Residents question Edmonds after hiring firm for RFA vote

EVERETT — A state commission is investigating a complaint that alleges the city of Edmonds is violating state law by misusing public funds to advocate for a ballot measure.

On Feb. 24, Edmonds resident Theresa Hutchinson filed the complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission after learning the city hired a public affairs firm to help with communications for the upcoming vote to annex into South County Fire. Hutchinson is a member of the city-appointed committee to draft the ballot measure’s “con” statement for the voter pamphlet.

The complaint references emails residents discovered last month between the city and the firm’s employees that discussed strategies to seemingly influence a “yes” vote in April. Hiring a public affairs firm to help with ballot measure communications is common practice, said city spokesperson Todd Tatum in an email statement to The Daily Herald. The city has only used public funds “to provide truthful, educational information to the public,” he added.

Under state law, elected officials cannot use public funds or city facilities — including emails, stationery and staff hours — to promote a ballot proposition.

The April ballot measure proposes annexing into the regional fire authority, which would save the city $6.5 million while raising property taxes for residents. Currently, taxpayers pay the city, which then pays South County Fire for services. Under annexation, residents would pay the fire authority directly. City officials believe the ballot measure is a key part of bridging the city’s $13 million deficit. If it doesn’t pass, the city may have to look into other cost-saving measures, such as cuts to the police department, roads and parks.

In August 2024, the city signed a $64,000 contract with Liz Loomis Public Affairs to “provide strategic communication consulting services related to the potential South County Fire annexation.” The funding came a $150,000 contracting fund the mayor can spend without consulting the City Council, Tatum said.

The firm’s president, Liz Loomis, is a former Snohomish County state representative and former mayor of the city of Snohomish. Loomis has given speeches regionally and nationally about “improving communications with taxpayers” and “how to win ballot measures,” according to the firm’s website. The website also states the firm “helps taxpayer-funded organizations communicate more effectively to secure needed revenue for vital public services.”

The city hired Loomis for “Zoom calls as needed with the City or designated persons; messaging for the City about annexing to South County Fire; and communication materials or correspondence to educate on the proposed annexation,” according to the contract. The city may authorize additional work, the contract said, at a rate of $250 per hour.

‘We have won five of these’

The Daily Herald obtained hundreds of emails between the city and Liz Loomis employees from September through February. In some of the emails, Loomis suggests omitting certain information and using specific wording to dissuade the ballot measure’s opponents.

In a Jan. 17 email thread regarding the text on the city’s website about the ballot measure, Rosen asked Loomis to mention additional services South County Fire provides.

“Let me do my job,” Loomis wrote in response. “We have won five of these projects in the state.”

Loomis also provided services for fire annexation ballot measures in Mill Creek, Brier, Mountlake Terrace, Arlington and Battle Ground. All five measures passed.

“You reminded me that you have won five of these, just another reason why you were hired,” Rosen replied. “However, you have also shared that you have never had opposition to any of those like exists in Edmonds, increasing the need for us to be more collaborative on strategy and execution.”

“Yes, it is a challenging project because we have opposition,” Loomis said. “We have experience with opposition and will correct inaccurate assumptions and public statements.”

Loomis did not immediately return requests for comment.

In a Jan. 8 email about how to discuss the city’s budget challenges in its key messages, Loomis said the city should avoid mentioning a recent collective bargaining agreement and the regional fire authority’s contract.

“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?’”

In another exchange, Loomis and city employees debated whether to say the contract between South County Fire and the city “expired” or that the fire authority “terminated” the contract.

“I wonder which has the most potential negative impact: the word terminate or the word expire combined with arguments from some who will assert disingenuousness in using the word expire,” City Attorney Jeff Taraday wrote on Jan. 16.

“‘Expire’ trumps your ‘terminated,’” Loomis replied. “Please let my chicken come before your egg.”

“I like the word expires,” council member Vivian Olson wrote. “Termination implies that something bad is happening to the city and we don’t want folks to take it out on South County Fire during the vote.”

Rosen’s direction to Loomis and city staff has always been “to use public funds to communicate only truthful information for the purpose of educating the public,” Tatum said.

“It is a common practice for cities to hire consultants to help them navigate this complicated process,” Tatum wrote. “At the point that a city puts a measure on a ballot, it does so with the conviction that this is in the best interest of its residents.”

While the Public Disclosure Commission considers emails to be an example of city facilities, commission spokesperson Natalie Johnson said in an interview in February, the commission is mainly investigating whether the final communications sent to voters are advocating for the measure. If the commission decides the city’s communications are promoting the measure, the emails and staff time that went into them could count as a violation, Johnson said.

“If they’re emailing back and forth over the course of the day, how many staff hours are being put into this that are publicly financed staff hours would be a consideration,” she said.

‘They are literally freezing us out’

The Public Disclosure Commission asks two main questions when determining if city communications comply with its guidelines, Johnson said: Is the information presented fair and objective? And do the nature and frequency of the communications align with the city’s regular conduct?

While cities are usually interested in passing bonds, Johnson said they should leave any advocating to a “pro” committee, which the city appointed along with the “con” committee last month.

Edmonds hasn’t put a similar measure on the ballot since 2011, so it’s hard to say whether its communication is part of its usual conduct for a ballot measure. For the 2011 measure, a general levy, the city hired a consultant to conduct a survey about residents’ spending priorities, Tatum said.

The city hosted multiple town halls about the current ballot measure. A communications plan Liz Loomis made mentions writing e-news articles, making a video and restarting the city’s “City Chat” column, which only has one installment from August. However, the city has not published any City Chat columns or e-news articles about the ballot measure.

Members of the ballot measure’s “con” committee say the city’s communications have not been objective. One member, Jim Ogonowski, said the way the city has discussed potential tax increases has been misleading.

“It only shows a part of the tax increase, and not in totality, what the citizens will see,” Ogonowski said. “It’s not doing it justice for the voters and giving them the full context of what happens if you vote ‘yes’ or you vote ‘no.’”

Hutchinson, who filed the complaint, said the “con” committee has been frustrated that the city does not let them present at town halls beyond asking questions.

“They are literally freezing us out of any opportunity to present our side,” she said. “I don’t know if that’s against the law or not, but they are using public funds to present only their side.”

It is common for a group opposing a ballot measure to file complaints with the Public Disclosure Commission, Tatum said.

“The city is preparing a response to this complaint and will ask PDC to provide a ruling as soon as possible,” he said. “We are confident that this ruling will show we are acting in accordance with law.”

The city is allowed to pass a resolution supporting the ballot measure, Johnson said. In a Jan. 16 email, Beckie Peterson, the City Council’s executive assistant, suggested waiting to pass a resolution until after the city mails out its voter pamphlet on April 3.

Moving forward, the Public Disclosure Commission has 90 days to either dismiss the case, resolve it with a statement of understanding or open a formal investigation. The results of the investigation would not affect the election results, as the deadline is after the special election date. The penalty could be up to $10,000 for each violation of the law.

‘We have to be successful’

In emails from September, Loomis said she did not believe Edmonds was ready to put annexation on the ballot in April. She said the city needs more time to share information about its budget issues and faces more “opposition” than other cities she had worked for.

“Based on past interactions between the city and fire authority, Edmonds residents know of the conflicts and don’t have good feelings,” Loomis said. “This does not translate well for a ballot measure. If the city decides on annexation, we need time to show how both parties are working well together and this is the right way forward for residents.”

Instead, Loomis suggested running a public safety levy in the August election.

“Then, maybe the city could extend its contract with South County for just one year so everyone has time to do due diligence on the best option for fire and EMS,” she said.

Olson wrote that she didn’t want to push a ballot measure past April in order to provide residents with security about the future of fire services.

“We have to be successful at whatever option we see as best for the community in this regard,” Olson wrote.

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.

“So it wasn’t added to the study and studied/vetted by Fitch, and was brought up by a member of the public after the study was done — as the big miss it was,” she said.

The city has spoken about the potential contract at city council meetings, town halls and public question and answer sessions, Tatum said. The potential contract would cost the same as annexation, he said, but the city does not have a stable funding source for it and would have to make other cuts if annexation does not pass.

“We want to reiterate that the extensive process to arrive at this ballot measure convinced the city that annexing to South County Fire RFA was the lowest cost option for residents to maintain the level and quality of service they’ve come to expect,” Tatum wrote. “Our communication with the public has consistently focused on our open, transparent process which led us to this conclusion.”

But Ogonowski sees it differently.

“It’s not an informed decision, it’s an influenced decision,” he said. “And they’ve got a lot of money that they’re putting behind it, taxpayer money, to sway it. That’s just undemocratic.”

Jenna Peterson: 425-339-3486; jenna.peterson@heraldnet.com; X: @jennarpetersonn.