Fire District One Contract

Now that the City of Edmonds January 25, 2010 financial forecast completely discloses the myth of any savings for contracting with Fire District One for fire/emergency medical services, the city council should re-evaluate the proposal.

The questions are: Was the city administration's financial analysis of the proposal accurate? Is Fire District One providing fire/emergency services for the actual cost of service or is the fire district making a profit?

The Council has a fiduciary responsibility in light of the new financial numbers demonstrating "no savings" to answer these two questions.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have brought this issue up as has other individuals, but the responses given have been the deal is done, sorry.

This is not the private sector, it is hard to point the fingers at anyone even though the finance meeting tape clearly identifies who was responsible for the numbers (former Finance Director).

So, maybe you should contact 60 minutes or KING 5 news to help investigate.
March 28, 2010 at 10:44 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