accessory-dwelling units (ADUs) and 42 single-family homes, bringing the total to 2,454 units that the city needs to fulfill the GMA requirements.
City staff and consultants have been working on the plan for two years. To facilitate its completion, Edmonds contracted with consultants VIA Perkins Eastman and Herrera, which studied a “no action” (status quo) alternative, and two growth scenarios involving neighborhood centers and hubs that were aimed at accommodating the city’s allocated growth targets. The growth scenarios are designed to account for and comply with the state’s housing bills and the mandatory Comprehensive Plan elements, and to align with multicounty and countywide planning policies.
The next step is the issuance of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was originally scheduled to be released for public comment at the end of August. The DEIS, which focuses on environmental impacts and mitigation measures, is an informational document that will help the city in developing the final Comprehensive Plan.
Under state law, the Comprehensive Plan update must be completed by Dec. 31. 2024, but Hope explained that the city is unlikely to meet that target date.
“There are some factors that have slowed down the process a little bit,” Hope said. One is the passage of new state housing legislation that requires greater housing capacity for all the cities and counties affected. Another factor is a loss of staff in the planning division, “who would normally be working on these things or helping work on these things.” In addition, Hope said she has been working to get up to speed since her hiring a month ago to replace McLaughlin. “It’s taken me a little bit of time to catch up…and identify what the issues are at this stage and what some opportunities are for updating our approach to the Comprehensive Plan.”
A major focus has been reviewing the goals and policies that have already been drafted. “Some of them are more of would I would call action steps, they are implementation steps, and they are not at the level of broad policy statements for a 20-year Comprehensive Plan,” Hope said. “In some cases, they appear to be a more strategic framework for a very explicit set of development code updates.” She said the consultant will maintain a list of all policies that are removed, for possible future action later.
Hope provided draft examples of policies that “are too detailed or beyond city resources to commit to in a Comprehensive Plan… or they demand very specific outcomes that really are more part of the discussion that would happen in drafting development regulations.”
In addition, other plan components, such as narratives and future land use maps, still need to completed.
The draft EIS and the draft Comprehensive Plan are about a month behind their original schedule, and Hope estimated that they will be completed by Sept. 27. The next steps is public comment. Under the State Environmental Policy Act, a 30-day public comment period is required from the day a draft EIS is released.
After that, the council and planning board will meet to review the documents and discuss the public feedback. The council would then select a preferred alternative. The plan draft would be further refined and a final EIS would be prepared. After that, there would be public hearings by the planning board and the council prior to adoption of the final plan. The council would also need to review capital projects to ensure coordination with the final plan.
Further complicating matters, the city council is about to enter budget season. “So based on all those things we think it is not realistic for the council to be able to adopt [the plan] by the end of 2024.” Instead, she said that the city should complete the plan “as quickly as possible, but with due diligence.”
In the next few days, Hope said that staff will be consulting with the mayor “and coming back to the council with a specific timeline that’s revised to include dates for any documents that have to be published and the key followup meetings and what those decision points would be.
“I’m looking at something very soon after 2024 if we can’t meet the 2024 deadline,” she said.
The city won’t be eligible for state grants or loans “during any period where we haven’t met our deadline or otherwise found to be out of compliance,” Hope said. “It’s in all of our best interests to get this done as soon as possible in 2024 or as soon after.”
The council also considered a number of items in committee meetings prior to the Tuesday evening business meeting. Among them:
The public safety-planning-human services-personnel committee agreed to move to a future council consent agenda a code update related to acting appointments and promotion policies. Regarding acting appointments, the new policy will allow the mayor to make an acting appointment when a director who is leaving the city is no longer performing the duties of their job. The change to the promotion policy means that an internal applicant for a job promotion would be allowed to negotiate their salary the same way that an external applicant could. The goal is to incentivize staff to stay with the city “so we don’t get them moving to other agencies for those promotional opportunities,” Human Resources Director Jessica Neill Hoyson said.
The committee also received a presentation from Police Chief Michelle Bennett regarding a proposed Flock camera system that consists of license plate reading hardware and software. The cameras can take real-time video of license plates and cross reference them against state databases of wanted vehicles. The department has identified grant money that would cover the $131,000 cost for two years. The cameras don’t involve people, facial recognition or speed tracking, Bennett said, but focus on “objective evidence about the vehicle.” The full council will receive a presentation regarding the system at a later date.
— By Teresa Wippel
This Comprehensive Plan needs to get on track. It is too bad that Susan McLaughlin let it get out of control and Shane Hope had to come in to get it back. But it is time to move forward and get a draft done by September 27, get the window open for the 30 day public imput and then finalize a plan on time. The City of Edmonds needs to get away from hiring so many consultants that just cost money and slows down the processes. I am a retired business owner and I would be happy to provide my time for free to help on revising wording on polices that need to be done! As for the plans themselves I would suggest that particularly along Hwy 99 put into the plan building dorm style housing with very small building units like 150 square feet with shared media rooms and kitchens. But council members, the mayor, and staff need to do their jobs and get the plan done on time.
They cannot dictate the interiors to all manners of small so as to stifle growth and make the project a non stater for developers. The legislature saw to that. They also have to allow ADUs and Duplexes across all of Edmonds. no exceptions. If Edmonds puts a bunch of shenanigans to side step their obligations, they will get sued and found non compliant. Then the State guidelines kick in and those are far more aggressive than any option in the table. Edmonds has to comply or it will be made to comply. simple.
It is very reassuring to hear that the mayor has identified $4 million in cost savings to help code the gap in the city’s budget. Are the details available of where those savings have been found?
Also, can you please clarify if last nights vote was for the city to retain both the $6.3 million that property owners now pay to the city via property taxes and the $4.4 million in emergency medical services (EMS) levy fees or to retain one or the other of those two amounts?
My understanding it that last night’s vote was only related to the $6.3 million in property taxes, but others can let me know if that’s incorrect. I expect that the details of the budget savings will be part of the Mayor’s budget proposal Oct. 1. The mayor noted last night that once he presents the budget Oct. 1, it will be up to the council to decide whether to approve or reject his proposed cuts.
I am also confused, even after reading this article a couple times. Did the Council decide to keep the tax money that has been used to pay tor fire and EMS even if the taxpayers vote for paying for that expense themselves?
Meaning that, all the taxes paid so far will continue to be collected and the money that has been used to pay for fire and EMS will be used somewhere else, and the taxpayers will have to come up with the money to pay for those services from our own pockets (if the new RFA is approved in April 25)?
That is correct.
But how are we coming on all those bike lanes we need, and completing that missing link that is so critical, and building another park or two in the Hwy 99 Corridor, and purchasing the Unocal property that Chevron isn’t going to finish cleaning up? You know, all the IMPORTANT stuff on the books. It looks like we can pretty much plan on this city going bankrupt with current council’s M.O. As Mayor Rosen says, his $4M in cuts have to be approved by a Council that likes to vote 6 to 1 on almost everything. We are in big trouble folks and most on this Council don’t get it, or perhaps more accurately, don’t want to get it. “Inflation is the major cause and we just have to raise taxes,” – NONSENSE. So far I haven’t seen anything that makes me likely to vote for anymore property taxation that this group is going to ask for. Unlike in the past, this over all situation isn’t on our Mayor at all, it’s all on our Council. So far Mayor Rosen has done what was needed to be done ( it maybe took a little too long and was a little too pleasant) and he deserves much credit for it I think.
Transparency would be nice, ~100 million /yr in revenue and no breakdown of call volume / man hours per municipality in their annual reports. How does the Edmonds hospital impact the call volumes? We want to remain objective, hard to do that without the data. RFA stocking up on fire trucks? -“planning for future staffing and equipment to meet population growth.”
Edmonds hired a consultant to review the FIRE / EMS options, is a full detailed report available for community consumption?
FYI – RFA budget 2024 & beyond – https://www.southsnofire.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3328/638475719519670000
It’s clear unless there’s organized opposition from the community, RFA is the way forward. Will the tax double each year, who knows?
We reported extensively on the consultant report from Fitch and Associates. Here’s a link to one of our stories:https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/06/council-moves-closer-to-approving-adu-code-amendments-celebrates-pride-month/
Thank you! Great write up, the Fitch Final Report is linked in the MEN article. Fitch pulled call volume, which is great. Don’t see anything related to impact of Swedish as mentioned by one city rep. This is what I was looking for appreciate it. Still would be nice to have in RFA annual report.
CM Paine asked the right question last night for someone to explain why the fire and EMS price tag is increasing “so dramatically”. Putting it into perspective, they will be asking us to almost double what we currently pay for Fire and EMS for the same level of service by joining the RFA.
Rather than just an off-the-cuff response from the dais, I would encourage you (us) to reach out to our elected officials for a more complete answer to CM Paine’s question. It would be interesting to know how well they actually understand the issue. Afterall, they will be voting soon on a recommendation to actually join the RFA and the new budget will be dependent on it. Let’s start to populate this comment section with their responses (or lack thereof).
On second thought, maybe we do need more first responders, one on every street corner with paddles in hand to resuscitate us once we see our new tax bill!
Jim, the answer to CM Pain’s question is pretty simple I think. Just like our police department, RFA has too much Chief’s ‘ overhead and too little Boots’ on the ground financing. This has little to do with CM Chen’s alleged “inflation” problem and everything to do with poor use of resources (bad management). It sounds like Mayor Rosen plans to address that at least to some extent and I doubt most CMs will back him on getting a handle on spending. As usual I hope I’m wrong but not optimistic.
The Council’s decision to pursue a double taxation policy on fire services is a disaster. I hope it will rile up taxpayers to vote down any property tax levy lift and any RFA annexation. The Council has totally ignored the multiple major issues of excessive spending and lack of cost control in the City operations and in the RFA operations. I and others have supplied the Council with dozens of questions that should have been asked of both the RFA and Edmonds’ police about their excessive costs starting in 2019 that have nothing to do with inflation or Covid, and everything to do with mismanagement, lack of focus on efficiency, lack of transparency in financial reporting, and inability/unwillingness to justify 50-100% increases in spending between 2019 and 2025. It’s unconscionable that the Council has not demanded answers to these questions, and not sought out alternatives – Edmonds own fire department, contract police with the County Sheriff, and material cuts in spending and staffing that would combined save taxpayers at least $12 million per year! By simply accepting all the excessive costs, and attributing them to the general economy and Starbucks’ coffees, the Council is totally derelict in their duties and have abandoned any sense of fighting for taxpayers! When are they going to give us answers to all our questions?
In recent discussions surrounding the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) and the Edmonds City Council’s management of information about our community’s transition into the RFA, Bill Krepik has circulated false information that undermines the hard work and dedication of local leaders. It is imperative that we address these inaccuracies head-on and promote a fact-based dialogue about our public safety services. Krepik’s anti-tax activism and his proposals for solutions that lack any realistic foundation are not only misleading but also detrimental to the progress in the community. Transitioning into the RFA is a complex decision that requires careful consideration of the facts, funding needs, and the long-term benefits for residents. Ignoring these realities in favor of unfounded claims does a disservice to the citizens of Edmonds. City Council and the RFA have been transparent in their efforts to communicate the reasoning behind this important decision. They have engaged with the community, commissioned a comprehensive report via a third party to explore alternative options, and attempted to address concerns. It is disappointing to see individuals like Krepik resort to sensationalism and misinformation, which only serves to sow discord and confusion. Engaged citizens should reject the narrative that prioritizes anti-tax sentiment over the safety and well-being of the community. Instead, let us support our leaders in making informed and strategic decisions that will ensure the best outcomes.
Mr. Cash
Why are you cheerleading such abysmal financial performance from SCFD? They report no financial metrics that would expose their excessive costs and inefficient operations. They try to get everyone to echo their PR mantra that regional scale leads to efficiencies in operations. They have been anything but efficient. They have raised the price of the Edmonds contract by 50% over the past 4 years and have stated they will raise Edmonds’ taxpayers’ cost by another 50% starting in 2026. They offer no justification for these outrageous price increases other than hiding behind assessed valuations and property taxes. They say Edmonds needs to pay the same as all their other customers, and they say that assessed value tax levies are fair. They are not fair. Edmonds will pay more than other communities because their assessed values are higher. Assessed values have no correlation to fire or EMS service costs. If RFA was transparent, they would manage their business and report on per capita and per service call costs for all residential customers and per 911 call costs. They don’t, because that would expose the dirty secret that tax levies are used to cover up their bloated management layers, excessive cost basis, lack of efficiency, and overall mismanagement. Easier for them to say Edmonds needs to pay more to match tax levies of other communities.
A quick Internet search. Zach Cash is the Political Director for IAFF Local 1828, also known as the South County Union Firefighters. Transparency???
Can you provide examples of what information is inaccurate and your affiliation with the fire department?
Mike and Brian,
I’m employed by the RFA and a member of the firefighter’s union but not speaking on their behalf. My thoughts/opinions are my own, however I am more informed than the average Joe (or Bill) on this issue given the several annexations I’ve witnessed over the past few years.
Mr. Krepick is either being willfully ignorant or purposefully misleading when he speaks about various facets of this issue. He yearns for a different tax system than the one we have, and casts aspersions on anyone doing the challenging work of keeping public services accessible. He offers himself as a more authoritative voice on the issue than a third-party consultant that was paid by the city to give REALISTIC options for future vital public safety services. He says Edmonds will pay more than other communities in the RFA due to their assessed valuation, but that is false as the RFA serves both Mill Creek and Brier who both have 2024 average home valuations comparable to Edmonds. See the County Assessor’s website page 32: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/120093/2024-Annual-Report?bidId=
Edmond’s typical levy rate is one of the lowest in the county, largely due to the fact that they are being subsidized for Fire/EMS by other residents of the RFA. That’s not a sustainable or fair model.
Zach,
Can you help us understand what services that we’re receiving from the RFA under our current contract that we’re not paying for? And paying the full cost of the service?
I would suggest that before you answer this, you review the city’s current contract with South County Fire.
Mr. Cash,
Still haven’t seen a response to a couple of simple questions. If you can’t answer them, then maybe there is someone you know in the RFA who can.
This is an important decision by the community. We would all be better off to be well informed with honesty and transparency. Is that too much to ask?
Jim,
I work 24 hour shifts and have a personal policy not to engage in this type of discussion while on the public dime. I hope you understand.
I’m familiar with the city’s contract with SCF and I know they do not currently pay for specialty staffing the marine unit out of the Edmonds Marina. The RFA foots the bill to keep 3 people staffed every day who can respond to emergencies in or near the marina. This is just one example of a service benefiting Edmonds visitors and residents that isn’t funded by the current contract.
Taking actions anticipating Edmonds population to grow by 13,000 in the next 20 years is irresponsible. Edmonds 2010 population was 39,709. As part of the cooperative planning process for the region,Edmonds established a population planning target of 45,550 for the year 2035. The pop in 2020 was 42,832; in 2023 43,370. In 2024 there are different figures, but all below the 2020 figure.
What will cause a growth of 13,000 in the next 20 years? Will Shane Hope get us a rationale answer to this important question?
Fire is only a part of our budget issue as reported on by MEN.
The total Gap between revenues and expenses is estimated to be $25-30m but may be closer to $25m if council approves the cuts that will be proposed in the 2025 budget???
Council seems to be charting a course for 2 levies in 2025 to cover the total Gap of $25m. The first will be for about $15m and the rest will come later in 2025.
The article states Fire will cost $19.5m and council must by law give taxpayers credit for the $4.4m EMS levy. They expressed a plan to keep the other $6.5m GF taxes to help with the $25m Gap. But that will not solve the problem.
If council votes to do the above, we would have a Fire Levy of around $15m in April and a follow-up levy later in 2025 for the additional $10m needed to cover the full Gap.
To generate $1m the tax is about $70 for a $1m home or business. Currently a $1m property pays $1020. A $15m levy would add about $1050 and the $10m levy would add another $700.
When we see the proposed budget, it will be time to talk about new revenues and added cuts. But we need to talk about the total Gap not just Fire.
Darrol, this only addresses the city portion of the property tax bill. The school district and other taxing districts are also looking at increased levies. Do you have a picture of the total tax landscape that you can share?
The state supt of schools is asking for increased payments to schools. If all is from taxes that might be about $200 for a $1m home. Declining enrollment produces less revenue and moving 6th grade to middle school will further reduce the elementary enrollment. We are not keeping pace with replacements (too long a story for this post) and with aging building the cost to maintain goes up. Labor contracts will also add to the costs. If the gap between revenues and cost cannot be filled it may mean some school consolidation. We may need to rethink many components of our educational system. Should we for example increase the use of preschool for all families? And should we find ways to use “neighborhood buildings” to support more educational activities for all kids?
We are falling behind in replacing aging buildings. The last bond team found that we had a need for $1b for school replacement but the district asked for less than $600m. Edmonds builds schools today with construction bonds. Interest adds about 75% to the cost. Construction levies would be more cost effective. All taxes would go to the building and not to interest.
The following is posted on behalf of Joan Bloom, who is having technical trouble:
Zach Cash,
Your comments are in “bad faith and shameful.” As the Political Director for IAFF Local 1828 (SCF) you should have immediately stated your position, then identified your comments as your own. Instead, you chose to NOT be transparent. In your first post, you accused Mr. Krepick of “anti-tax activism.” In your second post you said he “yearns for a different tax system” and “casts aspersions” on others. In your fourth post, you added “a magical tax model,” “disparaging people” and suggested his informed opinion was in “bad faith and shameful.”
Mr. Krepick replied with his background, that he is a “staunch taxpayer advocate,” and that his research has found that “important metrics of costs per resident, costs per call, number of calls” have not been provided by SCF. You’ve ignored him.
Your comments here have been “shameful.” The politically correct action for you to take is to apologize to Mr. Krepick and provide or direct us to the requested data.
FYI, those of us who are well informed about Edmonds politics have observed that there are no unbiased consultants, so we view their recommendations with that in mind.
To Joan Bloom,
You will find that my initial post to Mr. Krepick includes 223 words, just a couple short of the maximum number allowed in a single post. I have not tried to conceal or deny the fact that I’m an employee of SCF and a leader in the firefighters union, I simply didn’t have room for such a disclaimer. Again, my comments on this board are my own.
Mr. Krepick, far from being a “taxpayer advocate” (aka anti-tax activist) on this issue, is promoting to Edmonds residents something analogous to sticking your heads in the sand and then complaining about the view. Luckily for him as an “unbiased third party” he won’t have to deal with the chaotic effects that his prescribed actions would bring on the residents and workers of this community. The consultant took the data and numbers and came up with a recommendation based on the facts, figures and reality of the situation. If you and Mr. Krepick don’t want to believe that consultant’s report then what would be sufficient?
Mr. Cash,
I don’t see anyone here advocating “anti-tax speech”. We are questioning the irresponsible, disrespectful, and inept way our tax money has been squandered by Edmond’s city council.
Now this same council is pushing more of this ineptitude’s results to the taxpayers as if we have unlimited resources and keep paying more without seeing any results. It’s not different than the mafia’s “protection money” and in a very similar mobster behavior.
Therefore, it’s very reasonable to question how this money is being spent, mostly after seeing a projected jump from $11 to $19 million, which is above any inflation rate and opens the door for even more doubts (mostly when we see how our money has been squandered, the RFA’s opacity and ENRON-style numbers like the “13000 population growth”). There’s absolutely nothing reassuring about this whole process, quite the contrary.
Based on this price jump, what to expect for the following years? Another jump to $30+m? For what I see, there’s no limit on this craziness. What about the city population who cannot afford it? Move away and sell their property to developers for them and their henchmen to fill their pockets?
I am sure that if you are who you say you are, you can provide the answers other posters have been asking for.
Since the beginning of our contract for fire it has grown at reasonable rates that are close to inflation rate. In addition to the normal growth of the contract as outlined, we did adjust the contract a couple of times. Once was to compensate SCF for increase because of more help coming from other stations. Another time was because we wanted additional staff for EMS at all stations. We did have to pay for retroactive contract adjustments because of added labor costs negotiated by the union.
The data shows we are better off with a contract than joining SCF and in the council docs SCF said they would agree to negotiate a revised contract.
CM Paine’s question is very much in play and all council should have those answers before proceeding.
It was way less expensive and a great deal contract before we were over served (per the claims of SCF) and it had to become way more expensive to be fair to the under served cities. Now the long and short of it all is that people who own $1M homes in Edmonds, which is just about everyone with a greater than 2000 sq. ft. home, has to pay another $1000/yr. to cover at least one more expensive aid call for someone. Vote NO on RFA and any bailouts. Best we go bankrupt and get someone in charge who knows something about good management and has some degree of ability to negotiate with Unions. Let’s get back our own basic fire department that just puts out fires, have private EMS and users pay for the services as needed. If the Union doesn’t like it they can sue us – (what the Hell, everyone else is because they think Edmonds is where all the money is). Contract with County for police and save about 40% on that service based on the experience of nearby cities. Hiking up taxes is the easy answer; good management is the hard answer. Guess which way our Council will choose to go. Hint: they just voted to double tax fire (robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Contracting with another Fire/EMS agency isn’t a cheaper option per the report that the city paid Fitch to complete. The RFA has never tendered the option of another contract for the city, except to cover the city on an interim basis if they’re unable to secure funding. The short term contract would be at parity with the rest of the RFA, and would probably cost more than joining the RFA due to the overhead of administering a short and likely complicated agreement.
Mr. Cash
who are you? an employee of the RFA? if you have been following the Edmonds’ taxpayers’ comments to the Edmonds Council, you will know that the Fitch report is loaded with misinformation, omissions, and superficial analysis. It totally ignored many critical terms of the current Edmonds interlocal agreement with South County Fire that reflect 2 stations as being more optimal than 3 stations, an ability to buy back fire equipment at market prices, a way to reduce management layers and more efficiently staff fire stations. Edmonds can do a better job of managing their own fire department! The RFA wrote a letter to the City and said they would entertain an extension of the existing contract starting in 2026. The RFA’s quote for $19 million fire/ems service cost is based on annexation with substantially higher tax levy rates that Edmonds is now paying. RFA’s prices are ludicrous and simply a result of State authorized taxation districts. RFA adds tax upon tax to justify their out-of-control cost increases – a special EMS tax, a FBC – fire benefit charge. I’m not anti-tax – I’m for reasonable and defensible taxes – and for efficiency in government. In August, Everett and Mukilteo residents voted down unreasonable tax levy increases. Edmonds residents should do the same!
What may be helpful is for either MEN or the city to host a FAQ site. That way we can all see the information in one location and updated as needed. This is one of the most important decisions the community will need to make, so we should be well informed.
Mr. Krepick
Who are you? A resident or worker in Edmonds? So the impartial third party report THE CITY commissioned that came back showing the RFA was the most cost effective service for the city to pursue is full of misinformation because you didn’t like the conclusion? I worked in Edmonds for several years as a firefighter/paramedic and am proud to serve in the city. My comments here are my own.
What you must not understand about the 2 vs 3 station model is that you couldn’t eliminate personnel even if you relocated the buildings because you need more than 2 crews in the city to run all the calls without constantly relying on outside resources. Relocating 3 buildings to 2 would require purchasing land and constructing 2 new buildings as well, to the tune of 30-50 million dollars. Council admitted that they’d rather have an expert organization manage their emergency fire/EMS services then have the city do it themselves!
Complaining that there isn’t a magical tax model that doesn’t exist and disparaging people and agencies for doing the needed work to keep these services running is bad faith and shameful.
PS Jim O. The cities/RFA have always set up websites for the very reason you mentioned. I would expect they will do the same on this issue, in due time.
Great idea Jim O. That would allow anyone who is so inclined to read all the relevant documents and cut through all the opinions that are being espoused around this subject.
Zach,
I might suggest that it’s due time now to have a one stop shop for questions and answers. After all, the city will be entering budget season in a week and this topic has to be at the top of the list budget-wise.
Zack, All the stakeholders involved want to have high quality services at a reasonable and fair cost. Unfortunately, the Union Firefighters getting mixed in one-sided hyper-partisan politics this past election hurt your credibility, alas eroded some trustworthiness.
Brian,
Our members have a right to weigh in on the political process. There’s always going to be someone who feels left out in the cold, but that’s how our political system works. You can’t fault our members for speaking out just because you don’t like what they have to say.
Councilmember Will Chen said. “Inflation has been in the double digits for a couple of year and our tax levy as allowed by law was only 1%”. Our inflation rate has not been in the double digits since the early 1980’s. Property taxes can only be raised by 1% a year, but those taxes are only about 30% of the city’s total revenues.
Well said Ron. Will Chen, is one of the CMs who was all gung-ho for throwing away $100K of our precious tax money in that dumb purchase agreement the city entered into on Landmark. Dozens of his constituents screamed NO but he just could not listen. It saddens me that people who think like this are in charge of our financial future as a city. I’ve come to believe that new Mayor Rosen is desperately trying to bring some sanity to the management of this city but he is going to need better help than he is getting so far from this Council and their not very well hidden “special” constituents in some cases.
Mr. Clinton Wright, thank you for your acknowledgement of individual councilmember’s work. However, the City Council makes decisions as a body, not as an individual. One thing that I can take full responsibility for regarding the “Landmark project” is the motion that I made to end the work on the Landmark Project at the July 2nd Council meeting to adopt resolution 1551. I don’t make that motion lightly.
Here is the My Edmonds News Article on the meeting.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/07/council-ends-work-on-landmark-project-but-supports-future-hwy-99-investments/
“Councilmember Will Chen made the motion to adopt resolution (1551), which had been proposed by city staff. Pointing to the city’s financial challenges — which were highlighted Tuesday night in a report from the mayor’s appointed Blue Ribbon Panel of financial advisors — Chen said that “the best step… is for us to take a step back” from the Landmark project.”
Come on Will, a little transparency here. There were at least two earlier votes where the Council as a body could have easily bailed out of the deal and not lost the 100K. As I recall you voted in the affirmative to stay with the deal until it became obvious that the city was in big trouble financially and needed to back out of the deal. The fact that you were basically all for it before you were all against it is obvious. The fact that you acted to start the declaration of an emergency after many of your constituents and a couple other council members informed you there was one is hardly anything to be bragging about. It was just stating the obvious or jumping in front of the parade. You as much as at least three others on our current council own the act of throwing away 100K of our money on a pipe dream presented for political gain by the Nelson administration. We are tired of people who are supposed to represent all of us trying to have it both ways all the time.
Edmonds wants EMS in 2025 at 2015 prices. That’s not how life works. You don’t complain to the manager of Safeway and get 2015 grocery prices. The expectation there is a solution other than paying your share, like Lynnwood, shoreline, and Esperance already do is ridiculous. Tax payers are in for a rude awakening if having to pay for what they enjoy, just like everyone else is already doing.
Also, no action on the growth plan doesn’t put the growth on 99. That old tactic Edmonds has used to neglect growth management was taken into account when Olympia drafted the various bills. No plan means the State plan kicks in which is far more aggressive than anything Edmonds has proposed. Also duplexes and quad plexes and adus will be legalized across the board, not just on 99 and even more density near brt stops. Get used to it.
No, Paul, I don’t complain to the manager of Safeway to get 2015 grocery prices. I go to well managed employee owned and profit sharing Winco to get 2015 grocery prices (well not that good, but close to it). I can afford to pay to have my sorry old carcass hauled to the hospital so why am I going to vote to pay another $1000/yr. so someone else can get hauled to the hospital for free? By the same token, why am I going to vote to bail out this crazy mismanaged city when my tax money is just thrown away and then some over paid city Staff Director makes light of having done it. Sure we have to accept some higher costs and growth some of us might not prefer to have, but we don’t have to keep being stupid and spend happy to go about it. That’s a choice my friend.
Yes, all of the financial issues are critical and not well managed for many years by our CM, but don’t miss the last paragraph in this report. Michelle Bennett wants to turn our beautiful City into a crude, 1984 community full of cameras and police oversight with an imaginary need for “objective evidence”. They got the speed cameras installed under the guise of safety but only after seeing the level of revenue generated in Lynnwood. Then red light cameras making money. Her love of camera seems to have no end. What is happening to our City?
The paragraph you refer to seems to be a reasonable and effective use of technology applied to finding vehicles of interest. This could include stolen vehicles but also think about amber alerts, silver alerts etc. when I worked for Motorola at least fifteen years ago, there was a group there that was installing similar technology connected to the dashcams in squad cars for the city of Los Angeles. This proposal hardly puts us in the vanguard of applied technology.
I for one would welcome a red light camera at the intersection outside my house because it is getting increasingly dangerous to pull into or out of my driveway due to people running that light at speed.
Agreed. Police state is a bad image for Edmonds and we don’t need additional spending after the grant is up. Edmonds PD annual reports show vehicle theft is down, and thefts from vehicles down significantly.
EPD does a good job, it’s the court system and jail systems that need change. Slap on the wrist and releasing people back into society worse off than they went in.
I’d like to see all the newly installed traffic cameras go too. It creates friction between citizens / our visitors and our city leadership. But more importantly, it creates a false sense of security for pedestrians. If you get a ticket, you’ve already sped through the intersection. Speed bumps are proactive measures of slowing vehicles.
Realize, this request is just phase 1. They’ll never roll back features and use cases, just add more. Eroding privacy and wasting more of our dollars.
Is a public / private option viable? Fire handled by public entity & EMS contracted through a private entity or shared public / private? Seattle contracts with AMR for EMS. Don’t know if there’s a cost savings.
Or can SCF bill insurance / patients for transport?
Nick,
SCF already bills insurance for patient transports as appropriate. Using private EMS providers is a slippery slope and has led to service disruptions throughout the state:
https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/reduction-private-ambulance-service-pierce-county-impacts/281-2f462bab-3707-4b55-939f-3942494f8e5a
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/contract-talks-stall-between-seattles-emts-and-american-medical-response-setting-stage-for-possible-strike/
Edmonds deserves better than a cut-rate EMS group and a “bare bones” fire department.
Zach
since you are obviously biased with your history as Political Director for IAFF Local 1828 (South County Fire), you should be transparent and tell folks your advocacy position for RFA! I am a retired Snohomish County resident, former CEO of public company, staunch taxpayer advocate, and an objective 3rd party in the RFA issue. Facts I have uncovered in my research include the lack of historical reporting transparency by RFA with respect to important metrics of costs per resident, costs per call, number of calls, etc. RFA’s budget increases are not justified. Shoreline residents pay $344/resident for fire/ems services; Edmonds residents will pay $445/resident under RFA annexation! That’s a 30% cost penalty for RFA! Edmonds residents pay over $1200 per response now. That number will be almost $2,000 in 2026! You think that makes any sense? Medina residents pay Bellevue $224 per year for contract services. After RFA annexation, Brier and Mountlake Terrace residents fire/ems service costs increased by 50-70%. Edmonds residents are in the same untenable position waiting for the RFA axe to fall. RFA’s answer to cost control is to increase revenues with separate taxes for ems, fire, and FBC (fire benefit charge). RFA is inefficient and non-competitive. The Fitch consultant simply parroted back RFA’s PR positions. Annexation would be a rip-off for Edmonds taxpayers!
Hi Zach, I appreciate your service to the community! Our concerns are a ‘sign of the times’. Edmonds is facing a $20 million deficit, and city leaders have signaled they’re intent on keeping the existing fire tax funds even if RFA is signed. ST reports WA has lost a net ~1,500 high income earners in the last year, schools are facing significant budget cuts, the region continues to face an affordability & homelessness crisis. King5 reported just last week Bellingham senior citizens reporting to food banks has tripled. Cities are looking for ways to cut spending, Mukilteo residents in 23′ & 24′ voted down additional EMS spend.
A concern with a single large entity, there is no incentive to operate efficiently. At a time like this, we’d love to see SCF come to the table with creative options for cutting expenses, operating more efficiently. If SCF is asking for more tax dollars, improvement in service & economic circumstances should weigh into the decision.
-best regards!
We’re not alone in facing these significant Fire & EMS cost increases. I think it’s important to share and discuss our options. As EMS calls far outnumber fire calls, municipalities are making changes to their delivery model to decrease calls and improve response times.
Fitch in 2016, had similar recommendations of staffing EMS vs Fire at some stations.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2016/04/report-edmonds-fire-ems-services-can-improve-performance-reduce-costs/
Here’s how 1 city in CA did it.
“Key Takeaways
• Bigger is not always better. Contracting with a regional fire protection service provider requires a one-size-fits-all service model, it always costs more with no control over service levels or quality, and there is little incentive for innovation or adaptability.
• Analysis of Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and workload analysis data is critical in understanding your community’s actual risk profile and developing a new service model.
• Separating fire protection and prevention services from emergency medical services reduces cost, reduces response times, and improves the overall quality of both services.
• EMS is a healthcare function, not a public safety function.” – ICMA Jul 01, 2022
https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/reimagining-fire-and-paramedic-services-21st-century
https://www.governing.com/archive/col-fire-departments-rethink-delivery-emergency-medical-services.html
I respectfully ask the Snohomish County Assessor to send my $1000 property tax increase for world class fire service to Mr. Cash, because I’m tapped out at 10K/yr. for the mere privilege of just living here. A “bare bones” fire department with some actual citizen input as to how it’s run sounds like just what the doctor ordered to me.
Using private EMS providers is a “slippery slope” because it is competition for public supported EMS workers. I don’t know what the cost is now for training a fully certified medical tech. but per an Everett Fireman friend’s information about 8 years ago it was well over 100K then . It’s probably way more than that now. Sure it’s wonderful to have all this state of the art medical aid service but there is a real high price to pay for it and now the desire is to dump most of the cost on already over taxed property owners. If it’s true that Seattle actually contracts for private EMS, then our Mayor and CP should be consulting with them about relative costs one would think. A city that is basically broke needs to look for every cost cutting measure possible, regardless of who objects either as an individual or as a group.
The South County RFA is authorized by and governed by state law. RCW 52.26.090 gives the RFA board of commissioners broad authority to contract for services. There is nothing in law to impair the creation of a new contract between the City of Edmonds and the RFA, a contract that would fairly compensate the RFA for the true costs of providing fire and EMS services to our city.
People whose judgement I respect have assured me a new contract would serve us better than annexing into the RFA via public vote. I have seen no credible analysis to the contrary (heated political rhetoric does not count).
You make a compelling argument for a new contract with fair compensation, then annexing into the RFA via public vote. The apparent motive for the City Council’s push for annexation seems to be the swift transfer of funds, previously allocated for emergency services, into the general funds, The transfer is irresponsible, it was not the intended use when collected.
But if Edmonds entered Into a new longterm contract with the RFA for fire and EMS services, that would preclude annexation. A new contract and annexation are mutually exclusive options. It’s one or the other.
I wouldn’t read too much into Council’s apparent interest in annexation. The City is keeping both options on the table; they seem to recognize the taxpayer benefits of going the contract route.
I believe RFA wants the easy way out with assessed value-based tax levies. RFA’s $19 million quote for 2026 services is based on tax based levies, not cost of providing service! They don’t want to price anything based on costs or efficiencies (like EMS separated out). They just want to portray themselves as ‘fair’ to all by saying all fire/ems customers, whether they are annexed or not, should pay their ‘fair share’ and that is with tax levies based on assessed valuations – even though assessed valuations have absolutely nothing to do with the costs of providing fire/ems service. RFA takes advantage of misguided State laws which do nothing to incent efficiency in operations, or to force financial reporting on cost per service and cost per resident basis. RFA refuses to provide taxpayers with actual costs of operation, or with historic data on how costs have risen faster than COL and population growth. The Council wants the easy way out and doesn’t care about doubling taxpayer’s property taxes. They want to offload the RFA ‘problem’ on taxpayers by having taxpayers pay both the RFA and the City for the same services! If anyone did an honest analysis of costs of providing efficient fire and ems services , it would be $12 million, not $19 million! RFA will not contract with Edmonds for under $19 million!
The County says our dirt is worth $1.1 million and our house is worth $233,000. As far as I know our dirt isn’t going to burn up or become unusable as a result of fire or water damage. Yet, what we pay for “fire/ems” service is going to be based primarily on the value of our land that would actually go up if we or a potential buyer didn’t have an old house to dispose of before redevelopment. At least two houses will get built where one is now. If our house catches fire, once no people or pets are inside, I’ll be asking for a controlled burn training exercise rather than putting out the fire. Build one nice old person friendly house to live in and sell the other side of the property to pay for it. Thanks to our ultra Liberal state government for making all this possible. Just kidding, but you get the idea – it really is a crazy upside down world we have created for ourselves to live in and not getting better anytime soon I suspect.
I am still flabbergasted by the Edmonds CC (except one) thinking that’s it’s perfectly OK to steal the taxpayer money to cover the holes they made and add another (not cheap) tax on the taxpayers. Intriguing thing is that taxes are percentages of prices going sky-high (including property taxes). So, the (lame) excuse of “inflation” does not fly. The real question is, besides the armies of “consultants”, where else is all the money going? Are there ENRON-type CPAs doing the city’s accounts? The 13,000 growth is a bogus number.
So, it appears that my fears that the Edmonds CC (except one) has no interest in the city’s best interests, and will just keep pushing their agendas that will drive the already financially strapped (mostly the elderly living on pensions) away from the city, so their “partners” can fill their pockets with new “high-density” developments, are materializing. As it has happened in several other cities.
A few more questions:
1) Where do the CC thinks taxpayers can pull more money if they (CC) themselves cannot figure out how to cover for their ineptitude in managing the city finances?
2) Going forward, who will manage the costs and charges for the Fire and EMS if they become separated? The CC? What credibility, let alone qualification, they have for that?
Does anyone have the figures on what the City of Edmonds has spent on consultants for each of the past five years? And just what the revenue for City of Edmonds was for each of the past five years? I would think this info is available I was a small business owner in Seattle for 38 years and really never got help from the city. I saw incompetence and outright graft all over the place including sound transit I was forced to sell my business during covid and retired to Edmonds 3 years ago thinking it would be better
Why doesn’t the Edmonds Marina, or Port of Edmonds, foot the fire/ems services bill? Why should the RFA or Edmonds taxpayers foot the bill , when it’s likely that a tiny percentage of Edmonds residents use the Marina. The Marina has locked gates and the general public can’t access the docks or boats. It time to put fire and EMS services for the Port and Marina on a pay-as-you-go basis, just as boat owners pay for storage and for in/out access!. btw- I’ve asked the RFA Public Information officer for a breakdown in costs of each fire and ems response, costs/salaries of all RFA employees, idle time vs. actual on-service call time, costs of sending 9-12 staff for a single cardiac episode, comparative costs for other Western Washington fire districts, annual cost per capita for Edmonds taxpayers – and not surprisingly, I have received no cost information! All they want to talk about is the tax levy rate and assessed value-based tax revenues for fire and ems service. Edmonds taxpayers need to know why the RFA wants $19 million in 2026 for the same services they currently provide for $11.5 million! It’s outrageous.
Mr. Cash-
talk about putting your head in the sand! I have tried for almost 6 months to get the RFA to disclose information on the costs of fire/ems service, and have only heard from them about the tax levy rates necessary to achieve equity between Edmonds and other annexed communities. Tax levies are prices, not costs. How can you justify going from $11.5 million in 2024 service fees to $19.0 million in 2026? Fire/ems services and response times haven’t changed and inflation is running at 3-4%, not 30% per year. Why won’t the RFA disclose costs of each service response? costs per resident per year? number of firefighters per resident? salaries of all staff and management? evidence of productivity improvements? justification for having 9-12 firefighters and ems techs and multiple fire trucks for a cardiac medical event? performance and cost metrics instead of PR narrative about how RFA keeps communities safe? The RFA chooses to emphasize tax levy parity because that is their golden goose and is a great smoke screen for mismanagement and lack of cost control. When are you or anyone from RFA going to produce the cost and performance data that justifies a 65% increase in fire/ems service fees between 2024 and 2026, and a 50% increase between 2019 and 2023?
Zach,
I understand and appreciate your personal policy about responding to these questions. And I thank you for your service.
I hope that the RFA’s canceling of our contract was not just for the want of an additional three firefighters. Besides, the Edmonds Port Authority should be brought into those discussion about the marine unit. The marine unit can’t be worth the additional $8M that joining the RFA would cost us. There must be more to it than that.
If the citizens can understand, then maybe they can support.
Darrol and/or Jim can correct me if I’m wrong here as I think they are the only people who really know what they are talking about in regards the true costs involved in all this and they are the least biased one way or another, but what it comes down to is that if you want to keep living here, you need to plan on paying way more taxes for basic fire and police services which are (supposedly) being run with maximum efficiency now. Our taxes have to go up for that most critical city required function of public safety and then we have to figure out how to pay for all the mismanaged stuff of the past as well as our better managed (hopefully) stuff of the future. I’m hoping our new Mayor submits a bare bones budget focused on just actual needs for a change and that our Council sees the need to back him up on what he proposes even if their special friends don’t like it. We will soon separate the states persons from the political persons, trying to run our city.
I was one who felt our own police department was the way to go. I don’t really know a lot about the details here, but the lack of transparency is glaringly obvious. I think with no way to know how much the RFA will continue to raise and raise our $$$ amounts to belong to it is a problem(beyond 2026) Wouldn’t it be better if we are going to spend a fortune anyway to spend it on our own Fire department. Yes, I guess it’s a state thing that we must have EMS and that’s good, but we do have a hospital, and that hospital should have ambulances. Providence is a huge outfit, and I think maybe we might want to increase the size of our Edmonds hospital and get more ambulances and more security) thru that system?? I think the reason so many wonder at least I do is why I hear sirens day and night. I don’t count but its a lot of sirens. Every day and every night. Now I smell no smoke, I see no flames I hear nothing about a fire. SO, these aren’t police sirens as they try to arrest criminals these are different. We don’t need 60 or 12 individual units showing up for small situations. SO, I don’t know but something smells in Denmark. It’s not smoke.
Also no one likes taxes. But we will always have taxes in this state. Good sometimes. Bad often here especially over the last 5 years it seems to me. I don’t complain much as I really do want to help Edmonds. So, I just figure I would rather give the taxes to Edmonds and our own Fire Department. Yes, it will be spendy, but I bet not as spendy as going with this RFA will be in the long run.. I don’t know for sure who does but that is my gut instinct. Ya know I think a lot of this is political…I like unions but it seems our state is obsessed with wanting everything union. It seems the ones wanting the RFA the most on our CC are it appears to be very L leaning. Ok fine. I am a moderate. I don’t care what your philosophies are I just want to see the CC act in a non partisan way. That is how they run and how they represent themselves, right? That is law of sorts. So lets think about everyone all of us. Change that vote and don’t allow the poison water you down south your kids and maybe soon to have kids will thank you for it eventually.
Non-partisan refers to being free from party affiliation, bias, or designation1. It means not being a member of or connected with a specific political party2. Non-partisan people are unaffiliated voters who may not have a preference for any political representation or consciously decide not to support any major party. Copied and pasted from Microsoft Bing search on internet. Definition of Non Partisan.
Zach,
I stand by my statement that your attacks on one commenter are in “bad faith and shameful” (your words about that commenter) given that you are “a leader in the firefighters union.” You would serve your position, and yourself, more honorably by answering commenters’ questions with transparency and dignity, rather than hostility. I see requests for information, directed towards you, in multiple posts.
You suggest that I “don’t want to believe that consultant’s report” and ask “what would be sufficient?” I’ve been engaged in Edmonds politics for twenty years and have read one “unbiased” report. That was the compensation study done during my term on Council, which was based completely on data, ie the salaries paid to each employee compared to the same positions in comparable cities.
What would be “sufficient” is for South County Fire to provide the “data” which will answer the questions being asked.
Thank you Ms. Bloom I have found your comments over the years factual and enlightening. If the RFA does not answer questions to citizen satisfaction I suggest any vote placed before the voters to join be a NO. Why would anyone offering a safety service to the public involving their tax dollars
not be receptive to their questions? Why vote yes to pay for anything if you don’t know what you’re getting and why?