Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Department Aidcars Recruiting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fire Department seeks extra aid car(s), bigger recruit class; council questions 'Ready Rebound' return‑to‑work idea
Summary
Central Staff told the Select Budget Committee the Seattle Fire Department’s 2026 proposed budget increases about 2.3% and includes recruit-class expansion, Health 99 overdose-response increases and new data/recruitment FTEs. Staff presented options to add aid cars — a 24/7 aid car (~$2.3M) or a 12‑hour peak car (~$912K) — and raised questions
At the Oct. 17 Select Budget Committee session Central Staff briefed members on the Seattle Fire Department’s 2026 proposed budget, including options to add aid cars, expand recruit classes and a council-level review of a third‑party ‘Ready Rebound’ service for firefighter injuries and return-to-work coordination.
Central Staff said the SFD 2026 proposed budget increases by about $8 million (roughly 2.3%) compared with the 2026 endorsed budget and that $5.5 million of that increase is driven by policy proposals not previously included. Karina Boll and Greg Doss presented the packet and identified two primary policy considerations: whether to add aid-car capacity and how to address firefighter injuries and long-duration workers’ compensation claims.
Recruiting, training and specific adds: SFD proposes a $2.1 million one-time add funded by the public-safety sales tax to expand its recruit academy from 80 to 100 recruits. Central Staff noted each recruit cohort has an approximate per-recruit full cost near $100,000 (roughly half salaries, half instructor/training costs). The department is also requesting funding for three civilian data and recruitment FTEs, and a $1.2 million expansion of the Health One/Health 99 post‑overdose response to increase coverage from five to seven days (adds include a contract nurse and two vehicles; human services would add two case managers).
Aid cars: Central Staff identified rapidly rising medical-call demand for aid cars and offered two options. SFD runs seven aid cars in its system; Central Staff showed the average calls-per-aid-car rose from about 3,800 in 2020 to roughly 5,300 in 2024 — above both department and Washington Rating Bureau guidance of ~2,500 alarms per unit per year. Central Staff said that because of current staffing constraints (overtime is already stretched) the department could not immediately staff a new 24/7 aid car without overtime, but could add one midyear after recruit graduations.
Options that Central Staff offered to the committee: - Option A: Add one full 24/7 aid car (first-year cost including overtime ramp-up ~$2.3M; ongoing FTE costs align with recruit graduation and would grow into subsequent years). - Option B: Add a 12‑hour peak-time aid car (first-year cost ~$912,000, staffed initially with overtime at midyear).
Council members noted localized high-utilizer sites and overdose clusters as drivers of medical-call demand for aid cars. Council President Nelson referenced audit work identifying addresses and facilities with high overdose and call concentrations and said addressing those high-utilizer locations is part of the broader solution.
Ready Rebound and workers’ compensation: Central Staff summarized a mayoral-office and SFD conversation about Ready Rebound, a private “concierge” third-party service that helps injured public-safety employees schedule appointments and access care. Central Staff cautioned that Ready Rebound focuses primarily on musculoskeletal conditions and that SFD’s highest-cost, long-duration claims tend to involve post‑traumatic stress disorder, cardiac issues and other complex conditions. Central Staff noted administrative and legal risks: SDHR (Seattle Department of Human Resources) legally administers the city’s workers’ compensation system and third-party contracts for employee advocacy or concierge services are unusual; contract structure and L&I rules would require careful review. Central Staff recommended confidential briefings on legal and bargaining impacts before any procurement decision and offered options including adding ~$400,000 to SDHR for a pilot contract (subject to bargaining and legal review), commissioning a statement of legislative intent for a joint SDHR–SFD plan, adding a workers’ compensation analyst to SDHR, or taking no change.
No formal decisions: The committee did not vote; council members asked for follow-ups on operational deployment, costs and legal/risk analysis for third-party return-to-work options. Central Staff committed to provide further detail on aid‑car cost timing, recruit impact on vacancies, and SDHR capacity questions.
