This story and our calculator have been updated with revised benefit charge information and levy lift calculation method.
To our readers:
My Edmonds News is providing this tax calculator tool as part of our continuing commitment to accurate, unbiased reporting. We hope that it will help clarify and inform the current debate around proposed annexation into the South County Fire Regional Fire Authority, which will appear before voters on the April 22 special election ballot.
— Teresa Wippel, Founder, President and CEO
Central to the controversy surrounding Edmonds’ upcoming vote on whether to annex into the South County Fire Regional Fire Authority (RFA) for fire and emergency medical services (EMS) is the cost to the taxpayer. Answers vary widely depending on whom you ask, and voters are understandably confused.
To cut through the confusion, My Edmonds News has developed a tool that puts your projected regional fire authority (RFA) tax impacts in context with the rest of your tax bill. Fields in red are those that will change under the RFA. Others will stay the same. The purple levy lift field attempts to fold in the impact of property tax increases the city has said it will need to pay for fire and EMS, and/or to mitigate Edmonds’ current budget shortfall. All fields in blue are editable by you, the user. Lastly, while this calculator works great on computers and laptops, we apologize to our mobile users it is not mobile-friendly. We’re working on that!
What this calculator does:
It provides a snapshot of your current 2025 tax breakdown (left column) and compares it with what your tax bill would have looked like in 2025 had the RFA passed in 2024 and been in effect in 2025 (right column). It also gives users the ability to see the tax impact of an anticipated levy lift to come before voters this fall.
What this calculator does not do:
It does not predict how charges will change in 2026 with or without RFA. These will vary with changes in assessed valuation, tax rate changes, changes to the RFA benefit charge, any levy lift by the City of Edmonds, or any new taxes approved by voters or imposed by the Washington State Legislature. While the right and left columns respectively may provide a close approximation of how RFA passage or defeat would affect 2026 taxes, users are cautioned to keep in mind that these variables could significantly change the numbers.
How to use the calculator:
1) Enter your 2025 assessed value in the blue field at the top.
Find your assessed value on your property tax statement or by searching under your parcel number or street address on the Snohomish County Assessors website to access your Property Account Summary page. Also on the Account Summary page is a breakdown of your current taxes indicating tax rates and the amount you pay (about halfway down the page).
2) Not all Edmonds taxpayers live within the Edmonds Port District (see a map of the Edmonds Port District here). If you live in a part of Edmonds that is not in the port district, put a zero in the port tax rate fields (indicated in blue) to remove these from your calculations.
3) With the city indicating that it will almost certainly ask voters for a property tax levy lift before the end of 2025 (see below explanation at the triple asterisk***), the calculator includes fields in both the left and right columns (indicated in blue) for users to enter an amount that would be raised by this additional tax. Note that the city’s 2025-2026 budget documents suggest that it hopes to raise $6 million from a levy lift should RFA be approved by voters, and that if RFA is not approved the city would need considerably more (see triple asterisk note*** below for additional details).
We have put $0.00 in the field as a placeholder, and leave it to the user to fill in the amount they think the city will request to meet its budget needs. The lines below this field will calculate a) the rate required to raise this amount citywide (based on Edmonds’ total 2025 assessed valuation as reported by the county assessor of $15,996,864,784), and b) the impact on your personal tax bill based on the assessed valuation you enter at the top of the calculator.
Other notes and caveats (note asterisks in the calculator):
* The EMS tax rate is calculated by dividing the total taxable value within the district by the amount levied by the taxing district. Both figures usually change annually, so the rate will change annually. For 2025, Edmonds’ regular levy is 0.72458071731 and the EMS is 0.27700910583, totaling 1.00158982314 (these numbers were provided to My Edmonds News by the county assessor and are built into our calculator).
** The RFA benefit charge is calculated by the Regional Fire Authority, not the County Assessor. It is based on the size and fire risk of a home.
In an email to My Edmonds News, the County Assessor explained that the benefit charge is transferred to your tax bill as follows: The County Treasurer provides tax rolls to the RFA, which in turn provides the Treasurer with the benefit charges for all properties on the roll. The Treasurer collects these via the tax bill and passes them through to the RFA.
The RFA sets benefit charges annually. They are calculated based on national standards, building square footage and use category (e.g., residential or commercial). By law, the aggregate benefit charge revenue may not exceed 60% of SCF’s operating budget; for 2025 the charges are set at 7.1% of the operating budget. But this could change in future years.
For residential homes including condos, the charge is calculated on the square footage taken from the county tax rolls. The current (2025) residential benefit charges for some typical home sizes are as follows:
- 1500 sq foot home: $60.96
- 2000 sq foot home: $70.39
- 2500 sq foot home: $78.70
- 3000 sq foot home: $86.21
As a placeholder in our calculator we are using $78.70 – the benefit charge for a 2500 square foot home. Our readers who live in smaller or larger homes have the option to enter a different benefit charge in the blue fillable field. Be aware that your actual benefit charge could be different.
More details about the benefit charge and how it is determined are available on the RFA/SCF website here.
*** Levy Lift: The City of Edmonds has indicated that it will need to raise its property tax revenue to mitigate the budget shortfall regardless of the RFA vote, and plans to ask voters to approve this additional tax later in the year. Taxing districts are limited by state law to raising these by no more than 1% without a vote of the citizens (this limit was imposed by Initiative 747 approved by voters in 2001 and codified in RCW 84.55.0101). But the city has said that regardless of the RFA vote it will require more than the minimum, explaining that this amount would be smaller if RFA is approved, larger if it is defeated. According to the city, the reason is that if voters turn down the RFA, in addition to mitigating its current budget shortfall the city would need to continue paying for fire/EMS in 2026 at a higher cost. Currently the city pays $12.5 million for these services; in 2026 it would rise to an estimated $21 million. Some elected officials have indicated the city could be driven into bankruptcy should both RFA and the levy lift be defeated.
This is the true essence of a free press: delivering independent, professional journalism that empowers citizens with the information needed to make informed decisions on critical issues. It’s about holding our elected officials accountable when they provide biased information to sway public opinion in their favor. The tax calculator highlighted above serves as a prime example of how citizens deserve tools that genuinely assist in making well-informed choices.
I encourage everyone to use this tax calculator and compare the “Difference in annual tax bill” with the figures presented in the city’s “Cost Calculator.” It becomes clear that the city is misleading residents by showing a lower amount than what will actually appear on tax bills. It also raises the question: what else have they not told us?
Thank you, MEN, for your commitment to honest reporting and presenting the facts with clarity.
Thank you, MEN, for providing this tax calculator and your continuing commitment to accurate, unbiased reporting. The tool provides accurate information, instead of city provided $250 an hour PR information distortion.
This calculator will be very helpful for numerous people as its an understandable quick education in property taxes. Probably was quite time consuming to construct; thank you for doing it.
Our tax bill goes up $1300 and that’s after it already went up almost a $1000 this year. Keep in mind that the County and the State are going to have to raise our taxes too as the Trump war on federal spending proceeds and the federal grants dry up. Also keep in mind that once local control is totally given up there will be virtually no way for a competent (hopefully) Mayor and/or City Council to step into the situation to look for waste and better use and allocation of precious resources by the fire/ems management team. Another thing you need to think about when voting on this is that our current Mayor and Council have absolutely no plan B in the works in case one or both of these levies fail in the Fall (assuming RFA fails in this special election that money was just wasted on). We simply have to start demanding better city government from our Mayor’s and Councils. The condition of our infrastructure alone, tells you we have been misled for many, many years now. And what these people are going to allow to happen to our streams and critical areas (if we don’t get militant about it ) is beyond scandalous IMO. This calculator tells us what a vital asset MEN is to this community.
Editor- regarding the statement “ the city has indicated that it would have to ask voters for a higher levy lift to cover fire/EMS costs, but has yet to publicly put a number to this. “ – you can read the budget document for the 2025/2026 period. The City has budgeted $6M for the new tax they will asked the voters to approve later in 2025. That is the figure the City Council decided on in December. And that same budget assumes the RFA annexation will be approved by the voters. From my perspective, the City Council thinks it is in their interest if the ballot measures come to the voters one at a time this year. As the person who has to pay these new taxes, I’d prefer to get the whole financial recovery plan built, and explained to the voters. Then spread the tax gains out over a period of years; sorta like the deficit spending decisions the Council made were spread out over a period of years. Instead we’re being asked to agree to a big wallop in one year.
Theresa – Thanks for reminding me of the $6 million goal for a levy lift in the city budget docs. Definitely worthy of mention! Based on your input, I edited the section of the story to include this. Much appreciate you pointing it out. –LV
Should the RFA vote pass, the $6M apparently would be in addition to the city retaining the millions now being paid to SCF out of current property taxes for the fire contract. It’s decades since the voters passed a levy lid lift.
It would appear the angst and outdry against the RFA really needs to be directed towards the feckless elected city officials of Edmonds, past and present. They are the ones ‘redirecting’ and retaining million$$$ in city property tax payer dollars to cover their sloppy financial management over the previous decade. I’d be angry as well, but then without an acceptable Fire Response Agency properly trained, equipped and staffed, insurance rates (if even available) will go through the roof. At least property taxes are deductible.
You’re very welcome Larry. Keep going – this is what local professional journalism does best.
With my highest admiration,
Theresa (why are there so many women in Edmonds named Theresa/Teresa?)
It appears that with the exception of Mr. Chapman, who I believe is a firefighter, all the other commenters understand how the City has tried to obfuscate and mislead voters about the unjustified 75% increase in RFA price for fire/ems service. The City website and the Mayor’s Town Hall meetings have falsely reported that the 2026 incremental tax impact of RFA annexation on the ‘average’ house is only $439. As the MEN tax calculator shows, the actual incremental annexation tax is at least double that number. The Mayor and Council have been asked multiple times in the last month to correct their erroneous tax calculator. They have done nothing. The City website and FAQ document contain false and misleading information. The City is under investigation by the State Public Disclosure Commission for alleged illegal use of public funds, spending $64K on a PR consultant to advocate for annexation with false narratives and misleading statements. That doesn’t include thousands of dollars more for a mailer. How much in legal fees are they spending to defend that investigation? They are spending over $200,000 in your tax dollars to pay the County for the April 22 election. They could have invested half or a third of what they spent promoting annexation to do proper due diligence on alternative fire /ems solutions for cities the size of Edmonds. https://www.edmondscandobetter.org/
Thank you MEN for a very useful & strait forward calculator. It appears that the RFA tax leap, plus new assessment value for 2025 would increase our tax liability by $158 per month…ouch.
This is exactly the information folks need. Personally, I have been totally frustrated and disappointed in our local City of Edmonds elected officials and how they have handled this. Thank you very much for doing this.
Thank you MEN, this is great!
So… I used both the city’s own tax calculator tool which they have put on their website using my parcel number, and used the tool above taking my assessed value directly from the same page where I looked up my parcel number from the assessors office. The numbers are wildly different. The tool above shows a value approximately double of what the city’s calculator shows as far as annual tax impact. In addition, the tool above has a value much more closely in-line with what I was expecting based on ALL of the analysis and information which has come out. So which one is correct, and if one is incorrect, what is causing it to be incorrect?
The city’s calculator shows only the RFA’s taxes; MEN’s calculator shows total property taxes.
Thanks, Ron; that is helpful. In that case, I do not think the city’s calculator does an accurate or complete job of representing the personal financial impact of the decision at hand. I hope others take the time to look carefully at not only the cost, but read through the many articles, opinion pieces, commentary, etc. before making a decision. From my very objective voters position of trying to make the best possible decision, I continue to have more questions each day that goes by rather than fewer. Generally speaking, not a great sign as we get closer to actually having to make a decision about my confidence in paying it forward so-to-speak.
Thanks so much for the calculator. I followed the steps outlined and if the FDA vote is approved, my taxes would go up $1673.55. That is a huge increase in my taxes! I am a very elderly person hoping to stay in my home. With the impact of that huge tax increase, my FDA vote is a definite NO. Furthermore, there are still questions that have not be clearly presented by the mayor and city. I went to the Mayor’s state of the city meeting and the presentation was very interesting and informative. But the mayor did to clarify the huge increase in property taxes. I am asking the council and mayor to take the time to consider other options before raising my taxes by $1673.55.
Thank you for a realistic and undertandable cost caluclator instead of the useless simplistic calculator the City provided. It is good to know that my small three bedroom ranch in which my wife and I reared two fine daughters over the 54 years of ownership’s property taxes would increase by $691 if the RFA passes. The City must do what our new governor is doing and reduce expenditures and not drive out residents.
Good calculator…thx for constructing it.
…just sayin’ THANKS
Thanks a lot to MEN for this calculator. It’s very good to have impartial ways to calculate how much the city and other villains want to pillage into the Edmonds taxpayers’ pockets (without providing any tangible benefits).
On a side note, I’d like to remember other Edmonds’ taxpayers that the city stealing the tax money already collected for fire&EMS (and used for other not clear purposes) + planned tax increase via tax levy, will still have on top of it the extra tax money the state and county plan to collect to cover for their financial holes, doing God knows what (https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/03/democratic-state-senators-push-17b-tax-package-to-balance-washington-budget/). Expect it to go even higher if the state insists in doing illegal activities (e.g. harboring illegal immigrants) and losing federal funding.
Therefore, those individuals, from different organizations, public and private, doing obscure activities and squandering money like there’s no tomorrow, expect the taxpayers to continue covering all of it. That’s enough of it. Adding all of it, expect this blatant robbery (errr… taxes) to keep growing year after year indefinitely. How much can your salaries or pensions afford it?
I wonder if the city would consider a pause on the November lift vote in the event voters approve the RFA to see what the overall impact is on the city budget before coming back for yet another ask in such short order. To use layperson speak, a thank you to the community for coming in for the rescue and then going back and doing more hard work on the budget and the city finances which they seemingly would have much more direct control over. I am having a hard time coming to terms with where the end of this more and more taxing philosophy is, especially since there will be other areas of our lives which will be potentially be impacted here shortly (like the proposal to increase gas and EV taxes). As many are finding out and I have myself, the increased tax burden with the RFA is substantial any way you look at it.
the council prepared a budget that assumes annexation is approved, and a $6M tax increase through a levy lid lift, and deficit spending (accomplished by borrowing from the utility funds). they’ve been told for about 3 months that sales tax revenues are lower than the budget – and they have to react to that fact eventually . The mayor’s presentation at the Edmonds Theater last week changed that $6M new tax figure to “$6+”. The Council knows exactly what the impact is on their budget if annexation is approved- that’s the 2025/2026 budget they approved in December
Thank you, Tom for verifying what others have been saying for some time. The city is misleading us and not being fully transparent in what the true impact will be to the taxpayers.
If you want to take your analysis to the next level, then I would suggest that you include a 52% levy lid lift in the right-hand column of the above tax calculator. That represents the $6M Ms. Hollis explained. What does your tax increase look like now? And if you believe the mayor, even $6M won’t be enough.
The bottom line is that these increases don’t have to be this steep. A more balanced approach—where developers, businesses, the RFA, the city, and property owners all share the financial burden—would be far more equitable. To push for this kind of solution, we need to vote “NO” on annexation and demand a fairer deal.
The MEN calculator is accurate. It generates the exact same number for the $895,700 home used in the city example. The difference between the city does not display the information from the “taxpayer point of view” What are my city taxes today that include fire/EMS service and what will be my taxes if we vote to join which will generate new taxes and fees paid directly to SCF? For the $895,700 home the net change in taxes and fees will be $866.92 and not the $436.98 implied on the city website!
Our business will also be impacted in a big way. It is always grand to have event in our wonderful family run theater! If we join SCF that family will experience a tax increase of almost $3600/yr or $300/mo.
We often talk about the Benefit Charge and how it might help Edmonds. Yes, there is some truth to that notion. But the BC is a fee calculated to measure the “cost of fire suppression” for a building regardless of the land value. Within Edmonds the bigger the BC the more it shifts cost to our business community. Also, the same home on expensive land will benefit compared to one on less expensive land. Bowl vs Hwy 99 neighborhoods. Equity of taxation comes to the table.
Thanks Teresa and Larry for an accurate tax calculator!
Mr. Krepick, I am a retired Risk/HR Professional who spent the past 14 years of my career working in the Public Sector with Public Safety (Police, Fire, EMS, 911, Sheriffs, Corrections) professionals. I have witnessed, 1st hand the angst Edmonds inhabitants are experiencing as the Fire Service contracts from the Volunteer/Professional Model to a mostly Professional Paid Staff model and consolidation of municipal Fire Departments into larger Districts becomes the norm. From my background and experience, Edmonds taxpayers are, in fact, being given a raw deal. But that raw deal eminates mostly from the City leaders themselves, not the RFA. Usually when concolidation takes place, the City Department annexing into a District comes with the available tax dollars collected by the City for Fire/EMS. While that wass the case for the past 15 or so years, Edmonds elected officials have decided basically to take those millions and shore up other City Services. That is the true cause of the angst. RFA had the contractural right to cancel the service contract by giving advance notice and they were reasonable and prudent to do so given the precarious finances of the City of Edmonds. It is a horrible position voters and taxpayers have been placed in. I merely suggest that the ire is misplaced when directed towards the Fire District. Best to all.
Hello Kurt, are you referring to 2010 when Edmonds disbanded their FD and Fire District #1 began providing service in a contract arrangement? Have you read that 20 year contract’s sections that provide for a decision by the City to pay more when the FD provides more services (including faster response times)? Or to pay more when labor contracts result in higher wages (as in 2023 when the employee raise was 9.5%)? This RFA prefers to annex the territory and levy taxes directly. Why not? It allows them to increase spending significantly. I want the deal that Kenmore and Lake Forest Park just got with their annexation vote in January – zero increase in the money those residents pay for fire/EMS service. I that the City has conflated their budget problems with the annexation choice. But I don’t agree with your assessment of who the bad guy is. Regardless of who’s wearing the white hats and who’s wearing the black hats, the property owners’ checkbooks will suffer. It’s hard to sell the property owners of Edmonds that because they have the highest assessed values by $200-300k compared to the other 250,000 people served by the RFA that annexation makes sense for them. This is nearly an irreversible decision. I’m going to hit the pause button in April. There’s options after we vote No annexation.
Mr. Chapman,
You raise some valid points. I agree that our city made questionable decisions under the previous administration and city councils. While I’m not suggesting the RFA acted illegally in canceling the contract, what’s frustrating is the timing—they chose to cancel it just weeks before our new mayor took office. They could have opted to invoke other contract provisions and worked collaboratively with the incoming administration to renegotiate. Instead, they unilaterally canceled the contract without cause, only to then propose annexation at nearly double the cost.
Ultimately, there’s fault on both sides, but it’s the taxpayers who are bearing the brunt of these decisions. We need to find a better way forward.
I find it troubling the finance folks didn’t see all the shortfalls coming years ago? Or did they and didn’t let the citizens know what was happening?
If it fails, what assets does the city have to sell to offset their failures lowing the cost being passed or mandated to us the tax payers.
If this doesn’t pass, what will SCFire charge for their contract extension? How would those numbers compare? Just like in professional sports, the contract extension isn’t just going to stay the same rate, they’ll charge much more.
Lori, the 1 year contract is not an extension. It is a brand new contract with different goals when compared to the contract Edmonds negotiated and signed in 2010. I believe The Mayor signed it , at the same time he signed the RFA annexation agreement. See the city council packets for Dec. 2024 when there were public hearings on this topic to find the contract. MEN covers all city council meetings so a search of articles on this website may also be helpful.
One of the interesting added features for this calculator is the ability to look at some “what if” questions. For example: if we hold the fall levy to $6m it would add $375 of tax for a $1m home. If we wanted to raise the fall levy to $15m to get a jump on repaying the utility fund loan and rebuild reserves, it would be $937 more. This calculator does create the same net increases that were agreed to by SCF and the City for that $895,700 home.
As shown at the State of the City, we have some catch up to do building maintenance, ADA compliance and other capital needs. Mayor Rosen in an interview with MEN mentioned a new funding mechanism that schools use. Bond Ladder. Bonds could be issued every four years and run for 20 yrs. They would provide a stable source of funding for our capital projects. Each council member has received one on one training on the use of the Bond Ladder concept. Council should create a complete public discussion of all the issues not just Fire/EMS. We have many issues to solve, and they should be assessed at the same time.
The MEN calculator is based on the same principles as those created by the Blue Ribbon Panel and shared with council about a year ago.
Thanks to MEN again for posting this calculator. I’d like to remind, once again, to the people planning to vote on this referendum that there are several more aspects to consider when making the decision.
The gangs in Olympia are currently voting to pass the largest taxes increase in WA for a budget close to $80 billion. The money pits in the cities, counties and state are bottomless and, as we can see by Edmonds, nothing is delivered. Only more issues. So, get ready for a major incoming taxes increase.
Edmonds’ council and mayor, not happy in selling Edmonds to the RFA also want more money and, based on their behavior so far, will keep not doing anything. So far, with all the budget holes, our parks, streets and overall maintenance have been lacking (a lot).
My auto-insurance company just increased my premium adding approx. $800 (/six months) due to “cost of business in WA”. Upon calling them, one big reason given is more uninsured drivers. Not surprising, considering so many illegals moving here invited by Ferguson&gang paying them full benefits.
Therefore, I do not doubt that everything added together will easily go over $3000 /year, if not way more. Therefore, please take a look at the overall picture and your pockets. There’s no limit for those gangs’ lust for money.
Hello all MEN readers,
I could not find the calculator listed under the red headline for Regional Fire Authority. Probably my mistake. The benefit of this calculator is twofold. Individuals can correctly calculate the net impact of Prop 1 and view the impact of the announced fall levy. The Mayor’s Chit Chat article gives additional insight to the total revenue needs of the city should we need to solve it with taxes.
You can enter any amount you want to test on the left lower area “Levy Lift Calculator” and for the value of your home that you entered at the top. The result on the right will show you the taxes you will pay for the fall levy.
Get informed and stay informed. Try it.
Here’s the link to the calculator:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/03/how-would-regional-fire-authority-annexation-impact-my-tax-bill/
There is absolutely no proof that the City “could” be driven into bankruptcy if the annexation is not approved. South County Fire (SCF) arbitrarily increased the contract cost from $12.5M to about $21M in one year. That fire agency wants to serve Edmonds. They do not want us to be served by another agency nor take the leadership in forming another RFA. But as a resident of the city with the highest property values- I see competition for who serves Edmonds as a good thing. Competition always drives down prices. (I am not equating a government agency to the private services sector exactly. ) The thinking of SCF commissions to jack up the price was successful in the short run. They got the City to agree to that atrocious price for just 2026. I am in this for the long run, though, as many Edmonds homeowners and small businesses are. I will vote No on the annexation choice, and ask the Mayor to reopen negotiations with SCF. Only then will we know what a reasonable cost of Fire/EMS service in 2026 is. Let’s get into those fascinating discussions about non-variable costs and un-allocated central overhead, and benefit charges. Why isn’t there a third party doing BLS transport? A majority No vote in this election hands the mayor of Edmonds a powerful negotiating tool.
Thanks MEN for this all-researched, accurate calculator! THIS is local journalism at its best: helping people make sense of the happenings around them, but giving them accurate facts.
Excellent tool and explanation, thank you for doing this! While not applicable to me yet, I appreciate the work. This should be required for proponents of any taxing measure to provide to the taxpayers,
It’s concerning that the city hasn’t provided an updated and accurate tax calculator on their website, especially when transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust. A reliable tax calculator allows residents to clearly understand financial impacts, ensuring they can make informed decisions on matters affecting their taxes and local services.
The fact that their current calculator is misleading raises legitimate questions about whether city officials are withholding other key information in ways that aligns with their own agenda. Residents deserve straightforward and honest information, particularly when major financial decisions, such as annexation, are on the table. When the city fails to provide clear data, it only fuels skepticism and erodes confidence in their leadership.
If the city truly values engagement and informed decision-making, updating the tax calculator should be a priority. Otherwise, it’s no surprise that many are questioning their motives and losing trust in City Hall. Accountability starts with transparency—something that’s clearly lacking here.
The city and MEN calculators measure different things. The city calculator, per the calculator notes, shows increased cost in fire service caused by the ballot measure. It is the only amount that is legally dictated by a yes vote on the ballot.
The MEN calculator represents both the legal results of a yes ballot measure (the increase in the fire and EMS costs) and the stated intention of council to retain the general tax levy at the current level (not mandated by or automatic result of the ballot measure).
Bottom line: we do not have enough revenue to provide government; our current local tax assessments are the lowest in Snohomish County by far and not sustainable.
So: If you think annexation is the best way to receive fire and EMS service (because it is the lowest cost option for the quality and level of service) you will vote yes knowing that the amount retained by the city (about 1/3 of the deficit) is an amount the public wont be asked for in a future levy. If you don’t think annexation is the best way to get service, you will vote no knowing the full cost burden for this and other needs will be coming later. The city doesn’t have the money to pay the contract alternative without getting it in a new levy.
The key thing voters need to keep in mind is the net effect on the taxpayer. The MEN calculator does a good job of estimating the net tax effect on the property owner—the city’s calculator only tells part of the story. On a home with an assessed value of $1 million, the owner will pay an additional amount of about $1000 if annexation passes. If the annexation vote does not pass, the city will need to determine how to cover the fire/EMS contract cost for 2026. If the city does this with a combination of additional cost cuts, new revenue generation (possibly via additional red light cameras, paid parking, increased fees, etc) and a fall levy request, the impact on the taxpayer can be eased.
Why distort the tax implications of this vote? The central issue here is the total tax difference between a “yes” and a “no” vote. The city has claimed that “we do not have enough revenue to provide government,” yet it has failed to proactively identify new revenue sources. Why has it taken this long to explore alternatives instead of placing the financial burden squarely on property owners? This reactive approach suggests a lack of strategic planning, which is concerning for residents who deserve fiscal responsibility, not desperation-driven policymaking.
I, for one, remain unconvinced that annexation, as currently proposed, represents the lowest-cost option for taxpayers. Throughout this entire process, those footing the bill—the taxpayers—have been largely ignored. The annexation framework is heavily skewed in favor of the RFA, ensuring that they receive a revenue windfall at our expense. Besides, whatever money we save through a better deal can be used locally to help the city in other ways.
Furthermore, it’s baffling that the city would push for annexation while we are in a financial dispute with the RFA over revenue they still owe us under our existing contract. If they have withheld reimbursements from us for years, how can we trust them to act in our best interests moving forward? Before committing to this long-term partnership, transparency and resolution should come first – not more questions.
Thank you for the calculator. More (and more understandable) information is always good. For complex issues, over-simplification of information can appear to be intentionally misleading. This can be seen for both sides of the issue. Folks, please try to understand not just the information presented that describes the situation, but whether solutions presented seem like good ideas. Price increases don’t just impact individuals. Poor budgeting and planning or not, we’re in a difficult financial situation, and well thought out decisions are important. If you don’t understand the problem, talk to people you trust.
As for the “don’t trust politicians to make decisions for you” comments… well, I’m pretty sure that’s one of the things you’re voting for when you elect someone to represent you: to make informed decisions on your behalf.
I still have some thinking to do before I come to a decision. Higher costs are a given. The issue of control sounds like a question that requires more knowledge of the relationship between RFA and it’s members than I have. It’s going to be fun sorting out this fruit salad into understandable apples and oranges. Good luck to everyone, and please continue the work to be informed voters.
Full discloser, I served on Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Panel along with other more skilled professionals. Mayor used initial work for 2024 State of the City. 2025 SofC same data points but updated.
CP Tibbott introduced Mayor at the 2025 SofC address. Tibbott pointed out BRP created a plan to address our budget issues. Unfortunately, the council has not followed some key elements of the plan.
MS Copilot: “Political spin is like the art of storytelling, but with a twist—it’s about framing information to sway public opinion or control a narrative. Politicians and PR teams use techniques like selective presentation of facts, catchy slogans, or even strategic timing to make their message stick. It’s a powerful tool, but it often raises questions about transparency and trust.”
MEN Calculator: Taxpayer viewpoint, net tax impact accurate, includes calculator for future levies. Try it!
City Calculator: see MS Copilot definition above.
CM Olson: “Bottom line: we do not have enough revenue to provide government;”
BRP: Basic Govt first, then extras.
CM Olson: “our current local tax assessments are the lowest in Snohomish County by far and not sustainable.” 2025 SofC Slide113 and SC assessor:
Edmonds vs Lynnwood
Rate: 107% higher
Per capita: 327% higher
GF from taxes: 349% higher
BRP plan for budget issues. Facts, transparency, No Spin.
See above: Jim O and Dave T
I was curious about how much the average firefighter in SCFD1 makes because $21 million annually seems like a pretty big chunk of change for manning three fire stations. I did a few AI inquiries and the following popped up–
“Nationally, Everett, Washington, is reported to pay the highest annual salary for firefighters/paramedics at $151,295”, according to “Indeed” a large national recruiter.
Wow!!! This is across the whole country!!!! I thought surely the highest salaries would be in New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles but according to Indeed Everett Washington is Number 1.
I would like CM Olsen or Mayor Rosen to do a little digging to understand whether the above statement is accurate and if not, what is the average salary including benefits in SCFD1. A single call the Chief Eastman should clear up any errors in the above statement. One other point – according to Indeed, Everett leads the 2nd highest paid by a substantial amount. (Benicia CA is 2nd highest paid at $132K).
Doug
You’re absolutely right about South County RFA firefighters being paid extraordinary wages. Given the history of the RFA Board and Fire Chief in supporting the union, in condoning the union’s high-priced annexation advocacy campaign ($40,000 in flyers and direct mail pieces), in neglecting to modernize the staffing with dedicated paramedics to respond to 85% of all 911 calls that are for medical emergencies, in paying overtime to managerial staff (battalion chiefs and captains), in failing to report and track performance and financial metrics – it is clear that the RFA is basically looking out for firefighters’ full employment first and taxpayers second. In 2023, the average wages for the top 50 RFA employees was $264,000, which included more than 15% overtime. Sadly, the Mayor and Council Members have done no proper due diligence on comparable cities that are managing their fire departments at the current Edmonds’ contract price of $12M/year. They simply chose to do a back-of-envelope calculation and said the RFA is the least cost provider at $21M – which was based on a superficial Fitch report that did not analyze ‘comp’ cities of Edmonds size (and available infrastructure – 3 fire stations, right to buy back fire trucks, available 911 service, etc.). No wonder the firefighters are lobbying so hard for annexation – as it supports their extraordinary annual salaries.
Doug, I don’t suggest calling Chief Eastman. Although his office is in Everest, he doesn’t run that fire department. You can read the City of Everett’s fire department’s annual reports for the last few years to learn what their workload and program initiatives are. They’re easy find via google or your favorite search engine. I like the fact that Everett contracts with a private ambulance service to take the patient to the hospital so that their paramedic and truck can be freed up to take the next call. It’s crucial to maximize your availability. South County Fire doesn’t do that. They’re out of step with every large fire agency surrounding them that serves metro areas and their suburbs. This is just one of the reasons I voted No in the special election.
James,
Some good points and questions,
From 2025 State of City presentation:
Financial issues:
Start of 2024 Gap was $20.4m. pg99
Now $29.4m pg 107
Over 4 years: Revenues grew 27.8% Expenditures grew 44.9% pg94
These are items listed that are not in the current estimate of $29.4m.
“Basic govt services” or public “wants”?? pg102
Roads; From Roads 2018 study – annual shortfall: $1,270,000
Ramps; 1,500 left to install $ 10,500,000
Facilities; 2023 study – capital backlog; $40,163,000
Sidewalks; 91 miles without sidewalks; $750,000,000
BRP created Calculators, and all have been shared with Council and one-on-one training has been given.
To raise $1m the tax rate would be $.0625/1000 or around $63 for a $1m home, business, or apartment. (Landlord gets billed)
Estimated taxes for Assessed Value of $1m.
Roads: $80/yr
Ramps spread over 10 years: $63/yr
Facilities spread over 4 years: $635/yr
Sidewalks spread over 20 years: $2344/yr
Bottom line: The current plan requires a combination of Additional Taxes, New Revs or Cuts of around $29.4m or $1838/yr if taxes are the only source of sustainable revenues.
Most may agree that Roads, ADA Ramps, and doing delayed maintenance of our older buildings are needed? Taxes would be an additional $780/yr. Sidewalks?
Council should have started with a public discussion of all that is needed to fix the budget issues.
Local control in another comment.
Don’t just think about employee wages when you think about your special election vote this week. Alica Crank did a forum last week with three SCF commissioners. She asked about their CFP. They are planning on building or remodeling TEN fire stations with their reserves and tax revenue streams. They plan to have a total of 19 stations (currently have 15).
I know I cannot afford to fund this size of a construction program with my taxes. Edmonds doesn’t have growth. MLT, Lynnwood, and the unincorporated areas is where the growth is. I don’t need a reminder about long range planning. I worked in financial planning and analysis at the largest private utility in the state for 9 years; and operations, traffic studies, and IT for the other 7 years. This RFA is not planning what’s the best fit for Edmonds. The 2016 Fitch report said we need 2 stations. We have not grown since then. This RFA is in the permitting process for the 4th station in Edmonds (EIS study of the Value Village site).