Last week, I brought forward a motion to cover the additional costs required to continue Lethbridge’s integrated Fire-EMS model. Unfortunately, that motion did not pass. (My May 12 debate supporting our integrated Fire-EMS model follows in full below.)
I believe that we were presented with an opportunity: we have a Fire and EMS service model that provides a high-level of care, improves coordination during emergencies, and reflects the needs of a growing regional hub that benefits residents beyond the boundaries of our city. We heard loud and clear that our residents support preserving this service and are willing to bear the tax implications.
The initial direction of Council, coming out of the March 24 Council meeting, was to:
Strategically notify EHS – Alberta that the City of Lethbridge does not agree in advance to cover any additional costs associated with a new EMS Ground Ambulance Agreement while preserving the City’s right to participate in further negotiations and/or a request for proposals process.
This was part of a 3-part strategy to negotiate the preservation of our integrated service with the province. At that time Council had 6 days to respond to the provincial request, with very little information. That full motion (all 3 parts of the strategy) is available here: https://pub-lethbridge.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=45424
Following that meeting we were given an extension to respond by May 31. As of May 5, the March 24 Council direction had not been acted upon, and over those 7 weeks Council had opportunity to receive additional information and clarity on the province’s position and hear how much the community valued the current integrated service. Last week, based on that information, I brought forward a motion to cover the additional costs required to continue Lethbridge’s integrated Fire-EMS model. I was disappointed that the motion did not pass. (The May 12 meeting, and the discussion and debate around this item is available here: https://pub-lethbridge.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=c2a89a1f-432b-4104-b475-7c21dd3e2aa1&Agenda=PostMinutes&lang=English&Item=2648&Tab=attachments)
As a result, Council’s previous direction remains in place: the City has not agreed in advance to cover additional costs above the provincial funding benchmark for a new EMS Ground Ambulance Agreement.
This does not mean emergency medical service stops. Residents should continue to call 911 in an emergency. ALTA Paramedic Health (formerly EHS-Alberta) has stated that contract extensions and transition provisions will be used to ensure there is no interruption to EMS service while procurement is underway. However, the City needs clarity on exactly how that applies to Lethbridge, given Council’s decision not to extend the current contract beyond September 30, 2026.
It also means that the future of Lethbridge’s integrated Fire-EMS model is now uncertain. ALTA Paramedic Health has indicated that if the City did not accept the additional cost condition, EMS delivery in Lethbridge may move to an open procurement process or another delivery model.
If ALTA Paramedic Health makes the decision to continue with procurement, the City will evaluate all options and the viability of submitting a proposal.
I will continue to ask questions, share what I can, and advocate for the strongest possible emergency response system for Lethbridge.
A full timeline and FAQs about this issue and changes to our emergency medical services contracts is available at: https://getinvolvedlethbridge.ca/ems-contract
My debate at the May 12 Lethbridge City Council meeting.
Opening: At the May 5 Special Meeting I brought forward a Motion to Postpone today’s item 8.1 as I was bringing forward a rescindment motion for March 24’s clause 2 direction which was:
Strategically notify EHS – Alberta that the City of Lethbridge does not agree in advance to cover any additional costs associated with a new EMS Ground Ambulance Agreement while preserving the City’s right to participate in further negotiations and/or a request for proposals process.
This is that rescindment motion.
Council provided this direction to Administration on Ground Ambulance Service at the March 24 meeting. It was part of a 3-part strategy to negotiate with the province on Ground Ambulance Service. As of May 5 that direction had not been acted upon, and over the past 7 weeks now, Council has had opportunity to hear from the community and receive additional information, and as we saw at the Community Issue Committee on April 30, some of us changed our minds (as demonstrated in the 5 – 4 vote). We’ve received additional information on the province’s position, and we’ve also heard how the community values the current integrated service.
There’s no question we’ve got a difficult decision before us. Around this table colleagues have told me they feel bullied, that they are afraid of backlash from the community. Some are concerned about what the additional costs will be and how they will explain an increase in taxes to our residents. It’s a tough decision, and I feel like around this table we can agree that we want what’s best for our residents.
I would share that we’ve been presented with an opportunity: in front of us we have a Fire and EMS service model that provides a high-level of care, improves coordination during emergencies, and reflects the needs of a growing regional hub that benefits residents beyond the boundaries of our city.
Research shows better health and survival outcomes under this integrated service, and we know that our service is one of the highest ranked in the world – and yet somehow we seem ashamed about this a gold-level service for our residents – when in fact we should be celebrating it, and doing everything we can to keep it. Research shows that medical responsiveness is widely considered to be one of the most critical determinants of patients’ health outcomes.
We have heard loud and clear that our residents support preserving this service.
Over the past 7 weeks I’ve received close to 200 emails from residents stating they would pay the increase in taxes to keep the current service level. This doesn’t include the number of texts or people I’ve spoken with. In a checking with 311 late last week, they had logged 442 calls in support of the existing service and 3 that supported the transition.
In our 2025 customer satisfaction survey Safety & Emergency Services ranked highest, and not that long ago Councillor Dodic brought forward the Herald‘s survey question as support for another issue – today I share with you that in response to the Herald‘s survey question last week: Would you pay higher taxes if it meant keeping Fire & EMS integrated service? Of the 1,308 votes, 80% said yes.
We all received this email yesterday:
“We need to prioritize residents’ safety and healthcare. If that means cutting some other costs in other areas, then we should look at some of the “nice to haves” and make some changes. Ambulance is a need-to-have service, and not one to skimp on. I understand it’s expensive; however, we pay for a lot of “wants” in this city, too many. You should engage with more average folks about some of those costs – what they are willing to cut. They will get behind you… I randomly met a city counsellor a couple weeks ago and he inquired about my opinion which is keep it, but find the money, at least some from other expenditures.“
This in an opportunity to do that. Preserving this funding lays the groundwork and opens the door for further discussions with residents about what they value, and set service levels that residents support and will benefit the entire city.
We know that over the next year we will be having those service level discussions, which will lead to more effective and informed discussions and decision at our upcoming budget processes, and how we spend taxpayer dollars. We may even be able to get to some 0-based budgeting discussions for some departments.
We’re going to be looking at a Capital Budget this fall and an Operating Budget next fall. Both of these, in conjunction with our strategic plan, setting service levels, results from the community satisfaction survey, and future community engagement, will be opportunities to deliver the services our community needs and values, with the data and community support to back up those decisions.
I would suggest that it’s premature to cut this pressure from our budget when we still have a service levels to set and a year’s worth of budgeting discussions to have, particularly when the increase to taxpayers is 0 this tax year, and an additional $54 for the average home next tax year – there’s a lot of work ahead of us and opportunity while preserving a service that our residents have stated they value and will pay for.
We are a growing regional hub and that means we need dependable emergency response. It is part of community reliability and economic development strategy. An integrated Fire and EMS service aligns well with the vision of our growing regional hub, and the investment that we’ve been advocating for in our local health services. Employers, investors, families, institutions, seniors’ housing operators, industrial businesses, and major facilities all rely on emergency service certainty.
This is also about trust. Residents need to know they can trust the service we are providing. In speaking with economic developers and business owners, the potential cost of losing the service and delayed response times could see an increase in business insurance costs.
In this change to service we’ve also heard we will lose our tactical emergency support for our police service – a critical support that we just created – and we will also lose our HazMat team. In speaking with a member of the FCM transportation committee that helped put together the municipal-rail infrastructure guide, we are at the same risk as Lac Megantic. That 2013 disaster saw the loss of 47 lives. We have 5 significant crossings that involve rail/vehicle interactions, which increases our risk as does the fact that we are on a major transportation corridor – there are also trucks passing through our city and region every day that carry dangerous goods.
We know that our response serves our surrounding community. We have a real opportunity here to have conversations with the County and regional municipalities to build regional partnerships and cost sharing models that could help distribute the financial burden while preserving a high standard of service for everyone who relies on it. As per the MGA section 3(d) working with neighbouring municipalities is part of our job, and this offers us a unique and innovative opportunity to do so. Further, Council’s strategic plan commits us to being a safe and healthy city, to maintaining access to important services, and working through purposeful partnerships.
We will lose approximately 70 staff members with this decision. That’s a loss of social and financial capital to our city, and we would need to explore what this change would mean for the programs and student recruitment at Lethbridge Polytechnic.
I’ve heard from and spoken to colleagues throughout Alberta who are fighting to get this service back or into their community, because they recognize the costs they are paying – through delayed response times, poorer patient outcomes, and the financial costs to not having the service. These communities are now looking at adding medical first response teams and critical response units to their fire services, which still means a tax increase, but one that doesn’t address ambulance response times. This decision isn’t about cutting costs and saving money, it’s about the value proposition we place on services. Not supporting this will mean our residents will pay for it in other ways.
Closing: Here’s what I know. In 2014 when my Dad had a heart attack, I called 911 for an ambulance and a fire truck responded because the closest ambulance was at least 20 more minutes out.
The members of our service who responded on that fire truck kept him alive – he died at least twice on the living room floor that afternoon, but those responders brought him back and took care of him until the ambulance arrived. They resuscitated him another 2 times on the way to the hospital. Because of those individuals and our integrated service, our family had another 3 years with him, and I can never thank them enough for that. This councillor understands the value of this service.
I understand it is not an easy decision, and I acknowledge the stress and anxiety this has caused some of my colleagues around this table over the past 7 weeks.
The opportunities I outline in my opening will require strong leadership and fortitude on the part of this Council. But, we were elected to provide that leadership and do those hard things.
Thank you to the members of Lethbridge Fire and Emergency Service for your service to our city. Know that you are valued and appreciated.
I would ask my colleagues to support this motion to rescind the March 24 direction.
