With both a presidential and gubernatorial election debate on the same evening, just one person offered comments during a Tuesday night public hearing on what the Edmonds City Council should do about property taxes if voters agree to join the South County Fire regional fire authority. But councilmembers assured the public they would have more opportunities to weigh in prior to the council making a decision on the matter.
Councilmember Neil Tibbott began the hearing by recapping past council actions that led to Tuesday night’s hearing. 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 the RFA’s termination letter, Fire Chief Bob Eastman said that Edmonds is “paying less for service under the current contract than the rest of the RFA. Those other members include the cities of Brier, Lynnwood, Mill Creek and Mountlake Terrace. “South County Fire is committed to providing rate parity moving forward, so everyone we serve pays the same rate for the same service,” Eastman added)
After commissioning a study and much discussion, the Edmonds City 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 be before voters in April 2025.
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. In 2022, the city paid $9 million 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
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, 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. (See more in our coverage of the council’s budget retreat in August.)
Tibbott then explained the three scenarios that could occur if voters approve RFA annexation:
Scenario 1 “All”: The City of Edmonds retains the dollars in its general fund that paid for the fire contract, a total of $5,965,492.
Scenario 2 “None”: The City of Edmonds reduces its general fund levy by $5,965,492, the amount currently funding the fire contract.
Scenario 3 “Some”: The City of Edmonds reduces its general property tax levy by a different dollar amount.
Focusing on Scenarios 1 and 2, Tibbott then shared a slide showing the annexation cost impact to taxpayers, based on an average home described as 2,000 square feet with an assessed valuation of $836,183.
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 lone commenter was Edmonds resident Jim Ogonowski, who asked “Whose money is it? It’s not your money, it’s the taxpayers’ money. We’ve allocated it to the city to expend it on fire and EMS services. So if we are not going to get that service from the city, that money rightly should come back to the citizens.”
Tibbott stressed that “the council will continue to take comments from the public via email or online forms so we can add that to our deliberation,” adding that a special council meeting would be held on the topic next week
“We truly do want feedback from across our city,” added Councilmember Chris Eck. “These are complex decisions. No one’s mind is made up yet. We’re still mulling over feedback we continue to get.”
Councilmember Jenna Nand said she thought it was helpful for the public to be able to see how the RFA options would affect taxpayers. “My personal hope is that our taxpayers, and our property owners, our constituents can see the value in the city retaining 100% of its current levy lift to be able to address the structural budget gap and retain the [city’s] level of service and the level of staffing.”
Addressing questions from councilmembers, City Attorney Jeff Taraday noted the council would have the chance annually to decide whether to reduce the levy amount. “So as the city climbs out of its fiscal crisis, each year as it makes the decision to levy taxes for the next year, it will have an opportunity to make that what we are sort of colloquially referring to as ‘the some, none or all decision,'” he said. “If the city decides in ’26 that it needs to keep all that money, that doesn’t mean that it’s that way forever.”
Also during its regular business meeting Tuesday, the council agreed with Councilmember Vivian Olson to reconsider a vote it took Aug. 13 opposing annexation of a Meadowdale neighborhood of 47 homes into the City of Edmonds. Olson explained that she wanted additional time to research additional information related to the annexation process, and the council then voted 4-3 (Councilmembers Susan Paine, Tibbott and Nand opposed) to approve Olson’s motion to postpone the matter indefinitely.
In addition, the council:
— Heard a financial report from Mayor Rosen. The mayor noted that the city’s three sources of general fund revenues — sales tax, property tax and development-related revenues — are “each up over same time last year,” but there is also a downside to that news. Year-to-date sales tax revenues are $102,652 higher than last year, “however it is $252,816 under the budget forecast,” Rosen said. Property tax revenues are $297,028 higher but $252,405 lower than forecast. Year-to-date development-related revenues (such as permit fees) are $385,607 higher than in 2023. “We have received 88% of the total $1,840,000 that was budgeted… and are only 67% of the way through the year,” he said. While that’s positive news, “it’s also good to remember, especially with development-related fees, that these are inconsistent to predict. “Total property and sales tax revenues are $500,000 lower than the 2024 forecast, which is “sort of an echoing of issues that have happened in the past,” he said. “I think you will appreciate that we intend to be far more conservative in forecasting revenues for the 2025 budget so these kinds of things do not happen again.”
— Unanimously approved a construction bid of $1,416,113 for the CA Carey Corporation for the Main Street overlay project, which runs from 6th to 8th avenues and is federally funded.
— Unanimously approved a staff recommendation to pursue undergrounding of utilities for phases 3 and 4 of the Highway 99 Revitalization Project, which will be funded through federal and state grants.
During a special 5 p.m. meeting prior to the 7 p.m. business meeting, the council:
— Received an update on progress made regarding the transportation plan that will be included as part of the city’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan update. The public is invited to learn more about the transportation plan during an in-person open house Sept. 18.
— Interviewed two candidates for the Edmonds Planning Board: Jon Milkey and George Bennett (alternate). Both candidates were approved as part of the council business meeting agenda.
— By Teresa Wippel
If, as stated in fire chief Eastman’s letter announcing the termination of the RFA’s contract with Edmonds, “South County Fire is committed to providing rate parity moving forward, so everyone we serve pays the same rate for the same service”, then it is incumbent on the RFA to negotiate in good faith with Edmonds to ensure an outcome that satisfies that commitment.
The actual charges levied by the RFA are a combination of a component based on assessed value and a component based on the benefit charge. As the examples presented by CM Tibbott clearly show, the RFA rates that would apply to Edmonds are heavily biased towards the the assessed value of Edmonds homes and not towards the actual cost of providing service. This will result in Edmonds residents paying substantially more for the same service than similar homeowners in other parts of the RFA whose assessed values are lower. Any decision to annex Edmonds to the RFA MUST be offset by an agreement to shift the burden of RFA costs to a benefit charge based model.
Of course, it goes without saying that our council and administration must also seek a full audit of the RFA costs and demand cost savings wherever those are possible. We are paying less than our share only because RFA costs have outstripped expectations in the current contract.
The three-minute public hearing format is often ineffective. It appears that council members have typically reached a decision beforehand and are merely seeking citizens to confirm it by ticking a box, they create a facade of considering citizen input. Lone commenter Edmonds resident Jim Ogonowski, who asked “Whose money is it? It’s not your money, it’s the taxpayers’ money.”, made the salient point. Although it was not reported, Ogonowski reminded the council that taking money from citizens and not using it for the intended purpose is essentially stealing. As with most thefts, the perpetrator in this case the council. usually comes up with a plethora of imagined justifications for their behaviors
Niall, you are 100% correct. RFA wants to go from $12 million to $19 million in Edmonds fire services ‘costs’ – not because they have any proof that costs have increased that much, but because they ‘can.’ The State laws supporting fire district taxation on an assessed value basis, rather than on a per capita and per house basis, are are totally bogus and devoid of any incentive for fire districts to be efficient. Theoretical economies of scale for fire districts are nowhere to be found. The only scale that fire districts deliver are the overstaffed and overpaid personnel, and constant increases in operational costs that are beyond population growth and COL. It’s truly pathetic. You point out the worst issue related to differences in assessed valuations between communities. The $7 million increase in Edmonds fire services costs is because Edmonds has higher assessed valuations than other RFA communities. Edmonds will be subsidizing other communities and will be paying for RFA’s bloated and inefficient operations. The RFA will never negotiate a ‘reasonable’ deal for Edmonds with higher cost fire benefit charges offsetting tax levies because that would be discriminatory to the other fire district residents. The only solution is for Edmonds to establish its own fire department and separate EMS service and fund both at the current $12 million/year. No new tax levies!
Bill, I’m not signing on to the idea that there should be no increase in the cost of fire and EMS service. Costs have increased ands our police and fire service employees deserve raises to keep pace with inflation just like everyone else does. It is not realistic to say that the cost of providing these services should be held fixed: that will necessarily lead to declining levels of service. What is equally important though is that the city cannot simply accede to the RFA’s demands without seeking some structural changes that protect the tax payers of Edmonds during this transition. If/when Edmonds is needed into the RFA, we will lose any leverage we have to control these costs and therefore now is the time to fight for the best possible deal for all of Edmonds.
sorry Niall, but when the costs go up by 50% in 4 years for police and by 60% in 2 years for fire/ems that is outrageous and is way above COL and population growth! Edmonds could run its own fire/ems service for $12 million, not the $19 million that RFA is trying to get with a new contract or through annexation – that is based on Edmonds’ properties’ higher assessed valuations. The Edmonds police chief said that Shoreline has a 40% lower cost in police services because they have economies of scale with King County Sherriff’s office contract – and she further says there are two independent studies that confirm County Sheriff’s services cost 50% less than individual cities own police services! Why should Edmonds pay 40% more for the same level of service by having their own police department? Cutting costs is the prudent way to go when you’re being more efficient and not cutting services, and when Edmonds faces a $15 million deficit – and is close to bankruptcy. .
And the best possible deal short term is to take back our own fire department for the purpose of only fighting fires and figure out some other way to provide medical aid calls that require all users of the service who possibly can to pay directly for that service until we can fold it back into the tax structure if we can figure out a way to put it on a sustainable basis again. Of course this would require good municipal management and leadership which we do not have. In around 2009 instead of fixing and making do with what we had for a local F.D. our city officers drank the cool aid of Regional Fire Service economy of scale (which would be good if there were actually oversight by the served cities) and now we are back in essentially the same spot and we are being pushed toward doing the same thing again. DO NOT fall for voting yourself any new taxes that these impractical people try to foist on you with fear tactics as usual. NO RFA and NO Bailout until they learn how to live within their means just like we have to. Are their any private ambulance services looking for a new home should be the first question asked?
To be clear; I’m not endorsing either extreme. I’m not saying that the RFA cost of $19 million is justified and I’m not saying that it’s reasonable to expect to expect zero increases in cost after the inflation that we have had recently. We need to find an optimal solution that provides acceptable levels of service at an acceptable cost. Such a solution may involve a more modest cost increase but should also include some movement in the balance of assessed value vs benefit charge pricing as well as some efficiency improvements (eg not sending fire vehicles to a purely EMS related call). Compromise and consensus are still important for good governance and we should encourage our council and administration to seek solutions that provide a win-win for Edmonds and the other RFA member cities. If such a solution is not possible and the data confirms that Edmonds could relaunch its own fire service then that’s an option but I find it interesting that we are arguing for economies of scale by regionalizing our police service and against economies of scale by localizing our fire service in the same thread.
We owe Jim Ogonowski and MEN staff our appreciation. Way to represent & report on the issues!
CC & Mayor face some tough decisions. I hope they remain transparent and provide options for the community to vote on.
I may have missed it, are RFA reports available that include number of calls / hrs spent vs other municipalities in the RFA?
The difference is there are observable cities and studies to document the Lower cost of County contracting for police. On the other side with F.D., actual experience has taught us that our temporary savings with RFA contracting has led to their cancellation of us arbitrarily and demanding lots more money to retain their services because they lack good internal spending controls. Any kind of competent management would call their bluff and figure out how to tell them to take a hike. Why not contract with Mukelteo or form a better run District with them and Everett ? Vote NO RFA!
A city official that I often disagree with but have a great deal of respect and admiration for , informs me that the city can’t just have a fire only fire service with user fee private EMS because the Public funded fire agencies have the exclusive right to provide EMS in our state. I have no idea if that is absolutely true or what it is based on. (Perhaps based on fire fighter union agreements)? I do know, that if Edmonds decided to restart it’s own fire department with EMS, state law allows the city to charge a user fee for EMS services rendered so that could be another approach to put the costs on the people actually using the service and not the taxpayers writ large. As long as I see city councils and administrations throwing away money on bogus land purchase deals, “wouldn’t this be wonderful” projects and related law suits and letting employees who should have been fired walk away with fat severance pay deals, I won’t be voting for any RFA or general bail out asks from the current administration. Likewise allowing huge percentage pay increases way over COLA. On top of that we re-hire people who have been advocates of earlier nonsense programs instead of looking for fresh sets of ideas and knowledge. Enough already!
Clint- I don’t think the city official is right about public funded fire agencies having exclusive rights to EMS services. I did a little google AI searching and found that cities in Washington can contract with independent EMS service companies. In fact, many cities in Washington do. There are a number of different ways to structure these contracts, and the specific terms will vary depending on the needs of the city and the EMS provider. One common approach is for the city to issue a request for proposal (RFP) from EMS providers. The RFP will outline the city’s requirements for EMS services, such as the number of ambulances that must be available, the response times that must be met, and the training and experience that EMS personnel must have. EMS providers will then submit proposals to the city, and the city will select the provider that best meets its needs. Another approach is for the city to contract with an existing commercial EMS provider that is already providing services in the region. Regardless of the specific structure of the contract, cities in Washington have the authority to contract with independent EMS service companies. Seattle contracts with American Medical Response (AMR); Spokane contracts with Falck; Tacoma contracts with Medic One; Bellevue, Kirkland, and Vancouver contract with AMR; Here’s a link to Vancouver’s 2022 Annual Report: https://www.cityofvancouver.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/AMR_AnnualReport_2022.pdf
Bill, thanks for the further and better research on this after my comment. I hope my contact and our Mayor are following these comments regarding how we can get the best bang for the buck on Fire Service and Police Service. Drastic measures are needed to bring costs under control. Yesterday I learned from a most reliable source that if you own a $1M house in Edmonds and we actually join RFA you can count on your taxes going up at least $700 and as high as $1400/yr. I looked up my current city portion of property tax and it is almost $1400/yr., so that could easily double if we join RFA. This is still a no go vote for me. However, our Mayor is in a bit of a bind on this because four CC members were supported for election by the Fire Fighters Union and in all probability will vote for joining the RFA regardless of their verbal expressions of being open minded about contracting for or taking back fire service. Contracting with County for Police (at least temporarily) is a no brainer, if the Council and Mayor are really serious about having a balanced budget anytime soon. We need to see a call for across the board cuts too in the soon to be released Mayor’s budget.