The question for the Aberdeen City Council is how to vote on the issue of the city’s emergency medical services utility cost, which would help the city decrease its general fund deficit, but at the same time hurt its residents’ wallets as prices of consumer items and other bills continue to increase.

The current monthly cost Aberdeen residents pay is $28. Each of the three options the city can choose at this point involves an increase. The first two options involve a much bigger financial hit for residents, but they’ll help save the city. The three options are backed up by an EMS Cost of Service study for which the city paid $38,000. City officials maintain the study was all about the facts, what can be backed by evidence and nothing else.

There hasn’t been a vote for or against the issue yet. If the issue does get approved via council vote, perhaps at the next meeting on June 12 when it will be discussed again, and a change is made, then it would go into effect Aug. 1.

Here are the options:

Option 1: Full Cost Recovery

Increase of nearly $31, putting the cost in 2024 at $59. The cost would increase by nearly $5 in 2025. And the costs would raise a few dollars each year through 2028. In 2028, the cost would be $72 per month.

With this plan, there would be no general fund subsidy, which would result in the city saving $2.1 million

This would shift allocation of eligible expenses to the EMS fund by decreasing the general fund portion of these expenses

Allows for most flexibility for the fire department’s internal budgeting

Option 2: Partial Cost Recovery

Increase of more than $17, putting the cost in 2024 at $45. The cost in 2025 would increase a little more than $2, before raising a couple more dollars each year through 2028. In 2028, the cost would be $54 per month.

With this plan, the general fund subsidy would be $1.9 million, which would result in the city saving $920,000.

This plan would offer a “moderate” level of savings to the general fund

The plan would also maintain the current allocation rate

Option 3: Status Quo

The monthly rate would increase by nearly $4 to $32 in 2024. In 2025, the rate would increase to $34. The costs would increase a couple dollars each year through 2028. In 2028, the cost would increase to $41.

With this plan, it would lead to the highest general fund subsidy of $2.1 million. That would net no savings for the general fund

This plan would shift allocation of eligible expenses to a higher rate for the general fund portion, which would “increase pressure and reliance” on the general fund

This plan would decrease flexibility for the fire department’s internal budgeting

Aberdeen Mayor Doug Orr wants more discussion on this in the form of a subcommittee.

“I was thinking maybe we could have a committee of council members,” Orr said. “Each Ward would select their council person they want to be in charge of that committee. And then you guys meet and come back with a recommendation to the council. It wouldn’t be me selecting a committee. It would be each Ward putting their person forward who they’d like to represent their Ward.”

Kacey Ann Morrison, city council president, pointed out how the city council has already been presented with three options. She shared what she wants.

“I don’t know why we can’t just vote on Option 3,” Morrison said. “My position remains the same. With all due respect to Mr. (Les) Bolton, I really appreciate (him) getting up and speaking (his) piece.”

She was referring to when he spoke earlier in the meeting about how the $17 first year increase that Option 2 provides would mean about a $4 increase per week. Bolton had estimated that $4 was the cost of a cup of coffee at a shop and how most residents can afford that if they cut out that, or a similar, added expense. Morrison didn’t agree with Bolton’s argument.

“Have you talked to the seniors I’ve talked to the last couple of weeks, who are scared to death about $4 a week (increase)?” Morrison said. “I don’t think you should be so flippant about it. They really are scared. $4 is a lot to come up with when your Social Security isn’t going up and every other bill is. So my position remains the same. We were presented with three options. The council voted down Option 2. I would like the opportunity to vote on Option 3.”

Morrison then made a motion to vote on Option 3. Councilor Riley Carter seconded her motion. Carter, who was against having residents spend more money, later described his situation of being a father of six children, being a skilled and experienced tradesman, how he’s looking for work and how he isn’t the only one. His point was it’s “silly” to have residents spend more for this issue.

Councilor Liz Ellis disagreed with Morrison’s motion.

“I think in the same way households are concerned about their expenses going up by whatever amount it may be, I am just as terrified about our city having a budget that’s built on money that’s not there,” Ellis said. “We’re currently running a $3 million deficit. To go ahead with Option 3, which is essentially carrying on as the status quo, doesn’t help us address our deficit at all. We know that either way, whatever option, the city is going to have to make some cuts.”

Ellis said she “liked” the idea Orr presented about a subcommittee. She also said she likes the idea of a conservative approach.

“I recognize we are going to have to look across departments,” Ellis said. “We’re going to look hard at where we can make more effective decisions, efficient decisions in our budgeting. And I know that our city administrator and our finance consultant have been giving this some thought. But that would really benefit from having council weigh in on what that’s going to look like. To say ‘OK, public, we’re going to have to make some cuts’ doesn’t mean a whole lot. But, for us to have cuts identified so that people know ‘OK, we go this route, here’s the real cost of services and doing business.’ I think that’s a whole lot more meaningful and I would urge my council members to take up the mayor on his recommendation that we have a subcommittee and figure this out.”

Councilor Debi Pieraccini had an outside the box idea.

“Why couldn’t we take Option 2 and just reduce the amount a little bit?” Pieraccini said, with Orr adding it’s something a subcommittee could do. “Instead of going to No. 3 or No. 2, compromising between the two.”

Aberdeen Fire Chief Dave Golding weighed in on Pieraccini’s idea.

“That is an option the council can do, is find a fourth option if you will,” Golding said. “… We (can) send that back to the consultants to see how that plays with the structured use of the reserves and EMS that we have established, which is fine. I just want to give a warning of we are kind of at the limit of what we hired the consultants to do. So this is gonna cost us yet more money coming up with another option, because we are again, like I said, at the end of their contract with us, (as far as) both time and costs.”

Becca Weiss, deputy city clerk, read the motion, which was to bring forward a resolution at the next meeting to present Option 3, to revisit it. The city council did not have a resolution at Wednesday’s meeting to vote for or against Option 3.

The vote to bring forward the resolution passed 6-4, with councilors Carter, Morrison, David Gakin, Deb Hodgkin, David Lawrence and John Maki all voting yes. Councilors Ellis, Sydney Newbill, Pieraccini and Scott Prato all voted no.

Contact Reporter Matthew N. Wells at matthew.wells@thedailyworld.com.