In what might be called RFA 101, the Edmonds Civic Roundtable on Monday evening held the first of what promises to be a busy season of community discussions and forums aimed at arming citizens with factual information prior to the April 22 special election when the Regional Fire Authority annexation issue will be put to the voters.
“The mission of the ECR is to empower our neighbors with factual information,” said ECR president Gil Morgan as he welcomed the standing-room-only crowd of more than 100 attendees who packed the upstairs room of the Edmonds Waterfront Center.
“We’re not telling you how to vote,” he continued. “We simply want to get the facts out in a civil discussion. In the recent election some of us in this room voted Republican and some voted Democrat, right? We all have our viewpoints but tonight we’re all here in the same room because we love Edmonds, and we want good things to happen in our community.”
Morgan acknowledged the presence of several city and fire officials, including Edmonds City Councilmembers Chen, Tibbott and Olson, RFA Fire Chief Bob Eastman, and several members of the recently appointed groups tasked with writing the pro and con statements for the upcoming voters guide.
“Tonight we have three speakers,” explained Pat Moriarty, ECR program chair. “All of tonight’s presenters are community members, and all have assured me they have not decided how they will vote on the RFA annexation.”
The speakers included the following:
- Larry Fuell, who provided historic background of how the City of Edmonds got here and why voters are facing this decision. Fuell has lived in Edmonds since 2003. Career highlights include teaching and directing the Global Affairs Center at Shoreline Community College and serving as an agricultural affairs officer at U.S. embassies in Guatemala, China and Peru.
- Nicole Gaba, who presented the implications of a yes vote, focusing on the advantages and benefits of being part of the RFA. Gaba is an Edmonds resident who has worked in real estate for more than 10 years. Currently an agent with Windermere and Corey Whitaker homes, she is a real estate investor and residential property manager. She also volunteers and plays with the Edmonds Petanque club.
- Matt Cox, who explored the implications of a no vote and the choices/decisions this would entail for the city. Cox is a lifelong resident of the Pacific Northwest, having lived in Seattle, Bellingham, Everett and now Edmonds. He is a relationship manager for a large financial institution and devotes much of his free time volunteering in the Edmonds community, serving on the Edmonds Center for the Arts Board and the Edmonds Economic Development Commission.
Each presenter provided their own set of PowerPoint slides. These — along with introductory remarks — have been combined into a single document available here. In addition, their presentations were recorded on video by My Edmonds News and are viewable at this link.
Larry Fuell began his presentation with a brief history of emergency services in Edmonds, starting from establishment of the first fire department in 1904 and tracing the transition from Edmonds having its own fire department to the 2010 decision to contract with the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Authority (then called Fire District 1).
He reviewed the terms of that contract, including the transfer of personnel and fire stations, and the financial aspects of the agreement – which include annual adjustments based on cost of service – tracing the changes in contract costs each year since inception as shown in the following table:
Fuell concluded by referencing the Fitch report prepared by Fitch and Associates, which was hired by the Edmonds City Council to analyze the different fire service options. These included annexation to the RFA, contracting for fire and EMS services with another entity, and re-starting the city-run Edmonds Fire Department. He noted that the Fitch report concluded that annexation into the RFA was the most economical choice for Edmonds.
Next up was Nicole Gaba, who focused on the impact of a yes vote on annexation.
She began by explaining the services Edmonds would receive if annexation passes, emphasizing that status quo will remain unchanged until the end of 2025. She went on to enumerate the range of additional RFA services, such as mutual aid with other districts, economies of scale and access to trained volunteers and disaster response services that would add depth and breadth to the level of service and protection Edmonds would receive under annexation.
She also touched on financial impacts of a yes vote on the city and taxpayers, highlighting the city’s fiscal crisis and the increased tax burden that annexation would impose on residents and businesses. She concluded with a hypothetical example of the tax increase for an average home, concluding that the owner of an average Edmonds home valued at $895,700 would pay an additional $866.92 under the RFA.
Matt Cox then took the podium to explore the implications and uncertainties – of which there are many — of a no vote on annexation.
He began by outlining the known facts, including that whether the vote is yes or no, the current fire and EMS services will continue through 2025. But beyond 2025 he described things as becoming uncertain, since at this time there is no set plan for services after Jan. 1, 2026. He did note that “there is a clause in that contract that states that it may be renewed for additional one-year term after 2026 but that is subject to negotiations by mutual agreement of the parties.”
He stressed that regardless of how residents vote, they will pay more, noting that “the latest numbers being discussed are that the contract cost would go from $12.1 million in 2025 to $21 million in 2026, a significant increase.” With a no vote, the city would have to pay for this, leaving a significant shortfall (estimated at 40% of the $21 million figure).
Beyond 2026, things get murkier. Cox stressed that because there is no commitment to receive services from the RFA through a contract after 2026, the city would be left to explore options that might include creating a partnership with someone else (for example, Shoreline); join with other jurisdictions to create a separate RFA or create Edmonds’ own fire department. Cox went on to explore the challenges, uncertainties and potential benefits of each of these options.
He summarized as follows:
- If annexation fails, Edmonds will continue to receive the same level of service the city has been getting through the end of 2026.
- The cost of that service will go up significantly in 2026 and will have to be borne by the taxpayers of Edmonds.
- Beyond 2026 there is uncertainty.
- Whether this uncertainty is an opportunity or a threat is for each voter to decide as an individual.
The event then broke up into table discussions, where individuals could ask questions of each other and engage in detailed discussions on RFA history, the impact of a yes vote, and the implications of a no vote. The presenters and officials circulated from table to table and joined in the discussions.
The meeting concluded with reminders from Gil Morgan and Pat Moriarty that there are more sessions to come sponsored by the ECR and other community organizations, and to check the ECR website regularly for links to Monday evening’s presentation materials and other resources as voters approach the April 22 election.
I attended my first ECR. Appreciate the folks who put this together.
One comment I heard in favor of joining the RFA, ‘all costs are going up’. – Yes but not by 100% in a year.
It takes leadership to control costs, to say No to special interest groups and explore options.
A leadership gap, uncontrolled costs are reasons why we now have a controversial figure as our President.
This is great news reporting Larry and thank you.
I am voting no for a variety of reasons that can be found at Edmondscandobetter.org with the main two issues being 1) losing local control of everything a taxpayer needs and 2) exorbitant costs as Edmonds has high property values.
The City will not lose Fire/EMS if you vote no. So, vote no in April. Make the City to do their job on managing the budget and finding the most beneficial and equitable fire/ems service the Edmonds taxpayers need as so many other options available.
Thank you Diane! I’m a renter but no matter – having you say we won’t lose fire services if we vote no because of exorbitant costs helps me make a decision on this one. There have been so many figures & tables & charts that I simply don’t have the time or bandwidth at the moment to put on an accounting hat of some sort & figure out the best solution. Much appreciated. I’d very much like to see the City do better than a $15 million shortfall due to prior decisions.
I would like to share information about my recent and very positive experience with the South County Regional Firee Authority (RFA). A couple of days ago, I got stuck between floors in a defective elevator. A neighbor quickly recognized my predicament and called 911, which resulted in a referral to the RFA. The RFA response was quick, professionally competent, and thorough. They quickly located my position, disconnected the power to the elevator, and opened the door, helping me to escape my frosty little prison. The RFA staff were friendly, caring, and very efficient. I personally will be happy to pay a bit more to retain their services, as our continuing public safety is a high priority for me.
I would also like to thank our elected officials (city council members and mayor) who have devoted their time and intelligence to studying the issues surrounding annexation and other alternatives. We may not all agree with their conclusions (although I usually do), but I believe their opinions are entitled to significant weight. They have our best interests at heart.
It is pretty obvious that the City and State have no clue how to manage money. Am I correct that the State is involved in setting RFA pricing? Our State, which is in the red? I agree with many that the quality of their services is very good. No dispute there, BUT I also have had personal experiences demonstrating that they *over-deliver* (too many employees & vehicles dispatched, and I am aware that they are spending money on programs that are not directly related to fire and ems delivery). I do not believe these services need to cost as much as projected and that they can find ways to be more cost effective. Until I see at least some evidence of effective cost control, I am voting no. City government & contracted services cannot just continually ask taxpayers to pay more.
Chris, I don’t know where you got the notion that the State of Wash has a role in setting RFA pricing (which I assume you to mean the RFA’s tax levy rate). They don’t. The State created RFA’s in a specific bill passed by the legislature. That bill includes a cap on the size of the annual increase in the taxes an RFA charges the property owners. (This cap-the-increase policy is similar to what Cities are subject to in the taxes they levy.). The State also regulates certain fire/EMS practices, and training requirements.
In response to Mr. Griggs comment, I’ve had two close personal experiences with the SCRFA. One experience was rather negative and the other was quite positive being my own trip to the ER at Swedish Stevens Hospital. The negative experience was a direct result of a SCRFA employee not seeing himself as being employed by the City and needing to help solve a critical city problem. My negative experience makes me agree with Diane Buckshnis in her comment suggesting it might be a really bad idea to give up local control of a public service that is this critical. As to Diane’s second point; our city will be financially insolvent in fairly short order and this decision deserves a better look at an alternative solution for that reason alone. Our current Mayor ran on the assertion that he is a great manager and will, “stop the crazy.” It seems to me like the cost of fire/ems service going up almost double with no improvement in service and no real specific documentation of the reasons for the increase is pretty “crazy” and something to be questioned. And how is hiring a PR firm to promote annexation an example of “great management?” It looks to me more like an example of wasting money we don’t have to waste.
I would be very careful taking the word of a former elected official who helped place the City of Edmonds into the current, precarious position. The city needs to stay with the South County District if for no other reason than they have no viable alternative. Sure, go ahead an vote ‘NO’ for annexation and then scramble for whatever scraps are available elsewhere. Hint, federal SAFER/FEMA Grants will not be forthcoming and while quaint and very Norman Rockwellish, a VFD model won’t function properly for the needs of the community because volunteers can’t handle a fulltime other job and attend to family as well as training needs. Go ahead and vote ‘NO’ and watch individual property insurance rise dramtically more than it others would.
What is making the cost appear to ‘double’ is the City decision to not roll the $6MM – $7MM originally slated for Fire Protection from Property Taxes over to South County. Most Cities, when they annex into a Fire District, or disband their Police Department in favor of the County Sheriff taking over the jurisdiction, send the money formerly used from property taxes to the new Agency taking over. Edmonds City officials are placing stoppers in the budgetary dam with this money to save other functions. All at city property owners’ expense.
I’m glad someone gets it. The fantasy land some people live where they vote no and somehow city council finds a stash of savings is just that, a fantasy. Insurance companies will hike up our rates and there isn’t going to be any votes on that. Many other people will be outright dropped permanently. And if you think that the rates will go down once Edmonds inevitably joins the RFA then you haven’t paid attention to the executives that love their profits.
Hi Kurt, we’re way to educated on this topic to fall for the property insurance scare. Very few structural fires in Edmonds. Fitch report shows only 8% of calls are fire, and most of those are non-structural (vehicle, garbage, kitchen, etc).
Time Magazine highlights inefficiencies in US Fire services. While politicians build up the fire ranks in the cities, the lack of available fire personnel required to fight wildfires grows. Unfortunately as the article points out, the federal government does not pay a competitive salary. We should be advocating for better compensation for fire fighters are the federal level.
“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.”
“The numbers underscore a problem that is coming into clearer view with every wildfire season, as infernos rampage across the western U.S.: the country’s firefighting system is woefully outdated. As the federal government faces huge obstacles filling 10,000 federal firefighter positions, small cities and towns are dotted with fire stations overstuffed with well-trained full-time personnel who aren’t putting out a lot of fires, because there aren’t many.”
https://time.com/6097414/wildfires-firefighters-spending/
Nick, I’d politely suggest that you are conflating Structural firefighting issues with Wildfire firefighting. They are two completely different functions and while they both involve fire, the similarities are far and few between. For instance, Wildland firefighting doesn’t focus on extinguishing fires ala Strucfural. Wildland firefighters contain a fire by building reinforced lines around the fire and then allow it to burn itself out. Yes, structural fire calls are barely 25% of the calls most professional structural fire/EMT/Paramedics go to. But they are available and trained for both pre-hospital and MVA, fires, hazmat response, etc. We pay for stations to be staffed 24/7 on a 48/96 basis (48 hours on; 96 hours off) with usually 3-4 total personnel per station, per shift. It certainly isn’t staffing like the TV show Chicago Fire would have folks believe. The Insurance Services Office provides their rating for all structural departments in the U.S. on a sliding 1-10 scale. in Washington, the actual survey is usually completed by WA Surveying and Rating Bureau. The lower the number, the better rating that translates to each property owner’s indicidual property insurance rates. South County currently has a rating of ‘3- and that includes Edmonds. Go out on your own, or join with another small city and it would be hard pressed to duplicte the apparatus, personnel, overhead, training, administative support
Just for the sake of the discussion, I’ve got 45 years of closely working with both Structural Fire/EMS and Wildland Fire at the local, state, regional and national level. Edmonds started on a path back in 2010 leading them to this juncture today. It was a wise move and recognized that smaller departments can no longer stand on their own and provide all the required services efficiently and effectively in a cost acceptable manner. RFA’s are becoming more and more the norm. Examples might be Tualitin Valley Fire & Rescue or Clackamas Fire down in Oregon.
It is unfortunate that the elected and appointed officials that spent Edmonds into the red have now also made the decision to not forward to RFA the amount of property taxes currently earmarked for Fire/EMS services. That should be the focus of discussions, not whether or not South County Fire is the best available choice.
Thanks for those details Kurt. I was using the article to tamper fears of insurance spikes, it’s inline with the Fitch fire metrics. And to highlight an imbalance in city vs federal wildfire staffing, the need for more spend at the federal level to attract fire talent & possibly less spend at the city level.
To be clear, I believe SCF does a great job serving the community, it’s their management & Edmonds leadership I take issue with.
If anything as referenced in Fitch 2016 report, maybe we’re overserved by SCF. I prefer to continue on a contract with SCF, or explore other options at a table with fire fighters / paramedics & community involvement.
-Fitch 2016 Report
“the potential for greater efficiencies and potential cost savings” in three alternative scenarios. These alternatives would “maintain or improve fire and emergency medical service levels, yet redeploy resources in ways that would also reduce costs, ranging from $500,000 to $1,500,000 in annual savings,”
https://myedmondsnews.com/2016/04/report-edmonds-fire-ems-services-can-improve-performance-reduce-costs/
Appreciate your 45 years of service!
Looks like shoreline is joining their RFA after yesterday’s vote. good choice. A far wiser choice which further isolates Edmonds and reduces any leverage with SCF as shoreline voters made it clear they are not interested joining with Edmonds in bargaining with SCF. There is now literally no scenario where Edmonds doesn’t join the RFA and remains financially solvent. Why city council is putting this to a vote is ridiculous as they already know the can’t pay what SCF wants for another contract. That’s all folks!
Hi Paul, interesting points. The data provided from many sources: several presentations by the mayor, reports to the council from the Blue Ribbon Panel, better and faster and complete monthly reports that use to be just to a council finance committee and now go to council as a whole all provide more insight of the total city financial issues. A careful review of all these data points show that even if we join SCF the city does not show a plan to “remain financially solvent”
The planned fall levy currently shows $6m. In the interest of full transparency, we should review the current forecast for future years to see if joining SCF and the Fall Levy provides enough tax revenues to pay by the loans we are planning and rebuilding the reserves we have used.
Without passage of annexation now and without a very large property tax levy passing in the Fall, Edmonds is insolvent anyway, so what has that got to do with anything you claim Paul? The self proclaimed management whizzes that run this town just spent $64K on a consultant to sell your precious RFA plan to us poor peons who’s best interests they claim to be representing. That’s money that shouldn’t have been spent at all, but at least they could have spent it on an honest study to look at Edmonds taking back it’s own F.D. with privately contracted EMS. It’s going to cost a small fortune to run either way, so I’d just as soon people I actually can vote out of office run it.
On top of that this Kurt Chapman guy, whoever he represents or as an ax to grind for, warns us not to trust probably the most financially competent and least money wasting City Council Person we’ve ever had. She actually fought most of the dumb stuff and programs the others on the Councils she served with passed with no concept of whether or not they could be sustained long term. I’m voting NO for RFA and YES for anything local control. The city being broke has nothing to do with this. It’s broke either way.
One thing this forum made quit clear is that annexation will make no difference in the level of protection delivered by th RFA. Edmonds property and citizens will be equally well protected, whether we annex to the RFA or not. The only differences are in costs and how the taxes are paid.
I do not have a firm position on “Yes” or ‘No” on RFA merits and vote. I do have a strong position on the City, Mayor and Council taking the 6-7 million dollars already earmarked for fire services to make up for the incompetent, unchecked, drunken sailor spending that happened during the previous administration.
While the current Mayor inherited this problem he promised to “stop the crazy” and for me has been a disappointment so far. This is not a PR or communication problem its a “roll up your sleeves, dig into the Pre Covid boondoggle spending levels and cut back to sustainable levels and bring a realistic budget based on sustainable revenue levels and make the Council vote. If the Council does not do its job that not on you Mr. Mayor but if you just powerpoint and massage the numbers like this is just a presentation problem then its on you. These are difficult decisions when cuts are needed ( people and programs) and certainly no fun but families and businesses make those decisions everyday and don’t have the option to just reallocate funds for their previous mistakes.
Unless and until the 6-7 million is allocated as intended to whatever Fire services option is available, I’m a firm NO vote. If I’m mistaken about the 6-7 million dollars someone please educate me.
Semantics matter. The current Mayor did not “inherit” this problem. (No one died and made him birthright king or anything). It would be much more honest and accurate to say he and the current Council “inherited” this solution as this was Nelson’s and the prior Council’s solution to the fire service problem before Rosen arrived. Rosen collected thousands of dollars more than his opponents and ran for office proclaiming that he would, “stop the crazy,” and, “right the ship.” He ran with the backing and encouragement of past mayors and public officials as being the “right” person for the job. He got himself elected and now he has his shot at making good on his promises, or at least proving the truth of the abilities he claimed to have going in. I’d kindly have to say, he sure isn’t there yet. This fire issue was a golden opportunity to prove he is a good leader by presenting at least one other viable alternative and doing a hard nosed negotiation with SCF. Vote NO and give him another opportunity to perform as he claimed he would. Hopefully he hasn’t and won’t give up on himself. We (and He) can do better!
I am very troubled about the city of Edmonds having local control of our Fire and EMS system. It was obvious in 2010 they were over their head, and again in 2016. When we joined Fire District 1 in 2010 we used the former Edmonds staffing model of (1 Dedicated ALS 2 Firefighter/ Paramedic Medic Unit, 2 Cross staffed Engine and BLS Aid Cars with 3 firefighter/EMT’s, and one Ladder Company cross staffed with an aid car with 3, as well as a Battalion Chief, 24/7 365 days a year). In 2016 the City was met with raising cost from the fire district, chose to re-organize with direction from the Fitch group. Thus reducing local staffing by 3 responders- even with a rise in call volume. Since then the city has had to add back two responders and an aid car. Since 2006 the city has gone backwards in amount of responding personnel in Edmonds. I pay attention to these numbers due to my father having a cardiac arrest in 1997 in Edmonds, with a negative outcome. We need a board of tax payers who understand, and spend time making crafted decisions with our Fire/EMS officials. That is not our city council and city staff. An added $2.70 a day for the RFA, leads to faster hands on chest and water on fire.