By Dave Teitzel / For The Herld

As a former Edmonds City Councilmember, I admit to having mixed feelings about the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) ballot initiative coming before our voters on April 22.

On the one hand, our elected officials are my friends and former colleagues, and I understand the challenges they have in working to resolve the city’s current fiscal crisis. None of my comments are intended to be critical. The heavy and growing cost of fire protection and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is contributing significantly to that crisis, and it is very tempting for our city officials to seek ways to remove that load from our budget. Voter approval in April of RFA annexation will shift all fire/EMS costs from the city budget directly to the taxpayer. Doing so will not resolve the city’s budget crisis, but it will help move the budget toward a stronger footing.

On the other hand, as a senior citizen and taxpayer now on a fixed income, I’m sensitive to the ever-increasing tax load we are asked to bear. Honestly, it doesn’t feel sustainable. In a recent Edmonds citizen survey, respondents rated “housing affordability” as a top priority. Inherent in the “housing affordability” notion is the continued ability of Edmonds residents (especially those of limited incomes) to afford to remain in their homes. I am very concerned that annexation to the RFA will essentially double the taxes/fees paid by our taxpayers for fire/EMS services. This will have the effect of making home ownership in Edmonds less affordable (particularly for those on fixed incomes), directly contrary to what the survey respondents listed as a top priority. At the end of the day, the issue of how best to provide fire/EMS services to our community should be assessed first from the taxpayer perspective, then worked backward from that point to determine proper funding models.

Let me provide an illustration of this tax/fee effect. Using an example of a 2,500 square foot home valued at $895,700 (the same assumptions the city is using in its calculation of the tax effects of RFA annexation on the average Edmonds home), in 2025, the homeowner pays $250.80 in EMS tax as well as $644.90 in city tax, which goes into the general fund. Of the $644.90, $429.94 is now being used to pay for the current fire/EMS contract with South County Fire. So, the total tax this homeowner now pays for fire/EMS service is $680.73. Note: If the RFA vote passes, City Council has decided to retain the $429.94 general fund amount now being used to pay for the fire/EMS contract and use that money for other city needs.

As I mentioned above, if the RFA vote passes, the city will retain the full $429.94 now being allocated to cover fire/EMS contract costs. So, under the same assumptions as above, if the RFA vote passes, the same homeowner will pay the same $644.90 city tax, the new RFA fire tax of $731.70 directly to the RFA, the new RFA EMS tax of $305.78 directly to the RFA and a new RFA Fire Benefit Charge fee of $78.70 directly to the RFA, for a grand total of $1,765.19. This is a net tax/fee increase of $866.91 roughly double the current taxes and fees paid by the homeowner for city taxes and tax for fire/EMS services.

Simply put, a doubling of taxes/fees for the same level of fire/EMS service doesn’t seem reasonable, and I believe we can do better. There is no dispute that Edmonds is receiving very good service via our current contract with South County Fire, and we admire and appreciate our firefighters and medics who have served us so well. And we recognize they fully deserve to be well compensated for being able to respond when we have emergencies.

However, I don’t believe our taxpayers are willing to pay double for the same level of fire/EMS services they are now receiving, and that tax/fee load is likely to increase even further over time. That’s why a no vote to the RFA annexation measure is appropriate at this time—our taxpayers deserve to know that each and every alternative to annexation has been fully and systematically explored.

The city has stated they have already fully examined every possible model for the provision of fire/EMS services for Edmonds. However, this is incorrect. They contracted with Fitch and Associates in 2024 to assess options, and Fitch identified four: annex into the RFA, contract with Shoreline Fire, initiate an Edmonds Fire Department and contract with an independent provider of EMS services. Fitch concluded (and City Council agreed) that, of these four options, RFA annexation is the best course for the city.

Missing from this report is any discussion of other options. For instance, Mukilteo currently has a stand-alone fire department. There has been no public discussion of any analysis that’s been undertaken to determine whether a win-win relationship between Mukilteo and Edmonds may be possible—via contract or creation of a sub-RFA—to provide fire/EMS services. Additionally, Woodway (which has an extremely close community of interest with Edmonds) was served by Edmonds Fire for over one hundred years, but they are currently served via contract with Shoreline Fire. Would Woodway be interested in joining with Edmonds and Mukilteo in a mutually beneficial relationship for fire/EMS service? How about Esperance (which is now served by South County Fire, but our Station 20 is located within Esperance and could easily be used to serve that community should it no longer be served by South County Fire)? The Fitch report concluded that a contract with Shoreline Fire was not financially attractive. However, that report was released prior to Shoreline Fire and Northshore Fire combining into a Regional Fire Authority in 2025. Shouldn’t the possibility of a contract with that new agency be reexamined to determine whether the terms may now be more attractive? These are just a few potential alternatives to RFA annexation, and there are likely many more.

Again, our voters deserve to know that each and every potential alternative to RFA annexation has been fully assessed and quantified. There is no doubt RFA annexation is the most direct way to ensure our high-quality fire/EMS services continue unchanged (but at a high price). However, if other options exist that may ensure the same quality of service at a more affordable price, taxpayers need to know full due diligence has been done to fully analyze these options to determine whether they are viable.

It’s clear Edmonds has been receiving good value from South County Fire via our current contractual arrangement, and our taxpayers must recognize the costs for fire/EMS services will certainly increase—no matter which option is finally selected to provide these services. But a doubling of taxes and fees for fire/EMS services is simply unreasonable.

A yes vote in April for RFA annexation will shift the cost burden for fire/EMS services away from the city and transfer it directly to the taxpayers, who will be paying taxes directly to the RFA. This will ease (but not solve) the city’s budget crisis and has appeal from that perspective. But it will dramatically increase what our taxpayers will have to pay for essentially the same level of fire/EMS services they now receive, and it will be very difficult to reverse the annexation decision should our residents and businesses later find they are not satisfied with the arrangement. A no vote in April means high quality fire/EMS services will continue for Edmonds, but under contract rather than via annexation to the RFA. This vote would provide additional time to fully vet the complete range of alternatives to RFA annexation to determine whether viable and cost-effective options to annexation exist.

With the above in mind, I plan to vote no on April 22, knowing much work will be needed to fully explore all potential options. And I recognize this means the city’s budget crisis is not eased. In fact, the city will need to come to the voters in the fall with a levy lid lift request to create additional tax revenue to pay for the 2026 fire/EMS contract. I plan to vote yes on the fall levy, as I fully recognize the city doesn’t have the financial capacity to cover all its costs—even with additional and deep spending cuts.

This is clearly a complex issue and one that is central to our need for public safety and health. I truly hope voters will take the time to study all the facts around this issue and cast well-informed votes. There are pros and cons to either a yes vote or a no vote, with major implications to how taxpayer funds are best used. I wish everyone well as they study this issue and prepare for the April 22 vote and trust they will vote wisely.

Dave Teitzel is an Edmonds residents and a former Edmonds City Council member.