Next Tuesday’s April 22 special election asking whether Edmonds should annex into the South County Fire Regional Fire Authority (RFA) has been marked by considerable debate between those who favor the measure and those who oppose it.
Many Edmonds voters have opted to cast their ballots early — according to the Snohomish County Board of Elections, as of April 16 more than 6,400 (just above 20%) of the more than 31,500 ballots mailed to Edmonds voters have been returned.
But even at this late date, several issues and unanswered questions persist.
One of these is the debate over so-called transport fees and the closely related ground emergency medical transport (GEMT) reimbursements. Transport fees are collected by South County Fire (SCF) for ambulance transportation while GEMT reimbursements are collected from the federal government to offset the expense of maintaining ambulance service. At issue is how these funds are shared with the City of Edmonds under its current contract with SCF.
My Edmonds News has researched the issue, including examining source documents and speaking with South County Fire, City of Edmonds officials, and various individuals on both sides of the RFA proposal. Here is a breakdown of what we’ve learned, what we know and what we don’t know.
What the City of Edmonds contract with South County Fire says:
The original 2010 contract, also called the interlocal agreement, between Edmonds and Fire District One (now known as South County Fire), provides in Section 4.8 that transport fees collected by South County Fire for ambulance trips originating in Edmonds be remitted to the City of Edmonds, less an administration fee, as follows:
While there have been subsequent amendments to other contract provisions over the years, the transport fee language has not changed (see 2017 amended contract here).
Under this provision, SCF bills the patient’s insurance for the cost of the ambulance ride (the transport fee). If approved by the insurance company, it then pays SCF its standard rate for this service, often less than the amount billed. Rather than try to collect from the patient, SCF writes off the difference. SCF then remits the insurance payment (less an administration fee) to the City of Edmonds per the terms of section 4.8 of the contract.
Interested readers will find additional documents related to the contract between South County Fire and the City of Edmonds in SCF’s document archive here.
The advent of GEMT in 2016
Ground Emergency Medical Transport (GEMT) reimbursement was created during the 2015-2016 Washington State legislative session to make up for the difference in cost between what ambulance service providers spend to maintain and operate this service and the amount they collect from the patient’s insurance. It provides a mechanism for service providers to request reimbursement for these expenses without dipping into the state general fund, with reimbursement coming entirely from federal Medicaid money. (For full details, see RCW 41.05.730, RCW 41.05.735, the draft of HB 2007, the GEMT Approval Packet and the WA State Health Authority’s GEMT info page.)
Note that the ambulance service must come from a licensed Medicaid provider to be eligible for reimbursement under GEMT. South County Fire is a Medicaid provider and accordingly has been collecting funds through this program since 2018.
The controversy
Note also that GEMT did not exist at the time of the 2010 contract between South County Fire and the City of Edmonds, and no subsequent contract amendments have specifically provided for it. Because it addresses the issue of ambulance transport, many have questioned if — or how — the transport fee provisions of the contract apply to GEMT. While South County Fire maintains that GEMT is separate from and not subject to the transport fees provisions of the contract, others – including the City of Edmonds – question this.
South County Fire argues that the contract specifies that it is required to “receive and pursue collection of all transport fees,” and defines this as what SCF bills and collects from patients’ insurance for the cost of the ambulance ride. According to SCF, because GEMT funds are not linked to patients’ bills, they do not qualify as a transport fee and hence are not required to be remitted to the City of Edmonds under the contract terms. SCF also points out that the GEMT program commenced six years after the contract began, no additional contract amendments regarding it have been made, and that the City of Edmonds is not eligible to participate in GEMT because it is not a licensed Medicaid provider.
“GEMT supplemental payments are not transport fees simply because they share the word ‘transport’ in their titles,” said SCF Communications Director Christie Veley. “South County Fire is committed to being a good partner to the city and will ensure our respective contractual obligations under the contract are satisfied. Pursuant to the contract, South County Fire has paid the city $9.4 million in transport fees collected from 2016-2024.”
More details on SCF’s position on GEMT and transport fees are outlined on SCF’s website here (scroll to the lower part of the page and click the dropdown menu about the GEMT program).
The City of Edmonds has a differing view. According to city spokesperson Kelsey Foster, “The GEMT issue stems from a differing interpretation between the city and South County Fire about the term ‘Transport Fees.’”
When asked for details about these differences in interpretation, the dollar amount in dispute, and whether the city is engaging in or contemplating dispute resolution and/or litigation, Foster responded that she could not provide information beyond the above statement.
City Councilmember Vivian Olson said in an email that “GEMT is a business matter relating to the current contract terms. It will be settled one way or the other independently of the annexation vote and is unaffected by a yes or no decision regarding annexation.”
The dollar figure associated with what may be owed has either not been determined or not been released publicly. Should the parties involved choose to pursue this, section 18 of the contract provides a process for dispute resolution including mediation and binding arbitration.
With millions at stake, it seems likely the parties will pursue it.
My understanding is the unremitted GEMT transport revenue is in excess of $7 million. If the upcoming RFA annexation vote fails and the city proceeds with a contract for fire/EMS service for 2026, the unremitted GEMT transport revenue would be extremely helpful in defraying the 2026 contract cost. I sincerely hope the city is strongly pursuing this payment for the benefit of Edmonds taxpayers.
It will be settled one way or the other independently of the annexation vote and is unaffected by a yes or no decision about annexation.
i read the more modern contract between Shoreline fire department and the area it serves on a contract arrangement. Section 5.6 on transport fees explicitly states that Shoreline collects GEMT fees and remits them to the customer they have a contract with. For Edmonds, the contract was written in 2009 before GEMT existed (and became effective in 2010). And surprise, surprise- when GEMT monies started flowing to South County Fire they did not come to Edmonds and volunteer that the contract be updated to add the 4 letter word ‘GEMT’ so they could promptly remit those fees to Edmonds. Who does contract administration for the City of Edmonds? Why does the legal department of South County Fire practice “gotcha” contract administration? Readers- we entrust our lives to this agency when there’s a medical crisis at home. This is so frustrating to be asking in the annexation campaign messaging “trust us”, “we do life saving work in our community”. the trust account became empty in 2016- and we’re just figuring it out now. And it was an Edmonds resident, Jim Ogonowski, who raised this issue- not the City attorney. Who’s minding the store in Edmonds?
Unfortunately, leverage IS a consideration. This should have been resolved when the dispute became apparent. Business matters get resolved prior to new contracts, not after.
Great reporting, Larry! Seems our attorney is too busy defending environmental appeals which are costly and he is losing; or not requiring executive sessions prior to disclosing salient facts about selling parks. No one has authority to negotiate any purchase or sale of property without an executive session so someone should be sanctioned.
This $8 million is a significant chunk of change that was brought forth by citizens months ago and our leadership remained silent? What a disaster, and finally, the 2023 audit findings are coming forward next week. So many financial questions that need answers. I hope folks now see that a No vote is warranted for the RFA annexation. We deserve transparency and answers. A Plan B Levy committee should be on the horizon to restore trust and get everyone on the same page about our financials.
According to the city “Calculator” the undisrupted Transport Fees are NOT used to pay for the Fire/EMS contract. But in all other budget data provided to council for their workshops Transport Fees are associated with Fire/EMS.
Elections are messy but should be fact based. Hard to do when electing people but should be much easier on issues like tax levies and issues relating to use of tax dollars. “Political Spin” should not be a part of how our elected city official present an issue to the public.
Using Microsoft’s AI tool, “CoPilot” and asking about Political Spin here is the result: “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.”
Another term “stable funding source” is used often in this election. Space does not permit the full details of what MS CP gave as SFS for govt, but Property Taxes are at the top of the list.
It is so sad that the city has used so much Political Spin in this election.
Darrol, are you talking about the current contract or future contract?
In the contract that would commence on Jan 1, 2026 if annexation fails, only the (same) rates and benefit charges that their fully annexed members are assessed would be basis for our contract with South County RFA. Transport fees are not a factor in that contract.
I won’t repeat the “stable funding source” words if they offend you, but our current property tax levy amount is woefully inadequate to pay the new contract. Local cities, including Mukilteo, have had property tax levy lid lifts to support fire and EMS fail. What if we have the levy lift needed to pay for that contract fail too?
Those who prioritize fire and EMS response should appreciate the dedicated direct funding for fire and EMS that results from annexation because it does not rely on a yes on a future levy lid lift to guarantee this critical service.
I would like to see dedicated funding for police as well.
This RFA annexation issue is just one more among many showing the Edmonds’ administration decline. It just shows an endemic problem of politicians shamelessly lying through their teeth, deceiving the gullible and ignorant in order to achieve their personal goals. Edmonds’ city council and mayor just joined that pack of wolves.
Unfortunately, it also exposed how once-trustworthy professions such as firemen and EMS responders also joined the pack in order to achieve their personal goals, in detriment of the community they were supposed to serve. Is there a difference between them and mafia henchmen strong-arming a community for “protection money”?
As already demonstrated by many other articles and posters with very detailed numbers, the city and the RFA are striving to do a lot less while charging much more. Where the (big) money difference goes? History tells.
When both mix together, we see results such as Palisades, CA, where the ones paying for that is still the population.
Vote NO and demand those in the city to do a proper and honest job with the numbers and the quality of service.
It is my understanding – please correct me if I am wrong – that if RFA annexation is approved by voters the city of Edmonds will receive a $6.5 million windfall. Apparently, the city has decided to keep this money, without the permission of taxpayers, to dig itself out of a self-inflicted budget hole rather than adequately reduce spending and/or request additional revenue from taxpayers to balance the city’s budget.
The $6.5 million came from Edmonds taxpayers’ payments to the “City of Edmonds”, a line item on our property tax payment, which was designated by the city for fire services. With annexation, we will be paying the RFA as a separate, new line item on our property taxes, so the $6.5 million won’t be used for its intended use and could be returned to the taxpayers. It is also my understanding that if RFA annexation fails, the city will need to use the $6.5 million, not as a windfall but for its intended purpose: paying for the RFA contract. As the next RFA contract will be more costly additional tax money will be needed.
With annexation, fire/EMS service will also be much more expensive. I have read that there will be a levy vote in the fall to raise whatever amount of money is necessary to address our budget shortfall, pay Fire/EMS services if necessary,
(Continues from previous message) … and ? No doubt about it; taxes are going up.
We all want excellent Fire and EMS service and expect to pay fairly for it. The South County Fire Regional Fire Authority has been, and likely will continue to be, a good source for that service. If we reject annexation now, we have the ability to contract with the RFA for the next year, so we will not be harmed – level of service wise or financially. In fact, many people writing in MEN have pointed out that there is a lot to be gained by additional shopping for the best deal for fire and EMS service. Preventing the city from using this “windfall” represents 6,500,000 additional reasons to vote NO on annexation this year.
In a last-ditch attempt to sway voters, Proposition 1 proponents have chosen fear over facts. When their arguments fall flat, they pivot to scare tactics. My wife and I received robo-texts from “Connor, a firefighter in Edmonds,” warning us that voting NO on annexation could cost us critical emergency services. After pouring over $100,000 into this campaign—most of it taxpayer-funded—they’ve now resorted to emotional manipulation.
Worse yet, the state’s Public Disclosure Commission has formally notified the city that it violated campaign laws in this process. And just when you thought it couldn’t get messier, we learn that Edmonds is locked in a financial dispute with the RFA over millions of dollars—money that rightfully belongs to our community.
How are we supposed to trust an organization that’s already at odds with us—before annexation has even happened? How can we believe they’ll suddenly act in Edmonds’ best interest once we sign over control?
These tactics reveal something far deeper than desperation. They reveal contempt—for our intelligence, for due process, and for the very community they claim to serve. They think we’re too distracted to notice. Too gullible to push back.
Let’s prove them wrong.
Our fire and EMS services are not going anywhere. Don’t be misled by smoke and mirrors. Let’s put out this fire before it spreads. Vote NO on Proposition 1.
If the city has been unlawfully handling this referendum, shouldn’t this invalidate this whole scam and plunder on Edmonds’ taxpayers’ pockets? What does the law say about city officials going rogue and brazenly ignoring it?
Or have WA officially became another Venezuela and other banana-republics alike?
Of course the city was violating campaign laws it was obvious. I received a robo text call from Connor too. I reported it to my carrier as spam that should be blocked. It’s time to return that ballot with a no vote.