Mill Creek council conditions talks with South County Fire on restoring promised 5‑person staffing

Mill Creek, Wash. — At its Aug. 12 meeting, the Mill Creek City Council directed staff to draft a letter to South County Fire asking the district to put restoration of the staffing level promised to Mill Creek voters at the top of any meeting agenda and asked for volunteers to attend a small meeting with district representatives if that condition is met.

The action came after public comment and more than an hour of discussion among council members about the district’s redeployment plan, which council members and residents said reduces staffing at Fire Station 76 from the five‑person crew voters were told would operate there after annexation. The council did not take a formal vote; members provided direction that the mayor and mayor pro tem, plus an additional council volunteer, should work with staff to draft the letter and, if the district agrees to the agenda condition, meet with district representatives.

The issue traces to annexation arrangements approved by Mill Creek voters in 2021. Council members said the city’s Regional Fire Authority (RFA) contract and the voters’ pamphlet promised 24/7 five‑person staffing with at least one paramedic at Station 76. Councilmember remarks and city staff comments during the meeting said the district has since moved medics off Station 76 and into Station 21, changed the mix of personnel and implemented a “predeployment” plan that would reduce Station 76 staffing to three on some shifts.

Resident Tana Skolbejewski urged the council to press the district, calling the change a “bait and switch” and saying the decision harmed Mill Creek’s interests. “It may have made the best decision operationally for the entire fire district. It doesn’t sound like they made the best decision for Mill Creek,” she said during public comment.

Council members who spoke in the discussion said they want restoration of the previous staffing level to be the primary agenda item if the city meets with the district. “If they’re not willing to talk about it, then there’s not gonna be a meeting,” one council member said. Another described the move as a “huge breach of trust” and urged that the city only meet in good faith if the district will consider restoring the prior standard of coverage.

Councilmembers and a local union leader noted operational and standards concerns. Councilmember Paddock said station 76 would be the only station left out of compliance with a national standard cited in the meeting (referred to in the record as NFPA 1710), and Captain Pat Moore of Station 76, speaking separately to council members, expressed alignment with concerns raised by residents and council.

City staff and the mayor said the city attorney believes the district may not have followed the RFA agreement’s required process to change the standard of coverage, which the council said requires a majority vote of the district board before altering coverage tied to annexation. City staff and council reported that the district’s intergovernmental affairs committee invited city representatives to meet; district representatives identified for that committee in the record include Commissioners Ed Wittes, David Chan and Micah Rowland. The district chair, Commissioner Kenny, was not on that committee and earlier voted against annexation, according to council remarks.

Council direction was procedural rather than a binding vote: staff were asked to prepare a letter stating that restoration of five‑person staffing (including one paramedic) is a necessary topic for any discussion. The mayor asked residents to contact the district board directly; he provided web instructions and urged letters or emails to the commissioners’ executive assistant.

Background and next steps: council members said the district presented its rationale to the district board at an Aug. 6 meeting; several council members said they had attended that meeting and were dissatisfied with the presentation because it appeared to justify a decision already made. The council left open the possibility of further action depending on the district’s response to the city’s requested agenda condition.