During the last Edmonds City Council meeting, South County Fire, or RFA (Regional Fire Authority), presented an annual report to the city. As we prepare for the upcoming ballot initiative to annex into the RFA, it is important that citizens read the actual reports and review the facts regarding our fire and EMS services.
I was somewhat surprised to hear several folks at the council meeting suggest that Edmonds should only pay for the cost of the services received, like paying for a haircut. Paying for fire and EMS services based on the cost per call might seem plausible at first, but a usage-based approach presents several major challenges. I mean, no person or government I know of has yet been able to schedule an emergency.
Emergencies are, by definition, unpredictable. The number and severity of emergencies fluctuate daily and certainly annually. A city may have a low call volume one month and a surge the next due to natural disasters, accidents or medical crises. Thus, emergency services are, by default, readiness-based. Firefighters and EMS providers don’t just respond to calls — they have to be ready 24/7 to handle emergencies at any moment. Emergency response requires full staffing, equipment and station readiness whether or not a call happens. Funding needs to cover preparedness, not just response.
If we rely on the firefighters and EMS within the RFA or neighboring cities to provide all of our readiness but refuse to pay for anything but the cost of the individual call, then we are asking our neighboring cities to pay for us. Plain and simple. It is also actually against state law for one city to pay less than another to the same entity for the same services. The proposition that we could or should pay less than any other city in the RFA means we either want to ration the services available to Edmonds or we want something for nothing.
Firefighters and EMS service providers are people with jobs. As we have seen from staffing shortages at hospitals and with the unpredictability of private ambulance services, let alone understaffed police departments, emergency response requires consistent funding and training to ensure immediate, effective response in an emergency. There is a reason why private companies do not perform the functions of government, especially when it comes to responding to emergency situations — it’s expensive, and you can’t just cut costs without taking into account the impact on a person’s life or home.
Discussing the facts about the RFA is important. Research is critical, but suggesting methods that would put people and property at risk or presenting back-of-the-napkin calculations need to be stated as such. Cities fund emergency services through consistent, predictable revenue sources — and not risky, but cheaper, options — to meet the city’s responsibility to ensure the well-being, safety and quality of life for Edmonds residents.
Let’s make sure Edmonds continues to have the reliable fire and EMS services we all depend on and vote “yes” on the RFA.
It’s been interesting to read these Reader Views between pro and con proponents for the RFA annexation. It’s also been eye opening to do your own research on comparable fire authorities across the Puget Sound region. For instance South King Fire operating budget ($51 + million), residents served (160,000), and which city subsidizes the other compared to South County Fire operating budget ($116 million), residence served (300,000), and which cities subsidize the other, etc.
I’m curious to understand between the RFA annexation pros vs cons on what a realistic compromise looks like. It can’t always be “my way or the highway” and we all know that we can’t have our cake and eat it. I think there’s a middle ground compromise between the two proponents and the RFA that all can agree to. What does the middle ground look like to a pro versus a con? For instance, does a middle ground compromise look like annexing into the RFA but landing at a budget around $18 million versus $20 million? Just an example, but I’m curious to know what that middle ground is as it can be used as a benchmark whether the annexation passes or not.
Jeremy, if Edmonds voters approve annexation the price they pay is based on the regular tax levy of the RFA plus the benefit charge fee. There’s no “negotiating” the levy rates among the cities and unincorporated areas served by this RFA to find a middle ground that yields $18-19M for Edmonds. A mechanism for reducing the post- annexation tax levy we would pay is to have the RFA cut expenses from their budget and/or attract non tax-based revenues like a grant from the hospital district and/or make a huge benefit charge increase. The RFA’s budget documents contain info that they will be subject to cost increases with the new IAFF labor contract, and that the federal government has announced Medicaid reimbursement rates for ambulance transport are going down. That’s a big expense increase and a big revenue reduction that this RFA’s Board of Commissioners have no control over. Can you see now why they’re pushing for annexation effective 6-1-25 of the City with the highest assessed property values? Under taxing regulations, when their regular levy rate goes down due to annexations, they can do a levy lift to get back to their old pre-annexation rate. This is a simplification of the state of Wash regulations, but you can get the details from the RFA’s Finance Director or the Dept. of Revenue division for property taxes.
Thanks for your note, Jeremy.
It is actually state law that Edmonds cannot pay less for our fire and EMS than neighboring cities to get the same service. The RFA has increased the cost to Edmonds over time to be on par with the other cities it serves, but it can no longer charge us 30%-40% less than a neighbor across the street. It would cost even more to contract with another RFA or department, and it is prohibitively expensive and would take years to restart our fire department.
Edmonds does not have a fire department, so it is not accurate to say that Edmonds takes “great care of our firefighters.” All of our firefighters/EMS are employed by South County Fire. We dissolved our department 15 years ago when the city realized it could not afford its own fire department, and we have not identified any other options since. This RFA evaluation has been going on for the past two years, without much attention, and all viable options considered. There can be no negotiations because of the law. The city does not have the funds to subsidize without massive cuts to the city budget, like police, parks, roads.
This is not fear-mongering, it is a matter of honestly looking at how to keep us safe and healthy.
Nonsense. Edmonds residents pay taxes that cover the cost of the contract with SCF / RFA. The cost plus contract pays for the union negotiated wages, benefits & overhead. Fitch has called out the inefficiencies with the RFA. So inefficient we could improve services and cut our costs by 20%.
https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/city_budget/community_survey
https://myedmondsnews.com/2016/04/report-edmonds-fire-ems-services-can-improve-performance-reduce-costs/
Fitch report here. 3 options to improve services and lower costs. Up to 20% of the costs at the time.
https://edmondscandobetter.org/pdf/Fitch_Executive_Summary_Report.pdf
Ms. Montalvo,
I believe that you’re misrepresenting state law. Unlike what you’re trying to convince the community, our current contract pays fully for union negotiated, wage and benefits for the number of first responders who staff our fire stations. In addition, we pay for RFA overhead expenses and equipment. Our contract has cost escalation provisions based on agreed-to metrics. All to pay for the services we contract for. Show us what we receive that we’re not paying for.
The fact is that the RFA unilaterally canceled our contract five years early without cause. They canceled it the month BEFORE our new mayor took office. Not giving him the opportunity to renegotiate the contract even though there were provisions in the contract to do so. Their motivation for annexation is strictly driven by our relatively high assessed valuation. By us joining, they get a windfall of revenue through us paying higher property taxes for the same service we currently receive. By us joining, the current member cities will receive a tax reduction because of our property values. Out taxes go up, their taxes go down.
So, tell us how this is a fair deal for Edmonds. What levels of service will be improved for double the cost?
There is no state law that requires the RFA to price their service the same for all parties.
The applicable State laws are referred to in the precedent-setting Attorney General Ruling (AGO 1989 No. 6) that confirmed to the Pierce County DA that “a fire district has the authority to tax its district residents for services (e.g., property tax levies and Fire Benefit Costs), but is not allowed by law to do the same for non-residents who are under contract. Persons residing outside the district may receive the district’s services by either of two methods. They may annex their territory to the district, see generally RCW 52.04 [chapter 52.04 RCW], or they may receive such services by contracting with the district, RCW 52.12.031(3). By the former method, the territory annexed to the district becomes subject to taxation; by the latter method, the recipients of the district’s services pay compensation to the district.”
The RFA is obviously trying to get around the law by unilaterally cancelling the contract and forcing annexation on Edmonds residents. Once annexed, fire/ems service for Edmonds is totally under RFA control – and will be based on property tax levies as set by the RFA. Annexation is a bad deal for Edmonds residents. Vote No! https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Jeremy, that’s the whole point of why the VOTE NO concerned citizen led advisory group is saying we need to hit the pause button and try to force the RFA to at least revise their contract ask to a reasonable number, instead of just almost doubling it. We’ve got all this furious calculation of what this will do to our taxes by the bean counters on both sides of issue when the answer is very simple. If the RFA essentially doubles the cost of our service, the city property tax portion of our over all taxes will almost double (especially when you add in the levy lid lift the city will ask for in the Fall and the fact is our city portion will probably more than double if that gets a yes vote). The reason we don’t have what you are looking for is the Mayor and Council basically just caved on the negotiation end of the deal to what the RFA wants. The reader view piece here is just saying vote yes now or the fire service sky might fall on Edmonds. When you can’t go with facts and figures to get what you want; fear mongering and emotional histrionics is the next best thing.
Edmonds residents need leadership & fiscal accountability! We take great care of our firefighters with the best pension, the best schedule (10 work days a month), paid overtime, $145k avg, $250k (top 50 FF’s) a Chief that earns $350k/yr.
It’s time for politicians to start looking out for the rest of us. Time to focus on our no1. priority according to the Mayors 24′ survey, ‘housing affordability’. How do we get our electeds attention, do we need to start an Edmonds taxpayer PAC, campaign and contribute to politicians similar to the firefighters?
“As long as politicans are involved in our ability to fight fires, fire fighters must be involved in politics. Contributing to FIREPAC builds a more powerful, effective union.”
https://www.iaff.org/firepac/
https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/city_budget/community_survey
10-24 hour days per month*
Peter one of my best friends did 30 years with Everett Fire Dept. and according to him they love those 10/24 Hr.s on and 20 days off because it’s easy to live a long ways from where they work if they choose to and they have a great opportunity to have two jobs. I think his was more like 7days on and 14 off but the same idea. He built houses on the side and worked for a moving company. He was making $80K+ twenty years ago with the fire job alone. Don’t get me wrong, I know being on call all hours of the day and night is a rough gig and hard on the body and they deserve to be paid very well for that, but most of them view that sort of schedule as a plus of the job; not a minus.
I think a true regional fire district that includes all cities south of Everett and north of Seattle is what we really need.
It would be great if some real leader were working on something like that. Probably not realistic right now but if sometime soon would be good. Not sure yet how to vote in April. But still have not seen anyone talking about it true regional district. I have had to use 911 twice recently. Once from my home in Edmonds and once from Shoreline as I was at my PCP in Shorelline and they called 911. I received excellent service both times so thankful for that.
Don’t confuse price with costs. RFA prices services on assessed value property tax levies. Land valuations have nothing to do with fire/ems service costs. RFA has no proof that they deliver economies of scale and lower prices. Their prices have risen by 50-70% after every annexation. They have failed to reorganize/streamline operations as medical calls have risen to 85% of all 911 calls. Fact: dedicated paramedics earn less than firefighters and they work twice as many hours before they need to take a stress/fatigue ‘time-out.’ Instead of re-organizing to cut costs and improve medical response, RFA pursues the higher cost solution with combo firefighter/paramedics responding to medical calls by rolling fire trucks and sending more personnel than necessary. No one is suggesting that residents should pay for fire/ems service on a per call basis. We are only suggesting that annual cost per resident and cost per 911 call (and other efficiency metrics) be used to determine whether RFA services are worth $21M per year vs. the $12M that we now pay. Since $12M is based on cost of service and since there are numerous case studies showing reliable fire/ems service can be provided for the current $292/yr per resident and $1,973 per 911 call cost, why should Edmonds pay the RFA double those costs just because the RFA says that’s what other annexed cities pay?
Bill, based on Mr. McShane’s very unbiased research and reporting right here in MEN we know that the amount RFA is asking Edmonds taxpayers to pay is out of line by some amount of money. Maybe its overreach by $1M or maybe it’s overreach by $8M or more. The point is we don’t know what the overreach is because the Mayor and Council haven’t really done their job of finding that out before they put this up for an unnecessary and expensive special election. Under these circumstances, it’s impossible to make a well reasoned vote on this issue. This whole idea that this has anything to do with high quality service being here for us or not is a hoax. Whether it’s annexation or one or two more years of contract it is the same amount of money needed according to the RFA and no one has even tried to challenge them on that except a bunch of citizens who are tired of paying property taxes for everything needed under the sun, without looking for more revenue sources or some honest attempts at economy where possible. This will probably pass because half truth fear pieces like this Reader View are a great sales tool. Just be aware, with a yes vote you may be paying quite a bit more than you might have to.
My comment is referring to Bill Oliver’s comment; not Bill Krepick’s which would amount to “preaching to the choir.”