Passionate comments about city planning, providing police and fire services, and protecting the character of downtown Edmonds dominated public testimony at Tuesday night’s Edmonds City Council meeting, as advocates for a range of viewpoints packed the council chambers to have their say.
One outcome following the testimony was immediate: The council voted to delete downtown Edmonds’ BD zone from the city’s proposed green building incentives for commercial and multi-family properties. The program is aimed at helping the city meet its climate goals by encouraging green building, but those testifying said they were worried that the incentives could threaten the downtown character by offering developers a 5-foot height bonus for meeting green construction standards. Councilmembers voted 6-1 to approve Councilmember Michelle Dotsch’s proposal to remove the BD zone from the program.
The lone no vote came from Councilmember Jenna Nand, who noted that buildings “do have a certain life,” and that new developments downtown, such as the building now housing the Edmonds Post Office on 2nd Avenue North as well as the Graphite building across the street, “are very well integrated into the style and the culture of the Edmonds downtown business district, and they’re often replacing buildings that are not in very good shape.”
Dotsch also made a motion to delay approving the incentives — minus the BD zone — until late January but that was rejected by 2-5 vote, with Councilmember Will Chen joining Dotsch to vote in favor.
In addition, councilmembers heard numerous people testify about the value of Edmonds maintaining its current police department, amid news reports that the city — which is facing a $13 million budget deficit — was exploring idea of contracting with sheriff’s offices in either King or Snohomish County to save money.
Two of the speakers were current or former educators at Edmonds-Woodway High School who spoke to the value of police who proactively worked with students who needed support and their quick and professional response to school emergencies.
“Please don’t balance the budget by jeopardizing our safety,” said Gwen Baugh. “Safety should be your primary responsibility. Find another way.”
Some councilmembers also brought up the topic of the police department’s future during their comments, with Council President Vivian Olson stating “we’ve had a huge PR nightmare on our hands regarding the alleged plan to outsource the police, which was never a plan. I appreciate that…we are getting information on absolutely all budget-cutting opportunities, but if our officers didn’t already know how much they were loved and appreciated in Edmonds, that was definitely a positive outcome over this.”
The topic of fire and EMS services — and the council’s consideration of a proposal from the South County Fire Regional Fire Authority for annexation — also came up during testimony. Among those offering comments in support of the idea were Steve Francis, a retired firefighter living in Edmonds, and Zach Cash, a current South County Fire captain who sits on the executive board of the local firefighters union.
However, other Edmonds residents testified in opposition to RFA annexation, pointing to the burden it would place on taxpayers. “The taxes needed to float the RFA vote will inevitably push citizens on or near the financial edge out of this community,” Edmonds resident Greg Brewer said. “There has to be another option.”
South County Fire leaders — including RFA Board Commissioner Ed Widdis and Fire Chief Bob Eastman — also made an appearance toward the end of Tuesday’s meeting. They had just come from an RFA Board meeting (which also meets Tuesday night) with news that the fire commissioners had agreed to some concessions in areas of the pre-annexation agreement that councilmembers had been unhappy with.
Two significant ones:
1) If voters approved RFA annexation, city fire station 16 (located at 196th Street Southwest) and station 20 (located in unincorporated Esperance but owned by the City of Edmonds) would become the property of the RFA, as planned. But if the RFA ceases to operate the properties as active fire stations, title and ownership of them would revert to the City of Edmonds — with no payment required. “If the citizens actually support the annexation and voted, the [fire] stations follow the taxpayer,” Eastman said in explaining the change. “If the City of Edmonds starts their own fire department again and the citizens are then served fire from the city, and those stations would go back with those taxpayers to the city.”
2) If after annexation, if Edmonds wanted to restart its fire department, it could purchase the rolling stock (fire engines and aid cars) from the RFA at fair market value — with no concurrence of the RFA required to make the purchase. That requirement had been a point of contention because — as City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained during a council meeting last week — “there’s a significant wait time to order new rolling stock from the factory.”
Widdis and Eastman said that councilmembers would see new draft pre-annexation agreement contract language on Wednesday. Once the city has had a chance to review it, the revised final language would be placed before the RFA Board for approval at its Tuesday, Dec. 17 meeting — in time for the Edmonds council to consider the RFA-approved draft at their Dec. 17 meeting.
Another major topic Tuesday night was the city’s 2024 draft Comprehensive Plan update. Prior to its 7 p.m. business meeting, the council met to discuss the final environmental impact statement (EIS) related to the Comprehensive Plan. Then, the council held a public hearing during its 7 p.m. meeting to obtain public feedback on the plan itself.
City staff and consultants have been working on development of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update for two years. The draft plan includes the concept of developing neighborhood centers and hubs aimed at accommodating the city’s allocated growth targets. The growth scenarios are designed to account for and comply with the state’s housing bills and the mandatory Comprehensive Plan elements, and to align with multicounty and countywide planning policies.
During the earlier meeting on the final EIS, Acting Planning and Development Director Shane Hope reminded the council that the EIS has been issued and published, incorporating information from the draft EIS. She described the EIS as “a tool to analyze and think about issues related to the environment and provide information to decision makers and the public.” It’s also a non-project EIS, which means that “it’s much broader, at higher level” than a project-specific EIS, which is more specific to site development, Hope explained.
Lindsey Amtmann, an environmental planner working with consultant Herrera, said that EIS for the Comprehensive Plan update found “no significant impacts on any element of the environment,” with the exception of transportation — related to a level of service drop on a segment of Highway 99 in Edmonds. The city will work with the Washington State Department of Transportation to address that issue, she said.
Council President Olson said there may have been an expectation that the EIS “would actually make us aware of what areas required additional protection,” and asked if that expectation was correct. “The EIS is not designed to point out where extra protection is needed,” Amtmann replied. “We already know where those areas are that need extra protection. Those are the critical areas, and they are mapped.” She added that those areas will be identified as overlays on maps of the city’s centers and hubs, so that developers will know what areas need protection.
But during the public hearing on the draft plan itself, some took exception to the Comprehensive Plan’s ability — as written — to protect the environment. John Brock, a Woodway resident who serves on the Woodway City Council — which just approved its own Comprehensive Plan — called Edmonds’ plan “incomplete and inadequate.”
The council is “being asked to approve a plan for the future of Edmonds with only a portion of the critical information you need,” Brock said. “The process seems to have addressed the state-required housing elements very well, but is fatally flawed with respect to environmental problems created by inadequate mitigation of past development,” including creek erosion and the loss of salmon habitat. The plan also does not “adequately protect drinking water aquifers from the increased runoff new development will produce,” Brock said.
Another commenter was Edmonds resident Joe Scordino, a retired fisheries biologist who works with high school students to monitor salmon health in local streams and also coordinates habitat restoration efforts at the Edmonds Marsh. Scordino said the Comprehensive Plan EIS “was supposed to tell you where there’d be adverse effects or where there’d be less effects across the landscape, and it didn’t do any of that.” He pointed to state law that he said requires the Comprehensive Plan to review drainage, flooding and stormwater, among other things, and “it’s not in there.”
Several Edmonds environmental advocates also testified on another aspect of the Comprehensive Plan — ensuring that it contains language that the Edmonds Marsh be restored as a functioning estuary that is suitable for salmon. To make that happen, commenter Ron Eber said “it needs an open channel to Puget Sound” — and that means crossing through the Unocal property, which is undergoing environmental mediation. Edmonds resident Kathleen Sears said it was important to have that language in the plan now, so that when remediation is complete and Edmonds has an opportunity to purchase the property, the city has “its Edmonds Marsh ducks lined up in a row.”
Several others testified that the Comprehensive Plan will play a key role in how Edmonds grows. Erika Barnett, who along with her husband Jeff owns Salish Sea Brewing in Edmonds, said it’s essential to ensure that the plan’s policies “protect the small business ecosystem that drives our economy and sustains our community.” And that includes maintaining building heights that reflect the character of the city’s downtown, she said.
Hope agreed that the draft plan language could be strengthened regarding the marsh, and also noted that there are “other potential amendments” that the council may want to consider “based on their own preferences, based on community input and other information that can all be decided in the near future.” In addition, the Edmonds Planning Board has made recommendations for council consideration, Hope said.
The council is scheduled to adopt final changes to the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting next Tuesday, Dec. 17.
In other action Tuesday, the council:
– Held a public hearing on artwork selected for Richard F. Anway Park, which is located next to the Edmonds ferry terminal holding lanes. Artist Sean Orlando from Richmond, California made a presentation via Zoom regarding the selected design, which is being funded through a combination of a state Creative District grant and a donation from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. The artwork, Gateway Canopy, is an approximately 15–by-15-foot structure that was described as “an asymmetrical curving form made up of rectangular steel ribs in a parametrically designed pattern. Presenting a compelling elliptical structure with a circular seat at its base, this sculptural work will also cast shade over the park’s grassy area and walkway.”
Among those testifying during the hearing was Samatha Saether from the Arts Festival Foundation board. “We are thrilled with the selected design and we look forward to seeing it completed,” she said.
– Renewed a contract with the Snohomish County Public Defender Association. The association will provide a full report on its work early next year.
– Approved payment of $92,500 from the city’s utility fund for a state-required Frances Anderson Center investment grade audit.
At the end of Tuesday’s meeting, several councilmembers thanked the public for expressing their opinions. “I really think by getting information about any decision that is laying in front of us, it will only give us an advantage, whether it’s the Comp Plan, it’s our fire services, our police department that we all love and appreciate,” said Councilmember Will Chen. “Gathering more information is only going to help us make better decisions for our city. So I appreciate all the comments that come forward. That means you care, and we hear you.”
— By Teresa Wippel
Green = more taxes
Especially for seniors on a fixed income. I’m seeing any excuse for higher taxes…any
Ms. Trevino – I have always been confused by the use of the term “fixed income”. I don’t understand how that only applies to seniors (which I am). Throughout by entire work life I have had an annual salary which was fixed. It did not fluctuate from week to week or month to month. Whether someone is 25 years old or 80 years old and make $30,000/year or $200,000/year most of us are on a fixed income. We all have to budget based on our income (unlike our city council). If taxes are raised or inflation increases my boss is very unlikely to increase my income.
Best wishes,
Tom
When you are still working…many times if you work harder or put in more hours or are just a better employee…very likely management will recognize that and you could get a raise a bonus etc. . When you are retired, you can work harder at home be outstanding and you will NOT get a raise. From whom??? Yourself. That’s why they say you have a fixed income.
Mr. Johnson, you were lucky to have a salary you could count on, but not everyone has a stable income. People who work in retail or food service for their careers do not always have a constant level of scheduled hours or pay. Their hours and tips (if they receive them) are in constant flux. When they retire and depend on Social Security and savings, if they had any, they do depend on a fixed income that is often lower than what they made while working in those fields. I had a single working mom who supported us by working in retail after my dad died at a young age. Times were hard and her retirement income was both limited and fixed. She could not afford increases in things like taxes, groceries, and even heat. I went to her apartment one day and it 55 degrees there. Inside. It would appear that this type of struggle is foreign to you. And yes, her kids rallied to help her, which was a privilege and a joy. But what if we hadn’t been able to help?
Hi Maret-
I appreciate your life challenges. Please consider signing the No! on RFA Annexation Petition and telling your neighbors/friends about your concerns and giving them the link:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Thanks
Bill Krepick
ps- please ask My Edmonds News for my email address if you want to ask questions or get updates on the RFA annexation.
Green also means healthier lives, clean environment, and less money you have to pay for healthcare when you get sick from all the pollutants you breath in and eat. It is much better, and I expect cheaper, to pay now, not later. I would rather buy less “stuff” and have a better healthier life. In the long run Edmonds will do better with a reputation of being a better place to live and raise a family.
Hi Tom-
I appreciate your concern for fiscal responsibility at the Council and Mayor level.
Please consider signing the No! on RFA Annexation Petition and telling your neighbors/friends about your concerns and giving them the link:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Thanks
Bill Krepick
ps- please ask My Edmonds News for my email address if you want to ask questions or get updates on the RFA annexation.
Joy-
please consider signing the No! on RFA Annexation Petition and telling your neighbors/friends about your concerns and giving them the link:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Thanks
Bill Krepick
ps- please ask My Edmonds News for my email address if you want to ask questions or get updates on the RFA annexation.
I so appreciate My Edmonds News detailed and comprehensive reporting from these city council meetings. Thank you.
In my opinion, the key question around public safety services should center around the taxpayer. The question should be “how can we obtain the best possible services at the least possible cost?” Regarding the RFA, the taxpayer is now receiving excellent service via contract with South County Fire, but the cost will dramatically increase to the taxpayer if Edmonds votes in April to annex into the RFA. Voters must decide whether they believe those costs are justified and whether the “best possible service at the least possible cost” goal is being achieved.
Regarding police services, the same question is on the table. Our current police department is outstanding and is deeply appreciated. But are we receiving the best possible service at the least possible cost? Are additional efficiencies available to aid the city in controlling police costs? If were to decide to have police service provided by the County sheriff, would police quality be at least at current levels and would costs be equivalent to or less than what taxpayers are now paying for policing?
These are very difficult issues, and our residents and businesses need to be well informed about them to ensure they can provide direction to their elected officials about what they expect about public safety.
Dave is absolutely right. The Council and Mayor obligation is to look at ways to save taxpayers money, especially in this particularly difficult inflationary period. The reality of a switch to a County contracted police system is that if it’s done right it would be virtually seamless to the average citizen living here. With the exception of some high paid upper management, we’d have the same people, driving the same cars, doing the same thing with the same attitudes of service to Edmonds. Done wrong, as evidenced by the Fire Contract debacle, it could be a disaster. One thing the Mayor and Council would want to look at in considering such a move is how high of a rank an officer can be and still be in the Police Officer’s Association. True unions don’t generally allow management membership but Associations often do and that does make a difference in terms of how money gets spent in the public sector. All that money comes out of the taxpayers pockets and the local property taxpayers are already tapped out.
Thanks! I believe residents are trying to get informed. If there was a source of transparent, accurate, unbiased information, it would be helpful.
I understand that if we stand up our own FD, we will have to pay RFA for coverage while paying for people, training and equipment for our own FD and this will be costly and our budget is tight. However, if this stand-up cost is amortized over a 10 to 20 year period and there is a “cost savings” operating our own FD, the long term solution with the lowest cost may be our own FD.
I was notified that our VFA costs are, by law, directly proportional to our assessed property values. This leads me to believe that we have limited negotiating room. I read that levy rates could decrease since Edmonds’ assessed value is higher and adjusting the relative weight of the levy vs the benefit charge are areas that could decrease costs if negotiated with the RFA.
Appears the RFA flexed with 1) returning our fire stations with no payment (I wonder if this is applicable if costly improvements are made) if they cease to operate, and 2) we could purchase back the (did we give this to RFA?) rolling stock at fair market value without RFA concurrence. Can we undo annexation if necessary?
Jon-
Good thoughts on how Edmonds can finance its own fire/ems operation and save $5-7M per year vs. the monopolistic RFA price gouging. Unfortunately, once annexation is approved by voters, any attempt to de-annex is extremely difficult. The RFA can unilaterally undo annexation, but that is unlikely given they would be giving up a substantial revenue stream. De-annexation that is initiated by voters would be like a recall process where a large number of voters would have to sign a formal petition to place de-annexation on the ballot. It is possible that a local ordinance or statute outlining the de-annexation process may be required, which may involve public hearings, legal steps, and approval by the governing bodies of the RFA or the jurisdiction that is attempting to leave. The de-annexation process may involve approval by the RFA’s governing board, and the specific rules of the RFA may dictate the conditions under which a jurisdiction can leave. Net, net, de-annexation may be possible, but certainly not practical!
Re the benefit charge – the RFA’s benefit charge accounts for only 7% of revenues, and the RFA Board has shown no urgency to increase that percentage to offset assessed-value tax levies – and hasn’t been willing to negotiate a change. Residents would pay taxes directly to RFA based on inflated land values which have no fire risk!
It appears that the downtown business district has avoided extreme actions by daffy environmentalists who believe that damaging the area with taller building heights could impact the global climate. Ironically the city is also paying fast and loose with environmental controls with the misguided belief that increased density will lead to an egalitarian utopia.
I meant playing fast and loose not paying fast and loose. Also vote no on RFA annexation
My god, taller building heights! That will just destroy downtown Edmonds! Ugh, I’m so sick of this attitude that downtown Edmonds needs to be preserved forever under a glass dome. I’d actually like my kids to some day have a hint of a chance to live in Edmonds as they get older, but by refusing to allow any changes to building codes and continually blocking higher-density development, we’re just ensuring that this area will be unaffordable. And what does “global climate” have to do with this? Lay off the Fox News/Facebook culture war BS…
A backup plan in case government mandated zoning doesn’t create a proletariat paradise, for those who want their children to live in a nice community like Edmonds. Be sure your children get a great education, importantly gain desirable marketable skills, and choose a partner that has some integrity. Certainly, that’s merely a contingency plan for some.
Amazing to me that the Council, Mayor, RFA management and firefighters’ union are the only folks who actually support RFA annexation. Edmonds taxpayers are being taken advantage of by a Council that is taking the easy way out by double taxing residents – keeping the $6M in current property taxes that pay for 1/2 the current fire/ems contract, and then supporting the RFA’s annexation plan that would have residents pay an incremental annual tax of $1,000 directly to the RFA for today’s level of service. It’s absolutely shameful that the Council is not listening to taxpayers. It’s disingenuous for for the RFA fire chief to suggest that Edmonds can decide in the future to break from RFA and set up its own fire/ems service. That is not possible under current State law. A vote ‘for’ annexation is irreversible and voters cannot choose to have another vote to de-annex. Only the RFA has the power to unilaterally de-annex any community. I hope residents understand how they are being fleeced by the Council and the RFA – and I hope everyone understands how the RFA and firefighters will spend our tax dollars in the annexation election to scare everyone into thinking that without the RFA our lives/property will be at risk. This type of bullying is the ‘norm’ for annexation ballot measures. Vote “No!” on annexation!
Bill, if council were to give us credit for the $6m our incremental cost to join would be around $580. How should we vote on such a plan?
What I would recommend is do your own research and make an informed decision of your own. Bill isn’t even a voting resident of Edmonds. He lives in Woodway.
Eric
Help folks with their research. Please make your background clear. Are you in the firefighters’ union, or in RFA management? Yes, I live in Woodway – and we pay outrageous fire/ems fees to Shoreline – $10,000 per 911 call! More than $450 per year per resident. Almost twice what Edmonds residents currently pay for fire/ems service. I joined the core group of concerned Edmonds residents because I have done substantial research on the broken and mismanaged regional fire authority business model. The SCFD/RFA is a prime example of bloated wages, top heavy management, no accountability to taxpayers, no cost controls, no efficiency focus – all hidden behind assessed value tax levies – that have zero correlation with the costs of fire/ems delivery. I am on a mission to get the State legislature to reform the monopolistic RFA business model – and I intend to use Edmonds and Woodway as prime case studies . It’s outrageous that the RFA increased prices by 50% between 2019 and 2023, and wants another 65% increase between 2024 and 2026. Even worse, the RFA gives no cost breakdown to justify these monopolistic pricing actions. No cost per resident. No cost per service call. No performance metrics. The Council, RFA management, and the firefighters union are the only ones supporting RFA annexation. Why do you suppose that is?
Darrol-
Loaded question for sure. Kind of like asking me if Safeway gave me a 50 cent digital coupon to lower my price of a dozen eggs to $5.75 would I buy them? Hell no – not when I am used to paying $3.29 for a dozen eggs at Trader Joes! If the Council were to refund the $6M in property taxes to residents and if the Council was able to get a $19M 1-year contract with the RFA – I still believe it’s a giant ripoff. The RFA raised their contract price by 50% between 2019 and 2023, and now is proposing another 65% increase starting 2026. Worst thing is they have given no cost justification for these monopolistic price increases. Why would I trust them to manage better in the future? I believe Edmonds can run its own fire/ems service for the $12M it is currently paying RFA. I have seen other municipalities that have set up new business models for separating fire and ems service and have managed those operations more cost effectively and equally responsive to what RFA delivers. The Council is taking the easy way out and trying to force residents to pay $19-$21M in direct taxes to the RFA, while at the same time keeping $6M in taxes that are used to pay the contract. Vote No! on annexation.
Bill why are you so against the RFA annexation that has no effect on you? Your town of Woodway is served by Shoreline Fire. RFA annexation is the best route, look at cities like Mukilteo that has a small fire department that struggles with recruitment and retention. The rising costs of fire service will eventually lead them to join a larger fire service provider. Everett as well, their costs are up and city revenue is down, they too will eventually be apart of a larger fire service provider.
The issues with small town fire departments is you have to rely on neighboring fire districts to provide resources on any call larger than a simple medic response. So at what point do your neighbors start saying what are we getting in return for providing assistance you aren’t paying for? Plus to be able to hire enough qualified people to start a new 3 station department would likely almost be impossible to do in a short time frame. Plus even if you got used apparatus lead times to buy equipment and gear like fire turnouts are upwards of 6 months.
People should make their own informed decision, they should start by looking as to why there is very few city departments left in this state.
Bill, the Council, Mayor, RFA management and the firefighters union are not the only folks who support annexation. My household has no affiliation with any of these groups, and we support annexation, as do many other Edmonds taxpayers we know. Whether there are more supporters than opponents will be determined if/when annexation is on the ballot.
I’m not going to try and change anyone’s mind; there’s a lot of information folks can review and digest, including information you and other commenters have posted. That’s what my family did, and we also did our own research. Others do the same and end up having opinions different from ours. But to suggest that no taxpayer without ties to city government, the Union or the RFA supports annexation is wrong.
Ms. Gunning, you recently wrote a comment expressing concern for senior taxpayers and taxpayers who may have houses paid for and may be struggling financially to stay in their homes due to rising taxes and expenses. The City of Edmonds is looking to potentially add to property taxes in two instances so far. Just trying to put myself in their shoes and how they might feel right now. How do you feel about those folks?
Mike,
Snohomish County offers tax exemptions for senior citizens and people with disabilities which can be found here:
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/328/Property-Tax-Exemptions
I’m a union firefighter and have been involved with 3 previous annexations in Mill Creek, Brier, and Mountlake Terrace. I am unaware of anyone ever using the exemption program, but understand the assessor’s office is flexible with their administration of the program. MLT’s council set aside $50k to further abate any tax impacts on seniors or the disabled and I’m unsure if any of that money has been used.
Zach I would ask why we need tax exemptions? I would say in certain cases they are a good thing. My question is why should a senior have to apply for a exemption just because of greater taxation? One could argue taxation has gotten to high but instead of fixing that their cure Is higher taxation and more programs, again that wouldn’t be needed except for the increased taxation. Maybe property tax on someones home should be based on income and not property value? Saving us from having to run a expensive program that costs taxpayers extra money on employees. It is a vicious circle.
Mr. Cash, thank you I am aware of the program and helped both my mother and mother in law with the paperwork. My concern is with those that may be just above the qualifying income level but still at poverty level. It takes a lot to live around here and every increase has an effect. Don’t think this is an unreasonable concern for others less fortunate.
Local renters will not benefit from tax abatements or exemptions. Unfortunately, it is the renters with the most constrained incomes who will suffer the most from proposed significant tax increases from the RFA annexation and city tax levy. Senior taxpayers who rent will be S.O.L.
Hi Kim, respect your opinion, but curious as how you came to your decision? Personally, I don’t understand why South County Fire / RFA are able to escape the fiscal scrutiny that all departments including our police officers are subject to.
Instead of driving efficiency, SCF / RFA is requesting nearly double the costs for the same services. They have not met their 8 minute response time goals, owe Edmonds ~$7M in back EMS transfer fees and will be given an est. $6M in taxpayer real estate.
Joining RFA limits Edmonds options in the future, as it’s very difficult to get out. If you’re willing, I’d suggest reading this Time Magazine Article, it discusses some of the imbalances in our Emergency Services services nationwide & highlights a fire chief that made brave decisions to help offset costs increases.
https://time.com/6097414/wildfires-firefighters-spending/
Thanks,
Nick
Hi Nick, I came to my decision after I reviewed all the information I could find that was provided by the City, the RFA, and opponents of annexation, including information posted on MEN and in other Edmonds forums. I also did my own research, which including reading articles like the one you posted (I actually did read the specific article you posted) and speaking to health care providers regarding EMS services and standards. I have also spoken directly with firefighters, including the individual who did a safety check of my home after my around the corner neighbor’s house burned this summer resulting in two fatalities, and the firefighters who fought the fire of my next door neighbor’s home a few years ago and prevented it from reaching my house. (Two fires in 4 years on a dead end street of a dozen houses is a lot and spurred a lot of interest in our fire services amongst my neighbors). I spoke with a professional colleague with expertise in municipal finance. No doubt someone else reviewing the same body of information might reach different conclusions, as we do with other issues. I’m not interested in trying to persuade people to agree with me and thus won’t post a dissertation summarizing every piece of information I considered. I encourage folks to do their own research.
Thanks Kim! That’s helpful for my understanding of how you came to your conclusion and fair.
-Nick
Bill,
You will find there are a lot of people that will support the annexation of Edmonds into the RFA. They appreciate the high level of service they receive from top notch professionals, at a taxation rate that is lower than comparable cities in King and Pierce counties. There are realities to the situation that the city is facing. Disparaging public servants who are doing their best to help their city overcome this financial crisis is disgraceful on your part and you should do better. Take your anti-tax activism to Olympia or your own community if you feel that passionately about it. I hear you will soon have an RFA vote down in Shoreline, I’m sure they’d love your input.
For people that want facts surrounding the RFA vote I recommend:
edwafirefuture.info
What has SCF / RFA done to help the city overcome our financial crisis? Our police officers are offering up cuts to their budget, layoffs. SCF / RFA is proposing costs increases that amount to nearly double our current costs.
We see no attempts by SCF / RFA to operate efficiently. 2 Grand Jury’s in CA call out Regional Fire Authorities, similar to the SCF / RFA as operating ‘100 year old delivery models, self-serving to fire unions.’
It appears the 24hr shifts / 8 works days a month allow some firefighters to hone their political skills, allowing their organizations to escape the fiscal scrutiny, that ALL other departments in Edmonds face.
All citizens expect is some concessions, fiscal restraint at a time like this.
#’WHERE’S THE FIRE? Stop Sending Fire Trucks to Medical Calls’
https://ocgrandjury.org/sites/jury/files/2023-06/2022-05-20_Where%27s_the_Fire_Stop_Sending_Fire_Trucks_to_Medical_Calls.pdf
#Santa Clara Grand Jury
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/report-urges-changes-in-county-fire-department/article_3a6be1f8-7fb1-5791-ae9c-0ddf6a8345fc.html
A HUGE Thank you to Editor Teresa Wippel for personally covering this meeting and writing an outstanding summary. Edmonds is better for her tireless efforts.
If you aren’t a regular subscriber to My Edmonds News, you should be.
For more details on this Comprehensive Plan update process and the final Environmental Impact Statement, please visit https://edmondsenvironmentalcouncil.org/edmonds-comp-plan/
Amen Brother Brock – you speak much wisdom.
As a bowl resident I would be happy to punt any and all other gratuitous city expenses in favor of keeping the police department intact. The budget level of detail provided to to the public is perhaps purposefully lacking in enough detail to find all the pork. However, we don’t need climate programs, noisy concerts in the park, restoration projects, DEI programs, and other questionable expenses. We absolutely do need a local and responsive police department. Sorry Dave, you cannot have both the “Best Possible Service” and the “Least Possible Cost” – you must choose which is most important, and when it comes to public safety, you should choose “Best Possible Service”
We have that now, let’s not throw it away.
Eric, fair points. However, I respectfully disagree with you. Best possible service at least possible cost are two parts of the same equation. One could argue, for example, the Waterfront Connector would have saved lives by reducing response time to health crises at the Waterfront. But our citizens felt the cost outweighed the benefit and that project was abandoned. When it comes to upcoming questions about police and fire coverage, our taxpayers will need to be well informed about the costs/benefits of each so they can provide good direction to our city.
Dave-
100% agree. Every service should be judged on cost vs. benefit – and asking for ‘best possible’ leads to an excuse for excessive costs. Sheriff’s contracts have proven to save 50% of local municipality spending – just ask Chief Bennett who researched and administered such cost saving contracts for over 10 years when she was with King County Sheriff’s office. Having County Sheriff contracts paid by city general funds means taxpayers have a direct say every year in how much gets spent, unlike being taxed directly by the RFA and having no say in the costs or level of fire/ems services. Police services contracts are accountable to the taxpayers; RFA direct taxing is not. If Edmonds can reduce its police budget by 50% (saving $5M+ per year) , have the same level of response and safety, have Edmonds’ logos on uniforms and cars, and control spending and service levels – why would any taxpayer not want to make the change to Sheriff’s office contract?
Just to echo the cheers for Teresa Wipple and MEN. We have a gold nugget here. We get in depth and full coverage. She is tireless working to keep us informed. Please contribute financially to MEN.
Vote NO for the RFA annexation.
On the Connector, it would be more accurate to say that the citizens finally figured out that the safety needs of such a project had been highly over sold and when they saw the actual pictures of the ugliness of it and where it ended up they made signs and took to the streets to get a last minute desperate correction of a really big mistake being made. Hopefully the citizens will be just as savvy about realizing that once SCF has all of South County there will be virtually no controls on what is actually needed in terms of manpower, equipment and employee benefits. In this case , “Management and Labor Working Together,” is a really bad idea. Just contrast what the Police Officers Association is telling us vs. what the Fire Fighters Association is telling us and you know about all you need to know. SCF really need us more than we need them. Our elected officials (who are supposed to be representing us) should just stand up to them. Of course most of them won’t stand up to them because they took money from them to get elected to represent us. VOTE NO ANNEXATION. Force the politicians to work in our financial behalf for a change.
Clinton,
And Mayor Earling’s administration had turned the Connector into a ferry off-loading ramp for VEHICLES, when it was supposed to be for emergency vehicles, and for pedestrians to walk over the ramp to safety in the event of an emergency.
And building it would have damaged the waterfront, the dive park, etc etc etc. The reasons are way to many to enumerate.
Hello Dave, correct me if I am wrong. The vote for the Waterfront Connector came before council for a vote and CM Tibbott, at the time, was the deciding vote to defeat it. I realize others voted against it too. Thanks.
Imagine that you substituted the word “service” for some other word. Let’s try “Car” – I want the best possible Car for the least possible price – what car would that be? It is too subjective, how you and I think of “best” is different, and therefore provides no clear direction. I do agree that once you decide on a priority – then you execute on it as efficiently as possible.
I am saying we should establish the priorities for things that consume budget first. Then You fund each, in priority order until you have no budget. It is foolproof. For me, having a “local police presence “is a much higher priority than having an “outsourced police presence”, they are not the same. Priority determines what is important to you – not how you execute on it.
Again a little truth telling about the Waterfront Connector reasoning presented by Mayor, Staff and Planning Board and rubber stamped by the Council until the Citizens rose up in arms and CM Tibbott finally quashed the fiasco under public pressure. The premise was that there was grave danger of people dying after one or two incidences of trains blocking someone having a baby or a possible heart attack. Our Public Works and Utilities Director at the time (and now back on the payroll) helped sell the project to the Council by calling Suicides by Train, “Pedestrian Deaths,” and then defended that by saying he didn’t want to offend any relatives of Suicide victims. (Not that there is any substantial inferred difference between an intentional suicide and an accidental pedestrian death?) Anyway that was another reason we needed the Connector. Then as Joan Bloom pointed out in her earlier reply to me the urgently needed Connector got dual purposed as an Emergency off ramp for the ferry. I don’t know for sure who’s idea that was but Joan seems to think the then Mayor had something to do with it and I have no reason to doubt that. My point is Edmonds citizens are easily led into accepting bad decisions. I don’t know of any deaths yet, due to no Connector.
Ugh, enough with the culture war lingo (DEI, “climate programs”, etc). And no one cares if you’re a “bowl resident”. Is that some sort of preferred status? Does your opinion count more than someone who doesn’t live “in the bowl”?
If changes are being proposed that affect the bowl then I believe it is relevant if you’re a resident of the bowl.
I echo John Brock! Thank you, Teresa!!!!!
An environmental impact statement that skips looking at the possible consequences of development on the actual natural environment – creeks, the Marsh, drinking water aquifers, and the Salish Sea. Annexation into a fire department where Management and Labor control the purse strings together with little to no oversight on how the tax money is actually spent. What bad things could possibly result from all this? VOTE NO on annexation – we are being fleeced. DEMAND an honest FEIS – we are being had in the interest of development over smart environmental practices.
Clinton:
Another remote possibility to consider…
Perhaps a project that combined a viable road connector for emergency vehicles, a meandering open channel connecting the marsh to the sound in support of salmon recovery, and a pedestrian walkway around the marsh could be considered at the Unocal property.
The site cleanup is not complete and a second BNSF rail line will further isolate the Port property west of the tracts. Coordinating stakeholders and property owners would be a formidable task but it might solve several problems with a single major project.
Something fun to consider perhaps.
John. They can’t put us in jail for dreaming about and loudly promoting what should be to all who will listen. At least they can’t yet anyway.
It is a common fear tactic used by governments to get the citizens to agree to higher taxes it is always the police and fire that get put forward.
Jim-
you’re so right. Governments have found the ‘easy’ way to get levy lid increases is to focus on FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and scare residents into thinking they will lose their fire/ems and police services and won’t be safe. It’s exactly the same tactic used by the firefighters’ union and the RFA management to annex other communities. It’s nothing more than coercion and bullying to get uninformed taxpayers to think they will lose their police and fire protection. When Brier and Mountlake Terrace voted for annexation there was not even an opposition committee or opposition statement on the ballot. That will not be the case with Edmonds. There is already a core group of knowledgeable Edmonds’ residents who have done their homework and know the game the Mayor, Council, RFA, and firefighters’ union are playing. The outrageous 65% increase in the RFA’s price of fire/ems services translates to around $1,000 in new taxes for the average Edmonds homeowner, with a proportional large cost to renters. I urge you and all other readers to visit the anti-RFA annexation website and sign the petition telling the Mayor and Council that you will join the other 96 petitioners to Vote No! on annexation:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Tell them also that they need a Plan B to evaluate alternative fire/ems services including an Edmonds’ fire department.
Bill I understand that our basic needs and I understand the need for greater income. But my city county and state want significant increases not just a few percentages points bet major increases to the tune of over 100% at the city level in one way or another, maybe we were getting a good bang for our buck but I doubt to this level of increases this is frankly criminal and should not be supported.
Hi Jim-
I appreciate your concern over tax increases that don’t seem to be tied to service improvements.
Please consider signing the No! on RFA Annexation Petition and telling your neighbors/friends about your concerns and giving them the link:
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Thanks
Bill Krepick
ps- please ask My Edmonds News for my email address if you want to ask questions or get updates on the RFA annexation.
Mr Zach Cash, I have some concerns with RFA EMS responses. I am a retired reg nurse and I know it doesn’t take 13 fireman and EMS personnel to respond to a 911 call, do CPR or splint a broken bone. It takes one to do CPR and yes, a relief person if possible. I recently read one of your administrative folks say that it takes 13-14 personnel because they can only do 2 minutes of effective CPR before they are exhausted and need relief. This is ludicrous. At the age of 28 I gave a drowning victim on the beach CPR for 25 minutes before the helicopter arrived and took him away – the victim was alive. I am 5.2″ tall and weighed at the time about 110 lbs. I can’t hardly believe that our firefighters are not in as good a shape or better than I was back then.
Secondly, although property values in Edmonds have increased, for many homeowners their incomes have not. You say that they county gives tax exemptions for those earning less than a stated amount. Many folks don’t qualify for this exemption and the approximate tax increase of $960/yr for a $1million home is too much. In addition Edmonds is looking at a $6 million levy lid lift in 2025 and another in 2026. To be continued –
the mayor and council have chosen to keep the 6.2 million we have already paid for fire/EMS service to pay the salaries of 50 employees they refuse to lay off. If annexed to the RFA Edmonds will pay again, Double Taxation, for the same service. There are alternatives, options, to RFA annexation. We need to explore those.
Mr Cash, there was a time when we, America, looked at our first responders as our heros, our friends. Nurses, teachers, police officers, firemen went into these professions as a “calling” – public servants. We didn’t expect to make the Big Bucks. Today, I ask “Who is the public servant, firefighter or taxpayers”? The taxpayer has become the public servant – the piggy bank – serving the firefighter union. The taxpayer isn’t saying we don’t believe in our firefighters, we just don’t want to be driven into bankruptcy supporting them. Census data shows 75% of our population earns under $69,000/yr per capita, of that 75% earn under $49,000/yr. The Food Lines continue to grow. These are senior citizens, the disabled, our veterans trying to reintegrate. At the Dec, 3 Council budget hearing, 10 folks spoke in person, 3 on the monitor, a petition with 90 Anti RFA signatures presented. Not one person spoke in favor of RFA annexation. We know RFA’s scare campaign has begun. Edmonds is watching.
Theresa, My name is Tara Cash. Zach Cash is my husband. As he is currently on shift for the next 48 hours and doesn’t post while he is on duty, I wanted to take a moment to respond to your comment regarding “who is the public servant”. While I can’t claim to be an expert in what is happening in Edmonds, I do have a unique perspective into the lives and sacrifices of the men and women of South County Fire. Many, including my husband, joined the fire service with a heart to serve and help. Zach began his career as a volunteer, being on call 24/7. I remember the nights sleeping by the pager never knowing when it will go off or when he will return home. The days he was unexpectedly called out to fires while our newborn baby was in tears. When I waited by the window worried if he was safe, if he would come home. I sat with my husband as he cried because of a call he went on where his 3 month old patient died. I remember him working part time at 3 different departments, spending more time at the stations than at home because we had $200 in the bank account. I remember him applying and testing again and again all over the country before 1/2
he came to Lynnwood.
He never quit. He didn’t let any of the challenges stop him. He kept going, kept serving, why? Because it IS a calling for him. Because he cares. Because he has a passion for this work and love for the people he serves.
This isn’t about the money for these men and women. There are countless stories not unlike ours of first responders, their families and the sacrifices they make daily. Please don’t forget they are humans too. Many have their own lives and families to support as well. They need the means to take care of their physical, mental and emotional health in ways many don’t recognize because of the inherent dangers and circumstances of the job…
So to answer your question, THEY are the public servants who are just trying to help the people of Edmonds.
As someone who, I am sure, sacrificed and served the public as a nurse, I would’ve hoped there would be more understanding on your part. Firefighters do CPR a lot differently today than I’m sure you did back when you were 28. It is faster, harder on the body, and requires almost no pauses to keep blood to the brain. 2/2
Theresa,
Thank you for your personal example of why only 2 fire fighters and one emergency vehicle (no fire truck) should be needed to perform Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Mr. Cash,
Thanks for the link to the tax exemption program. In reviewing the materials, you find what taxes and total $ amounts are “exempt”:
Level 3 – You are exempt from paying excess levies
and Part 2 of the state school levy. Generally
speaking, excess levies are the voter-approved levies.
•
Level 2 – You are exempt from paying excess levies,
Part 2 of the state school levy, and regular levies
on $50,000 or 35% of the assessed taxable value,
whichever is greater (but not more than $70,000 of
the taxable value).
•
Level 1 – You are exempt from paying excess levies,
Part 2 of the state school levy, and regular levies
on $60,000 or 60% of the assessed taxable value,
whichever is greater.
The application process requires extensive documentation. Without help from a family member, as in Mike Murdock’s example, a senior may not be able to manage the application, IF they’re aware the program exists.
And as with the Multi-family Tax Exemption (MFTE) it’s likely that the Department of Commerce shifts those taxes to “non-exempt” taxpayers.
Joan, thanks for the opening to give a ‘plug’ to a fine group of volunteers at the Edmonds Waterfront Center that helps seniors and disabled homeowners of any age apply for this property tax exemption. We are a small group of seven people who have been volunteering our time since Feb. 2024. We have helped seniors get thousands and thousands of dollars in their prior year taxes refunded to them by the county treasurer after having their applications approved. It’s an ongoing job to let people know this exemption program exists. MEN had an article about it a few days ago, and that publicity helps the cause. As the founder of this volunteer group I want to emphasize that the tax exemption program was created by the Wa State legislature any years ago. Its existence should not be used as a rationale for poor decisions by elected officials or voters on tax-related topics. Whether it’s a school district bond or annexation to a regional fire service or a levy lift to fund the wages of Parks and Rec department employees, the voter should be thinking through the core issues – not whether they might qualify for a property tax cut if the ballot measure passes. Personally, I would appreciate the firefighters union talking about EMS services, not property taxes.
Tara Cash, thank you for your reply. First, let me say that I’m certain all of Edmonds respects and appreciates the work our firefighters do. I do believe, for the most part, it is a calling to them. I completely understand your feelings of fear, anxiety, when your husband, loved one is out on a fire. My family had a firefighter in our circle. He fought forest fires. Some of you may recall the fire in Paradise, California – the entire town was lost. We too constantly worried about him when he was out in the middle of these horrific fires. And, I know what it’s like to lose a patient while on duty. I worked in the Emergency Room at Highland Hospital, East 14th, Oakland, California. Stabbing, shootings, suicides, deaths of every age – infants to the elderly were a daily occurrence. Many worked double shifts (16 hours) and then back 7 hours later because there was never enough staffing – 48 hours on with several days off was unheard of for us. I knew nothing else but daily tragedy when at work. Many years later, I was watching a “60 Minutes” show on TV. Two doctors were being interviewed. They said the training they received at Highland Hospital ER prepared them for their stint in Viet Nam – 1/2
2/2 They said Viet Nam was tame compared to Highland Hospital’s ER. So Tara, I do have empathy for fire fighters, the work they do, what they see – I lived it. As far as CPR being different today. The number of chest compressions to breaths has changed over the years – the human body has not. We still must keep blood flowing to the brain to sustain life in all types of bodies. Two minute shifts are ludicrous. I’m concerned about the physical health but also mental, emotional, and financial health of Edmonds residents. At this time all of these are being threatened by the proposed annexation to the RFA. We believe Snohomish County Fire/RFA can operate more efficiently. Annexation means an increase of approx $960 in taxes for a one million home for the same service we are already receiving. With it, we are looking at a levy lid lift of $6 million dollars in 2025,, another in 2026. Some folks will have to sell their homes due to these incredible tax increases. Lines at the Edmonds Food Bank continue to grow, our veterans are suffering, children are going without necessities. Don’t bankrupt residents too. There are alternatives, other options, to annexation to the RFA. Residents, Mayor, Council and the RFA organization can find a better way working together to better serve Edmonds.
Mrs. Cash, I would have much more sympathy for you and your husband if he and his fellow IFFA members had come before our City Council like the Police Officer’s Association did and said we hear your financial problems and we will help you restart your own dept. if that would be in anyway cheaper for your taxpayers. That’s basically what the Police Officers’ representative said. “We know we are bloated and are willing to help you cut back.” Instead SCF whose leadership are also members of the IFFA told Edmonds it’s our way or the Highway for you. Our negotiation with them was a joke of just capitulation. I’m voting NO and if it passes, I’m out of here. I can’t afford you anymore.
I think we’re all in agreement on the awesomeness of firefighters. The issue with the proposed hike in the cost of firefighting services is that it will significantly harm the community due to the sharp increase in prices. There has been minimal or marginal justification for these price hikes, and substantial empathy for the Edmonds community by the RFA regarding the impact of these costs has yet to be observed.
Our public sector simply can’t sustain the huge wages and salaries we are now paying our public servants. We are paying our COP almost $300,000 per year plus benefits. My wife and I together have an income of around $70,000 and that includes required minimum distributions from retirement accounts. The management and rank and file of SCFD (South County Fire District) are working together to try to get Edmonds annexed into their Regional fire authority (as you can surmise from reading this thread). Imagine; a Union where the people being managed have their managers as co-members. You don’t find that in the private sector where the Union and Management are separate and balance each other when one of the other get’s too Powerful and that’s all good. But in this IFFA Union you do not have that balance, hence layoffs don’t generally occur and wage and salary hikes essentially go unquestioned. In my opinion they need to wise up because the tax payers cannot handle this dynamic much longer. SCFD personnel start around $90,000 based on statements from IFFA. That’s an income 50% or more than almost half the people they serve must live on. This disconnect cannot be sustained forever and eventually a real labor management balancing relationship of some sort will have to become the norm for Fire and Police Unions.