Heated public hearing over planned EMS fee increases as Aberdeen council debates emergency funding

Aberdeen officials presented a detailed cost-of-service review and proposed increases to ambulance and emergency-services utility fees during a public hearing that drew dozens of residents who described both life-saving responses by EMS and severe financial hardship if rates rise.

The presentation, led by the city’s fire/EMS lead, summarized a 2024 FCS Group study and said the EMS fund required significant revenue to avoid relying on a growing general-fund subsidy. The presenter said the city faced roughly a $2.4 million subsidy in 2025 and outlined three rate models — status quo, partial cost recovery and full cost recovery — that would reduce or eliminate the general-fund subsidy. The study’s assumptions included modest population growth, inflation and labor-cost increases, and the presenter noted the city’s EMS revenues are a mix of availability fees (utility), ambulance billing and state GEMT reimbursements.

Why it matters: Council and staff said the increase is intended as an emergency stopgap to prevent depletion of general-fund reserves and possible cuts to services. Opponents called the proposed jump unaffordable for seniors and fixed-income residents, and urged phased or alternative funding such as a levy or targeted discounts.

Residents packed the public-comment period. Tina Jones asked for crosswalks and traffic-calming near Cushing Street and said her repeated requests to a council member went unanswered. Several speakers described being saved by Aberdeen EMS: Cheryl Hancock said, “they saved my life,” and Jim Abaca recounted multiple life‑saving responses and told council, “I implore the city council people…you are responsible for your residents.” Other commenters described the increase as punitive to seniors and landlords: Ron Forney and Lee McClure’s letter called the proposed $33.54 rise “unreasonable,” and multiple commenters said they might be forced to sell homes or leave the city if bills rise.

Data and mechanics: The presenter said the last comprehensive cost-of-service work was completed in 2024 and that availability (fixed) costs, not per-transport demand costs, are the appropriate basis for the utility fee under state law. Using 2024 study numbers, the presenter said EMS’s true cost was substantially higher than the previous allocation and showed scenarios that would move the utility monthly charge toward a full-cost level over a multi‑year rate cycle. The presenter also cautioned that increasing billed transport charges too far could reduce state GEMT reimbursements and that Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements remain a low share of billed fees.

Council debate and votes: Council members split over urgency versus additional study. Some members said delaying a new revenue source risks depleting reserves within a few years and potentially forcing cuts; others urged the council to seek alternatives and to design low-income or disability discounts. A roll call was recorded; the transcript includes a numeric summary of "7 ayes, 3 noes," but an immediately following line in the transcript is ambiguous about whether the resolution passed or failed. The motion before council was recorded as “recommendation that the city council approve the resolution updating the fees and charges for the city ambulance and emergency services utility” (resolution/ordinance number not specified in the transcript).

What wasn’t decided or specified: The transcript does not provide a clear, unambiguous final outcome for the EMS-fee resolution (see provenance). If the council later published official minutes or a clerk’s record, those should be checked for the certified roll call and resolution language. The transcript also does not specify a resolution number or exact effective dates for any rate changes, and it does not record final language for any low-income or disability discount beyond a general staff note that discounts and donation programs exist.

Next steps: Council members repeatedly said the rate structure was intended as a temporary measure and that the city would continue to research mitigation options, contract terms and potential levy or regional funding alternatives. The city also noted the next required cost-of-service study will be due in 2028.

Quotes (representative): “We have this EMS utility here in the city of Aberdeen… the funds collected by the EMS utility…can only be used for EMS related expenses,” the presenter said. “They saved my life,” said Cheryl Hancock, describing a response by Aberdeen EMS. “We’re not trying to hurt anybody,” one council member said of the proposed plan but added it was necessary to avoid fiscal insolvency.

Ending: The public hearing and council debate underscored sharp tensions between affordability for vulnerable residents and the city’s stated need to shore up EMS funding. The transcript records the roll call and a numerical tally but contains unclear wording about the final disposition; readers should consult the city’s official minutes or the clerk for the certified vote and the exact resolution text.