In the second of two complaints related to the Regional Fire Authority annexation measure before voters this month, the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) on Thursday dismissed a complaint filed by the Snohomish County Firefighters PAC (FFPAC) against the Edmonds Can Do Better Committee (ECDB).
The FFPAC, which supports the April 22 proposal before voters to annex Edmonds into the Snohomish County Fire Regional Fire Authority (RFA), is affiliated with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1828, and has been paying for yard signs, mailers and other pro-RFA materials. In its complaint, FFPAC said that the Edmonds Can Do Better Committee (ECDB) – which opposes annexation — has not been regularly reporting income and expenditures per PDC rules and has missed several reporting deadlines.
However, the PDC dismissed the complaint because ECDB is registered under the agency’s mini reporting campaign rules, Public Disclosure Commission spokesperson Natalie Johnson said. That means it does not expect to raise more than $7,000 and agrees not to accept any single donation in excess of $500 – exempting it from regular reporting.
Mini reporting vs regular reporting:
According to the PDC, candidates and committees choosing mini reporting do not file contribution and expenditure reports, but they must file a registration statement, keep records of their contributions and expenditures, and comply with the following disclosure requirements:
- Allow public inspections of campaign books during the eight calendar days before an election,
- Include proper sponsor identification, any party preference and other required elements needed for political advertising, and
- Submit information for independent expenditures and electioneering communications via a C-6 reporting form.
Mini reporters do have the option to switch to full reporting but must make the request 30 days before the election – so in this case the deadline has passed. More information on the difference between full and mini reporting is available on the PDC website here.
Up-to-date disclosure information for both the FFPAC and the ECDB group can be viewed on the PDC website here. Note that the FFPAC is subject to regular reporting rules, and its financial report details are viewable on the site. But because the ECDB is operating under mini reporting rules, it shows zeros in all areas.
Furthermore, the rules state that as a mini filer the ECDB records are not open to public scrutiny until April 14, eight days before the April 22 election. That lack of transparency is concerning, said Jason Bennett, president of Argo Strategies, a consulting firm working under contract to the FFPAC on political messaging and strategizing.
“We are highly skeptical they [ECDB] can afford flyers and yard signs throughout the district without violating those [mini reporting] terms,” Bennett said. “If mailers arrive in voters’ mailboxes this week when ballots drop or any time over the next three weeks, we will know they will have likely exceeded the $7,000 reporting exemption, and we will be filing a follow-up complaint.”
Should a follow-up complaint be filed, the PDC could ask ECDB to open its books before the April 14 deadline.
According to PDC spokesperson Natalie Johnson, mini filers are held accountable through the complaint process. Their campaign books should include all activity, even if it occurred prior to registration as a mini filer.
“If we receive a follow-up complaint that provides evidence that mini limits have been exceeded, we would review it,” she explained. “If we open a case, a PDC compliance staff member would investigate. That could include a request to look at respondent’s campaign books.”
Edmonds Can Do Better spokesperson Jim Ogonowski said the organization “has fully adhered to” all PDC requirements and state laws. “We have properly filed our registration statement with the PDC as mandated,” he said. “However, the Snohomish Firefighters PAC has disregarded the fact that our organization operates under the Mini Reporting requirements of the PDC. This reporting status caps our total contributions at $7,000, a stark contrast to the substantially larger expenditures of the firefighters PAC.”
This is the second of two PDC complaints filed related to the RFA campaign. The first, filed by Edmonds Can Do Better committee member Theresa Hutchison, takes issue with the $64,000 contract between the City of Edmonds and Liz Loomis Public Affairs (LLPA) signed on Aug. 23, 2024. (Read the full complaint here). In her complaint, Hutchison alleges that city funds “may have been used improperly” to pay for the Loomis contract. The complaint alleges that LLPA was “hired not for neutral communication but to actively support and promote RFA annexation,” and that their work for the City of Edmonds crosses the line between education and advocacy. The City of Edmonds has submitted a response denying any irregular or illegal use of funds. Links to documents regarding this case are available from the PDC here.
This complaint is currently under investigation by the PDC (for additional details read our earlier story here).
Snohomish County Firefighters PAC (FFPAC) has currently spent over $36,000 and counting. (So much for the assertion that they don’t have a horse in this race) Additionally the city has put up $64,000 in PR spin money.
The Edmonds Can Do Better Committee (ECDB) doesn’t expect to raise more than $7000. Clearly underdog ECDB is a grassroots local effort, a David fighting the Goliath of special interest money. Edmonds can do better, I’m voting NO.
Basic PDC rules. If the firefighters couldn’t take two minutes to find out this basic information before trying to take legal action, how much can we trust the information they are telling us regarding the financial impact on Edmonds? Is this their research style? Or was this just another bully tactic?
Further, I opened up my Instagram social media account this morning. To my astonishment there was it paid advertisement for Snohomish County Firefighters PAC (FFPAC). Apparently, they have additionally spent $11,800 on digital media. There’s lots of special interest money being thrown around to undermine this local election.
Thank you, Larry, for even and honest reporting.
Edmonds Can Do Better, a citizen-led organization, operates under the PDC’s Mini Reporting rules, limiting total contributions to $7,000. This stands in stark contrast to the Snohomish County Firefighters PAC, which has already spent over $37,000 on annexation advocacy, including hiring additional PR firms. Coupled with the city’s $64,000 expenditure and staff costs promoting annexation, more than $100,000 has been spent in comparison to our modest budget. We invite both the city and RFA to audit our finances as permitted—they might learn how to operate efficiently.
The baseless complaint against us highlights the lengths to which the RFA and firefighters PAC will go to discredit a growing group of citizens dedicated to making Edmonds more affordable. Such actions undermine trust and divert focus from constructive solutions. Despite this, we remain committed to saving residents from excessive RFA taxes and collaborating with city leadership to invest locally and strengthen our community.
Our plan (Reader view/opinion: Exploring alternatives to joining the Regional Fire Authority – My Edmonds News) outlines options and alternatives to joining the Regional Fire Authority, ensuring Edmonds retains control over fire/EMS services while minimizing tax impacts. By voting ‘NO’ on Proposition 1, you can support efforts to keep tax dollars within Edmonds for local benefit. Visit edmondscandobetter.org for more details. Together, we can find better solutions.
Mr. Bennet of Argo Strategies, I am the team member of Edmonds Can Do Better that purchased the flyers for our campaign effort. They were printed in a union shop, and we are proud to support a unionized printing company with our ‘PDC reporting compliant’ spending. If you reply with your address, I am happy to drive one over to your place. We can’t afford the expensive direct mailing process that the fire fighter union PAC can afford. In addition- we much prefer to talk neighbor-to- neighbor about this important issue rather than stuffing mailboxes with glossy presorted mail items that might get dropped in the trash can and never make it into the house. (By the way- there’s a layout mistake on the front side of your mailer. Check the upper right side corner. ) Either a residential or business address is fine. I have some feedback for you, since you’re in the communications business: if you assume the other guy lied, or broke a law, and lead with that message BEFORE validating your assumptions, the honest hardworking folks will just tune out your future messages. We get plenty of crap in our social media messages in the US, and that’s enough for me. I don’t need the professional election consultants also dishing it out.
Thank you.
MEN, Thank you for your accurate and balanced report. It is clear that the Firefighters PAC, and the City really want Prop 1 to pass. Why? Follow the money. In this case, a 97% increase in our taxes for Fire and EMS services.
Seems like the Firefighters’ union and PAC are promoting the RFA annexation vote because of their self interests while the City spends $64K of taxpayer money for a PR firm to ‘sell the value’ of annexation. Why should the firefighter union care whether annexation is passed? Could it be that they see the RFA as the golden goose for their career egg? If Edmonds were to ditch the RFA and implement a more cost effective and responsive fire/ems service that would mean approximately 50 firefighters and associated staff at the RFA would be out of a job. And their jobs with Edmonds might not be as lucrative as the same job with the RFA? Heaven forbid that a new business paradigm could be established favoring more ambulance services to respond to the 85% of 911 calls that are for medical emergencies. The RFA management and Board’s historical unquestioned support for higher wages, more overtime, pursuing an outdated staffing model that uses firefighters and fire trucks to respond to 85% of 911 calls for medical emergencies, lack of focus on efficiency and productivity, using serial annexation to bypass State caps on assessed-value based tax levy increases, and spending $1 million on internal PR all raise questions about why Edmonds taxpayers should trust the RFA and pay an incremental $1,000 per year for annexation. Vote No! https://www.edmondscandobetter.org/
Bill – you’re saying a fire department spends $1 million per year on public relations? That blows my mind! Can you provide your source for that info? If it’s their budget document, a link and a comment on where to find this line item would be appreciated.
Thank you
Theresa-
I don’t know how to show a link to a .pdf file. But on page 16 of the SCFD/RFA 2025 budget it shows $1.525 million ‘communications’ budget. I’m sure that includes all the ‘open houses’, ice cream socials, newsletters, website, press releases, bike helmet giveaways for the kids, and all other PR promotions to convince the communities that the RFA is an integral part of the community and doing a wonderful job.
PART 1 – Full disclosure. I am part of ECDB. I’m also the person who filed the PDC complaint against the city for using $64,000 tax payer dollars to advocate/promote (IMO) for annexation instead of education on February 24, 2025. This complaint is currently under investigation by the PDC.
When did the taxpayer become the public servant to the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) and our firefighters? When did Edmonds become the coveted Golden Goose to the RFA? Edmonds is not saying we don’t believe in our firefighters, we just can’t afford you at these costs and don’t want to be driven out of our homes and into personal bankruptcy supporting them. We don’t want to sell the homes we’ve lived in all of our lives in order to support that appears to be your insatiable appetite for our tax dollars. Why did the RFA unilaterally cancel our contract which had another 5 years to run and partner with the mayor and council to put annexation on the ballot? At a time when Edmonds is in a fiscal crisis – last count 25 million in debt – the mayor and council (except CM Dotsch) spent $250,000 to put annexation on the ballot and another $64,000 to hire Loomis (LLPA) a PR firm, in a backroom deal, to sell annexation to us. Continued…..
I urge voters to ask why the firefighters union is weighing in like this in an election where they have previously claimed to be neutral. This “complaint”., which was summarily dismissed by the PDC, was nothing more than a dirty trick designed to discredit the Edmonds can do better effort.
I truly appreciate MEN for providing balance in an election campaign where the city and the firefighters who stand to gain from annexation have heavily tipped the scales in favor of their preferred position. The work of the Edmonds can do better committee represents true democracy in action pushing back against the power that seeks to impose its will on the people.
Vote no and demand that the city and RFA present us with an improved plan that includes a more balanced allocation of cost using the benefit charge, a commitment to look at more efficient service delivery models, metrics at the individual city level, meaningful analysis and improvement plans and a clear plan showing how and when Edmonds would gain representation on the fire commission.
PART 2. If annexation is such a good deal, why does it have to be sold to us. The South County Fire Regional Authority (SCFRA) is a behemoth, wealthy, organization. It has millions of dollars to spend on PR. The FFPA, the SCFRA’s PAC, has spent better than $36,000 promoting annexation. the city has spent $64,000 in a contract with Loomis (LLPA) and countless staff hours promoting annexation. Do the math, approximately $100,000 has been spent between the two partners to sell us something that is “good for Edmonds”. The FFPAC filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) against Edmonds Can do Better (ECDB), a small grass roots group of Edmonds residents doing our best to educate the voters on what annexation will mean. Senior citizens on fixed incomes, families with children, the disabled, wounded veterans, businesses, renters, no one will be left untouched and will feel the impact of the historically high property tax increases. There is only one reason the FFPAC filed the PDC complaint and that is to harass and intimate ECDB into stopping our effort to educate Edmonds. Yes, we have bought yard signs. Signs that have mysteriously been defaced, stolen, thrown in the bushes. What happened to the firefighter I once knew? The one I worked with as a registered nurse in emergency rooms? Continued ……….
PART 3. The firefighter I knew was a public servant – ethical, one of integrity, trustworthy. How can we trust the RFA with our very lives and property if we can’t even trust them to run an honest campaign? The PDC took less than 48 hours to dismiss the FFPAC complaint – it was without merit. The FFPAC knew it going in. It was a well planned and orchestrated assault on the taxpayer. Was this part of the Loomis (LLPA) strategy we paid $64,000 for? Edmonds has high assessed property values, RFA is desperate to annex us. Annexation will most likely mean we are married to the RFA forever, no divorce here. RFA will own us forever. This is greed of the highest. We are currently paying 12 million for fire and EMS. Under our new contract we will be paying 20 million for no increase in service. Good for RFA, not good for Edmonds. We are the Golden Goose that will forever give and give- the RFA will forever take and take. In my naivete, I thought the profession of nursing, firefighter, police was a calling – not one to get wealthy. We are public servants. How disappointing to learn that for some this is not the case. Go to edmondscandobetter.org for information. I will be voting No. Theresa Campa Hutchison, RN., (ret)
OK RFA OPPONENTS. Let’s hear your preferred option and the associated costs, advantages, and disadvantages. All I keep seeing is opposition to the RFA based on the tax implications. Loss of local control seems like a smoke screen. I’ve been told many times you can’t just object to something unless you can suggest a better solution. So what is yours?
I’m not opposed to the RFA but I am opposed to this annexation proposal. Allow me to restate what I already said earlier in this thread about how the annexation proposal could be improved but which you must not have read.
Vote no and demand that the city and RFA present us with an improved plan that includes a more balanced allocation of cost using the benefit charge, a commitment to look at more efficient service delivery models, metrics at the individual city level, meaningful analysis and improvement plans and a clear plan showing how and when Edmonds would gain representation on the fire commission.
We’ve already given many suggestions to the Mayor, Council, and RFA over the past 9 months and all have fallen on deaf ears. We’ve asked the politicians to do proper due diligence/analysis and proforma income statements for an Edmonds-run operation, optimized for dedicated ems ambulance service (either contract or in-house). We’ve asked them to negotiate a multi-year deal with the RFA to transition to a 60% fire benefit charge revenue model that would eliminate Edmonds subsidizing all the other annexed communities because of Edmonds’ higher assessed values. We’ve asked for the RFA to show detailed cost accounting reports based on each community’s per capita and performance metrics (in addition to standard financial accounting), to show their actual costs per call, costs per station, costs per resident, etc. We’ve asked the RFA to return $7 million of hospital transport fees that are owed to Edmonds. We’ve asked the City to return to residents the $6 million in local property taxes that are currently earmarked for our contracted fire/ems services. We’ve asked the RFA to prove what economies of scale they have delivered to annexed customers. We’ve vetted the local control issue and found that in best case, Edmonds’ would have a 15% vote in Board decisions. We’ve tried to penetrate the smoke screens and misinformation presented by the RFA and politicians, and have come up blank.
Hi Jerrod, the smoke analogies keep coming up. And I guess they’re useful. Here’s my perspective on the loss of control argument. 1) current contract has faster response time standards than the state legislature sets for the RFA as a whole. The statistically representative opinion poll in Edmonds says Fire/EMS service is our #1 priority for gov’t services. Contract also states the RFA has to propose a solution to the City when they are late responding. I like that oversight approach. It’s Local control. 2) the RFA board has long term incumbents on it. If we’re annexed, we’ll sit in two of the Commissioner districts (per the RFA at one of the town halls) . The whole service area votes (300,00 residents, and an unknown number of voters) on the Commissioners. Who would be a successful candidate that raises the money for the election can can unseat a long term incumbent? (Candidates for Mayor spent $80,000 and City Council candidate spending is $30,000 just in Edmonds. ) I’d rather have this important service managed in the short term via a contract. When we get a ‘no’ vote on annexation, we will see this board of Fire Commissioners drop their monopolistic negotiating style and get ‘real’. Because then we will have proved to them that we do have choices. Please vote ‘No’ in the special election.
It seems that the RFA gang is getting desperate. Edmonds’ taxpayers must demand accountability and a decent job from the mayor and council, which have been evading it by pushing easy-way-out solutions to the taxpayers, as it seems to be the politicians’ habit nowadays.
We must keep in mind the massive tax increase coming up at state level, one of them overturning the 1% max cap increase in property taxes to help fund the incompetence and corruption in Olympia. Voters voted for it and now Olympia is arbitrarily overturning it.
Edmonds’ mayor and council seem to be afflicted by the same plague and also want to keep spending irresponsibly, and remain unaccountable for the money pits they created themselves. We must demand accountability. This mayor came in promising to “stop the crazy” but it seems it only got worse.
The pro-RFA sign says it’s the “lowest cost option”. The people doing the math already showed multiple times it’s not. So, how to trust an organization that wants to take such responsibility as firefighting and EMS when it’s not fully straightforward and resorting to deceit? Firefighters used to be people fully dependable and above suspicion. The RFA campaign is showing that it changed, a lot.
I’m voting NO. The city has to do a much better other than resorting to lies and deceit.
Absolutely voting no on this. Ending a contract so they can negotiate for better rates? 100k spent against RFA opponents? A city council doing their best to do nothing? No is the only way to win for Edmonds residents.
What we have is bloated bureaucracies protecting their best interests regardless of the affects it has on the people that pay for their wages. This basically attack on taxpayers seems to be prevalent in all areas here in Washington. Firefighters should be neutral not advocating for annexation, city trying to pass the buck instead of cutting spending, voter passed initiatives being challenged in court. If you can’t see the problem by now heaven help you.
Jerrod,
You may have missed it, so I’ll point you to: https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/03/reader-view-opinion-exploring-alternatives-to-joining-the-regional-fire-authority/
You may find some of your questions answered there.
I’d like to see what the city’s plan for financial recovery is before we vote on anything. Let’s get the horse in front of the cart.
Jim Ogonowski and Theresa Hutchinson are two of the most honest and down to earth people I’ve ever met. All the RFA/IAFF officials would have had to do was give them a call and ask to see their books and they would have complied as they pride themselves on their honesty, efficiency and transparency. Man, if this doesn’t prove it’s all just about snagging the Edmonds AV tax bonanza on the part of RFA then I don’t know what else would prove it. They arbitrarily cancel the city contract five years ahead of schedule, demand almost double what they had been charging and try to sell it as a great deal for us taxpayers using every trick in the book including telling us how much they just love serving us. Of course this is after they told the City Council and Mayor that we were being over served and not paying our fair share of their costs. And; RFA also keeping transportation charge revenue that they were supposed to give back to the city contrary to the contract and making the city spend money on a legal battle over that as well. And our Mayor and Council are all just “hunky dory” with this (except M. Dotsch). No wonder we are totally broke and needing massive bail out taxation to avoid municipal bankruptcy.
Wow! Extremely confusing! I thought by reading the comments it would help to see the pros and cons of the issue. More confused than ever! So many acronyms. Where do I get unbiased information? I have my ballot, not seeing a voters pamphlet?
There’s not a separate booklet for a voter’s pamphlet in this election. Tear open the ballot envelope to find the write up of this ballot measure.
In addition to the print copy included with ballots (thanks Theresa Hollis for pointing this out), the April 22 voters’ pamphlet can also be viewed online here: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/132209
I had a long relationship with Mike Rosen and his wife, Sharon, before he ran for mayor. Our relationship was such that I had the security code to their home when they went on extended vacations. When Mike decided to run for mayor, Vivian Olson, and other ECR supporters asked me to support his candidacy. I declined. Mike is a very nice person but had no municipal financial experience. He was a retired PR executive – not a retired business owner/CEO, and I felt Edmonds needed more in a mayor. As I have already stated, this PDC complaint from the South County Fire Fighter’s PAC appears to be a dirty backroom deal, strategy, perhaps concocted by LOOMIS, the firm Mayor hired to sell Edmonds on annexation and the other two PR firms the FFPAC are represented by to bully, harass and intimate Edmondscandobetter to stop educating Edmonds on what annexation means to their/our finances. All Mike had to do was call me, have one of his staffers contact me, or the FFPAC. But instead they choose this cowardly route. This is what an organization lacking in integrity and respect looks like. Again, how can we trust the RFA with our very lives and property when they can’t run an honest campaign. This is a sad look for City Hall and the RFA – self inflicted.
Theresa, I echo Dave T’s suggestion about retracting this comment about collaboration. The RFA’s board of Fire commissioners doesn’t control the union’s political action committee. This is campaigning, mud slinging, looking for points of weakness in the opposing side, pressing each day for progress. And in this case : tit for tat, since you filed a request with the PDC to ask them to confirm whether the City’s spending was following state campaign regs. I appreciate that you offer to show the campaign opponents the accounting books of the Edmonds Can Do Better Campaign. I don’t really think anyone will take you up on that. But I’m a certified management accountant and I would very much like to see the books of this huge regional fire authority to understand their claim that Edmonds does not pay ‘their fair share’. There are many ways to describe ‘overhead’, and to allocate those costs an an overhead layer of the direct costs. They method everyone agreed to in the 2010 contract apparently became unpopular with the RFA sometime after that. Instead of a discussion between the accountants on an updated definition of ‘fully loaded costs’, the Commissioners cancelled the contract. Seems to me like Edmonds is the goose that lays golden eggs, and the RFA is at risk of killing it. Thank you Aesop for the lesson.
Theresa,
I have to take issue with your comments. You are suggesting Mayor Rosen may have had some role in the Firefighters’ Union filing the PDC complaint. That’s a serious allegation, and unless you have some evidence of this, it is not appropriate to make this claim. I’d suggest you retract that comment.
I don’t agree with Dave that Theresa Hutchinson needs to retract anything she has said here. She is blunt and straight forward but she is suggesting that the Loomis PR thing just looks bad for the Mayor, frankly, because it does just look bad for the Mayor (and the Council allowing it) to have wasted money like this when the town is essentially breathing on fumes in the tank, financially speaking. They want us all to vote for extremely high taxation hikes including this annexation program to save the city while they set a bad example about how to spend money. This special election is nothing more than an ill thought out political move by the city to try to disguise how really bad things are in our town. The special election at $250K plus the PR buy at $64K suggests to me that it might be time to start looking at a Mayoral recall and electing different CC personnel ASAP. I agree with Theresa that we are just not electing the right people to call the financial shots as they should be called. When elected city officials tell me my city portion property tax needs to double in the space of one year, I reserve the right to ask lots of questions and demand some good answers and just basic good government.
Clinton,
Please read Theresa’s April 6 comment again. She is referring to the Firefighters’ Union PDC complaint that alleged the Edmonds Can Do Better Group collected more than $7k in donations and didn’t adequately report to the PDC. The PDC dismissed the complaint as unfounded. Theresa suggests Mayor Rosen may have had something to do with the Firefighters filing the complaint. My issue with her post is it is an insinuation without any evidence. It’s a defamatory comment and should be retracted.
She is within her rights to criticize the city’s hiring of Loomis, but that’s an entirely different issue than the Firefighters’ PDC complaint.
Dave and Theresa Hollis, I’ve read Theresa Hutchinson’s comment about three times now and I don’t see why she should retract anything. What I read is that she thinks Loomis PR may have come up with the idea of the counter complaint against ECDB group and that since Mayor Rosen hired them using his discretionary spending account; it kind of looks bad for him. She has a right to her opinion about stuff that happens in town just like you and I do. Speaking just for myself, I have absolutely no confidence in Mike Rosen or this Council (with the exception of M. Dotsch) to perform their duties in a way that truly represents the best financial interests of all Edmonds residents. They seem Hell bent on taking care of someone else for some reason. Ogonowski has been ignored, the Blue Ribbon Commission with Darrol Haug has been mostly ignored, Ken Reidy, has been ignored about illegal actions of Council, along with Diane Buckshnis and Joe Scordino being ignored or at best marginalized for their views on city government and the environment. They spin a yarn about being neutral on this RFA vote when it’s totally obvious they are promoting Yes. They wantonly waste money and then ask for more of it.
Dave- I think Theresa is within her rights to criticize the Mayor, Council and RFA for what appears to be obvious collaboration on ‘selling the value’ of annexation – which was Theresa’s and Jim Ogonowski’s original PDC complaint – that opened an investigation case by the PDC. That complaint highlighted the illegal taxpayer-funded Loomis PR firm’s advocacy for RFA annexation. Subsequent to that filing, MEN revealed that the City’s tax calculator was inaccurate and the City did nothing; the RFA Board received a report from the firefighters’ union that they would ‘deliver’ a ‘yes’ vote through their canvassing and distribution of flyers; the firefighters’ union spent over $36,000 in producing flyers; the firefighters’ union filed a bogus claim against EdmondsCanDoBetter.org for violating non-existent election reporting guidelines for under $7,000 in contributions; the Mayor and Council did not give residents equal opportunity and a neutral setting for Town Hall meetings that advocated annexation; Council spent $200K to put annexation on the ballot; two of the Council members accepted almost $4,000 worth of campaign flyers and contributions from the firefighters’ union. Theresa is 100% within her rights to criticize the Mayor, Council and RFA for their unethical and disrespectful actions against taxpayers. Now the Mayor and Council are spending thousands of $$ in legal fees to defend the PDC case. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
All of this confusing comments seems like a lot of mud slinging that does not address the main issue of where we are going with our firefighters? I am still trying to find clarification on the ballot issue. Bad mouthing the mayor and council does not address the ballot issue .
Lucinda, exactly. This neighborhood newspaper has published many columns written by your neighbors with their perspectives. see them all organized in one place in the main menu on this website. And the editor, Teresa Whipple, is hosting a townhall tonight at 6:30 at the Asian Service Center in Hwy 99 that is neighbor-to-neighbor. Jim from the Vote No group and Adam from the Vote Yes group are participating. Hope to see you there. Or you can watch the recorded version tomorrow
Lucinda, your concerns are valid: this is a complex and confusing issue. But from the taxpayer standpoint, it really comes down to this: a yes vote to annex to the RFA means taxpayers will absolutely pay the RFA $21 million per year for fire/EMS service. A no vote means Edmonds would be required to pay $21 million for 2026 under contract to the RFA—but that $21 million could be covered by a combination of additional cost cutting, new revenue streams (such as increased user fees) and a fall tax levy increase. So, a no vote could yield a lesser net taxpayer impact than a yes vote if the city seeks to pay the contract amount via a combination of actions rather than simply raising property taxes.
Lucinda, with respect, The issue isn’t about where we are going with our firefighters. The issue is about how we are going to pay for them and who is in charge of making sure they work as efficiently as possible for us. The Mayor and the Council are the reason there is a ballot issue in the first place. They are the ones who put this issue up for a vote in an expensive ( for all of us) special election that did not even need to occur right now. This is not “bad mouthing” it is just stating the facts. By state law Cities are responsible by default for providing fire/ems services of some sort, whether done in house or contracted out, so we will never be without those services no matter how this vote goes. Regional Fire Service is a fairly new concept that cities have gone to in what is supposedly a money saving method based on economy of scale, or the idea that bigger area jurisdiction is generally better and consolidation cuts management personnel, equipment costs and waste. There is a real question about if this is true and that’s where the Mayor and Council “bad mouthing” comes into play as they just accept this as true fact based on information they have been given by possibly biased parties.
Hi Jerrod, many have already responded with several of the ideas that can be more completely researched. Edmonds is blessed or cursed with all sorts of volunteers trying to keep Edmonds the Vibrant place that is thas become. My volunteer work stated in 2000 activity on several formal Commissions. A great deal of citizen involvement was launched in 2008 downturn. Elected officials often have a hard time keeping revenues and expenses equal. We all want more stuff and are not always willing to pay the bill. Not using 1% lift on both EMS and Reg GF levy should have been done more often and kicking projects into the future was often done.
With more formal analysis citizens showed how using ARPA funds and reserves. for items that traditionally were paid with tax $. Volunteers worked with the candidates and Mayor-elect Rosen quickly launched the Blue Ribbon Panel to help sort it out. State of the City 3/2024 showed “The Total Problem” was then $20.5m. Later reported to council the need to make progress on ADA, building maintenance and streets raised the “Gap” to $21.8m. The current projection is now $29.4m. The 2026 Price of Fire/EMS is projected at $21m. Joining will be all taxes, keeping Local Control, it can be a combination of taxes, cuts and new revenues. Let’s work on the total problem.
Mayor Rosen, you might want to give Mr. Haug here a good long listen along with others on the NO committee if the RFA levy you are promoting fails. There probably is a better and less expensive long term option than just throwing it back on the ballot in Nov. which seems to be the current plan. Progress comes in knowing you need help and reaching out for it I think. Many of these people want you to succeed so the town can succeed as a viable and livable place for everyone. I’ve sort of given up on you; but I sure wouldn’t mind being proven wrong on that.