Recently in these pages, well-liked and respected former Edmonds Councilmember Dave Teitzel weighed in on the upcoming RFA annexation vote (Reader view/opinion: My perspective on the Regional Fire Authority Annexation, March 8, 2025). I have always appreciated Dave’s thoughtful and respectful approach to community problem solving.
While I strongly disagree with Dave’s ultimate opinion on RFA annexation, he articulates principled points to support his position. And perhaps surprisingly, we agree on a few important things that I believe favor your “yes” vote.
Among our areas of agreement are: 1) the City of Edmonds is in financial distress, which may lead to higher taxes via a levy lid lift request if annexation fails; 2) the RFA via South County Fire (SCF) has been providing, in Dave’s words, “high quality fire/EMS services” to Edmonds; and 3) Edmonds has been receiving “good value,” according to Dave, from SCF.
Notwithstanding some important agreement, Dave cites three primary reasons to oppose annexation: 1) the tax burden is too high; 2) the tax burden from annexation will be transferred to homeowners via our property tax bill; and 3) other viable options to annexation were not considered.
I take Dave’s three primary arguments in turn.
Tax Burden is Too High
None of us want to pay higher taxes, especially the most vulnerable among us, like lower-income seniors, and others. The reality is our taxes are going up one way or another in some form or fashion.
In the context of the RFA annexation vote, it’s important for you to know that Edmonds taxpayers have enjoyed lower rates for fire/EMS than other neighboring communities — we have been underpaying. How much? Edmonds residents have been paying at a rate of 76 cents on the dollar compared to $1.29 for other RFA cities. If annexation passes, we will be paying in the middle of the pack compared to other Snohomish County cities. Not the lowest, but not the highest either.
Tax Burden Shifting to Property Tax Bill
Unlike the current funding model, which provides no equitable relief, many low-income seniors, among others, will be eligible for up to a 75% RFA property tax reduction if annexation is approved. This fact was confirmed by Snohomish County Assessor Linda Hjelle’s recent town hall comments. Specifically, Assessor Hjelle remarked that eligible Edmonds residents could benefit from “substantial reductions” to their property tax bill.
Other Options Were Not Considered
While it’s true that not every conceivable option was openly considered by the mayor and city council, the city’s independent emergency services consultant Fitch and Associates conducted a comprehensive survey of many options and determined annexation was the most affordable. Recently, when pressed by annexation opponents on the integrity of the Fitch Report, Councilmember Vivian Olson took it upon herself and contacted a competing consulting firm and requested that they check Fitch’s work. The competition couldn’t find fault with the Fitch Report.
It has been argued that joining forces with the Mukilteo Fire Department or the newly constituted Shoreline RFA (which annexed recently with 66% voter approval) is a viable option. Neither is realistic in the short or long term. Helpfully, recently in these pages, Edmonds resident Larry Williamson weighed in on Shoreline as a potential partner (Reader view/opinion: A comparative analysis of Shoreline vs. South County Fire, March 10, 2025). Mr. Williamson determined for several justified reasons that Shoreline wouldn’t be a prudent choice for a partnership. I encourage you to read his analysis.
Like Dave, I believe we have a first-rate fire/EMS emergency services provider in SCF. As an Edmonds taxpayer I am voting yes on annexation because I believe it’s the best comparative value funded in the best way for everyone in our community.
Adam Cornell is an Edmonds resident and former county prosecutor.
Thanks I have heard and read all this before. Dave Teitzel’s fact based analysis actually revealed something new on clarification of actual dollar cost. Thank you Dave.
Mr. Cornell,
Our contract with South County Fire is very clear that we pay the full, union negotiated wage and benefits for the number of firefighters that staff our stations. PLUS, we pay for RFA overhead and equipment expenses. The contract also has provisions for cost increases based on union contracts, state mandates or staffing level changes. This is what’s called a cost-plus contract. We are NOT underpaying for the services we contract for. The contract is updated annually to assure it.
Once under the RFA umbrella, we would transition from a contract to an assessed value (AV) based funding model, where the RFA determines the service they provide, regardless of the cost. And because our AV is higher than other RFA member cities, their taxes will go down and ours will go up if we join. They call it “parity” but make no mistake about it, it’s a windfall for the RFA that they use to increase staff without a specified improvement in service level. This is the reason why the RFA unilaterally terminated our contract five years early without cause and is forcing us to the AV model where they have complete control.
Just think about it. Does it really make sense that our property taxes for city and RFA services should nearly double overnight for the same level of service?
Thank you for this. You are spot on.
I have respect for Adam, losing respect for city electeds (I voted for Rosen). They’re pushing RFA & accepting endorsements & contributions from the fire union. The herald article further erodes my confidence in this RFA process.
Let’s follow Edmonds consultants recommendations from 2016, EMS prioritized resources vs fire resources, faster response times & 20% reduction in costs. Stop sending 5 Mile Per Gallon, 60,000lb fire trucks to medical calls and you’ll meet or beat your response time goals.
https://edmondscandobetter.org/pdf/Fitch_Executive_Summary_Report.pdf
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/residents-question-edmonds-after-hiring-comms-firm-for-rfa-vote/
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
Our Governor is doing a great job of tackling the tax burden, why can’t Edmonds electeds?
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/editorials/ferguson-injects-much-needed-frugality-into-democrats-budget-process/
Adam:
You state “If annexation passes, we will be paying in the middle of the pack compared to other Snohomish County cities.” That may be true, but what’s more relevant is that Edmonds taxpayers will be paying more than any of the other current RFA cities. That’s because, according to the Snohomish County Assessor, the value of the average Edmonds residence in 2025 is 22.7% higher than those RFA cities.
Because of the above, and for the reasons outlined by former Edmonds city council member Dave Teitzel, I urge citizens to vote NO.
Did you know that a 10% sales tax costs more when you buy a Mercedes than when you buy a Kia? The rate is the same, but the values between the two differ yet they’re both vehicles providing a transport function with the only differences being in the luxuries. One could say Edmonds is the Mercedes to the rest of the RFA cities Kias (no offense to the Kia cities).
If the real concern is fairness in tax structure, that’s a much broader conversation, but thinking this is some unique injustice ignores how property taxes work everywhere.
Keeping with your analogy we do not have to buy a Mercedes and subject ourselves to more sales tax, we can chose a different method of fire service that’s less costly, not diminished in quality, and has other benefits.
Like you Adam, I believe that, in the long term, Edmonds should annex to the RFA but unlike you, I do not believe that we should do so under the terms of the current proposal. The RFA has engineered this annexation vote by unilaterally terminating our contract to force the city’s hand at a time when the city is in a vulnerable financial position. They have offered nothing in terms of incentives to make this option attractive to the residents of Edmonds. As I outlined in the series of articles that I wrote (https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/02/commentary-opinion-reviewing-the-facts-behind-the-rfa-annexation-debate-part-4/), there are many things that the RFA could do to make annexation more attractive to Edmonds residents, starting with a commitment to increase the fire benefit charge which in turn would reduce the fire levy rate and more equitably balance costs across its territory. As I noted in response to Larry Williamson’s column, Shoreline already raises 35% of their revenue via the benefit charge while SCF raises only 7%. For this reason alone, I’m voting no but there are so many other areas of negotiation around overall service delivery models and improving response times that the city could and should have addressed before putting this measure to a vote that I urge all residents to vote no to allow us to do better.
Niall, thank you for this. This is the clearest and most concise rationale I’ve read for voting no on the current annexation proposal. I agree RFA annexation in a different form seems to be the right choice for Edmonds someday. Just not this April under the current annexation proposal. Let’s hope some future negotiations are possible.
Thank you, Adam Cornell. This clarifies that a distinction can be made between “this will hurt poor people who can’t afford the cost difference,” and “I don’t want to pay more taxes.” And while I commend the spirited debate around this issue it is really encouraging to see opinions expressed without accusations directed at others.
Mr. Cornell, this note is to correct your paragraph ‘tax burden shifting to property tax’. did you read the handout I provided to the participants at the public form when the Assessor took questions from the residents? The Assessor had no presentation, and no handouts. That’s the reason I provided one. I have been working with the Assessor staff who processes the tax exemption applications for about 15 months. There is every opportunity to learn this program’s relevant facts, but you appear to me to be either cherry picking a one-liner from the deputy assessor’s email on the topic or intentionally only telling part of the facts. Both the pro and con committees, both the City and the RFA, should carry the same set of facts around in their heads. There is no difference in how much a senior’s taxes are reduced if the tax is levied by the City or the RFA. They are both regular levies. The County Assessor sent me the data on the three levels of tax cuts. Most of the seniors approved for this program in 2024 WILL PAY MUCH HIGHER TAXES. The only way to protect those seniors is for the City to design a levy lid lift that exempts all seniors who receive the exemption from the new tax. Please revise your article and explain the exemption correctly.
Adam I appreciate that you’re a member of the ‘pro’ committee and you’re doing your best to justify a ‘Yes’ vote on annexation. However, Nick, Ron, Dave and Niall have it exactly right on why a ‘No’ vote makes sense. It forces the City to do proper due diligence on alternatives and sends a message to the RFA that they need to get their costs under control and offer a multi-year, affordable contract extension that can be supported by Edmonds’ residents. Your focus on tax levies is misguided. Property tax levies are the RFA’s mechanism to drive up revenues without implementing any economies of scale or focusing on cost control . Whenever they annex another City, the annual price of their service increases by 50-70% – with no change in services. You say the Fitch report was a legitimate study and Council Member Olson verified that with another consultant. The fact is the Fitch report was a superficial analysis of 3 alternatives and CM Olson had a 45 minute phone call that verified the Fitch report “followed a logical process.’ What’s not said is why only 3 alternatives were considered, and why no financial proformas or performance benchmarks were analyzed for other comparable cities to make the report useful and comprehensive. Check out the Vote No! endorsements:
https://www.edmondscandobetter.org/ and 137 Petitioners: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
During negotiations following SCF’s termination of the current contract, has the city council formally requested SCF to identify measures to improve efficiency and lower costs while delivering services to us? If so, what are those proposals and what impact would they have on the potential rate increase? If the city council has not taken this step and reported back to us the results of that discussion, then asking the voters to approve annexation seems premature. If SCF has not responded despite all the local pushback associated with this potential rate increase, it is difficult to see why SCF would be more responsive to other concerns in the future, if annexation is ultimately approved by the voters.
Regionalism is overrated if it merely serves as a means to access a larger pool of resources without proper management of economies of scale. Furthermore, the current RFA annexation proposal appears to be a hasty and inadequate attempt by the city to address some budgetary issues. Due to a dubious negotiated agreement, it is understandable why the city would need to spend so much money on PR to spin a questionable arrangement. I will be voting NO.
Just remember folks, once our Fire Department is gone, the chances of ever reviving and bringing it back to our own ownership is slim to none. We will never be able to afford it. If we are going to pay an increase in taxes to annex it, why not pay it to ourselves. In addition to that, let’s take a look at other places in the country that have their own Fire Departments with professional Firefighters, who work alongside trained volunteers to supplement the departments needs. I grew up on the east coast, and it is common practice for that system to work in the smaller towns and cities such as Edmonds.
Just wanted to clarify that Edmonds has not had its own fire department since 2009. That may not have been what you meant but it is a common perception that we have our own fire department now. — Teresa
The Model for staffing a smallish sized town 2-3 fire statiions with a small paid carreer firefighters and professonal Command Staff overhead (Chief, Deputy Chiefs, EMS Commander, Tranng Commander, LT’s and admin) augmented by a loyal, well trained group of volunteers is quickly disappearing. With all of the stringent training requirements for both Fire (NFPA 1001) and state EMS, Volunteer Departments are finding it extremely difficult to impossble to meet minimum staffing levels on aparatus in order to comply with 2-in/2-out safety protocols. This, before dealing with 24 or 48 hour shifts for coverage.
BBC has an excellent article on the subject from January 2024, “The dire shortage of volunteer firefighters in the US”
Kurt, please provide a link to that article on the BBC. I searched the site but could not find it.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240124-the-dire-shortage-of-volunteer-firefighters-in-the-us
Thanks Jeremy.
Kurt-
I’d love to see some reputable articles that describe why having 48 hr or 24 hr shifts are better (and more economic) than 12 hr shifts. I’d also like to see some ‘proof’ that combo firefighters/paramedics are more effective/responsive than dedicated paramedics for responding to 85% of 911 calls for medical service. Dedicated paramedics cost less, work more hours before mandatory stress/fatigue time-outs, and respond quicker with ambulances (compared with 60,000 lb fire trucks). I also question how the RFA claims a 62% cardiac arrest survival rate when their average response time is 9 minutes. Why does the RFA need 9-12 personnel for a cardiac arrest when the IAFF and NFPA recommend a minimum of 2 paramedic and 2 EMTs for a cardiac arrest?
https://www.iaff.org/wp-content/uploads/Departments/Fire_EMS_Department/30541_Summary_Sheet_NFPA_1710_standard.pdf
I believe the statistics across the US for volunteer firefighters is 60% of all fire/ems operations, so don’t know why they can’t be helpful in reducing costs and improving response? Too many questions and too many red flags that the RFA can’t or not willing to answer. Need to Vote ‘No’ on RFA annexation and pause and do proper due diligence. It’s time for the RFA to be a partner and offer a multiyear contract with reasonable prices to transition to annexation, not to blackmail Edmonds with 100% increase in cost of service. Edmonds has many options: https://www.edmondscandobetter.org/
Yes, i should have clarified my comment better. It is my understanding that our city owns the property and the fire trucks, equipment, etc. Since we already have all that, why not hire the firefighters, train volunteers to assist, and keep control of it locally. I’d mush rather keep local control and my tax dollars here.
The city owns the fire stations. My understanding is that South County Fire owns everything else.
The City sold their trucks and equipment to South County fire at the end of 2009.
That is correct. The only thing the city owns is the stations.
The City has the right to buy back the fire trucks at market rates. RFA Chief Eastman said there would be an 3rd party market appraisal to set the fair market buy-back price for the trucks. He estimated all the trucks could be purchased at very used vehicle prices. The important thing is Edmonds could acquire the trucks in a matter of months. Equally important is that Edmonds owns 3 fire stations that are all operational. One of the stations might be converted to an ambulance station since 85% of Edmonds’ 911 calls are for medical emergencies. Note that Lynnwood has a larger population than Edmonds – and they only have 2 RFA fire stations. Edmonds doesn’t have to set up 911 call services – they just contract with the County. Edmonds might also team with Mukilteo, Esperance, and Woodway to lower fire/ems costs. The difference between the $8M that Edmonds now pays the RFA under contract, and the $21M that the RFA wants for annexation is so large, it offers taxpayers many opportunities to find a better and lower cost fire/ems option (with equivalent quality and responsive service). Edmonds has a head start with fire stations, fire trucks, 911 service, and neighboring communities that are willing to talk. A ‘No Vote’ will tell the RFA and our Council to find a better solution. https://www.edmondscandobetter.org/options
I don’t understand why the people fighting to keep the fire department here vs annexation are saying we own the trucks. It was clearly told to many of us at the meeting at the EWC. If it’s not true, that’s clearly a very different conversation. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Dawn,
Under our contract terms with So County Fire, the city continues to own and maintain the three Edmonds fire stations. If we choose to do so, the contract provides us the right to purchase back the fire trucks and aid cars at depreciated Blue Book value. So, if we were to restart our own fire department, the same vehicles in service today would continue to be used to provide fire and EMS service to our constituents. Note: this is an important point. Some have said we would need to purchase all new vehicles and the waiting time to get them could be 24 to 36 months. That is flatly incorrect and contrary to our contract with So County Fire.
I was a council member in 2009 when the contract with FD1 was negotiated. Your statement, Dave, is 100% correct.
Ron, as a council member that made that decision for the residents of Edmonds in 2009, did it turn out the way you wanted it to? (My question is intentionally broad- I’m interested in more than the budget relief that the City was seeking in 2009).
Thank you
We got the $1 million expense reduction each year that we had anticipated and the level of fire service was not a disappointment. A big disappointment is the premature termination of the contract.
Dave,
Thank you for the correct information. It so important that the citizens have accurate facts to be able to make an intelligent and informed decision when it comes time to vote. I can tell you, there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about this upcoming vote. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
Thanks Dave. I still miss you on the CC. That is very important information. I remember these conversations.
From the “what if” contingent including Dave Tietzel who I consider to be a great civic mentor, I feel like it’s time for a real example of a plausible plan to be presented that’s an alternative to the RFA/SCF model. Obviously any concept of a plan should not be more expensive than annexation when considering ALL costs. Those of you asking (especially Edmonds non-residents) for more money to be spent over the next 12-24 months (at a minimum) of city time on researching options, are doing so at a fragile time when city resources are thin. I’m afraid we’re headed into an duplicate bureaucratic phase with both Edmonds and SCF trying to govern and pay for Fire and EMS, and where our due diligence only results in more city funds being spent on analysis, consultants and human resources. I too hate the increased costs, and if we can get in the game we might gain some fractional control. It’s laughable that some of you criticize the mayor as a weakling, but then also expect him to muscle Edmonds into a better position with SCF.
Short term thinking will not fix a long-term problem. The city has continued down a path of trying to fix our financial situation with short-term solutions. First, they spent down our reserves until we needed to declare a fiscal emergency. Then they doubled down and used one-time ARPA money to balance the budget. If that wasn’t enough, they’ve borrowed from our Utility Funds! Now they think annexation will be the answer. They keep digging the hole deeper. We elected our officials to solve problems, not to create more.
It’s time to hit the pause button and fix this properly. No, it’s not going to be easy but putting the entire burden on property taxpayers is wrong. And these short-term fixes lead to suboptimum, more costly outcomes for us all.
A “share the pain” plan has been proposed where developers, businesses, the RFA, the city and property taxpayers are all part of the solution. We have an opportunity to provide direction to our city by voting “NO” on annexation. Direction which leads to a permanent solution. Otherwise, we will be on an irreversible path where our options are limited and our costs higher.
A ”NO” vote is an investment in our future, protecting our seniors, families, homeowners, renters and small businesses. It’s time to think long-term and responsibly sort this out.
Edmondscandobetter.org
Matt,
Your points are fair. But I’d encourage you to review the full range of options listed on the We Can Do Better website. In my opinion, our taxpayers deserve to know that each and every option has been systematically and fully assessed so they can be confident having Edmonds annexed into the RFA is clearly the best choice. As it is, only a subset of the available options were assessed in the 2024 Fitch report. The annexation issue is one of the most important ones our voters will make for a long time and we need to get it right.
Mr. Teitzel – as we’ve discussed in person, I’m undecided on this issue and plan to think this thru until it’s time to vote. So far I find only some the information from the con-side to be interesting, and none of it compelling. I do look forward to hearing more from you on this issue, so thank you for taking the time to weigh in.
Thank you Jim, for mentioning developers in your comments about sharing the costs of maintaining fire protection. I’ve suggested for years that developers share in the costs of our city. They come in here, put up their buildings, make money, and leave. It’s time they were assessed fees for fire, police, parks, and infrastructure.
Hi Dawn, individuals and enterprises that build homes in Edmonds are already assessed fees for parks, streets, sewer, and other infrastructure upgrades/maintenance. You can view 2024’s fee table here: https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Services/Permits%20Development/General%20Permit%20Assistance/Development%20Fees/APPROVED%202024%20PLANNING%20AND%20DEVELOPMENT%20FEE%20GUIDE%20adu%20updates%207.23.24%20jmc.pdf
We don’t charge a fire impact fee as other cities do. A fee to help offset fire service-related costs. It’s about time the city looks at all other revenue sources before they ask the property taxpayers to flip for the whole bill. This is part of the “share the pain” plan that was proposed to the city last year. They did nothing with it. All they did was to borrow money from our utility funds, recommend annexation into the RFA and add a levy lid lift for another ballot measure in the fall. A ballot that they have not told us about yet in addition to this RFA vote.
We have options that, for whatever reason, the city has been unwilling to explore. By voting “NO” we hit the pause button and provide the city and community the time to find a better solution than what is currently proposed by annexation. The addition of a fire impact fee is just one of the many options that were previously proposed in addition to the many other ideas that have been identified to benefit the community at large. It’s time to explore them all before we go down a costly, irreversible path.
Dawn,
We charge developers some of the highest ‘impact fees’ for parks and roads of any of the cities in south Snohomish county. See page 5 of the document that Mackey provided a link to in his comment. (Thanks Mackey)
Matt, I think you are a bit confused about what we expect OUR Mayor and OUR Council to do for us in terms of looking out for OUR interests. The “negotiating team” consisted of the Mayor, the Council President and the City Attorney. The result of “negotiating” this out was that what cost $12M in one year has to go to $20M one year later whether we continue to Contract or annex in for the same service. Doesn’t that seem like kind of a strange coincidence? Your view is the pessimistic one about the Mayor and Council’s weakness, not ours. You are implying that they are just weak and we all just have to accept that. We are pointing out that they aren’t so much weak as they are listening to bad advice from our City Attorney and the SCF/RFA and need to take a real good second look at the issue with a fresh set of eyes. That’s the optimistic view and yours is definitely the pessimistic.