Edmonds at center of discussion as South County Fire commissioners embark on redistricting

In the wake of last year’s approval by Edmonds voters to join the Regional Fire Authority (RFA), the South County Fire Board of Commissioners is now grappling with how to best meld Edmonds’ more than 42,000 residents into the five-district RFA.

The RFA is governed by seven fire commissioners – two elected at large and five elected from commissioner districts with roughly the same population. Edmonds has been represented by Edmonds Police Association president William Morris, a non-voting liaison on the board, since the city annexed into the RFA in June 2025. Edmonds residents can already vote on any commissioner position in a general election, regardless of district. Redistricting will allow residents to run for one or more district commissioner positions that include Edmonds.

An independent consultant – Robert Schweitzer – has been retained by the board to create multiple proposals that update fire commissioner election districts that incorporate Edmonds into the RFA.

To date, two alternative plans to bring Edmonds into the fold have emerged, with board members signaling more plans are to come. The Fire Commission will review the proposals over the coming months and welcome public input before adopting a plan.

The effort is guided by RCW 29A.76.010, which requires special-purpose districts such as the RFA to “periodically redistrict” as population demographic information changes. The law also provides a framework with criteria and guidelines that must be followed. These include requirements that districts be “as nearly as possible” equal in population, be compact and contiguous, and not favor any racial group or political party. The law also specifies that district boundaries “shall coincide with existing recognized natural boundaries and shall, to the extent possible, preserve existing communities of related and mutual interest.” In addition, the law states that “full and reasonable public notice” be provided, and public input be solicited, considered and included.

The fire commission board met in a special work session on Tuesday, April 14, and devoted a large part of it to examining, comparing and evaluating the two current alternatives.

Redistricting consultant Schweitzer walked commissioners through Plan 1 and Plan 2, noting that each was drawn under the standard criteria specified in the above-referenced RCW: equal population, contiguity, compactness and fairness.

Plan 1, first presented at the March 3 regular board meeting, consolidates almost all of Edmonds into a single district.

While past practices at SCF specify that commissioners must reside within the district they represent, Schweitzer told the board that Plan 1 was drawn without considering where current commissioners live, focusing instead on population balance and standard mapping rules. Under Plan 1, almost all of Edmonds is contained in a single commission district, with just a small triangle-shaped area east of Highway 99 outside it. However, Schweitzer said it would be relatively simple – “a minor alteration involving a little swap of some population [elsewhere among the various districts]” — to adjust the map to include all of Edmonds in one district.

Plan 1 would include all of Edmonds and Esperance in District 2 (green) except for the small triangle in the southeast corner between Lake Ballinger and Highway 99 which would be in District 1 (yellow). Jurisdictional boundaries are in dark red. The summary table shows population demographics breakdown under Plan 1 

Commissioner Michael Fearnehough noted that if Plan 1 were adopted as drawn, it would place him and another commissioner in the same district, raising questions about how that would affect terms and representation.

But Fearnehough was firm in stating his view that where commissioners live should not be a primary consideration in redistricting, but rather that “the board should focus on what best serves residents, even if that complicates the political futures of current commissioners.”

“We should do what’s best for the people that we represent,” Fearnehough said. “To keep the districts split just because it would be inconvenient in a few years to have to run or not be able to run – that’s putting myself above the people.”

By contrast, Plan 2 was drawn specifically to follow the practice of keeping each sitting commissioner inside their district.

“In this plan, I did the exact opposite,” Schweitzer said, explaining that Plan 2’s proposed boundaries would avoid having “any commissioner outside [the] district that they’re seated for.”

To accomplish that, Plan 2 would split the city of Edmonds between districts, dividing it approximately at Pine Street. Plan 2 also keeps Brier and Mountlake Terrace entirely within District 1 and maintains acceptable population deviations with only minor precinct splits, Schweitzer said.

Plan 2 would split Edmonds in two at approximately Pine Street. The areas south of this line would be in District 1 (yellow) and areas to the north would be in District 2 (green). Jurisdictional boundaries are in dark red. The summary table shows population demographics breakdown under Plan 2.

Commission Chair Jim Kenny pressed Schweitzer on whether using commissioner addresses in Plan 2 amounted to gerrymandering, echoing testimony presented earlier in the meeting from Edmonds resident Roger Pence.

“Mr. Pence described this map…as gerrymandered, because it [was drawn based on] where the commissioners live,” Kenny said. “Can you speak a little bit to this map, and whether you believe this is…gerrymandered solely because the commissioners’ homes are considered?”

Pence testified that he was “surprised and frankly disappointed” to see the consultant-drawn map which splits Edmonds along Pine Street and places different parts of the city in two separate commissioner districts, adding that, “We have a word in political life for…the act of drawing lines to favor one group of people and disfavor another, and we call that gerrymandering.” 

Schweitzer rejected that characterization, explaining that “gerrymandering is when you’re intentionally targeting, an individual or a party. By equal treatment of all, I’m neither favoring nor disfavoring.”

Commissioners repeatedly returned to the question of how Edmonds should be represented — whether as a single “community of interest” in one district (as noted in the RCW) or divided between two districts that might result in Edmonds having more than one voice on the board.

Fearnehough pointed to statutory guidance that district boundaries should, “to the extent feasible,” align with natural boundaries and preserve “existing communities of related and mutual interest.”

“We have heard from a citizen tonight about that,” added Commissioner Micah Rowland, referring to Pence’s call for contiguous representation for Edmonds. He went on to point out that “there’s two sides to that,” noting that a split between two districts could result in two Edmonds residents being elected to the board, thereby giving it a greater role in board actions and decisions than other jurisdictions. But keeping Edmonds a single district would ensure that  it has “one vote and one voice as a city.”

Kenny added that Pence’s comments highlighted a larger question: What does the broader Edmonds community want?

“I appreciate Mr. Pence coming tonight and providing his opinion, but I do think that we need to have a broader discussion, particularly with folks in Edmonds,” Kenny said. “And it’s not just with Edmonds. This affects all South County Fire. It’s not just an Edmonds discussion.”

He said a fuller public process is needed before the board chooses a final map.

“To me, the important thing is that we’re moving on this issue,” he said. “We need to get public input on the maps and hopefully…get a sense of what the community wants.”

Other issues raised during the discussion included what happens if two commissioners end up in the same district and whether the district should consider moving to seven single-member districts and eliminating at-large positions.

While Fearnehough suggested that shifting to seven districts might better protect communities of interest, he pointed out the need to get a legal opinion on these and other issues.

Kenny and other members agreed that a legal review is necessary.

Looking ahead to next steps in the process, the board plans to revisit redistricting at its next meeting where it would check for and correct any unnecessary precinct splits in Plan 2; provide population counts for Edmonds under both plans; and prepare an alternative version of Plan 1 that places all of Edmonds into a single district for side-by-side comparison.

Kenny said commissioners will use the intervening time to study the maps and prepare for a deeper policy discussion.

“Ultimately, we really want to hear what the people of Edmonds want,” Kenny said. “We serve nearly 300,000 people across southwest Snohomish County and we need to do our very best to ensure everyone feels represented.”

The South County Fire Board of Commissioners meets at 7 p.m. the first and third Tuesday of each month. Work sessions are held at 7 p.m. on the second Tuesday of each month. Community members can attend the meeting in person at South County Fire Headquarters, 12425 Meridian Ave. S, Everett, or participate remotely via Zoom teleconferencing (Meeting ID 876 1281 5239). More information about remote participation is available at the South County Fire website, www.southsnofire.org/meetings.