Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Ems Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodway resident urges Edmonds to revisit RFA annexation and study alternative fire-EMS arrangements
Summary
A Woodway resident and opponents of the annexation urged Edmonds council to perform more due diligence on fire and EMS service arrangements following an RFA annexation, saying many residents requested study before annexation and presenting a petition.
Bill Krepick, a resident of Woodway, urged the Edmonds City Council during public comment on May 13 to complete due diligence on alternatives to the RFA annexation and to answer residents' questions about the impact on taxpayers.
Krepick said he has pressed the council for months to analyze peer or alternative fire-EMS solutions and that many residents remain unconvinced by prior staff statements that creating an Edmonds-only fire and EMS service would be cost-prohibitive. "My basic request is that you do the proper due diligence on peer, alternative fire EMS solutions," Krepick said.
He told the council he circulated a petition signed by 50 residents and cited an earlier petition of more than 5,000 voters who he said had asked for due diligence before annexation. Krepick also said some council members have not responded to his requests.
Councilmembers acknowledged receiving constituent emails and that some responses have been provided; no council motion or directive resulted from the public comment. The mayor and staff were present during the item and Krepick said his concern was fiscal and regional implications stemming from the recent RFA discussions.
The council did not take action on the matter during the May 13 meeting; Krepick asked the council to publicly state its position and respond to petitioners' requests for analysis.
