10/13/2009 City CouncilOctober 13, 2009
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS 4 (PUBLIC
COMMENT ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT) AND 6 (COMMENTS FROM
REPRESENTATIVE OF LOCAL 1828, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. RECEPTION - FIRE DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONERS
Councilmembers and Commissioners introduced themselves. Mayor Haakenson advised all
Commissioners were present; there is currently one vacancy on the Fire District 1 Commission.
At 7:05 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a reception with Fire District 1 Commissioners.
3. JOINT MEETING WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONERS
Fire District 1 Commissioners Jim Kenny (Chair), David Chan, Bob Meador, and Brian McMahan were
present for this item. Fire District 1 staff included Fire Chief Ed Widdis, Assistant Fire Chief Brad
Reading and Executive Assistant Marsha Moore.
Commissioner Kenny expressed his appreciation for the partnership between Fire District 1 and Edmonds
in providing contractual services to the Esperance area. He explained Fire District 1 has been interested
in regionalization of fire services in Southwest Snohomish County for many years. Over time Fire
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 1
District 1 has merged /consolidated with Fire District 11, Mountlake Terrace Fire Department and
provides long term contractual fire and EMS service to the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Brier. Fire
District 1 and Edmonds train together as well as cooperate on automatic and mutual aid; this was a unique
opportunity to expand that partnership.
Fire Chief Ed Widdis explained Fire District 1 merged with Fire District 11 in 1999 and consolidated with
Mountlake Terrace in 2005. He provided a timeline for both:
Fire District 11
• Discussions began - January 1996
• Transitional Agreement - March 1, 1996
• Consolidation Agreement - January 1, 1997
• Election to merge - November 1999
• Merger - January 1, 2000
Mountlake Terrace
• Discussions began - February 2001
• Transitional Agreement - April 1, 2001
• Consolidation Agreement - January 1, 2005
- Staffing levels needed to be increased
- Wages were significantly less
- Paramedic staffing needed to be completed
- Employees weren't convinced
He displayed a map and identified the Fire District 1 boundaries and locations of their stations. He
displayed photographs of Station 11, 12, 13, 18, 19 (owned by Mountlake Terrace), 21, 22, and 23. He
explained the current Station 18 is located in Mountlake Terrace; construction on a new Station 18 in
Brier will begin shortly. A new station is under construction at 156th & Hwy. 99. He displayed a
photograph of their recently completely training tower at the Fire District 1 headquarters facility and a
photograph of the headquarters' facility.
Shift staffing includes 29 on duty daily, 1 shift supervisor, 1 ladder truck, 1 engine, 2 medic units and 6
cross- staffed engines /medic units. The District's uniform shift staff includes 1 Battalion Chief, 8
Captains, 10 Firefighter /paramedic/Paramedics and 10 firefighter /paramedic /EMTs. The District also has
a 24 member volunteer program that includes the members of Edmonds' volunteer program.
The District's civilian staff includes 5 Fire Commissioners, 1 Human Resources, 3.25 Finance, 1 Public
Information, 1 Public Education and 7 Support Staff. Uniform daytime staff includes 1 Fire Chief, 2
Assistant Chiefs, 4 Deputy Chiefs, 1 Battalion Chief, 3 EMS Captain /Paramedics, 2 Training Captains
and 1 Firefighters GIS.
The District's public education includes bicycle safety helmet /courses, car seat safety checks, blood
pressure checks, CERT training, smoke detectors, 911 simulator, hazard house, open houses, and post fire
neighborhood meetings. Fire personnel collected $35,000 in the MDA Fill the Boot Drive this year. Fire
District 1 personnel also participate in the Brier tree lighting and Mountlake Terrace's Tour de Terrace
parade.
Chief Widdis displayed a map illustrating 4- minute travel times from south Snohomish County fire
stations and areas where travel times exceeded 4 minutes. He commented on the District's technological
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 2
resources such as video conferencing (used for physician directed training and fire service and EMS
seminars), telestaff (computerized staffing), and the training center with training tower.
He identified current projects:
• New Station 12 - 2004
• New Station 21 - 2008
• Remodeled Station 11 - 2009
• New Station at 156th Street - 2009
• New Station 18 - 2010
• Remodeled Station 13 - 2010
• Training Tower - 2009
• Training Center Classrooms - 2010
• Apparatus - 1 new ladder truck, 3 new fire engines, 1 new medic unit and 3 remounted medic
units
He displayed a map of southwest Snohomish County, identifying areas in Mukilteo and Lynnwood
proposed for annexation. He provided a graph and pie chart illustrating Fire District 1's 2010 assessed
value and the affect the annexations would have on their assessed value. He reviewed graphs illustrating
new construction in Brier, Edmonds, Everett, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Woodway and Fire District
1 in 2008 -2010. Chief Widdis reviewed pie charts of the Edmonds and Fire District 1 assessed value with
and without the Lynnwood and Mukilteo annexations. He also reviewed pie charts illustrating current fire
stations in Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mukilteo and Fire District 1, after Lynnwood and Mukilteo annexations,
and Edmonds and Fire District 1 fire stations with and without the Lynnwood and Mukilteo annexations.
Chief Widdis reviewed the current Fire District 1 operating fund balance 2009 -2014 (ending cash balance
of $27.2 million), with Edmonds and fire stations ($25.6 million), with Edmonds without fire stations
($29.8 million).
He displayed a photograph of a Mountlake Terrace engine which has the Fire District 1 name on the door
and Mountlake Terrace Fire on the side and front.
In response to the often asked question of why now, Chief Widdis explained:
• We respond as one
• It is a good time as the unions and administrations are in concurrence
• January 1 works best for employees (union contracts, medical insurance, MEBT or Deferred
Compensation) and employee vacation selection)
Council President Wilson referred to the timeline for discussions, transitional agreement and
consolidation agreement with Mountlake Terrace. He asked about the difference between a transitional
agreement and consolidation agreement and whether the January 1 date referred to in Chief Widdis'
presentation was for a consolidation agreement or a transitional agreement. Chief Widdis answered the
situation with the other organization was somewhat unique; the transitional agreement consolidated the
administrators and the employees joined the District at the time of the consolidation agreement. During
the period of time between the transitional agreement and the consolidation agreement in Mountlake
Terrace, Mountlake Terrace employees continued to be paid by Mountlake Terrace Fire Department due
to wage issues. In the case of District 11, the administration was combined at the time of the transitional
agreement.
Council President Wilson referred to the fire service model of 4- minute travel time from all regional
stations. Chief Widdis explained modeling was also available for a 5 or 6 minute travel time. He referred
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 3
to the NFDA standard of a 6 minute response, noting that included 1 minute for dispatch, 1 minute for
turnout and 4 minutes of drive time. The 4- minute travel time model is used to identify areas where fire
stations are needed. They are fortunate to have the financial ability to construct fire stations where they
are needed rather than the way they were sited in the past via wherever property was available. For
example, Station 11 was sited on property purchased from Mukilteo for $1, not because it was in the right
location.
Council President Wilson asked whether Edmonds had a 4- minute response time plus 1 minute for
dispatch and 1 minute for turnout. Chief Tomberg answered no, due to station location. For example
Station 17 was constructed on nearly the same site as the original station. In accordance with RCW
35.103, Edmonds Fire Department reports annually on 11 different response time standards as well as the
number of standards they met /failed each year, and plans for improvement. He commented one of the
best arguments for regionalization was that over time the planning for station location was done
regionally rather than by individual city.
Council President Wilson commented Edmonds Fire Department's current response time is
approximately 7'/z - 8 minutes for a residential 3 -alarm fire. Chief Tomberg answered the response times
varied for medical calls, fire response, etc. Council President Wilson clarified Fire District 1 was not
offering to cut the City's response times in half. Chief Tomberg answered because the fire stations would
remain in their current locations, the response times would be virtually the same. He summarized
response time was affected by many different variables such as station location, weather, units in service,
where available help comes from, etc. The best way was to plan regionally for fire station location.
Council President Wilson referred to Fire District 1's current assessed value and their assessed value with
the Mukilteo and Lynnwood annexations, noting the assessed value drops from approximately $14
million to $9 million. He asked whether that impacted how Fire District 1 planned for providing fire
service. Chief Widdis acknowledged it did, however, as their assessed value has increased, they have not
increased staffing. They currently place 25% of their annual budget in their construction fund which
allows them to build stations as well as maintain a significant amount in reserves. Their assessed value
dropped 8.5% or $2.2 million this year, but they are able to operate their current budget as it exists.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the need to increase staffing levels, wages, paramedic staffing levels
during the period between the transitional agreement and consolidation agreement in Mountlake Terrace.
Chief Widdis advised Mountlake Terrace previously staffed Station 18 with two people; a hiring process
was necessary to bring that up to 3. Mountlake Terrace's wages were also significantly less than Fire
District 1 and wages were increased approximately 3% per year for 4 years to bring them to Fire District
1 levels. There were also issues with the Medic 7 consolidation at that time. Councilmember Plunkett
asked whether these were the reason for the transitional agreement. Chief Widdis answered those were
the main reasons.
Councilmember Plunkett commented Mountlake Terrace and Fire District 1 did not spend four years
wrangling over a contract. Chief Widdis advised the consolidation agreement began within
approximately 1' /z months of the transitional agreement and resulted in a five year contract to reach the
consolidation agreement. That was accomplished in less than four years. He summarized the primary
reasons for the length of time was hiring people, withdrawing from Medic 7, etc. Councilmember
Plunkett noted discussions with Mountlake Terrace began in February and the transitional agreement was
signed in April. Chief Widdis answered the transitional agreement was completed in 1' /z months.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Edmonds' staffing levels needed to be increased, whether wages
needed to be increased, or whether paramedic staffing needed to be completed. Chief Tomberg answered
the Edmonds Fire Department had none of the issues that faced Mountlake Terrace. Councilmember
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 4
Plunkett asked whether the Edmonds employees needed to be convinced. Chief Tomberg answered they
would speak later on the agenda but it was his understanding the Fire District 1 and Edmonds Fire
Department unions had reached agreement many months ago.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Edmonds volunteers would continue to work in Edmonds.
Chief Tomberg explained the City discontinued its volunteer program earlier this year. As of September
30, 2009; the 3 volunteers resigned from the Edmonds Fire Department and joined Fire District 1. The
former Edmonds volunteers will respond in Edmonds as well as within Fire District 1 and other areas
where Fire District 1 provides assistance. Chief Widdis explained the volunteers support Fire District 1's
response. They currently respond using Lynnwood's old air unit but consideration is being given to
purchasing a more modern unit.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the location of fire stations on a regional basis could improve
response times in Edmonds. Chief Tomberg answered it could but that was in the future as there was
currently no proposal to move any of the Edmonds fire stations.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why growth potential in Fire District 1 was important. Chief Widdis
answered it meant that Fire District 1 was stable. As growth occurs and the assessed value per square mile
becomes denser, the tax rate decreases.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the financial charts, noting it did not appear Fire District 1 needed
Edmonds for financial reasons. Chief Widdis agreed, noting it was fairly even regardless of whether Fire
District 1 partnered with Edmonds. Partnering with Edmonds was good for regionalization, neither
agency needed the other, but they worked better together.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what percentage of the time Fire District 1 came to Edmonds on mutual
aid. Chief Tomberg advised that information could be provided. Councilmember Plunkett asked Chief
Tomberg to confirm that the mutual aid Fire District 1 provided was excellent. Chief Tomberg agreed it
was, for example, Edmonds could not fight a structure fire with its on -duty personnel, assistance from
surrounding departments was necessary. He noted this was another argument for regionalization.
Councilmember Plunkett commented Edmonds had a long history of mutual aid. Chief Tomberg agreed,
noting he had worked in two other states during his career. Although there was aid of some sort from
other agencies, there was never anything with the depth or complexity of the aid in southwest Snohomish
County. It was a borderless system; whatever engine company arrived first establishes command and
units from mutual and automatic aid provide assistance. He noted the dispatch run cards in SnoCom were
15 units deep in automatic aid. Departments were not required to call another agency, each checked in
and either provided assistance or provided coverage in other areas. He summarized the mutual and
automatic aid in this area was the most mature system he had ever encountered, yet another reason for
regionalization.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the number of civilian staff Fire District 1 has and asked whether the
Edmonds Fire Department had a Public Information Officer or Public Education personnel. Tomberg
answered no, the Edmonds Fire Department has five administrative staff members, Assistant Fire Chief
Mark Correira, Executive Assistant Jeanne Startzman, Pat Hepler, Training /Admin Battalion Chief,
Acting Fire Marshal Mike Smith and himself.
Fire District 1 Assistant Chief Brad Reading introduced Fire District 1's administrative support staff.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the operating fund balance without annexations, noting if the
annexations occurred, some revenue will be lost but some expenditures would also be eliminated. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 5
inquired how much revenue that would be lost. Chief Widdis answered the Mukilteo annexation area
represented approximately 12% of the total and the Lynnwood annexation area represented approximately
20 %. He identified existing stations and stations under construction in those areas. Councilmember
Orvis summarized regardless of whether the annexations occurred, Fire District 1 was not worried about
their long term future. Chief Widdis agreed, and identified stations that would remain in Fire District 1.
Council President Wilson commented he had no concerns with the level of service and could clearly see
the benefits of public education. He understood the administration and fire personnel support a contract
for service. The primary question for the Council was whether the numbers added up for Edmonds.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether Fire District 1 provided fire service to Mill Creek. Chief
Widdis answered Fire District 1 provides automatic aid to Mill Creek; Fire District 7 provides service in
that area although Fire District 1 is first -due in some areas and Fire District 7 is first due in some Fire
District 1 areas. For Councilmember Bernheim, Chief Widdis identified the Fire District 1 boundaries.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out it appeared Mukilteo and Lynnwood were the only areas not
serviced by Fire District 1.
For Councilmember Bernheim, Chief Widdis explained why the fire stations in Fire District 1 were not
numbered sequentially.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether citizens interested in historical financial information or
projections from Fire District 1 would be required to complete a public records request. Chief Widdis
advised if a person wanted public information, they could complete a public records request or
alternatively, they could meet with Fire District 1 staff.
Councilmember Bernheim observed fire service would benefit from a centralized geographical area. He
asked the impact of a disparate geography on centralized fire service. Chief Widdis answered personnel
from other stations were necessary to fight a fire. With regard to centralization, it would be ideal to have
one fire district covering the entire area. He described how Fire District 1 covers stations while personnel
are training at the training tower. He acknowledged Fire District 1 does have some geographical
challenges such as 1 -5. Fire District 1 has extra personnel on duty some days; with a contract for fire
service, those extra personnel can cover stations in Edmonds rather than via overtime.
Councilmember Bernheim recalled Edmonds rendered mutual aid more often than it received mutual.
Chief Tomberg agreed, noting it was very close and over time it was not beneficial to maintain a strict
measurement.
Councilmember Peterson asked how station coverage would work with the addition of the Edmonds
stations. Chief Widdis described how units cover other stations operationally and geographically while
personnel are training. Councilmember Peterson assumed coverage would be easier with all the fire
stations under one management. Chief Widdis agreed, noting with both departments under one umbrella,
even apparatus maintenance could be timed more effectively.
For Councilmember Peterson, Chief Widdis pointed out another benefit of one department was all
apparatus were equipped the same. Each firefighter also has their own turnout gear. That is why the
apparatus and employees transfer together.
Commissioner Meador commented mergers result in sharing of assets. The assets of a large organization
like Fire District 1 bring value to citizens. A small department may be unable to attain some of those
assets such as the training center, equipment and in the future, medical control at Stevens Hospital. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 6
summarized some of the benefits were intangible and he viewed a contract for service as good for both
Fire District 1 and Edmonds.
Council President Wilson commented another question is what happens in the future and what
regionalization of fire service will look like in 5 -10 years. He assumed the contract would not reach 20
years and that there would be an intermediary such as a Regional Fire Authority (RFA). Commissioner
Kenny greed there likely would be some form of regionalization in the future, whether it was a RFA,
contractual consolidation or other forms of merger /consolidation. Fire District 1 will continue to exist in
the future; it is unknown what annexations will be attempted or be successful. Annexations may reduce
the size of the District but it will continue to exist as a significant entity in the near term. Further into the
future as the cost of fire service increases for Fire District 1 as well as other cities in south Snohomish
County, consideration will be given to how to provide services more efficiently and what cost savings can
be achieved by working together. He acknowledged getting all jurisdictions to agree was a significant
challenge but anticipated finances would drive that effort and if the savings were significant enough,
interest would increase.
Council President Wilson commented on transparency, noting this appeared to be a fairly complex
arrangement, the City contracting with Fire District 1 to provide service and possibly sell the stations,
apparatus, etc. He asked for the District's opinion about reverse annexation which would allow Fire
District 1 to provide service to Edmonds citizens as well as provide a clear line between voters and
Commissioners. Commissioner Kenny agreed that was an option. The citizens would need to vote
whether to annex into Fire District 1. Another option for consolidation in southwest Snohomish County
would be the cities annexing into Fire District 1 and forming one large fire district covering the entire
area. Commissioner McMahan pointed out Station 13 and Lake Stickney were not within the Urban
Growth Boundary and fire service would continue to be provided by Fire District 1 in those areas. He
summarized a regional fire service was the goal but there was disagreement over how to attain that goal.
With regard to Council President Wilson's comment regarding citizens having a direct line to the
Commission, some cities want their Council involved in fire service. He commented one advantage the
Fire District had over cities was they have one mission and funds are not diverted to other departments
Council President Wilson commented on the threat of I -1033 which recent polls indicate is likely to pass.
He noted fire districts were not impacted by I -1033. With a contract for fire service, citizens would not
be subject to the insecurity of financing. Commission McMahan commented the transitional agreement
with Mountlake Terrace included exploration of annexation. At that time there were concerns regarding
the impacts of I -695.
Commissioner Chan commented Commission Meador is the former Lynnwood fire chief. He emphasized
all citizens in Fire District 1, Brier and Mountlake Terrace were treated the same. Council President
Wilson advised the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tern and City Manager of Mountlake Terrace spoke to the Council
last week and were unequivocal in their satisfaction with the service provided by Fire District 1. Brier's
Mayor communicated with the Council via email that Brier was also very satisfied. He reiterated the
primary issue was whether the numbers penciled out and how savings were defined.
Council President Wilson asked whether Edmonds would retain the EMS transport fees if the stations
were retained. Commissioner Kenny answered if Edmonds kept the stations, they kept the transport fees;
if they sold the stations to Fire District 1, Fire District 1 would keep the transport fees.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the $6.2 million contract for service would be the same as proposed if
Edmonds retained the stations. Commissioner Kenny answered yes, noting the operational agreement
was separate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 7
Council President Wilson asked whether Fire District 1 was willing to offer some compensation to
Edmonds for the $700,000 in transport fees if Edmonds sold the stations and apparatus to Fire District 1
for the appraised value of $8.2 million and Fire District 1 collected the transport fees. Commissioner
Kenny answered the revenue source from transport fees allowed Fire District I to pay for the stations over
time. Council President Wilson pointed out the value of that financial asset was approximately $10 -20
million. He asked whether Fire District 1 was willing to pay more than $8.2 million if they collected the
transport fees. Commissioner Kenny answered they were open to negotiation.
Council President Wilson commented in his opinion it did not make sense to sell the stations unless the
City was compensated for the transport fees. He anticipated the transport fees would be in excess of
$700,000 /year. He asked whether Fire District 1 wanted the fire stations. Commissioner Kenny
answered their offer was to purchase the fire stations, bring over all employees, and purchase all the
apparatus and equipment. If Edmonds did not want to sell the fire stations, Fire District 1 was still willing
to enter into a contract for service. Whether to sell the stations was up to Edmonds. The District was
waiting for an answer from the City.
Councilmember Peterson commented when the contract was first proposed, he was leaning toward selling
the stations, finding that would be best in the event a RFA were formed in the future. After further
discussions, he felt it would be beneficial to Edmonds to retain the stations as they would give Edmonds
something to bring to the table in RFA discussions.
Councilmember Bernheim commented his concern with selling the real estate was his feeling that fire
service was one of the basic services of City government. By divesting itself of that service for an annual
fee with the hope that service was as good or better than Edmonds own Fire Department, the City was left
with less control as cost was the only issue. Under a contract, if the annual fee increased substantially, the
City would have little recourse. And if the City decided to return to its own Fire Department, purchase of
the fire stations would be cost prohibitive. His primary concern was the concept that the City could
contract out its fire service and save money, a theory that has not proven to be true with some other
services. He was also interested in preserving local control over essential services even if the cost was
slightly more. He acknowledged the Edmonds Fire Department did not have the latest technology but the
employees and citizens took pride in the City's outstanding fire service.
Councilmember Orvis commented the City was still gathering information and would be ready to make a
decision very soon.
With regard to future costs, Councilmember Plunkett advised the proposed contract as well as the contract
with Mountlake Terrace and Brier contained a formula for cost escalation. Commissioner Kenny
answered costs were limited by the median point of comparables for similar fire agencies. Their union
contract was locked into the median of those comparables. If the District wanted to provide additional
pay or benefits above the median, they would be the District's responsibility. Contracts are typically
three years; within the three contracts the City would pay CPI.
Councilmember Plunkett commented Edmonds also used comparables and determined its costs
approximately the same way. Commissioner Kenny agreed it was the same process. He explained Fire
District 1 was interested in contracting with Edmonds regardless of whether Edmonds sold the stations.
Commissioner Chan advised Fire District 1 was a single purpose organization; its focus was on fire and
EMS. If Edmonds' primary reason for contracting for fire service was dollars, he did not think the
agencies should be talking. Fire District 1 was interested in serving the people. The size of Fire District 1
allowed them to do many things that a 2- station Fire Department could not. He assured the District was
diligent about cost control. To him the contract was financially neutral; the savings were the result of
avoiding duplication of services and economies of scale. He pointed out if Edmonds retained the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 8
buildings, the City would also be responsible for maintenance. Fire District 1 has the funds to upgrade/
remodel its stations.
Council President Wilson responded there was no question regarding the quality of the service offered by
Fire District 1. Edmonds and Fire District 1 effectively operate as one during emergencies today. He
recalled seeing Fire District 1 and Lynnwood's apparatus at a fire in his neighborhood. Additional
services would include better access to the training tower, public education, and public information
personnel. The economies of scale appear to be in administration. The Council has considered the
contract on its financial merits. With regard to operations, when discussions began, there were
approximately $1 million in savings. As discussions continued, the savings decreased to $800,000, then
to $600,000 in actual financial savings and under $100,000 when all costs were considered.
Councilmember Wambolt advised Finance Director Lorenzo Hines completed his analysis this afternoon
and will describe the discrepancies to the Council.
Council President Wilson asked whether Fire District l was willing to negotiate further if the operational
numbers did not pencil out for the City. Commissioner Kenny answered the City needed to determine
whether contracting for service was financially feasible. The District is willing to continue negotiating.
He assured there were no hard feelings if the Council made a decision not to contract with Fire District 1
and the agencies would continue to partner as they do today. Council President Wilson asked whether the
$6.2 million cost was the District's "rock bottom number."
Commissioner McMahan explained in order for the contract to work, Fire District 1 will provide a
subsidy. There are approximately $200,000 in start up /transition fees as well as other short term and long
term costs. Fire District 1 is agreeable to that because in the long term the contract is beneficial. He
noted this was not the forum to negotiate the cost of the contract.
Council President Wilson agreed a number did not need to be determined but he was interested in
determining the District's flexibility with regard to the cost.
Councilmember Peterson pointed out both the Fire District 1 Commissioners and the Edmonds City
Councilmembers must answer to the taxpayers. Although he was leaning toward retaining the fire
stations, he had not yet made up his mind. His top priority was public safety of the citizens; if the result
of a contract for service was better fire service for Edmonds and Fire District 1 citizens, that was more
important than the finances.
Councilmember Beneheim pointed out the Fire District 1 Commissioners would not answer to the
Edmonds voters. The Fire Department was currently under the City Council's control and a contract for
fire service with Fire District 1 would provide only contractual control.
Commissioner Chan commented they were answerable to their customers which includes the cities they
contract with. Cities had the ability to fire the Fire District. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out
terminating the agreement could only be done after five years. Commissioner Chan reiterated many of
the benefits of regionalization were intangible. To citizens, fire service was the most critical and it was
Fire District 1's only focus.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he did not have any concern with Fire District 1's level of service.
He noted it actually took 7 years to terminate the contract because 2 years notice was required after 5
years. He pointed out Fire District 1 would provide the same service with the same personnel and from
the same fire stations.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 9
Councilmember Bernheim commented he did not fear deterioration in service; he feared deterioration in
the City's budget situation if cost increases were more than the City could afford. Councilmember
Wambolt pointed out costs were controlled via a formula in the contract.
Council President Wilson agreed the rate of growth was addressed in the contract and he was hopeful the
starting point was somewhat flexible. In light of I -1033, he was also interested in exploring reverse
annexation. He suggested a transitional agreement that would allow examination of annexation in the
interim.
Commissioner Meador observed Edmonds was interested in contracting with Fire District 1 due to cost
issues. With regard to why Fire District 1 was interested, he explained about P/z years ago the District
considered the long term strategic plan and threats to the Fire District and decided to become the
facilitator of regionalization. They view a contract for service with Edmonds as an opportunity to move
toward regionalization. Their goal was to facilitate a long term solution to fire and EMS services.
Council President Wilson concluded the Council was trying to figure out the details; level of service was
not an issue; however, financial issues were paramount to the Council.
Mayor Haakenson thanked the Fire District 1. Commissioners for attending tonight's meeting and invited
them to stay through the labor union and public comments as well as the Council's work session in order
to hear their concerns first hand.
4A. COMMENTS FROM REPRESENTATIVE OF LOCAL 1828, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FIREFIGHTERS
Tim Hoover, President, Edmonds Firefighters Local 1828, explained the Edmonds firefighters and
paramedics felt it was time for the Council and citizens to hear from them about the contract for service
offer. To the Edmonds citizens, he assured they were their firefighters and paramedics and were
extremely proud to serve the citizens of Edmonds regardless of what patch was on their shoulders.
However the Council decided to continue fire service in the City, it would never change how proud they
were to serve Edmonds citizens.
He provided a history and perspective of the proposed agreement with Fire District 1 from the firefighters
and paramedics. In early 2009 Mayor Haakenson approached all the unions in the City and asked for
some type of give -back to get through 2009. Some unions in the City agreed to furloughs; firefighters
and paramedics cannot take furlough days, they are on duty 24/7 and operate with minimum staffing.
They agreed to consider other ways that would not compromise the firefighters or public safety.
The Edmonds Fire Department has become a respected fire department due to continued citizen support.
Citizens have always been there with the Fire Department needed them, passing EMS levies to the highest
amounts possible, bonds to provide stations and equipment, accepting transport fees to bring in needed
money from insurance companies, and renegotiating contracts with neighboring jurisdictions to provide
service. The Edmonds Fire Department is funded approximately 70% from outside the General Fund;
30% from the General Fund. This is the opposite of most of the City's neighboring jurisdictions; most are
funded 70% from the General Fund and 30% from other sources such as EMS fees, EMS levies, or
contracts for service. This is a testament to the Fire Chief and the Mayor who have continued to find
other sources of revenue to allow the Department to provide this high level of service.
However, even with this incredible structure in the budget, the Fire Department is continually told the
City cannot afford to continue to provide these levels of service. Nearly every year for the past 12 years
there is mention of closing a fire station or cutting service levels. They are proud of the service and their
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 10
Fire Department but they are tired of fighting in every budget cycle to maintain the current levels of
service.
As the union met to determine how to do their part in the give - backs, they learned Fire District 1 made
contract for service offers to the cities of Lynnwood and Mukilteo. While Edmonds was not part of those
discussions, they received a copy of the contracts. As the Executive Board reviewed the contracts, they
noticed Fire District 1 was providing a high level of service at what appeared to be a reduced price. They
contacted the Fire District 1 IAFF Local 1997 to discuss how a contract for service would look. During
that meeting there were discussions regarding service levels and how a contract for service model would
work and at the conclusion, it was agreed consolidation of services was the best way to provide fire
services. He noted there have been several attempts at consolidation over the past 20 years although
never gaining momentum at the political level.
At the end of that meeting, Edmonds firefighters felt it was worth further exploration. They knew Fire
District 1 had done consolidations with Fire District 1.1 and the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Brier and
that the employees were very happy with the result.
Executive Board Member, Local 1828, Doug Dahl and he then met with Fire Chief Tomberg and Mayor
Haakenson to recommend exploring a contract for service with Fire District 1 as a long term solution to
the financial problem and not a short term bandaid like employee give -ways. In April with the guidance
of Mayor Haakenson and Chief Tomberg, meetings began with Fire District 1 on a regular basis to
develop a document all parties could agree to. Meetings had representatives from city finance, the
unions, fire administrations, Snohomish County Fire District 1 Commission, and Edmonds City Council.
During the meetings it was agreed the current levels of service must be maintained. After months of
negotiations, the proposed contract for fire service was presented to the Council.
He pointed out during the negotiations, Fire District 1's union, fire administration and Fire
Commissioners have been very willing to work with them to provide the best contract and the highest
levels of service. Levels of service and long term stabilization are what the firefighters and paramedics
have attempted to address in this agreement. The contract provides for a seamless transition on the street;
all fire stations, apparatus, and personnel stay where they are. If approved, January 1, 2010, the citizens
of Edmonds will not see any difference in the services that are provided. The wording of the contract was
painstakingly crafted to provide at least the current levels of service over a 20 year period. Many who are
opposed to the contract want the public to think it would cost more in the long run or leave service levels
up to the District. The contract prevents that in numerous locations.
During the past few Council meetings, there has been much debate about the financial aspects of this
contract. He commented this deal was not just about the dollars and cents to the firefighters and
paramedics on the street. They are concerned with securing and providing the levels of service that they
have been working hard to achieve over the years. They are tired of being a scare word in budget cut
decisions. They are tired of being asked to develop new ways to do more with less from the General
Fund. He assured the firefighters and paramedics were not here to argue the merits of selling or keeping
the fire stations, to say whether the selling price was too low or too high or to negotiate the costs of the
contract; their focus was on stabilizing the levels of service in the City and securing the future for their
members.
He referred to benefits Fire District 1 would provide to Edmonds citizens along with many other
community and standard fire service benefits that Edmonds cannot afford as a standalone department.
Benefits include a state -of -the art training center that provides a safe place for personnel to train and a
Public Information Officer that provides education and services to citizens that the Edmonds Fire
Department does not have the staff to provide. Fire District 1 has Medical Services Officers who ensure
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page I I
EMTs and paramedics have the latest knowledge and education. He assured the firefighters and
paramedics were comfortable with the contract provisions and benefits. He advised some members
would earn slightly more but would lose on other benefits. In terms of total cost of compensation, it is an
equal transition. Locals 1997 and 1828 are both in the same International Union, do identical jobs and
use many of the same comparables when negotiating contracts.
In response to members of the public worried about firefighters losing positions, he assured this contract
spells out the number of personnel transferring and identifies the minimum number of positions that must
be maintained in each fire station, the minimum staffing standards that the Edmonds Fire Department
currently uses. Firefighters are very comfortable with the language protecting their jobs.
He referred to a recent Councilmember comments regarding Fire District 1 charging Edmonds if there
was a desire to increase services in the future, pointing out the City would also be required to pay for any
increases in its level of service when operating their own Fire Department.
The payment terms of the proposed contract are 90% based on employee costs. The City is paying for the
cost of the employees' salaries who will transfer into the Fire District. If the City wanted to add another
medic unit, the District would determine the number of personnel required and adjust the cost
accordingly, the same process that would occur with the City's own Fire Department. He referred to a
Council comment that the cost of the contract would be out of the City's control due to the inability to
control personnel costs, pointing out the contract was based on personnel costs and would increase as
personnel costs increased. Fire District 1's Local is part of the same union and bound by the same
contract negotiations and rules. Contracts are based on comparables and both departments use many of
the same comparables and achieve approximately 50% median of the comparables.
Last week Mountlake Terrace's Mayor and City Manager spoke to the Council about their satisfaction
with the service levels, responsiveness of the Fire District Chiefs and Fire District Commissioners and
cost controls. Mountlake Terrace does not feel they sold their fire department but rather that they took it
to a new level.
Mr. Hoover concluded they are aware this is a very sensitive subject. They have heard from citizens; the
Council is conducting due diligence and discussions have been positive and negative. It has been clear
that no one wants to affect the City's fire service. The City's firefighters and paramedics agree and would
not support any change that would affect their safety or the citizens' safety. The financial impacts and
how much the City can save via this deal appear to have become the focus. He asked Council not to
forget about the big picture; the ability to maintain the current levels of service long into the future.
Whether this deal saves $80,000 or $800,000, it is a good deal for stabilizing the Fire Department long
term.
He relayed the Edmonds Firefighters Union's unanimous support of the contract for service, not because
they want to become larger but so they can stabilize public safety funding and staffing levels in the City.
They also believe regionalization is the best way to provide the highest level of service.
Council President Wilson expressed his appreciation for the sincerity of Mr. Hoover's comments.
Councilmember Peterson asked the gut feeling of IAFF 1828 toward the contract for service with Fire
District 1. Mr. Dahl responded, like the Council, it was often difficult to get 50 of their brothers and
sisters to agree. The bottom line was service; Fire District 1 has shown that Edmonds can get more by
joining forces with them. He commented their members were proud of the Edmonds Fire Department; he
started with Edmonds Fire Department 22 years ago, but it did not matter whose patch he wore, he would
still serve the City. Many of the firefighters and paramedics have 20 years of service and many stay for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 12
30 years, unlike the Council where the members have changed over the years. He assured the men and
women of the Edmonds Fire Department were looking at the big picture of fire service and from that
viewpoint, the decision to enter into a contract for service with Fire District 1 was very simple.
Councilmember Peterson recalled Mountlake Terrace firefighters' transition was excellent. He invited a
member of IAFF 1997 that went through the transition to speak.
Thad Hovis, former member of Mountlake Terrace Firefighters Local 1996 and current member of
Fire District 1 Firefighters Local 1997, explained they did not have unanimous consensus of the
firefighters when they began discussions with Fire District 1. He referred to the issues that were
addressed during the transitional and consolidation agreement such as wage increases, staffing levels, and
paramedic staffing as well as the Mountlake Terrace Fire Department 47 year history. He acknowledged
he was the ringleader of the employees who were not convinced. However, after functional consolidation
April 1, 2001, he changed his mind and accepted that it was a good deal for the employees, the
administration and the public. He began his career at Station 19 in 1996 and still works there today. He
commented on the level of service that could be provided via regionalization versus Mountlake Terrace's
own Fire Department. He was hopeful that Local 1997 could work with Local 1828 and the Edmonds
City Council to provide an even better product on the street in Edmonds via working with Fire District 1.
Council President Wilson recognized that the contract for fire service with Fire District 1 was an
important issue for the Edmonds fire service personnel, Fire District 1 and for fire administration. He
pointed out it took the firefighters 60 days in discussion with Fire District 1, 7 months to develop the
contract, and 6 weeks for a transitional agreement in Mountlake Terrace. The Edmonds City Council was
only on day 28 of its review. He urged the firefighters, Fire District 1 and fire administration to be patient
while the Council worked through this issue.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what were Mountlake Terrace personnel's concerns and how they were
resolved. Mr. Hovis answered there were issues such as internal staffing levels that needed to be
addressed. Mountlake Terrace had a 47 year history and when then went into the merger, were still.
operating 2- person engine companies at fire stations and there were wage issues as well. He was an
Edmonds volunteer firefighter, grew up in Edmonds, graduated from Edmonds High School and his
parents still live at Five Corners. For him, he thought via consolidation he would be turning their backs
on the Edmonds Fire Department and Medic 7 and that opening the door with Fire District 1 may be
closing the door on Edmonds Fire Department. He was glad Edmonds was now considering
regionalization. He recalled Edmonds was part of the fire consolidation discussions with Fire District 1,
Mountlake Terrace and Brier but Edmonds pulled out and Fire District 1 proceeded with consolidation
with Mountlake Terrace and Brier.
Councilmember Peterson referred to the timeline for the Mountlake Terrace consolidation, asked whether
the discussions that began in February 2001 were with the Council or between Fire District 1 and
Mountlake Terrace administration. Commissioner Kenny advised the negotiations between the City
Manager and the District to reach the January 2005 consolidation agreement took approximately 12
months. Councilmember Peterson observed there were also administration discussions and discussions
with the unions prior to presenting the contract to the Council. Commissioner Kenny agreed,
commenting the Edmonds contract was modeled after the Mountlake Terrace contract.
Councilmember Peterson observed the training available from Fire District 1 was an opportunity to
increase levels of service as well as protecting the safety of fire service personnel. He asked Edmonds
firefighters to comment on Edmonds' training. Mr. Hoover answered Edmonds fire service personnel
currently train at whatever vacant building is available. Each person also goes to the North Bend fire
training facility for one day to complete their annual live fire training. Although Edmonds firefighters get
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 13
their training in and are a well trained, experienced Fire Department, a dedicated training center that
allows them to use all their tools, practice what they have learned and use props would be beneficial to
fire personnel training. Edmonds personnel also currently use the Mukilteo or Shoreline training facilities
when they are not in use.
4B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT
George Murray, Edmonds, commended the union's presentation. He appreciated the fire personnel's
concerns with fighting constant cost concerns. He referred to a fire in Seattle where research found radio
equipment did not communicate between organizations and firefighters' masks did not contain
communication equipment which required them to raise their masks to talk. He noted those issues could
be addressed via regionalization but also could be addressed via careful purchase integration. He pointed
out everyone was having financial difficulties, not just the Fire Department. He concluded although the
Council may not reach the exact conclusion the fire personnel want, it was possible via consolidation or
working together the Fire Department's wishes could be met.
Don Hall, Edmonds, commended the firefighters union for expressing themselves very well. He
suggested how the contract affected Edmonds firefighters and citizens and service levels were the most
important considerations. The training and public education available via Fire District 1 represented
services that Edmonds could not provide. He acknowledged finances were important, but the firefighters'
concerns should be the Council's primary considerations. He relayed that most citizens who visit their
business are excited about a higher quality Fire Department that could provide more services.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he has attended several Fire District 1 Commission meetings. He
posed several questions including whether the Fire District 1 was planning an EMS levy in 2013, the
reduction in employees from 46 to 43, and what happened to non -union fire personnel. He commented
the public education provided by Fire District 1 was free of charge to the public. He expressed support
for consolidation with Fire District 1.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented consolidation with Fire District 1 could be beneficial to Fire District
1 and the citizens of Edmonds if done right. He commented firefighters and police officers were his
heroes. As a taxpayer and voter, he held the Council responsible for conducting due diligence on the
contract offer. He agreed with Council President Wilson that the Council must determine whether the
contract offer penciled out. He posed several questions including 1) why did Lynnwood and Mukilteo
turn down Fire District 1's offer, 2) could Edmonds have a transitional agreement, 3) did the contract
have to begin on January 1, 2001, 4) could the contract be done right versus establishing an artificial
deadline, 5) will the City retain the real estate or not, and 6) will there be a probationary transition period.
He anticipated further negotiation would be necessary to reach an agreement.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the statement by the Fire District 1 Commissioner that the City
could fire them and later clarification that a five year or two year notice was required. He summarized
once the elephant was out of the tent and down the road, it was difficult to return him home without
tremendous cost and a great deal of effort. He commented in Edmonds, union contract negotiations
require the agreement of a conservative Council versus the Fire District Commission who may be more
liberal and consequently result in a contract that was better for firefighters but bad for the City. If Fire
District 1 had higher costs in the future due to annexations, he anticipated the City's costs would increase.
He questioned why Fire District 1 had so much money. He concluded it seemed impractical that the costs
would be lower when Edmonds would gain so many services via the contract with Fire District 1.
Mayor Haakenson asked Fire District to address the question why Lynnwood and Mukilteo were not
interested in a contract for service offer. Commissioner Kenny answered Fire District 1 had been
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 14
involved in annexation disputes with the City of Lynnwood for the past two years and the past year with
Mukilteo, disputes that have been heated at times. Fire District 1 extended this same offer to Mukilteo
and Lynnwood and both rejected it. He assumed the reason was the annexation disputes, an issue Fire
District l did not have with Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson asked whether Lynnwood and Mukilteo would
have considered the contract offer more carefully absent the annexation disputes. Commissioner Kenny
assumed it would have improved the climate.
To the question of why Fire District 1 had so much money and the assertion that the additional services
must cost more, Council President Wilson commented it was his understanding Fire District 1 went to its
voters for a levy often. Commissioner Kenny answered to support its construction program, over the last
number of years Fire District 1 has asked the voters for a levy lid lift for the fire levy one year and the
EMS levy the next year. He commented the levies also illustrate the voters' interest in continuing with
the construction program; if a levy failed, the ability to construct the stations would significantly suffer.
If I -1033 passes, Edmonds may want to go to the voters for a levy lid lift. To date in Fire District 1, the
voters have been very generous.
Council President Wilson commented the organizational leadership in Fire District 1 was very instructive
for the Edmonds Council; going to the voters, making a case and being willing to hear if the answer was
no.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the mechanism Fire District 1 used to negotiate their labor
contracts and whether Commissioners were involved. Commissioner Kenny answered the last three times
the Fire Chief conducted the negotiations. The Commissioners do not directly negotiate but approve the
final Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Councilmember Wambolt commented Fire District 1's revenue was far more stable than Edmonds
because virtually all their income was property tax which did not decrease. The District did not
experience the ups and down of sales tax due to the economy. Commissioner Kenny answered reliance
on property taxes had advantages and disadvantages. He agreed property tax was Fire District 1's
primary source of income. This year they experienced a decrease in their assessed valuation and thus a
decrease in tax revenue. Councilmember Wambolt clarified Fire District 1's property taxes went down
when the assessed value decreased rather than the rate increasing. Councilmember Orvis pointed out Fire
District 1 was rate maximized.
Mayor Haakenson commented while he was hugely supportive of a contract for service with Fire District
1, he did not support being part of a Fire District due to the heavy tax burden on taxpayers.
Commissioner Chan commented under the leadership of Commissioner McMahan on the Finance
Committee, Fire District 1 is very fiscally conservative. With regard to the comments that costs will
increase, he agreed Fire District 1's costs may increase but not as high or as quickly as the City because
Fire District 1's singular focus is fire service.
5. BREAK
Mayor Haakenson declared a recess at 10:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:10 p.m.
7. COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 15
Councilmember Wambolt explained some time ago it was discovered the analysis of the Fire Department
only resulted in the $800,000 /year savings via a contract with Fire District 1. However, when considering
the total financial statements for the City, there were little savings left. It was also discovered that the
revenue figure in the financial statements with the contract September 10, 2009 varied from the
statements dated October 8, 2009. In the September 10 statement, the difference between revenue and
expenses was a $445,000. The loss decreased to $429,000 with the contract, a difference of only $17,000.
In the October 8 statements, the loss was reduced to $225,000.
Interim. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines referred to the October 1.3 spreadsheet which had a bottom line
of $4.638 million. That figure was produced as a result of adding the savings that were assumed would
go away, approximately $350,000. Total savings were estimated at $589,000. In an email to the council
that was also distributed to the public, it was assumed approximately $375,000 of that amount would go
away as a result of contracting with Fire District 1 and $185,000 would be redistributed. The $4.638
million reflects the $350,000 added to the spreadsheet model. In reviewing the spreadsheet model to
verify the figures, he determined the savings of $350,000 was not included. He confirmed this with the
City's former Finance Director.
He also considered the starting numbers for the Fire budget and because the modeling software is the
same software used for the current forecast and is always in flux. As a result the expense for the Fire
Department was understated by approximately $246,000. He added that expense back in to lock the
budget at January 1, 2009. As a result of adding in the additional Fire expense, the forecast without the
Fire District 1 contract of $1.308 million decreases to $1.061. He offered to distribute the documentation
to the Council and the public tomorrow. Using the analysis that was presented last week revenue less
expenses without the contract results in a deficit of $692,000. With the contract, after revenue is
removed, is a deficit of $170,000, a total savings of approximately $522,000.
Councilmember Wambolt noted public comment last week indicated the savings was only $82,000.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the savings were approximately $522,000 and did not include any costs to be
reallocated. Mr. Hines agreed those were costs that would go away; a combination of the additional
expense that needed to be added in for the Fire Department and the $350,000 in expenditures that will go
away if the contract for service with Fire District 1 was accepted.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether Mr. Hines would provide an update on all six scenarios. Mr. Hines
answered there would only be updates to three, without the contract, with the contract, and with the
contract with the revenue removed.
Council President Wilson expressed his appreciation for the work Mr. Hines has been doing to analyze
the numbers. He requested Mr. Hines send the Council updates on all six scenarios, acknowledging three
would not be different.
Councilmember Orvis commented the Council was reaching the end of its information gathering stage
and getting close to making decisions. He suggested by next week the Council narrow the scenarios to
one. He recommended the agenda reflect that the Council would be giving direction regarding the
scenario. Councilmembers Wambolt and Plunkett agreed with Councilmember Orvis' recommendation.
Mayor Haakenson recalled late last week he distributed several options to the Council and posted them on
the City's website. He clarified the scenarios were, 1) do nothing and continue with the Edmonds Fire
Department, 2) Fire District 1 contract as originally proposed, and 3) Fire District 1 contract retaining the
stations, land and transport fees and selling the apparatus. He pointed out the revenue - removed options
were not different options; it was the Council's choice where to put the money.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 16
Council President Wilson assumed there was not a majority on the Council tonight in favor of selling the
fire stations. He pointed out the discussion with Mr. Hines indicated the Council had not yet seen
accurate numbers. Because the numbers will be provided to the Council tomorrow and possibly not to the
public until Friday or prior to next Tuesday's meeting, he suggested giving the public a week to review
them. He noted the Council also only received the updated contract yesterday afternoon. He concluded it
was premature to vote next week, noting a public hearing was scheduled for next week.
Mayor Haakenson explained when he provided the Council another option, (retain the fire stations, land
and transfer fees and sell the apparatus), Chief Tomberg had the Interlocal Agreement rewritten to
incorporate that information. Under that scenario, the contract amount remains at $6.2 million.
Councilmember Plunkett assumed Councilmember Orvis' suggestion was for the Council to identify a
preferred scenario next week, not take a vote. Identifying a preferred scenario would allow the public to
speak to that at the public hearing. He assumed a more formal vote would be taken at the following
meeting, October 27. Councilmember Orvis agreed, noting his intent was to narrow the scenarios.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the new financial information Mr. Hines would be providing
would illustrate an improvement over the current financial statement.
Council President Wilson recommended the Council also consider I -1033. The Council passed a
resolution opposed to I- 1.033; however, recent polls anticipate a 61% success rate. He recalled after I -695
passed, the City moved the library off the City's books entirely which the contract with FDI would not
do. He recommended the Council also consider reverse annexation into Fire District 1. He
acknowledged if the City reverse annexed into Fire District 1, the rate that Edmonds citizens paid for fire
service would increase. He also suggested consideration be given to forming a Fire District with
Woodway which would solve the City's financial problem, maintain the same service levels, not result in
a tax increase and would help address the I -1033 issue.
Councilmember Peterson commented there were always more options to consider but the Council needed
to narrow down the decision. It was his understanding the contract did not preclude a future reverse
annexation if it was mutually agreeable to Fire District 1. Council President Wilson suggested a
transitional agreement like Mountlake Terrace's where Edmonds adopted a 5 -year contract and at the
conclusion of the 5 years, the contract would be terminated and the City either enter into a RFA, reverse
annexation to Fire District 1 or form a new agreement. Councilmember Peterson responded that was a
short term viewpoint; long term stabilization of the City's finances was paramount.
Councilmember Bernheim recalled the impetus for a contract with Fire District 1 was to address the
City's financial problem, not to improve Ere service. He was unlikely to approve any scenario that
increased the cost of fire service regardless of the improvement. He requested an updated summary
document that identifies the cost of providing fire service via the Edmonds Fire Department and the
savings via Fire District 1. His decision would be based in a large part on the difference in cost between
providing fire service via the City's own Fire Department versus via a contract with Fire District 1.
Councilmember Wambolt commented entering into a contract with Fire District I was the right thing to
do regardless of the money. He asked Council President Wilson for further information regarding
forming a Fire District with Woodway. Council President Wilson explained a city cannot create a Fire
District contiguous with its own boundaries; the City would need to include another area such as
Woodway. Forming a Fire District would take all the fire service costs off the Edmonds books which
would result in the savings of $522,000 as well as the $6.2 million cost of the contract. This would allow
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 17
the City to return property tax savings to citizens to assist them with paying the new Fire District
assessment. He summarized it was similar to the Sno -Isle Library annexation.
Councilmember Wambolt recommended the City proceed with a levy in February; I -1033 may be the
impetus for that. Mayor Haakenson advised the ending cash balance statement and the cost savings
sheets would be provided to Council tomorrow as well as posted on the City's website.
Council President Wilson explained a public hearing on the Fire District 1 contract was scheduled for the
October 20 meeting as well as a Council work session. He suggested the scenarios be listed on the
agenda (no contract, original contract, contract selling everything, contract retaining the fire stations and
land and selling the rolling assets) as well as a statement that the Council may provide direction to staff
with regard to the scenarios. Councilmember Peterson suggested how the proceeds from the sale of any
items would be used could be the topic of a future discussion.
Council President Wilson identified the three questions facing the Council, 1) whether to proceed with a
contract for operations, 2) whether to sell some or all of the assets, and 3) what to do with the proceeds of
the sale. He advised the proceeds from any sale would be received in 2010; next year's Council would
provide direction on the use of those funds.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Council give direction at the October 20 meeting regarding a
preferred scenario and then take action on the preferred scenario the following week.
Council President Wilson observed the proposed contract states the contract cannot be terminated for a
period of five years. He suggested Council consider reducing that term to 2 -3 years, particularly if the
assets were not sold. Councilmember Wambolt noted it was actually 7 years due to the 2 year notice.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised he asked the Lynnwood City Council why they were not interested in
Fire District 1's contract offer but none of the Council responded. Next he pointed out Mountlake
Terrace collects the transport fee, not Fire District 1. He advised a contract for service with Fire District 1
was a good way to go in the long term.
George Murray, Edmonds, commented firefighters were interested in consolidating with Fire District 1
as it would provide better training, better pay and other positive conditions. It was his understanding Fire
District 1, Edmonds, as well as other agencies already operate regionally. If the departments already
operate regionally, he suggested contracting with Fire District 1 for the use of their training facility. He
looked forward to staff providing updated annual savings information. He questioned the equivalence of
the Fire District 1 contract and Sno -Isle Library District. Next, he referred to an ad in the Edmonds
Beacon announcing the Port's budget hearings and suggested the City provide better notice of the project
on the waterfront, noting the only people that have been notified were property owners within 300 feet.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with the installation of a turtle, a raised island with curbs
around it, on SR 524 at 9th & Caspers where speeds are 35 -40 mph. His concern was the potential for a
vehicle to strike the curb and lose control. He suggested rather than a turtle installing a double row of
reflectors or striping to create an island. He questioned whether the City had obtained authorization from
WSDOT to install the turtle. He was also concerned with mid -block pedestrian crossing in the center of
the turtle. The turtle also reduces the length of the left turn lane which requires drivers to slow in the
travel lane to enter the turn lane, creating a rear -end accident hazard. He suggested improving crosswalk
safety with flags, blinking lights, pedestrian warning signs, etc. which would not create a traffic hazard.
He requested the Council consider directing staff to remove the turtle.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 18
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Wilson relayed he had been asked why he was surprised last week about the reserve
funds when he had participated on the budget review committee and the levy review committee. After
searching the budget book, he discovered neither the Animal Benefit Fund nor the other reserve funds
were listed in the budget book. He requested Mr. Hines improve the Council's knowledge about such
funds in the future.
Councilmember Plunkett commented he was equally surprised not to find the reserve funds in the budget
book. Although Mr. Hines explained to him why they were not included, he encouraged staff to include
the reserve funds in the next budget book.
Councilmember Peterson thanked Fire District 1 Commissioners and staff, Edmonds Firefighters Local
1828 and Fire District 1 Firefighters Local 1997, and Edmonds citizens for attending tonight's meeting.
He greeted his mom who was in the audience visiting from Albuquerque, New Mexico.
In response to Mr. Murray's comment that Edmonds Firefighters like the Fire District 1 contract because
their pay will be better, Councilmember Wambolt stated it was his understanding the pay was nearly the
same. With regard to Sno -Isle Library, the voters made a decision to annex into the Sno -Isle Library
District. This removed the library from the City's books and created a new tax for Edmonds citizens.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mr. Hertrich's comments about the turtles particularly the one on
Caspers which requires drivers to make an abrupt turn into the turn lane to enter the church. Mayor
Haakenson offered to have staff provide the Council a report.
Councilmember Wambolt announced Snohomish County was mailing voters pamphlets tomorrow, ballots
are being mailed October 15, Election Day is November 3 and election results will be certified on
November 24. Mayor Haakenson reminded the first Council meeting in November would be on Monday,
November 2 due to the election.
Councilmember Orvis reported the Health Board was working with medical providers to sponsor a
Halloween event, a Mask Vaccination. Clinics for HIN1 on October 31. He recommended people work
with their healthcare provider or attend a clinic if they were in the following categories:
• Healthcare worker or first responder
• Pregnant
• Live in a household with someone who is pregnant
• Caregiver of a child under 6 months old
• Children between the ages of 6 months and 24 years
• Teachers and professional childcare providers
• Individuals with certain medical conditions between the age of 25 and 64
Councilmember Orvis advised further information was available at SnoCoFlu.org.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 13, 2009
Page 19