City Moving Ahead On Single Ambulance Provider For Everett


The Everett Fire Department would prefer to deal with one ambulance company instead of four.

Decades ago Baker Ambulance was the single ambulance provider for basic medical calls within the Everett city limits. At some point that changed and the city opened up transport opportunities to multiple ambulance companies.

Currently four different ambulance companies serve Everett on a rotating basis. That has led to issues where even though an ambulance may be parked next to an incident, that ambulance company isn’t at the top of the rotation so a person had to wait for an ambulance to come all across town or even south of the city.

There have also been times that even with four companies serving Everett, there were no ambulances available as they were all tied up in other jurisdictions. That has led to waits of as long as 45 minutes for an ambulance.

Back in December of last year the Everett Fire Department brought forth a request for proposals for a single ambulance provider to the city council for consideration. Tim Key, with the Everett Fire Department, provided the rationale for a single provider to

In December the city council declined the request and sent it back to the public safety committee for further review. On March 2nd the fire department presented changes to the request for proposals including how to evaluate which company to go with and termination wording if the city decides to change the way it provides transports for basic life support.

The city council is expected to approve the Request For Proposal at its meeting this Wednesday night. You can see the entire revised proposal here.

About myeverettnews

My Everett News is a hyperlocal news website featuring breaking news and events in Everett, WA. We also cover City of Everett information and items of interest to those who live and work in Everett. It's written by Leland Dart a former Snohomish County based radio reporter born and raised in Everett.

View all posts by myeverettnews

2 Responses to “City Moving Ahead On Single Ambulance Provider For Everett”

  1. SWH Says:


    Reading through the revised proposal, I see they included a ‘city convenience’ contract termination clause I guess to handle the issue with the IAFF proposal that the council might adopt.

    The ‘liquidated damages’ for per call ‘non-conformance’ are pretty steep. And really gives the incentive to the department to play ‘gotcha’ for more money than the $13000 per month income.

    Actually, I would like to see the department meet the performance objectives that they are requiring of the ambulance provider. If the department had to pay for the same consequences, there would be a bit of money going back to the general fund.

  2. SWH Says:

    I am an avid listener to the scanner and even more important, someone who is all over the south end of Everett on foot and in vehicle.

    I’ve not ever heard of a 45 minute wait for a AMB happening. Not to say that it couldn’t. Rather, to use that as a justification is perhaps stretching credibility a LOT.

    If anything, we have at least 2 units hanging around south Everett with a third on a call. You can see them in the Big Lots parking lot, the former/future Safeway parking lot and the old Kmart parking lot.

    There was a period of time around December that on every BLS and ALS call, the responding unit would automatically request AMB dispatch. And in quite a number of cases, would cancel the dispatch at the last second. The FD was tying up the resources that the FD says aren’t there. Figure it out. With 4 stations in the South End and at least 3 AMBs standing by, it’s easy to see how the kneejerk dispatch would cause them their own problems.

    For what it’s worth, it’s only the administration that wants this. The IAFF and Council are at the very least dubious and quite likely against the idea. The IAFF wants Aid 2, Aid 6, and Engine 3 fully staffed with more professional firefighters. In fact, there’s other proposals out there that will consider the manning idea. Locking the city into a 5 year deal will limit the options on increasing staffing. (by the way, the IAFF presentation hinted that patient transports would go back to the old days and not cost the patient anything. This proposal lets the charges stack up for the person taking the ride)

    Not unnoticed here is the ‘administrative fee’ that the Department wants the successful bidder to pay. So, not only would this be a ‘no cost’ contract, it would actually bring in money to the FD. So that one of these companies can pay for the abuse they are agreeing too.

    It won’t hurt to listen to proposals that come in on this RFP. But when we get down to brass tacks, I, for one, am very dubious as to what the department wants when council and labor want something different.