In November 2009, after five months of consideration, numerous public hearings and very strong support from the firefighters’ union, the city council voted 6 to 1 to approve a contract for fire services with Fire District 1 – now known as South County Fire. I was a councilmember at that time and voted with the majority.
The sole reason for this action was to reduce fire service costs for our city. 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 SCF could any longer endure, so they notified the city, in accordance with the contract, they were terminating the contract in two years.
Edmonds should not be the remedy for this situation. Being part of a regional fire authority was deemed not to be a good move for Edmonds 15 years ago and I believe that continues to be the situation today. Our relatively high property values cause that not to be a good financial decision for us. The 2024 tax rate for each of the four cities now part of SCF is $1.17 per $1,000 of assessed value. The average value of Edmonds homes is higher than any city in Snohomish County, except for the Town of Woodway. The average Edmonds home value is 21.9% more than the average for the four cities – Brier, Lynnwood, Mill Creek and Mountlake Terrace. That means that the average Edmonds homeowner would pay 21.9% more in taxes to SCF than the average for the four current cities. In fact, it would be 50% more than Mountlake Terrace and 46% more than Lynnwood. A new tax of more than $1,000 for the average Edmonds residence — $18 million in total for Edmonds property owners.
Let’s proceed with reestablishing an Edmonds fire department. We should be able to have those personnel now devoted to Edmonds become employees of Edmonds and we should be able to purchase from SCF the fire equipment used in Edmonds. At the beginning of the contract our personnel and equipment went to FD1, so it seems reasonable that we should be able to now do the reverse of that. In 2009 city council made a decision late in the negotiations to retain the fire stations, that’s now being reaffirmed as having been a wise decision.
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 and the $1.17 SCF levy.
Choosing to join SCF is the easiest choice for our city council, but is clearly not the right choice for the taxpayers they are suppose to be representing.
— By Ron Wambolt
Edmonds resident Ron Wambolt served on the Edmonds City Council from 2006-2009.
“May” require increased taxes? Sure, the city can brag it has 3 fire stations with 3 engines and 3 medic units, but what about the costs of a comprehensive training program, a staff to perform administrative duties, a staff for vehicle maintenance? What about overtime staffing, mutual aid from other jurisdictions, hazmat, technical rescue or a staffed ladder truck? Ahhh… the good old days.
David-please identify yourself. Are you a firefighter, or with the RFA in another capacity? Other cities have ‘re-imagined’ more efficient and less costly fire/ems operations and have escaped the constant cost increases of their regional fire authorities and have set up their own fire departments – often times with firefighters and EMS paramedics as separate operations. They have done this because of the fact that 85% of all 911 calls are for medical emergencies – so you don’t need to roll fire trucks or have as many 24×7 firefighters at each station, and you can get quicker response and less costly response to 85% of 911 calls. The fact that the RFA is proposing a 65-70% increase in the price of Edmonds services (with no change in service level), after increasing the price by 50% between 2019 and 2023 is totally unacceptable. The RFA has not demonstrated any economies of scale or cost control with their multiple annexations and expansion of customers and territory. Their State granted monopoly powers have abused taxpayers. Edmonds should be running , not walking to establish their own fire department in order to save $5-$8M per year and control costs going forward. Check out these internet links that describe successful re-imagined local fire/ems service:
https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/fdresponse_0.pdf
https://www.ocgrandjury.org/sites/jury/files/2023-06/2022-05-20_Where%27s_the_Fire_Stop_Sending_Fire_Trucks_to_Medical_Calls.pdf
Great idea Ron. Why not have the most centrally located station be devoted strictly to fire fighting and the other two with their main focus being EMS which we know is about 85% of the demand now. That function could even be farmed out to the private sector with use of the publicly owned buildings. You could back up the fire fighting component with a well trained volunteer force which rural departments have used with success for years. The paid pros train the wannabes. Just like Police reserve systems work to provide experience and coverage of need at a lower expense. IMO regional fire is an economic failure because labor and management are essentially one and the same and there is no one really looking out for the people that pay the bills – the tax payers. Of course for this to work you would need a very strong Mayor and good Chief running the show. An interlocal agreement with Everett and Mukilteo could help control training and equipment costs as well as help them keep their own departments and some management control over their costs. I’d even vote for higher taxes to get a system like that, but this business of labor and management being one and the same and no expense is too great, needs to go yesterday.
I’d love to see this as well! Certainly the city should give it a fair shake, not brushed aside as was done with the 24′ Fitch assessment.
I agree with you all. I read all of the sites provided by Mr. Krepick and its worth looking at them that’s for sure. We should have our own fire station anyway. With so much out of our control it would be nice to at least have our own fire department.
Simple logic and common sense here. Who do you want having some say about how and on what money is spent for fire/EMS? On one side you have a Mayor, City Council and Fire Chief looking out for getting the best deal for the money spent and having to answer to the taxpayers. On the other side you have a Regional Fire Director or Chief and one person on a board of directors doing that. Keeping in mind that the rank and file and the managers in the RFA are all pals and brothers in arms and support everything that the IAFF members ask for. New hires pay goes up, the managers pay goes up, almost without question. If we have to pay more, which we most likely do, why not have some say in how the money is actually spent? The answer to my question is that most of the city leaders we elect don’t really want the responsibility that they are asking for when they run or they cater to the needs of the people that helped get them elected financially speaking, rather than the taxpayers they are supposed to be serving.
Yep. Clinton in many cases this CC and the CC with Nelsons was even more frustrating. As far as RFA well we know who was talking with them long ago. I was wondering when the fess up would happen ha. I knew I remember it all a few subtle mentions etc. I think in several cases you are absolutely right about our CC. I’m gonna just say that I don’t think Vivian Olsen has any ulterior motives. Most people like her and she does try to speak for all. SO does Michelle Dotsch. Vivian can run unopposed because I think people trust her but that doesn’t mean she is going to agree with everything we want. She must remain neutral not for her job but because that is the way she is. Now I hope I never see any other open CC positions up for election or newbies trying it that are running unopposed. NO to that we just have to make sure someone runs against anyone up for office. And this time pay attention to who endorses or whom. Check out who shows up at their political events for reelection. Who seems mainly interested in the area which they live Politicians lie and well they bend the truth and then we elect them and wow what a change in their plans and ideals.cont.
Now just to clear this up. I do not think all of our CC or our Mayor lie to us. I think that all politician’s nationwide want to win and they bend a lot. We also have many politicians that do outright lie. And some are just sneaky with the wolves in sheep clothing, and some are just sheep in wolves clothing. Our CC is not nonpartisan. They take an oath saying that they are, but they aren’t. Most CC councils are not nonpartisan as they claim to be too. So we know who is and who wants what for the most part. It’s pretty easy. I actually like all of them but one. Emotionally verbal and critical even of the very city and citizens they are supposed to represent If you read back thru various times and meetings and even old comments from right here you will see and the more you see the more you remember. It’s time for our CC to All fight for our whole city and stop always voting one way that is based IMO on their own Ideals. They can have them just keep it quiet. It’s annoying. Stick to the facts and leave the tears and the shocked responses at home. Leave the guilting our citizens out of your duties as a CC member. Thank you.
There is nothing personal meant in any of my comments about our Council and Mayor. Vivian Olson and Mike Rosen are two of the nicest people I’ve ever met, as well as Michelle Dotsch. I don’t really know the others as much but I think they are all well meaning, generally very pleasant people. It’s just that with the exception of Michelle Dotsch, I think all the rest are much too quick to embrace group think of one type or another and fail to see some of the ulterior motives of many of the people they are taking advice from. They tend to support the welfare of other public agencies and public employees over the welfare of all the taxpayers who must finance all these various programs and live with how they operate. It’s not all their fault either – some of it is systemic I think. We tend to have public hearings and the public realizing what is really going on, well after actual decisions have been made. It’s also a system that almost always places and purchases wants ahead of needs and that never ends well for anyone or the public purse as we are finding out now. We over hype and glorify the more man made assets of our town and fail to properly care for the natural assets. Shameful!