The future of fire and emergency medical services is a big decision facing the community and will be discussed Tuesday, Dec. 3, during a special council meeting starting at 5 p.m. There is a public hearing on the same topic in the 7 p.m. regular council meeting.
Edmonds City Council chose annexation to the South County RFA as the preferred alternative on May 28, 2024, and the proposed details of that arrangement are now available for review and discussion.
While the specifics are new and being discussed by the city council for the first time on Tuesday, there has already been a lot of community conversation on the topic, and some of the statements being made warrant context and clarification. I address them here.
Ownership of fire stations:
Per the RFA Plan (amended), if Edmonds annexes, Edmonds will transfer stations #16 and #20 to the Regional Fire Authority.
Per RCW 52.26.100 (2)(a), transfer of real property from a city providing fire service to a regional fire authority (also considered a municipal government) is the default norm. The taxpayers paid for that asset for its firefighting purpose– and the asset is continuing to be used for that purpose for the same beneficiaries.
Transfer is distinguished from sale in legal and code language.
It is for this reason that Lynnwood, Mill Creek, and Brier effected no-cost transfers of their stations in their RFA mergers and annexations, and why the documents handle our two unencumbered stations as transfers.
Edmonds has one station (17) excepted from transfer because it is part of the Maxwell-McGinness Public Safety Complex and does not have land associated with it as a stand-alone entity. This station will be retained by the city and a no-cost lease negotiated for the RFA’s use, as a fire station only, until the RFA may choose not to use it. Mountlake Terrace has a similar situation and is the only other city to have a fire station with a no-cost lease and retained station ownership in their RFA pre-annexation agreement.
Edmonds has the right to reacquire the stations if the RFA no longer needs them as fire stations:
Per the pre-annexation agreement, the fair market value at the time of this transaction will be credited fair market value at the time City of Edmonds transferred that station to the RFA (adjusted for inflation).
Unless there has been a significant capital investment in a station by the RFA between annexation and return of the station, city payment to repossess our properties will be nominal.
Levels of service (LOS) and costs for Edmonds residents:
Contract alternatives with the RFA and another local provider, Shoreline Fire, have annual contract costs on par with or more than the taxes associated with annexation into the RFA.
No matter how provided, costs for fire and EMS service in 2026 will be considerably higher than our current contract, which terminates at the end of 2025. Only resurrecting our own fire department and accepting a lower level of service has potential to cost any less than annexation in the long term; in the short term, resurrecting our own department is the most expensive option as we would be paying for contracted fire services while accruing costs associated with the startup.
If council decides that it is in the community’s best interest to annex, there will be a council vote within a month to put annexation on the ballot in April. In the end, the public decides this issue at the ballot box. Please take the time, starting now, to become an informed voter on this issue. We must ensure that those who live, work and visit Edmonds are protected with reliable, high quality emergency medical care, fire suppression and hazard response.
— By Vivian Olson
Vivian Olson is the current president of the Edmonds City Council President. In this commentary, she is speaking only for herself as a single councilmember.
Disappointing. The city is taking the easy way out. We’ve done months of research, called municipalities in WA and CA. Fire & EMS costs are out of control, real change & leadership is required as highlighted in this Time Magazine article. Business as usual, is what got us into our financial crisis.
#Stephen Jellie, Acting City Manager & Fire Chief recognized inefficiencies and made cuts. Cities are overspending on fire.
https://time.com/6097414/wildfires-firefighters-spending/
Mukilteo’s cost per resident is far lower, their costs increases for 25′ & 26′ are far lower than SCF / RFA increases. Since 2010, our population grew by 7%, cumulative inflation ~38%, Fire & EMS costs at $19M low est., ~216% over the same period.
https://city-mukilteo-wa-budget-book.cleargov.com/19146/departments/fire-department
Just look at the collective bargaining agreements and staffing recommendations for cardiac arrest. We’ve called hospitals, reviewed study by National institute of health, data from other departments. The research points to SCF / RFA being a job program for fire fighters.
SCF / RFA operate a 100 year old fire delivery service, similar operation called out in this Orange county Grand Jury report, “where’s the fire”.
https://ocgrandjury.org/sites/jury/files/2023-06/2022-05-20_Where%27s_the_Fire_Stop_Sending_Fire_Trucks_to_Medical_Calls.pdf
You hand over our future, our options when you hand over our fire stations. If RFA passes, it will go down in Edmonds history as one of the worst decisions made.
Nick, as in the case of Everett which was previously cited as a lower cost fire/EMS solution, the analysis here omits expenditures for emergency medical services which are outside the general fund and not accounted for in the fire budget. These costs were $4.77 million in 2024 and are projected to be $3.24 million in 2025 and $5.38 million in 2026. See the City of Mukilteo budget (https://city-mukilteo-wa-budget-book.cleargov.com/19146/introduction/table-of-contents) for details.
With these additional costs the total cost for fire/EMS in Mukilteo is $10.49 million in 2024, $9.47 million in 2025 and $11.77 million in 2026. For a population about half that of Edmonds, the per person costs in Mukilteo are substantially higher than what we are currently paying in Edmonds. This does not account for possible deficit spending in the EMS account as we saw in Everett or the cost of fire fighters pension (LEOFF). Mukilteo’s budget doesn’t provide enough details on these costs.
The argument that Edmonds could reconstitute its own fire department at anything close to the cost we currently pay without a massive reduction in service doesn’t appear to hold water. I still believe that there is room to negotiate a better deal with the RFA but let’s follow the data and focus on truly viable options.
Niall, appreciate your analysis. FYI – MEN is highlighting SCF 2026 costs at $19.5M. Sounded like in last nights meeting the City attorney suggested est. of $20.7M based off AV with RFA (might have heard that wrong). I believe per resident cost analysis for SCF / RFA for 2026 should include the value of the Edmonds fire stations.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/public-invited-to-weigh-in-on-rfa-annexation-idea-during-dec-3-edmonds-city-council-meeting/
Looking at Mukilteo’s 2023 annual report, $6M is a lot to spend on 11 total Mukilteo Fires, 84 automatic aid to other district fires (to help hone skills, & assist lighten load on other depts). A similar story if you look at the the low number of fires in Edmonds.
https://mukilteowa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1874/MFD-Annual-Response-Report-2023-PDF
I’d like to see Edmonds adopt some leadership skills from the Fire Chief / City Manager in the Time Magazine article, at minimum bring in this chief & others to consider all options.
#Stephen Jellie, Acting City Manager & Fire Chief recognized inefficiencies and made cuts. Cities are overspending on fire.
https://time.com/6097414/wildfires-firefighters-spending/
I would be open to SCF contract.
Thanks,
Nick
Nick, I have done some analysis which I have shared with CP Olsen and others that suggests, if/when we dilute the cost of the RFA using Edmonds AV, the levy rate should be reduced and the upper limit on what is reasonable for Edmonds to pay should be ~$18 million.
As you and I both know, there are numerous other points that need to be factored into the final negotiation including the fact that, after the addition of the aid car in Edmonds in 2021, the NUUF and transport balancing metrics are both consistently below 100%and the fact that the RFA is not meeting its response time metrics. Also, we need to have a conversation about per resident costs and the relative weighting of the levy and the benefit charge to arrive at a final and fair outcome for all. I have done some previous analysis on this which suggested a total cost of~$16-17 million but I need to redo that as I think it could be even lower.
Niall- I hope you read the articles that Nick Lopez cited about the overstaffing and overpaying issues that are prevalent across the country for fire/ems organizations! You seem to be on a mission to use selective statistics to prove that the RFA is the best deal for Edmonds. It couldn’t be further from the truth. Rather than spend your time and energy trying to prove that the City cannot compete with the RFA in running an efficient and responsive fire department, maybe you should do what Nick has done – and find information that shows local fire department success? Pressure the RFA to supply annual reports like Mukilteo’s that clearly spell out their fire department’s focus on controlling costs in the face of downward trends in fire incidents. The other articles that Nick has referenced make it very clear that the RFA is promulgating outdated/inefficient staffing assignments – and should be separating the fire and ems functions – and cutting back on the number of firefighters. You claim to be objective in your analysis, but it is clear you are using selective analysis to prove your support for the RFA. I challenge you to broaden your horizon – and follow-up on some of Nick’s suggestions. I challenge you to analyze WA cities who deliver responsive fire/ems services at less cost than the RFA.
When you refer to “staffing recommendations for cardiac arrests” as a jobs program, this seems to be in a negative light. What hospitals and NIH data are you referring to? What other departments? Are there other areas of the country that do this better? There’s not. If you look at Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest survival data, the national average is about 10%. This area is above 50%. This is a product of a good system- dispatch, educated and well trained crews, early defibrillation and ongoing quality improvement
.
Hi Peter, comment in reference to the Collective Bargaining Agreement that prevents private EMS to respond to 911 calls (taxpayers operate in the free market, competition, why not SCF?). And the SCF published personnel per cardiac arrest response recommendation of ‘at least 11’. I spoke with emergency room RN’s & RN Manager, they believed 11 responders was high. Some links below.
I have no doubt Western WA’s fire & ems personnel have top notch training. It seems Seattle / KC lead the nation in OHCA survival rates, specifically KC Medic One Paramedic ambulances. Learning more about this topic, it seems OHCA survival rates are influenced by many factors, including obesity rates; witnessed CA; number of citizens trained in CPR; response times; geography, rural vs metro responses; no. of defibrillators).
This is a 2 way conversation, open to data / experiences.
Thanks,
Nick
#CBA – page 25, packet Pg.148
https://dpa730eaqha29.cloudfront.net/myedmondsnews/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Fitch-Final-Report-full-doc-reduced.pdf
#SCF – Page 10 – ‘At least 11 Firefighters are required for a cardiac arrest response’ – 57% higher than Shorelines ‘at least 7’ for cardiac arrest
https://www.southsnofire.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3407/638624397684330000
#Shoreline – ‘A cardiac arrest call requires at least seven, and ideally even more personnel’
https://shorelinefire.com/information/faq/
#NIH – *Crew size impact on OHCA remains inconclusive, however, crew size of 4-5 referenced as optimal for best teamwork performance.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7340314/
#Obesity CA
#https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300957223001557
#OHCA survival factors
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2023/out-hospital-cardiac-arrest-nhlbi-studies-tackle-deadly-public-health-problem
Peter- all good points; good to hear the Seattle metro area is well above the national average cardiac arrest survival rate. Edmonds’ residents’ collective issue is with South County RFA and their runaway prices for service. They have refused to give residents any cost accounting justification to support a proposed 65% increase in cost of service between 2024 and 2026 – following annexation into the RFA. Nick Lopez has given you numerous links to articles that question the economics and response logistics for the RFA’s protocol of sending 10-12 firefighters and paramedics to respond to the 85% of all 911 calls for medical emergencies. The RFA says their ‘survival rate’ is 2X the national average. Using your numbers of national average being 10% survival, does that mean the RFA has 20% survival rate? If so, that’s not all that great since the following article shows that Seattle and King County’s EMS/Medical One program has a 62% survival rate – the best in the country. https://www.sca-awareorg/sca-news/king-county-wa-has-worlds-highest-survival-rate-for-cardiac-arrest Given this data, Edmonds residents should reject annexation since the RFA hasn’t shown any cost control, economies of scale, or best practices medical results? The RFA just wants to raise prices (and dramatically increase our taxes) to pay higher wages, more overtime, more admin overhead, more community PR – all of which demonstrate misguided management
Thank you CM Olson for writing this letter.
It sounds like the decision to anex into the RFA is the least costly choice if we didn’t want a massive reduction in service. I appreciate the time and effort that the Edmonds city council put into assessing and conveying that.
As we look at budget cuts, reducing money on studies is a key area to reduce unnecessary spending, so I appreciate that in this case, city funds seem to have been well spent on this informed decision.
Hi Evan, the cities consultant does not mention reduction in service going with the other options, with exception of a never seriously considered option of a single station. Here’s the report the city commissioned.
https://dpa730eaqha29.cloudfront.net/myedmondsnews/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Fitch-Final-Report-full-doc-reduced.pdf
Also if you read this recent MEN article, RFA has adjusted their costs since the report was published. Now estimated at $19.5M, more costly than starting our own department.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/public-invited-to-weigh-in-on-rfa-annexation-idea-during-dec-3-edmonds-city-council-meeting/
The same consultant in 2016, recommended deprioritizing fire response and prioritizing EMS, staffing paramedics only out of 1 / 3 stations, with a $1.5M savings at the time. I can share that report if you’d like?
Thanks
Evan/Niall-
Niall has selectively used data to claim RFA is least costly fire/ems provider – and that is simply not true. With the latest $20.7M cost in 2026 (from lawyer Taraday at Council meeting) that translates to $483 per resident per year – which is >50% above the per resident costs in Everett and Mukilteo. Mukilteo uses 3 firefighters per station for 24×7 coverage. RFA uses 4-5 per station! RFA raised prices by 50% between 2019 and 2023. Mukilteo’s cost increased 16% over 5 years! Mukilteo’s budget for 2026 is 2.65% above 2025. RFA’s annexation will result in a 65% increase between 2026 and 2025. Mukilteo issues an annual report showing trends in service, response times, efficiencies – and RFA doesn’t publish one. How can you possibly say that RFA is the least costly fire/ems service provider? Edmonds can save upwards of $6M per year by ditching the RFA and setting up its own fire department. Please read these two articles: https://mukilteowa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1874/MFD-Annual-Response-Report-2023-PDF
https://time.com/6097414/wildfires-firefighters-spending/
Please ask the RFA why they are not willing to disclose per capita costs of providing service, or an annual response analysis required by the State: RCW 35.103.040, or why they continue to staff with so many firefighters, when 85% of the 911 calls are for medical emergencies?
Bill, I’m the one selectively using data? Really?
So comparing the general fund portion of the fire/EMS budget for Everett or Mukilteo against the fully loaded cost of Edmonds’ current contract or proposed RFA cost is NOT a selective use of data?
I am the one who is broadening my horizon by looking at data and trying to understand the objective reality of this situation. I have listened to the complaints that you and others make about this issue but every time I look for data relating to those complaints I find that the data doesn’t support the claims that are being made.
I have said repeatedly that I believe the costs proposed by the RFA are too high but I do not believe, and the data does not support, that the other options that exist would be cheaper without a significant reduction in service.
I will continue to explore the data around this matter and I will follow where the data leads. What I will NOT do is to accept flawed arguments that are coming from an anti tax, anti RFA position that is not open to fact checks and objective scrutiny.
Sadly Council Prez Olson has ignored 4 months’ worth of valuable taxpayer input and analysis, and has instead taken the biased input from RFA management and firefighters and cited a flawed Fitch consulting report that labelled the RFA as the most cost effective alternative. The RFA has not displayed any cost containment or operational efficiencies in spite of the fact that it has used its State granted monopoly powers to expand its territory to include 250,000+ customers. Where is the evidence the RFA has implemented any economies of scale? They cannot justify the 50% contract price increase between 2019 and 2023. They cannot justify the proposed 65% price increase between 2024 and 2026. Costs are not higher, prices are higher! Edmonds could run its own fire department at the current $12 million level and could control future cost increases better than the out-of-control RFA. Everett and Mukilteo are running fire departments for $300 per resident per year. The RFA is proposing $450 per resident per year after Edmonds annexation. Ms. Olson’s comments that anything other than the RFA will result in lower quality service is unsupported and a scare tactic. Her assertion that voters will decide on annexation only holds water if the Council ignores taxpayers’ input and puts annexation on the ballot. The Council should be evaluating alternatives, not forcing an ill-advised vote.
Why is this council not practicing Due Diligence by investigating at least another option?
RFA would be a BAD decision…you are not hearing the warning shouts of your constituents .
Nick is correct, this would go down in our history as one of the worst decisions EVER.
How well has the RFA been researched with regard to its business practices?
Is here a cap of 1% increase per year as with other government entities?
For example, would RFA be able to use our property as Collateral for a loan?
We NEVER EVER give property away!!! There is no need except greed.
If RFA happens, we will remember and good will be squandered.
Hi Julie. The big mistake happened years ago when our city council voted to give up our own fire department with a chief answerable directly to the Mayor and by extension the local tax payers for performance of the service. This was done to avoid having to ask for a tax hike at that time to maintain the services we had at that time. (Sound familiar?) Only one C.P cried foul, voted NO and predicted exactly the situation that is happening now. That was Stephen Bernheim if you want to research it more. Even being a rather staunch Democrat generally leaning toward supporting labor, Bernheim knew that giving up local political control to an organization where management basically supports all labor union asks would be a bad deal for the taxpayers he represented. He knew who he was supposed to take care of. Most of our current Council and Mayor do not know who they are supposed to be taking care of and as a result our property taxes are going to sky rocket, unless we just VOTE NO on the asks. Make them do their jobs for all, not just the people who support their election to office.
I am a member of the ‘No annexation’ citizen opposition group. I have carefully read Council President Olson’s column. I made comments at the Dec 3rd public hearing, and was critical of the RFA’s business management practices in a couple areas, and also their EMS response time. Do you know dear readers that Fire and EMS response time is the most important government service that the residents of Edmonds want according to a community survey done earlier this year? The RFA’s response for one of their EMS services is below the standard they set for them selves. They must do better! After the hearing, myself and other residents talked to the Fire Chief, one of the RFA Commissioners, and their public info director for quite a while. These folks are willing to answer our questions
– frankly and completely. We’re not ready for an annexation ballot measure yet in my opinion. Fix the EMS response time problem, and explain the overhead costs in the agency. Stay engaged, and we’ll see where we’re at in a year or so. I expect the cost of fire service to increase, but not to $19Mil per year.
I couldn’t agree more with Vivian Olsen that it’s time to be an informed voter on RFA annexation. Everything I’ve seen and heard about the proposed annexation has convinced me that it’s a lousy deal crafted by a city’s inept negotiation team. I will be voting no on annexation at this time.
Thank you CP Olsen for this informative column. The question of the value of the Edmonds fire stations is one that has been percolating among opponents of annexation but I believe your explanation makes sense. There are numerous other questions where a similar level of clarity and transparency would be very welcome.