Edmonds

January 2009 - 1 Hearing = expense $3,500.00 (City revenue $1,155.00 fee) February 2009 - 2 Hearing = expense $3,500 (City revenue $4,030.00 fees) March 2009 - 1 Hearing = expense $3,500 (City revenue $1,330.00 fee) April 2009 - 1 Hearing = expense $3,500 (City revenue $1,948.01 fee) May 2009 - 0 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) June 2009 - 3 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue $4,624.00 fees) July 2009 - 0 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) August 2009 - 0 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) September 2009 - 2 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue $2,915.00 fees) October 2009 - 2 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue $1,605.00 fees) November 2009 - 1 Hearing = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) December 2009 - 0 Hearings = expense $3,500 (City revenue ZERO) January 2010 - 0 Hearings (No Work) = expense $3,500.00 (City revenue ZERO) February 2010 - 1 Hearing 1 advisory report = expense $3,500.00 (City revenue $705.00 fee) March 2010 - 2 Hearing

Go figure, what information was provided to the Edmonds City Council prior to accepting and entering into a contract that costs the Edmonds Taxpayers four times the amount the very same firm charges the the City of Everett ($120.00 per hour, not to exceed $10,000 in a calendar year)? On February 20, 2007 via the consent agenda the Edmonds City Council approved a contract for Hearing Examiner services with the law firm Toweill Rice Taylor. This contract calls for a $3,500 per month compensation or $42,000 annual expense. Folks that's $126,000 expense over the 3 year contract compared to $30,000 expense for Everett over the same contract term. No wonder the City financial situation appears dire. In 2009 the Hearing Examiner conducted 11 hearings or $3,818 per hearing. Another way to evaluate the contract $42,000 divided by $120 per hour, 350 hours divided by 11 hearings - 31 hours per hearing and decision. It makes no sense. The City of Edmonds sends Toweill Rice Taylor a check for $

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.

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 numb