The sometimes-heated discussion over how to provide Edmonds with top-quality fire and emergency medical services (EMS) at a reasonable cost is ramping up as decision time looms for the Edmonds City Council on whether to put one option — annexing into the South County Fire Regional Fire Authority (RFA) — before voters in April 2025.
The council got its first look Dec. 3 at the pre-annexation agreement developed through months of negotiations with South County Fire and City of Edmonds officials – documents that outline the process for Edmonds’ annexation into the RFA. Council President Vivian Olson said a decision could happen as soon as Dec. 10, when the measure comes before the council for “discussion and possible action.” Failing that, it will be back on the agenda for Dec. 17.
“We’re open to the possibility that we might be ready for action on the 10th,” she explained. “Right now, we’re waiting to see what input comes in this week, see where councilmembers are, whether they are feeling like they’re ready for a vote or whether they want more time.”
“If approved, it basically means we’re going to do it, but it’s not the vote to actually put it on the ballot — it’s just the vote to proceed along those lines,” she added. “It would give the green light to work on the next step that would, among other things, commit the city attorney and other staff to put in the time and effort to draft an ordinance that would include ballot language.”
You can read a rundown here of how Edmonds went from disbanding its own fire department in 2009 to contracting with Fire District 1 (now the Regional Fire Authority or RFA), and how it is now — following RFA’s cancellation of that contract — scrambling to make other arrangements for fire and EMS service.
The issue is complex and touches on issues ranging from impacts on property taxes to the fate of Edmonds’ three fire stations to equity with surrounding jurisdictions on whether one community is subsidizing the fire and EMS services to another. It has fanned fears of large tax hikes with no commensurate increase in levels of service and speculation on whether the RFA has Edmonds’ best interests at heart.
Residents weigh in
A group of residents and others opposed to RFA annexation have been working to generate support for other options, including continuing the city’s current model of contracting with the RFA for services, or even restarting an Edmonds fire department, which the city disbanded in 2010 as a cost-saving measure.
Edmonds resident Jim Ogonowski said he has serious concerns about annexing to the RFA, which he believes could increase taxpayer costs without commensurate benefits. He argues that the current interlocal agreement is a cost-plus contract with provisions for renegotiation, and criticizes the RFA’s move to a price model based on assessed valuation.
“I’m not necessarily opposed to it [annexation],” he explained. “But I am opposed to the strong-arm tactics that the RFA has used up to this point to bring us first to the negotiating table and then negotiating – in the way I see it — in bad faith, leaving us in a position that we’re all of a sudden giving away fire stations and incurring almost double the expense to the taxpayer for the same level of service.” Those factors are enough “to justify a no vote on annexation,” he said.
Former Edmonds City Councilmember Ron Wambolt, who participated in the discussions that led up to the 2009 vote to disband the Edmonds Fire Department, said in recent My Edmonds News opinion piece that he now supports its reestablishment.
“The sole reason for this action [disbanding the fire department] was to reduce fire service costs for our city,” Wambolt wrote. “During the past 15 years this objective was consistently achieved as the annual savings often amounted to more than $1 million. Unfortunately, those savings became more than the RFA could any longer endure, so they notified the city, in accordance with the contract, they were terminating the contract in two years… Reestablishing our own fire department may require increased expenses, and possibly a vote for higher property taxes, but that’s preferable to not having full control of such a major expense. Choosing to join RFA is the easiest choice for our city council, but is clearly not the right choice for the taxpayers they are supposed to be representing.”
Edmonds Mayor Mike Rosen has also addressed the question of reestablishing the Edmonds Fire Department. In his recent interview with My Edmonds News, Rosen stated that given recent budget challenges, the city is not in a financial position to do this. He went on to explain that building a fire department means at least “a couple of years” hiring people and buying equipment before a single fire truck hits the road, during which time Edmonds still would have to contract with the RFA for fire/EMS. But right now, “the checkbook is empty,” and given the city’s current financial challenges taking on the extra expense is simply not viable, Rosen said.
“So, it might make sense at some point when time and need line up,” he concluded. “But opportunity sure doesn’t exist in the [current] scheme”
During a public hearing at the Dec. 3 regular city council meeting — which immediately followed the earlier special meeting devoted to the RFA issue — public comments were dominated by those in opposed to annexation. Common themes included the following:
- Concerns about the financial terms of the RFA annexation, such as “significant” increases in property taxes and the overall cost of fire/EMS services compared to neighboring areas.
- Criticism of the council’s negotiation process with the RFA, alleging that the council failed to get concessions or justification for the cost increases.
- Calls for the council to delay the annexation and explore alternative options, such as an interlocal agreement with other cities or reestablishing an Edmonds-run fire department.
- Allegations that some councilmembers have received campaign contributions from those associated with the RFA, creating a conflict of interest and questioning the transparency and objectivity of the decision-making process.
- Requests for the RFA to open its books, provide detailed cost analyses and improve their response-time performance.
- Concerns about the RFA’s business management, including the generosity of the firefighter benefits package and the lack of cost-cutting measures.
- Frustration with the council’s perceived unwillingness to make difficult budget decisions, such as eliminating city jobs, while pursuing the RFA annexation.
- Calls for more public outreach and transparency from the council to ensure residents are fully informed about the annexation and its financial implications.
Here are some examples:
“It is evident that some councilmembers have taken money from the Regional Fire Authority to help support their campaigns for city council,” said Theresa Hutchison. “Those on the negotiating team who have taken money from the RFA have negotiated in bad faith. You have negotiated against the voters and their families.”
Another accused the council and negotiating team of not doing their “due diligence on the feasibility and the potential cost saving of having a fire EMS interlocal agreement with either Everett or Mukiteo (this option was investigated — as part of a consultant report — only with Shoreline) or having an Edmonds-run fire department.” The commentor went on to add that instead the council relied on the “flawed, incomplete and biased Fitch Associates consultant report to make that decision.”
Jim Ogonowski also testified, accusing former Mayor Mike Nelson’s administration of working behind the scenes to nudge the city toward annexation by encouraging the RFA to issue the December 2023 cancellation notice on Edmonds’ contract, and then proposing to resolve this by annexing to the RFA. “The council then voted 4-3 to adopt that resolution and go forward and evaluate annexation,” he added.
Another group of citizen has begun an online petition against annexation, citing dollar figures for tax impacts and numbers showing a pattern of rising costs with no increase in services. As of Friday, Dec. 6, the petition had collected 86 signatures, among them former city councilmember and mayoral candidate Diane Buckshnis and former Edmonds Police Chief Al Compaan.
The firefighters union perspective
South County Fire Cap. Zach Cash, who serves as political director of IAFF Local 1828, cited the sustainability and stability the RFA provides for firefighters, and the increasing importance of EMS services, which now comprise 80% of their calls. He went on to stress that a stable funding model is crucial for maintaining high-level service and predictable working conditions. Frustration with predictable funding has long been an issue for firefighters, and was one factor that contributed to Edmonds’ 2009 decision to close its city-run fire department and contract with Fire District 1.
Cash also pointed out how RFA annexation would avoid the regular negotiations with the firefighters union every time Edmonds’ individual contract is renewed.
“I feel like these negotiations often get unnecessarily contentious, leave bad blood at the end of the process, and risk estranging us from the people we want to serve,” he explained. “A permanent, sustainable funding model would avoid that.”
Some residents critical of RFA spending have cited the practice of sending multiple resources – personnel and equipment – to emergency situations where they might not be needed, asking if this could be more efficient. Cash defended that deployment model, explaining that it ensures adequate resources are sent to emergencies to cover all contingencies.
“I’ve been a certified paramedic for over 10 years,” he explained. “During this time, the scope of what we are doing has increased greatly and we’re often performing multiple procedures at the same time [e.g. CPR, intubation, connecting and monitoring IV drips and medication]. You never know when you go out what you’re going to encounter and how many EMTs you’ll need. We’re talking about saving lives here.”
The RFA perspective
My Edmonds News spoke with Fire Chief Bob Eastman, RFA Board Commissioner Ed Widdis and Communications Director Christy Veley to get the RFA’s response to the pros and cons of Edmonds annexing to the RFA.
They said that that the RFA offers increased flexibility and a broader range of services compared to the current contract, which is prescriptive and limits operational latitude. They discussed the regionalization benefits, such as cost efficiencies and resource sharing, and touched on the ownership and transfer of fire stations, emphasizing that the stations are owned by the citizens of Edmonds, not the city.
They listed the following key ways, from their perspective, of how RFA annexation would improve operational flexibility and resource allocation for the City of Edmonds:
- The current contract model limits the fire chief’s ability to adjust staffing and deploy resources based on the specific needs of Edmonds. Joining the RFA would provide more flexibility to allocate resources across the entire region to meet demand.
- As part of the RFA, Edmonds would have access to a wider array of specialized services and resources, such as hazmat teams, marine units and community paramedics. This comprehensive service offering is not feasible for Edmonds to maintain on its own.
- The RFA can optimize station locations and staffing levels across the region to provide the most effective emergency response, rather than being limited to the three stations in Edmonds. This regional approach allows for better resource deployment.
- The RFA has a larger pool of on-duty personnel that can be rotated for critical tasks like CPR, airway management and IV access during major medical emergencies. This ensures high-quality care can be sustained for extended periods.
Regarding the increasingly contentious issue among residents regarding ownership of Edmonds’ fire stations, Eastman and Widdis both pointedly emphasized that in the view of the RFA, the fire stations are owned by the citizens, not by the city. (Note that the current plan for annexation to the RFA includes transfer of two of these fire stations — 16 and 20 — to the RFA. Fire Station 17, which is part of the Edmonds Public Safety complex, would be leased at no cost to the RFA).
“Those fire stations aren’t owned by the city, they’re owned by the citizens of Edmonds,” Widdis said. “They were specifically purchased by the citizens to provide fire service. So by voting, to join the RFA, they’re saying they want the RFA to provide their fire service and remove the city from the conversation of fire/EMS. They want the fire authority to do that work, and these assets come with that.”
An additional nuance to the issue of transferring the fire stations was added by Communications Director Christie Veley.
“The wording in the [proposed annexation] document says that in the unlikely event that these stations ever cease being fire stations, the city would be able to purchase the properties and would be credited for the value of the properties at the time they were transferred to the RFA,” she said.
The conversation also touched on the trend of increased regionalization of government services beyond fire. Both Widdis and Eastman see this as a good thing that will help citizens and communities realize benefits from economies of scale, including such things as bulk purchasing, centralized training, shared leadership and administration, and access to a wider array of specialized equipment that would be out of reach for smaller localized fire departments.
As the Edmonds City Council approaches this critical vote, we asked Mayor Rosen for his thoughts.
“The decision for Edmonds residents to consider joining the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) involves several factors, each carrying complex and emotional considerations,” he said. “As a community, we want to ensure that each individual who lives, works or visits Edmonds receives the very best emergency medical care, fire suppression and hazard response services available, at a cost that is both reasonable and affordable. Each option that has been explored — joining an RFA, rebuilding our own department, contracting with other jurisdictions or negotiating a new contract — required careful evaluation. There are long-term impacts of each option, including immediate costs, financial sustainability, service quality and community control. This is not a decision to be made lightly, and we need a solution that ensures the best outcome for Edmonds.
“There will be many voices expressing many opinions. I encourage residents to gather their own facts and engage in discussions, so they are confident that they can make an informed decision about the future of fire and emergency services in Edmonds,” he continued. “We will be offering multiple opportunities for community members to engage directly and ask questions, express concerns, and share their views about the potential changes to fire and emergency services. We want to ensure that all voices are heard.”
— By Larry Vogel
Great work, Larry, and thank you for your thorough and comprehensive reporting.
Thank you – so much information to digest. I have at least one remaining question that I believe has been asked before. Will Edmonds residents pay more (than neighboring cities) for fire/ems services because our assessed values are higher?
Jon, residents of all RFA cities will pay the same levy rate per $1000 of assessed valuation. The median AV in Edmonds is higher than in Lynwood or Mountlake Terrace but lower than in Mill Creek or Brier. So the most accurate answer to your question is: it depends. More w that some commentators will refer you to the average AV in these cities and according to that metric, Edmonds is the highest but, and this is important, averages are not a good representation of a population because they’re easily skewed by a small number of outlier data points.
Another important thing to note is that because Edmonds aggregate AV is significant, representing about 25% of the aggregate of the entire current RFA, adding Edmonds to the RFA should have the effect of reducing the overall levy rate for all residents under the RFA umbrella.
Finally, the RFA has the option of changing the relative weight of the levy and the fire benefit charge to address the valid concerns with using AV to determine the cost to residents. The benefit charge reflects the amount of resources required to address a fire in a particular structure, regardless of its AV. Currently the benefit charge accounts for a relatively small portion of a residents bill from the RFA but this can change.
The arguments of what the RFA ‘should’ and ‘could’ do are totally hollow. Just look at their record. Only 7% of RFA revenues come from a fire benefit charge (FBC). The FBC is more reflective of actual costs of delivering fire services because fire risk is higher for businesses and apartments than for single family homes. The RFA has had many years to change their pricing to correlate with actual costs of service delivery, but they have done nothing. They stick with assessed-value tax levy pricing because it drives higher revenues and is hidden from taxpayers. Land valuation has nothing to do cost of fire services. The fire chief said he is going to support a Statewide effort to reform the assessed-value tax levy system which is very inequitable and unfair . Why believe him when you look at the history of RFA pricing? The fact is that Edmonds residents have on average higher assessed valuations because of land and views – both of which have nothing to do with the cost of fire services. Edmonds residents will be penalized with much higher taxes after annexation – and they will have no new services. Annexation will result in a 65% price increase for 2026! Why would anyone support RFA annexation given the RFA’s record of price increases way beyond population growth and inflation indices?
Thank you Niall, you seem very well versed… To minimize RFA costs (while maintaining a necessary level of service) for Edmonds residents, would you concur with the following:
1. Normalizing assessed value data to equalize land values within all RFA cities , and/or
2. Reducing the overall levy rate due to Edmonds’ significant AV, and/or
3. Changing the relative weight of the levy and the fire benefit charge to address valid concerns with using AV to determine the cost to residents.
Are there other other action items you could identify to lower resident RFA costs? Tough time to be on a fixed income (or most incomes in this increasing tax climate) if city will retain $6M of taxer payer dollars for current fire/ems service, taxpayers will be required to fund future increased RFA costs, pending increases in county and city property taxes, and an additional levy that is likely required to manage a fraction of the city debt.
Jon, the way any RFA imposes taxes is established by State regulations. The suggestions you described are not possible at this time. But a new legislative session starts up in Olympia in a few weeks. You can ask your State representative or Senator to represent your ideas to the appropriate committee in the interest of a long term change.
As Theresa points out, normalizing the AV is not an option since AV is based on market value and is used by all taxing authorities.
However, as I mentioned, the overall levy rate should drop automatically if Edmonds were to annex into the RFA. Please note that levy rates are an output of the budgeting processes, not an input. The levy rate is determined by dividing the amount the taxing authority has budgeted to raise through property taxes by the aggregate AV off all taxable parcels within its jurisdiction. So, for a given budget amount, more AV means a lower levy and since Edmonds is currently paying less than the existing members of the RFA, our annexation, if it were to pass, would dilute the levy rate automatically.
Adjusting the relative weight of the levy vs the benefit charge is something that is entirely within the control of the RFA. They could do this anytime they wanted. They just need the political will to do it. There would be winners and losers in any such change and so the RFA needs to listen to all of its stakeholders to make that decision. In particular, commercial premises would likely be worse off.
Niall:
Are you a resident of Edmonds? If not, why are you so interested in this issue?
You have commented that the levy rate would very likely drop after Edmonds enters the RFA. But the fact remains that the average Edmonds homeowner would still pay more than the average homeowners that are in the other RFA cities.
Ron — Niall is my neighbor. So yes, he’s a resident. — Teresa
Ron – yes – I am an Edmonds Resident.
I am trying to look at this from all sides and make sure that the data that Edmonds residents have to make this decision is as complete and accurate as possible.
I will restate that when considering MEDIAN assessed valuation, Edmonds is lower than Brier and Mill Creek but higher than Lynwood and Mountlake Terrace. Also note that the total tax bill in Edmonds is the lowest of any city associated with the RFA. In fact, Edmonds total tax levy is lower than any other place in Snohomish County with the exception of Woodway and Index.
Looking at the total taxes on a median value home in each of the RFA cities, Mill Creek and Brier are both significantly more expensive than Edmonds while Lynwood and Mountlake Terrace are cheaper.
Maybe our low overall tax burden is why we have such a fiscal crisis to begin with? I am as concerned as anyone about the potential increases in property tax, not only of the fire/EMS issue but also the need to rebuild the financial reserves of the city but we need to make some hard decisions as a community.
We can, and should, debate the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the RFA but we need to look at the situation objectively.
“Maybe our low overall tax burden is why we have such a fiscal crisis to begin with?” Oh my goodness. This states the view that government fiscal issues are due to underfunding by taxpayers!
Why is it that the populace (you and me and all our neighbors) should be driven by the elected leadership rather than the reverse? What does it mean to be elected? The electorate is not put in place to rule us, rather it is meant to do OUR bidding as electors. Why should we need to (figuratively) slap our elected officials in the face for them to acknowledge this? What we, the citizens of Edmonds, desire is an accountable and efficient set of emergency services. The current leadership (Mayor and Council) is evidently uninterested in providing this to us, and wishes to pass the buck to an outside entity that is demonstrably vastly less accountable and far less efficient. On top of that, the leadership wants to snag the remaining fees they charge us for as long as possible. It’s wrong, it’s uncalled-for, and it’s a strong sign that we have the wrong people in charge of our affairs.
I want Edmonds to be in charge of our emergency services, and for our leaders to do their jobs for ME and for YOU. Stop it with these stupid shortcuts!
Franz, Of course you are correct. The mayor, administration and council are responsible to the residents of the city. And yet, we had a fiscal crisis in 2009 which caused the city to disband its fire service and contract with the RFA and now we have another fiscal crisis which we won’t be able to cut our way out of. It will take cuts plus some incremental money to resolve this. If you look at what neighboring cities are paying for fire/EMS it is consistently much higher than Edmonds current costs. I’m simply pointing out that Edmonds residents enjoy some of the lowest overall tax burdens in Snohomish County and yet, to the casual reader it would appear that we are being taxed to the limit of our capacity. I think it is disingenuous to suggest that taxes Edmonds are out of control in order to argue against this RFA proposal. Personally, I plan to vote no but not because I think the RFA is the wrong option or because I believe that Edmonds could run a viable fire/EMS service for what we are paying today. I want a no vote to give our city leverage to negotiate a better deal with the RFA and if we do this right, a better deal for Edmonds should mean a better deal for the existing RFA residents.
To Franz Niedermeyer:
I appreciate your concern over tax increases that don’t seem to be tied to service improvements, and that the Mayor and Council are not hearing taxpayer concerns re the lack of accountable and efficient emergency services.
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.
Edmonds residents will be the same rate per $1000 of assessed value of their home just the same as every other resident in the RFA.
There’s a flaw in Mr. Shaeffer’s statement about new assessments that Edmonds’ property owners will pay if we annex to the Regional Fire Authority. The rate per $1000 of assessed value is not just on the home itself, it’s also on the value of the dirt under the home.
Thousands of modest Edmonds homes sit on lots valued at $1m or more, driving up property values and tax assessments. The dirt under your home doesn’t catch fire, nor does it need emergency medical attention~ yet the RFA taxes the dirt as if it does need such services.
The RFA tax structure is seriously flawed. Edmonds property owners would be better off with a new contract for fire and EMS services based on actual costs to serve actual beneficiaries.
Roger,
You are griping about something that every single person in the county/state pays taxes on Property and Structure. The schools, County, Fire/EMS all pay the same. This is not an issue isolated to Edmonds. Everything tax related we pay is based on Total Value.
This isn’t something new…
But Mr, Shaeffer, this is new tax, a new tax situation for Edmonds property owners if we annex to the RFA. The City of Edmonds has been paying the RFA, under contract, for fire protection and emergency medical services. We’ve been paying a fee for services. If we annex, it’s no longer a fee for service, it’s a regular tax generating revenues far in excess of services received, at least for those property owners with valuable dirt under their houses.
I’ll repeat what I said above~ Edmonds property owners would be better off with a new contract for fire and EMS services based on actual costs to serve actual beneficiaries.
Eric- are you an Edmonds resident? are you a firefighter? your answers seems to side with the arguments that the RFA espouses – not the opinions of the vast majority of Edmonds residents who understand how the RFA has exhibited zero cost control and has raised prices by 50% between 2019 and 2023 , and now wants to raise prices another 65% for 2026. There is absolutely no justification for these price increases (and I say price, not cost, because the RFA refuses to disclose costs of service, cost per resident, costs per 911 call, etc.). The price increase for 2026 will impose an incremental $1,000 in taxes on Edmonds residents for the same services they’re currently paying for. Edmonds can find a better alternative and one where residents can control costs going forward and not be at the mercy of a tax greedy fire district that serves its employees first and taxpayers second. It should be the other way around – and Edmonds residents should vote against annexation and the Council should evaluate all viable alternatives including an Edmonds-owned fire department. btw- assessed value-based property taxes do NOT pay for police; garbage service; cable service; electricity; gas; toll bridges. Why fire/ems? On Dec 3rd the RFA fire chief said fire/ems services should be priced based on cost of service not assessed value.!
Bill, are you an Edmonds resident?
No!
Mr. McShane- “Maybe our low overall tax burden is why we have a fiscal crisis to begin with? Blaming the taxpayers? What a ridiculous statement.
Niall McShane asked me if I am an Edmonds resident? No- I’m not- I’m an 11-year Snohomish County taxpayer who is on a mission to get State level reform for the broken and inequitable Regional Fire Authority monopoly business model. I am supporting Edmonds residents in their fight against RFA annexation because sadly they are a case study in everything that is wrong with Regional Fire Authorities’ State granted taxing monopoly. There is no reason to make excuses for the RFA or for the tax levy system. It is unfair and wrong – period. The State’s RFA laws have no safeguards for ensuring an efficient and cost effective operation. Rather the double tax levy paradigm for fire and ems revenues based on assessed value offers no motivation and no accounting guidelines to ensure the RFA is focused on serving taxpayers and controlling costs. It simply sets up a full employment/max wages business model that serves RFA management and firefighters – and puts taxpayers second. How any Edmonds’ resident can support the RFA is beyond me. I hope Edmonds residents vote a resounding No! for RFA annexation, and nix Edmonds’ Council double taxation attempts. Edmonds is THE poster municipality for State reform. Fingers crossed that I can find legislators who will support Edmonds and implement RFA reform to control spending and put taxpayers first.
Niall
sorry to say , but I don’t think you understand the RFA game plan. They have backed Edmonds council into a lose-lose situation. If you and other residents vote down annexation – it will only put the Council between a rock/hard place because the RFA is demanding a 60-day contract signing window following annexation- and they will not even guaranty the $19M annexation price in the contract! Edmonds will have zero negotiating leverage during the 60-day window – and that’s exactly what the RFA wants. The only way Edmonds gains back negotiating leverage is to demand a ‘reasonably’ priced 1-yr contract at less than $14M – which would reflect a 30% increase over the $12M 2025 contract. The Council needs to put RFA on legal notice that it cannot deny a ‘reasonably’ priced 1-yr contract. In addition to getting a fixed price 1-yr agreement, Edmonds needs to hire CPMS, the national non-profit fire/ems consulting firm that has advised 340 cities on how to run efficient /effective public safety operations. Sure CPMS will cost something – but when you consider the return on investment for an unbiased, professional consulting firm (unlike Fitch or Berk Associates) could be $5-$6M in annual savings, it is an attractive investment – and will address taxpayer concerns that the Council is neglecting proper due diligence. That’s a real win-win.
Good balanced ’round-up’ article. Unfortunately the Mayor and Ms. Olson tip their hand to already having made a decision to support annexation without having done proper due diligence and without considering all the great investigative and analytical work that residents have submitted. The fact is that the RFA refuses to provide cost accounting information to justify their proposed 65%+ price hike for annexation, nor for their prior 50% price hike in 2019-2023 They have taken advantage of the State’s monopoly grant for unfair and inequitable assessed-value tax levies that would force Edmonds to subsidize all other annexed cities because Edmonds’ average assessed values are much higher. Annexation would result in an incremental annual tax bill of almost $1,000 for an average Edmonds homeowner – and renters would pay proportional rent hikes. The Mayor dismisses an Edmonds-owned fire/Ems operation as being too complicated and costly and says “ it might make sense at some point when time and need line up, but opportunity sure doesn’t exist in the [current] scheme.” There is no future point in time when it will make sense because annexation is an irreversible decision. Once annexation is approved, there is no opportunity to vote to withdraw. Only RFA management, firefighters’ union, and Council support annexation! Taxpayers are being fleeced and potentially double taxed for the service. Shame on the Mayor and Council.
Can you imagine if every city department decided they didn’t want oversight; set their own rules, salary & benefits and billed taxpayers directly? That’s the RFA model. Their collective bargaining agreement, prevents private EMS from servicing 911 calls (apparently free market applies only to the taxpayer, see Fitch 2024 Report).
#CBA – page 25
https://dpa730eaqha29.cloudfront.net/myedmondsnews/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Fitch-Final-Report-full-doc-reduced.pdf
Lack of oversight is one reason our nation’s fire staffing distribution is imbalanced, as illustrated in this Time Magazine article in 2021 ‘As Wildfires Burn, Are U.S. Cities Spending Too Much on Their Fire Departments?’ (non-completive pay at the federal level is another). Here’s an excerpt below:
“There are 55% more career firefighters in the U.S. than there were in 1986, according to the National Fire Protection Association. But the number of home structure fires fell 54% over the same time period, due mostly to updated building codes and advanced sprinklers, according to NFPA data.”
As discussed in the article, Stephen Jellie, Acting City Manager & Fire Chief recognized inefficiencies and made cuts to mandatory staffing. “We let it creep—we just kept putting resources into public safety,” he told me. “But you can’t run a city with just a fire department and a police department.”
https://time.com/6097414/wildfires-firefighters-spending/
RFA likes to talk equity. When every department in Edmonds including our Police Department is forced to make cuts & drive efficiency, is it equitable when the fire department escapes the same scrutiny & doubles our costs?
Remember this; at an est. $19 million dollars, nearly double our current costs, Edmonds will not a have a voting representative on the board of commissioners (at least the 1st year). Every Mayor of a city an RFA represents, should be a voting members of the RFA.
If we join RFA, when will we have a voting member and how is that member selected?
Nick, after the city annexes into the RFA (should the decide that and it passes) the commissioners will do a re-districting of the commissioner service areas. Once that is done, the next election that has the ability for a member of the district or districts that represent the Edmonds area and/or the member at large positions people can run for them.
Just a quick point of clarification to address what I detect as some possible misconceptions in these comments: The Mayor and Council are not deciding whether to annex to the RFA. What they are about to decide is whether the proposition to annex (as outlined in the pre-annexation agreement) has enough merit to be put to the voters. Should they decide that it does, it will be the voters – at the ballot box in April 2025 – who will make the decision to annex or not annex. Not the Mayor, Council or anyone else.
Larry – although you are correct that the citizens of Edmonds will make the final decision by voting, the Mayor and some members of the Council have been attempting to force the citizens into a corner where there is no choice but voting for the annexation. I spoke to the Mayor months ago on alternatives and it was clear that he had already made up his mind and was not considering any alternatives. Larry how about some investigative reporting on campaign contributions from the RFA to Council members and the Mayor?
The assertion regarding the nexus between campaign contributions from the RFA unions and the elected city leaders is accurate. The mayor and City Council have never in good faith looked at all the alternatives. The process has been disingenuous.
Doug,
You are correct in suggesting that our negotiating team is forcing the citizens into a corner on voting for RFA annexation. If the Council adopts the annexation documents sent to them by the RFA as-is, it does indeed put us in a corner. The documents are one-side, all in favor of the RFA leaving the taxpayers holding the bag. We do have alternatives, but the city has not explored them.
City Hall is on a path to alienate its citizens. Trust is quickly being lost by the way this entire process is playing out. It was easily fixable earlier. Now it may need to be fixed at the ballot box.
Good point Doug. There’s no excuse for politicians taking contributions from the RFA or firefighters’ union – and then not recusing themselves from a Council vote to put annexation on the April ballot!
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.
This is simple for us. If RFA passes and the 5M or 6M levy passes, we’ are out of here. At least in terms of the cheap house and expensive lot we are paying way too much property taxes on already. I don’t care about the RFA or Fire Fighters Union or whether or not the Mayor and Council are approaching things as they should (they aren’t) anymore. I don’t like to spend money unwisely and continuing to support this badly run town any more than I have to no longer makes sense to me. We are not going to pay another 1K to 2K / Yr. in taxes for the bad government we are getting here. There has been no effort to negotiate against RFA on our behalf (it was just a capitulation) and these development lovers are trashing our wetlands and ignoring the environmental portion of planning wisely for the future. It’s all just pathetic! Build green and you get to pollute the downtown skyline we’ve protected for years. Why are we putting up with tall his nonsense? Just VOTE NO on any more property taxation and call out their incompetent Comp Plan and EIS for what it is.
I just read an article by a Conservative think tank organization stating that the number of business and residential fires is down 47% during the the past 30 years while the number of professional fire fighters is up 55% over the same period. Fires are down due to prevention education, smoke alarms and better fire retardant building materials. It used to be that you had firepersons who’s main job was getting to a fire, rescuing anyone they could and getting the fire out. We had private ambulance services that got called for things like accidental falls, heart attacks, strokes etc. that rushed people to the hospital. Firemen knew some basic first aid and good departments had oxygen to give to smoke damaged people and pets and then they called what were considered the experts at the time to take people to the E.R. People who got hauled to the hospital got a bill from the Ambulance Company. Now many Firepersons are also paramedics trained on the public dime and that explains less fires but more firepersons.