Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
My wife and I were walking westbound on 228th Street Southwest on Saturday. We heard a crunch and realized there was just an accident at the four-way stop at 84th Avenue West. We walked the half block to the intersection to see a Toyota Camry headed northbound with the left front corner crunched and all the air bags deployed. The occupants had not even gotten out of the car yet. There was a Toyota 4 Runner facing eastbound and parked just across the stop line. Finally, there was a Honda CRV, with all the airbags deployed, heading southbound on 84th but in the northbound lane. We arrived so quickly that I was the first to call 911. It was 12:20 p.m. The dispatcher took the call and I assume dispatched the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office, since the accident happened in unincorporated Esperance. About 30 minutes later, I got a text from the Sheriff’s Office apologizing for the delay.
Soon an Edmonds officer arrived on the scene and began directing traffic around the disabled car. Eventually, two other Edmonds officers arrived to take victim and witness statements, clear the wrecked cars and complete the paperwork for a report. The Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office never showed up. Everyone left the scene at 3:20 p.m., three hours after the initial report.
While the Esperance community is technically “served” by the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Department, this incident demonstrates that the Sheriff cannot serve this area from its office in Mill Creek.
We have lived in this neighborhood for over 30 years. We’ve been through at least two annexation votes. Some folks have an adamant aversion to being annexed. I don’t understand this. Could Saturday’s incident be an example of the fact it is time to annex this area into the City of Edmonds, so we actually have timely public safety services? Should citizens have to wait hours for services that are never going to show up?
The City of Edmonds bailed the county out of its obligation to provide needed police services in this instance. Do you think the Edmonds officers should spend hours reconstructing the accident to determine if a driver ran the stop sign? Do you think any driver responsible for the accident will be cited for a driving violation by a department covering for one that went missing? The Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office is doing their best, but they have an area they can’t serve. Could an incident like this be a sign it’s time to let go of historical animosity and distrust so citizens can have the services they need? Could residents of the area talk with the City of Edmonds and agree to terms of annexation?
Ironically, an article in MEN on Saturday invited interested citizens to become more informed by joining an Esperance Neighborhood Alliance group on Facebook. This suggests to me there could be more than one reason it’s time to take another look at annexation.
Oh, I did get one more text from the Sheriff at 2:28 p.m., an hour before the scene was cleared, asking me to complete a brief survey about the service they provided…I took the survey, but I did not give them five stars.
Phil Assink has lived in Esperance since 1994.
Sadly, the budget cuts to the Edmonds police department foretell that we’re headed into delayed response times as well.
I’m not sure of this. Maybe, it’s possible. Look at call volume / crime stats over last year (EPD annual reports / Snoco 911 annual reports) –
Calls / Crime is trending downward overall, with some outliers.
It’s my understanding the ‘cuts’ were to long unfilled positions. But would love for someone to provide data showing otherwise.
Here’s the Snoco911 annual reports – you’ll see Edmonds listed.
https://sno911.org/public-records/annual-report/
Well since I keep adding my 2 cents, I agree we have and have had a great Police Dept. I feel Jim
Lawless should have been the Chief but the city screwed up big time with that & created a mess. The current Chief I know nothing about but things seem to be running efficiently altho there seems to be complaints about some cars, purchase and use. I have no problem with them being taken home. I feel the feet on the ground are first class and anytime needed they arrive in minutes. At least that’s my experience and the ONLY thing we did gain in being annexed. But is it enough to compensate for all the non efficient city operations? Causing unrealistic costs to residents with total lack of interest in fiscal responsibility or operating within a reasonable budget. And do you want “affordable housing”squeezed in where City decides? I doubt that it contributes much in needed income to the City. Esperance will have to decide that, and if they even have other options. Hopefully there’s time to check out everything since it will change permanently.
Phil, if I can offer up some free advice? Also, Happy Holidays to you and your family. You raise a legitimate public-safety concern, but annexation isn’t the answer.
I’ve consulted for multiple municipalities, worked with the state legislature, and built public-sector programs. I’ve never seen a city facing the level of fiscal and operational dysfunction Edmonds is experiencing today. Annexing into a city that is struggling to deliver basic services doesn’t fix gaps—it compounds them.
The loudest annexation voices in Edmonds aren’t talking about service capacity or execution—they’re talking about new revenue. What’s missing is any serious discussion of the skill set required to integrate 4,000 new residents: staffing, policing coverage, permitting, utilities, capital planning, and ongoing operations. Edmonds is not demonstrating that capacity today.
Saturday’s incident highlights a county response failure that should be fixed directly through accountability and service standards—not by transferring Esperance into a city already cutting services and debating new taxes to stay solvent. Edmonds stepping in was discretionary, not sustainable.
What makes sense now is Esperance organizing—forming a neighborhood group with a clear charter and service expectations—before entertaining annexation. Right now, annexation gains Esperance nothing—especially into Edmonds.
How about contract with EPD? Believe Woodway did at one point.
Woodway (population 1,335 vs. Esperance 4,400) does contract with EPD, but they pay almost $300K per year to Edmonds for 911 call response and investigations and they don’t even get any activity reports. Edmonds police do not patrol Woodway roads. Woodway pays another $200K+ per year for 10 part time Woodway officers (off-duty Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, and Edmonds’ police) to do traffic enforcement and patrol the roads. In my mind, Woodway overpays for police service (they have no crime magnets that Edmonds has like Rte 99, no apartments, no condos, no commercial business, no public buildings, no schools, no hospitals ). Woodway’s Council can’t even justify using 10 part time police officers for speeding enforcement vs. using speed monitoring signs, speed bumps, and more stop signs. Woodway residents pay almost $400 per resident per year for police services, while Edmonds residents pay over $425 per year per resident. Shoreline residents pay less than $300 per year per resident. Both Woodway and Edmonds’ politicians use fear, uncertainty, and doubt to justify their police expenses, rather than performance metrics and hard economics. Something is very wrong with this picture.
Before throwing the Sheriff’s office under the bus, I’d suggest that everyone understand the real numbers behind Edmonds’ police department spending since Chief Al Compaan retired. When Al was police chief, he was super respected, and he ran a highly efficient organization. Ever since he left, police spending has accelerated far beyond the City’s population growth, crime growth, and cost of living. No one in the City has pressed for answers. Why do Edmonds residents pay 35-40% more per resident per year compared with Shoreline residents? Why did Edmonds’ police spending increase 61% since 2022? Given that the 2026 budget has those unexplained increases already baked in, and an additional $1.2M in new public safety sales taxes, how is it possible that Edmonds can be understaffed in 2026 given the City population and crime rates? Where is a focus on performance metrics and results oriented management? Why has there been no serious discussion with either King County or Snohomish County Sheriff’s office to develop a plan to introduce operating efficiency and economies of scale – as was done with the South County RFA operation? Why does the Council promote the regional fire authority’s economies of scale, but not determine if regional(County) police can do the same? Rather than assume spending cutbacks are the problem, critical budget questions and assumptions must be addressed.
just a bit of side note, Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office is not longer in Mill Creek, they moved last year out by Paine field, not an easy trip to Esperance.
As an esperance resident, I know calling the sheriff is useless. They have to come down from too far and they will absolutely not come unless something really bad happens. Edmonds PD is always the first to respond typically regardless. A few years ago we had a person break into our shed and the sheriff never showed up. I actually flagged an Edmonds cops down that just happened to drive by and he and his team caught the guy later that day.
I know Edmonds is considering cuts, but let me tell you that cut service still better than what we get in esperance which is no service, yet pay for it. I’m surprised criminals don’t target esperance more given were basically taxed for police but get zero police.
And if you want the sheriff for non emergency? ha! you may as well not even bother calling anyone. I see people parking in front of fire hydrants, blocking stop signs, blocking bus stops, doing street racing, and not once that I called has anyone shoes up. I’ve sent pictures of illegally parked cars and never get anyone to show up.
It really is amazing how esperance even functions and I can’t thank enough Edmonds PD for they’ve done more for us than the sheriff ever has.