“We have other options” Fitch and Associates, consultant experts in fire and EMS, were hired to evaluate our most viable options and to make a recommendation to the council. They did that, recommending South County Regional Fire Authority as the lowest-cost option to receive the quality and level of service we have been getting. Upon resident concerns about a missed item and referral to a competing firm, I went through the study with the competitor consultant and was made confident again that the work and findings were solid. We additionally found out that a contract from South County Fire would be an option at the same rate as the fully annexed members (made more expensive only by the retained responsibility for capital investment in the stations). I researched Jupiter, Florida’s decision to go in house to see what we could learn from their choice: Unlike Edmonds, Jupiter has fund balance every year and healthy reserves to start such a department. Their council chose local control over the bells and whistles of the regional department. Fifty-six hundred petitioners and a filed lawsuit demanding a vote of the people are indications that the decision to leave the regional provider was unpopular with these Jupiter residents even though they could afford the other option. Some here, on the other hand, seem determined to find an alternative to our great regional provider….
South County’s cardiac arrest save rate is 71.4% (state average 46%, national average 36%). Examples of the RFA’s broad capabilities include rescues from an Edmonds home devastated by a felled tree and from the Sound where a paddle boarder was stranded after dark (both in the last month). When an incident involves hazardous materials, the RFA is trained and equipped to deal with that too.
South County also boasts a Protection Class 3 rating, one just 15% of providers in the state have achieved, and a level up from the highest achieved by the Edmonds Fire Department before dissolution in 2010. Besides indicating a higher level of safety, that higher rating also saves you money on your homeowner’s insurance rates.
When and if a better option materializes, we should convince the commissioners of the South County RFA to pursue it as their model so that everyone in South County benefits. If they cannot be convinced, and the City has the financial wherewithal, we should at that time withdraw from the annexation to pursue it for ourselves.
“We need to negotiate a better deal!” Everyone in the South County RFA gets the same deal starting in 2026. The current contract was terminated by the commissioners because Edmonds paying a lower rate than the members they represented wasn’t fair (and violates state law that prohibits subsidy of one government agency by another). While it is a big price adjustment for Edmonds, the contract with competitor Shoreline fire was higher and also required one time upfront expense associated with personnel hiring and equipment. Edmonds does not have the highest average assessed valuation (AV) on Zillow today, either, (RFA neighbors Mill Creek and Brier both are higher) and we use the highest rates of EMS and community paramedic program in the RFA. Lastly, with the Sound to our West, we need three fire stations to get good response times, contributing the most overhead (Lynnwood has two stations, Mountlake Terrace only one).
The Edmonds team negotiated retention of the current contracted price for service all the way through contract expiration at year end while additionally benefiting from an official annexation date of June 1. June 1st annexed status enables RFA payment of Edmonds’ fire-related 911 service and firefighter pension liabilities during the last seven months of 2025. The RFA is paying for three years of our emergency management coordinator, and will, if we annex, take on the capital investments in our stations.
Lastly, the claims of excess are not supported by the data. Among Snohomish County’s 17 Fire Districts and RFAs, only five have assessments (inclusive of benefit charge where they apply) on the average house in Edmonds lower than the South County RFA assessment. Two of those are volunteer departments. I don’t know what it takes to provide fire and EMS service, but the Chief and the commissioners I help elect with my vote do, and they will ensure that we periodically review best practices and make changes as efficiencies present.
The .28 city EMS levy goes away with annexation, but in reference to retaining the .72 general property tax levy, some of which was being used toward the current fire contract: “We are paying for fire twice/ You are stealing our money”
Unlike the EMS levy, which was collected for a specific function, the general tax levy is not specified. Council voted unanimously that the ballot wording would include retention of the general tax levy to use toward other essential City services if the annexation passed. Much greater revenues are needed than the retained amount, and thus it seemed more open and transparent than lowering it and turning around six to seven months later asking for an amount multiples in size.
Any future levy, just like this measure, is up to the voters, and will not happen unless the voters choose it. These measures should be considered independently of each other.
Note: On a chart of comparator cities in Snohomish County, Edmonds has the lowest local taxes (inclusive of fire and EMS). In January 2026, if annexation passes, with assessment and benefit charge from the RFA AND with the City retaining the .48/1000 AV that used to go to the fire contract, we will still be lower than half of the cities (at new rate of 1.88/1000).
While this does not address deferred maintenance, and loan and reserves repayment, the retained amount would be a start, covering many of the “current day” bills for the most critical services.
In conclusion
Please consider carefully the risk of putting off this decision for undefined possibilities that when defined, still need to be afforded, and for reliance on a voter-approved property tax levy lid lift to pay for the fire contract alternative, a measure that may or may not gain approval.
The annexation vote is about saving you— and your loved ones, and your belongings.
I will be voting yes on the April 22 ballot to secure the lowest-cost option for the quality and level of fire suppression and EMS service we have been getting.
— By Vivian Olson
Vivian Olson is an Edmonds City Councilmember and a 24-year resident, writing in her individual capacity and not as a representative of the council or the city.
Dear Councilmember Olson,
I have to admit that I was impressed with your very detailed and well written opinion piece. If I hadn’t paid close attention to the issue of RFA annexation over the last several months, you probably would have won me over with your argument for voting yes.
However, as in other pro-annexation opinion pieces and comments I have read, it simply doesn’t address bottom line issue that many Edmonds citizens are concerned about, namely that at a minimum, our combined city and Fire/EMS taxes will be doubling.
I have now read several comments that Edmonds citizens are not paying our fair share even though our contract with the RFA has been based on negotiated direct and overhead costs. The insinuation has been made that the other annexed cities have actually been subsidizing us. However, other than a high level discussion of property tax rates, it does not appear that any data has been provided that details and compares the actual per capita costs of providing Fire/EMS services to the home owners and businesses of the various cities.
It is also my understanding that if Proposition 1 is voted down, it does not necessarily mean that Edmonds will never approve annexation, but rather that much more effort and negotiation is required to reach a compromise that the citizens, the city leaders and the RFA can all accept.
Chris- we can.
If that is where you want to end up though, answer the following questions: Are the compromises we hope to achieve 1) ones we could achieve once annexed with a seat at the table? 2) legally available by applicable state laws? and 3) worth more than the value of the 700,000 in negotiated concessions and the additional costs in time effort and money to run another ballot measure? https://www.edmondswa.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=16495016&pageId=20635353
When you follow the above link to the information on the ballot measure, seek out the bar chart with one orange bar for context to your inquiry about the (almost) 2 time increase on your local taxes inclusive of fire and EMS. Regarding this increase to 1.88/1000, I appreciate the sticker shock. But then do focus on where our current (invisible) $1 bar is (.28 EMS levy plus .72 all other city services): Off the chart to the left of the lowest of the 20 comparator Snohomish County cities. This is half to one third the rate others are charging. Going to 1.88 takes us to the middle of the pack.
When I read in this opinion piece that home value information was based on Zillow for the second time I quit reading. Whether one votes yes or no home values and associated taxes are based on information from the Snohomish County Assessor. I encourage everyone to look here.
We don’t have oversized values compared to some of the others; whether we are just over or just under wasn’t the point. You are correct that the assessor’s office has the official information:)
Vivian, I agree that some of the suggested alternatives, including restarting our own fire deterrent, are non starters but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a better deal that could have been negotiated. Here are some suggested changes to the current deal that I would like to see:
1) a commitment from the RFA to match Shoreline’s 35% benefit charge funding model.
2) a commission to study the feasibility of an alternate EMS model that incorporates elements of Everett’s approach of using private ambulance services to minimize wall time for emergency vehicles waiting to do hospital drop offs and King County’s Medic One model of dedicated paramedic staff for ALS incidents as well as other options to make EMS service delivery more efficient.
3) a commitment from the RFA to publish standards of cover metrics for each member city and to publish specific improvement plans to ensure a culture of continuous improvement for all served communities.
4) advance presentation of a redistricting plan so that Edmonds residents know exactly when and how they would receive representation on the Fire commission.
Even with a yes vote, these are matters that should be pursued to improve the affordability, performance and accountability of the RFA.
Niall, Regarding 1) above, We would benefit from a higher benefit charge (BC), and with history as a guide there will continue to be incremental increases; now that both annexation and a future contract are based on assessed value (AV) and BC, Edmonds residents will want to engage with the fire commissioners regarding an increase in the BC, encouraging bigger increases. I was told they address that during fall budget season annually. In the bigger picture of value and what you pay for service, I heard that there was no change between the contract prices paid by Lake Forest Park and Kenmore to Shoreline and the assessments and BC their residents receive through the RFA. If that is true, they backed into their AV rate and BC to get there. Since their rates for both AV and BC are higher than South County’s, a homeowner of a comparable home in Kenmore may still be paying more for fire and EMS than the homeowner in Edmonds with the lower rates and BC. I am inclined to think this is a case since Shoreline’s contract estimate for service to Edmonds was higher than South County’s estimate at the same point in time.
It seems like 2) and 3) are things that the commissioners may impose- they are the policy arm for the RFA the way council is for the City.
Re 4) redistricting plan, I know that they try to keep the districts equally populated, and we are too big to end up all in one. That gives us the potential to have up to four seats on the commission (two districts and two at large).
Five of the seven fire commissioners are elected from districts, each one encompassing about one-fifth of the population. If Edmonds votes to annex, the population of each of the five districts will be about 58,000, easily allowing Edmonds (including Esperance) to fit within a single commissioner district.
The drawing of commissioner districts is ultimately a political decision of the board of commissioners. They could put us all in one district, or they could divide Edmonds into two districts, thus diluting our political power. They have provided no clues how this might sort out.
Vivian, I don’t disagree but these are all things that could have been brought to the table before asking voters to weigh in on this. The city appears to have negotiated a deal that works for the city in the context of the fiscal crisis but did not address these issues which are materially important for the residents of the city. Yes we can try to influence the fire commissioners if annexation proceeds but the city would have a lot more leverage to secure these commitments from the RFA than we will ever have as individuals.
Thank you, Vivian, for a cogent explanation supporting annexation. The “no” voices are loud but to me this is the most viable alternative. I will vote YES.
Chris, your comments are reasonable. Clearly, there are pros and cons to any course we may choose about the fire/EMS issue, and each course will likely be more costly than the cost of our current contract with South County Fire. It may ultimately be that annexing into the RFA is the right thing to do. But frankly, I’m not yet convinced the RFA is operating as efficiently as possible nor that all options for provision of fire/EMS have been adequately vetted. Voting no on Proposition 1 allows time for a comprehensive study to ensure our taxpayers are getting the best value for their tax dollars. It will now be up to the voters to decide whether they have enough detailed information to cast well informed votes or whether they deserve more facts and data prior to making this very important decision.
Ms. Olson – Picking up on your statement “Any future levy, just like this measure, is up to the voters, and will not happen unless the voters choose it. These measures should be considered independently of each other.” This is precisely why I cannot support your arguments. By keeping our money that is currently being used to cover fire/EMS in order not to make a bigger ask later in the year, is a “slight of hand” move. You say we should consider things independently, yet you are advocating mixing city budget shortfall with Fire/EMS coverage. They should be dealt with independently but are not. Current approach masks the true costs and is an attempt to make the future ask more palatable. This move has eroded my trust in you, the council, and the mayor.
Those are all fair comments. There were pros and cons to keeping them together and to keeping them apart. For a long time, I debated myself, we debated each other and residents, and I decided differently a few times before the ultimate rare unanimous council vote to proceed with them combined. Timing wise, this decision was on the heels of the PR nightmare when the Mayor and Police Chief were having the conversations with Snohomish County and King County Sheriff’s offices (just the “what if” in case it was the only public safety we could afford after failed levies) and our residents came out of the woodwork on that subject, appropriately giving the EPD credit for our wonderful quality of life and saying they would pay more to keep our police. The amount being retained isn’t for fun extras. It is for police and other core and mandated city services. The community prioritizing in house police department and the retained amount still being less than we needed even if the fire annexation passes, it seemed the right thing to do. We would have done a levy ask separately on the same ballot, but we don’t know how much we need in the levy until we know if the fire contract is in or out of our budget.
Vivian:
It blows my mind that you continue to reference Zillow; you can’t seem to understand that our taxes are not based upon Zillow residence values. I’ve lost confidence in any of your comments.
Mr Wambolt – nobody thinks property taxes are based on online real estate valuations. They are just a handy tool to compare data and CM Olson’s reference to it is simply informative. Since Brier home values dropped last year, you could argue that Edmonds is #2 and Brier is #3 but it’s close and not that important to her point. If the Snohomish County assessor had a similar tool for comparing average home values by city, I’m guessing we’d all be relying on that data. Please share a link to that SCA tool if you have it, I’ve never been able to find it.
Here’s access to the Sno County Assessor Annual Report
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/129350/2025-Annual-Report?bidId=
See page 30.
Thank you Mr. Wambolt. The online real estate valuations are closer than I thought they would be.
What if we were to assume no hidden or bad intentions on anyone’s part? It is interesting to me that no matter who is voted for as mayor & council persons, it doesn’t take long before a vocal portion of the citizenry finds compelling reasons to believe these who were voted for are somehow pulling the wool over our eyes, lying, stealing, etc. Yow! What a hotbed. I appreciate all the work that has been done by so many on this issue, including residents. The information, and math are overwhelming to me. I am especially amazed at how many hours are put in by city council folks. I dare say way more hours than their salaries. We seem to be getting to the stage where no one will want the job, tho my wish would be for the most vocal against the Council run for election, get voted in & show us their work.
Meanwhile, I’m putting in another pitch for the Monday, April 7 presentation at the Asian Service Center with Adam Cornell presenting for the issue, and Jim Ogonowski presenting the opposition. I believe it will include time for questions. Doors open at 6, presentation at 6:30. I have nothing to do with this event other than an intererested resident.
Hi Pamela,
The problem are the actions, not what people say, which is very easy to say whatever their target audience wants to listen (and some individuals are masters of it).
Since the very beginning, the numbers do not match (again, figures do not lie but liars figure). The Edmonds’ taxpayers are being asked to fork out a considerable amount by a council and mayor who haven’t been very straightforward when asking for it.
The people doing the real heavy lifting on the number crunching have been reaching out to the council and the mayor, who do not answer back. That includes the Blue Ribbon team the mayor himself created and apparently does not interact much. The RFA itself seems to be a blackhole, since it also does not provide detailed information.
So, how can responsible taxpayers jump into (an apparently) shady deal? Would you sign a blank contract giving the other party full financial powers to charge yo how much they please without explaining how the charges are calculated, let alone how they will be (arbitrarily) raised in the future, including giving away your real estate and assets (fire stations and equipment) to them?
Furthermore, the city is hiring (an expensive) marketing firm to sell it. Why?
“It’s not enough for Caesar’s wife to be virtuous, she must be seen to be virtuous.”
The use of Zillow, which is just a contrived assessment, as opposed to the official Snohomish County Assessor’s numbers shows a basic lack of understanding of the issues. Clearly, Olsen either does have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the difference and or believes that those who accept her can fooled.
My compliments to the pro- annexation voters on how they have staged their column submissions to our free local paper: 2 ex- mayors in order of their time in office, and later today the current mayor’s column is expected to be published. Vivian has volunteered bucket loads of her time to serve on Council, and talk to residents about a whole host of issues.
I see things quite differently on the annexation choice this year. But I look forward to continuing to engage in civic engagement regardless of how this particular vote turns out. On the subject of this year’s property tax increases -whether as a result of the RFA annexation vote or the next general levy increase ballot measure- I strongly prefer a No on annexation and a Yes on the next tax measure IF that measure is designed so that the seniors receiving the property tax exemption pay None of the new tax. That’s what the exemption law change was designed for- letting a City tax residents with a scalpel- not a meat cleaver. Don’t charge a dime in new taxes to the people receiving the senior exemption. City of Edmonds – please use the scalpel.
I am grateful for and supportive of the state tax exemption programs that I am already familiar with and that are the default in place. I actively want our residents to be able to continue to live here, in the community they have done so much to build. At the same time, it is important to know that taxes not collected by those exempted don’t go away; they are picked up by all others. Obviously we have to be thoughtful about whether we will end up transferring the tax burden from a senior (in some cases a retired business owner who is low or no income but sitting on a pile of money and other assets) to a young working family that is much less well off. The new option that would exempt ALL seniors eligible for any category of the exemption program from paying ANY of the new levies is unlikely to be the right choice for our city.
hogwash- it hasn’t been studied. present the data, and get input from stakeholders, and debate it from the dias in city council chambers later this year. A reader comment in my edmonds news about tax levy #2 at the time ballots are being read about the taxation measure#1 (annexation) is grasping for a reason that will sway voters.
Ms Hollis, you brought it up as a reason to vote against annexation. I am just questioning that as it has not been studied, found to be a fit for our community, or approved for use.
CM Olson,
Your comment about the Senior and Disabled Tax Exemption Program is both ignorant and devoid of compassion. You say that an applicant may be, quote,
“(in some cases a retired business owner who is low or no income but sitting on a pile of money and other assets)”
To qualify for the exemption program your maximum yearly income must be below $75,000. No one who owns a home in Edmonds could have “no income.” The “pile of money and assets” of those who qualify are more than likely allocated for their own or spouse’s long term care, to support their aging in their homes (perhaps to fund an ADU), or to help adult children or family members who are also struggling financially.
Yet, you pretend that you “want our residents to be able to continue to live here, in the community they have done so much to build.” As Teresa Hollis said- hogwash!
Mr. Masters – you say that the city budget shortfall and the question of Fire/EMS coverage “should be dealt with independently but are not.” Every argument I’ve read against the annexation states that rejecting the RFA does not mean reducing the level of Fire/EMS services “because the city has always found a way to provide them and will continue to do so,” but has not suggested any way that could happen given the current budget shortfall. That shortfall and consequent lack of resources available to the city affects everything it does, including Fire/EMS coverage. What other city services do you propose should be cut to fund the level of Fire/EMS you assume will somehow be maintained? And did you make those suggestions during the budget discussions?
Mr Inge – I am merely saying: what we do with our Fire/EMS services and their funding is one issue; How we deal with city’s large budget shortfall is another. For Fire/EMS, we will vote to annex or not. If Yes, then the tax burden for Fire/EMS currently being collected by the city should end since we (residents) will pay that separately to the RFA (I know, the future ask from us would have to be greater.) If No, then city should keep the funds for the remainder of the contract, work for a year to find alternatives (which could include re-negotiation with RFA for annexation in 2026/27), and ask for additional Fire/EMS gap coverage money from the residents. The gap coverage would need to be clearly spelled out as part of the overall ask addressing the budget shortfall. This is total transparency. Separate issue: the city has a budget shortfall. For that, in addition to the cuts to city govt/service, they need to figure out the ask from residents. The amount of the ask would then be right-sized based on the results of the vote. Again, total transparency so we know what we are paying for.
Jack,
I agree with you. Unfortunately, it’s this lack of transparency which is so bothersome. Before we vote on anything, we need a financial recovery plan for our city. A plan which does not put the full burden on property taxpayers. A plan which shares this burden by all who benefit from our city – the developers, the businesses, the visitors, and the property owners. This, along with sound fiscal management of city resources, provides a framework where we have transparency “so we know what we’re paying for” as the city asks us for higher taxes.
This reader’s view’s title is quite ironic when it talks about smoke. I wonder who is trying to blow smoke up whom here. The city council already showed by this “RFA annexation” and other past actions blunders that is has no credibility, lest the city’s best interest in mind.
Was this article written by the marketing company hired by the council to sell the RFA annexation idea to the Edmonds’ population (and using the money taken from the taxpayers to pay the fire and EMS services – now being used for other purposes – including deceit)?
The article’s author demeanor towards the people demanding for proper (at least honest and professional) assessment of this matter is quite telling. Try to portray the ones demanding responsibility and accountability as loons who are not aware of the budget purposes. Funny that the mayor ignores the blue ribbon team he put together himself and uses some numbers pulled from thin air as the “truth”, even though the place they come from does not explain how they got them. Resembles this “population growth” narrative and numbers also pulled from thin air.
So, the gang saying that Edmonds has to spend more money is using numbers put together by the gang that will sell the services. Sounds like funny business.
@Mario Rossi. Thank you for responding to my post Mario. I’ll be at the meeting on April 7 and encourage all here to do the same. If I get the opportunity to pose a question that evening, I’ll try to remember to ask the matter you raise, which is why the Mayor, et al., are not responding back to citizens and to the Blue Ribbon Team. Cheers!
CM Vivian Olson,
You were CP and on the “negotiating” team. How do you explain the following excerpts from a public records request of emails between Council and $64,000 consultant Liz Loomis in this Everett Herald article?https://www.heraldnet.com/news/residents-question-edmonds-after-hiring-comms-firm-for-rfa-vote/
“Olson also said the city never fully vetted the option of continuing its contract with the regional fire authority at a higher rate. No one mentioned it while a city-hired consulting firm was researching the city’s options — including former mayor Mike Nelson, the regional fire authority, the public or the consulting firm itself — Olson wrote. The option was in a letter from South County Fire after the consultant report, Olson said, but she didn’t open it because she thought she knew what it said.”
How do you explain consultant Liz Loomis’s email to Council?
“We don’t want to talk about the collective bargaining agreement at the risk of people thinking why did we agree to such a large increase,” Loomis wrote. “And, if there are details as to why it was so large, we will have already lost them. Also, mentioning the fire authority contract could make people think, ‘Well, the RFA got a huge raise already so why should I pay more?’”
Please confirm the amount of the increase. Was it 7.5%?
Thank you Council Member Olson for your viewpoint and work on this important annexation issue that we are about to decide. The information you provided is very helpful. With the difficult budget position the city is in, the voter approval of this annexation into the RFA just makes sense.
I just saw a yard sign promoting a no vote that stated; “Edmonds can do better” or “We have other options” well I do not think so. Waiting for more time to argue how we got here or investigate other options that clearly are not viable will not change what is the best outcome: to vote yes to approve annexation into the RFA.
Letting this issue languish will not save us any money, yes rates will go up some, we have been getting an incredible bargain.
Emergency Fire and EMS is a very expensive service to provide, we are being served at very high levels.
Vote yes to approve this annexation into the RFA.
Robert Cook, resident of Edmonds
Past Commissioner KC Fire District 11
Past President KC Fire Commissioners Association.
Joan, It is explained by it being an old quote; that wasn’t clear in the Herald article.
It is false that we failed to vet the contract alternative with South County Fire (but it was true at the time I said it). It is less expensive than the contract with Shoreline and derived from the same formula as annexation (so the same price as that) but ends up more than annexation because we retain responsibility for the capital investments in the stations. Note that Station 20 is identified as one of our critical buildings in the McKinstry report on City facility “health”.
I can’t explain the comment from Liz; the City Council is not involved with collective bargaining for labor union services under contract, which are negotiated by the Fire Chief and their legal counsel, with final decision-making being with the fire commissioners.
Here are the South County Firefighter(FF) wage increases in recent years, with the historical negotiated wages falling in the median of the comparables.
2024: 4.5% (COLA) (verified most recent)
2023: 9.5% (COLA)
2022: 4.89% (Negotiated; COLA was 6.3%)
2021: 2.28% (Negotiated: COLA was 1%)
Battalion Chiefs, Captains, FF, and paramedics are alll hourly employees. They normally work 47+ hour week and receive overtime for working beyond their scheduled shift. Deputy Chiefs, Assistant Chiefs, and the Fire Chiefs are exempt from overtime.
CM Olson,
Your response confirms that Council approved a total of 14% RFA salary increases for 2023 and 2024.
From a NO on annexation proponent whose data I trust,
“In 2023 the Top 50 RFA employees had wages that ranged from $350K at top to $236K for #50. This data is straight from RFA records.”
14% of $236,000=$33,040/year
14% of 350,000= $49,000/year
Thus, Council’s approved increases result in $33,040/year to as much as $49,000/year to the top 50 RFA employees’ income. Eligible seniors/disabled must have yearly incomes of $75,000 or less. A $49,000 INCREASE is almost 3/4 of the maximum YEARLY income of those eligible. Yet, you are of the opinion that, quote;
“The new option that would exempt ALL seniors eligible for any category of the exemption program from paying ANY of the new levies is unlikely to be the right choice for our city.”
How do you justify your position?