I'm for lower car tabs. I just paid $412.00 for my 1995 Honda. But on the flip side, I am concerned about my employment status. I am a professional Fire Fighter/EMT in King County and worried about the effect that I-695 will have on my department/District. Our departments funding is based on a levy rate from residents property taxes. So much money is taxed based on $1000.00 dollars of acessed valuation on a home. A "Cap" already exists to keep levy rate below a certain amount. For example, if the departments levy rate is $1.31, the law allows for adjustments not to exceed $1.50 per accessed valuation on a residents home. A department may need to increase just one or two cents to allow for inflation or other economic adjustments. So if a department wants to make a rate adjustment, will I-695 make it law that the department must run a "Lid lift" for just a few cents? Essential services, such as Fire/EMS & Police, are paramount in any city or community. Fire departments recieve almost no federal or State funding, unlike police departments, who do recieve some. Please help me to understand this Initiative. I have been told that basic services, like Fire/EMS & police, are in jeopardy. That information was not brought forth by politicians or I-695 opponents, but by my employer. Hopefully I can find some answers.

Sincerely, Chris Reed

-- Christopher Aaron Reed (sirhcdeer@aol.com), September 29, 1999

Answers

Chris,

I suggest that you contact the commissioner(s) of your district and ask them about it. The levy rates for fire districts are constantly floating because they are "junior" districts and the amount of money that they can raise are affected by the amounts that higher districts raise. That means that if a hospital district or school district raises more money, the fire district automatically has to lower its rates. Now it can bring them back up year by year, as long as it doesn't go over the 106% lid. If you look at the rates that fire districts charge, they pretty much constantly vary year by year as it is.

If 695 passes, any *monetary* increase in the total AV will force a public vote. Is there lots of new construction in your district Chris? If there is, that means that every year your district will have to put its funding up to a vote because the total AV increases. They *cannot* keep collecting the same rate ($1.31 in your example) the way they do now, because new construction will have increased the total AV of your district.

Federal Way FD just had to put an issue on the ballot asking their citizens if they could continue to collect the same amount of money they do now in case 695 passes. Call them up and ask them about it.

Do you think this is an efficient use of taxpayer dollars? I don't. We elect commissioners to run these districts. Ask them how many people attend the meetings now; chances are there aren't too many. There's no need to ask the public to make the decisions we elect commissioners to do when they've already indicated that they're really not all that concerned with their own little local district.

The 106% levy lid already is a pretty strong restriction on excessive taxation, but sometimes it's been a bad thing for special districts that have huge growth rates. You have a place that puts in a huge development in one year and their total AV can increase 100%. But they can only increase the amount of money they collect by 6%.

It'll have negative impacts on local fire districts, Chris. Choose wisely.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 29, 1999.

BB, thanks for the response. After further research on other websites, I think I've made a carefull and thoughtfull decision on a yes/no vote on I-695. I appreciate the information from you on this topic. Just as I susspected I-695 will have a negative impact on local fire departments/Districts. I also have learned that it impacts not only junior taxing districts but also municipal fire departments as well. I agree with you. Commissioners are elected for a reason. To oversee the activities of the district, just as city council members are elected to oversee the activities of a municipality. I thought that opponents and politicians were using the typical "scare-tactics" to instil fear towards voters. But its no tactic. Basic services and other city/community infrastructures are truly at risk of losing a great deal of funding. I won't vote yes on an innitiative that has the possibility to degrade basic service such as fire/EMS or police. I encourage everyone to look at both sides of the issue and make an educated decision. I also question the tactics of the individuals who created the initiative. I signed thinking that it was only about $30.00 vehicle tabs. No one said that I might lose my job!

C. Reed

-- Chris Reed (sirhcdeer@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

Hi Chris,

Glad that you did the research and came to an educated decision. Stay safe!

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 30, 1999.

Chris-

Any public servant that doesn't believe he/she could convince a majority of their fellow citizens in a fair vote that what they're doing is worth what they are being paid, OUGHT to lose their job.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

Chris--

Rhetorically, your question makes me wonder why fire protection and law enforcement (FWIW: I do think it's rational for the MVET to help fund the state patrol and transit cops) are funded (even partially) by the MVET?

It's my personal opinion that law enforcement and fire protection have been included in this debate due to their popularity and universal availability. Opponents of I-695 know that raising the specter of cuts in these services helps their cause. I personally see this as a good example of FUD given that even a casual observer understands popular services will (given non-manipulative govt. officials. . .IMO the whole MedicOne thing was out and out manipulation) have the highest priority for continued full funding.

As far as oyr concern about a popular vote on levy changes, Colorado's experience with the taxpayer's bill of rights indicates that people will vote for proposed tax increases (76% to 24%) more often than they will vote against them. This statistics combined with the resounding success of the MedicOne referendum makes it likely that referendums on funding for fire departments will have an easier time on the ballot than a measure targeting increased funding for "a program helping one-legged women who are afraid of elevators and therefore can't work."

In my opinion, a pragmatic observer should find the issue over a short-term reduction in revenue meaningless (the glass is still 98% full). The real question is whether or not you think it's appropriate for tax increases should be referred to the voters for approval. Based on my observations, I find this extremely appropriate. My two main reasons for doing so follow:

o the voters are the ones actually required to *pay* the additional tax o the influence of special interest groups (large business and labor) completely outweighs the interests of the people. Safeco field and the Nordstrom parking garage are two obvious examples that this is true.

By the way, if you don't believe me that I-695 is primarily opposed by special interest groups. You should take a look at the URL below. It shows all of the no-695 camp's donors who've given $500 or more. In the interest of preventing accusations that I'm manipulating the data, I should explain that $500 was a fairly arbitrary choice. Even so, it paints an accurate picture as the number of small,individual donors numbers somewhere in the 25-30 range.

look here

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 30, 1999.

I very much concur with Brads points. Clearly, proponents of more government frequently use the threat of curtailment of services that are generally supported to extort increased taxes for priorities of various special interest groups that then support the politicians. They then use tangential arguments that imply that if you are against any of their appropriations, you are taking money away from essential services. Generally, tax cut advocates merely want to get the government to fund the peoples priorities which ARE police, fire, and public health, rather than the special interests priorities. One excellent example is demonstrated below:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/bma990929.html

I fail to see what business it is of government that the Brooklyn Museum of Art gets funded AT ALL, let alone whether it gets funded to display art that offends a significant subset of the population. But instead of addressing the true issue; what are the ESSENTIAL functions of government, the advocates of special interests will try to change the discussion to other issues, in this case, the first amendment, and censorship.

These latter issues are, of course, red herrings, that deflect the debate away from the issue of why these things should be paid for with public funds at all.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 30, 1999.

Craig

"convince the majority of their fellow citizens" >So if I were to convince "the majority of my fellow citizens" that all jews are swindlers and should be removed from all public office holdings, then, using "craig-logic", they "ought to lose their job". The majority felt this way in 1930's Germany, did this make them right? Under "craig-logic", yes it does.

-- Wild Bill (colt45@yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

Actually, "Wild Bill," that was done by the elected representative government, not through a plebescite of the people. Not that your non-analogy has any relevance to the issue at hand. My assertion is that it ought to be possible to convince a majority of people to vote for necessary government services. Your assertion is what? That the people are abysmally ignorant and need an aristocracy to protect them from their own folly? Explain what system you believe would work better. And forget tossing allegations of Fascism at any position that you don't agree with, unless of course it is Fascism. And if you can't tell the difference, study "Wild Bill." Study Hard.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

I completely agree with Craig. I have yet to talk to a citizen that does not have a significant association with a government arm that is not in support of this issue. I see that good ol' Wild Bill must be a politician as he uses the same unfounded, illogical and unrelated analogies.

The apathetic and synical attitude of the voting populous, so far as I can tell, has to do with one thought:

"Politicians lie and the government wastes money hand over fist"

I pay my taxes and if I see a bill infront of me for funding that not only makes sense, but is also fairly straight forward, then I have no problem with voting for the tax.

The school districts already have to deal with this issue when it comes to their funding. If the voters do not approve a levy, they have to go back to the drawing board and make sure the language is not only clear but their argument for the money is coherent. Then they have to ask themselves if they really need that much money.

They claim that the traffic will be significantly more congested with "thousands" of new traffic on the road. Realistically, I have no problem taking the funding away from the WSDOT. This is road construction, not rocket science. Why is it these people take so long to build or repair a stupid road? I recently read a study published in the Kiro News fax, that most of the time the construction projects that are undertaken to reduce congestion do quite the opposit. For instance, one project geared towards relieving congestion added 30 minutes each way for a commuter. They calculated it out and the net effect would require a ten year daily commute by each commuter to break even with the amount of time they lost due to sitting in traffic.

It is projects like these that makes me wonder who is at the helm, and why did we put them there?

If it makes sense, I have no problem paying for it. This will force politicians to ask for money in a manner that your average consumer can understand. That makes sense.

-- Matt Greenway (mattg@mossadams.com), October 01, 1999.

Brad, Gary, Craig, Matt,

Some observations about this thread:

Fire districts are not funded by MVET at all. The issue raised at the top was the necessity for a fire district to go back to the voters, perhaps annually, for a reauthorization of the funding and service levels the voters already authorized. The voter approval requirement (section 2 of the Initiative) was the issue, not the MVET.

Craig again indicated that possible cuts to essential services are just not that important to him. Lost jobs mean reduced services.

Gary referenced funding the Brooklyn Museum of Art, which has not much to do with Washington governments. Again, you can't expect to agree with every project of government, and use that as a reason to vote on a funding issue. This proposition does absolutely nothing to change the priorities and projects of any state agency or local government. It is a funding issue, not a referrendum on any projects.

Matt wants to take money from WSDOT because they are not doing road repairs and improvements well enough to please him. Does it make any sense to incapacitiate the agency trying to deal with traffic conjestion? Not to me. Highway funding was approved by the voters, as 695 would require; but 695 makes completing the projects difficult. That doesn't make sense to me either.

This thread covers some of the same ground as others have. It started on the real issue (voter approval), and quickly got diverted to the side show (MVET funding). It makes no sense to ask the voters year after year, if they still intend to fund their fire district or Medic One service. That was the original post, and was right on point.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 01, 1999.

d-

" Craig again indicated that possible cuts to essential services are just not that important to him. Lost jobs mean reduced services. "

That's bull. My statement was precisely this: Any public servant that doesn't believe he/she could convince a majority of their fellow citizens in a fair vote that what they're doing is worth what they are being paid, OUGHT to lose their job

I stand by that statement. If the public servant doing it does not believe that their job is justified, why should the taxpayer?

If they do believe their job is justified, but have so little faith in the people that they don't believe they could convince the taxpayer in a fair vote, then they ought to find an employer in which they have more confidence.

Where do you get "possible cuts to essential services out of that? Lost jobs may or may not mean reduced services. Sometimes they just mean reduced overhead.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 02, 1999.

Craig:

This started as a discussion of the uncertain funding of a fire district, and the need for a "lid lift" to keep up with inflation. If a fire district has 100 employees, and the cost of staff and operations goes up 3%, they have 2 choices. The revenue needs to go up 3% or the staff needs to go down 3%. Three firefighters could lose their jobs, and that marginal loss of capability could effect the level of service available even in a stable (non-growth) community.

In a community that is growing, keeping up with inflation means you provide the same level of service you did last year. You still employ 100. What about the additional 8 or 10 needed if a major industry or housing development are added? New construction value has provided funding for that, but after 695 that increase in funding requires a vote. Perhaps they can serve the new construction with the existing staff, move people around, cover the minimum level of service needed; but that effectively is a reduction of service for everyone else who had been getting service from the 100 staff.

The vote on everything, is the concern I have stated several times. If the voters approve a levy rate, and a process to increase taxes within the 106% and IPD limits that allows for normal inflation and new construction increases; why do they need to reauthorize that funding year after year? A fire district will likely pass it year after year, but why does the change in the tax amount require a vote, when the process was already approved, and fire commissioners were elected to manage the district in the public interest?

So, if the employees can't convince the voters to approve the budget increase, they ought to lose their jobs, right? The voters never make a mistake? Or a short term economic downturn never had an effect on a funding proposal? Or the ballot timing put it on the same ballot with a Presidential race or another hot issue, and the funding issue didn't get the exposure needed to make it clear? The Medic One levy in King County got well over 55% and failed in 1997, but passed with over 80% in 1998. By your comments, the most highly respected paramedic program in the nation should have just ceased to operate on 1/1/1998 because the voters did not approve the funding. That was a once in 6 years effort to educate the public, but you want that to happen for everthing every year. Or did I misunderstand you?

Public agencies, particularly public safety agencies, need greater funding stability than that. Limits, certainly; but they need to be able to maintain a service level, which is not the same as maintaining a constant funding level.

If I understated your concern about possible cuts in essential services, I am sorry. The OUGHT to lose their jobs part of your comments, seemed to indicate that; at least to me. Fire districts are a good example of what I would call unintended victims of the initiative. They get no MVET, but they are subject to section 2 of the initiative as if they did. They are recognized as an essential service, whose funding should be a top priority; but they are independant local governments that often get little attention when their issue is involved in a big election. 100% of their funding is from a local property tax, managed by a local elected board; but they are treated like they are a state agency that can be reprioritized higher in the state funding scheme.

This was a long response to say basicly what I have said before. The initiative is poorly written, does not do what it is trying to do well, etc.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.

Db, one other thing to think about regarding fire districts. Right now they often have a hard time passing ballot issues. But it's not because the measures fail; it's because voter turnout is so low the elections don't validate. Or if they do, it's a very close shave.

So when we have elections that barely validate now when they're on the ballot very rarely, how the heck will they validate when they're on the ballot every year? Even if people vote yes, I'll be surprised if many elections validate when they have to be held every year if 695 passes. Especially if voter turnout declines as it has in Colorado.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 02, 1999.

" So, if the employees can't convince the voters to approve the budget increase, they ought to lose their jobs, right? The voters never make a mistake? Or a short term economic downturn never had an effect on a funding proposal? Or the ballot timing put it on the same ballot with a Presidential race or another hot issue, and the funding issue didn't get the exposure needed to make it clear? The Medic One levy in King County got well over 55% and failed in 1997, but passed with over 80% in 1998. By your comments, the most highly respected paramedic program in the nation should have just ceased to operate on 1/1/1998 because the voters did not approve the funding. That was a once in 6 years effort to educate the public, but you want that to happen for everthing every year. Or did I misunderstand you? " d- You have to be playing this one to the crowd because you keep going over the same issues we have gone over time and time again. As I have said, TIME AND AGAIN, I consider police and fire services (which includes Medic One) to be one of the essential functions of government. I think these services ought to receive priority in funding. You have repeatedly indicated that you don't believe that they should compete at all with other government programs. That the other programs ought to be used up in their entirety on other things, even if those are of lesser priority, and that Medic One ought to then be funded by a levy so that it has a dedicated source. What part of this do I have wrong? My objection, of course, is that if you do this you fund all the low priority stuff first, and then extort additional funding above the basic budget for the truly important stuff. If your desire is to get the largest possible amount that you can squeeze out of the taxpayers, your system is totally superior to mine. If your desire is to make the government prioritize and get the most you can for the tax dollars collected, my system is superior to yours. You obviously value the former goal and I obviously value the latter, so I don't think agreement is possible. I do not believe that Medic one, fire districts, or any other government function, even ones that I highly value, should be exempted from good business practic

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 03, 1999.

Craig:

I note you did not respond to several of my questions, but I will deal with those you did address:

1. If you agree essential services should be give priority funding, why do you support an initiative that will reduce the stability of the funding for fire districts, and Medic One?

2. My comments about Medic One funding are repeated, because it does not seem to get through that the service is currently structured as an OPTIONAL addition that the local community can choose to approve or not. As an option, the added service has a cost that also must be approved. It is not a basic service required of every county, or every city, or every fire district. As a result it is not in the funding scheme for these local governments as authorized by the legislature. That can be changed, but it has a price tag.

We can agree to disagree, but if you keep making your points I will keep making mine.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 03, 1999.

" 1. If you agree essential services should be give priority funding, why do you support an initiative that will reduce the stability of the funding for fire districts, and Medic One? " Because, contrary to what you say, this CAN be funded within the basic budget. Other things must be cut for it, but that's OK with me. I can find PLENTY of things funded within the basic budget that are less important to me than Medic One. Once Medic One is funded from the general budget, then you would still have the option to go to the taxpayer for additional funding through levys for the less important stuff. If it was important enough, it gets approved. If it isn't, it gets voted down.

" 2. My comments about Medic One funding are repeated, because it does not seem to get through that the service is currently structured as an OPTIONAL addition that the local community can choose to approve or not. As an option, the added service has a cost that also must be approved. It is not a basic service required of every county, or every city, or every fire district. As a result it is not in the funding scheme for these local governments as authorized by the legislature. That can be changed, but it has a price tag. " I understand and agree. But it can be funded in lieu of currently funded items, and that is the price that I would pay. Then, as indicated above, we could get additional funding from the taxpayer for the items given up that were of lesser priority. I can't understand how you can have trouble with funding the most important things first?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 04, 1999.

db. Your contention has to do with the implied looming threat that essential services will be compromised due to the passage if I695. If you read the front page of the Seattle times yesterday, you would see that there is enough cushion in the budget to allow one man to get paid over $80K in one year for overtime. In fact the public employee with the most overtime for the city was a fire dude. Moreover, as the times pointed out, if you combined the overtime for the police department, the fire department, and the city lights, you would have more than 66 percent of the overtime for the city.

To me this indicates that there is not only a large enough cushion that if the bill was passed, the world would not end, but also the budgets are inflated.

Your argument is analagous to those who contend the world will end on January 1, 2000.

Yes it might be uncomfortable for a short period of time, but nothing more.

To me this indicates that not only is there an

-- Matt Greenway (mattg@mossadams.com), October 04, 1999.

Matt writes:

"In fact the public employee with the most overtime for the city was a fire dude."

Yes, and do you have any idea how the contract for the fire department works? The Times was pretty clear about it, but apparently you missed it.

That "fire dude" was a battalion chief. When a battalion chief goes on sick leave, vacation, etc., he/she has to be replaced by another battalion chief. That means overtime. What do you suggest? Violating department rules and allowing people who aren't chiefs to be chiefs?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999.

"That title belongs to Fire Battalion Chief Angelo Duggins. The veteran firefighter didn't earn as much overtime as Zarker, but he clocked the most hours last year. Duggins had a whopping 3,462 hours, averaging 67 a week.

"It means that I've done my job, and I'm over at other battalion stations doing someone else's's job," said Duggins, 48, whose overtime totaled more than $56,000. "I sign up more than most people."

" (http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi- bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/display?storyID=37f716753f&query=overtime)

Let me get this right BB, you're defending a system that allows an individual to put in67 hours of overtime a week, rather than promoting a junior guy up to batallion chief and paying him straight time? Whatever credibility I once thought you had about monetary or personnel policies is fading fast.

The rest of the story:

The city's overtime bill has jumped more than 50 percent during the past three years, while the base payroll has grown just 9 percent. Seattle spent $31.5 million on overtime in 1998, up from $20.7 million in 1996. In 1998, the city spent $632 million on regular pay, employee benefits and overtime.

The city is on pace to set a new overtime record this year. Seattle's continuing development boom, a tight labor market and preparations for the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in November and the turn-of-the-millennium New Year's Eve celebration are straining public resources like never before.

The trend raises questions about whether overtime is the smartest way to deal with increased workloads. And while overtime is a welcome income boost for many employees, some managers worry about burnout and the toll long hours can take on families.

"We do not see this as a general policy trend we are comfortable with," said City Light chief Zarker, whose department spent the most on overtime last year. "Certainly there are some people who are working way too much overtime, and we are way too dependent on them."

Brian Livingston, director of The Civic Foundation, a fiscal watchdog group, said skyrocketing overtime should make Seattle's top officials more than just uncomfortable.

"This indicates a government that isn't carefully monitoring its use of taxpayer dollars," he said. "In private industry that would immediately cause red flags, and somebody would pay for it with their job."

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 04, 1999.

Craig wrote, "I can't understand how you can have trouble with funding the most important things first?"

I wrote most of this for Mark, but it fits here. Actually, I don't have a problem with that; but that was not the issue with Medic One. It outlines the problem, that is not resolved by your proposed solution. When a deparment head adds a program, that is not the kind of unfunded mandate I am talking about. They do that knowing they need to move staff and budget around to cover the new program. In the federal government, I expect that is common, and most of the staff does not have a clue where the money was moved from.

In Washington, local governments have objected for years to programs imposed by the state on local governments, with no funding to accomplish the requirements. Not the same thing as a department head changing priorities. The state allocates funding authority, in the form of taxes that may be levied, for each local government to accomplish the work they are expected to do. Often it is not enough to do the job as well as the community wants or expects. Add a requirement, and it reduces resources available to do the existing work.

This started as a discussion of Medic One in King County. That is not a job any local government has in their program requirements. If a county or city or fire district were to choose to add that program with their existing budget, it is at the expense of their other program requirements. To do that, they need to have sufficient resources to pay for it, the desire to do it, and some responsibility for the program. In King County, nothing but the desire to do it is a given, concerning the county government. Even if two of the three requirements were met, it would not be enough; but only one should make the issue clear to anyone.

The Medic One program is not a service of the county. It is a service provided in cooperation between the county, every city in the county, and every fire district in the county. Not one government and one budget, but about 40 governments and 40 budgets. Substantial funding is provided by the EMS levy, that the county sponsors with the consent of the cities with over 50,000 population; but the program would not work without the budget support of the cities and fire districts. Most of the levy money is just collected by the county, which provides a collection and distribution function, and passed through to the cities and fire districts that provide the services. The levy money makes it possible for the cities and fire districts to do more, do it better, and do it more consistently throughout the county. The Medic One program is a local service, delivered locally, but funded and coordinated regionally.

When the funding from the levy is lost, whose budget does the responsibility fall to? The county was just the agent of the people to tax themselves and fund the cities and fire districts for a service. If the county had enough money to replace the levy revenue, which I dispute, you still need to make the case that the county should fund the cities and fire districts to provide a service that the county is not responsible to provide. In the absence of a couty- wide EMS levy, each city and fire district could propose a local EMS levy to replace the lost revenue from the county contract. It is delivered as a local service, mostly by cities and fire districts. I submit that the case can't be made sufficient to justify the county gutting its own budget in order to fund the cities and fire districts. And that is what it would take, if the EMS levy were gone.

So, what about just making the cities and fire districts provide the additional service out of their own budget. After all, when the county program started 20 years ago, Seattle had already been doing it out of their city budget for several years. Well, some could. Seattle, Bellevue, possibly Kent and Federal Way, could probably operate an independant Medic One Program funded locally by maxing out their city taxing authority and sacrificing other city programs. Beyond that, to fund a Medic One program the local governments would need a local EMS levy. That is what is done in Pierce county, and Tacoma and several fire districts fund Medic One type programs with such local levies. What is missing is county-wide coverage, consistent procedures and protocols, and economies of scale. The Pierce county program costs more in added taxes than the King County program.

The counties and other local governments are not just departments and divisions of some great state bureaucracy. Not like the federal government. Budgets can't just be adjusted from one government to another, like they can from one federal program to another. That is one of the great problems with Initiative 695. It does not recognize those differences, but rather treats local governments as if they are state agencies within the state budget. They are not.

In King County, some fire districts barely have enough revenue to pay their utilities and liability insurance. Others put nearly everything into operations staff already. A significant budget cut leaves them with few choices, and no help from the state, or the county without the EMS levy. They can't just fund their Medic One service obligations out of their regular budget. It is already committed. A loss of funding is a loss of service. End of story. No "lard" to fund it with.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 04, 1999.

" So, what about just making the cities and fire districts provide the additional service out of their own budget"

GOOD IDES

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999.

Just look at the Pierce county example before you jump to conclusions. Patchwork, inconsistent, more expensive.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 05, 1999.

"Just look at the Pierce county example before you jump to conclusions. Patchwork, inconsistent, more expensive. " And why would it be anything but. Totally different population density.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.

Mark:

King County also has some variation in population density. A county- wide program provides for paramedic services for the entire county, so that a resident of Enumclaw who may be in an accident anywhere on the way to his work in Redmond or Seattle, will still get Medic One care. Seatttle residents get Medic One care if they need it on the way up to the pass on I-90 to ski. That doesn't happen in 37 of the 39 counties of the state. It happens in King and Thurston counties, because they have a regional program with regional funding. If you remove regional funding, and make it a local responsibility, few areas of the county will have paramedic service. Everyone benefits if the program is regional, and everyone should expect to pay something for that benefit. Remember it has been less than 30 cents/ $1000 for the last 20 years; which is $60/year on a $200,000 home. Cheap insurance that may save your life, and the best place in the world to have a heart attack.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 05, 1999.

Chris Reed,

Chris I would like to talk to you about this and how you think it will cost you your job. I personally do not believe this will affect you. The reason being is that I have seen many examples of tax payers banding to together to get something passed when they felt it was valid.

Since you are a Fireman you probably are familiar with the Med 1 issue when there was a threat to shut them down. There was a major out cry from the people, and guess what? The taxpayers voted to get them additional funding.

The Fire department is a valuable asset to our communities, I would be more then happy as a taxpayer to toss in a few more dollars here and there to keep it going. If there is a problem put it up to vote with a reason and I will vote yes on it.

That is exactly what 695 is about Chris, giving the people the ability to check out the issue, see what the tax proposal is, then decide if its something we want our dollars to go for. Believe me, I have been in a house fire, seen 3 houses burn, and 1 car, and I even helped the Redmond fire department fill its water trucks when they battled a fire in the old golf course now known as Town Center. I am one citizen for the Fire Department, but I am also against unfair taxation with out reason, and want some more say in regards to my dollars.

Thanks,

-Tony

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@nwlink.com), October 06, 1999.