In part 1, I wrote about the comparative cost of providing fire and EMS services in neighboring communities. In this column, I want to look at the way that regional fire authorities are funded and ways that the funding of the South County Fire and Rescue RFA could be modified to be more equitable to the residents of Edmonds.
RFA Funding Mechanisms
Edmonds pays for the current contract with the RFA through the general fund using a combination of regular property taxes plus a separate EMS levy. Of the $1.00 per $1,000 that Edmonds levies in property tax today, $0.28 represents the EMS levy and a further $0.48 of general property tax levy is used to pay for the contract with South County Fire. If voters approve annexation, the city is planning to retain the $0.48 per $1,000 to pay for other city services and help address the fiscal crisis that was declared in 2023, and it is widely expected that a further levy increase will be required in the fall to restore the fiscal health of the city even if this annexation passes. The EMS levy will go away since the city will no longer be responsible for paying for Fire/EMS services. The burden of paying for fire and EMS services will be passed to the individual residents who will pay a property tax levy and a fire benefit charge directly to the RFA.
This model of having both a tax levy based on assessed valuation and a separate fire benefit charge is unique to fire protection districts and regional fire authorities and is not available to cities that operate their own fire departments. Under Washington law, the maximum amount that a fire district or RFA can levy for property tax is $1.50 per $1,0000 of assessed valuation (AV). But if the fire district opts to introduce a benefit charge, that tax levy cap drops to $1.00 per $1,000 of AV and the benefit charge can be used to raise up to 60% of the districts operating budget.
An argument that is made against annexation is that, since assessed valuations in Edmonds are generally higher than in other parts of the RFA area, an AV based taxation scheme disproportionately affects Edmonds residents. The benefit charge is a mechanism that can be used to compensate for these variations. The benefit charge is based on the type and size of a structure, independent of AV and it is intended to allocate cost based on the complexity of fighting a fire at that location. Thus, single-family homes pay less than commercial or industrial premises or multifamily buildings but comparable single-family homes in Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace or Mill Creek pay the same benefit charge. Structures are categorized into tiers and then assessed a fire benefit charge based on size. There are discounts available for things like sprinkler systems. The South County Fire RFA currently raises just 7% of its budget from the benefit charge, although they could raise up to 60% of the budget this way. The benefit charge being used in Shoreline today is substantially higher than this.
Let’s look at how increasing the fire benefit charge might be beneficial to Edmonds in the event of us annexing into the RFA. Note: I am using current tax rates and budget amounts from the Edmonds and RFA budget publications along with currently available assessed valuations from the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office. All these numbers are subject to change in 2026 so these numbers are for illustrative purposes only and should not be taken to be definitive.
The first thing to note is that many of the calculations that have been floated for the tax impact of annexation assume the current RFA levy of $1.16 per $1,000 of assessed valuation and benefit charge rates that net out to an effective levy rate of $1.26 per $1,000. This is erroneous because if Edmonds were to annex into the RFA, the aggregate AV of the combined RFA area would increase by over $15 billion dollars and this would have the effect of diluting the levy required to raise the same amount of revenue. The effect of this dilution would be to reduce the levy rate from $1.16/$1000 of AV to $1.05/$1,000 of AV assuming the fire benefit charge remains at 7% of the total.
What I want to explore, however, is what happens if the RFA increases the fire benefit charge? I have modelled two scenarios as follows: The Increased FBC model doubles the current benefit charge and the Optimized FBC Model doubles it again to four times the current level or about 28% of the total revenue raised by the RFA. This is still less than half as much as the RFA can raise through the fire benefit charge according to the law.
In these models, the levy rate is reduced to $0.92/$1000 of AV and $0.67/$1000 of AV, respectively. The figure below illustrates these numbers and shows that in all cases except the flawed existing model, the total effective rate remains constant at $1.18. Note, this $1.18 effective rate represents a savings of around $1.5 million to Edmonds compared to the current estimates of $19 to $20 million. This corrected number should be viewed as an upper limit on what Edmonds should be paying for fire/EMS services; however, this is using an average benefit charge, which doesn’t consider the true distribution of charges among different property types, so savings for individual properties in Edmonds could be greater.
There are numerous factors that affect the fire benefit charge, including the size of the structure, the type of use, type of construction and various discounts applied for senior citizens, installation of sprinkler systems, etc. The most significant of these factors for structures of comparable size is the category factor (CF), which ranges from a multiplier of 0.21 for a mobile home to 0.35 for a single-family home, 0.49 for a multi-family home and anywhere between 0.39 and 5.0 for commercial structures depending on their size.
The next step in my analysis was to look at the impact of changing the benefit charge on structures in these various categories within the existing RFA territories. The result of that work is illustrated in the next two charts. I have put single-family homes on a separate chart because the scale of the payments differs greatly from those for multi-family and commercial properties. The data plotted on these charts is the total payments for the properties in question, combining the levy amount and the fire benefit charge using existing Snohomish County property tax records as the base for the existing totals.
Note that under both models, all the single-family homes selected for this analysis would see reduced total bills and there is good reason to believe that this would be true for all single-family homes. In the commercial and multi-family space, Costco in Lynnwood would see an increased overall payment of approximately $2,000 under the increased FBC model and $11,000 under the optimized FBC model. Trader Joe’s in Lynnwood would see an increase of approximately $2,400 under the increased FBC model and almost $7,900 under the optimized FBC model, while other properties would experience some savings under the increased FBC model and moderate increases under the optimized FBC model.
This analysis highlights the variations that occur with the benefit charge because, for example, the increase for Trader Joe’s under the optimized model is comparable to the increase for the much larger Costco due to the sprinkler system discount that Costco receives. The point, though, is that increasing the benefit charge would probably be popular, not just with Edmonds residents but with existing RFA residents also, while the impacts on commercial business are hardly extreme.
Finally, I modelled two sample homes in Edmonds to illustrate the effect of increasing the benefit charge. These models are illustrated in the charts below for a $750,000, 2000-square-foot home, which is around the median home value in Edmonds, and for a $1.25 million, 3,000-square-foot home. These are not actual homes, and I have estimated what the benefit charge would be for such homes for the purposes of this analysis. Again, I am showing the combined total of levy rate payments and benefit charge payments.
While the sticker shock to Edmonds homeowners is significant in all cases, just the dilution of the levy rate reduces the expected bill by between $80-130 compared to the rates that are being propagated based on the false expectation of a $1.26 per $1,000 effective rate. And going to the optimized benefit charge model could shave another $80-170 off the cost to Edmonds homeowners. This would reduce the tax increase for these homes from more than 90% of current city taxes to around 70% of current city taxes. Further increases in the benefit charge beyond the four-times level that I have modelled would generate even greater savings.
There is, of course, an argument that increasing the benefit charge impacts businesses and may drive them away. My analysis suggests that the impact on Costco in Lynnwood of increasing the benefit charge to four times its current value would be around $11,000, from approximately $33,000 to $44,000. While this may seem like a lot, the average per-store revenue for Costco last year was $260 million, so this is a relatively insignificant amount in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, to put this in context, the total tax bill for that location in 2024 was more than $175,000.
I also looked at the corresponding tax burden for the Costco store in Shoreline. The assessed value for that location is marginally higher than for the Lynnwood store but the aggregate tax bill for the Shoreline location was more than double that of the Lynnwood location at more than $360,000, and the fire portion of that bill was $37,000. I’m not certain because the King County website doesn’t provide a complete breakdown of the taxing districts, but I’m pretty sure that this number does not include the separate $0.25/$1000 EMS levy for King County, which would add another $5,800 or so for a grand total of more than $42,000 for fire/EMS. That number is very comparable to the number I believe Costco in Lynnwood would pay for fire/EMS under a plan that increases the benefit charge to four times its current level.
I also looked at the Trader Joe’s location in Shoreline. The comparison here doesn’t work as well because the Shoreline building includes multiple other businesses, and the AV of that location is two times the AV of the Lynnwood location. However, the current fire tax burden on the Lynnwood location is just over $6,000 while the Shoreline location has a fire tax burden of $16,000. Again, assuming that the King County EMS levy is not included in that number, we need to add another $1,200, bringing the total fire/EMS tax bill for this property to more than $17,000. Doubling the benefit charge would bring the Lynnwood store’s fire/EMS related tax bill to around $8,600, which would be comparable.
Note that small business locations — like the dental office in my initial examples — actually see a reduction in fire/EMS charges under the larger benefit charge models, and the increases on the large multifamily homes are less significant than those for Costco or Trader Joes.
In summary:
– The funding model for an RFA includes both a property tax levy and a fire benefit charge, which can be used to offset the fluctuations in assessed valuation for similar properties in different locations.
– South County Fire’s use of the fire benefit charge is currently very limited and there is a lot of room for negotiation on a change to that model, which would benefit not only the residents of Edmonds but homeowners across the broader RFA region.
Please look for a future column in which I will analyze service and staffing level data as 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.
“and this would have the effect of diluting the levy required to raise the same amount of revenue.” But the RFA doesn’t plan on keeping their revenue about the same. They want it to grow about $8-9 Mil. in 2026 just due to annexing Edmonds. There was an online public forum hosted by NW Civic Circle (Alicia Crank) to learn on Feb 14th. I asked Chief Eastman if Lynnwood and MLT and Brier and the rural areas would see a reduction in their RFA taxes because they are planning on charging Edmonds a lot more (either via a contract or annexation) and his answer was ‘no reduction in the taxes charged the other property owners in the RFA’. Simply put- the RFA’s pie will get bigger in 2026.
This RFA’s benefit charge is low. they had a ballot measure passed in Aug. 2024 that renewed that levy for 10 years, and gave the commissioners the ability to raise it by more than 1% – it was a levy lid lift vote. We’ll watch the Commissioners in 2025 to see if they use the benefit charge to make this tax a little more fair. I vastly prefer paying cost plus overhead of the first responders- not using property values to determine how much we pay. My House will never need treatment by a paramedic.
Theresa, your point is valid – we don’t know what the 2026 budget is going to be but the logic of my analysis that a higher benefit charge benefits all single family homeowners and many smaller commercial property owners still hold true regardless of the final number. This may be why the City and RFA are sticking with the incorrect $1.26 per $1,000 of AV estimate because that helps them to ensure that whatever estimates they provide will be higher than the reality if annexation does pass.
Will you also be laying out the costs for Edmonds to start up its own fire department and where you think the money is coming from? That’s what’s maid sing from your editorials. I attended a meeting with the Lions club where the cost of one ladder truck was shared. Millions of dollars and it takes 3 years to get just one!!
Cheryl, I will not specifically address alternatives to the proposed RFA vote. The time to get into the specifics of those alternatives is later, if the voters decide to reject the annexation proposal.
Niall:
It seems to me that voters need to evaluate the specifics of alternatives prior to rejecting the RFA.
Restarting the Edmonds Fire Department isn’t that complicated. The City would begin with the three fire stations that we already own, taking them back from the RFA which now operates them under contract. And the RFA would be left with three stations full of surplus equipment which they could easily sell to the new EFD. I doubt we will be restarting the EFD, but let’s not overdramatize the issues involved.
Niall, Thank you for putting in the time and effort to sort out this complex issue. It also appears to me that our negotiators did not understand the complexity of the the taxing models possible when they were dealing with the RFA. This is a reason for me to vote no on the RFA at this time. If nothing else, it gives our negotiators time to work out a much better deal.
Niall,
Love your through analysis. I’d like to highlight a statement you made about if Edmonds were to annex into the RFA:
“… the aggregate AV of the combined RFA area would increase by over $15 billion dollars and this would have the effect of diluting the levy required to raise the same amount of revenue. The effect of this dilution would be to reduce the levy rate from $1.16/$1000 of AV to $1.05/$1,000 of AV assuming the fire benefit charge remains at 7% of the total.”
This is a true statement. What it also means is that current RFA member cities who are at $1.16/$1,000 will see their property taxes being reduced to $1.05/$1,000 at our expense if we join. Because of our relatively high AV, we in essence subsidize the other cities. Our taxes go up, their taxes go down.
As a side note to my comment above …
At last week’s annexation educational event hosted by Alicia Crank (thank you, Alicia) CM Olson handed the mic over to an individual who represented Brier. She went on and on exclaiming the virtues of joining the RFA. Of course she would. She was representing the best interest of the Brier taxpayers. If we join the RFA, their RFA taxes are lowered by about 14% based on Niall’s analysis. I wish our elected officials represented the Edmonds taxpayers with that much passion.
Niall-
Great analysis, but the sad fact is the RFA could have moved to a higher Fire Benefit Charge in the last 5 years and they did nothing about it and they stayed with the extremely low 7% of their revenue. With all due respect to our firefighters, the sad fact is that the RFA management cares more about its firefighters than about taxpayers. They have no motivation too change anything other than increase their revenues through annexation without justifying their monopoly price increases! They could have optimized their operations to reduce costs and respond better to a changing market that has 85% of all 911 calls are for medical emergencies, and only 10% for fire response. Their answer to that is to spend more money training and certifying firefighters as combo firefighters/paramedics, rather than having more dedicated paramedics and fewer firefighters. The end result is not better medical response, it is rolling more fire trucks and firefighters to 911 medical calls, and having more firefighters staffing more stations 24×7 – instead of having EMS ambulances and EMS paramedics on call. Many other cities have changed their basic staffing model to better respond to the market by separating fire and ems operations: King County/Medic One; Spokane, WA; Vancouver, WA; Santa Clara County, CA; Placentia, CA (52,000 pop). Vote No! on annexation. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Bill,
I am curious as to what Fire Department in King County you speak of separating their fire fighters from EMS? If this were true it would be a great comparable method for Edmonds!
Peter-
Seattle uses MedicOne. Vancouver and Spokane use AMR. Santa Clara County, CA has its own separate EMS service. Placentia, CA (pop 52,000) contracts with a private ambulance service. I wish I had time to do the research to compare cost of fire and ems service per resident, per call, per fire station, # of firefighters per 1,000 population, # paramedics per 1,000 population, # fire trucks per station, # paramedic trucks per station, response time per medical call, response time per fire call, # fire calls per year per 1,000 pop, # medical calls per year per 1,000. These are performance numbers that the RFA should track and report. The State should require these numbers. All the RFA wants to emphasize is its ‘parity’ tax levy rate – which is just monopoly pricing, nothing to do with cost of service. The RFA said last night that their calls went up 20% between 2010 and 2024 – yet their price to Edmonds went up 50% between 2019 and 2024 alone! Edmonds should have done $64K in research on at least half dozen cities to get comparisons. Instead the Mayor spent $64K on a PR firm to spin annexation as the best alternative! Their alternative solution research consisted of a few phone calls and no hard data analysis on other fire/ems operations. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
https://www.edmondscandobetter.org/
Seattle Fire Medic One are all Medic units staffed with 2 Firefighter/Patamedics. I agree with you- This is a great model and works well. Seattle sends fire engines or aid calls to all basic life support responses. If it needs Medic One then they call for them, but medic one is not a third party service. As for Spokane and Vancouver, all of their first response is by Firefighter/EMT’s, then if they need Basic life support transport they will call for a private ambulance service. It’s a fair model, but is not likely a private carrier will sign a small contract like Edmonds. Calling for private ambulance also takes time, and some emergency’s are time sensitive.
Peter,
There isn’t a one size fits all approach to this. In Everett, they have contracted with a private ambulance company to transport some non-critical patients to hospital to reduce the time that emergency response units spend waiting to drop patients off and keep them available for emergency calls. In Seattle, Shoreline and other parts of Cook County, Medic One has dedicated paramedics who handle the more critical and complex advanced life support calls. (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/dph/health-safety/health-centers-programs-services/emergency-medical-services/medic-one)
Note that both of these programs are funded by taxpayer dollars in much the same way as we pay for the RFA and in both cases, regular firefighters may also be dispatched to EMS calls.
Other cities that use private contractors to deliver EMS care are less transparent and harder to compare with these public services. Are they contracted by the city so that the costs to residents are controlled or are they free to bill patients including for charges over and above the negotiated rates that their insurance companies pay? What are the outcomes for those privatized services? Can they match the outcomes that we get today? These are important questions that we need to ask in addition to the basic question of cost to the city.
I agree with Bill that we just don’t have all of the metrics that we need to compare these options fully.
Peter- just curious – re you a firefighter? are you sure of your info on MedicOne and Vancouver AMR service? The AMR Vancouver contract says they supply contract ALS paramedic and BLS emt service not just hospital transport – and their cost per medical response is less than $1,300 per call, vs. Edmonds current cost of $1,973 per 911 call! Dedicated paramedics make more economic and quicker response sense than cross -trained firefighters when it comes to responding to 85% of the 911 emergency medical calls. Dedicated paramedics have lower wages and they work twice as many on-task hours before taking UHU stress time-outs compared to firefighters, or firefighter/paramedics. I have AI generated data showing dedicated paramedics earn 14% less than firefighters ($105K vs. $121K), and 23% less than combo firefighter/paramedics ($105K vs. $136K). Dedicated paramedics work twice as many hours as firefighters before they must take a stress/fatigue UHU timeout. The combination of lower wages and twice as much time-on-task debunks the RFA’s argument that paramedics are higher paid and that combo firefighter/paramedics are the most efficient staffing model! Did you ever wonder why RFA management hasn’t optimized their staffing and station assignments to reflect the 85% market demand for medical response and vast difference in available on-task time for paramedics? Could it be that they favor the firefighter union and maximizing firefighter wages?
Bill,
Yes I am, but I work outside of Snohomish county. The only dog I have in this fight is that my family and I live here. I am certain of my information in regard to Seattle Fire Medic One. Vancouver responds to all hazards with Firefighter/EMT’s or Paramedics and use AMR for transportation to hospital. Very common practice in many large city’s. I would not say it is the best model for patient outcomes. Private ambulance companies have vast turnover in staff and provide minimum levels of education and training. I appreciate your attention with our Fire and EMS response. I believe we all want the best coverage that is the most cost effective and managed by competent individuals. That’s said, I saw what “local control” did in 2016, that council voted to restructure how the fire department was staffed with the guidance of the Fitch group. Lowering the responding personnel from 12 to 9. This was a huge miss, which they did not correct till 2023.
Peter, the Vancouver model, as you describe it, sounds very similar to the Everett model which appears to be targeted at reducing the “wall time” issue of EMS crews waiting in line to drop off patients at hospital ERs.
Also, just a couple of small corrections; the reduction in staffing in 2017 was from 11 to 9 and that was reverted in 2022.
I believe it is from 12 to 9, prior to 2016 there were 5 personnel at station 17, 4 at station 16 and 3 at station 20 as a minimum. They reduced a dedicated medic unit and a Battalion Chief in 2016. In 2022 they added back an aid car to help with NUU.
Niall, is the benefit cost of the average home you are talking about in relation to a cost benefit model based on the value of the entire parcel or simply the house? The County separates house value and land value out on their statements and unless they are going to use just the specific house value to calculate the cost benefit charge, this would be a really unfair approach to many people in Edmonds. For example, they currently value our land at $1.2M and our house at about $280,000. This resulted in an overall tax hike this year for us of $733 and now we are probably facing another $1500 or so next year on the Edmonds portion alone IF both the annexation and the G.F. levy pass as the city Mayor and Council want them to, even though they are suddenly now claiming neutrality on annexation. Maybe this helps everyone understand why I’m so vexed with the city leadership for not trying a little harder to get a better deal than the RFA is claiming to be justified. There will be virtually no real restraints or looking for economies in future RFA spending if the city just totally bows out of managing this regardless of what they are telling us. We are essentially writing them a blank check forever.
Clinton, the fire benefit charge is not related to the assessed valuation at all. A 2,000 sq ft home with an assessed valuation of $750,000 and a 2,000 sq ft home with an assessed valuation of $2,000,000 would pay the same benefit charge unless there are senior discounts or sprinkler system discounts that come into play. Please see https://www.southsnofire.org/about-us/funding/benefit-charge for an overview of the benefit charge and, if you want to get really into the weeds, you can look at https://www.southsnofire.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3061/637783773812670000
Niall, thanks for explaining that to me. That makes me ask two more questions though. First, why hasn’t RFA gone to this system to the max already in the interest of more equitable treatment of their employers – the taxpayers; who are facing huge tax hikes to keep the RFA in business, and growing apparently? Second, if we annex into RFA what kind of pressure would the Edmonds taxpayers have to try to get them to change this model that’s better according to your research? The Mayor won’t care and doesn’t care because it’s headache gone to him. The Council voted for RFA 6 to 1 so they obviously don’t care for the most part. So are these Commissioners going to push for this better model? We don’t really even know who they are and why they are doing what they are doing but we’re just going to turn it all over to them anyway. If we are going to put these people in charge maybe we aught to ask them to send MEN and the Beacon a profile and employment history before we hand them the keys to the stations. I hear the firefighters are already out canvassing for yes, even though they, “don’t have a dog in this fight.” Sort of like the city is Neutral on it I guess.
Clinton, I can’t speak for the RFA but Fire Chief Eastman has made comments that they are looking at the fire benefit charge and the possibility of increasing it. Of course that’s not a commitment. One reason why they will probably never max this out is that the state law which limits property tax increases to 1% also applies to fire districts and the fire benefit charge provides a safety valve that allows them to raise additional revenue up to that 60% limit without a separate vote of the property tax increase can’t keep pace with rising costs. My analysis assumes that raising the benefit charge will reduce the tax levy but there is a school of thought that an RFA could abuse the benefit charge to simply increase their total budget without reducing the tax levy. To balance this, the voters have to approve the use of a fire benefit charge periodically. I think it’s every ten years. So, if the RFA were to crank up the fire benefit charge to boost revenue without reducing the tax levy to offset the benefit charge, voters could decide to reject an extension of their ability to use the benefit charge.
Niall, the RFAhas a ballot measure passed in Nov 2024 to renew the benefit charge for 10 years. So the property owners who have been annexed into the RFA won’t have a vote on this topic until 2034.
Thanks for the article, and the timely comments to our questions/comments.
You’re doing a great job – keep going!
Niall,
Great explanation of how the benefit charge as being a FEE, and not a tax, is not subject to the 1% yearly limit on property tax increases. This fee being applied in addition to the new RFA levy rates if we join. Also, being a fee, it is not subject to a public vote for any increases and is at the discretion of the Fire Commissioner’s to help balance their budget through this additional revenue source.
Another nuance of the benefit charge is that the revenue collected (up to the 60% limit) is a percentage of the RFA’s operating budget. Yes, as their operating expenses increase, so does the revenue collected through the benefit charge fee. To me, it seems to reduce the incentive to control costs if I know my revenue will automatically increase at some predetermined percentage over and above the 1% limit imposed on property taxes. I wouldn’t call that an “abuse”, just the reality of how the benefit charge is used in the budgeting process.
Great analysis. I can’t wait for your next article.
My high compliments and high regard to you too Niall. So far yours is the best and most honest discussion of the ramifications of this coming election. The more I wrap my head around this stuff, the more I think going with RFA will become a total financial disaster over time, much like contracting in the first place has. Others may see this totally the opposite and I respect their views on it too. I thought the round about at five corners was a boondoggle of the Earling Administration and it turned out to be one of that administrations best accomplishments I think. It’s always okay to be wrong about something, but never okay to say you always get things right, because no one ever does or has.
Just to correct, the Vancouver ems model for AMR is not just for hospital BLS transport. AMR is responsible for both ALS and BLS primary response. AMR bills the patients at predetermined max rates of around $1,300 in their contract with the city. AMR is required to meet response times – and if they fail they are required to pay penalties to the City. The City pays nothing to AMR the first year of the contract, then pays a flat $500K per year admin fee in years 2, 3, 4, 5. I have .pdf files of the AMR contract and 5 years of Vancouver annual reports if anyone wants to see them. I also have the Fitch report. With all that’s going on, I haven’t had time to do an analysis – but I hope to get through them this coming week. Vancouver fire/ems service covers 190,000 residents, and they contract with unincorporated Clark County in addition to serving Vancouver residents. It’s worthwhile digging deep into the Vancouver financial and operating data (and customer satisfaction) to see how they compare to South County/RFA. How does their 0.8 firefighters per 1,000 residents ; cost per 911 call; annual cost per resident; battalion commanders per fire station compare to SCF/RFA post annexation cost of $7M/yr per fire station; $400/yr per resident; over $3,000 per 911 call?