More Money More Better! LESS SERVICE? WHO CARES!

This is DJ Wilson's mantra.

Last night, the Edmonds City Council met with Fire District 1 Commissioners to discuss the proposed Fire Service Contract and sale of the Edmonds Fire Department.

There were two issues that struck me in their discussion:

1.) The Edmonds City Council is not concerned about the Level of Service Fire District 1 will provide the Edmonds taxpayers.

2.) Edmonds City Council President DJ Wilson said the District has 27 Million in unrestricted and unreserved tax dollars, while the city has a 7 Million deficit.

On the Level of Service subject, State law requires all public providers of Fire and Emergency Services to set measurable performance standards and goals. RCW 35.103 and 52.33, City and Towns and Fire Districts. As I heard several councilmembers publicly state their lack of concern about the level of service the District would provide, I wondered If they knew about these required reports. I don't think so! The Mayor has provided very little information about the Fire District 1 operation for council evaluation. There has been a total lack of due diligence. Today I received a copy of the Fire District 1, 2008 RCW 52.33 Performance and Compliance Report. My conclusion, the Edmonds Fire Department provides a much higher standard of service and meets the goals more often than the Fire District.

On the issue of money, when I heard Fire District 1 had 27 Million in unrestricted and unreserved funds, only one thought came to my mind, the District is overcharging the Fire District taxpayers.

What do you think?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Can you please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that the Edmonds city fire Department provides a better service than Snohomish County fire District 1? Fire District 1 has over 100 full-time employees they provide dedicated paramedic services, hazardous materials response, technical rescue response, and has a full complement of administrative personnel that are constantly maintaining and improving the fire district. I'm curious in what areas the Edmonds fire Department outperforms Snohomish County fire District 1. On a side note, I believe that Edmonds and fire District 1 are doing what the rest of Snohomish County fire Departments should be accomplishing by consolidating services therefore reducing overhead costs improving services and ultimately creating a bigger better single department for all of Snohomish County. It is my hope that in the future all Snohomish County city and districts will combine services to create one large Snohomish County Fire Department. This will be the ultimate savings for taxpayers of Snohomish County. Your thoughts?
October 26, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EMAIL TO COUNCIL PRESIDENT

Dear D.J., If you get a chance, I would appreciate your sharing the attached PowerPoint with the Citizens Committee. This information provides evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the City of Edmonds has been providing Fire and Emergency Medical Services for less than the cost of service to the unincorporated Esperance and Fire District No. 1. I'm hoping the group will truly look to Budget before focusing on just the taxpayer's pocketbook. The question I ask you; Is the newly created EMS Transport fee required for the subsidization of the two interlocal agreements with Esperance and Woodway ? The council, mayor and staff have not done proper due diligence of the current and passed city financial decisions to start requesting more and new taxes from the citizens. Fire District No. 1 collects tax revenue 1 million City of Edmonds charges 300,000 for service. City of Edmonds makes annual payment for Station No. 10 to Fire District No. 1 65,000. City of Ed
Read more

Lighthouse Law Group's inferior legal representation

 Email to Jeff Taraday  PROVIDED FOR THE RECORD:   In Washington State there can be only one open public hearing.   The Hearing Examiner had 10 working days to make a decision. Any extension of that time requirement requires agreement from the applicant and the parties. Uniquely, the Edmonds City Code requires agreement from all parties. I testified at the hearing and was not asked to participate in this extension or provide any further testimony. In fact, my participation has been excluded because of the one open meeting. If there have been communications between the Hearing Examiner and the Applicant those communication would  be ex parte and needed to be provided to me.    Mr. Clugston testified that traditionally the Planning Staff posts the Agenda and Staff report at the Civic Center and Library. Then he stated that ECC 1.03.09 didn’t apply that was for City Council hearings. He stated the Agenda was posted on the City’s website 7 or 6 days prior to hearing. The City C
Read more

The Edmonds City Council Again Violates the Open Public Meetings Act.

Edmonds City Council First Executive Session of May 26th 2020 The City Council may meet in executive (closed) session but only for one of the reasons specified in and in accordance with procedures identified in RCW 42.30.110. A personnel matter including a separation agreement is not specifically identified in RCW 42.30.110(1) and therefore is not a legally sufficient reason to meet in closed executive session. The Council discussed the Finance Director Scott James, Separation Agreement in the closed executive session under the guise of potential litigation. When in fact, any potential litigation ceased to exist on May 25 th , 2020, and the seven days from the date Mr. James signed the Separation Agreement, May 18 th , 2020, thus waiving all of his rights to pursue any civil action against the City of Edmonds. On May 26 th , 2020 during agenda item (4) Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas moved to add an Executive Session regarding “potential litigation” per RCW 42.30.1
Read more