As a former Edmonds City Councilmember, I admit to having mixed feelings about the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) ballot initiative coming before our voters on April 22. On the one hand, our elected officials are my friends and former colleagues, and I understand the challenges they have in working to resolve the city’s current fiscal crisis. None of my comments are intended to be critical.The heavy and growing cost of fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) is contributing significantly to that crisis, and it is very tempting for our city officials to seek ways to remove that load from our budget. Voter approval in April of RFA annexation will shift all fire/EMS costs from the city budget directly to the taxpayer. Doing so will not resolve the city’s budget crisis, but it will help move the budget toward a stronger footing.
On the other hand, as a senior citizen and taxpayer now on a fixed income, I’m sensitive to the ever-increasing tax load we are asked to bear. Honestly, it doesn’t feel sustainable. In a recent Edmonds citizen survey, respondents rated “housing affordability” as a top priority. Inherent in the “housing affordability” notion is the continued ability of Edmonds residents (especially those of limited incomes) to afford to remain in their homes. I am very concerned that annexation to the RFA will essentially double the taxes/fees paid by our taxpayers for fire/EMS services. This will have the effect of making home ownership in Edmonds less affordable (particularly for those on fixed incomes), directly contrary to what the survey respondents listed as a top priority. At the end of the day, the issue of how best to provide fire/EMS services to our community should be assessed first from the taxpayer perspective, then worked backward from that point to determine proper funding models.
Let me provide an illustration of this tax/fee effect. Using an example of a 2,500-square-foot home valued at $895,700 (the same assumptions the city is using in its calculation of the tax effects of RFA annexation on the average Edmonds home), in 2025, the homeowner pays $250.80 in EMS tax as well as $644.90 in city tax, which goes into the general fund. Of the $644.90, $429.94 is now being used to pay for the current fire/EMS contract with South County Fire. So, the total tax this homeowner now pays for fire/EMS service is $680.73. Note: If the RFA vote passes, City Council has decided to retain the $429.94 general fund amount now being used to pay for the fire/EMS contract and use that money for other city needs.
As I mentioned above, if the RFA vote passes, the city will retain the full $429.94 now being allocated to cover fire/EMS contract costs. So, under the same assumptions as above, if the RFA vote passes, the same homeowner will pay the same $644.90 city tax, the new RFA fire tax of $731.70 directly to the RFA, the new RFA EMS tax of $305.78 directly to the RFA and a new RFA fire benefit charge fee of $78.70 directly to the RFA, for a grand total of $1,765.19. This is a net tax/fee increase of $866.91 — roughly double the current taxes and fees paid by the homeowner for city taxes and tax for fire/EMS services.
Simply put, a doubling of taxes/fees for the same level of fire/EMS service doesn’t seem reasonable, and I believe we can do better. There is no dispute that Edmonds is receiving very good service via our current contract with South County Fire, and we admire and appreciate our firefighters and medics who have served us so well. And we recognize they fully deserve to be well compensated for being able to respond when we have emergencies.
However, I don’t believe our taxpayers are willing to pay double for the same level of fire/EMS services they are now receiving, and that tax/fee load is likely to increase even further over time. That’s why a no vote to the RFA annexation measure is appropriate at this time —our taxpayers deserve to know that each and every alternative to annexation has been fully and systematically explored.
The city has stated they have already fully examined every possible model for the provision of fire/EMS services for Edmonds. However, this is incorrect. They contracted with Fitch and Associates in 2024 to assess options, and Fitch identified four: annex into the RFA, contract with Shoreline Fire, initiate an Edmonds Fire Department and contract with an independent provider of EMS services. Fitch concluded (and City Council agreed) that, of these four options, RFA annexation is the best course for the city.
Missing from this report is any discussion of other options. For instance, Mukilteo currently has a stand-alone fire department. There has been no public discussion of any analysis that’s been undertaken to determine whether a win-win relationship between Mukilteo and Edmonds may be possible — via contract or creation of a sub-RFA — to provide fire/EMS services. Additionally, Woodway (which has an extremely close community of interest with Edmonds) was served by Edmonds Fire for over 100 years, but they are currently served via contract with Shoreline Fire. Would Woodway be interested in joining with Edmonds and Mukilteo in a mutually beneficial relationship for fire/EMS service? How about Esperance (which is now served by South County Fire, but our Station 20 is located within Esperance and could easily be used to serve that community should it no longer be served by South County Fire)? The Fitch report concluded that a contract with Shoreline Fire was not financially attractive. However, that report was released prior to Shoreline Fire and Northshore Fire combining into a Regional Fire Authority in 2025. Shouldn’t the possibility of a contract with that new agency be reexamined to determine whether the terms may now be more attractive? These are just a few potential alternatives to RFA annexation, and there are likely many more.
Again, our voters deserve to know that each and every potential alternative to RFA annexation has been fully assessed and quantified. There is no doubt RFA annexation is the most direct way to ensure our high-quality fire/EMS services continue unchanged (but at a high price). However, if other options exist that may ensure the same quality of service at a more affordable price, taxpayers need to know full due diligence has been done to fully analyze these options to determine whether they are viable.
It’s clear Edmonds has been receiving good value from South County Fire via our current contractual arrangement, and our taxpayers must recognize the costs for fire/EMS services will certainly increase — no matter which option is finally selected to provide these services. But a doubling of taxes and fees for fire/EMS services is simply unreasonable.
A yes vote in April for RFA annexation will shift the cost burden for fire/EMS services away from the city and transfer it directly to the taxpayers, who will be paying taxes directly to the RFA. This will ease (but not solve) the city’s budget crisis and has appeal from that perspective. But it will dramatically increase what our taxpayers will have to pay for essentially the same level of fire/EMS services they now receive, and it will be very difficult to reverse the annexation decision should our residents and businesses later find they are not satisfied with the arrangement. A no vote in April means high-quality fire/EMS services will continue for Edmonds, but under contract rather than via annexation to the RFA. This vote would provide additional time to fully vet the complete range of alternatives to RFA annexation to determine whether viable and cost-effective options to annexation exist.
With the above in mind, I plan to vote no on April 22, knowing much work will be needed to fully explore all potential options. And I recognize this means the city’s budget crisis is not eased. In fact, the city will need to come to the voters in the fall with a levy lid lift request to create additional tax revenue to pay for the 2026 fire/EMS contract. I plan to vote yes on the fall levy, as I fully recognize the city doesn’t have the financial capacity to cover all its costs — even with additional and deep spending cuts.
This is clearly a complex issue and one that is central to our need for public safety and health. I truly hope voters will take the time to study all the facts around this issue and cast well-informed votes. There are pros and cons to either a yes vote or a no vote, with major implications to how taxpayer funds are best used. I wish everyone well as they study this issue and prepare for the April 22 vote and trust they will vote wisely.
Dave Teitzel is a former Edmonds City Councilmember.
Dave, thank you for this thoughtful and in depth analysis of RFA annexation. I would like to add one other reason for voting No on the upcoming upcoming Ballot Initiative. Even if we don’t find an alternative to joining the RFA, it gives our representatives an opportunity to renegotiate the contract to one that is more heavily based on structure square footage(Fire Benefit Charge) than on assessed value. Such a contract would decrease the amount owed by Edmonds citizens.
As Dave has noted joining the RFA would help the City budget, and an article in the March 8 Everett Herald explains the story behind the City hiring a PR firm to “explain” the RFA. My conclusion from reading this article confirms my suspicions that the City hired the firm to sell the RFA. Read it and come to your own conclusion.
The link for the afore-mentioned Everett Herald article
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/residents-question-edmonds-after-hiring-comms-firm-for-rfa-vote/
NB: The website is larded down with ads and other crap that steal your computer’s resources, grinding it to a halt. Better to view the article on your desktop computer, not your tablet or phone, where you have protection against this sort of nonsense.
Dave, I have been reading so many articles with charts and budget figures to try to understand how to vote on this issue in April. Your article helped me finally understand why I should vote no. It seems there is more research to be completed before a fully informed decision can be made. By voting no, we create the time to do more research of possible other options before committing. We will still have the contract with South County Fire as we complete this work. I will also vote yes in the levy. I feel more comfortable paying more taxes when I know the City of Edmonds has control of the budget.
Thank you, Dave!
Thanks Dave. We’re having so much information thrown at us regarding this issue that it’s hard to see it clearly. Your deep dive cost and services analysis helped cut through some of the confusion for me.
Don’t take this wrong, I totally agree with Dave in all he says here except I probably won’t vote for the levy lift either unless I see some observable severe cost cutting and revenue enhancement to go along with it. (All show and no go so far on that). Otherwise that will just be more money down a rat hole. What is not going to happen is this Mayor and this Council voluntarily going back to the drawing board to seek out a possible better way and contrary to their claims they are trying to sell us on annexation. Their minds are made up and they are entrenched with one possible exception on Council. What will have to happen is a citizen movement, much like the Connector situation, to force an honest study on what the costs should be and what we are willing to pay for equal or better service. There are citizens living here that could and probably would aid in such a study almost for free. It doesn’t have to cost $64,000 for a “good vibes” consultant (plus $250,000 for an unneeded and poorly thought out special election strategy to rush it through),
Very helpful, Dave and Bob. Great information! Many presentations and discussions have been very one sided and felt more like sales pitches. Over the last several years it sure seems that our leaders (correction, those we vote for to represent and serve our community) spend more time and money looking to add things than subtract, tighten and clean up our budget. We should not spend what we do not have and it is irresponsible to just lay it all on the taxpayers.
I wonder what the total outlay has been for the “experts and consultants” to tell our “leaders” how to use our tax dollars outside safety and infrastructure.
I appreciate you two gentlemen rounding out the discussion and making so clear a perspective of many of us who actually will be paying the consequences. I hope our “leaders” and paying attention.
Dave, thank you for this article that explains the issue so clearly. I will be voting NO.
This thoughtful article basically restates the obvious. The City has a big deficit and taxes must be raised. Our elected Mayor and Council have examined the situation and recommended a course of action. But, understandably, residents don’t want their taxes raised, period. I dare say that if the RFA annexation cost nothing, the “no” voices would go quiet. Examining more alternatives is always possible, but may not result in a significant difference. Obviously, inflation has hurt everybody, especially those who are retired and living on fixed incomes. That is just a fact of life. It is impossible to push back on grocery and restaurant prices and simply make them go back down. It may seem more expedient to push back on tax increases, but that will not solve the grave fiscal problems that require a timely solution. Rather than suggest that there is a possible alternative out there that has received inadequate Council attention, perhaps somebody could propose that particular solution and save the Council the trouble of further study. Without that revelation, the suggestions about the possible existence of less-costly solutions is just pie in the sky, the primary purpose of which is to stave off an inevitable tax increase.
We have had about 30% inflation how does 100% plus increase compute. A no vote here and a no vote on the levy would force the city into a more reasonable compromise for the taxpayers annexation or not. Do I think we can figure something out that that would provide as good for cheaper, probably not. We have what about 12 million a year the city is going to keep plus whatever the levy lift is. Inflation sure this sounds more like greedy government at taxpayers expense.
Thank so much for the thoughtful analysis, Dave.
Dave- Thanks so much for taking a 360* view of the RFA annexation dilemma. Lest anyone forget, the RFA unilaterally canceled the City’s contract that was supposed to extend to 2030. The RFA renegotiated the costs and staffing in the contract between 2019 and 2023 – and raised prices by 50%. The RFA took advantage of the City’s fiscal crisis, canceled the contract, and basically forced the annexation ballot measure so they could increase their Edmonds’ revenues by another 70% from $12M to $21M, claiming Edmonds was subsidized by the other RFA annexed cities. The City then got behind the annexation strategy because it was the easiest way to fix $6M of the deficit by having the taxpayers pay for fire/ems service through new direct taxes to the RFA. The City is keeping $6M in current fire/ems property taxes to pay for non-essential budget items. On top of double taxation, the City uses $64K of taxpayer money for PR contract to ‘sell the value’ of annexation to taxpayers! Something seriously wrong with this picture! Vote No! on annexation and force the City to do proper due diligence on alternative fire/ems solutions. Make your voices heard and make sure the City authorizes a new Citizen fire/ems committee to review and approve both the consultant and scope of research needed to properly analyze fire/ems alternatives. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Dave, thank you for your well thought out perspective. Clearly at this time a NO vote is the most prudent decision. Furthermore, a levy lift is probably going to be the only way to help right the ship with city finances. In the fall election, it would be advantageous to elect or retain council members with strong financial literacy, rather than those with mere partisan support and superficial budget understanding.
Thanks Dave. I have gone to almost all of the meetings and after the last meeting, it was clear to me that it was a way for the city to reduce their financial problem. On the other hand, a vote, No, may be able to provide the same service under contract with time to explore other alternatives. We need an alternative that would clarify the tax load on the homeowner.
Thank you for the clarification Dave.
how do we vote on April 22nd? is the City of Edmonds sending out voting paperwork?
This will be run through the Snohomish County Elections Office and the ballots will be mailed to voters April 3, according to the county website. — Teresa
Jenny: thanks for the question. Yes—a ballot will be mailed to all registered voters in Edmonds in mid-April, with a voter’s guide (containing a description of the issue and pro and con statements) shortly before that. As far as I know, this RFA annexation issue will be the only issue on the ballot.
And now we’re learning during our city declared fiscal crisis & reported layoffs of Edmonds city staff, city council approved a 7.5% across the board pay increase for South County Fire. I’m at a loss here.
Is it possible the city is playing favoritism? On the PDC website, we see the fire union made thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, in the form of campaign materials (signs, mailers).
Thank you, Dave, for your clear and concise explanation of this issue! I miss you and Diane on the Council!
Great clear and objective piece Dave. I’m with you all the way on the fire component but would really like to see more real firm evidence on some cost cutting and revenue enhancement before I give a guaranteed yes vote on the general fund component. The plain and simple truth is, it is going cost a whole bunch more to live here no matter who you are, what your party politics are or how we provide necessary fire and ems service. It seems like the only people who get loans from banks are the people who already have money and the only people who get tax breaks are the ones who don’t need them, or even ask for them in a lot of cases. Economics – The Dismal Science – for sure.
Can someone please help me understand the following: Like Dave said (thank you for the clarifications), we currently pay for Edmonds city tax and Fire/EMS tax. Going with the RFA option means we pay the Fire/EMS tax directly to RFA. In that case, the city is planning to keep the tax we currently pay for Fire/EMS to apply it to other city needs. I understand why they want that and structured this deal the way they have. My question is: why isn’t anyone contesting that decision – not just the advocacy for the RFA option but also the fact that with the RFA option, they get to keep the money. Why is it OK for the city to just pass us off to RFA but keep the money? Again, I know we are in bad shape and the city needs the money but dealing with the city shortfall (even if it is bigger when the current Fire/EMS is removed) is a different issue than determining the go-forward plan for Fire/EMS services. The city has mixed these two but to me they are separate problems that need be solved. Am I the only one that has an issue with the city just keeping the money?
Jack, as noted in the op ed, the city has been using $430 of General Fund tax money to pay for the South County Fire contract (this example is based on the average Edmonds home value of $895,700). The city is in a fiscal crisis, caused by something called a “structural fund imbalance,” where city revenues aren’t able to cover ongoing city expenses. This situation has forced the city to spend down our reserves and even borrow money from our Utilities Fund to balance the books. It’s not a sustainable situation. So, if the city had decided to “give back” to the taxpayers the General Fund money that’s been used to pay the ever-escalating fire/EMS contract costs, the city would have had to come to the voters this year with an even larger tax levy increase request than they already plan to do to replace the revenue they gave back. And with a jumbo-sized levy request, there is a good chance voters would not approve it. In that case, an already dire fiscal situation for the city would be made even worse. This puts us directly in the “death spiral” toward insolvency. In large part, this is why the city wants the voters to agree to annex Edmonds into the RFA. It’s one step of several that would move the city toward better fiscal health.
Dave do you think there could be anyway the city could cut spending to help reduce the need for such dramatic increases? I know the city tried to make some cuts I think to the tune of about 5% I don’t know what we ended up with. Just maybe if the city took a big hit the taxpayers might be more inclined to approve a large tax increase to keep things going. For me a 5% cut and a 100% ask is unreasonable on that note the city can rot under the weight of its own mismanagement until further notice.
It’s not OK to take the money and repurpose it for other city funds. When you take money under false pretenses it’s called FRAUD. Reasonable minds can disagree what is the best path forward for Fire/ EMS services, However, this proposed financing scheme is fundamentally inappropriate.
That’s kind of what I was thinking as well. I understand the situation Dave but to just assume that we are OK with repurposing seems wrong. Understood that the fall levy ask would have to be much larger but we would get to express our voice on that. As it is, our voice seems to have been taken from us with the assumption that the majority voted for an x% increase. It is too much of a “slight of hand” approach to funding the city expenses. Again, add this to other decisions (eg hiring a marketing firm), continues to erode trust in our city leaders.
Jack, I followed the City budget closely for the last 5 years. We got a new Mayor (M. Nelson), all new Directors, and almost all of them came to Council and asked for their headcount to be increased. I will never understand why Council approved those hires and ran a deficit spending program for 4 years. In 2025, they’ve conflated their budget mess with the RFA annexation choice as you point out. Please note that this RFA’s Commissioners were very savvy in choosing what year to cancel the Edmonds contract – they waited until the Edmonds budget was a mess and gave the Council an easy way to change what they spend the property tax revenue on. The RFA Commissions did the same thing to the City of Brier in 2023. We have had deficit spending budgets even after the fiscal emergency was declared. I’ll be voting ‘No’ on annexation and waiting for the City Council to explain the path out of the fiscal emergency they put themselves into. In doing that, I’m essentially voting No on the 2025/2026 budget this Council approved. (I did enterprise budgeting at a large private utility for 7 years. We had to lay employees off in the 1990’s when we had major revenue shortfalls, and again in the 2000’s due to the high cost of service. That’s management’s job.)
In 2012 the approved budget was 33 million what was it this year? How many of us has had our household budget increase by 400% in the last dozen years? One would think that kind of spending would be unsustainable but I guess when you are spending other people’s money you just raise what they must give you by 100 plus percent be it by hook or crook. The city is like a child that wants a increase in their allowance. But at the end of the week the laundry hasn’t been done the bathroom hasn’t been cleaned every dish in the house is stacked in the sink the garbage is over flowing and the lawn isn’t mowed and they are asking if they can get paid and get next weeks allowance in advance with a promise they will get it done later.
Mr. Masters, I assure you, you are not the only one who has questions about all of this jumping on board with annexation, an unneeded and costly special election, wasteful use of tax dollars, juggling the funds around, and using over priced water/sewer revenue to prop up the general fund. There is a state auditors report on city finances that was due to be made public months ago but that just keeps getting postponed with no explanations as to why except there has been personnel changes whatever that means. It smells like some sort of cover up but there is no way to know what the problem is really because all these elected officials who were going to be transparent about everything won’t say boo without talking to a consultant or an attorney. I don’t pretend to have any answers but I do know the mess is only going to get worse with the trajectory we are on. If you plan to stay here also plan to start writing ever bigger tax checks. This town does not have the economic base to support the lifestyle it has been living and the management of basic needs gets placed behind extravagant wants all the time.
Dave, thanks for your thoughtful analysis. It is important to note that the city taxes and SCF taxes and fees will nearly double. In the city Q&A doc numbers are given a bit of “Spin” to make it look smaller. For the $895,700 home the city says the increase will be $446 but as Dave points out the net is really $867.
By passing the new contract cost to the taxpayer and keeping the money currently used for Fire/EMS the shift to the taxpayer is really $15.4m. (Source: MEN report of council budget retreat)
The fall levy is budgeted for $6m and that will add about 1/3 more to the taxes or about $336.
Council has budgeted some new revenues like Red Light cameras and offered some cuts. What will the actuals show for where we are now vs what was budgeted?
“the city doesn’t have the financial capacity to cover all its costs — even with additional and deep spending cuts.” …And… “There are pros and cons to either a yes vote or a no vote, with major implications to how taxpayer funds are best used.”
We do need more revenue but what would be the budget impact if we funded basics first?
Some of the reductions would be painful to some but would reduce our expenses. We have some work to do.
Everyone, undecided or not, would be wise to read the previously referenced article:
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/residents-question-edmonds-after-hiring-comms-firm-for-rfa-vote/
A public records request of emails between consultant Liz Loomis, Mayor, staff, and Council highlight the lack of transparency of Mayor/Council and manipulations of their narrative for a yes vote on annexation. Excerpts from the article:
Liz Loomis:
“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?’”
CM Vivian Olson:
Olson also said the city never fully vetted the option of continuing its contract
with the regional fire authority at a higher rate. No one mentioned it while a
city-hired consulting firm was researching the city’s options — including
former mayor Mike Nelson, the regional fire authority, the public or the
consulting firm itself — Olson wrote. The option was in a letter from South
County Fire after the consultant report, Olson said, but she didn’t open it
because she thought she knew what it said.
Hi Joan,
The labor settlements along with similar increases to non-represented staff significantly increased the budget. Using one time ARPA money to fund reoccurring expenses also was a contributing factor.
The mayor’s state of the city address and other public meetings clearly outlined the full extent of the budget issues. Follow up work done by the Economic Development Commission fully showed the budget issues. As a member of the EDC, I met with each CM individually and shared the full details of the budget issues. At all meetings it was suggested that an EMS levy should be on the ballot in 2024. That could have raised $3m and would have been credited to taxpayers for future Fire/EMS needs.
It is unfortunate we find ourselves in this position when earlier actions could have reduced the pain.
Thanks for the links to the Everett Hearld article.
Dave thank you for your insightful research on the topic, after reading I will be a YES vote.
The Shoreline RFA is not going to be cheaper – please see my research at:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/03/reader-view-opinion-a-comparative-analysis-of-shoreline-vs-south-county-fire/
Look who is financing the vote yes campaign signs around town!
Snohomish County Firefighters PAC (sponsored by IAFF LOCAL 1828)
Mr. Williamson points out that Shoreline RFA won’t be any cheaper but that doesn’t really address the whole issue. It isn’t just about the current cost. We know all of this is going to cost more and more the way things are going. The real questions are how much more does it really have to cost, why does it have to cost SO much more, and how do we get some handle on controlling the future costs. There is a reason why our Mayor, City Council, and SCF (and it’s union with management membership) have mounted a huge scale effort to pass this thing in a quickie special election costing the city(taxpayers) around $1/4M. The reason is the city wants to end having control and responsibility of this as soon as possible and the SCF/RFA wants to grab the Edmonds high AV windfall and control of this as soon as possible. The minute SCF/RFA gets total control of this function, future high cost run ups are inevitable and it’s the property owners who will have no recourse whatsoever on tax and benefit charge hikes except the good will of a board that generally rubber stamps whatever the RFA says it needs. A Union’s job is rightfully to fight for better pay and working conditions for it’s members. Is that what they are doing here?
r
Sounds like a whole lot of suspicion wrapped in speculation. If the concern is about cost control, wouldn’t it make sense to have a regional entity with dedicated oversight and annual auditing rather than leaving it up to a city struggling to keep up as it is and that you clearly don’t trust? The “high AV windfall” argument also ignores the fact that a well-funded fire authority benefits everyone, including property owners who expect reliable emergency services. And as for the board just “rubber stamping” whatever the RFA wants, if that’s the worry, maybe the focus should be on ensuring accountable leadership rather than trying to sink the whole thing?
What makes you think a different government entity is going to be more accountable than a city government? Does the board have more members than the elected of all the city leaders combined in the cities they represent? No no more people will governed by by fewer that is less representation. I can’t say it will be as bad or worse but in general the people haven’t been well represented by government becase the few seem to think they know better what is good for us.
Think of it like a homeowners association versus a condo board. A city running its own fire department is like an HOA trying to handle everything itself; budgeting, maintenance, emergency repairs, all while juggling a million other city services with competing interests. An RFA is more like a condo board that specializes in just one thing: maintaining and improving fire and emergency services for its region. Sure, it’s fewer decision-makers overall, but they’re focused experts, not just city officials with a dozen other responsibilities. The question isn’t just how many people are making the decisions, it’s whether they’re the right people with the right priorities.
Jeremy, in the space of one year SCF/RFA arbitrarily cancelled our contract and says we need to essentially pay double for the same service. If that didn’t trigger some speculation and suspicion you would have to be brain dead. This also doesn’t exactly scream out “dedicated oversight and annual auditing” saving us any money. Looks like that’s costing us money, if anything. Another thing is our so called fire departments have become mostly a medical aid service (85%) with fighting fires on the side. Home insurance is based on proximity of fire hydrants, how quick the fire calls are made and things like that. The home insurance company isn’t worried about how fast they thump your chest or haul you to the E.R. Your health insurance company, on the other hand might be impressed with that.
Good point Clint…
Also given the recent experience of Los Angeles and their fires, do Edmonds fire hydrants actually work? Is there water when they are turned on? Who monitors and checks the fire hydrants??
…Just sayin’
Jeremy-
The RFA touts its ‘economies of scale’ but they show no evidence of delivering any economies except for ladder trucks they share between communities. No reduction in management layers; no optimizing staffing with more dedicated paramedics and EMS trucks to quickly respond to 85% of 911 calls for medical service; no decrease in costs per capita or costs per 911 call. Quite the reverse for 2025 budget – an 18% increase in office of the fire chief; 25% of budget allocated for administration; $1.5 million for ‘communication’ (PR to convince taxpayers the RFA is doing a wonderful job?) The RFA is controlled by an inbred Board whose first priority appears to be full employment for firefighters rather than innovative, cost effective service for taxpayers. It seeks to increase its spending by periodic annexation windfalls that bypass the State caps on annual A-V based tax increases. That’s what they’re proposing for Edmonds where annexation would double taxes and increase the fire/ems budget from $12M to $21M between 2025 and 2026. Does all that reflect your recommended condo board approach? The State financial accounting guidelines do not require tracking and reporting on critical financial and operational metrics. The whole regional fire authority business model is broken, and local control is the best alternative.
Ah, so the RFA’s ‘economies of scale’ are more like ‘economies of sales pitch’—got it. Look, we all should be for efficiency and accountability, but pretending that keeping fire services under local control magically solves our financial problems when our city year-over-year-over-year adopts budgets where our expenditures exceed our revenues is like saying a condo board can balance its budget just by complaining about HOA fees. If the current model isn’t working, then let’s push for reforms and transparency, but pretending that going it alone is cheaper or more sustainable in the long run when they’ve shown that’s not the case? That’s wishful thinking at best. Maybe that’s the ‘crazy’ the mayor is referring to that needs to be stopped.
I recall a comment by a firefighter a week or so ago saying the firefighters didn’t have a dog in this fight. I questioned it then. Looks like they’ve got more than a dog in it. They have a well-funded machine. This is in addition to the taxpayer money the city is using to influence the outcome in their favor.
On the other hand, there is a group of concerned citizens, using their own money, to help provide full context to the decision we face. What we’re looking for is full disclosure and transparency to help us make a responsible decision how to best use our tax dollars. As evidenced by the recent Everett Herald investigative report, the city has failed to do so and instead elected to hire a PR firm to “sell” us on annexation. They spent more on the PR firm than they did on evaluating our options.
Admittedly, this is complex. All the more reason to have clear insight into the facts and data to help protect our seniors, families, homeowners, renters and small businesses from an unnecessarily high property tax increase. Please look at all sides of this issue and then make your decision. Let’s not rush this.
For more information, please visit our modest website at: https://edmondscandobetter.org/