Northwest Civic Circle (NWCC) will host an online discussion with cities that are members of the South County Fire Regional Fire Authority (RFA) from 4-5 p.m. Wednesday, March 12 via Zoom.
The meeting follows two others hosted by NWCC regarding an April 22 ballot proposal for the City of Edmonds to annex into the RFA.
South County Fire’s RFA was established in 2017 by voters in unincorporated southwest Snohomish County and the City of Lynnwood. Since then, voters in three cities have approved annexation into the RFA: Mill Creek (2022), Brier (2023) and Mountlake Terrace (2023).
“In addition to NWCC’s main goal in convening these conversations is to provide community members with the opportunity to hear directly from the parties involved and for that content to be made available to anyone when time permits them to do so,” and WCC founder Alicia Crank. “We also want to hear from neighboring cities about the issues, conversations, and concerns that arose during their deliberations. What issues may have arisen since annexation. We hope that this additional information will help voters form a better understanding of what all is involved, and to make the best decision possible.”
NWCC said it has not taken a position on this ballot measure. Community members are encouraged to register and submit questions, pro or con, ahead of the discussion by visiting tinyurl.com/NWCCCitiesRegister
Scheduled to participate:
Paula Swisher – Brier City Clerk – Treasurer and Liaison to the RFA Board
George Hurst – Lynnwood City Council, who served as chair of the Lynnwood/Fire district 1 RFA Committee that created the South County RFA in 2017.
Steve Woodard – Mountlake Terrace City Council (who served on the RFA subcommittee in 2023)
Registration for the discussion is open and allows registrants to submit questions ahead of time, with a deadline of 8 p.m. March 11. It will be recorded and available to view soon after the discussion and utilize ahead of the April 22 special election on NWCC’s Edmonds RFA Resource Page.
The event will be free to attend as well as watch online.
To register and submit questions for the Edmonds RFA March 12 discussion: tinyurl.com/NWCCRFACities.
NWCC is planning a community discussion for late March focused on property tax and insurance implications. Local real estate experts and a representative from the Snohomish County Assessor’s office have been invited to participate. Further details will be shared early next week, Crank said.
Residents had better vote Yes on Proposition 1….failure to pass this will dramatically increase the tax levy proposition in November…Look into this and make the right decision to vote for the most cost effective option.
Gilbert,
You know something the rest of us don’t know? How much will the November levy ask be if we vote “yes” or if we vote “NO” on the annexation proposition? If the city was honest with us, we would know so we could “make the right decision to vote for the most cost effective option.” Of course, one would need to know what all the options are to choose from. To date, the city has not explored other cost-effective options highlighted in the Fitch reports. And then there are other ideas being presented by our citizens through their own initiative and research into other local, state and national solutions found to the same problems we face.
Now is not the time to be short-sighted and only look at annexation in isolation. It is part of a bigger problem. Hence, we need to pause and take the time to put this all in context, get all the information to the citizens so we can make a responsible decision on how to best spend our tax dollars. Best to vote NO now to get everything else on the table. Scare tactics about “failure to pass this will dramatically increase the tax levy” should instead be looked at as an opportunity to dramatically reduce the tax impact through broader study and analysis.
Like I said before, “Why just have one election when you can waste your money having two elections? Instead of actually doing their jobs of paying for real analysis’ and presenting some push back on RFA’s obvious overreach ask for more money whether under contract or annexation, our Mayor and Council went into PR sales mode joining forces with the RFA, wasting at least $1/4M of tax money in the process. I’m not convinced it’s wise to vote for either of these propositions with management like this.
You might further inform yourself Mr. Ogonowski, by asking the Mayor for one of his “alternatives spreadsheets” that clearly show the impacts of a “no” vote. If Proposition 1 fails, there will not be another alternative to replace the RFA annexation proposal before the contract expires. You will then just be voting on a much higher levy lift in November. I am not sure why the “ no voters” think there is lots of time left, and that “we have options.” The Mayor and Council have proposed the lowest cost solution as an alternative to a much higher levy lift. But perfect has become the enemy of the good for those who think there is a better solution. I am quite sure that, if a concrete alternative exists, the Council would have considered it. But, as far as I can see, only various nebulous suggestions have been made by well-intentioned MEN commentators.
Gilbert, by all means, have the Mayor publish all his study spreadsheets that clearly show the impacts of a no vote along with reporting of all his sources and the depth of the studies they conducted to arrive at the spreadsheet results you are talking about. That’s exactly what the No vote people are talking about that the Mayor apparently hasn’t done in any really convincing way up to this point or he is hiding if for some reason. We aren’t just a bunch of dimwits out here raising Hell with the Mayor and Council for the fun of it because it isn’t any fun or a happy thing to be doing. If SCF/RFA refused to go to fires and people died or there was a large property loss as a result, under any circumstances, whether the contract or the annexation is a done deal or not, the repercussions of that on RFA would be unbearable. The minute it looked like Edmonds had no fire service or EMS, the County Executive would go to the Superior Court to get an order for RFA to maintain the services under emergency authority until any problem gets sorted out. Quit the fear mongering. Time is not running out on anything unless there is a total collapse of Federal, State and County governments.
I have seen the financial projections of a No vote. . You should just ask the Mayor’s office for these yourself. There are probably lots of information that the “No” camp has not seen. Nor have those folks done the heavy lifting required to assess alternatives. There are paid specialists who do that for a living. Protesting tax increases is the natural response to impending actions, but a poor substitute for actual financial analysis and decisions about the practicality and realistic possibility of other alternatives. We elected a Mayor and Council to perform these functions, and I plan to support first-term Mayor Rosen because he is an exceptionally astute business analyst and deserves the chance to do recommend he thinks is best for Edmonds.
Mr. Leiendecker,
I would suggest that you do a public records request on the financial analysis, forecasts, ideas and recommendations that I have provided the city and city council over the last four years and then we can talk about my understanding of our situation (the “heavy lifting” as you call it). In it you’ll see warnings about the trajectory we were on and how to correct it when we had an opportunity. Nobody did anything other than to dig the hole deeper. And the mayor hasn’t shared the full extent of our problem.
To your point about “protesting tax increases”, the fact is that in this latest budget cycle a “Share the Pain” budget was proposed. A proposal that balanced new, non-property tax revenue streams, deeper expense reductions, some borrowing (not from the utility funds) and, yes, moderate tax increases, as a path to financial recovery. A plan that shared the pain between developers, businesses, the city and property taxpayers. The mayor or any councilmember should be able to provide it to you.
This same type of thinking has been applied to the annexation ballot measure. It’s clear that less-costly alternatives are available, some of which were conveniently overlooked in the Fitch reports. Voting “NO” provides the city and community time to lessen the tax burden we’re going to face.
Gilbert, a no vote on what? A no vote on RFA annexation or a no vote on a G.F. levy lift or a no vote on both? All I’ve seen so far is a guy who is very personable, hires lots of consultants (mostly on the sly with little transparency), asks citizen volunteers for their input and then ignores most of that input and asks for tax hikes. I’m just an ignorant peon with a B.A. degree in Sociology and AA degree in Automotive Technology but I think I could of done those three things myself without much brain strain. Roberts Rules of Order would have been a big challenge for me so I will give him a nod at being good at that. Let’s put it this way, if a guy says, “I’m really good at running a lemon aid stand as long as someone gives me the lemons, water, sugar and a great location,” does that make him a business management genius of some sort?
The only thing on the ballot in April is RFA annexation. if that fails, the big levy lift will be the only thing on the ballot in November. If that fails, there is nothing more to consider except the financial consequences of both failures. it won’t be pretty. There have been numerous Town meetings to discuss all this. Council positions are supposed to be part-time jobs, and Edmonds is not General Motors. Lots of people like to fire off their two cents’ worth of wisdom and criticism on most every subject involving government. I just happen to support Proposition 1 and the relatively modest levy lift in November. I will leave it to all the arm chair quarterbacks out there to deal mentally with the fallout if both of these propositions fail. Financial difficulty is something I am very familiar with…first stage is denial, second stage is anger, third is bargaining…..and finally acceptance. I have accepted the situation we face in Edmonds, and invite all residents to cut to the chase.
The city of Cle Elum is considering the prospect of municipal bankruptcy due to their allowing rampant development without commensurate parallel funding of the must have infrastructure that goes along with development. That is where we are heading here if these levies fail. If Rosen doesn’t announce drastic cuts in payroll and some sort of plan for if the levies fail in his speech coming up along with some new revenue sourcing, I will definitely vote no on both. If it looks like he is serious about cutting programs back to the bone, putting in park fees and maybe parking fees I will vote yes on the G.F. ask even if it includes fire costs. If not, I’m a no on that too.
We can’t just keep giving these short sighted people money to waste – that’s a fools game.
Well, you mentioned the real problem, Mr. Wright. My interest is in seeing it solved. The best way to do that is to vote Yes on Proposition 1 and Yes on the moderate levy lift. All the rest will be unnecessary if these pass. That would be in the best interest of Edmonds residents and would buy some time for further measures to bolster finances. What is not needed now are impetuous protest votes and thoughtless bombast about irresponsible governance. Perhaps you might even consider running for office if you have something to contribute. I am sure the Town will appreciate your decisions to fire lots of people and cut programs. And, of course, hopefully you will be able to turn on a sudden burst of new revenue as well. It sounds great to me, and I will look forward to see your name on the ballot. But first, I recommend Yes votes as the elegant solution.
Elegant solution or easiest solution? As to my running for office, unlike Mayor Rosen, I know I don’t have the chops for the job. In my case I also don’t have the youth for the job. Being a Mayor is a leadership job and that sometimes means making tough but ethics driven unpopular decisions about cutting costs and making do. For you and Mr. Rosen it appears to be more of a taking the easy way out and winning a popularity contest type of job. When Mr. Rosen ran for the job, for some reason I can’t figure out, he personally asked for my support. I told him no because he needed experience as a CM first. He said no to that idea because “management was his natural talent and interest.” I supported Diane Buckshnis because she had the experience and real financial background that we desperately need now.
Video and a written summary can be found on our RFA Community Resource page: https://www.nwciviccircle.org/edmonds-rfa