Part 1

There have been many articles, commentaries and opinion pieces in recent months about the upcoming ballot measure to decide whether Edmonds should, or should not, join the South Snohomish Country Regional Fire Authority. Many facts have been put into the public domain but, as with all things, many of those facts lack context or have been selectively chosen to advance one viewpoint or another.

While I do not claim to have a universal understanding of the topic or a complete inventory of facts to share, I have been following this issue very closely. I have a perspective that I think is worth sharing with the broader community, to assist voters in deciding how they should vote on this measure. This perspective is informed by research into many of the statements that are claimed as fact by both sides in this debate and — while I have a position on how I intend to vote — the perspective that I will elaborate is as unbiased as I can make it. I will not shy away from presenting facts that support both sides of the issue.

In this series of columns, I will cover the following topics.

1. A review of the cost of fire and emergency medical services (EMS) in neighboring communities.

2. The funding mechanisms for the RFA and the significance of the fire benefit charge.

3. Staffing and service levels for fire/EMS service in Edmonds

Cost of fire/EMS services in neighboring communities

Is Edmonds, paying too little for fire/EMS service or are the other cities within the RFA paying too much? This is a key question since — under the proposed annexation deal — the cost of fire/EMS services in Edmonds will increase from $12.5 million that the city pays under contract in 2025 to somewhere in the region of $19-20 million, which the residents will pay directly to the RFA in 2026.

The precise cost of the service in 2026 is unclear because of a variety of factors that are unknown at this time. For example, what will the RFA budget be in 2026? What changes will occur to the assessed valuations of property in Edmonds and in other parts of the RFA service area? How much of the RFA budget will be financed through a tax levy and how much will come from other sources including the fire benefit charge?

What is clear is that we will be paying a lot more for fire/EMS service in 2026 regardless of the outcome of the vote in April because, — if the vote to annex into the RFA fails — the RFA will impose new contract terms on Edmonds that effectively require the city to pay the equivalent amount that would be billed to residents under the RFA levy and benefit charge.

The RFA and its supporters state that Edmonds has not been paying its fair share and that residents of other communities that are part of the RFA are subsidizing our service through the property taxes and fire benefit charges that they pay directly to the RFA. Opponents of the annexation counter that we are currently paying the full union salaries and benefits of the firefighters who are stationed in Edmonds plus an overhead factor to account for the organizational costs of running the RFA.

This is one of the principal arguments in favor of Edmonds restarting its own fire department, which would allow us to retain local control over things like staffing levels, service levels and overheads. But how are other neighboring communities faring in managing their own fire and EMS services?

A good place to start is Shoreline, which just recently voted on its own ballot measure to create an RFA to serve Shoreline, Kenmore and Lake Forest Park. These communities have had a contractual relationship for several years and the creation of an RFA is further formalizing that relationship. Early returns from the vote, which was held on Feb. 11, suggest that this RFA measure will be approved by a wide majority. Shoreline already has a diversified revenue source, which combines a property tax levy and a fire benefit charge.

The purpose of the fire benefit charge is to distribute costs more equitably among properties of similar types based on the actual cost of putting out a fire rather than relying entirely on property tax valuations, which can fluctuate widely between similar properties in different locations. By relying more heavily on the fire benefit charge, an RFA can substantially reduce the tax levy on single-family homes and small businesses, and this is something that the RFA proposal in Shoreline is planning to do.

In an example provided by Shoreline Fire chief Matt Cowan, using the 2025 tax levy of $0.6835 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (AV), a representative home with an AV of $905,000 might pay $618.57 in levy taxes plus another $302.66 for the fire benefit charge for a total cost of $921.23. This example yields an effective levy rate of $1.02 per $1,000 of AV. That rate, however, does not include an additional levy of $0.25 per $1,000 of AV for the Medic One service that provides EMS in King County. Adding this into the equation brings the total to $1.27 per $1,000 of AV.

Chief Cowan projects that his example home would see a reduction of 3.4% if the RFA measure passes in Shoreline but he is non-committal on that since the 2026 budget has not been determined. For reference, an Edmonds home with an AV of $905,000 currently pays around $678.75 in total taxes toward the cost of fire and EMS services and, under the terms of the annexation, could pay as much as $1,140 if the effective levy rate (including the benefit charge) were $1.26 per $1,000 as has been quoted in some discussions of the annexation. Note, however, that the $1.26 figure that has been used in much of the discussion around annexation is inflated, as I will explain later.

The City of Everett runs its own fire and EMS department. Looking at the 2024 budget, we see that fire and EMS accounts for almost $47 million. Unlike Edmonds, Everett has a much more diverse source of funding, and property taxes account for only a portion of the fire/EMS budget, so a direct comparison of property taxes does not provide a solid basis for comparing the costs of these services in Everett and Edmonds. Emergency management and fire are part of the general fund (page 81 of the budget) but emergency medical services are not (page 82). The emergency medical services budget is funded by a combination of property tax, grants, service fees and reimbursements (pages 122-123).  Despite these various sources of revenue, the EMS fund is projected to decline by $3 million to $6 million per year for the foreseeable future due to costs exceeding revenue. There are other costs associated with fire and EMS services in the Everett budget such as fire pension (LEOFF 1 page 129). This fund appears to be underfunded, and the city has proposed to increase general fund contributions to this fund from 2025 in the amount of around $2 million per year.

This provides some context for the ballot measure that was put before Everett voters last fall, which proposed a property tax increase to fund fire and EMS among other priorities for the city. That ballot measure was rejected by the voters of Everett.

The population of Everett is around 2.6 times larger than Edmonds. Scaling the cost of fire/EMS in Everett to a city the size of Edmonds yields an estimated cost to Edmonds of around $18 million, which is slightly lower than the projected RFA cost but still in the ballpark.

Mukilteo is another neighboring city that operates its own fire/EMS service. With a population around half that of Edmonds, Mukilteo’s current costs are consistent with what Edmonds is paying under its existing contract with the RFA. In 2024, Mukilteo spent just under $6 million on fire/EMS services but, like Everett, the city’s voters failed to pass a ballot initiative to increase their EMS levy to keep up with rising costs. The ballot measure would have raised an additional $1.665 million for EMS services. For 2025, Mukilteo is projecting to spend a little over $6.2 million but with the failure of the levy lift vote, the city is using almost $2 million of ARPA funds to pay for the bulk of their EMS personnel this year.

This analysis suggests that other cities are generally paying more than Edmonds is currently paying for these services and cities running their own fire services are struggling to manage rising costs, especially for EMS.  However, this is not an endorsement of the proposed $19 million to $20 million that the RFA wants to levy on Edmonds residents, which seems too high based on the comparative analysis.

Summary and conclusions

There are those on both sides of this debate who want to make this a black-and-white issue and focus only on aspects of the debate that support their arguments. Such efforts are not conducive to enabling our community to make an informed decision on a matter of such importance. The voter’s pamphlet that you will receive in the mail shortly will contain very little context to inform your vote. The pro and con committees that have been created to write statements for and against annexation are subject to very restrictive word limits that make their efforts little more than token expressions of democracy with no real impact whatsoever.

In this commentary, I have sought to provide additional context for one of several talking points that surround this debate. I would summarize these as follows:

– Our current costs are substantially lower than most neighboring communities. Mukilteo is close to what we are paying, but they are struggling to continue to operate their service with the funds that are available to them.

– The $19-20 million that is being suggested as the appropriate level that Edmonds should pay to the RFA is too high.

Please look for future columns in which I will analyze the RFA funding model and ways that it can be improved, as well as service and staffing level data presented by the RFA in its annual report to the Edmonds City Council.

Niall McShane is an Edmonds resident, occasional contributor to Scene in Edmonds and a retired IBM executive with experience in managing software development and customer service organizations.