5 MILLION DOLLARS SAVINGS

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 - MAYOR'S FIRE DISTRICT 1 PRESENTATION


CITY OF EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT
SLIDE #8 TOTAL COST = 9.6 MILLION DOLLARS
SLIDE #9 TOTAL REVENUE = 6 MILLION DOLLARS
SLIDE #10 GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY = 3.6 MILLION DOLLARS


FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT


SLIDE #11 FIRE DISTRICT CONTRACT 2010 = 6.2 MILLION DOLLARS
PLUS NON-DEPARTMENT COSTS $800,000
TOTAL COST = 7 MILLION DOLLARS
SLIDE #13 COMPARSION KEEP EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT
GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY = 3.6 MILLION DOLLARS
CONTRACT WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1
GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY =2.8 MILLION DOLLARS
(THIS CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR SAVINGS IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $800,000 THE FIRST YEAR!)


SLIDE #14 THE FUTURE
IN 2015, FIVE YEARS LATER, THAT NUMBER ESCALATES TO OVER 1 MILLION. AND WILL CONTINUE TO RISE...


Where's the 5 million dollars savings - Mayor?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Listen 35 minutes into the 2/09/10 Edmonds Finance Meeting Minutes

An Interesting Analogy with the recent FD1 sale and the financials.

Let’s all think we are shareholders in a company that has been around for over a century. We are a major manufacture of widgets in Edmonds and have many people employed in the various service levels of this popular and family friendly business.

The Board of Directors is thinking of issuing more bonds to gain money and spend hundreds of hours trying to convince shareholders. Instead the CEO and CFO in April get together with the unions and decide that regionalization and combining services of our beloved team to a larger corporation is the best way.

The Board of Directors becomes engaged and in October, the “latest” executive summary numbers and contract of services are provided with various scenarios of only selling service and/or buildings and with service.

The shareholders are also given a few months to review the details but the information is disjointed and some shareholders question both the executive summary numbers and/or the contract summary of services as they are based on averages rather than outlining actual positions and service levels.

During the process the current CFO decides to go to work for the larger corporation. An interim CFO is hired and is present while the shareholders have their meetings with the Board of Directors. Many complain about the quickness of this important transaction in addition to the numbers. Shareholders that complain are not given any specific answers other than the corporation “stand by their numbers”.

The Board of Directors approves the sale of the widget service team and the sale takes place the beginning of 2010.

In January, the new CFO (formerly interim) provides financial projection to the Board of Directors reflecting a significant “bottom” line loss of close to two million dollars. Additionally the sale of the services is half than what was anticipated.

The Audit Committee questions the CFO and CEO on these projections and basically the CFO states on more than one occasion that the “sales transaction” utilized the former CFO’s numbers. At no time during the Audit Committee meeting did the new (formerly interim) CFO takes responsibility of the largest transaction that ever affected this corporation. The CEO states the deal and outdated numbers have nothing to do with the sale of the services.

The stock plummets and shareholders leave in anger. Certain individuals face violating conflict of interest laws and misleading their shareholders. Furthermore, now the Board of Directors has to go back to the shareholders and try and regain trust to convince them to buy into the bonds.

So, the question becomes, (use your imagination and fill in the blanks as to the characters of this story) why are municipalities different?
March 7, 2010 at 7:15 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Skipper's Property

APRIL 20TH - 7:00PM Edmonds City Council Meeting Agenda Item: 9 Public Comment on possible purchase of Skipper's Property 102 Main St. Agenda Item: 10 Public Comment on Budget Cuts.
Read more