This story has been updated to clarify information about the senior, handicapped, and low-income tax exemption from the County Assessor.
The second of five City of Edmonds-sponsored forums regarding a proposal to annex Edmonds into the South County Fire Regional Fire Authority (RFA) drew nearly 60 attendees — more than 40 in person and 17 via Zoom — to the City Hall Brackett Room Wednesday evening.
The goal was to provide residents with information in advance of the upcoming April 22 annexation vote. Participants included Edmonds Mayor Mike Rosen, City Council President Neil Tibbott, South County Fire Chief Bob Eastman, and South County Fire Communications Director Christie Veley.
Also present was Snohomish County Assessor Linda Hjelle, who lent her expertise to clarify tax implications of levies and fire benefit charges, and the impact on those benefitting from the senior, low-income and handicapped tax exemption.
“Welcome and thank you for coming out tonight,” Rosen began as he greeted the group. “This is number two of a series of sessions called ‘Annexation Answers, What the RFA Vote Means to You.’ We call them that because this is about you. Each of you gets to make the decision for or against annexation, and we want to make sure that you have the information you need to make that decision in the best way for you.”
Fire Communications Director Christie Veley echoed the mayor’s comments.
“South County Fire has been serving the community of Edmonds for 15 years now; since 2010 we’ve done so under a contract,” she said. “We love serving the people of Edmonds, and we appreciate you guys having us here tonight to talk about some of the questions that we have been getting about this measure.
“We want you to know that is your decision,” she continued. “We are not here to tell you what decision to make. We’re here to share with you information and hopefully answer your questions so that you can make the decision that you feel is right for you and your community.”
These remarks were followed by short presentations by Veley and Council President Tibbott using the same PowerPoint slides and covering the same ground as in the previous forum held on Feb. 27.
Next on the agenda were questions and comments from the audience. In the interest of giving everyone the opportunity to speak, questioners were limited to an initial two minutes, with the opportunity to return to the microphone after others had spoken to complete their initial points, or add new ones.
Several questions focused on the benefit charge as a funding mechanism used by South County Fire to supplement their property tax revenue. It is keyed to differences in the cost/effort to fight fires in different types of buildings. A few main points about the benefit charge as explained by city and fire officials are as follows:
- The benefit charge is not based on the assessed value of the property, but rather on the size, use and risk of the structure on the property.
- A single-family home would pay less in the benefit charge than a large commercial property, as it takes fewer firefighter resources to respond to a home.
- The benefit charge can comprise up to 60% of South County Fire’s budget, though currently it is just over 7%.
- The South County Fire Board of Fire Commissioners determines the benefit charge rate each year after a public hearing.
- The benefit charge is intended to provide a more equitable way to fund fire and emergency services compared to solely relying on property taxes.
With property taxes comprising the RFA’s major funding source, several attendees asked about the impact on those qualifying for the senior, disabled and low-income tax exemption.
“The senior, disabled and low-income exemption gives you a break on your property taxes in a variety of ways; it’s not just for fire service,” explained County Assessor Linda Hjelle. “If you qualify, it freezes your currently assessed value so as the market increases, the value that you’re taxed on does not increase, it stays the same.”
“If you qualify for the program, you also will qualify for a break on the benefit charge,” she continued. “It’s a different calculation, but you do get a break in that fee as well.”
Hjelle went on to explain that there are three levels to tax exemption program keyed to the level of need.
“Level C [also called level 3] is for folks who make you know the minimum amount to qualify for the program. Then there are two other levels. The two other levels reduce the assessed value of your property.”
In summary, Hjelle explained that senior tax exemption program provides property tax relief for qualifying senior, low income and disabled homeowners in Snohomish County. The key details are as follows:
- There are three levels of the exemption program – A (level 1), B (level 2) and C (level 3).
- Level 3 or C – You are exempt from paying excess levies and Part 2 of the state school levy. Generally speaking, excess levies are the voter-approved levies.
- Level 2 or B – You are exempt from paying excess levies, Part 2 of the state school levy, and regular levies on $50,000 or 35% of the assessed taxable value, whichever is greater (but not more than $70,000 of the taxable value).
- Level 1 or A – You are exempt from paying excess levies, Part 2 of the state school levy, and regular levies on $60,000 or 60% of the assessed taxable value, whichever is greater.
This is from the Department of Revenue’s publication about the program. Here is a link where you can access the document.
Several questions were prompted by information provided on the Edmonds Can Do Better website by those advocating a no vote on annexation. In an effort to fact check some of the points, which she characterized as “questionable,” Resident Michelle Van Tassel asked city and fire officials for a reality check. These included the following questions and responses, paraphrased for brevity:
Q: RFA opponents say that we were only presented with one choice, annex to the RFA. Is this true?
A: Mayor Rosen responded that other choices considered and made public through the news media included restarting Edmonds’ city-run fire department, contracting for services with neighboring jurisdictions including Shoreline and Mukilteo, continuing to contract (at a higher cost) with the RFA, and forming a new RFA in partnership with other cities. He added that citizens had ample opportunity to learn about and comment on these options during the numerous council deliberations.
Q: RFA opponents say that one size does not fit all and that our community has different service needs than our neighbors. Is this true?
A: Fire Chief Eastman responded that base needs for fire and EMS are the same across the board.
Q: RFA opponents say that under the RFA Edmonds will not have a voice in the cost or management of fire and EMS. Is this true?
A: Veley and Eastman responded that under annexation Edmonds residents would vote directly on fire taxes and will have representation on the Board of Commissioners.
Q: RFA opponents say the RFA is a monopoly. Is this true?
A: Veley responded with an unequivocable no, saying the RFA is a government agency, not a monopoly.
Q: RFA opponents say that the RFA has withheld money due to Edmonds. Is this true?
A: Veley responded saying that this is not true.
Q: RFA opponents say the RFA cannot be trusted. Who is the RFA and are they outsiders?
A: Eastman responded that Lynnwood, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace and unincorporated Snohomish County, Edmonds’ neighbors, are part of the RFA. They are not outsiders.
Another questioner maintained that with Edmonds’ higher assessed property values, under the RFA our taxes would go up and those of neighboring cities in the RFA would go down, and “that’s why you’ll hear other municipalities wanting us to join because their taxes will go down.”
Veley responded that this is untrue, and that under the RFA, “everybody pays the same rate for the same service.”
Several others asked about the cost to extend Edmonds contract into 2026 should RFA fail at the polls and the funding model that would allow Edmonds to cover this additional cost.
To this point, Rosen emphasized that failing to pass the RFA annexation would have significant financial consequences for the city and its ability to maintain essential services. Key points are as follows:
1. The city would need to find an additional $6.5 million in the budget to cover the fire services contract, as that funding was assumed in the 2025 budget.
2. The city would also need to find an additional $8 million to cover the increased cost of the fire services contract, which is projected to rise from $12 million to around $20 million.
3. Without the additional revenue from the RFA annexation, the city would likely need to pursue another levy lift to cover these increased fire service costs, which could further burden Edmonds taxpayers.
Maria Montalvo, a member of the group designated by the city council to write the statement supporting RFA passage for the upcoming voters’ manual, added her perspective:
“It is simply not an option to continue contracting with the RFA for fire and EMS,” she said. “Partnering with a city like Mukilteo, which is in financial ruin and their fire department is really struggling, is not an option. Partnering with a city like Everett, which is 30 minutes away on a good traffic day, is not an option. The cost to enter an RFA with Shoreline, which is greater than the cost to join South County’s RFA…[will involve an additional] two or three years to just figure out and organize the new RFA.
“Much as I understand everybody’s concern…there truly aren’t other options,” she continued. “And it’s really important for us to understand that these [the other options] have been looked at, they have been considered, and there’s just no possibility for it. And I guess what worries me is that there’s so much noise and… negativity that it’s hard to even pull out the facts, because so much is being put out there.”
Additional questions concerned the GEMT (ground emergency medical transport) fees, ownership of the three Edmonds fire stations, the comparative cost per response call between Edmonds and other cities such as Vancouver, and the option of adopting a “pay as you go” model for fire and EMS.
Future town halls are scheduled as follows:
– Thursday, March 27 at 6:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall (121 5th Ave. N.)
– Saturday, April 5 at 10:30 a.m. at Edmonds-Woodway High School (7600 212th St. S.W.)
– Thursday, April 10 at 6:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall (121 5th Ave. N.)
More information is available on the City of Edmonds Fire and EMS Annexation Ballot Info web page.
So the organization(s) being critiqued by a group of well informed citizens is going to ‘fact-check’ the claims? Yeah no biased on behalf of the city & RFA.
All you have to do is read the Edmonds consultant’s recommendations in 2016 to understand Edmonds residents are not getting a good value. These recommendations should have been implemented but the fire department put up a big fight.
‘Improved service & a 20% reduction in costs’.
Instead of simply relying on one opinion or another, suggest doing you’re own research. I for one refuse to let the city throw up their hands and say ‘it’s too hard’. It’s going to cost us every time.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2016/04/report-edmonds-fire-ems-services-can-improve-performance-reduce-costs/
https://edmondscandobetter.org/pdf/Fitch_Executive_Summary_Report.pdf
Property taxes for Edmonds will be higher than for the current cities in the RFA. Yes, the tax rate would be he same, but the average residence value for Edmonds in 2025 is 22.7% higher than the average for the other cities. So the taxes paid on average for Edmonds property owners would be 22.7% higher.
Edmonds’ average of 910,440 is lower than two of the cities in South County RFA (all numbers come from Zillow today):
Brier 976,449
Mill Creek 976,424
Lynnwood 776,069
Mountlake Terrace 685,479
As fire and EMS can’t get to us from the west because of Puget Sound, Edmonds has three stations (and the expenses related to them), whereas Lynnwood has two stations and Mountlake Terrace has one. Both the Fitch consultants and RFA data collection of the neighboring utilization factor (how much we help other cities versus how much they help us) confirm that we need the three stations. We are also the highest user of EMS services in the RFA.
Tax levy rates and assessed value have nothing to do with costs of fire/ems service – they are just RFA prices. Where’s the RFA data on annual costs per resident per year, or costs per 911 call, and other key performance and cost metrics- especially before and after annexation? Where’s RFA proof of economies of scale? Sharing a ladder truck as an example of economy of scale is a joke. Why has the RFA not changed their staffing model and optimized for 85% medical response? Dedicated paramedics earn 25% less than combo firefighters/paramedics, and dedicated paramedics have twice as many hours available for on-task responses before they take mandatory stress/fatigue time-outs? Why aren’t there more dedicated paramedics and less firefighters? Why does the RFA have twice as many battalion chiefs, assistant fire chiefs, deputy fire chiefs, and captains per 1,000 population and per fire station compared to Orange County, CA RFA? Why does RFA use 48 hr shift assignments that automatically require overtime time instead of 3 x 12 hr shifts like nurses have? Why do managers like battalion chiefs and captains get overtime? Managers should be exempt from overtime. Why does RFA not have volunteer firefighters to supplement paid staff and save costs? Why do firefighters get paid for working out during their shifts? The RFA focuses on PR rather than managing costs.
Vivian, Edmonds City Attorney on multiple occasions, highlights the impact of Swedish Hospital on EMS calls. Many of the calls are from patients outside of the city.
“The city attorney said that while the NUUF measurement is helpful, it doesn’t take into account that many EMS units are coming into Edmonds because they are bringing patients to Swedish Edmonds Hospital. In addition, the hospital area itself is a significant generator of calls for EMS service, he said.”
https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/10/council-addresses-ways-to-rebalance-fire-services-contract-discusses-budget-schedule/
It’s hard to take city council serious, when the Fire Union endorses, and contributes thousands of dollars to campaigns.
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
Residents no.1 priority is ‘housing affordability’, start focusing on that. We have seen zero evidence of fiscal accountability, your only solutions are to increase the cost burden on our residents median household income of $110,000. Take some lessons from this NY fire chief.
My neighbors are concerned with costs and I will continue to look out for them.
https://time.com/6097414/wildfires-firefighters-spending/
Residents no. 1 priority, in link below
https://edmondswa.gov/government/city_budget/community_survey
Respectfully,
-Nick
Vivian:
My numbers are the official ones that taxes are based on; they’re from the Snohomish County Assessor’s Annual Report 2025 Taxes.
Brier $919,800
Mill Creek 884,700
Lynnwood 632,100
Mountlake Terrace 591,400
Edmonds 928,600
Tax assessments are calculated based on the Snohomish County assessors calculations. Zillow is not a reliable source other than for anecdotal guesstimates.
Zillow does not do tax assessments. The county assessor’s office shows the real numbers. Edmonds is higher than the others.
Edmonds voters should be very concerned that an experienced city council member lacks this basic knowledge about property taxes. This is clearly a red flag that the less experienced members probably also lack this important knowledge, as well as the depth of knowledge needed to decide on the best choice for providing our fire service.
Zillow. Really?
I agree with Mr. Wambolt’s assessment. Now it’s becoming clearer why and how the city got into the financial problems we now face. And I always thought we elected our city officials to solve problems, not create them. Obviously, I was wrong.
The article quotes South County Fire Communications Director Christie Veley stating that “everybody pays the same rate for the same service.” Does this statement refer to the property tax rate? If that is the case, wouldn’t Edmonds’ higher property values result in a higher cost to Edmonds citizens for the same service as compared to the other cities that have been annexed?
A lot of information has been presented by our city politicians and the FRA leadership to try to convince us that we need to vote for annexation. However, the bottom line is still that the cost for RFA/EMS services is being increased from $12M to approximately $20M (67%). This large increase in cost has still not been properly justified.
When added to the $6.5M in city taxes that were earmarked to pay for Fire/EMS, but will now be used to help cover the city’s revenue shortfall, Edmonds residents will be paying twice as much as we did previously. And of course, that doesn’t even include the other Snohomish County tax increases which are also pretty significant.
At this point, there is a high level of frustration in the community with how both the City and the RFA are handling these issues, and they simply need to do better.
Chris,
I share your frustration. Only half truths are being told by the city and RFA about what annexation means to our tax bill. Simply put, our combined city tax and the new RFA tax and fee will nearly double what we currently pay in property taxes to the city. And that is just to maintain the current level of service.
Your observation that a higher cost will be borne by Edmonds citizens is correct. In fact, if we join the RFA, because of our relatively high assessed value, the other current member cities (Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek and Brier) will see their property taxes reduced. Yes, their taxes go down and our taxes go up.
Voting NO on annexation will require our elected officials to do what they were chosen for – to solve problems rather than create them.
Gosh, I got my picture printed in this story. I hope the pic conveys my emotion- both the RFA and the City of Edmonds are misleading in how they explain the impact on the Edmonds senior who receives the discount on property taxes called the Senior and Disabled Property Tax Exemption. And it’s irritating. I have been helping seniors in Edmonds apply for this tax cut for the last 13 months through a workshop and a seminar at the Edmonds Waterfront Center. I have the data from the County Assessor’s office on the group of my fellow residents who were approved for the exemption in 2024. Because the majority of those Edmonds seniors received the level B or C exemption, they would receive ZERO ( level C) or about a 10% cut (level B) in their current year taxes charged by the RFA. Editor- your definition of levels A and B in this article are wrong. You can use my handout at the meeting or the application form on the Assessor’s website to get the explanation right. (I have a math degree and when I read these nested Boolean expressions from the RCW they make sense, but not everyone has that experience.) Seniors- drop into our workshop starting at 1 pm on Mar 19th or 20th at the EWC to get the full story.
We have contacted the assessor’s office to fact check our story and will make corrections if needed. — Teresa Wippel, Publisher
thanks for your fast work on updating the article’s details on the senior tax exemption
Sadly, this article is as 1-sided as the entire meeting. The City continues to ignore the Public Disclosure Committee rules for City sponsored meetings – which require the City to provide a neutral, unbiased and equal opportunity for both the opposition and advocates to state their case and their questions. My Edmonds news should do the same. Unfortunately over 3/4 of this article focused on the City’s and RFA’s combined 60 minute presentations that outlined the arguments ‘for’ annexation, the ‘staged’ fact-check questions raised by Ms. VanTassell, and other ‘pro’ annexation comments made by the ‘pro’ committee, Ms. Montalvo. The questions that were addressed by County Assessor Ms. Hjelle, were valuable, and reflected important questions from low income senior citizens. The article fails to mention questions raised about the City’s incorrect calculations of the incremental tax impact of annexation, or the fact that ‘parity’ tax levy rates don’t equate to equal per resident taxes, or that the RFA has done nothing to prove cost reduction through economies of scale, or that the RFA has done nothing to change their staffing to respond more efficiently to 85% of 911 calls that are for medical emergencies, or why City didn’t address the 30 unanswered questions from the first Town Hall meeting, or why the City spent $65K of taxpayer money for a PR firm to promote annexation.
Unfortunately the Town Hall as structured by City leadership and the follow-up reporting by the My Edmonds News contained a lot of misleading and incomplete information.
Folks, we have given a lot of air time to both the pro and con sides of the RFA, and also included a very thoughtful four-part analysis of the issues at hand by someone who thinks a no vote is the right thing. As someone who devotes a lot of time to trying to give everyone a say, I feel it is truly unfortunate that some are now accusing us of being unfair. We show up at events that no other news organization does in an effort to capture what is going on. We are not perfect but we do not take sides — ever. If you have problems with our coverage and what we missed — write a letter, write a reader view, tell us specifically what we missed. We are here to listen but I don’t believe you will find any news organization more dedicated to covering our community than we are. — Teresa Wippel, publisher.
I’m very thankful for MyEdmondsNews! Agree both Pro and Con viewpoints have had a fair shake on the platform. The best platform in town.
Teresa:
I totally agree with your comments!
Have read all the coverage and stories on this complicated subject and others over the years and find the unfair comment unwarranted. Thank you Teresa for your hard work.
Teresa, maybe I should restate this. You have done an awesome, wonderful, terrific, absolutely great job of trying to present both sides of the RFA issue on multiple occasions. Your coverage of that particular meeting was accurate as far as content of what was provided as far as I can tell. It was the city that was misrepresenting the facts. (Maybe on the advice of its PR firm) The Edmonds City sponsored town hall itself was structured in a one-sided unethical way in my opinion, possibly even an illegal manner. Based on that, I can only imagine the challenge that you have trying report on it. I realize that any complaint against My Edmonds News is like touching a third rail in the community, and it should have been directed towards acknowledging the challenges that you face.
Teresa,
I too respect the value you and your reporters bring to our community. Truly appreciate and am thankful for it.
Unfortunately, sometimes the passion related with any individual topic boils over. However, that’s no excuse for anyone to “step over the line”. We have a beautiful city that we all want to see succeed. And different points of view on how to improve our community will always be present and, quite frankly, needed. Teresa, you provide the valuable format for us to express our views, both pro and con, on all things Edmonds. Thank you.
Brian, I appreciate your observation/ comment and I also appreciate Myedmondsnews. It’s good dialogue between you and Myedmondsnews. We should be able to critique and debate on here.
None of us are perfect or immune to bias, I don’t see it, but you might. All good in my view.
Mr. Krepick,
I can assure you that my involvement was not “staged.” I am an Edmonds resident, and care about our communities. I will continue to show up, and will continue to support the approach that I believe offers the best solution.
Michelle Van Tassell
Michelle, I sincerely appreciated your questions, they helped cut through the noise for me.
Thank you, Sasha. I appreciate your comment.
I encourage every Edmonds resident following this story to take the time to read the independent Fitch report on the City’s website, plus the subsequent MyEdmonfdsNews reporting over the last several months. Decide for yourself if the proposed RFA plan is reasonable and offers the best viable solution.
FACT CHECK: The reference to the ‘pay as you go’ option is totally bogus. None of the opposition has ever suggested such an option. We have been very clear saying that the $21M RFA annexation price is outrageous compared to the $12M current contract price. We have calculated per resident prices for Edmonds fire/ems services on an annual basis and compared these for pre- and post- annexation, and have offered comparisons with other fire districts. We have NEVER implied that Edmonds should contract on a per call basis. We have ONLY stated the RFA should measure, track and report on per capita , per call, per station, and other performance metrics so that taxpayers can easily evaluate whether the RFA service is being managed efficiently to provide taxpayers with the biggest bang for their tax dollar. Tracking and reporting on per capita, per call and other performance metrics is a measurement tool, not a a way to purchase services. It allows for benchmarking comparisons with other fire/ems options. The RFA refuses to track and report on metrics that spotlight their inability to deliver on their promises of economies of scale. The ‘pro’ annexation group is purposely twisting the facts and trying to confuse residents by claiming the opposition is promoting a ‘pay as you go’ option. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-rfa-regional-fire-authority-annexation
Just a quick shout out to all the Senior long term residents on fixed incomes and trying to keep their homes in Edmonds (I’m one). Check out Theresa’s workshops on possible tax exemptions. I was an early volunteer counselor during her start-up but soon learned I did not have the math-accounting background to be doing what I was trying to do for other people, plus I happily spend a lot of time now away from Edmonds. (I suspect there are many here who would like to see me spend all my time away from Edmonds, myself included in my ever increasing weak moments). Luckily, better skilled people that many of you would know stepped in to pick up some of the slack I left. Anyway it’s a great program and one many more people are going to need to access the way things are going here. RFA is just the beginning of property tax pressure on low income home owners here and we don’t seem to be electing people to city public office that get that, with one or two notable exceptions.
Volunteer Fire Department…hm-m-m
Interesting thought…
…Just sayin’
My partner and I attended, in an effort to gain more insight to inform our vote next month. We appreciated the information from officials who were doing the jobs we elected them to do, and we found ourselves grateful for their time and energy in explaining the facts.
All of us (both residents and organizations) are facing rising costs. The contract agreed upon 15/16 years ago couldn’t predict what costs would be like now. It sounds like we’ve been subsidized by our neighbors in the RFA for awhile, and as much as I don’t want my expenses to increase, I do believe in paying our fair share.
A ‘No’ vote doesn’t seem to provide the solutions that opponents of the RFA believe it will – those were solutions evaluated and found to be more expensive by our elected representatives. I am put-off by the arguments opponents have been making that call our neighbors “outsiders”, but maybe that’s because I’m close to the border with Lynnwood and MLT and Esperance, and so I see these neighbors everyday.
While I would have appreciated seeing estimated costs for each of those evaluated solutions broken down for the average Edmonds home alongside the costs of joining the RFA, it seems clear to me that a ‘Yes’ vote is the only way forward.
Hi Sasha, respect your viewpoint. My concern lies with the residents in our city who will struggle with the increased costs. Residents no. 1 priority in the Mayors 24′ survey is “housing affordability”, nearly doubling the costs to residents for fire service is not in line with residents priority.
It takes leadership to control costs. We are all now facing the consequences from the lack of leadership at the federal level; many similarities, primarily around out of control costs.
We can have great emergency services & control costs. In fact we can improve the quality of emergency services & reduce costs by following Edmonds consultants recommendations from 2016. A 20% reduction in costs at the time.
https://myedmondsnews.com/2016/04/report-edmonds-fire-ems-services-can-improve-performance-reduce-costs/
https://edmondscandobetter.org/pdf/Fitch_Executive_Summary_Report.pdf
A city in NY faced similar fiscal challenges, the cities Fire Chief stepped up and made necessary changes.
“We let it creep—we just kept putting resources into public safety,” he told me. “But you can’t run a city with just a fire department and a police department.”
“There are 55% more career firefighters in the U.S. than there were in 1986, according to the National Fire Protection Association. But the number of home structure fires fell 54% over the same time period, due mostly to updated building codes and advanced sprinklers, according to NFPA data.”
https://time.com/6097414/wildfires-firefighters-spending/
NY is not the only city to make changes.
Respectfully Nick
I have been staying up to date on this subject matter, read the numerous op-Ed’s in MEN from the “Edmonds Can Do Better”, read the subsequent congratulatory comments from their own echo chamber consisting of the same 10ish names over and over again, read the thoughtful breakdown the Niall has provided (thank you Niall!), researched the facts that have been provided by both pro and con sides, and have come to my own decision based on said facts.
I just want to say – The aggression and condescension coming from the “vote no” committee, towards literally every single person that had used the same set of facts, yet arrived at a different conclusion of what they feel is best for their city, has made it almost impossible for me to ever desire to get behind you.
Accusing people of being plants, telling people they should be ashamed of themselves for their opinions…it’s too much.
Please do better “Edmonds can do better”. It would likely serve you and your goals more effectively if you tried a little honey.
Sheryll, I truly appreciate and respect your perspective. However, I must mention that the city spent $64,000 of our valuable funds on a PR consultant to frame biased messaging, which I also find highly obnoxious behavior.
Sheryll, Voting yes on this because you absolutely think it’s the right thing to do and the least expensive way to do it makes sense. Voting yes because you think a certain 10 or so people are obnoxious for speaking out, asking tough questions, and demanding a seat at the table doesn’t make much sense to me. Personally I’d rather be seen as a little obnoxious than as just another go along to get along “whimp,” so I’m proud to say I support those 10 or so people in their efforts to hold our officials responsible for the decisions they are making that can help or harm all of us financially if not done right.
I don’t think our public officials are bad or evil people for just going along with SCF/RFA in pushing annexation. I just think they are being short sighted and more interested in an expedient decision than getting the best deal possible for our tax dollars spent. Some people here seem to be loaded with extra money to throw at our problems. I’m not one of those people and I want some analysis of what might be a better way to go and still get equal or better results. If that is proven to be not available then an RFA might be the way to go in some context but not necessarily out right annexation in terms of having the best control over costs.
Sheryl Schuppissor, you might want to read the extensive and in-depth investigative article just posted in today’s Herald newspaper. The Herald just said what you and our community have not heard from the City, Regional Fire Authority, and in some local news outlets.
This is an excellent article in the Everett Herald that examines the city’s behavior” behind the curtain” towards RFA annexation. It is recommended reading for anyone who wants to understand the issue.
I assure you, I am playing with the same deck of cards as you. Yes I’m aware of the PR firm hired (I think it was a smart move for multiple reasons) yes I’ve read the Herald’s article, I just didn’t arrive at the same destination.
I believe that this is the most cost effective route to take, that continues to provide us with great service. Given the extreme increase in cost across the board over the past 5 years, I am far from “outraged” that the RFA ended the contract early (as they were permitted to do per the terms of the contract).
Clinton continues to be an example of why I have begun to question the motives and the tactics that the “Edmonds can do better” group has been using. It doesn’t come across as obnoxious, it comes across as demeaning, belittling, and counter productive to your cause.
I encourage this specific group to go back and read some of your comments and interactions with an unbiased lens. You may see the behavior that I’m speaking of. You may not. Either way, I assure you, the message that everyone who is pro-annexation must be uneducated, has been received loud and clear.
Hi Sheryll, valid points, though please note I don’t believe all of the commenters expressing a No vote, are part of the Edmonds Can Do Better group.
Personally I’m going to continue looking out for my neighbors. Edmonds residents, no.1 priority is “housing affordability” (Mayor’s 24′ survey) I have talked to many residents who are concerned with never ending costs.
https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/city_budget/community_survey
We can have great emergency services and control costs. Edmonds needs to follow through on the Fitch 2016 recommendations, if SCF / RFA won’t budge, city should use the recommendations as a foundation for other options, including an Edmonds emergency services department.
‘Improved service & a 20% reduction in costs’ (at the time, 2016).
https://myedmondsnews.com/2016/04/report-edmonds-fire-ems-services-can-improve-performance-reduce-costs/
https://edmondscandobetter.org/pdf/Fitch_Executive_Summary_Report.pdf
I have hard time getting behind city council when they’re receiving endorsements and thousands of dollars towards campaigns from the fire unions.
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
RFA updated their costs, to an estimated $21 Million, ~$2 Million higher than the Fitch 24’ report estimate on starting our own Fire Department. Would you like me to provide a link to the 2024 report and the updated RFA costs?
Take care,
Nick
Sheryll, there is no need to question my motives as I’ve been pretty straight forward all through this conversation and I can’t be responsible for how this comes across to you or anyone else. Our feelings about each other are totally irrelevant as to how we vote I think. My motive is very simple. We can’t afford to live here anymore if all this stuff isn’t done right and I find that kind of irritating because this has been my home town (even though I haven’t lived here continuously] since I was 14 years and I’m now pushing 80. Please advise me as to who you think I have been demeaning and belittling to and why and, If I realize you are right about it, I will publicly apologize to them and/or you. I’ve already said if you really think this is a good deal for the city then vote yes. I don’t hold that view against you at all. It’s you that holds my view against me and you are accusing me of something I don’t think I’ve done. I have picked on our elected officials perhaps too much but it galls me that they seem more concerned that the RFA gets all it’s demanding while I have to figure out if I can afford to stay here or not.
Yesterday I cancelled our Comcast t.v. service to try to save some money for these huge property tax increases that are coming. We are seriously looking at cheaper housing in towns that are much better managed nearby (Strong Council Weak Mayor and City Manager). The sad thing is, when we actually sell our house it will most likely get torn down and someone will build a McCondo (like a McMansion on steroids thanks to the Strom Petrerson promoted and crammed through the state legislature take over of local zoning by the state. You try to talk facts and a little common sense and reason here and you get accused of not being nice or demeaning someone. I have to say I’ve pretty much had it with the nonsense that you have to put up with here for a little view of the water and living close to the library. It’s looking like time to take the money and run has about arrived.
Vivian Olson or city leaders, Can you please confirm. Did Edmonds layoff city employees in 24′ & 25′ due to the budget crisis?
Just informed, city council approved a 7.5% across the board pay increase for South County Fire. I’m at a loss here.
Are you aware, that Fitch 2016 report to Edmonds & 2 California Grand Juries, recommend EMS prioritized departments? EMS vs Fire prioritized departments improve response times & reduce the cost burden on residents.
https://www.ocgrandjury.org/sites/jury/files/2023-06/2022-05-20_Where%27s_the_Fire_Stop_Sending_Fire_Trucks_to_Medical_Calls.pdf
https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/fdresponse_0.pdf
https://edmondscandobetter.org/pdf/Fitch_Executive_Summary_Report.pdf
Thanks,
-Nick
Nick,
The SCF pay increase was referenced by PR consultant Liz Loomis in email exchanges with Mayor/staff/Council in the Herald’s article on Edmonds upcoming RFA annexation vote.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/residents-question-edmonds-after-hiring-comms-firm-for-rfa-vote/
Excerpt from the email where Loomis advises Mayor/Council to not talk about the “huge raise”:
“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?’”
So, yeah, “the RFA got a huge raise already so why should I pay more?’”
I’d appreciate an answer from Mayor/Council to this question.