The Pasco City Council voted 5–1 to adopt an 80% ambulance utility fee model, a change staff said will shift more of emergency medical service costs onto utility customers beginning Jan. 1, 2026.

Interim Director Garcia told the council the item reflected two rate‑model options discussed previously — an 80% model and a full 100% cost‑recovery model — and walked through cost‑of‑service and RCW guidance for funding ambulance services. Garcia said the 80% option included recognition of RCW requirements and operational realities while limiting the immediate household impact.

During public comment, Laurie Thompson urged the council to weigh impacts on low‑income and fixed‑income residents, saying the proposed increase "puts Pasco at the top well above the Tri Cities" and that she had calculated the increase would be "over $138 annually per household" for 2026. Thompson asked the council to curtail nonessential spending to reduce the burden on vulnerable households.

Council debate focused on tradeoffs between reducing general‑fund subsidies for EMS and protecting households from steep monthly increases. One councilmember argued the city was subsidizing nearly $3 million and preferred a 100% model to relieve the general fund; another cited the recent rise in 911 calls and said the city should avoid placing the full cost immediately on residents.

Mayor Pro Tem Grimm moved to adopt Ordinance 4805 implementing the 80% ambulance utility fee; the motion passed by roll call (Cata Yes; Hernandez Yes; Perales No; Barajas Yes; Mayor Pro Tem Grimm Yes; Mayor Milne Yes). The ordinance sets the fee to take effect on 01/01/2026 and authorized publication by summary. No amendment was adopted that night.

What happens next: the council action sets the fee schedule the city will apply beginning in 2026; staff indicated the rate model and implementation details will follow through administrative processes and billing updates.

Quotes
"This additional increase ... to be over $138 annually per household," Laurie Thompson told the council, urging sensitivity to fixed‑income residents.

Closing note
Councilmembers indicated continued interest in monitoring service demand and reviewing long‑term revenue strategies; the council did not adopt the full 100% model requested by one member.