Edmonds residents are invited to attend five town hall meetings, titled “Annexation Answers: What the RFA Vote Means to You”, to learn about the upcoming ballot measure for annexation to the Regional Fire Authority. Leadership from the City of Edmonds and South County Fire will present information and answer questions during these meetings. All meetings will be held at the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave. N.
– Thursday, Feb. 27 at 6:30 p.m.
– Wednesday, March 5 at 6:30 p.m.
– Thursday, March 27 at 6:30 p.m.
– Saturday, April 5 time and location to be announced
– Thursday, April 10 at 6:30p.m.
One of the town halls in March will be hybrid and available via Zoom, and the date will be announced.
The City of Edmonds is holding a special election April 22 and is asking voters to consider annexation into the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority. The Edmonds City Council proposed annexation and approved this special election by resolution on Jan. 7.
Since 2009, Edmonds no longer operates its own fire department. Edmonds has contracted with South County Fire for fire and emergency medical services since 2010. That contract ends at the end of 2025. If annexation is approved by voters, Edmonds property owners would pay South County Fire directly for these services.
For further information about the ballot measure, visit edmondswa.gov/RFA For more information, email RFAinfo@edmondswa.gov
These meetings are a great opportunity for residents to learn the true facts about RFA annexation and ask penetrating questions – like why did Council spend $64,000 of taxpayer money to hire a PR firm to ‘sell’ annexation and ‘spin’ the facts to advocate for a ‘yes’ vote on annexation? This violates State law RCW 42.17A.555 which requires politicians to remain neutral on City-endorsed ballot measures and to provide equal opportunity for the ‘pro’ and ‘con’ taxpayers to make their points. The PR firm has posted ‘pro’ narratives and featured the City logo next to the RFA logo in joint press release and the City website homepage. How is this ‘neutral’ positioning? In City-sponsored public meetings, if the Mayor, Council, PR firm, and RFA take 40 minutes to present – by law they are required to allot 40 minutes for the opposition to speak. Please attend these meetings, bring your questions, and demand equal time.
-Visit https://edmondscandobetter.org to cut through the City’s PR spin and misleading information.
-Join with the over 125 residents who have signed a Petition to oppose annexation: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
-Send Public Comments to the Council to emphasize your concerns and ask them why they spent $64,000 on PR, when they could have used that money for a 1st class research study on fire/ems alternatives? https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/city_council/online_public_comment
-Please Vote No! on April 22nd.
The Mayor and Council truly believe this is the best course of action, as do many other residents of Edmonds. if they do, of course they should promote the wisdom of their decisions and ask for strong public support. I see nothing unreasonable about this. In fact, these meeting themselves are designed to answer the questions several Council critics have raised continuously since the decisions were made. Basically, these arguments are that money spent for consultants is a waste, the wrong consultant was chosen, many other better alternatives were not considered, and not enough programs and people were cut. Consequently, as the critics allege, taxes must be raised when they should not have to be raised. I am sure the Mayor and Council will spend as much time as Edmonds residents have energy to listen and ask questions. Regardless, I do not expect the Council critics to be satisfied by any of the explanations offered in support of the decisions that have been made. They simply do not want to pay more taxes. Hopefully, other residents will be convinced that their elected representatives have acted in the best interests of the Edmonds community and will vote to support both the annexation and levy lift in April. I plan to myself.
Gilbert I find this interesting I kind of agree if our leaders think this is the best policy they should be able to promote it. As a people we generally try to look after our own best self interest that includes our family and community. Our city government seems to be looking after its family but the problem is the people that employ them the community the people they claim to have their best interests at heart especially the bottom 50% you know the ones struggling are the ones that are going to be hurt most by this policy decision. So is this action really in the best interest of the community? I think not, sometimes even a family needs to take one for the team which would be the community they claim to care so much about.
It is not a matter of what is reasonable or unreasonable.
State law does not allow elected officials to promote the wisdom of their decisions and ask for strong public support, unless elected officials do so on their own time, using their own resources. Elected officials cannot use any public resources to campaign/advocate. This includes any agency equipment (phone, email), vehicles or facilities.
Related training was provided during last week’s council meeting.
If this is educational – they probably should provide facts on both sides of the debate during these town halls while providing no promotion on either side of the debate.
All I have to say on this issue is that if our city truly wants all citizens to know the facts and view the pro and con teams etc they would zoom more that one of the meetings. For many reasons some are not able to show up in person. The zoom allows for all to view, and the TV station is easy to access too. Why is this that only one on March 27th is zoomable? Is it expensive to zoom? I don’t know but I am not thrilled with this. This happened a lot too when our city was discussing plans for building etc. Stop it. Thank You.
Voting Yes on the annexation into the SSCFR RFA, provides our Citizens with the continued Fire/EMS, Rescue and Fire Prevention service we enjoy now and into the future. Since 2010 the City has received these services from Snohomish County Fire District One/ SSCFR. The cost for the service has been real, but not equal to what the Citizens of South County and other cities have been asked to pay since the forming of the RFA. We are being asked to pay for our share of the service which we enjoy and have been provided. In annexing into the RFA, we will be billed directly by the RFA, and not the City of Edmonds.
Don’t let the issue of the City continuing to tax us for fire service, confuse you as to the reasons for the RFA. If you pass the annexation, after 2025, all costs for Fire/EMS, Rescue and Fire Prevention and Public Education services will be paid directly to the RFA. The City of Edmonds will not tax us for fire service.
The emergency services that the Citizens of Edmonds receive now are not attainable through other avenues, such as contracting to other neighboring fire departments, or reforming another Edmonds Fire Department. The current format and structure for Fire/ EMS and Rescue service is more affordable and feasible than any other options.
Pat, let’s please stop repeating the false narrative about us not paying our fair share for the services we contract for. The city’s contract with South County RFA is a cost-plus contract. We pay full, union negotiated wage and benefits for the number of first responders who staff our fire stations under our contract. Plus, we pay for overhead and equipment expenses. Our contract further stipulates that as wages change, our contract price does as well. In addition, if any state mandates affect our contract, we bear our burden of those costs. So, tell me how we’re not paying our share for the services we’ve contracted for?
If we vote yes, our property taxes paid for city services and fire/EMS services under the RFA will go up by about 95%! Voting NO will provide us time to reduce that increase. While we explore options, we will still receive the same level of service from the same first responders as we currently enjoy under an extended contract.
Why didn’t the City hold these Town Hall Meetings BEFORE putting annexation on the ballot?
All of the taxpayer concerns should have been addressed in public forums, BEFORE the Ballot measure, so that all the facts, fiction, and alternatives could be thoroughly addressed. Public Safety, Increased Taxes, and the City’s Budget Crisis are HUGE issues for taxpayers that should have been addressed in open, question and answer, public meetings.
Recall the City Council process that resulted in the decision to put annexation on the ballot was under a City process that only allows the public to make comments (within 3 minutes) and has NO PROVISION for the public to ask questions and get answers to their questions.
My reading of all the comments in My Edmonds News sure suggests that ‘informed’ public concerns were IGNORED during the Council’s public comment sessions. This is evidenced by Council rarely addressing what they heard from the public during ther meeting.
Its now too late to resolve the issues many citizens wanted addressed before agreeing to annexation, so what is the purpose of these town hall meetings other than to try and brainwash the public to believe that this annexation issue and affiliated resolution of the budget crisis were well thought out.
Rather than waste my time going to these “after-the-fact” public meetings, I’m just going to vote NO!
You raise an excellent point Joe~ it’s way late for the City to begin conversations with citizens on this expensive and controversial proposal. But some of us did try. Last year I advised Council President Vivian Olson that the City needed to hold Town Hall forums to hear from Edmonds citizens, but they never happened.
On Tuesday we learned that last summer the City hired Liz Loomis, a political communications consultant, to advise the City on getting RFA annexation approved by voters. Perhaps she advised delaying public forums until five weeks before citizens start voting.
I’ve been to a handful of town halls in this city the past couple of years, even the unsanctioned ones, and I noticed that a lot of the same people show up to them, a lot of the same people speak at them, and a lot of the same people get press from them. They still have their place and the city should incorporate them as part of a variety of different public engagement methods, but on a critical issue such as this, if YOU were a councilmember representing ALL of its 42,600+ constituents, would you leave it up to a couple town halls where the same 100 people show up, or would you put it on a ballot measure and cast a net to reach the 31,700 registered Edmonds voters, or both?
I understand that this your personal opinion on citizen town halls. I wonder if any of the elected officials on the Council or the mayor also share a similar view. It would be beneficial them to respond here, so the community can have a record of how they regard input. I challenge them to do so.
Further, Jeremy, a member of the city’s planning board, I am wondering if it’s also your opinion that local citizens should be disregarded when they try to add input at public meetings (because it’s the same old folks speaking up anyway) before making a decision or recommendation to the city. To say the least, appears you have an interesting perspective.
Brian, my previous post is an observation and a comparison to the amount of reach a town hall does versus a ballot measure. If you would like my opinion in the 225 words or less about public input, it would be that in my opinion legislating fairly requires a comprehensive understanding of how policies impact different communities and individuals. When lawmakers consider a variety of opinions (more than the same 100 people), they can identify potential gaps, unintended consequences, and areas for improvement. This approach leads to more balanced, inclusive, and effective legislation that serves the broader public rather than just a select group. Without diverse input, laws risk being one-sided or failing to address the real needs of the greater people (all of Edmonds) that they affect.
Would you prefer our council legislates off the demands of a small percentage of its people, or a larger one? I’d prefer the larger one. The opinion of Brian Drechsler, who may have the time and be well attuned to current city politics is just as important as the single mother that works two jobs in Lake Ballinger neighborhood that can’t make the 6:00 pm town hall because she is working and is just trying to get by. She, just like you, is also a citizen of Edmonds and has a voice.
Jeremy, you underestimate these in-person Town Hall events. Most reach a far larger audience via reporting in our local media. Plus reposting on social media, and all the word-of-mouth conversation that flows with family and friends.
I concede such events are imperfect ways to inform citizens, get their feedback, and answer their questions, all in real time. But nobody has come up with a practical alternative that works better. Until better alternatives come along, I suggest we improve the tools we have.
Let’s be live-streaming the Town Halls so people can follow on line and converse with participants directly. This would help your single mom who can’t get there to participate in person. You do this already at Planning Board. The event can be video recorded and posted on Youtube.
The purpose of these Town Halls now is to educate voters about annexing Edmonds to the Regional Fire Authority, the issue we’re voting on in April. This is a hugely complex topic that most voters know very little about. Let’s be working to get accurate information out to Edmonds voters, on all sides of the matter, and let their questions be asked and answered truthfully.
I hope we can agree that educated and knowledgeable voters will make better informed decisions, wiser decisions, when they vote in April.
Roger, nowhere am I saying get rid of town halls. I indicated they have their place and the city should be incorporating them as part of a variety of different engagement methods. My point to all of this is in response to Mr. Scordino regarding whether they should have taken place before placing them on the ballot. Whether before or after, people will get the chance to participate.
Engaging the community early in the process has shown to lead to better-informed decisions, increase public trust, and improve the chances of the measure’s success.
However, town halls after placing something on the ballot can also be beneficial for voter education, ensuring people understand what they are voting on. A combination of both—one before for input and one after for clarification—would be the most transparent approach.
At the end of the day it’s a ballot measure and all registered voters, whether you participated in town halls or not will get the opportunity to have a say in it. If you don’t support it, vote no. If you do support it, vote yes. I can’t think of a more simple, democratic process than that.
This debate sounds quite like all the other debates we have in the country today. Half the people want one thing and the other half either opposes it, or has a completely different approach. There has already been much discussion of the coming proposals that will be voted on in April. I have seen many town halls dissolve into shouting matches because of the different opinions people have about most anything that is being discussed. The purpose of the elected Mayor and Council is to study issues, gather facts, listen to public opinion, synthesize the information, and then to decide on a course of action. If they misconstrue the will of the people, the proposals will be voted down, and that is the risk of putting them to a vote. I don’t believe the Council would suggest these alternatives if they knew failure was the most likely alternative. The Council’s affirmative vote is in itself a recommendation and should not be construed as grossly promotional or patently illegal. If these measure should fail, I am quite sure that the alternatives will be much more unpleasant than most critics assume.
I don’t know that the alternatives are going to be much more unpleasant to me. It certainly will be to those that support the current size and scope of city government. I can because of my position only do the best for myself. And my family which this annexation doesn’t further benefit. Most people don’t pay attention can’t be bothered don’t have time or interest they just live with the results. So I ask just who in Edmonds will be negatively impacted by a no vote. I got it government will be the most impacted. And that might not be such a bad thing.
Jeremy – you totally missed my point about citizen INPUT and TRANSPARENCY on City decisions that directly impact all taxpayers.
The RFA Annexation issue is totally intertwined with the City’s HUGE Budget Deficit and it is a travesty that the City chose to segregate out BUDGET PRIORITY for Fire and EMT services for a ballot measure without holding Town Hall meetings to get taxpayer input on alternative approaches for fixing the budget which obviously would have included how to deal with the increased cost of fire service (regardless of whether citizens pay directly to the RFA via Annexation or alternatively continue to pay through property taxes to the City for contracted services or otherwise within the context of Taxpayer PRIORITIES for the budget).
Thus, having “after-the-fact” Town Hall Meetings will only serve to brainwash ‘uninformed’ citizens that the City has no choice but to Annex (and that is total B.S.!).
I know you and others will say, we are where we are with this on the ballot, so go to the ‘biased’ City sponsored Town Hall Meetings to hear a one-sided argument in favor of the Ballot Measure.
But, given where we are, a better approach would be to schedule an open public debate between the pros and cons on this Ballot Measure so truth of the matter is exposed to the uninformed public.
Joe, “me and others will say”? Myself as well as any voter, including you, is responsible for informing themselves of the issues and facts behind the issues. You would have to have your head buried in the sand the past year to not know the facts and ramifications around fire service options for the city. This exchange and your assumptions towards people’s choice of supporting one way over another is exactly why more people are not engaging in politics today and is why you have the same people at these events. Who wants to participate in a town hall where a Joe Scordino takes over the mic and assumes the people of Edmonds are being brainwashed towards a certain bias? Doesn’t sound very civic nor productive to me. Does it to you?
Thanks, Jeremy. It’s also a disincentive to participate in public meetings or otherwise engage publicly in discussions of local politics when the blowback is fast and furious. I have never lived anywhere else where after submitting written public comment to a council meeting (included in the packet) I received a phone call telling me to shut up or leave Edmonds. From one of the “old guard” long time residents no less. Disappointing.
Please zoom them Jeremy you didn’t respond with an answer. Many or most are not able to attend for a multitude of reasons. Yes, many in Edmonds have the luxury of burying their heads in the sand. Ignorance is bliss is alive and well here. The RFA is I agree with you a vote. How many will vote? I bet not that many. I hope they do but I doubt it. It depends on how worried they are about the added tax burdens. We have saved and been very responsible so to stay here in Edmonds means having money to do so. The as usual middle class all over our country are the ones who scrimp to have healthy meals for themselves and children. They are the ones that will be displaced due to over taxation and the renters who are many I suspect will suffer from rent increases of not being able to afford to renew a lease etc. Jeeze Just zoom them all I don’t think questions are that important and maybe harder to incorporate? At least an attempt will be made to inform all citizens of something that directly affects their quality of life and pocketbook. Bring the PROS and CONS so we can hear them and have a record to refer back to. Ok Have a nice day. I like U.
Deb, you’re the best. I’m glad you’re a part of this great Edmonds community :).
Wow. Thank you, Jeremy. That means a lot to me. It truly does. I hope to meet you someday, somewhere. I love to discuss building styles and ideas that could make everyone happy. My dad used to have restaurants in the cities where he did jobs that he and his crews went to every morning and the restaurants happy for the business let him draw with his carpenters’ pencils on these cloth tablecloths. At his house when I visited, he always had his paper and even napkins and his pencils to show me ideas. I miss him a lot he died 12 years ago and not a day goes by that I don’t smile and think of him and what a creative man he was. I was building toy boats and staining wood for him when I was 11 years old. I had a vice grip and nails and a hammer and of course a ruler and tape measure and was taught measure twice cut once ha. XO Deb.
It appears this is a new post that was here before. I assume nothing has changed and only one of these meetings will be available on Zoom. So, this is what I say about it today on the 27th of Feb. If the city will not zoom these for all citizens of Edmonds, I am a NO vote. As I said before it’s the info I am after, and I don’t need to comment I just need the info. I want to see the interaction at these community discussions. So, a big fat NO from me. This isn’t transparency. Transparency means all citizens have a chance to view. I don’t know who makes these decisions but if it is Mayor Rosen then Mayor, you promised transparency I believed you and I fought for you and I voted for you too. I am not angry with you, but I need to trust my Mayor. It appeared that most here R and D didn’t trust Nelson anymore, so you won by a pretty big margin as I recall. This paper is great but not everyone reads these comments not everyone has time. I do, I am retired, and I have the time the others are just trying to survive and make a living. I speak from my heart to all citizens of Edmonds.