This is in reply to Dave Teitzel’s Reader View regarding the regional fire authority (RFA). Shortly after Shoreline’s special election to create its regional fire authority, Councilwoman Vivian Olson asked me – as an independent Edmonds citizen – to do a comparative cost assessment of Shoreline versus South County Fire (SCF) as options for Edmonds. I called Matt Cowan, Shoreline Fire Chief, in search of information.
Shoreline cost in 2025 would be the sum of three components: fire levy rate @$0.70, EMS levy rate @$0.22, and benefit charge (*) rate @$0.377, totalling $1.297.
The equivalent South County Fire cost is $1.29.
Rates could increase in 2026 and beyond, the benefit charge is only an aggregated average estimate for Shoreline, and costs for service could be altered in contract negotiations, possibly. It appears, though, that even if there were some future variations in these costs, there would be no significant cost advantage in joining a Shoreline RFA, as opposed to the South County Fire RFA.
It is assumed the service from either RFA would be of high quality. Beyond the issue of cost, which does not appear to tip the balance in favor of either RFA, there are some additional considerations that do not favor the Shoreline RFA option. These are already documented and are known to City Council:
- The cost of navigating between Shoreline’s King County 911 system and Edmonds’ SnoCom 911, which results in time delay for call transfers.
- Shoreline may require Edmonds to purchase equipment and maintain stations, neither of which would be required by South County Fire.
- A value of being in the same consortium that includes Edmonds’ closest collaborating cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace.
- A benefit of familiarity of SCF RFA staff with Edmonds. Ten Edmonds fire fighters still work in SCF, since 2010, which helps in emergency response and in planning for the future.
Dave Teitzel advises close examination of all fire and EMS service options for Edmonds. It looks like the Shoreline RFA may never be the preferred choice, for the above several reasons.
(*) The benefit charge is based on square footage, so the charge is an individual amount calculated for each location. The figure here was provided as an estimate by a third-party consultant. This figure is an “equivalent average” figure for all properties together in the district. The actual charge would also vary by dwelling type — more for commercial and multi-family structures, less for single-family residential.
Larry Williamson lives in Edmonds’ Westgate neighborhood.
As another option toward resolving this issue, I would like to see evidence of belt-tightening by the Fire/EMS folks. They precipitated this issue by cancelling their former contract. A previous article (can’t remember the author or date) suggested there were ways they could reduce their expenses.
Thanks for these calm and transparent analyses. Very helpful to see the details of the various options and what was considered.
Larry – thanks for the info. By ‘cost’ – do you mean the property tax rate assessed by the RFA’s? I don’t think you’re comparing the cost of providing services in these two RFAs. In a text message from one of the South County Fire commissioners to one of the Edmonds City Council members last year (see public records request archive) they emphasized that South County doesn’t spend every tax dollar collected on providing Fire/EMS service. The excess is in a reserve fund. And by year end 2025 they expected to have almost $80Million in reserves. The capital spending plan is relevant to us. Our RFA has a project in the architect design phase to replace a fire station in Lynnwood. And they have bought or leased land from Verdant Health Commission and are in the permitting phase (EIS, specifically) to build a 4th fire station in Edmonds . Other fire districts in Snohomish County put less into the reserve fund and issue bonds for the Fire Station construction projects. It would be great if you could write a Part 2 article and report on the reserve funds. Also South County Fire will have a Cost Study done in 2025. That will explain their cost of providing Services. But it’s not coming in time for the Edmonds April election.
A good overview comparing South County and Shoreline RFAs. But where’s the critical information for benchmarking performance and cost metrics across a broader sample of fire/ems providers? The real question is how do these two RFA’s compare with efficient organizations? Why hasn’t either organization modernized their staffing with more dedicated paramedics to respond to the 85% of 911 calls that are medical emergencies? Dedicated paramedics work more hours with fewer mandated stress/fatigue time-outs than firefighters, and they get paid 25% less than firefighters. EMS vehicles respond quicker than 60,000 pound firetrucks. Why does neither RFA report on critical benchmark metrics that show how efficient they are? Like annual cost per resident; cost per 911 call; # of firefighters, # of paramedics, # fire stations, # fire trucks, # ambulance trucks per 1,000 residents; administrative cost as % of total operating cost; overtime wages as % of total wages; wages as % of operating costs; annual listing of employee wages; etc. Taxpayers should have easy access to this data so they can determine if their tax dollars are being spent wisely. RFAs promote ‘economies of scale’ but they fail to deliver cost savings after annexation. RFA annexation will double your taxes. Comparing Shoreline and SouthCounty offers no clue re what an efficient fire/ems operation should be. More analysis of more options is needed. https://www.edmondscandobetter.org/options
https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
I totally agree with Bill Krepick. The RFA started this problem. What have they done to cut costs? I feel like they have us with our backs to the wall. They should be working to lower their costs.
Larry, your calculation of the total cost of fire/EMS in Shoreline is very similar to what I suggested in part 1 of the series of columns I published recently in MEN. Note, however, this does not mean that this is an apples to apples comparison. As I pointed out in part 2, the rate would be reduced if Edmonds were to annex to the RFA due to dilution resulting from the inclusion of Edmonds’ aggregate AV into the levy rate calculation . The same would apply for annexation to Shoreline but the amount of dilution would probably differ based on the relative sizes of the existing RFAs. Note also, that the effective levy rate which you quote uses an average of the benefit charge across all properties and doesn’t accurately reflect the cost for homeowners/taxpayers. I pointed out in part 2 of my series that the South County Fire RFA currently raises only 7% of their revenue via the fire benefit charge and increasing this to 14% or even 28% would substantially reduce total cost to Edmonds residents. In your example, it appears that the Shoreline RFA is using the benefit charge to collect 35% of its revenue which would make this option significantly more affordable for Edmonds residents.
Niall. you continue to teach us. I appreciate it. The fees a fire department collects from a benefit charge is a very important tool that counteracts the unfairness of charging us based on the tax assessed value of home/land. (The State legislature set up this property taxing model when they gave fire districts the ability to tax property owners. Then years later they added the benefit charge tool. ) I like the pricing model in the contract Edmonds has with Couth County Fire very much because we are paying for all the staff in the stations, plus our share of overhead. When we needed to add more staff for the EMS calls, we started paying SCF more. If the Board of Fire Commissions in South County would take action to make their revenue collection more fair to all the 300,000 customers in the RFA, they wouldn’t irritate me so much. But they are overly simplistic – it’s all about property taxes for this Board of Commissioners. So our choice on the ballot in April is to give a significant subsidy to the tax payers in Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and the unincorporated areas because they have lower property values than Edmonds – a subsidy that goes into infinity – or when ever this Board of Commissioners decides to make taxes more fair.