Editor:
Edmonds residents agree – we want to maintain the level and quality of emergency services to our families, friends and community. Edmonds currently pays one of the lowest rates in the state for fire and EMS through its contract with South County RFA, which expires at the end of 2025. Annexing to South County Regional Fire Authority is the lowest cost option to maintain the level and quality of emergency services. Some residents, though, have expressed concerns that annexation into the South County Fire RFA will lead to increased property taxes without corresponding benefits.
Edmonds is facing a fiscal emergency and a continuing budget shortfall. Currently, Edmonds funds fire and emergency services through its general fund, which is subject to fluctuations and competing priorities. Annexation would establish a stable, dedicated funding source, ensuring that these critical services are consistently and adequately financed. While there may be adjustments in tax structures, annexation would safeguard against potential future budget shortfalls that could compromise service quality.
In addition, the RFA model promotes economies of scale, potentially leading to cost savings over time. By pooling resources with neighboring communities, we can achieve greater efficiency and access to enhanced services that the City simply cannot afford to do on its own.
This is a solution to a very difficult situation. We should grab it with both hands.
Theresa Pruett
Edmonds – Seaview Resident
Annexation may well be as cheap as it gets but that doesn’t change the fact our city is keeping the money we pay now, a no vote puts the city and taxpayers in a different position that I approve of. I have doubts that annexation will deliver any cost benefits from scale the bureaucracy will chew that all up and I am afraid and then some. A no vote forces the city to negotiate with its taxpayers over the money they want to keep. A no vote may delay joining or further contract negotiations but make no mistake service will continue.
I respect Theresa’s opinion; however, the claims made are simply City & RFA talking points.
The city made cuts to our police department, yet they handed out a 7.5% raise to SCF / RFA. I believe the push for annexation is influenced by campaign endorsements & contributions (links below showing fire union contributing thousands to Edmonds city council).
I’m happy Theresa is able to afford the increase, but many of us empathize with Edmonds residents number one priority, “housing affordability”. We believe not only is their opportunity to reduce the cost impact on our residents, options exist to improve emergency response times. Edmonds consultant in 2016 & 2 California grand juries back up this claim (links below).
Let’s not forget SCF / RFA has not been able to meet their 8 minute response times (see article below).
Our community is built on a foundation of innovation, the status quo will only further the affordability crisis. Please vote No, send a message to our city leaders, “it’s too hard” won’t cut it!
-response goals not met
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/edmonds-city-council-reviews-details-of-regional-fire-authority-annexation-plan/
-Many options to consider
https://edmondscandobetter.org/options
-Edmonds consultant 2016 – Improved response times & 20% reduction in costs
https://edmondscandobetter.org/pdf/Fitch_Executive_Summary_Report.pdf
– fire unions campaign contributions to Edmonds electeds
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
-Orange County Grand Jury Report – Stop sending fire trucks to medical calls
https://ocgrandjury.org/sites/jury/files/2023-06/2022-05-20_Where%27s_the_Fire_Stop_Sending_Fire_Trucks_to_Medical_Calls.pdf
-Santa Clara Grand Jury Report
https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/fdresponse_0.pdf
Can we change the model/contract and reduce costs? I agree that fire trucks should not be going to retirement homes when the building is not on fire. EMS services should be contracted separately from fire fighting services and prices will go down quickly even with the same level of service. Maybe we can use SCF for fire calls and find a different provider for strictly EMS since roughly 80 percent of calls are for EMS?
Hi Jamie, I like your suggestion to use SCF for fire & separate out EMS. We do believe a change in the model or reduction on the SCF contract is possible. Other cities around the country are making changes, Placentia CA is one. Tough, but it’s possible.
A few more details on options below.
https://edmondscandobetter.org/options
Jamie such models are possible but the devil is in the details. King County has a Medic One service that is publicly funded, is staffed by dedicated paramedics and is used to respond to the most critical EMS calls (ALS). This model has repeatedly been recognized as best in class. Everett users a different model where the city-run fire department has a contract with a private ambulance company to transport some lower urgency EMS cases (BLS) to hospital to avoid tying up fire trucks with wait times for hospital admissions. Other cities have privatized their EMS, saving costs for the city but transferring the burden and the risk to residents who use the service. We all know that medical debt is one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy in the US so this privatized model represents a significant risk to residents. Private companies also tend to be less transparent about their outcomes and often have less qualified staff so we need to be very careful in choosing which model of separating fire and EMS works best for us.
Correction: Firefighter wages are negotiated with the union. That said, the city of Edmonds has ability to control costs to taxpayers by negotiating terms of contract. My point here is, our city is in a fiscal crisis, departments are cutting headcount. I’d like to see some fiscal accountability from South County Fire / RFA.
Complicated issue here as the herald pointed out, emails from Liz Loomis to Mayor Rosen, state –
“We don’t want to talk about the collective bargaining agreement at the risk of people thinking why did we agree to such a large increase,” Loomis wrote. “And, if there are details as to why it was so large, we will have already lost them. Also, mentioning the fire authority contract could make people think, ‘Well, the RFA got a huge raise already so why should I pay more?”
– https://www.heraldnet.com/news/residents-question-edmonds-after-hiring-comms-firm-for-rfa-vote/
Nick, the allegations in that article in the Herald are truly shocking! Every voter in Edmonds should read that article.
When is the misrepresentation of this story going to stop by proponents like Ms. Pruett? This is not the “expiration” of our contract; it is the arbitrary and one sided legal “cancellation” of our contract by the SCF/RFA and you just can’t put lipstick on that “my way or the highway” pig and have any credibility in your stance on the subject. What have been the demonstrable economies of scale and the savings over time? The city and the SCF/RFA can’t answer those questions especially when they are demanding a doubling of the cost of our service in the space of just a year. 2023 all’s well but; 2024 – you wealthy cheapskates are only paying half what you should. Just doesn’t pass the smell test on the city side or the RFA side.
While I have no doubt that the firefighters of South County Fire will strive to maintain the level of service provided to Edmonds in 2026, under a contract or as a member city of the RFA, it is worth noting that the standards of performance for the RFA are different from those under the contract with Edmonds. Some metrics have more stringent goals but others have looser goals. According to data in the 2023 compliance reports for Edmonds and the overall RFA, the goal for turnout time and for travel time for the first unit arriving to a fire will reduce slightly. However, the goal for full first alarm travel time (15 firefighters on scene) at a residential fire would increase from 7:45 for Edmonds to 12:45 for the RFA. For a commercial fire (18 firefighters), the goal would increase from 9 minutes to 12:45. The travel time goal for BLS would increase from 5:15 to 5:45 and for an ALS call, from 6:45 to 7:45. It is reasonable for the RFA to have looser goals for the rural areas due to increased travel distances but how can we assure that existing performance standards in Edmonds will be met if the RFA is managing to these less stringent goals? Does the RFA have additional metrics to ensure service levels are maintained in urban areas?
Note: I am NOT saying that service to Edmonds will degrade if we annex or if we remain under new contract terms in 2026. I am saying that the metrics that the RFA currently make public will not guarantee our existing service levels and without additional metrics that differentiate service in urban areas from service in more rural areas, any drop in service may go unnoticed and uncorrected.
The RFA started all this by cancelling their contract early. They need to do some belt-tightening. They have a strong union and it is working against those of us in the community who can’t pay or don’t want to pay constantly increasing costs. It can’t just go on forever. Edmonds can get a better deal. It is called negotiation. I’m all for increasing the number of EMS folks and reducing the number of firefighters. I read somewhere that there are required numbers of people who have to go on certain types of calls. Perhaps these numbers can be reduced. This type of requirement is likely why when my mother was ill they would send a fire truck and two EMS vehicles for one person who weighed about 100 pounds. Ridiculous.
Painful as this will be, delaying the decision just kicks the can down the road with the more costly interim contract extensions. I say we rip off the “Band-Aid” and free staff to focus on economic development and other revenue generation.
Annexing also moves the capital investment from City responsibility to the RFA and at least gets those projects and costs off our to do list.
I also want to comment on the discussion of the quantity of assets (vehicles and EMS/Firefighters) that respond to emergency events. Since these assets are managed by availability, it is to the communities’ advantage to have more assets at the call when they are available. Based on experience with the manufacturing plant that I managed, this gives more first responders the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the surroundings, as well as specific needs of our people and businesses in neighborhoods, and the buildings in our city.
Yes because everyone knows how often a home or a business just bursts into flames when someone is having a cardiac arrest or other medical event. These pro arguments are getting less and less credible. Starting to sound like desperation even.
Mr. Cram,
Be aware the RFA has agreed to continue to contract with Edmonds for fire/EMS services until either our voters decide it is time to annex into the RFA or until it is determined a more effective alternative exists. Importantly, the RFA has informed the city that it will set the contract price such that it will cost the Edmonds taxpayers roughly the same as if we are annexed into the RFA. Bottom line, voting no this April on Proposition 1 (annexation into the RFA) will allow sufficient time to explore all available options and will enable Edmonds taxpayers to continue to receive fire/EMS services under contract at the same cost as if we were part of the RFA. I strongly encourage voters to vote no for this reason.