Just in case you haven’t heard, it was discovered that the City of Edmonds has hired a PR/media firm to help sell the annexation into the South Snohomish County Fire and EMS Regional Fire Authority (RFA) to us citizens. The city contracted with the consulting firm Liz Loomis Public Affairs to provide “strategic communication consulting services related to the potential South County Fire annexation.” I find this disheartening on so many fronts.
According to the firm’s website, “Liz Loomis Public Affairs helps taxpayer-funded organizations communicate more effectively to secure needed revenue for vital public services.” The operative words are “taxpayer-funded.” Her past clients have included South County Fire RFA, the same RFA that we’re being asked to join. Just to add a little color to this, the RFA previously hired Loomis when they were annexing Mountlake Terrace a few years ago. The interesting part is that while the RFA paid for her services, they shared the results with the City of Mountlake Terrace at no cost. On the other hand, Edmonds is paying and sharing the results with the RFA at no cost. Why? The RFA has money, we don’t. Just another example of our negotiating prowess.
The contract with Loomis had an effective date of Sept. 1, 2024. The noted completion date is April 30, a few days after our April 22 vote. This is consistent with their objective of influencing the election results.
The curious part of the timing is relative to when the negotiations with the RFA were in progress. We know that these negotiations ended in December. Why did the city need a communications consultant four months before the outcome of the negotiations were known? Could it have been that the city went into these negotiations with a predetermined outcome that annexation was a foregone conclusion, regardless of the eventual terms and conditions? The annexation agreement that we ended up with would be consistent with this approach. It’s one-sided, favorable to the RFA and unfavorable to the taxpayer.
The cost of the Loomis contract is valued at $64,000. It’s a rather expensive contract for a city that is in a fiscal emergency. Comparing this cost with the $44,500 we paid Fitch & Associates for a limited-scope study which resulted in no creative ideas, further suggests that the city had pre-determined the outcome and are now trying to sell it. And one of their selling points is the flawed Fitch report.
At the recent Edmonds City Council retreat, our mayor led a discussion on how to walk the fine line between elected officials educating the public (allowed) and elected officials advocating for a specific outcome (not allowed). Not once did he mention the hiring of Liz Loomis in helping the city communicate a message they want. A trail of emails highlights the ongoing internal communication between Liz Loomis and her organization, the mayor and his administration, two councilmembers, RFA leadership and firefighter union representatives over the last six months. All working in unison to craft an approach to achieve a desired outcome. Whatever happened to the transparency that our mayor promised during his campaign?
As the “education” program continues from the city, I would encourage you to ask yourselves, who’s talking? A city official, or some hired gun, spin doctor from a PR firm.
There is much at stake with this upcoming vote. A growing group of concerned citizens are trying to provide additional information for your consideration as you learn about the pros and cons of annexation. Please visit edmondscandobetter.org to learn more. This modest website offers an alternative perspective. And no taxpayer money was used to develop it.
— By Jim Ogonowski
Jim Ogonowski is an Edmonds resident.
I recommend Jim Ogonowski be made Citizen of the Year for Edmonds for his tireless (and UNPAID) efforts to educate the public on the mess in our City government. Everyone should know he repeatedly commented at numerous Council meeting and presented FACTS on the budget shortfall and implications of RFA annexation – – and all to naught proving some Council members were already on a political mission (i.e., campaign contributions) to annex.
Taxpayers should go with the FACTS as presented by someone who actually dug into this mess and knows what’s going on with this RFA Annexation and Vote NO.
Thanks for the kind words, Joe. But in reality, it’s an incredible group of concerned citizens who are banding together to provide information and perspective that is not coming from other sources. And yes, we are providing verifiable facts as the basis of our arguments. We welcome the upcoming discussions or debates on the subject of annexation, hopefully on a level playing field and with equal time. This is an important decision for the community, so it deserves the attention it is getting.
What concerns me further is the recent trend in this city to stifle the voice and work of citizen volunteers. Well-intentioned citizens who have volunteered to provide their experience, insight, knowledge, and yes, even their labor into helping the city. Rather than embracing the community they represent, our elected officials have further distanced themselves from the community through recent actions to reorganize citizen led committees, boards and commissions. The value of working together has been reinforced and become abundantly clear to me over these last few months working with our group. Our challenge is to provide what we have learned and the ideas we have in a format easily understandable to the community, because this is a difficult subject. So, I completely understand why the city hired an outside consultant to craft their message. Unfortunately, we don’t have the same financial resources.
I second that opinion Joe!
Jim has been giving the Council unbiased financial data for years now since the Nelson administration started managing the City coffers. The open Gov budget software purchased years ago which forced the City to go biennial was so illustrative of our financials; but yet it was mothballed as to time consuming and Blue Ribbon team wanted another software package?? But, yet it was used while former assistant finance director was still employed and early Council review showed promise as dept heads had used it for budgeting purposes. Such a mystery and now waste of money?
So, I rely on Jim’s models that use actual numbers without assumptions embedded as recall in one of my published articles, the City has yet to explain $3.5m that went missing on published reports or reconciliation anomaly of about $4.8m. I believe footnotes are in order and we will see what auditors think at exit meeting.
Please, vote No on RFA Annexation and make our Government do their job as not only will it cost taxpayers LOTS of money, but more importantly, City loses control. Edmonds citizens deserve to be heard by having a fire/ems contract that is explicit for our town.
So please, remember to vote in April: and vote No for RFA annexation.
And this is yet another example of the mistrust the people have with government. Protect the institutions at all cost to hell with the people that pay the bills. I don’t know how more obvious it can be. Certainly in my mind there was a better path. The city didn’t want to take it. I just hope the people are smart enough to see it. Please vote no on annexation.
I will definitely vote against this.
Thanks Jim, we in Esperance area that are in City, every Feb are reminded of Edmonds unfair and underhanded traits with the billing on our storm water bills. They have forever billed us the right amount first half and increased “wrong” amount 2nd half , that bimonthly don’t pay till following year. When it actually is in effect. So, your info is no surprise , but a good reminder, for everyone, how slippery they can be. They are pushing it too hard, which means we, the tax payers are on the wrong end of the stick. For sure a NO for me. We are lucky to have you, have you thought of running for mayor, or even city council?
Jim, I am very curious about the assumptions you have stated as fact in the past week or so when it comes to hiring this PR firm. The firm itself has worked for many municipalities in our area, as noted on its website. It clearly knows the bounds of state law, when it comes to advocating versus providing information. It has a reputation to uphold to act within the bounds of the law to attract future business. Why do you believe it will suddenly run afoul of state law in this instance, simply because our town is involved? Also, you speak of “negotiating prowess.” What kind of negotiating position will Edmonds be in if the RFA vote does not pass? There seems to be an assumption that we can get the same (or better) services for less cost if we hold out and play hard to get. Or, we can restart our own fire department and recruit from a magic base of unemployed firefighters that will somehow materialize. This seems to be a risky gambit run on the premise of paying less taxes in the short term so we can have a good think on things. But a good think is not a solution, and a solution is what seems to be lacking in your argument.
Janice,
I don’t think I ever accused the firm of running afoul of state law. What I am saying is that the city has hired the firm to draft a strategy and messaging which achieves their desired outcome of a yes vote.
“Liz Loomis Public Affairs helps taxpayer-funded organizations communicate more effectively to secure needed revenue for vital public services.” No mention of achieving benefits for the citizens or its taxpayers. That’s the problem I have with this. The whole process has been tainted by the city’s desire to fix a financial problem of their own making. Fixing it on the back of the taxpayers without fully exploring less costly service options and alternatives or alternative funding models. It’s been a rush to judgement by the city pushed on us by the RFA prematurely terminating our contract without an attempt to renegotiate it with our new mayor. That’s the message we’d like to share given equal time and opportunity to do so.
Again, our city leaders are trying to sway our votes to their preference. My very serious concern, given the gross mismanagement of our tax money the last few years, is, are they capable of managing the Edmonds Fire Department? Will they spend the money we taxpayers provide to run our own Fire Department on something else, that they feel is more important bankrupting our Fire Department? I want to keep our Fire and Police Departments here, and we need to be certain that our tax and Fire assessment money STAYS within the Fire Department.
I thought the City agreed to no more paid outside consultants?
Whether you vote yes or no for annexation, in the end the taxpayers are going to pay! Attend one of the many meetings on the RFA to learn more!!
And when will the RFA pay the $8M in transport fees owed to Edmonds?
Edmonds consultant Fitch, reported Edmonds can improve service & reduce costs by operating more efficiently. The report is no longer available on the cities website, but you can find it below along with a write up by MEN.
An est. $29M budget deficit, city layoffs, residents voting ‘housing affordability’ as their no.1 issue, a park thousands of residents hoped and dreamed for. How will Edmonds ever address these needs, if we continue to write blank checks without searching for ‘value’ in how our dollars are spent?
Without local control, we may have never surfaced the $8M owed to Edmonds residents.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2016/04/report-edmonds-fire-ems-services-can-improve-performance-reduce-costs/
https://edmondscandobetter.org/pdf/Fitch_Executive_Summary_Report.pdf
Cheryl, with all due respect that is not the issue. We all know the city is broke and taxes and other revenue have to go up and/or expenses have to drastically go down. It actually needs to be a combination of both. The problem with the RFA is they pulled the plug arbitrarily as per the contract and essentially told the city, “Our way or the highway after 2026 so join us now or else. You aren’t paying your fair share.” Our City Attorney, Mayor and City Council President engaged in a so called “negotiation” giving RFA everything they demanded in either the annexation or temporarily continued contract. There was little to no real analysis of the cost of reforming our own fire service. Then they hired a PR firm for $64K to promote a yes vote on what they supposedly negotiated for the best deal we could get. I just got our tax notice for 2025 and we are up $733 taking us over $10,000 per year just to get to live here. Yes, I’m angry that these people are so nonchalant and unaccountable for how they are spending our money.
Thank you so much for this information. I will now vote NO.
It is simply a “bad move” by our city officials to hire a PR firm – both financially and more importantly, if one intends to project impartiality. It gives the impression of a biased message, and they could have easily avoided that. So, why didn’t they? To me it just communicates a higher likelihood that there was intent to sway votes in a particular direction, and to me, that shows both poor judgement and overreach beyond the law. Add one more tick mark to the distrust column.
I thought the City was broke ?!
Budget cuts in all departments, laying people off, “pausing” citizen boards and commissions…
This is not a good look and will lead to further distrust.
Where is the transparency in all this? Does anyone know exactly who actually made the decision to hire this PR firm to promote Annexation because that is obviously what they are doing just based on their company mission statement? Was this decision ever talked about in public with open discussion of whether or not it was a good idea or even a legal use of public funds? Who really owns this decision to spend money we will have to borrow or raise taxes to get – the Full Council? the Mayor alone? the Mayor and the Council President in concert? If this came out of the Mayor’s discretionary fund why doesn’t he just come out and own that fact? If someone was pulling his strings to get him to spend this money who was it and why did they do it? I think this administration is long on PR hype and a little short on honest and open communication. Sort of reminds me of the last administration we had and the two or three before that.
What is missing from the comments is the enormity of the RFA annexation impact on the taxpayer. The RFA unilaterally and without justification, increased the price of their service between 2019 to 2023 by 50%. They are proposing that annexation or a 1-yr contract extension will both cost over $20 million – which is a 60% increase in 1-year from the current $12.5M contract price! They claim to use annexation economies of scale with their Brier, Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek, and Lynnwood annexations to reduce the cost of fire/ems service. Quite the opposite, they have raised prices and failed to demonstrate any cost containment or efficiencies. The RFA refuses to answer any questions about how their costs of service relate to their monopoly pricing. Edmonds’ Council has refused to acknowledge that there are fire departments in 40,000 population cities that are operating with budgets in the $12M per year range. They have refused to do proper due diligence and determine how many $$$millions per year can be saved by re-starting the Edmonds fire department. Is it any wonder they need a PR expert to justify their RFA support! If taxpayers vote No! on annexation in April, the Council will be forced to evaluate lower cost alternatives. Please join 130 Edmonds’ residents who signed a Vote No! Petition: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation. Visit the EdmondsCanDoBetter website: https://edmondscandobetter.org
Yes, it is disheartening to learn that the City has hired a PR firm and paid it $64,000 to sell us on voting yes to annexation. This at a time when we are in a budget crisis, in the hole $29 million, and will soon be asked to vote on one, two, or three levy lid lifts. The city has voted to keep the $6.5 million we have already paid for fire/EMS to help them with the budget. This is disingenuous and confiscatory. Joining the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) will have us paying double for the same service we already paid for – Double Taxation.
A small group of Concerned Citizens have been working for almost a year to bring Edmonds facts on what it would mean to us – businesses, home owners, renters, senior citizens, families with children, children’s futures, veterans, the disabled – to be annexed to the RFA. We now have a website where facts can be accessed. Go to edmondscandobetter.org and learn for yourself – you decide. Become educated on the upcoming April 22 Ballot measure and vote as an informed citizen – not one that only received “information” the city paid for with your tax dollars to get the vote “they” want. Join our group. Working together we can make a positive difference in our community.
I really endorse all the insightful comments above. I will be voting NO.