Snohomish County Fire District 1 officials paid a visit to the Edmonds City Council chambers Tuesday night, and they heard from Edmonds City Councilmembers who are unhappy with what they said was a lack of communication from the Fire District prior to receiving an unexpectedly large bill for two years’ worth of retroactive back pay.
Early on in the Edmonds council’s work session presentation, both Fire District Chief Ed Widdis and District 1 Commission Chair David Chan suggested that recent turnover in the number of city finance directors contributed to a breakdown in communication between City of Edmonds and Fire District officials.
That suggestion led to strong words from Edmonds City Council President Diane Buckshnis regarding the news that the city owes the fire district $1.67 million for retroactive pay raises to its union firefighters, a number significantly higher than what the city expected.
“You know I am shocked by the numbers obviously,” Buckshnis said, “but I’m miffed that you’re indicating that it’s this issue with the finance directors.” The Council president cited a section of the city’s 2009 contract with Fire District 1 that calls for the Fire District officials to meet quarterly with the mayor and two city councilmembers, something that hasn’t happened, she said.
“We have an annual budgetary process and surprises are not helpful,” added Councilmember Kristiana Johnson. “So it’s good to have communication.”
Mayor Dave Earling told the council that he met with Widdis and Chan last Friday, and “we agreed to have further discussions on certain issues that are of concern.” It was also agreed that the timing of increases and how they were communicated to all three cities that contract for fire services — Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace and Brier — “was handled poorly by Fire District 1,” Earling said.
Edmonds has requested “additional pieces of information” from Fire District 1 related to the billing, “which I’m sure that we will eventually receive,” Earling said, but he cautioned councilmembers about discussing too much publicly about the issue, which had been addressed in executive session prior to the meeting.
“We know that there is going to be ongoing conversations and we can seek adjustments and we’ll do that,” Earling said. “I just want to be cautious about drilling down.. so we can have those conversations discreetly.”
Buckshnis warned that the council “will need address some of the issues that we may see in the contract that was written in 2009” and that could include making changes “based on our attorney’s recommendations and the council’s deliberations.”
The council will be considering whether the city wants to continue its current services with Fire District 1, modify those services or pursue other options. The city signed a 20-year agreement that prohibited any changes by either party for the first five years, and that five-year window ends Dec. 31, 2014. From that time on, through the duration of the contract, the city or the Fire District could make changes as long as they provide two years’ notice to the other party.
While recapping the Fire District 1 contract amount, Widdis noted that the Fire District, with its 12 stations and a large number of employees who can been deployed efficiently districtwide when needed, has been able to provide a broad range of services, from specialized equipment to community outreach and education.
City Finance Director Scott James said he is recommending that the city tap its contingency reserve fund to pay the Fire District 1 bill, once the final amount is determined.
In other action, the council agreed to move several items to the Oct. 21 council meeting’s consent agenda, including:
– Final acceptance of the 2013 Waterline Replacement and Lift Station Rehabilitation Projects.
– Approval of the Municipal Court Judge job description and confirmation of position salary and benefits.
– A contract for $128,600 with BergerABAM Inc. to provide design services for rehabilitation of the Edmonds Fishing Pier. The pier, which is owned by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife but maintained by the city, has “fatigue cracks and other things,” said Public Works Director Phil Williams. “Just generally it’s getting old and needs to be rehabilitated.”
The council also heard:
– A presentation from Economic Development and Community Services Director Patrick Doherty regarding the city’s proposed Social Media Policy. Councilmembers decided to have a full discussion of the policy and its implications at a future meeting.
– A report from Development Services Director Shane Hope about the Sustainability Element of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update.
– A report from Scott James on the mayor’s 2015 budget. A public hearing on the budget is set for next Tuesday, Oct. 21, and the city’s department directors will make presentations on their respective budgets during both the Oct. 21 and Oct. 28 council meetings. Another public hearing will be held Nov. 3, with final budget adoption currently scheduled for Nov. 18.
Last night, the City Council convened in Executive Session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). During the subsequent open meeting Mayor Earling cautioned City Council Members about discussing too much publicly about the FD1 issue, which had been discussed in executive session prior to the work session.
Following is RCW 42.30.110(1)(i):
(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.
This subsection (1)(i) does not permit a governing body to hold an executive session solely because an attorney representing the agency is present. For purposes of this subsection (1)(i), “potential litigation” means matters protected by RPC 1.6 or RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) concerning:
(i) Litigation that has been specifically threatened to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party;
(ii) Litigation that the agency reasonably believes may be commenced by or against the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity; or
(iii) Litigation or legal risks of a proposed action or current practice that the agency has identified when public discussion of the litigation or legal risks is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency;
Are we to conclude that litigation has been specifically threatened or the City has decided that litigation is possible, so it needs to discuss the issues related to the $1.67 million bill and possible adjustments to the bill in private?
I believe that the City uses the “reasonable BELIEF that litigation may be commenced” excuse far too often to justify Executive Sessions. The frequency of Executive Sessions recently is alarming. I wish the City would conduct far more of its business in open Council Session.
I had hoped the reasons the FD1 bill far exceeded our budget would be discussed in detail last night.
Ken, I totally agree with you. This council seems to have an executive session before every meeting. I have yet to hear them announce the results after the issues have been resolved. What has happened to the I am for open gov. we hear from individual council members
Don – I appreciate your support of Open Government.
A review of City Council Meeting minutes between June 23, 2009 and September 15, 2009 indicates that no Executive Sessions of the City Council were held during that nearly three month long time period.
Try and imagine that today! Currently, it is not unusual for the Council to have Executive Sessions both at the start and at the end of Council Meetings.
Regarding communication…..hopefully somebody from the City will publicly disclose whether or not all of the following has been taking place:
1. Provision of a quarterly report to the Mayor by the District Fire Chief.
2. Meetings at least once a calendar year on or before April 1 between two District Board Commissioner members, two City Council members, the District Fire Chief and the Mayor for the purpose of communicating about issues related to this Agreement.
3. Presentation of a joint annual report by the District Fire Chief and the Mayor to the Edmonds City Council prior to July 31.
I would hope that the Mayor would have benefited from knowledge gleaned while he worked with the District Fire Chief to prepare the joint annual report required prior to July 31st. It looks like this interlocal agreement was set up so the Mayor and District Fire Chief would communicate at least once a quarter.
Here is the actual Section 8.1 from the Interlocal Agreement:
8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor and/or their designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for purposes of RCW 39.34.030. During the term of this Agreement, the District Fire Chief shall provide the Mayor with quarterly reports concerning the provision of services under this Agreement. The format and topics of the reports shall be agreed upon by the District Fire Chief and the Mayor. Additionally, two District Board Commissioner members and two City Council members, along with the District Fire Chief and the Mayor, shall meet at least once per calendar year, on or before April 1, for the purpose of communicating about issues related to this Agreement. The District Fire Chief and the Mayor shall present a joint annual report to the Edmonds City Council prior to July 31.
It was stated at this meeting by FD1 Commission Chair Chen that they’ve had to deal with seven different Edmonds Finance Directors. A councilmember later said that there were actually only three Finance Directors. The facts are that FD1 did have to deal with seven different directors if the contract negotiating period is included. Since the effective date of the contract, at the start of 2010, the city has had four different directors and two acting directors.
The District Fire Chief and the Mayor (and/or their designees) are supposed to be in contact at least once a quarter. In addition, they are required to present a JOINT report to the Edmonds City Council every year prior to July 31st.
One thing I find alarming is that the City expected the retroactive bill to be much smaller….especially when the two entities are supposed to be in regular contact, at least once a quarter.
Where has are council and attorney beeen
Don…..from the City’s side of things, oversight and administration of the agreement falls on the shoulders of Mayor Earling and Staff. The City Council is the legislative body and they are not the ones responsible for this.
Section 8 of the Interlocal Agreement is titled: Oversight and Reporting
Section 8.1 from the Interlocal Agreement start as follows:
8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor and/or their designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for purposes of RCW 39.34.030.
RCW 39.34.030 is titled as follows:
Joint powers — Agreements for joint or cooperative action, requisites, effect on responsibilities of component agencies — Financing of joint projects.
I think administration of the interlocal agreement is supposed to be a JOINT effort between the District Fire Chief and the Mayor.
You are correct, but city council should be providing oversight and take corrective action when appropriate.
Good point Ron.
I think the City Council’s oversight would be assisted by the presentation of a JOINT annual report by the District Fire Chief and the Mayor to the Edmonds City Council prior to July 31st each year.
I am trying to find evidence that this joint presentation has been done.
This is different than the annual meeting between the Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District #1 Commissioners prior to April 1 of each calendar year.
On September 16, 2014, Mayor Dave Earling issued a Press Release announcing that the City of Edmonds had received word from Fire District 1 leadership that we owe $1.67 million in retroactive payments for represented employee pay raises accruing from 2013 and 2014. As it turned out, the 2013 amount invoiced was $786,300 and the 2014 amount invoiced was $881,392, for a total of $1,667,692.
I want to discuss the 2013 amount of $786,300 only for a moment.
The amount invoiced for 2013 of $786,300 must relate to more than just pay raises accruing from 2013. The $786,300 equals 12.64% of the amount actually paid in 2012. For comparison purposes, Social Security COLA was 1.7% at January, 2013. That is a little bit less than 12.64%!
Does that large 12.64% increase of $786,300 have some relationship to 2012 and possibly even 2011? Does that large increase relate to back bills for overtime costs and related benefits? Does that $786,300 relate partially to indirect costs such as apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement Schedule – City Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D?
I think many citizens were under the impression that Fire Chief Ed Widdis would explain the billing process the district went through during the October 14th council meeting.
Instead, the bill was apparently discussed in Executive Sesssion under the “potential litigation” umbrella. When Council President Buckshnis started to ask detailed questions in open session, Mayor Earling interjected and asked council to be “cautious about drilling down into what conversations should or have taken place, so that we can have those conversations discreetly.”
Why the need to have the conversations discreetly?
Why should any citizen have to wonder about the details behind the large invoice?
The huge increase of $786,300 will not just impact the City’s expenses for 2013. To the contrary, it established a higher payment BASE which will impact all future raises under the contract with FD1.
Other questions I have relate to Section 4.4 of the Interlocal Agreement that discusses what happens when the contract adjustment date is not met. It states the following:
“If the labor agreement between the District and IAFF Local 1997 has not been finalized by December 31 of the year prior to the upcoming contract for service year, the District Station Personnel costs and the District Indirect Costs will be adjusted upon execution of the labor agreement but will be retroactive to January 1 and paid by the City within 30 days of execution of the labor agreement.”
Question 1 – Why does our invoice from Fire District 1 refer to settlement of labor contract with Local 1828 instead of IAFF Local 1997?
Question 2 – Does this provision in the agreement allow for an adjustment retroactive to the PRIOR January 1st?
Question 3 – When was the labor agreement between the District and IAFF Local 1997 executed?
Question 4 – Was the City invoiced timely so it could pay the retroactive adjustment within 30 days of execution of the labor agreement?
Question 5 – What happens if the City does not pay the retroactive adjustment within 30 days of execution of the labor agreement?
What I would like to know is:Over the past 3 years did Mayor Earling provide input on the format and topics of the required quarterly reports from Fire Chief Widdis. Where are the quarterly reports Mayor Earling? What input did you have on the those reports?
But like Mr. Reidy I don’t expect a response from the Mayor Earling. He is too busy going to Community Transit and Sound Transit Meetings to answer citizens questions.
This FD1 stuff is obviously important, and in the works. If there is anybody who thinks they can do a better job with management of this type of thing, then I’ll expect to see their name for office of mayor on the ticket soon. Let’s see what you’ve got.
I don’t recall that when the Mayor was running, he mentioned not carrying out his responsibilities related to major contracts held by the City which predates his election. He and all the other candidates ran on an “I can do better platform”. They always do. The screw up is major. The public has a right to know what is going on ( Fire Protection and Police protection pretty darn basic functions of City governments).
Taking it “behind closed doors” is not transparency.
When Mayor Earling decided to run, he likely knew the Interlocal Agreement with FD1 was in place. In seconds, he could have searched the document for “Mayor” and found out what his related responsibilities are.
The word “Mayor” is only mentioned 8 times in the entire document.
In addition to the Agreement Administrator responsibilities documented in section 8.1, he only has two other specific responsibilities, as follows:
– The District shall represent the City on intergovernmental boards or on matters involving the provision of services under this Agreement as reasonably requested by the Mayor.
– In the event that response times should consistently exceed the current level of City services, the District Fire Chief and City Mayor, or their designees, shall meet and confer to address the cause and potential remedies.
During the presentation regarding Fire District 1 on Tuesday night, Mayor Earling made a comment that “we” had an Executive Session before this meeting…..
The Executive Session on Tuesday night was entered into under the premise that there was potential litigation.
Why couldn’t there just have been an open and transparent disclosure of the details of FD1’s invoice?
For example, I believe citizens have a right to know how the 2013 invoice amount of $786,300 was calculated. The $786,300 amount equals 12.64% of the amount actually paid in 2012.
I understand that Teresa has requested the backup detail for the invoice from FD1.
Thanks to Teresa for her willingness to attempt to do so. However, this is not Teresa’s responsibility nor the responsibility of any citizen. I believe this responsibility falls directly on the shoulders of Mayor Dave Earling and the District Fire Chief – the two parties with JOINT responsibility for administration of the city’s interlocal agreement with Fire District 1.
It would have been nice and open and transparent had this information been provided for all to see long ago….promptly after the execution of the related labor agreement. I believe the labor agreement was executed in early May.
Remember – the District Station Personnel costs and the District Indirect Costs are to be adjusted upon execution of the labor agreement. Why haven’t the details of those adjustments been provided to all?
Following is more information on the Indirect Costs:
Annual Indirect Operating Cost Adjustments. The District shall adjust the Contract Payment costs consisting of Indirect Operating Costs determined by the following:
– Overhead which shall be 10 percent of the cost of the City Station Personnel cost;
– Station equipment/maintenance/operation, which shall be 10 percent of the City Station Personnel cost;
– Fire Marshal allocation at 75 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position, and Fire Inspector at 100 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position (See Exhibit A); and
– Apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement Schedule – City Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D.
The District Indirect Costs identified in Exhibit C shall then be adjusted based upon the specified percentage of the increased cost of City Station Personnel. The total of the City Station Personnel cost and the Indirect Costs shall be the Contract Payment for the ensuing year.
Exhibit C is titled Cost of Service Model. It looks to be a very important document and it includes columns for Esperance, Woodway and Edmonds. Woodway?
Exhibit D discloses Total Edmonds Apparatus Replacement Costs between 2010 – 2028 of $6,517,415. $1,188,417 is in the 2013 column.
It looks like we agreed to be responsible for apparatus replacement costs even though we sold the equipment. The related replacements costs look to be spread out over the life of contract. I am not sure what happens if contract is terminated early. I also have no idea how Woodway’s portion of the apparatus replacement costs are being paid for since Woodway went a different direction for their fire service.
In my OPINION, FD1 cannot require the City of Edmonds to pay a bill for 2013 retroactive to January 1, 2013.
Per section 4.4 of the Interlocal Agreement, if the labor agreement between the District and IAFF Local 1997 had not been finalized by December 31, 2012, the District Station Personnel costs and the District Indirect Costs could be adjusted upon execution of the labor agreement and made retroactive to January 1, 2013. The City would have had to pay within 30 days of execution of the related labor agreement.
However, per section 4.2 of the Interlocal Agreement, the Contract Payment had to be adjusted each year no later than September 1.
I would imagine that FD1 and IAFF Local 1997 had a responsibility to know about this September 1 date.
This was not done by September 1, 2013 and I really don’t think they can go all the way back to January 1, 2013 at this point in time. Just my opinion – but the word “shall” is not ambiguous. The words “no later than September 1” are not ambiguous either:
4.2 Contract Payment Adjustment. The Contract Payment shall be adjusted each year no later than September 1.