The City of Edmonds is holding a special election in April seeking voter approval to annex the City of Edmonds into the South Snohomish Couty Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority. The Edmonds City Council proposed annexation and approved this special election by resolution on Jan. 7.
Edmonds no longer operates its own fire department and has contracted with South County Fire for fire and emergency medical services since 2010. That contract is set to expire at the end of 2025. If annexation is approved by voters, Edmonds property owners would pay South County Fire directly for these services.
According to a city news release, “annexation protects the current level and quality of emergency response, allows residents to vote on fire authority issues, and run for the Board of Fire Commissioners.” More information about the proposed annexation into the RFA can be found in the media release sent on Jan. 8.
The Edmonds City Council has the legislative responsibility to appoint two committees to write ballot measure argument statements that appear in the election voters’ pamphlet. The pro committee writes the statement supporting the measure; the con committee writes the statement opposing the measure.
Each committee is allowed up to three volunteer members who must be residents of Edmonds. Council President Neil Tibbott intends to have the council appoint these pro and con committees in advance of the county election office’s February 21, 2025 deadline.
Individuals interested in serving on either committee can submit their application to City Clerk Scott Passey at scott.passey@edmondswa.gov by 5 p.m. Friday, Jan. 24.
Applicants need to announce which committee – pro or con – they are applying for, provide a statement that supports their position, and whether they are willing to be the committee spokesperson. Include your name, address and phone number in your email. Late applications will not be accepted.
I believe that the Election in November has shown a mandate-liberal woke policy’s are so,out of favor-when any of the liberal city council comes up for reelection-vote them out of office-and yet we pay for A DEI program in Edmonds-Vote these people out of office
The very thin majority in the House hardly reflects a “mandate.” Some new directions are needed, but the appallingly inadequate and deeply partisan makeup of Trump’s appointments reflect subservience and retribution far more than any drive toward sensible reform or regard for ALL Americans.
Look at the official inauguration portrait, and the guest list of sycophants and billionaires. We need reform but l
I fear we are going to get change in a lot of regressive directions.
This seems to put the cart before the horse a bit. Hard to understand how voters are supposed to be able to decide if they’re for or against this ballot measure when we’ve been provided with very few details on either side. When are we going to hear some details about what RFA annexation will cost, and what service improvements will be provided as a result of the significant cost increase? How about some details regarding what the alternatives are to RFA annexation, and what those would cost? If we vote no, then what happens–does Edmonds fire and emergency service change, or will it continue as it is today? Would South County Fire be obligated to continue to serve our area even if we don’t accept RFA annexation? Is it possible to negotiate with RFA for a better deal? I know there has been a lot of press about the basics, but we need details to be able to make informed decisions. There are just so many questions on both sides that it feels way premature to be choosing a side yet.
One of the things that is “great already” about MEN is that we are keep very up to date on civic events.
One of things that no so great about the readers and keyboarders is who frequent MEN is we sometimes have trouble staying on to report at hand.
So far, the postings in this thread looks to be a bit off topic.
The first levy in a number of years dealing with our city taxes and by law whether one is a “liberal wonk” or concerned about “billionaires and regressive directions” we will have an important election on April 22.
The article points out the need for folks to step up and help the voters understand the Pros and Cons of the Election. Council will select 3 Edmonds Citizens for each committee to help us all understand the impact of this levy on our taxes and Fire Services and also for our EMS services.
We should all want to be better informed about this election for the implications of taxes and how we view local control of our important services will be “on the ballot”
I would encourage everyone to think about helping with the Pro and Con committees. That’s what this article was all about in the first place. Interestingly the committee will have only an additional 25 word more than this post.
This will be the most important thing you will be voting on a long time. For many of you your city portion of property taxes will double or nearly double or perhaps even more than double if the RFA annexation is allowed to occur. Renters, your rent will be going up too if Annexation passes as costs will get passed on.
It is important that you all realize that a no vote will not prevent an eventual increase in property taxes. What a no vote will do is force our Mayor and Council to go back to the drawing board to do a true and honest investigation and evaluation of what less expensive alternatives there might be. It is possible that an inhouse alternative could save as much as a million to two million or more per year, but that has not been openly and honestly looked at.
The committee members picked to advocate the pro and con of this measure will be appointed by the city council which is already in favor of annexation. So another question is will this council have it’s fingers on the scales to appoint con members who secretly support annexation.
State law prevents Edmonds from being without any fire protection. I’m voting no because I want this Mayor and this Council to actually do their jobs.
Clint, here are the directions to be named to a committee:
Individuals interested in serving on either committee can submit their application to City Clerk Scott Passey at scott.passey@edmondswa.gov by 5 p.m. Friday, Jan. 24.
Applicants need to announce which committee – pro or con – they are applying for, provide a statement that supports their position, and whether they are willing to be the committee spokesperson. Include your name, address and phone number in your email.
If you feel strongly one way or another you should apply. Your post could be your “statement”.
A citizen posted that folks on the low income property tax program will pay $720 more each year if the RFA vote passes. If, hypothetically, any people on that program currently pay less than $600 per year in total property taxes, (to the City, County, Port, ESD, etc.), then if this passes, do their Total property taxes more than double?
Lora, thanks for the question about seniors and Fire taxes. To answer your question, I did some work with the county assessors’ office, and you will be pleased to know seniors will be protected from the size of increases the rest of us will pay.
The way seniors get reduced taxes is by exempting a portion of total assessed value from taxation.
I have an example of a couple who have a 1800 sq ft home. They have qualified for reduced taxes for several years. They reside in an area that is part of SCF. The rate they pay is the same rate as others and here are the details. The property has a land value of $456k and the improvements have a value of $302k for a total of $758k. SCF tax rate is $1.17/1000 and would normally cost $887 for Fire.
In their case they have $607k is exempt making the taxable amount $151k. Paying the same rate on this lower amount generates a fire tax of $176 or a savings of $711. They also get a reduction of the Benefit Charge.
If this same property were in Edmonds, they would pay $102 for fire but if we join SCF their taxes would go up to $144 for a $42 increase.
Thanks. I didn’t feel I had much choice with the first set of numbers. If your numbers are correct, then I feel I would have a choice. I hope all the costs and benefits are made clear to all who choose to vote.
Darrol, don’t you think it is just a bit of a conflict of interest for the city council to be picking the people who are going to be campaigning against something they are supporting by a huge majority with the Mayor’s whole hearted support? Since we both know there is already a fairly sizeable group of people opposed to how this is being presented and the way the decision has been approached to get where we are at right now; wouldn’t it be much fairer if the Mayor and Council would agree to give their responsibility for choosing the three “con” rep.s over to the opposing group that already exists? I find it hard to believe that this function could not be transferred in this manner. There is already a great deal of distrust of this Mayor and this Council and that would certainly be a gesture that would help them regain their credibility at least to some degree.
Darrol, I don’t want to be on the “con” committee because I know I’m not one of the best people for it. The three people I personally want on that committee are Jim Ogonowski, Theresa Hutchinson and Diane Buckshnis. I don’t want you, Dave Teitzel, Niall McShane, Roger Pence or Teresa Hollis on that committee because I don’t think you all are as firm at getting this really looked at in an unbiased fashion as the three people I mention and I think you are all a little too much in sympathy with the Mayor’s difficult position in needing to support this to try to get out of a really bad financial pickle.
The ‘pro’ and ‘con’ committees are very important in helping residents understand the arguments in favor and against annexation. In addition, there will be several ‘public’ meetings sponsored by either Edmonds Council or the RFA that are supposed to be open discussions of the pros and cons. By State law, these meetings are required to give equal time for the pro and con advocates – not just the usual 3-min limit per person for public comments. It will be up to the Council and RFA as sponsors of these public ‘educational’ meetings to make sure equal time is given for the opposing viewpoints. Make sure you attend one or more of these meetings and ask the tough questions! The Council and RFA are obligated to ensure that their statements are transparent with full disclosure – and not biased with selective information or superficial narratives. For example – the recent joint press release from the City and the RFA was void of any cost information. No mention was made of the fact that the RFA raised its contract price by 50% between 2019 and 2023, nor that the RFA is proposing another 65% increase in prices for the 2026 annexation, nor that the RFA terminated the existing contract, nor that the Council has no legitimate financial analysis of alternative fire/ems solutions! Residents need answers!
I understand how sometimes we want to reject the inevitable, but the voting results show that other local cities have elected overwhelmingly to annex into RFA. In 2023 Brier voted 78% in favor and Mountlake Terrace voted 92% in favor of annexation. In 2022 Mill Creek voted 75% to annex. Considering these tilted numbers, if there is information that any of these cities regret voting for annexation, this would be the time and place to review and understand why?
Here it is folks. Exactly the type of group think and “just following the herd” that has Edmonds on the brink of total bankruptcy without a huge infusion of RFA taxation levy money and general fund levies to come on the heels of that. Heaven forbid our leaders would honestly investigate another approach to fire service that might be less expensive because three other cities took the RFA bait, hook, line and sinker. This is what happens when you routinely fund grandiose wants while almost ignoring absolute critical needs. Matthew is right abought taxes being inevitable to the human condition, just like death, but we do have quite a bit of control over how both these things inevitably come to be, if we keep our wits about us and don’t keep doing stupid things.
And making sure the fire hydrants work…unlike recent events in Southern California
…just sayin’
it’s a waste of time but is well intentioned. I do agree with Clinton on the CC having final say on this! here in our city right now our CC is way to up into the political side of this. Unions supported our candidates at least several of them were endorsed and some I believe had donations? Not sure I can’t remember everything every minute. The RFA is the one thing that I think 6 of our CC support. In this case part of it is political and part of it is desperation because our city is broke they don’t want Edmonds to have to declare bankruptcy. Some care about Edmonds some just really care about the Union part of it and well other things that cost a lot and do little. Ya know why the CC doesn’t just have to declare when running for office what party they support cause this sure is not a group that isn’t using their personal politics for the gain of wants and causes. It’s supposed to be facts with our local only issues. Non partisan. I don’t care what any other city says. All cities here are different…If money isn’t an issue and for many here in Edmonds anyway that is the case. The prop taxes and increases don’t concern them. Others a game changer. I will vote.
My earlier comment about who should or shouldn’t be on the opposing official committee was unfair and judgmental on my part toward some people who I consider my good friends and I humbly beg them to forgive me. I do stand by my thinking that our Mayor and Council should have no part in determining who should function as spokespersons against a position they have prematurely and whole heartedly endorsed with little to no consideration of other alternatives which might be cheaper and/or more conducive for more loyal and better duty to our Mayor and by extension to us citizens. RFA annexation is a tax money grab here; just like it was In Briar, Millcreek and Terrace and it is being sold with fear tactics and a highly biased study. Even if we are going to pay lots more in taxes for the service (and we are probably are either way) wouldn’t it at least be better if we actually own it in house with direct control? That’s how we feel about police service, so why should fire be any different? All public safety is and should be the the Mayor’s job. Make him do his job. Vote No.
Hi Clint,
I have read your post and wanted to clear up a couple of points about the upcoming election. Let’s look at the ideal of Local Control (LC). When our elected were doing their job to evaluate ways to save money for the taxpayer by blending our police force into a regional agency our taxpayers were pretty vocal that for public safety issues LC was very important. What may have been a savings for the taxpayers, LC seemed to be the public mood?
When we had our own FD, we had LC. Our elected created a contract arrangement with the Regional Fire Service, they wisely retained LC and we still have it today with the current contract. With a Yes vote in April we will give up local control but with a No vote will have LC with a new contract with the RFA. We do not need to restart our own FD to gain LC, we already have it. On the other hand, we will lose LC if we vote yes to join.
Under the current contract for example Edmonds improved the level of service and paid the added cost for these improvements.
The total price to join the RFA is the same as it would be with a new contract. SCF wants to implement “parity” pricing and that is achieved either way.
Darrol, if there a no vote, what happens to the $6.2 million already allocated for emergency services that the council wants to transfer to the city’s general coffers?
Brian, this data is from the Mayor’s budget presented to council and a realistic estimate of what may be in the Levy planned for April 22. Final levy details will be in late February.
The current contract will cost us $12.1m in 2025. The total tax, to join will be around $17.1m. The city plans to keep $6.5m of the taxes currently paid to help with the financial issues. Only $4.4m will be credited to taxpayers. That would require taxpayers to pay an additional $12.7m. With our AV of $15.4b the rate/1000 would be around $.83 or about a $830 for a $1m property.
For a new contract for $17.1m the revenue sources would be the current EMS tax $4.4m and the current GF taxes of $6.5m used for the current contract. The $10.9m would be $6.2m short of full payment. The added cost would not be needed until 2026. Council is still working on additional cuts and added revenue other than property taxes.
The current tax plan is for a $6m levy in the fall of 2025. That may need to be increased to make up what Council cannot find in cuts or new revs.
Keep in mind the rate/1000 to generate $1m is about $.07/1000 or $70 for a $1m property. A $6m ask would be $420 for a $1m property.
Darrol – thank you for the prompt on local controls, there are so many to consider. Speaking of LC, have you seen a working estimates document on the immediate and/or future Edmonds burdens assoc. with updates/repairs to the city hall building? Is that a budget item? Is it defined?
Matthew, yes I have seen the estimates of what needs to be done to not only get a balanced. The original estimates were created by the Blue Ribbon Panel and Mayor Rosen presented the early estimates at the State of the City address. The same numbers were presented to council and to the public on several occasions. I would like to clarify a term reported by MEN about the budget crisis. Gap is often referred to and estimated to be $13m. The $13m gap is the difference between GF revenues and GF expenses. Spending $13m more that we are taking in was covered by using our reserves and using one time ARPA funds. These are one time revenues so unless the revenues equal expenses the drain of our reserves continue.
To balance (on paper) we are going to borrow $6m from our utility fund. The current budget does not have a plan to replenish our reserves or pay off the loan we are borrowing.
Your question about repairs and other maintenance type items is a great one. Council has projection models to help them see taxes that would be required if sufficient cuts or new revenues to cover these needs are not made.
We are not the only city with financial issues but ours appear to be larger than others.
Darrol, thanks for this clarification to me and the public. My only thought about it is that the public needs to be aware that it wasn’t the city that arbitrarily ended the contracting; it was the RFA that pulled the plug on something that was working pretty well from the city’s point of view. With that, I’m bowing out of this discussion now, and will put up my own hand made vote no sign with the thinking that we can do much better than the annexation in terms of getting the most bang for our escalating tax dollar.