Fire commissioners request a fifth redistricting option, extend deadline for con statement applicants

The South County Fire Regional Fire Authority Board of Commissioners at its Tuesday, July 7 meeting moved to formally request a fifth redistricting option. The Board also voted to extend the deadline for applicants to write the voter pamphlet con statement for the $240 million construction bond issue slated to go to voters this November.

Fifth redistricting option will present another alternative

After hearing concerns about representation and public trust, South County Fire commissioners on Tuesday directed staff to explore a fifth redistricting option that would keep most of Edmonds in a single district while avoiding drawing a sitting commissioner out of his seat. See the other four options on the South County Fire redistricting web page here.

Prior to deciding to pursue a new option, the Board heard public testimony from Edmonds resident Mary Jane Goss urging the board to adopt Option 2, that largely unites the city within one commissioner district but could leave Edmonds voters without a regularly elected representative until 2029.

“Edmonds is contributing quite a bit towards your tax base, and yet we could go years without the structural ability to elect a representative from our own community to a designated district seat,” she said. “Temporary representation is no substitute for true accountability.”

Edmonds has been represented by Edmonds Police Association president William Morris, a non-voting liaison on the board, since the city annexed into the regional fire authority (RFA) in June 2025. The RFA is governed by seven fire commissioners – two elected at large and five elected from commissioner districts with roughly the same population. 

Goss urged commissioners to adopt Option 2, which she said “represents much of the city of Edmonds as a whole and keeps our community intact.”

“For these reasons, I support Option 2,” she said, adding that “right now, there is clear imbalance in public trust,” with internal employee unions treated “as valued partners,” while taxpayers — including critical voices — “are treated like an afterthought.”

“As an Edmonds resident, I ask the board members to choose Option 2 to maximize our [Edmonds’] immediate public representation and take measurable steps to partner with the public you serve,” she concluded.

No other members of the public spoke at the hearing, either in person or via Zoom.

After closing the public hearing, Board Chair Jim Kenny summarized the community response the district has received so far, including comments at a recent open house in downtown Edmonds.

“Just my observation of people from the community commenting about the maps is a preference for Option 2, with at least a positive shout-out to Option 1,” Kenny said. “But I have not heard much in the way of support for maps three and four.”

But those same Option 2 district lines would place Commissioner Michael Fearnehough, who currently represents District 2, outside the redrawn district that would contain Edmonds, making him ineligible for that seat on the commission.

In response, Kenny floated a possible adjustment that would become a new Option 5: keep Edmonds together in District 2 while shifting the district boundary north into Lynnwood and unincorporated Snohomish County thereby bringing Fearnehough back inside the district.

“It appears that there may be enough population in Lynnwood and the unincorporated part of Snohomish County to move District 2 further north, while still keeping both Edmonds and Commissioner Fearnehough in District 2,” Kenny said. 

Kenny acknowledged the core policy question behind the suggestion.

“It does raise the issue for the board,” he said. “Do we draw the maps to protect the board members and their positions where they live, or do we [stick strictly to the guidelines of] the Revised Code of Washington  — population, communities of interest, the other things that Mr. Schweitzer [the consultant who prepared the four current redistricting option maps] has talked about,” he said.

“There’s a tension between those things, and I don’t have any great answer for that tension,” Kenny added. “But I do, as chair of the board, like to present enough options for the board to consider all of those things, and then in the end the board will decide.”

Commissioners divided over changing maps, united on keeping Edmonds together

While several commissioners voiced support for exploring the Option 5 suggestion, at least one raised concerns that revising maps again could further erode public trust.

Commissioner David Chan said he worried the public might see repeated changes as a bait-and-switch.

“We have heard some pretty negative feelings from the Edmonds people about this,” Chan said. “If we present a map and suddenly change the map again, people would say, ‘Why in the world you show me the map, and now you’re going to redraw it again?’”

“I’m really against redrawing the map,” he added.

Other commissioners focused on representation and clarity for voters.

Commissioner Joseph Wankelman backed the idea of exploring a revised version of Option 2.

“I would really like to also support the idea of looking at the possibilities of that,” Wankelman said. “Definitely want to emphasize, as many have said here, keeping Edmonds together — that is a priority, and I would like us to focus on that if possible,” he added.

Fearnehough, whose seat is directly affected by Option 2, argued that clarifying the district lines now could avoid voter confusion later.

“If you look on the map, everything that’s green is District 2. That’s my district as it is,” Fearnehough said, adding that voters could be confused if redrawn lines result in two commissioners serving in the same district who might have to compete against each other, or a [sitting] commissioner no longer lives within the district that they were originally elected to serve,” he said.

Commissioner Ed Widdis was brief but clear: “I’m in favor of taking a look at the new map.”

Legal guidance: incumbents can be considered but not guaranteed

Responding to questions from commissioners, RFA attorney Richard Davis confirmed that state law allows — but does not require — the board to consider where current commissioners live when drawing lines.

“You can draw the map and give consideration to where commissioners are set and whether commissioners would be taken out of a district,” Davis said. “That’s not the only consideration — you have to take into account the others – but that is something that can be considered.”

Davis also clarified that if a commissioner is drawn out of a district, “they serve out their term… they finish out their term,” even if their residence no longer lies within the boundaries of the district they were elected to represent.

Next steps

Following an extended discussion led by Board Chair Kenny, a majority of South County Fire commissioners — with David Chan opposed — agreed to direct staff and the mapping consultant to develop a fifth redistricting option that would keep Edmonds together in District 2 while adjusting boundaries north to retain Commissioner Michael Fearnehough in that district. Kenny said his goal was to have the new Option 5 ready for review and discussion at next Tuesday’s (July 14) work session, with any formal adoption of a final map targeted for the July 21 regular board meeting. 

Board extends deadline for ‘con’ committee on $420 million bond measure 

In other business, the board discussed the applicants for the committees to write pro and con statements for the $420 million construction bond issue that will appear on the ballot in this November’s general election. 

The proposal, based on the SCF Capital Facilities Plan, would replace or renovate most of the district’s aging fire stations and add four new ones to meet growing demand and seismic safety standards over the next 15–20 years (for details on the bond issue see My Edmonds News earlier story here).

The bond proposal is slated for the November general election. State law calls for committees to write both pro and con statements — and rebuttals — for the county voters pamphlet.

The pro and con committees would comprise three volunteers each. Applications opened on June 10, and the deadline to apply was July 1 (read the SCF press release calling for applicants here).

While the required three applicants for the pro committee were received by the deadline, no one applied to help craft the con statement. This left the Board to decide whether to move ahead without an in‑house con committee or extend the window and seek additional applicants.

Commissioner Micah Rowland moved to extend the deadline, arguing that on a measure of this scale, the district should be seen as encouraging both sides of the debate.

“I think given the high dollar amount here, the last thing we want is for people to say that we had the opportunity to give more time, and we chose not to, because not having a con would benefit us,” Rowland said. “I think that would just not be a good image for us.”

Commissioner David Chan seconded the motion and pressed for visible outreach through local media, including My Edmonds News.

“I would suggest that we make the effort, so that is showing that we are truly wanting to listen,” Chan said. “We really want to hear from both sides.”

Attorney Davis told the board that South County Fire had already met its legal obligation by posting the openings on its website and issuing a news release, and that it was within its rights to close the filing period as scheduled.

“I would say that, based on the publications, the posting on the website, and the other efforts that South County Fire took, it made more than a reasonable effort to solicit interested individuals,” Davis said.

However, he added that commissioners have discretion to accept latecomers or extend the deadline at their choosing. If the board ultimately appoints no con committee, the Snohomish County Auditor would step in to find and appoint volunteers in an “expedited” process.

Commissioner Michael Fearnehough asked whether the district may directly contact residents who have previously testified or written to the district about the bond or about South County Fire generally, to alert them to the renewed opportunity to serve on the con committee.

Davis said such outreach is allowed and consistent with election statutes, which envision appointing people the agency knows support or oppose a measure.

“You can do outreach. There’s no obligation to do so, but again, just a reasonable effort,” he said.

After a brief discussion about timing, commissioners agreed to set a new application deadline of Monday, July 20, at 5 p.m. for con committee applicants. If no applicants emerge by the extended deadline, responsibility for forming a con committee will shift to the county auditor.

To apply, submit a brief statement of interest by mail or email to Board Executive Assistant Melissa Blankenship, South County Fire, 12425 Meridian Ave. S, Everett WA 98208 or [email protected]. Committee members must reside within the jurisdictional boundaries of South County Fire.