Editor:
“Who is the public servant, firefighter or taxpayer”? The taxpayer has become the public servant – the Piggy Bank – serving the firefighter organization. The taxpayer isn’t saying we don’t believe in our fire fighters, we just don’t want to be driven into bankruptcy supporting them.
The South Snohomish County Fire Regional Fire Authority (RFA) 2025 budget shows it will run a $10.7 million general fund deficit next year. Is their push to annex Edmonds into RFA their desperate attempt at getting bailed out? RFA taxes on a $800,000 home will increase by approximately $1,000 a year. RFA has used scare campaigns to get cities to join, saying fire response times will increase and their homes may burn, fire insurance will skyrocket if they don’t. It is joining RFA that is driving folks out of their homes.
Today’s building and code requirements have decreased home fires. Approximately 85% of 911 calls are for EMS – not fire. It doesn’t take a fire truck and 14 personnel to do CPR or splint a broken bone.
Edmonds’ population is 42,000 – 75% earn under $69,000 and 40% earn under $49,000. The lines at the Edmonds Food Bank are growing. More high-end, late model cars are showing up. When folks are taxed out of their homes, bank accounts depleted, economic stability and that of their children threatened, and children’s futures are jeopardized, their physical, mental and financial health are impacted.
Edmonds’ taxpayers cannot support the RFA annexation and levy lifts to get Edmonds and RFA out of the financial holes they created.
Theresa Campa Hutchison
Edmonds
The only answer to all this nonsense is for the voters to simply say no when the City and the County politicians come for an ever bigger slice of our net worth, just for owning expensive dirt in over hyped and over sold Edmonds. We are now paying over $750/Mo. in property tax to live in a house valued at $233,000 on a lot valued at $1,200,000. If anyone thinks I’m going to willingly agree to pay one dime more for the crappy government we are getting at both the City and County level here for the past 30+ years, they can think again. With overtime, the average police and fire person here earns almost double what the average income is for the people they serve. I realize the life threatening nature of the employment should be well compensated but, can this be disparity be sustained over time? I suspect the answer is no.
Theresa- you’re 100% right. The RFA has shown no effort to reduce costs and increase efficiency. They have simply promoted annexation to solve their budget deficits. Just ask Brier and Mountlake Terrace if they got any more fire/ems services when their taxes went up 50-70% after annexation. The RFA sends 10-12 firefighters and fire trucks to a 911 medical call. The National Institute of Health recommends 2-4 paramedics for a cardiac event. The RFA publishes no historical data on cost per resident, cost per 911 call, or top 50 wage earners. I obtained 2023 data that shows a fire captain was the highest paid with $349,508 in total wages, and $155,000 of that was overtime. The 50th highest paid firefighter made $236,826 with $48,000 in overtime. Does anyone think these wages show a focus on efficiency and productivity? Firefighters are being paid to be both firefighters and paramedics for 85% of 911 calls, rather than having lower paid certified paramedics cover medical calls. Independent studies have shown that having separate firefighters and paramedics is more efficient, less costly, and more responsive, than paying firefighters to be both firefighters and paramedics. The RFA business model serves firefighters, not taxpayers. Edmonds should have its own fire department with separate firefighters and paramedics to deliver efficient and responsive fire/ems services. Annexation is not the answer.
South County Fire estimates the cost of services to Edmonds in 2026, at $19.5 million, that’s up 56% from 2024’s cost of $12.5 Million. For perspective, Shoreline with a 45% greater population currently pays $19.1 million for fire & ems services.
Don’t blame it on inflation, population or call volume, SCF’s costs have far outpaced those metrics (cited in a previous comment I made on MEN).
Compare mandated staffing, SCF: 11 for a cardiac arrest, to Shorelines: 7, to a National Institute of Health’s suggested optimum of 4.
Many other cities across the country are rethinking fire & ems delivery models. It’s time for Edmonds leaders to step up and take ownership of the out of control costs.
Resources:
#NIH Study:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7340314/
#Shoreline FAQ on number of personnel to cardiac arrest
#Orange County Grand Jury – recommending changes to 100 year old fire delivery models
https://www.ocgrandjury.org/sites/jury/files/2023-06/2022-05-20_Where%27s_the_Fire_Stop_Sending_Fire_Trucks_to_Medical_Calls.pdf
#Time Magazine – Fire Chief discussing need for change in Fire Departments
https://time.com/6097414/wildfires-firefighters-spending/
#References in previous MEN article
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/10/edmonds-council-gives-public-the-floor-tuesday-for-city-budget-questions/
Nick,
The reason for the jump to 19 million in ’26 is because Edmonds is currently receiving a tax break on the AV cost (subsidy) from the rest of the RFA taxpayers to the tune of 7 million dollars. If you were a taxpayer in the RFA you might be pretty indignant that one of the most affluent areas in the county is receiving a tax subsidy for fire and EMS services.
The NIH study you cite talks about 4-5 paramedics being optimal for best teamwork performance. That is a number that the RFA usually has on scene for a cardiac arrest. The other people are usually compressors, scene command, medical oversight, etc. I doubt you have ever done compressions on a human, but it is very exhausting after just a couple of minutes. We rotate people out every 2 minutes and often go for 40 minutes plus to ensure we give the best chance for survival.
Zach,
I’m tired of hearing the RFA narrative that Edmonds is currently getting a “tax break” or “tax subsidy” for our fire services. BS
Our contract with the RFA is a cost-plus contract. We pay fully burdened, union negotiated wages for the number of contracted first responders that reside in our three fire stations. PLUS, we pay an overhead rate on top of those wages to cover other on-going RFA expenses. The simple fact is that the other municipalities, once joining the RFA, see an increase in the number of first responders in their stations above the levels we contract for. We all get the same excellent service response and outcomes from the RFA as measured by performance metrics in our contract. So, the real question is why are the other municipalities paying so much more for the same level of service we’re getting at lesser COST?
Under state law, the RFA cannot charge us more than the cost of the services provided (they can’t make a profit). Hence the RFA wants us to join so we’re under the same AV umbrella. This has nothing to do with equity. This is a jobs program for the RFA.
Unfortunately, our elected officials haven’t grasped this yet and are about to throw us all under the fire truck. Time to speak up and let them know.
Hi Zach, my brother is a RN in a small hospital Emergency room. Depending on the shift, it can be 1 – 5 for cardiac arrest.
I don’t want to dictate the numbers, the community is looking for value, relief from non stop cost increases. Every department including Edmonds Police are running through cost cutting proposals. Why is SCF immune to from cuts?
People are fed up without of control costs. Take a look at public safety / fire initiatives that failed; Mukilteo, Everett, Snohomish Prop 1, and now likely Tacoma’s prop 1.
Btw – only a small percentage of residents have a view, and most Edmonds residents couldn’t afford to buy a home at current market value. Many residents have lived in their homes for decades, no fault of their own values rose. Now they’re struggling to afford the taxes associated w increased valuations.
But WAIT there is more. County Executive Sumers has proposed an 8% Property tax increase. Time to cut off the public piggy bank and go to the pencil sharpener. There is an amendment to the budget with No tax increase.
This can be done by cutting out wasteful spending and there are some areas that really need trimming back.
Most of us are having to evaluate thing to cut back on in order to battle rising costs of things today.
We did run a story on that proposal: https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/11/nehring-proposes-amendment-to-eliminate-tax-increase-in-proposed-snohomish-county-budget/
Please contact city council and the mayor. Respectfully share the details in this post and ask they start managing costs, provide value to residents.
This year I had a root canal in Lynnwood at a dentist office. During the procedure I was having a problem swallowing, but not in serious distress. The doctor was being careful, because there was concern that ‘perhaps’ an allergic reaction to drugs. The Doc, called 911. What shocked me was that 5 guys from the fire department showed up! I think there were 2 vehicles. While I appreciated the over-the-top attention, I wondered why were so many professionals were dispatched? They all figured out I was OK and I even continued the dental procedure. But, I still cannot figure out why so many EMT’s were dispatched. I also worry about what it cost the city to pay for this level of service? I have the feeling that our wonderful fire department is ‘over-delivering’ and they use these data to justify really expensive annual service costs. I don’t wish to debate my own example, but hey, folks, we need to be careful about how much we are willing to pay for every single 911 call, and if the level of response is justified. It’s a tough decision. How much response is the right amount…and how much are we taxpayers willing to pay? I have a sense that the fire department may be over delivering for some calls that do not require this level of response.
Chris,
I appreciate your experience here and when I was a dispatcher many years ago I often said “garbage in, garbage out”. The criteria for what resources get sent is largely determined by a phone triage system that exists mainly to avoid potential litigation for dispatch centers, and less to determine the exact level of response necessary. The mentality for 911 here is, send more to a potential emergency, because resources can always be cancelled. That’s deemed better than sending fewer resources and being behind the curve with a potentially critical patient. The question you have to ask is, if you were having an emergency, would you rather have two brand new burned-out private EMTs with little to no experience showing up, or 5 highly trained and experienced professionals?
Chris-
you just uncovered some really ‘dirty laundry’ in the South County fire/ems operation. When firefighters are out of the station, they get ‘credits’ for being on active duty, rather than being idle sitting around the fire station. Those ‘activity’ credits help justify more staffing. When firefighters are trained and certified as paramedics, they get to go out on more calls (remember 85% of 911 calls are for medical issues, not fire). When they are certified as both firefighters and paramedics they get paid more. Sadly, it’s a self serving business model that tends to raise costs for a given level of service. Many fire districts are moving to separate fire and separate paramedics because it is less costly and more responsive. One wonders why South County doesn’t do that? One wonders why the fire district doesn’t manage costs and report on efficiencies and per call costs and per resident costs. They need to put taxpayers first, rather than their careers and wages. I’ll repeat the data that shows in 2023 the highest paid firefighter was paid $350,000, including $155,000 in overtime. The 50th highest paid made $236,000. Not sure taxpayers should absorb those wages or that much overtime? Why is SCFD management not doing anything to better manage out-of-control costs? They’re supposed to benefit from economies of scale.
Bill,
What are you talking about? I have no idea what “activity credits” are and I’ve been a firefighter for 15 years. Most fire departments in Washington are doing the exact opposite of what you’re saying because it’s more cost effective to have providers in a dual roll and it’s easier to spread the high cost of fire and EMS services out across a regional service than through a single city or via disparate contracts. Shoreline, who serves where you live in Woodway, is likely moving to a regional fire authority next year. They’ve already merged with Northshore via ILA and an RFA would be a lot smoother governance structure than what currently exists. As for what people get paid and how much OT they work, would you prefer that firefighters not get paid a livable wage and have to commute (many already do) from far away areas to work? Not all of us can afford to live in a multi-million dollar home close to the water like you.
Zach
My reference to activity ‘credits’ was my shorthand for UHU (unit hour utilization). UHU has traditionally been calculated as the percentage of time during a shift that firefighters are assigned to an incident. When the UHU gets above 25-30% most firefighters say they are overworked and fatigue may jeopardize performance When firefighters respond to the 85% of 911 calls that are medical calls, they inflate their UHU. Paramedics should be responding. When the UHU factor is high, more firefighters are assigned to shifts and more overtime comes into play. RFA firefighters are cross trained as paramedics ($750,000 in 2025 budget) and the RFA dispatches 8-10 firefighters and fire trucks to a cardiac event – which results in full employment for firefighters, not economies of scale. The RFA has not delivered on economies of scale and cost reduction. $250,000 to $350,000 annual wages are 3X as much as the average Edmonds household makes, and the top end of ‘livable wages.’ Check out the multiple URL links that Nick Lopez cited in his reply. These show how separate fire and separate ems services are showcased as leading edge fire/ems service providers. Taxpayers are subsidizing the RFA’s inefficient and mismanaged operations. Woodway taxpayers pay over $10,000 per 911 response! You think that reflects ‘smoother governance’ and an efficient operation?
Theresa raises a number of legitimate concerns here that need to be addressed in any negotiation with the RFA. However, I would like to offer a clarification about the metrics on income levels in Edmonds. This does not negate or in any way mitigate her concerns or those brought up by others but I think it is important to be unambiguous about these income numbers. The data that Theresa is using refers to a metric called per-capita income which was used in some of the Blue Ribbon panel reports. That metric is confusing and misleading. It suggests, for example that costs like the RFA levy are more affordable for a family of four than they are for a single person. A more standard and credible metric is total household income.
Multiple sites quote the median household income for Edmonds at $110,000 for 2022.
This site (
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/edmonds-wa#) shows a breakdown between male and female and lists median male income above $84K and median female income above $54K.
This site (
https://data.census.gov/profile/Edmonds_city,_Washington?g=160XX00US5320750) shows substantially higher median household income for families and married couples but even non family households are listed as having a median income closer to $60K.
The takeaway is that, for a median household earning $110K in a median home worth $800K, the proposed RFA annexation would cost an additional $1000 per year.
So 50% of “households” make over $110,000/yr. and 50% make less than that. Then one could say that at about half of our population can afford these huge tax hikes and at least half really can’t? In school 50% was generally considered a failing score as I recall. It still remains that the average median income for each working person in Edmonds is around $68,000/yr. which is much, much less than the average median income of a police or fire person which is more like $100,000+/yr. I’d say at least 50% of the people now living in Edmonds are playing a fools game if they vote to approve any of these coming city property tax hikes because they just can’t afford them. The only way anyone or any organization learns to live on less is to have less money to spend. Renters need to realize that when your landlord’s property tax goes up $100/mo., your rent will also go up $100 a month. He has to make a profit or get rid of the joint.
I won’t speculate about who can or cannot afford the increases. There are many variables that would factor into an individual’s circumstances. Also, this is one of many cost of living increases that families have to deal with. We should also recognize that income is only one measure of what a person or family can afford. I retired last year and my income has taken a huge hit but I am fortunate that I can supplement that income from savings and investments. Not everyone is so fortunate but these income metrics tell us nothing about savings and investment wealth. I found another site that provides data on median income by age which shows that people in their peak working years of 25-44 and 45-64 have significantly higher income than those under 25, or 65 and older. This is another wrinkle in trying to assess affordability for any potential tax increase. Rather than trying to assert that residents of Edmonds can or cannot afford the cost of RFA annexation, I think it would be better to focus on the other issues raised in Theresa’s piece. Similarly, while the reports of firefighters earning over $300K, sound shocking, that probably doesn’t tell the full story and I agree with Mr Cash that we want police and firefighters to be able to live in the communities they serve.
It is surprising that firefighters can earn over $300,000, which sheds light on their ability to significantly support Edmonds City Council members who champion their financial goals.
Mr. Cash, the informed citizens of Edmonds welcome a debate with the firefighter union on whether we should join the RFA on the terms the RFA management has offered us. But the reader comment section of this newspaper is not the place to conduct a debate. You can contact Edmonds Civic Roundtable and ask for them to coordinate it. Secondly, know that the RFA commissioners are perceived as having botched their 2024 public discussion with the Edmonds City Council and unintentionally made the case for us to vote ‘no’ on annexation if it’s on the ballot in 2025. If the firefighter union wants a debate to present their perspective, I suggest you review the video of that Council meeting for a lesson on how NOT to deliver your message. Thirdly, I don’t know how well you are connected to the decision makers but you probably know we are advocating for a new contract, not annexation. The RFA’s business model has several large problems, and setting your prices/taxes based on a house’s assessed value is one of them. AV has nothing to do with the cost of providing service. Why doesn’t the union advocate for changing that?
Theresa,
Your arguments are well taken and I appreciate your point of view and concerns. The firefighters union is planning on hosting our own town hall meeting with details TBD, but sometime in the near future. Which public discussion with council are you referring to that the commissioners “botched”? As for a contract, that’s out of the firefighters hands, but it appears not to be an option the RFA is interested in after 2025. As for how the department is funded, that’s is also a decision out of the firefighters hands, one made at the state government level, and unlikely to change to a less sustainable form.
Mr. Cash, I have some advice and some info. First- the advice: if the union wants their message to be taken seriously by the voters in Edmonds, they should seek out a neutral third party to moderate a debate. We are quite familiar with “town halls” where we are fed a biased message that has no facts and data, or an incomplete fact set designed to influence the uninformed listener. We’ve had so many of them during this Comp Plan Update cycle that another one that your union leads will only make us dislike your message even more. Now the info: watch the video of the City Council meeting on mar 26, 2024 to learn how NOT to answer our questions. To put it bluntly, the RFA Commissioners have already pissed off the informed voters of Edmonds. If your union organization wants to jump into the political fray at this point in the process, you will have to carry the ‘baggage’ that the commissioners left behind.
There are large inequities built into the RFA funding mechanism, and Edmonds taxpayers will suffer if we join the RFA via annexation. Take two identical houses, one on a Lynnwood cul-de-sac with no view and one on a view lot in Edmonds. Same houses, same cost to serve each by the RFA.
But the Edmonds house sits on a view lot assessed at over $1m just for the dirt. If we join the RFA, that expensive dirt gets added into homeowners’ RFA tax bill. The Edmonds homeowner pays double or more for the same service, for the same house, just because they have an Edmonds address and a view.
Seems to me the RFA is chasing Edmonds’ high property values, our high assessed valuations. Property taxes are based on assessed values for both the structure and the dirt under it. Our expensive dirt adds to our property assessments but does not add to RFA’s cost of service. Views don’t catch fire or suffer heart attacks.
Annexation would inflate RFA tax revenues beyond what it costs them to serve our city. Under Edmonds’ contract with RFA, we pay them the actual cost of service, plus a percentage for overhead. The contract provides a fair funding mechanism, and it avoids the inequities that result from annexation.
Exactly right Roger! This and a couple of other issues in the way that the RFA is structured and operates are the key negotiating points that will secure a win-win outcome for Edmonds, the neighboring communities and the RFA.
Your insightful critique of the proposed RFA funding mechanism is entirely rational. Ironically, this may be the reason your adversary in the past council race secured the endorsement of the firefighters’ union.
Zach,
Theresa Hollis provided excellent advice. Here is a link to the video of the 3-26-24 Council meeting she references:
http://edmondswa.iqm2.com/Citizens/SplitView.aspx?Mode=Video&MeetingID=4536&Format=Minutes
The following was on the agenda:
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. 2. Annual Report – South County Fire and Rescue (30 min)
Data correction from city budget data: Current total cost to join based on the Edmonds AV of $15.4B is estimated to be $19m. By law EMS taxes are credited to the taxpayer if we vote to join. That is $4.3m so the added tax will be around $14.7m. With our current AV the rate needed to generate the added tax will be about $.96/1000 or about $960 added tax for a $1m home. Elsewhere it has been reported that the tax for a $800,000 home would be $1000 but for a $800k home the added tax would be around $770.
For those SCF budget folks, do we know if SCF has developed a cost of providing EMS service vs Fire? Probably hard to get good data when in most cases both fire and EMS equipment and personnel go to both events.
Just to put Darrol’s numbers into perspective, that’s almost double what we’re currently paying for Fire and EMS services. If we join the RFA, that’s almost double the price for the same level of service we’re currently getting under our contract with South County Fire. Tell me again how that makes any sense? What am I missing?
I hope our elected officials have answers to these simple questions.
Admittedly knit picking here, but I think it is unintentionally misleading to refer to these added taxes as “cost per home value.” Property taxes are based on Real Property owned which is always land and structures on the land. If this coming ask for a huge property tax hike was based purely on the value of one’s home, I could see how it might make some sense here, but what the RFA is really after is the money generated by basing the taxes on the higher value of dirt in Edmonds as opposed to say, Mountlake Terrace. For things like Fire and Police protection we should be taxed based on actual proven costs of the service provided not the value of a given amount of earth we own or where we live. Most calls are for health issues, not Fires, and the questions become how much help is really needed for that and what should it cost? One would think two or three EMTs would be adequate to throw someone on a gurney and start IV’s when needed. Does it really make sense for three EMTs and four Fire Persons to show up almost every time for everything from severe dizzy spells to actual cardiac arrests? Whoever decided Fire Persons should also be quasi-doctors, opened a up real can of worms.
Clint- you’re 100% right on the how the fire and police services should be priced – based on cost of service, and not on assessed values. The State made a huge mistake setting up regional fire authorities as monopolies and allowing them to us A-V based tax levies for BOTH EMT and fire. Land value has no correlation with cost of fire/ems services. House size and density of housing (apartments, condos) are the real cost factors. Nat’l Institute of health recommends 2-4 paramedics for all 911 med calls. RFA sends 10-12 for cardiac calls. Fire chiefs and the firefighters’ union want to have firefighters certified for BOTH fire and EMT – so they can get higher wages and overtime AND roll fire trucks for 911 medical calls, which are 85% of all 911 calls. This gives firefighters more ‘utilization’ time when they respond to medical calls – and they can claim they are fatigued – and that requires more ‘fresh’ firefighters to be assigned to station shifts – increasing wages and overtime. With paramedic specialists, instead of combo firefighters/paramedics, the fatigue factor is eliminated, fire trucks are not needed for 911 medical calls, response is improved, and staffing is optimized. The RFA’s dependence of tax levies and lack of cost control leaves taxpayers holding the bag for the all their inefficiency and mismanagement.
I just read the article today in MEN on the Seattle flight nurse during WWII battles. I suggest all commenting here, especially the pro – RAF annexation people, read it for some perspective on what we could actually get along with to try to save some money. In short, the medical crew for 25 patients with severe physical and mental(battle fatigue requiring restraints) wounds on 10 to 20 hour medical evacuation flights in cargo planes was one highly trained flight nurse and a medical corpsman. That was one 2nd. Lt. fight nurse and one enlisted man, probably a Corporal or a PFC to take care of 25 people with severe bleeding, pain and sedation needs to be met in flight. It sounds like the training for a flight nurse was the rough equivalent to what modern training is for an EMT. So I call needing four to twelve EMT’s at every Edmonds medical call total nonsense. As to the argument that all those people are needed to do long term CPR, I thought that was supposed to be just a quicky method before the defibrillator arrived?