Quote of the day: “It’s a good deal for us (the Regional Fire Authority)”
– in reference to the negotiated annexation documents for Edmonds to join the RFA
I took one for the team and watched the fire commissioners’ meeting Tuesday night rather than paying attention to our City Council meeting held at the same time. After hearing a brief synopsis of the changes to the final annexation documents by their attorney, the Fire Commissioners couldn’t vote fast enough to approve them. Not a single point of discussion! It certainly is a good deal for them. Not so for us. Here are a few of my takeaways:
– We give them two of our three fire stations without any monetary or other forms of compensation. We just give them over six million dollars of our property!
– In the event the RFA no longer needs the stations, we have the right of first refusal to purchase them back. Yes, purchase what we gave them for free! Sounds like a good negotiating strategy to me.
– A provision in the agreement is for our purchase of rolling stock. However, it’s at the complete discretion of the RFA. They don’t have to sell even though we’ve been paying for the equipment for years. It freezes us out.
– Based on my research, I’ve determined the RFA has been withholding some transport fee reimbursements due to the city under our current contract. They have been doing so for the last six years and will continue to do so under this agreement. By my estimation, they owe us upwards of $7 million. My understanding is that they are contesting, and it’s headed towards litigation. And we’re negotiating with these guys?
– Joining the RFA will nearly double what we currently pay for fire and EMS services with no change in service level.
I think we can all agree that joining the RFA is a big decision facing the city. A decision that needs to be made with full transparency and all options or alternatives on the table. What I fault the RFA on is the way this has been conducted to date. From my reading of the annexation agreements, it appears to be one negotiated in bad faith — from the beginning. The RFA cancelled our contract after the 2023 election and before Mayor Rosen took office. No effort to renegotiate our contract with the new administration. And there are plenty of provisions in our current contract which could have been renegotiated. They chose to use strong-arm tactics instead and entered “negotiations” with us to reunite with them. They just divorced us and now they want another marriage – on their terms!
Our city council adopted a resolution paving the way for us joining the RFA through annexation. Afterwards, the city council learned about the actual content of numerous letters that the RFA sent the city earlier in this process, yet they never went back and revisited their vote to annex into the RFA. Or when the Fitch report was better understood and questioned, they never went back to revisit their vote. Nor has the administration started earnestly looking at alternatives to our fire and EMS services. These annexation documents are a result of this now-failed approach. What did we get in return? We, the taxpayers, get to pay nearly double for the same level of service that we currently enjoy. Fair deal?
I would encourage the city council to reject this agreement and renegotiate better terms. In addition, I would suggest that the city council and administration support a resolution to honestly and openly evaluate alternative ideas to provide fire and EMS services for Edmonds. We do have alternatives.
Others in the community are suggesting that the vast majority of the taxpayers don’t fully understand what is coming their way via this annexation. I agree with them. I would encourage everyone to understand the proposed annexation into the RFA and whether paying higher taxes for the same level of service makes sense to them. Make your concerns known to our elected officials and get your questions answered.
If left as is, this annexation agreement becomes a ballot measure in April. How would you vote? I know how I’d vote.
Save Edmonds
— By Jim Ogonowski
Jim Ogonowski lives in Edmonds.
Well said, Jim. and thank you for calling out the RFA for their heavy handed take-it-or-leave it attitude and for the Council’s unwillingness to fight for Edmonds’ residents and seriously evaluate alternatives. Given the current contract rate is $11.5M, and that rate is up 50% from 2019, there can be no doubt that Edmonds can either run its own fire department for 65% less than the $19M the RFA has proposed, or contract with other providers for far less. Why has the Council wasted 6 months negotiating with the RFA when they could have been evaluating alternatives? The RFA has refused to disclose any cost accounting numbers for what it costs for a 911 fire suppression response vs. a 911 medical emergency. The RFA fails to explain why they cross-train firefighters to be paramedics and why fire trucks are dispatched to 85% of all 911 calls that are for medical issues. Paramedics resolve medical issues and firefighter fight fires. By separating the paramedic and firefighter jobs, station staffing can be reduced and response times improved. The RFA fails to explain why their Top 50 highest paid firefighters and supervisors make between $236,000 and $350,000 per year. The RFA has shown no ability to scale their operation and control costs. The Council needs to walk away from the RFA and find a better alternative! Save Edmonds!
Bill,
The reason the contact went up prior was because Edmonds was using resources outside the city at over 250% of what they were giving back. The contract language required more staffing to equalize that response disparity. The MEN has done excellent coverage on the contract negotiations over the years. This specific issue can be found: https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/10/council-takes-closer-look-at-fire-service-staffing-votes-to-keep-meeting-remotely/
You continue to share that the department doesn’t report to your liking but what department does? I’ve never seen the metrics you’re asking for from any organization. Not because they are inefficient or have anything to hide, but because there are best practices which dictate what statistics are reported. Response times, staffing levels, etc are what metrics are reported. The RFA has never failed an audit to my knowledge, since you seem so fixated on supposed issues with their finances. What evidence do you have that cross trained firefighter/paramedics are less efficient or more expensive?
Thank you Jim for your research and timely article. As I understand it from an insider, this has been in the works long before many if not all of the Council knew anything about it. The huge increase in cost will be paid for by all of us, owners and renters. It’s a great deal for the RFA and a bad one for the Citizens. The City Council needs to revisit it and reject it.
THANK YOU Jim. It is incredulous to believe that our mayor and his negotiating team are willing to give away two of our fire stations FREE to the RFA. These are fire stations the taxpayers have paid for. The RFA cancelled our contract and no effort to renegotiate our contract has been made. Instead RFA has repeatedly used strong -arm tactics and our elected officials have allowed it. They have abandoned their fiduciary responsibility taking Edmonds over the financial cliff to insolvency. We, the taxpayers, get to pay double for the same level of service that we currently have. Mayor Rosen and Negotiating Team please tell us the logic in your decisions. And how was the negotiating team of Mayor Rosen, CP Olson, CM Tibbott, and City Attorney Taraday chosen? What high level negotiating experience do they/you have? The RFA is a huge organization who have negotiated contracts with well trained negotiators for many years. Mayor Rosen and negotiating team would you give away your personal real estate, property, without any renumeration? Why do you think you can give away property the taxpayers own? RFA needs Edmonds to get out of a $10.7 million general fund deficit next year. Annexing Edmonds is their solution. They are using us as their personal piggy bank – taxing many out of their homes and you are facilitating it.
What the RFA is really interested in is building their jobs program while sending Edmonds into bankruptcy. Today’s building code requirements has decreased homes fires. Approximately 85% of 911 calls are for EMS – not fire. As a registered nurse I can personally tell you it doesn’t take 14 fireman/personnel to do CPR or splint a broken bone. RFA is simply racking up the dollars they can charge for each 911 call. The RFA owes Edmonds upwards of $7million in unreimbursed Ground Emergency Medical Transportation payments. They are refusing to pay and this is headed toward litigation instead of being part of the negotiation. The RFA has been using our money to benefit the other RFA member cities – it is my understanding that this is illegal. If we’re annexed to the RFA taxes for fire/EMS will increase greatly – and their history shows yearly increases. On a $1million dollar home the increase is estimated to be $960. But wait, remember we are on a fast track to insolvency. The mayor and Council have future property levies in store for us – still more taxes. I’m voting NO for the RFA and future property levies as Mayor Rosen and Council appear unwilling to make any meaningful budget changes/cuts – except to give our fire stations and real estate away by a quick claim deed.
Jim, it is also worth noting that, in the event an annexation vote fails, the RFA is offering a contract which is essentially on the same terms as the annexation deal but with additional costs for fire marshal services and no voice on the fire commission because we would still be contacted and not voting members. Furthermore, they are demanding that the city would repeat the annexation vote until they get to yes.
Here is what we are likely to learn about the data in the discussions that are unfolding. First some data.
Today Edmonds has a total Assessed Value of around $15.4B. That is what the County Assessor’s office has on the books for all land and buildings. Some land and buildings have reduced or no taxes to pay for they have various forms of exemptions. Low-income people, schools, and other forms of govt. Those exemptions for Edmonds remove hundreds of millions of AV from the tax rolls. But what does remain or homes, condos, apts, and businesses. For many of our businesses and all of our apts. A landlord pays the taxes on the land and building. Rents may go up if the landlord does not absorb the increased taxes,
From the taxpayer’s point of view for a $1m home or business in Edmonds will need to pay $.07/1000 or $70 for each additional $1m of tax revenue needed.
Also, from a taxpayer’s point of view: If we look at the provision of Fire/EMS services using the existing model of delivery the additional tax to join is $960 as others have commented. But the additional tax with the proposed new contract is around $580, $380 less. A new contract would be best for more than just the tax issue.
Darrol is a smart man and needs to be listened to on this. The city is going to go for putting the Annexation proposal on the table in April and that has been baked in the cake from day one. Most of our Council are in bed with the IAFF and support Regional Fire. Our Mayor is a nice “can’t we all just get along” kind of guy which is the only type of Mayor that is in our general electorate’s comfort zone, unfortunately. (I’d prefer someone a bit more feisty and willing to exert some executive “firing” power, but that’s not where we are at). As the general public, we need to recognize Annexation for the bad deal that it is, VOTE IT DOWN next year, and go with Darrol’s Contract plan. But we also need to take it a step further. We need to from a Citizens ad hoc advisory group to demand the reformation of our own Fire only Dept. and contract out for EMS service. We should also look at forming some sort of mutual aid agreements system with Mukelteo and Everett for both Fire and Police. It could be the Salish Sea Public Safety Alliance, or something like that. Maybe we could save some money on hiring, training and buying equipment in bulk?
A good summary of the current situation. The city council and mayor are in over their heads on this one, so need some outside citizen advisory beyond just three minute quickie input at a meeting.
Excellent summary Jim! Thanks a lot for the report. Edmonds’ population must wake up and pay attention to what’ has been happening, not just on the State and County levels, but also on our city and the nefarious plans some have in mind for it. We have been maintaining it so carefully and must stay vigilant. There are very turbulent times ahead.
This is a very important Reader View.
I was at the November 2, 2009 Council Meeting when Council voted 6-1 to contract for services with Fire District 1, sell our fire engines, aid cars and equipment to Fire District 1, but keep our fire stations, land AND transport fees.
The one dissenting vote was that of Councilmember Steve Bernheim. Councilmember Bernheim said he feared the City would be in dire straits in 10 years, worrying how to pay for the fire service because the cost of the contract had increased. Bernheim concluded by saying this issue originated due to the fiscal crisis and as an alternative to the levy, not the need to improve the City’s fire service. In his view the City was giving up control of its fire service, a fundamental city responsibility to a Fire District whose Commissioners were elected by voters outside the City without any guarantee of price control and it was only a stop gap measure.
History now shows his concerns were well founded.
I also encourage citizens to read Resolution 1549 passed by Edmonds City Council on June 11, 2024. I wonder why it is so poorly written.
Fire & EMS services doubling & giving away ($6M) in Fire Stations! And at a time when city agencies, including EPD are facing budget cuts, layoffs.
It appears city officials prefer to offload the costs from the city budget, making it easier to ask us for new tax revenues. Mayor & City Council, please step up and bring some creative leadership to help us manage Fire & EMS costs.
Show me the value! Why is Mukilteo & Everett able to provide fire & ems services at a much lower, cost per resident?
*Cost per resident for FY26, shows Edmonds residents overpaying for Fire & EMS services.
Edmonds & Everett Data are published estimates. Everett data based on FY28; (FY25) official proposed budget costs, lower Everett’s cost per resident to $252/per resident.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/LfMMJ/5/
*Calls per 1,000 residents – Edmonds lands in the middle, but as a city official points out, call volume stats do not consider non-resident calls to Swedish Hospital. Everett data is from latest 2022 Annual Report.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PzAhj/3/
https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/10/council-addresses-ways-to-rebalance-fire-services-contract-discusses-budget-schedule/
*All of this data comes from publicly available Annual Reports & Budget documents. Population data referenced from ‘worldpopulationreview.com’ & the U.S. Census Bureau.
Jim and other citizens, thanks for posting here making us more informed. This is the state of more “tax and spend” any way they can. Always efforts to separate us from our dollars. NO TO RFA!
It’s essential to participate in meaningful conversations instead of propagating fear and false information. A thoughtful discourse on public safety funding should emphasize teamwork and potential solutions rather than playing the blame game. If you’re a worried citizen seeking accurate information rather than selective misinformation, you can check out edwafirefuture.info for more details.
Well, well, well Mr. Cash. I’ve been waiting for the fire fighter labor union to jump into the fray. Welcome to the boxing ring on the RFA annexation issue. But I insist you take off your ‘mask’ so that we all can see that we are debating an employee of the local chapter of the IAFF. Now your new website is launched. Now we can see your spin on ‘the facts’. Your union has a strong history of campaigning for certain Edmonds City Council candidates and making campaign contributions. We may be sorta old in Edmonds, but we’re not stupid. Disclosure of your vested interest isn’t just a professional practice in lobbying, it’s the right thing to do. So if you want to continue to make posts on MEN, the voters in Edmonds deserve your reporting your union role along with your opinion. The editor of MEN is well respected in this community. (We even made her grand Marshall of the 4th of July parade!) If you don’t disclose your special interest, the editor will do it for you. If you want to lobby we voters via your biased website info, you should disclose that this website content is written by the firefighter labor union – not the Regional Fire Authority. Up your game, Mr. Cash, if you’re planning on engaging us.
Mr. Cash said this in a past comment, and I am reposting here (because folks may not recall that he identified himself prior): “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.”
— Teresa
Mello Ms. Hollis! A Happy Thanksgiving to you and all my outspoken citizens here on MEN. I’m not going to respond to specific posts today, as I will be enjoying the holiday with my family, but I’m happy to respond soon. I do not plan on prefacing every post I make with my position and vocation, I’ve never sought to hide it and it’s on the record. I’ll be reaching out soon, until then have a great holiday!
Zach, for you to accuse others of spreading false information, you should lead by example. We all are still waiting for your example.
Furthermore, I wonder whether all firefighters members of the union are fully aware of what this annexation entails for the communities that they vow to protect. Are they all fully aware of how much the taxes will grow because the RFA is nearly doubling the charges to Edmonds? Are they aware of how many will likely lose their homes because they cannot afford the tax increase? Are they aware of the (questionable) way the RFA has been telling its side of the story? Are the (real) firemen aware of all that?
I recall you disappeared from other threads and never answered the questions posted by many readers.
Hi Mario,
I think the harsh reality is that taxes are going up in Edmonds. There isn’t a realistic scenario where that’s avoidable. The questions is, how much do Edmonds resident want their taxes to increase? The RFA is the smallest increase, joining Shoreline RFA or reforming Edmonds FD are both more expensive in the short and long term per the Fitch report. For folks that are on a fixed income and concerned about how this will impact them, the county has an exemption program for senior citizens who cannot afford an increase. No one is going to lose their home, please don’t use those types of scare tactics.
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/328/Property-Tax-Exemptions
Zach- please stop trying to justify tax increases as being ‘normal.’ They’re not. They are only needed when a government organization does little to control costs and balance budgets – which is exactly what Edmonds is facing because of years of overspending, and the RFA doing the same. We’re still waiting for your answers to Jim Ogonowski’s questions and all of our collective questions on how the RFA justifies a 65% increase in Edmonds’ fire services prices. I say prices because the $19M has no correlation with costs of providing service – it is just a State mandated monopoly pricing scheme executed by the RFA. The biggest problem with the RFA is tax based pricing with no reporting on cost metrics or performance metrics, no focus on cost control or productivity, no justification of all the overtime wages. no tracking of costs per medical call or costs per fire call. Your reference to the Fitch report is a total red herring. Citizens have shown the oversights, errors, and superficial findings of the Fitch report. Fitch consults with fire departments to rubber stamp their financials and operations. The RFA and Edmonds should hire the best non-profit, city-centric public safety consulting firm in the country (CPMS- Center for Public Safety Management) to analyze and expose the RFA operating failures and find economic alternatives for fire/ems services.
Yes Zach, property taxes have been going up in WA state, thanks to corrupt and inept politicians that keep raising them and splitting them with their “partners” instead of serving the taxpayers. We already have issues here in Edmonds where the previous city council and mayor put the city in financial dire straits. Some of the previous city council members somehow managed to get into the current one and continue doing the same bidding, which is ruining the city.
They are also “facilitating” Edmonds’ fire and EMS merging into the RFA and diverting the money that was allocated to pay for those services to fill the city’s financial holes. They are also giving away Edmonds’ property to the RFA, which can sell them back to Edmonds (fascinating, eh?).
And the RFA is following the WA state government by charging the taxpayers based on the property value, instead of something more rational such as building size. Does a more expensive house burn easier than a cheaper one?
Your link mentions tax deferral, which are charged on a “later date” (when?) + interest. We all know how higher taxes push people out of their homes and the RFA by nearly doubling the $11m to $19m/year charges is just helping it. How much will the prices keep going up? Even the mafia would be ashamed.
Zach,
Please be specific and point to an inaccurate statement I made in this Reader View piece. I’m more than happy to correct anything factually incorrect.
Mr. Cash,
Still waiting for your replay …
Roger,
Yes I work for the RFA and am a union firefighter, I have mentioned this fact several times in various posts. I don’t preface every post I make with those facts nor have I tried to hide them.
Jim,
By “deal” I simply mean agreement. I never said it was a requirement anywhere to transfer stations at no cost. My question was, why should the RFA purchase properties which will continue to be used for the same purpose and that are already owned/were purchased by public funds? Especially when the agreement that was negotiated is identical to the other cities that have joined the RFA. You didn’t answer that question.
You brought up the civic park, which the city purchased from the school district after leasing for ~40 years. Of the $1.9 million dollars required to purchase that property, the city only paid $400k. For 8 prime acres in the heart of town that seems like a pretty good deal – but it’s a red herring for the RFA discussion.
The RFA has been more than fair with the city. They have agreed to annex the city earlier than required by law and cover several expenses not covered for the other cities – equalling around $1.4 million in concessions to help the city with their financial situation. Seems fair to me.
Thanks Capt. Cash. Which Edmonds fire station do you work out of?
Zach,
Great, we have a conversation going.
To answer your question about why we should transfer our fire stations to the RFA at no cost, it’s because the City of Edmonds owns the property. And the property has value, regardless of its use. Besides, after GIVING our stations away, the RFA is willing to SELL our stations back to us if of no longer use to them. Talking about one-sided and making no sense. And I could give a hoot what arrangements other cities made with the RFA. These are negotiable terms and our negotiating team failed to protect our investment in these stations. Show me a RCW that says we have to give our property away.
The RFA being “fair” with the city? I think not. What $1.4M in “concessions”? Please be specific. And you “agreed” to annex earlier than required by law? The RFA unilaterally terminated our contract early, then pressed for annexation. That doesn’t sound either fair, ethical or moral to me.
Please let us know how much our property taxes will increase if we join the RFA. That seems to be missing from your website.
In closing, you still have not highlighted what I have said that is inaccurate in my article.
Roger,
I worked out of station 16 in Maplewood for 5 years before I was promoted to my current position. I mostly work in Lynnwood currently, but still work in Edmonds occasionally. Edmonds is a great town and the firefighters feel very supported and loved by the citizens. That’s not going to change regardless of how this situation pans out.
Jim, To clarify your stance on the station issue; you believe that the RFA should pay the city millions of public dollars to purchase land and buildings already owned by the public (title held by the city) and being used for the purpose they were intended for? You don’t believe that’s a waste of public funds? To my understanding the following items will be paid by the RFA for the remainder of the year after annexation and will be taken off the books of the city (per the annexation agreement): Dispatch Fees, LEOFF 1, SNO911, DEM, FMO, Remit Transport Fees for the rest of the year even after annexation. I’m unsure how much taxes will go up on average in Edmonds with the annexation, that depends on property values etc but that information will be shared once council decides to commit to that path, if they do at all. Your calculation of what GEMT monies could potentially owe is inaccurate. If the RFA owes anything at all it is likely significantly less. How did you calculate for the $7 million? Did you know the former mayor requested that the RFA send the city the termination letter to precipitate more transparent talks about the future of fire and EMS in the city? The RFA didn’t unilaterally send a letter.
Thank you, Mr. Cash, for the insight. No, I didn’t know that our former mayor requested that the RFA send the city the termination letter to precipitate more transparent talks about the future of fire and EMS in the city. The RFA though did unilaterally send the termination letter after the election of our current mayor and before he took office. Why didn’t the RFA wait and try to negotiate with a new administration? These are the statements I made in my article.
What’s GEMT? I made no mention of GEMT in my article. Is there something else that the citizens should know about for the sake of full transparency?
I have a lot to say to your response, more than I can post here but I’ll start with stations.
The taxpayers of Edmonds have already paid for the stations at least one time. Why should the taxpayers continue to pay for buildings and dirt that already serve the public good and which the citizens already own? The deal Edmonds is getting is identical to the other cities that have joined the RFA, none of which have complained.
The other cities also have provisions to purchase back the properties if so desired. This provision is a way for the RFA to signal they aren’t going to close those buildings and relocate while maintaining property that could otherwise be used by the cities for other public good. Is it the responsibility of the RFA to bail out the city from their financial situation by buying stations which already serve the public, and which were bought with public funds?
You do seem to have a keen interest in our town, Zach. One Google search turned up a Capt. Zach Cash working for South County Fire. If that’s you, I’m curious which of Edmonds 3 fire stations you work at.
Zach,
What “deal” is Edmonds getting? Just because the other cities entered into this arrangement with the RFA to give away their property doesn’t mean it’s smart for us to do so as well. Besides, where in the governing RCWs does it require the city to give the property to the RFA at no cost? It’s a topic for negotiating not an outright requirement that the property is given to the RFA. The fact that our (Edmonds) negotiating team didn’t secure a monetary value for our stations is a different problem.
Let me make another analogy. Edmonds had to PURCHASE our Civic Field property from the Edmonds School District and we continue to use it for the same purpose. The citizens already owned this property just as we own our fire stations. So why did we have to purchase it? Why shouldn’t the RFA purchase or lease our fire stations from the city under this analogy?
And no, it’s not the responsibility of the RFA to bail out the city. It is the responsibility of the city to get a fair negotiated agreement with the RFA. They have failed. Maybe it’s because we can’t negotiate is one reason why the city is in our current financial situation.
Zach, your response sounds very contradictory. You say it does not make sense for the RFA to pay for the stations and equipment because “Edmonds’ taxpayers already paid at least one time for them”. (I wonder if there have been multiple times).
Nevertheless, you seem fine about the Edmonds’ taxpayers pay one more time when the RFA, at its own discretion, can sell the assets back to Edmonds. Equipment that was donated, not even rented.
It’s also very “coincidental” that, suddenly, when the RFA is at the verge of taking fire and EMS over, that some “undercharging” have been going on and they have to go from $11m to 18m+ to “compensate”. Let alone that only God knows how much the charges will keep going up, since the RFA would be like a runaway train that can arbitrarily charge how much it wants for its services, which descriptions and costs are right now as clear as mud.
To put in plain English terms, this feels like a “funny business” and that there is something going on under the table.
Like any normal and ethical business, the RFA should make everything very clear to the Edmonds population since this mayor and city council have been showing they will not do so. Therefore, I hope the RFA will not follow this questionable practice.
Mr. Cash-
Glad to see you’re back cheering undercover for the union and RFA. The last time you posted, several folks asked you to answer their questions and you never responded. Your are the one who doesn’t have the facts straight. In 2023 the Top 50 RFA employees had wages that ranged from $350K at top to $236K for #50. This data is straight from RFA records. You think Edmonds residents make anywhere near that kind of money? The RFA touts its 1% annual limit on increased revenues, but says nothing about the 50-70% post annexation increases. Just ask Mill Creek, Brier, and Mountlake Terrace residents what new services they got from those types of post annexation tax increases! You like to characterize the RFA’s $10M 2025 deficit as ‘one-time’ and not an operational deficit. Clever word manipulation. A deficit is a deficit no matter how you label it. The RFA cannot justify the 50% increase in Edmonds’ contract cost between 2019 – 2023, just as they cannot justify the proposed 65% increase between 2024 and 2026. The RFA has never given evidence of productivity and efficiency gains. Edmonds residents are smart enough to expose your concealed union spin attempts and the RFA’s track record of using taxpayers to pay for excessive spending and negligent management. The RFA and the union serve themselves, not taxpayers.
Bill, You have referenced this salary data multiple times so I just want to correct the record on this. I looked at the data that you sent out and it shows that there are a small number of senior staff who are earning the kind of wages that you refer to and the rest of the data correlates pretty strongly with overtime hours. For senior staff who are running an organization the size of the RFA where they are responsible for life and death processes, those wages do not seem extreme to me. I am retired from the corporate world where I saw people with a lot less responsibility earning those sorts of wages. The overtime is most notable in the years 2021 and 2022 which were pandemic years when staff shortages were rampant and high levels of overtime were unavoidable. We are talking about individual firefighters working 1500-1800 hours of overtime in a single year. While that may seem incredible, the way firefighters shifts work it would be very possible for a firefighter to rack up those sorts of hours during the pandemic. Also, you have cherry picked the top 50 earners in each year out of a staff of nearly 400 across the RFA so your data is in no way representative of the general wage picture.
Niall- all due respect, the data I referenced comes from a public records request response from the RFA. The Top 50 wage earners are not a ‘small’ number of senior staff. With 400 employees one would think that the Top 50 would represent most managers, since an efficient organization typically has 1 manager per 6-8 employees. Not so with the RFA. Their manager: staff ratio is closer to 1:4 – which reflects a top heavy management organization. Like you, my career was in business. I was CEO of a 700 person, international organization. Our business had no pension plan, no overtime, and everyone was expected to sign up for productivity gains every year. The RFA has no focus on productivity and efficiency. They spend $750,000 per year to cross-train their firefighters to be paramedics, which allows firefighters to respond to 85% of all 911 calls that are medical emergencies. Each medical emergency includes multiple fire trucks and 10-12 personnel, which is total overkill and wasted expense for medical calls. Lack of productivity and inefficient staffing drive overtime costs and costs per call response which are performance metrics that the RFA doesn’t report on. At the end of the day, the RFA serves its employees first, and taxpayers second. It spends $1M per year on ‘communications’ to promote their work. That’s taxpayer funded!
Thank you Mr. Bill Krepick. Most of us know who own homes here and will be the ones paying for these property taxes that what you say in absolutely true. Regardless of the amount of the tax increase I find all of this way too smoke and mirrors for me. The lack of transparency is horrendous. WHY would we get all up in that? It’s not worth it Edmonds…to try to get ourselves out of debt only to be in more debt in the next few years. Makes no sense to me. And BTW I love Firefighters. I always have. This has nothing really to do with them or their caring ways. It’s about their management and the possible lack of integrity when considering the lives and or the feelings of their customers.
Hi Bill,
Your comments are a disappointment. What company were you a CEO of? Do you care to share with us so we can see what an “efficient” operation you ran?
The cross training you mention is a requirement from the state. All firefighters must also be EMTs, not only is this more cost effective, but it allows us to be more versatile in the various emergencies we respond to. You say there’s is a lack of “productivity” reporting but your comparison to private industry is apples vs oranges. Do you have an example of a department that reports these supposedly very important statistics? Contrary to what you said, the department sends 2-3 people for most medical emergencies. The starting wage for new firefighters (which constitute most of the departments personnel) is $98,000/ year. Firefighter wages top out at $116,000 after several years of training. As Niall said, top wage earners were from overtime during the pandemic. Cherry picking that data is disingenuous.
Zach:
Did the cities that are currently in the RFA provide the stations in their cities? Would Edmonds be assessed the same tax rate per $1,000 of assessed value as the other cities? I apologize if this info has already been provided.
Zack:
Are you going to reply to my two questions? Thank you.
Good grief. Time to move on. I think we’ve established that being a fire person is one hell of a good job to have because everyone loves you and the pay is great with big chunks of time off to make money on side gigs. This really has nothing to do with anything here. The bottom line is we have to have fire service and someone somewhere along the line decided that Regional Fire Service saves lots of money and is the way to go and that all fire persons must also be EMT’s on the public dime so they are more versatile. The theory is that this all saves money somehow. We had our own fire department that mainly just put out fires but we have allegedly grown out of that and must move on. We get to vote on this in April (public comment now is just for show) and we need to know with some accuracy what this wonderful service is going to cost us as a home owner if we say yes. If the majority of us say NO, the city will have to take another look at restarting a basic but functional department for putting out fires. EMS could be a private function. It still is in some places. Just Vote for what you want in April.
In 2009, the original “deal” with Fire included the stations and there was FMV assessed. The Council chose to keep the building and former Mayor Haakenson opined in order for the deal to be financially feasible – the buildings should have been sold. But that never happened and so now why would RFA expect us to turn over the buildings for free? These lots are not a critical areas, like the Marsh, where any restoration would cause net ecological gain, so what changed?
Anyway one look at this, it’s a bad deal that lacks transparency and public inclusion.
Why not reverse what Nelson did with adding the extra unit? We all know those metrics Fire has used are over 14 years old and need a comprehensive review along with the contract numbers. Instead of digging in and creating a RFA committee, the Council President shames us for not having open minds and understanding the issues?? Really? Just ignore citizens and write that we don’t get it? I think we do!
Mayor Rosen inherited a mess and Council and Nelson are to blame as CP Tibbott negotiated the Fitch LLC scope not even consulting with Council or the public. What a waste of $$$. All CP should have done was have them update old report and look at those performance metrics. Vote NO RFA, demand transparency.
To me this all kind of boils down to our city government trying to sell us an imported Rolls Royce with all the bells and whistles, when a top of the line Chevy or Ford made in America would be plenty adequate to get the job done and cost a hell of a lot less. I suggest we all vote NO on RFA and any extra property tax levees this top down local government system springs on us and make them figure out how to make do with less. Without major tax increases this city is going to go broke sometime between now and 2027. Jim O. has all but proven that with his financial analysis of where we are and where we will end up if we continue working and spending how we are now. Reality is a real bitch, but it does force one to make do as best as one can with what one has.
Mr Cash and Mr Orgonowski, you’re each using different terms. But I believe you are talking about the same EMS transport fee. Cash called it GEMP – ground emergency medical transport fee. To expand on the issue, Council President Olson has confirmed in an email response to a resident’s question (which was forwarded to me) that the transport fees that the RFA has paid the City in last years are being questioned. It is not clear to the City that the amount of fees remitted followed the terms of the contract with the RFA. The City Council has not let us know what path this dispute resolution will take and if any of it will take place in open public meetings.