Dear Editor,
As a longtime Edmonds resident, I want to ensure our community has reliable, well-funded fire and emergency services. Right now, our city contracts with South County Fire, but that funding depends on the city’s general budget and competes with other essential services. The city is currently experiencing significant shortfalls, and without a yes vote, everything will be cut.
By voting yes on annexation, we secure a stable, dedicated funding source for fire and emergency medical services. Instead of relying on uncertain city budgets, these critical services would be funded through a fire levy and a benefit charge, ensuring predictable, long-term financial support. This means no more worrying about whether future City budget shortfalls will affect response times or firefighter staffing.
Let’s prioritize safety and stability for Edmonds. Vote yes to secure permanent reliable funding for emergency services.
Steve Francis
Edmonds
If we vote yes we lose our leverage with the city concerning the 12 million they want to keep a no vote is the taxpayers negotiating tool. I for one think the city needs to make further cuts a no vote will force them to do so. Citizens need not fear fire and EMS services will continue and I am sure the RFA will get another vote down the road.
Jim, you are absolutely correct in thinking that the RFA will ‘get another vote down the road’. That clause is in the contract for 2026 services that the Mayor signed. Terminology is tricky in this issue campaign. I and others are advocating that the voters hit the pause button, and for the City leadership and all of us to do a better job of understanding alternatives – especially since the EMS work has become 85% of the work load, and the RFA is missing their goals for response time. So in order to do the hard work of further City expense reductions, improved service model for EMS services so that we do get the faster response time we all want, I’m asking the voters to vote ‘No’. And that means “pause” and buy the time to “get it right”, this has a very long term impact.
i need to correct my comment that the 2026 contract has a clause about future annexation votes if the 2025 ballot measure fails. that clause was in the contract initially approved by the Fire District commissioners but the City rejected it, and it is NOT in the signed version.
Mr. Francis:
“The city is currently experiencing significant shortfalls, and without a yes vote, everything will be cut.” There are no FACTS that valid your statement that everything will be cut. Our city’s history demonstrates that emergency services, fire and police, are always appropriately funded. Joining an RFA gives taxpayers no control over the amount they are taxed for fire services; the RFA unilaterally makes that decision. We need officials that we elect, our mayor and city council members, involved in what we pay for fire services.
Are you being paid to write this article? How do you know it’s what is best for the city, have you reviewed real numbers to start up an Edmonds Fire Department?
No I am not being paid. My OPINION is based upon what I’ve read and researched over the past several weeks. I have reviewed Estimates of the costs for restarting a fire department.
Vote no on the RFA. I can’t afford higher property taxes. Our City budget is simply too big and must be equalized with expected receipts. It’s not that complicated.
If an Edmond’s resident no longer has “permanent, reliable” funding to pay property taxes including increased fire/EMS costs, they may face foreclosure. Many residents are on fixed incomes or salaries that do not keep up with inflation, have unexpected bills, or need to plan for future expenses such as children’s college or car replacement. Residents are required to have savings accounts to prepare for future or unforeseen costs.
The city’s annexation efforts will force residents to carefully consider their own financial priorities, potentially prioritizing bills over healthcare or food, while the city threatens reductions in essential services rather than non-essential ones.
This pro RFA “spin” acknowledges that the city is no longer a permanent, reliable funding source, even though it has been covering fire/EMS costs. Responsibility will be shifted to residents, who must now negotiate better costs, explore alternative services, invest for future plans, and maintain emergency savings because the city has chosen not to fulfill these essential financial requirements by their past and present actions…
Doug Wrigley, well put. I would add that it’s also time for the city to seek some sort of fee’s revenue (think discover pass with a few free days every now and then like the state program) to support our parks that everyone from all over the region and state enjoy for basically free. They come in busloads now to Civic Field Park. It wouldn’t hurt to see lots more people pulled over for speeding and blowing traffic lights and stop signs too.
Ms. Cooper, from what I’ve seen so far the only people getting paid regarding the entire RFA question are Mayor Rosen’s “hired guns” PR firm with the specialty of getting unpopular property tax proposals passed for public agencies long term funding needs. Hence all the fear mongering that you will likely die on your carpet if an aid car and at least one fire truck don’t show up to every aid call which is now 85% of the fire department business the way the business is designed in most places. It might just be time to look at a different design with more specialization if that could save a few precious tax dollars. Dare I say; we could innovate rather than just following the herd over the municipal bankruptcy cliff. But that would require actual leadership as opposed to PR hires.
I agree with Steve. There is value in securing our future of fire and EMS. The other good alternatives are more costly. “Yes” to RFA.
Mr. Cram, how do you know other good alternatives are more costly? Just look at the basic numbers and you will see there is at least $8M to play with in any sort of first year new start up home grown model or another contract somewhere else. The current contract is $12M and either another one year contract at $20M or annexation at $20M which is what has been “negotiated ” for our, “my way or the highway,” choices from SFC/RFA. So, even if the start up costs $20M the first year but is only, say, $15M after that for a number of years, we would be lots of money ahead of the game. The facts really are the Mayor and Most of the Council are politically beholding to SCF/RFA and also don’t want either the work or the responsibility of creating a new and more efficient home grown F.D. Our new Mayor says raising property taxes is the main answer to our problems; an idea a 6th. grade civics student could have come up with. What about back to basics of town management needs and adding some revenue. That’s what a “leader” would be advocating I think.
I love the: ‘Trust me, there’s money somewhere!’ argument. But, budgeting isn’t a game of Monopoly where you just ‘find’ $8M lying around (unless you’re the US Govt that can artificially print money). The reality is that startup costs for a new fire department aren’t just about year one, they include ongoing operational costs, personnel, equipment, pensions, training, and unforeseen expenses that are consistently competing for the same budget dollars that other city services are under in an already revenue strapped city. You’re comparing apples to imaginary apples.
The $20M startup that magically drops to $15M, sounds like fantasy economics. The existing contract is a known quantity with real numbers and real service guarantees. I would stand to reason why the Mayor and Council aren’t jumping on the ‘homegrown’ bandwagon isn’t because they’re beholden to anyone, it could be because they understand the risk of gambling taxpayer money on an unproven alternative that could leave us paying more for less and still trying to figure out how to generate dollars out of pennies to cover the increasing year over year shortfalls. As for revenue, if you have a revolutionary idea that generates millions without raising taxes in a community that has historically resisted any kind of change that would result in revenue growth, feel free to share.
It’s too bad we can’t have more logic and math in this argument and less politics and assumptions about what we have and haven’t got. It strikes me that if we already own three basic fire service buildings and the option to buy back all equipment that SCF/RFA wouldn’t need at fair market value and be the same equipment that would be used either way, we are already over half way there on the home owned option again. SCF won’t need as many personnel so they are on the market and available right away with the understanding that their pay and benefits don’t change but their hours and job requirements might. If that falls anywhere in that $8M first year sweet spot and the actual cost annualized would be more like $14M than $20M before inflation creeps in either way it’s almost a slam dunk if our Elected’s were willing to do the work with lots of almost free volunteer planning help that already exists on the self funded vote NO committee who would rather be viewed as problem solvers than trouble makers by their Mayor and Council. The MO of our city management has always been we are right, you are wrong, and we are going to dig in our heels against you. Totally pathetic really.
If Edmonds had control of their own department they would also have the ability to determine average costs to run the department. If we continue with South County as we learned we get the SURPRISE we are doubling the bill. Let’s pull of the tape and make Edmonds self reliant.
Folks, closing down this thread as I believe many opinions have been heard.