Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Now that the annexation documents into South County Fire Regional Fire Authority (RFA) have been completed and the city is putting the measure on a ballot for an April vote, many questions have either gone unanswered or are starting to emerge. A sampling:
Why did South County Fire terminate our Fire and EMS services contract prior to its 2030 expiration date?
We understand that the city is in financial trouble, but isn’t this just a way to shift the cost burden to a higher taxing authority at the taxpayers’ expense?
Based on the current adopted budget, what will be the total property tax burden bourn by the citizens for city services and fire/EMS compared to what we currently pay?
What additional fire/EMS service benefits will we receive that we currently don’t already enjoy if we join the RFA at nearly twice the cost?
Where are the economies of scale in joining the RFA? Shouldn’t we expect a cost reduction rather than a substantial increase?
What is the benefit of giving up local control of our services to another set of elected officials whose majority will reside outside of Edmonds?
Can someone explain how the cost of fire/EMS service nearly doubles overnight by joining the RFA?
Will the other current member cities of the RFA receive a tax decrease if we join the RFA while our taxes increase?
How are costs controlled if the benefit charge is a percentage of the operating expenses of the RFA?
Why have we given the RFA two of our fire stations cost-free if we join?
When can we expect reimbursement of monies owed to us by the RFA under our current contract for transport fees?
What other alternatives to annexation haven’t we explored to reduce future costs?
What are the future growth plans for the RFA and are we included or are we just subsidizing their growth in areas outside of Edmonds with our higher tax base?
These are just a few of the questions I’m hearing from the community. I’m sure there are many more. Please share your question here and with our elected officials. We should all be well-informed as we decide how to best spend our money for the benefit of all who live here. Answering questions is part of the process.
The city is planning on a number of Town Hall events and other community group meetings to help us all learn and understand what RFA annexation is all about. Please watch for them and try to attend an event or two. In future weeks I’ll share what I understand and learn about some of these topics as well.
— By Jim Ogonowski
Jim Ogonowski is an Edmonds resident.
These are all really good questions that I’ve been wondering about too. Especially how they can cancel a contract that hasn’t expired. I’m definitely leaning toward not voting for this proposal in April. Would love to see these questions addressed.
The Edmonds Civic Roundtable is hosting an event tonight at 6:30 at EWC on this topic.
The simple question is: What am I paying now, what will I pay if we go with RFA, and what will I pay if we have our own department, etc. From what I understand, the city is creating a “calculator” that will take the address of our property and calculate the added tax for RFA option. Great move! I want an apples to apples comparison of costs (and benefits) for my property given ALL the options under consideration. This can be done if instead of all this back and forth of politics, biased posturing, and spinning salesmanship, the city just did the work and gave us the facts so we can see the impact to us. Give us the data and we will make an informed decision for you to implement. After so much talk and so many explanations for so long, when it is still not clear to the public what options they have, it should give the city an indication that they are missing mark. We don’t need more discussion – we need clear and concise data. Easier for politicians (talkers) to set-up another conversation where the information can be imprecise and full of wiggle room. Instead, please do the hard work.
My hope is that the voters can have all the fact-based, unbiased information they need to make a fully-informed decision when they vote on this very important issue. A key element of this is for the city to clearly show the voters it has done a full, systematic assessment of each and every potential option for delivery of high quality/efficient fire and EMS services to Edmonds residents and businesses. To date, it is not at all clear this has been done. This is why it is appropriate to vote no at this time to RFA annexation. More time is needed for proper due diligence. In the long run, it may be that annexation is the right answer. But our voters need to have all the facts and be confident all options have been fully assessed prior to voting yes.
Why waste time with the calculator?
Just calculate 3 or 4 home value options and people can easily estimate what their increase tax would be from the current tax.
This could all be done on 1 page and could look like the document we get from the County regarding all of our property taxes.
Hi David,
Would something like this work?
Home Value
$500,000 net increase $480 for total tax of $625
$1,000,000 net increase $960 for a total of $1250
$1,500,000 net increase $1430 for a total of $1875
$2,000,000 net increase $1930 for a total of $2500
Many apts have a value of $500,000 so will the landlord absorb the $40/mo increase?
A business renter would be higher. Some that were checked added $100/mo. increase.
Jim- this one is very, very important: “What other alternatives to annexation haven’t we explored to reduce future costs?“ The City’s FAQ document about annexation is wrong- it states that annexation is the least cost option. The truth in my opinion is that the City does not know what the lower cost options are, and decided not to investigate the options. Rather, they decided to accept the poor quality analysis done by the Fitch consulting company. Edmonds mayor and City Council- shame on you. The property owners in Edmonds deserve a first class analysis of alternatives. The RFA has already given you the 1 yr. contract for services they are offering for 2026 when the voters give you a “No” majority vote in the election. So i will confidently vote “NO” in April, and expect you to get the work started immediately to analyze alternatives.
I totally agree with Theresa Hollis at this time. I just don’t think this thing has been well studied or really thought out as to future cost controls and providing just what is really needed vs. lots of cool stuff and personnel that are just wanted by an agency with little real checks and balances on how the money gets spent. The City and RFA use the term, “dependable revenue stream,” and that is short for ever higher and higher property taxes, if there is no real control. You can choose between having a Mayor and Seven Council people to pester and email vs. one elected commission member with one vote among people who could care more or less (probably less) about what is happening in Edmonds. It’s no wonder the Mayor and Council are so openly gung-ho for annexation because it is one big headache off the books for them.
Hi Jack,
If we join SCF they will have two charges on your tax bill. See an example below.
The current 2025 tax rate is $1.16/1000 of assess value. The total is the sum of two taxes, one general tax and an EMS tax. $.82/1000 and $.34/1000 respectively.
SCF also assesses a Benefit Charge which is a complicated formula of factors about a home. SQ Ft, stories, sprinkler systems, garage and other items that impact the impact the resources needed to fight a fire. Here is the average BC for various size homes with a garage.
Sq Ft……….BC
1500………..$60.93
2000……….$70.39
2500……….$78.80
3000……….$86.21
3500……….$93.12
You will see examples of cost using a 2500sq ft home valued at $895,700. This is considered to be avg for Edmonds.
The example below uses a $1m home with 2500 sq feet. Math is easier.
SCF Tax at the $1.16/1000 rate would be $1160 plus a BC of $78.80 so the total tax bill from SCF would be $1238.80.
Edmonds would no longer have an EMS tax ($.28/1000) and for the $1m home it would be $280. The net increase in charges would be $958.80. These are 2025 rates and 2026 may be a couple of cents up or down. The simple way is use $.96/1000 it will give you an answer that is accurate +-$50. Hope that helps?
I appreciate this example. To be an informed citizen and vote intelligently, I also need an apples to apples estimate of the alternatives – side by side preferably. The reason I asked for the calculator Mr Preston is so that everyone uses the same benchmark method and we get away from these estimates and adjustments and opportunities for missing facts. Don’t make it a math question for people to figure out. Simplify so everyone can see If I go with option A, it will cost me $X, if I go with option B, it will cost me $Y, etc. This is the hard work I’d like our city employees and council members to do for us.
Jack, hopefully my answer to David Preston’s suggest will be posted soon. Simple table.
The price to SCF is the same if we vote yes or no. The difference is by voting yes, SCF will bill us directly. If we vote No the price is the same and the taxes we pay the city will be used to make that same payment. The city does not currently collect enough tax to pay the entire bill so we would need to make other cuts in service, add new revenue sources or add to the EMS tax or add to the tax levy planned for this fall.
Hi Darrol — your response has been posted. Teresa
Thanks again Darrol. Is there an equivalent analysis (table) for the cost if we were to (re)establish our own department? Are we only faced with the vote of annex or don’t annex? If so, then I say (among all the other voices here) the vote is premature. We need more options with corresponding cost impact for consideration.
Darrol,
Yes, you have made a chart that is simple and easy to understand. Now, will the Council and others confirm the accuracy?
If not then make the appropriate adjustments and keep it simple.
If it is not communicated in a clear and simple manner without having to go to some calculator the vote will go down in flames.
Hope everyone appreciates the eye opening and honest calculations that Darrol has presented. Sadly, the City website has false and misleading information. The important questions dealing with evaluating RFA alternatives expose the Council’s most serious failure and most serious false narrative. Where is the analysis and pro-forma financials for an Edmonds’ run fire/ems department? You can’t find them because the Council hasn’t done ANY due diligence. They had a discussion with Everett and Mukilteo. That’s it. Cities with comparable populations are running their own fire/ems departments for $10-$12M – exactly the current cost of the RFA contract. There’s absolutely no data that supports an RFA price of $20-$21M. The Council chose the RFA as lowest cost and preferred provider last June without doing proper due diligence. Given the $8-$10M potential savings for an Edmonds’ fire department, the Council should have completed an expert analysis by now. Ask them to show you the detailed financial pro-forma and ask them to show you the RFA proof of their true cost of services per 911 call and per resident. They can’t, because the RFA only justifies monopoly prices, not costs of services – and they can’t show you any efficiencies and cost savings from their advertised ‘economies of scale.’ The RFA is disingenuous . Demand full disclosure. Sign the Vote No! Petition: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation