City of Pasco staff and FCS Consulting told the City Council workshop that emergency medical services costs are rising and the city must choose how much of those costs to recover from utility customers.

Chief Crowley said the city's fire-based EMS model is efficient but expensive and noted that the ambulance utility exists to "help recover costs for delivering EMS." An FCS analyst presented data showing population growth since the prior study and a large increase in call volume — the consultant cited a roughly 61.5% increase in EMS calls since 2019 — driven in part by behavioral-health and opioid-related responses.

Chase, a senior analyst with FCS, walked council through technical allocations and projections, saying the city's EMS share was about $17.6 million in 2025 and could rise toward $22.5 million by 2030 under the study's assumptions. He described four scenarios for rate recovery: retaining current practice (about 68% of the maximum allowable rate), a current-budget allocation approach, an 80% EMS cost-recovery option (the staff recommendation), and charging the statutory maximum to achieve 100% recovery. Chase said scenario 3 was "the most balanced approach to reduce the impact into the general fund over time and with the goal of having the ambulance utility be self sustaining."

Council members pressed staff on drivers and mitigations. Council member Connolly asked whether the city could reduce the number of calls; Chief Crowley pointed to the city's Pasco Resource Navigator program as a way to divert non-emergent cases from 911. On reimbursement questions, staff said Medicaid/Medicare payments total a little over $2 million and that a separate ground emergency medical transport (GEMT/GMT) amount had been roughly $2.3 million in prior years but was conservatively excluded from the study because that funding is federally mediated and uncertain.

Council member Morales explicitly proposed moving to 100% cost recovery, stating that "we're facing a budget deficit" and arguing that aligning charges with services would help close the gap. Other council members worried about rate shock for residents on fixed incomes and favored the staff-recommended phased approach. A member of the public asked how to verify whether ambulance fees collected by a mobile-home park reached the city; staff invited the resident to follow up for an account-level review.

No final council vote was taken. Staff asked whether to return with both 80% and 100% scenarios for a formal decision; the council asked staff to prepare both options so absent Mayor Milne can participate when present. The study also references city code and state law as the legal basis for forming an ambulance utility and setting rates.