Dear Editor,
As a longtime Edmonds resident and retired firefighter of Edmonds/Fire District 1 (SSCFR), I want to ensure our community has reliable, well-funded fire and emergency medical 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, every city service could be cut.
By voting yes on Proposition 1, for annexation into the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority (RFA), 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 RFA 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.
It is very important that all voters of Edmonds vote on this issue. Inform yourselves, get the facts and don’t be swayed by misinformation and distortions of the facts. Sites with important information on the issue are: www.nwciviccircle.org/edmonds-rfa, www.southsnofire.org and edwafirefuture.info.
Let’s prioritize safety and stability for Edmonds. Vote yes on Prop 1 to annex into the SSCFR RFA, to secure permanent, reliable funding for emergency services.
Pat Hepler
Edmonds
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.
The city reduced staffing (from 12 responding members to 9) in 2016 to save money on the rising cost of the contract. Which is a shining example of them cutting cost in emergency services.
My wife required 911 assistance on Feb 28, 2021 and 11 members of South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue promptly responded.
tell the whole story please Peter. let the readers also know when staffing was increased in our ststions.
Ms Hollis,
Staffing was increased in 2022, i believe. With the addition of 1 BLS aid car with two members. From 2004-2016 on duty staffing in the city was 12 members, now it is 11. My hope is the RFA has a plan to increase staffing to accommodate the city of our size and the unique hazards we have. It is my opinion that dedicated units provide the best service.
Don’t fall for the scare tactics. No cuts to city services needed, a Yes Vote sends our dollars to a regional agency, a No vote keeps our taxes local.
Local control surfaced the RFA withholding millions in transport fees to Edmonds.
Edmonds consultant recommends an EMS prioritized agency, not a fire prioritized agency such as the RFA. Seconds matter in this line of work, the consultants recommendations suggest improved response time and a 20% cost decrease. There are graduates of EMS programs that don’t want to be fire fighters, we need to hire these graduates and start responding to medical calls in faster, more environmentally friendly ambulances vs 60,000 lb fire trucks.
https://edmondscandobetter.org/pdf/Fitch_Executive_Summary_Report.pdf
https://myedmondsnews.com/2016/04/report-edmonds-fire-ems-services-can-improve-performance-reduce-costs/
The fire department is buying influence, thousands of dollars spent on city council elections. Let’s not forget our residents number 1 priority, “housing affordability”.
https://edmondswa.gov/government/city_budget/community_survey
https://www.pdc.wa.gov/political-disclosure-reporting-data/browse-search-data/candidates/689333#independent_expenditures
https://www.pdc.wa.gov/political-disclosure-reporting-data/browse-search-data/candidates/845137#independent_expenditures
Edmonds has options!
https://edmondscandobetter.org/options
https://edmondscandobetter.org/endorsements
Since when haven’t we had a “secure a stable, dedicated funding source for fire and emergency medical services”? We’ve also had one and always will – it’s called our property taxes. Our property taxes will still be used to pay for our fire and EMS services whether we vote yes or if we vote no on the upcoming RFA annexation ballot measure. The only difference is how much we pay. If we vote “yes”, then our city and RFA taxes will nearly double what we currently pay for the same service level. If we vote “NO” our taxes will not change, and the city will have the opportunity to renegotiate a better deal for us without jeopardizing our current level of service under contract. The city will have the opportunity to reprioritize services or develop alternatives to the current services we receive. The city will have the opportunity develop long term strategies which solve our financial problems with the taxpayer in mind. Voting “NO” provides the community the time needed to understand what the full scope of the fall tax levy increase and help prioritize our wants and needs.
I’m not worried about our firefighters not responding or supporting us because they’re dedicated professionals. What I am worried about is the city and RFA doubling taxes for a level of service that doesn’t improve.
edmondscandobetter.org
Why do all the voices in favor of a yes vote simply reiterate the same talking points issued by the city and RFA? Let’s have a proper debate about the issues. I would love to see the pro side actively engage and address the arguments put forth by the other side. Let’s hear from the pro side why the RFA shouldn’t raise the benefit charge dramatically to more equitably distribute the cost, independent of assessed value. Please explain why a model like the Medic One dedicated paramedic teams that King County has wouldn’t work here. Simply restating the same talking points that rely on scare tactics suggests that the arguments in favor of a yes vote are running on fumes and have nothing new to offer.
Niall, I highly respect your intellect and the extensive research you’ve done, and from one non-expert, but informed voter, to another, it’s a fair ask to want a deeper discussion about the issues. I think the reason many voices in favor of a yes vote emphasize the same points is that the core facts about the RFA proposal and where we stand as a city financially don’t change, and those facts are what matter most to the public. However, that doesn’t mean there’s no room for discussion about concerns like the benefit charge or different service models.
The BC is voter approved. Keeping the BC at a reasonable level ensures fairness while maintaining stable funding, especially for the small business community and vulnerable households which Edmonds and other communities have. Could it go up a little more than the current percentage on the next renewal? Yes I would agree with that.
Medic One system seems to work well in dense, high-call-volume areas, but it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Smaller cities like ours don’t have the same population density and not sure our call volume can sustain a standalone paramedic transport system let alone guaranteeing a stable funding source. Additionally, fire-based EMS ensures that paramedics can respond faster and provide more flexible service.
Jeremy,
A couple of other noteworthy points should be made about the benefit charge fee. Since it’s a fee and not a tax, it is not subject to the annual limit of 1% increase as our property taxes are. Hence, at the discretion of the Fire Commissioner’s, and without a public vote, yearly they can set the fee anywhere between 0% and 60% of the RFA’s operating budget. And since it’s a percentage of the RFA’s operating budget, the revenue increase they receive from it is tied directly to their expenses. As their expenses increase, so does the revenue from the BC fee. With this model, what incentive is there to control expenses?
Jim, thanks for those; points taken and I hear your concern. I was thinking the RFA was like any other public agency which operates under budget scrutiny from its elected officials, their state financial and accountability audits, and public oversight via their annual budget hearings. If that’s the case then setting the BC too high would risk voter backlash during renewal, which in my mind creates a built-in incentive to keep costs reasonable.
Jeremy,
You bring up another interesting observation that I have been wondering about too. Yes, the BC has to be renewed every six years via a voter approved ballot measure. The RFA first introduced the BC model in 2020 so its wasn’t due for renewal until 2026, yet they held an early vote in 2024. Why?
Then at last night’s Fire Commissioner’s meeting there was open discussion about their accounting practices. Commissioner Chan expressed his belief that a large organization like South County Fire needs accurate accounting and found it “really embarrassing to tell them that we don’t have a balance sheet”. Interesting discussion and comments by a Fire Commissioner.
And I would suggest that “like any other public agency which operates under budget scrutiny from its elected officials” we can see that even with “state financial and accountability audits”, what trouble a public agency can get into. Just look at Edmonds’ financial situation.
Do we really know what we’re getting into if we join the RFA?
The RFA, like other municipal entities with taxing authority, use fund accounting. Each fund within the organization has its own separate balance sheet for accountability to that fund. Given that financial audits are mandatory, and in order to conduct the audits, they need the fund balance sheets. It’s difficult to believe that a commissioner would say there’s no balance sheets available when it’s a fundamental requirement for compliance and auditing purposes. I’m curious to review the context of which Commish Chan indicated this. I’ll go back and review the tape, thanks!
Jeremy, see the most recent annual report of the Everett Fire Department. They disagree with your opinion. They also look at availability (minute by minute) . The third party ambulance company improves the availability of their city firefighter/paramedic – and that’s important. Also see the RFP for a consortium of 11 jurisdictions in King County that is for a third party ambulance transport service. The consortium includes beautiful Carnation (one of my favorite parts of King County). They are quite a bit smaller than Edmonds and much less dense. (Google search on “request for proposal zone 1 agency). In general, the 2024 Fitch report didn’t look at best practices. We got a very light analysis based on the $40k that City Council had in their budget for hiring consultants. In 2016 we spent more on a study by Fitch, and got advice like “Edmonds needs only 2 stations if they are located appropriately”. (On state highways is best). More advice was to have a performance based contract. This RFA’s response time misses the goal year after year on BLS.. They provide no improvement plans in their annual compliance reports. Why should we give up the control that we have as a contracting jurisdiction? I’ve got many more reasons to vote ‘No’ than ‘Yes’. (A big thanks for all the hours you volunteer on City boards)
Thanks for engaging Jeremy. Yes, the BC is voter approved but voter approval simply authorizes the RFA to implement a BC. The voters do not determine the level of revenue support that is derived from the BC. The voter approval enables a BC up to 60% of the RFA budget and reduces the maximum levy from $1.50 per $1,000 to $1.00 per $1,000. The RFA can decide how much of their revenue is to be derived from the BC and how much from the levy. In my column in MEN recently (https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/02/commentary-opinion-reviewing-the-facts-behind-the-rfa-annexation-debate-part-2/) I showed how increasing the BC actually helps all single family households while having only minimal impacts on multi family housing and clearly affordable costs for commercial properties. I agree that the precise implementation of Medic One might not be the best solution for South County but that doesn’t mean that the current model is the right solution either. The No campaign has made a big deal of the cost of sending fire trucks to EMS calls and, with 85% of all calls being EMS related, finding even moderate efficiencies in handling those calls should be a priority if we want to deliver excellent service at reasonable cost. Lets have a real debate about what the right model is.
Niall,
Edmonds for a number of years was the Medic One model. It was called Snohomish County Medic Seven, M7 was based out of Stevens hospital and was funded by the County. It started in 1979 and was around till the early 2000’s. It was found to be more efficient to dissolve the program into area city fire departments aka Edmonds and Lynnwood. Edmonds continued to staff one dedicated Medic unit with two FF/Paramedics to respond city wide for ALS(Advance Life Support) care in addition to BLS (Basic Life Support). This model closely mirrors the system King county uses.
Thanks for that Peter. However times change and just because this model wasn’t right twenty years ago doesn’t mean that it’s not worthy of reconsideration now. Call volumes are up significantly. Populations are up. Costs have increased. Why not look at this with fresh eyes and look at other models too? At the recent meeting with City council, Fire chief Bob Eastman noted the problem of wall time when emergency crews are waiting to drop off at hospitals and unavailable for new calls. The city of Everett uses private ambulance services for some non-urgent cases to mitigate this problem. Perhaps that is a model worth looking into. We can’t just keep on building more stations and adding more firefighters to address every problem while continuing to miss the goals for response times. There needs to be a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in fire/EMS service delivery and that means constantly looking at new ways of doing things and adapting old ways of doing things.
Naill, the last sentence in your comment sums it up. I won’t go into a long explanation here you all are doing a great job with all of that. I will not vote yes I can’t imagine what at this point would change my mind. Way too much uncertainty for me. Uncertainty for me means I have no confidence that going with RFA is a win for anyone. So, since comments will soon be ended on the matter a rule by MEN. I get it T but I don’t like it. It allows meetings discussions with no zoom for the majority of citizens. It’s a full 3 weeks that the Pro side and the RFA can say whatever old or new hard to understand info they choose with no real rebuttal from the No side. SO, I had intended to wait a bit but with no comments or editorials with new info or new views I am saying today I am a NO vote. I love MEN. Thank you for all you do Teresa. I trust you know much more than I do about the deets. HA
Hi Deb — comments will be allowed on the matter with no restrictions. Just no more opinion pieces or letters to the editor after the ballots are in voters’ hands. We will continue to cover any news stories related to this issue prior to April 22 though. And that includes any forums that might occur after April 3 — which of course people are free to comment on.
Hello Editor, if we want to report that the firefighter union is stealing the “Edmonds Can Do Better – Vote No” campaign signs out public right of ways , can we do that column after ballots are delivered? (good grief…. how juvenile to steal a campaign sign. )
You just did report it (if that’s what you are doing)? here. Sadly campaign sign stealing happens with every election — it is sad. — Teresa
Theresa,
I am the new political director for Local 1828. I can assure you that none of our members are stealing signs, nor would we ever condone that. We have all sworn an oath to enhance our community and theft does not serve that purpose.
Several signs for both sides were removed by the City of Edmonds Planning Department due to being placed in violation of municipal code. I have been on-duty and unavailable to track them down but am working today to find where they have been taken.
Please remember that we are your first responders and are grateful to serve you and the community. Though we may disagree on this issue, we are not your enemy and would not commit a crime over political disagreements. Your accusation is unfounded and hurtful.
Thanks Teresa I must have read that incorrectly. Good to hear. I really appreciate you clarifying that for me. Deb.
Seriously, stealing or misplacing election signs of people you disagree with. Where are the adults in the room on this stuff? And, why are people even putting up yes signs, never mind possibly taking down no signs for some reason? I guess it can’t be the city officials doing the yes signs because they have to remain neutral on this vote by law according to our Mayor and City Attorney. And it isn’t the firefighters union because they self proclaim that they, “don’t have a dog in this fight.” So who are these people putting up vote Yes signs all over town? Has to be Aliens, druggies or illegals, I guess. May need the FBI and ICE on this one.
Clinton:
The YES signs that I’ve reviewed state that they are sponsored by the firefighters.
Ron: Looks like you have solved the mystery and we won’t need the FBI and ICE after all.
Mr. Connor, thank you for your comment, and the info that the union members swear an oath of protection as part of their job. I want to let you know that my comment to the editor in this thread is not an accusation. But I understand how it could have been interpreted that way.
Regards, Theresa H
Mr. Holttum, Thank you for your response here. Personally I am more interested in why your organization is putting up Yes signs all over, than I am about any legal or illegal repositioning or removing of any signs pro or con. I am requesting that you state exactly what your organization is trying to accomplish by inserting itself into what is a municipal election about how our town’s citizens choose to obtain their needed fire and ems services. In short why are you involved in this at all, as it really appears to me to be none of your organization’s business, unless you see it as a means to assure the future welfare of your membership which includes management staff as I understand it? The ball is in your court and looking forward to your added commentary on this all important issue to everyone who lives in and pays property taxes in Edmonds. Simple question – just why are you involved at all?