As a supporter of 695 I was asked if the initiative would require voter approval of an increase in "state" fees such as for copying documents when you request information from a state office or overdue charges at a county or state library. I doubt this would be necessary but what is the way fees/charges such as these would be handled?

-- Ken Lewis (kenlynnlewis@earthlink.net), October 01, 1999

Answers

Well since those items qualify as a "monetary charge by government," the answer is that they would be required to go to a public vote. If it were at a county library, it would have to be voted on by the entire county. If we're talking the state library, or for that matter, ANY of the libraries at state universities or community colleges, then that would have to go to a statewide vote.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

I too am a 695 supporter. Yes, if 695 does pass it includes these types of fees if the library or state office needs to increase the fees.

But what the naysayers won't tell you is that the increase will need to be justified... heavily. You see, the committees that will pop up that will decide what needs to go to vote or not will ask these offices to justify the need for an increase. Just as in business when we need to justify a need for a business expense.

If that office has a doughnut fund paid for by the state's income, they may be asked to cut back to three runs a week instead of five to make up for the money needed instead of asking for an increase.

Do you see how this will work now? A vote will simply not come to be just because an increase is requested. A vote costs money to put on the ballot, and these committees will know to only put votes on the ballot that are needed... they'll cut funding in useless programs first before simply approving a vote for an increase.

TAKE THE FREE WEBPOLL!! Go to: http://www.alxpoll.com/cgi-bin/poll.cgi?user=145917

-- Sandy D (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

Im interested in what "useless program" you might be refering to.

-- Ken LeMay (klemay@amouse.net), October 01, 1999.

Actually Sandy, I think the reason why opponents don't mention that tax and fee increases will need to be justified is that it's a fairly obvious statement. I mean, why else would you have a vote on it?

One thing that Ken's post has made me realize is that 695 would effectively prohibit all community colleges and probably most of the state universities from ever raising any fees. From what I remember in the Seahawk stadium vote, a statewide election can cost up to $1 million for each issue. Now sure these colleges could place several fee increases on the same ballot, but I doubt that even if a college put every fee it has up for a moderate increase that it would even come close to making up the $1 million that it had to put down just to get it on the ballot.

There is of course a way out for the colleges. 695 exempts college tution increases from the public vote provision. So instead of raising a fee to cover rising costs, the school could just raise everyone's tuition. This solves the problem, but in effect, it would subsidize the education of students who take fee intensive classes (science and P.E. for example) on the backs of the students who don't.

I'm sure this will be branded as a scare tactic, but if anyone else can offer a better explanation as to how the higher education system will adjust I'd love to hear it.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

And... your right again about "a vote costs money to put on the ballot" When that vote fails, more time and money is put back into the issue so that it can be placed on the ballot again. All of this costs money, case in point the King County EMS levy, This wasn't even a tax increase as it was a continuation of a levy. It failed, why, some argue that they didn't "sell" the issue (sell=educate) to the people, educating people costs money too by the way. The following year, after "educating" people again it passed. This I use only as an example, there are other issues out there such as the ones described in the first thread that no doubt will simply fail the first time through. I speculate not through a lack of the organization trying to "educate" the public, but because there will be be a overwhelming amount of "educating" going on with all the other ballot issues.

-- Ken LeMay (klemay@amouse.net), October 01, 1999.

And.. your right again about "a vote costs money to put on the ballot" When that vote fails, more time and money is put back into the issue so that it can be placed on the ballot again. All of this costs money, case in point the King County EMS levy, This wasn't even a tax increase as it was a continuation of a levy. It failed, why, some argue that they didn't "sell" the issue (sell=educate) to the people, educating people costs money too by the way. The following year, after "educating" people again it passed. This I use only as an example, there are other issues out there such as the ones described in the first thread that no doubt will simply fail the first time through. I speculate not through a lack of the organization trying to "educate" the public, but because there will be be a overwhelming amount of "educating" going on with all the other ballot issues.

-- Ken LeMay (klemay@amouse.net), October 01, 1999.

To all, my appologies for the double posting.

-- Ken LeMay (klemay@amouse.net), October 01, 1999.

I didn't ask anything about a useless program but I know of one: The Olympia transit runs a shuttle bus service for Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater, in most instances over the same route as the main bus line. The shuttle is free and paid for by the money derived from license fees. It appears to me that the people that use it should pay for the use - why should some farmer in the city of George who is paying $3,000 for an RV license subsidize a free shuttle service in the Olympia area. Consider this, the city of Newport just passed an $85.00 tax on city residents to compensate for the loss of revenue when I695 passes - if you would canvass those residents do you think they will prefer paying $85.00 over the several hundred for current license plates. Furthermore, in the future they can vote to increase that tax or add another, based on the services they want. No more taxation without representation for those outside the area!!

-- Ken Lewis (kenlynnlewis@earthlink.net), October 01, 1999.

", This wasn't even a tax increase as it was a continuation of a levy. It failed, why, some argue that they didn't "sell" the issue (sell=educate) to the people, educating people costs money too by the way." I can tell you exactly why it failed. People voted against it in protest that it was funded through a levy rather than as part of the basic budget. John Carlson campaigned on KVI that this was extortion for weeks before it lost, and the elected officials admitted that this was why it lost. What's more, they promised that if the second levy passed, they would find another funding source and not have to depend upon levies in the future. They've now reneged on that, lying swine that they are.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

To ken, A farmer in the City of George will only have to pay for that service if the City of George is in the PTBA (Public Transit Benefit Area) which is voter approved by the people in that area. In addition the service is because of the lack of parking at the Capiotal, as well as for what is called "smart commuting". For people who have left their car at home or at a park and ride lot. That is the idea behind "Public Transit". Also, only the people who live in a transit district's PTBA pay for the service. People in a neighboring county do not.

-- (mkpow62@silverlink.net), October 01, 1999.

To MKPOW:

Sorry, but I think you may have it wrong.

All the money from MVET goes into one big pot, then split out to all the counties. Some counties may get more, some less, but all the money comes from one source... tab fees.

If the farmer pay $800 in tabs fees, only a portion of that will come back to his county, the rest can go to other counties and programs.

Ken Lewis' example is a perfect one of MANY useless programs that are out there. It clearly shows how people in other counties help pay for other programs in the state that may not even be in their own county. Since I don't work in Olympia or on the budget committee, I don't know all the programs out there paid by the state.

Does anybody??? I sure would like a nice list (programs) of EXACTLY what is paid for from tab fees to review.

-- Sandy (sandy_d1@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

Mark, regarding the EMS levy, writes:

"I can tell you exactly why it failed. People voted against it in protest that it was funded through a levy rather than as part of the basic budget. John Carlson campaigned on KVI that this was extortion for weeks before it lost, and the elected officials admitted that this was why it lost."

Wrong. It lost with 58% of the vote. The single biggest problem was that the people who provide the service got complacent and didn't campaign at all in support of the levy. If they would have, it would have passed easily.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

Mark:

As for a few politicians who said the 1998 levy vote would be the last, they did not speak for everyone supporting the last levy. The county and cities, etc., studied the issue, and could not find an alternative to the EMS levy authorized by the legislature to support this service.

I have commented on this before, and it is a poor example for either side of the 695 debate. Medic One is NOT the responsibility of any state agency or local government, until and unless the voters approve the creation of the service and the funding to operate it. King County agreed to propose the funding proposition 20 years ago, but not to be responsible to provide the service without funding. Just because voters routinely approved the funding for 20 years, did not make it a county responsibility when the levy failed in 1997. That message was made clearer in 1998, and it passed by about 80% yes.

Funding for Medic One will run out again 12/31/2001, and with it the county requirement to fund it by pass-through contracts with cities and fire districts. Offering another levy may well be an issue when the levy is on the ballot again in 2001. This service is in no government basic budget, because it is not in their mandated list of basic services. It is an extra, and is funded as extra taxes if the public wants that level of EMS service. Most of the state does not get paramedic service, because they don't have the population density to make the system operate effectively. King County does, so they want it, so they fund it through the levy authorized by the legislature.

If the levy is rejected, you have the situation that exists in Pierce County and 36 other counties of the state. No coutywide funding = no couty responsibility for the program = no countywide program = a hit or miss patchwork of local programs or no program depending on whether local district voters approve a local district EMS levy.

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

d-

Maybe we ought to have the next initiative to put Medic One in the basic budget so the politicians can't continue to extort additional funds out of us for high priority things while funding fat contracts to their big business and labor special interest groups, you think?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 02, 1999.

Mark writes:

"Maybe we ought to have the next initiative to put Medic One in the basic budget so the politicians can't continue to extort additional funds out of us for high priority things while funding fat contracts to their big business and labor special interest groups, you think?"

So levies that all have to pass with 60% of the vote are extortion? Interesting.

You really shouldn't be supporting 695 then. If politicans extort people by putting issues on the ballot, then it seems to me that there will be even more extortion in the future, at least if you use your logic.

BB

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

I would hope that libraries would contract out coin op copy machines. They could just tell the vendor that they wanted an increase in revenue. Let the machine vendor raise the cost per copy. A lot of revenue gererating things could be contracted out.

-- Alan L. Nuckolls (bigal@crcwnet.com), October 02, 1999.

Mark:

If a state initiative makes Medic One a county mandated service, and part of their basic budget, how do you think that would work? Provide a new service, but no money to do it with (and it would be a new service in all 39 counties). Ever hear the phrase, "unfunded mandate"? In most of the state, a Medic One program wouldn't even work, because the population density is inadequate. The mandate would require counties to try to provide the service, even though they know the county does not fit within reasonable operational guidelines.

This is another instance that shows that while direction can be set by initiative or referrendum, the details of implementation need to be worked out in a forum that will uncover all the implications and unintended consequences. 695 did not go through that kind of critical review, and it shows.

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

d-

This is all theoretical to you, isn't it? You've never done anything like this, have you? I've been a government program manager. You get a funding line for one thing and, boom, up pops a new priority. You get unfunded mandates all the time. The new boss wants to shift priorities, you just do it. And you know what? There's enough lard in the budget to let you do it fairly easily, because everybody screams to the taxpayer and the Congress that we are going broke long before we even have to disappoint our favorite special interest groups, and they give us more money. Look at the budgets. There is PLENTY in there that wasn't part of anyone's mandate. Someone made it up along the way. Look at the METROkc site and their "affordable housing" initiatives. They are putting megabucks into this program. Show me where in the state constitution the mandate for this is? The reality is that they made a choice that they wanted to do that, and decided to make it happen. They could make the same choice with Medic One or a number of other programs.

If you had any experience at this, you'd know just how easy it is to do.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 03, 1999.

Mark:

Easy to do if the local government agreed it was their responsibility, they wanted to do it, and they had sufficient budget to cover the expense. Two out of three is not enough. I have a little experience with budgets, and know you don't take on a job that is beyond your resources without an assured revenue stream.

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

Mark:

I had to respond quickly, and didn't have enough time to address you comments fully. Were you a federal program manager? If that was your experience, I can understand your comment about changing priorities, and enough budget to deal with them. 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.

d-

Wrong again. All of these programs are interchangeable at the state level. Although a few have dedicated revenue sources, almost all have both dedicated and general fund sourced revenues. These can fairly easily be adjusted, reprioritized, etc. Happens all the time. Any program manager who has been in the business any significant length of time has had to make both programmatic and non-programmatic cuts to fund some high mucky-muck's priority. I'll agree that the people at the local level in places like University Place would be significantly impacted if their lost sales tax equalization funds weren't partially replaced from the general fund, but overall a 2.5% (or if you want to be argumentative, 5%) cut is easily within the level of funding cuts that could be absorbed with a trivial loss of "nice-to-have" but by no means urgent programs. And even Medic one, which for some districts is REAL money and for others, as you yourself described, really isn't do-able because of geography and low population density, is something that could be done within the basic budget if someone really wanted to give it priority. I say again, I've been there. At the margins, the programs are barely worth doing. Some are ratholes you stuff money down just to use it up at the end of the fiscal year, so you get it again (+inflation) the next year. Someone from Okanogan was describing a grant that they got from WDOT, almost immediately after they turned down by 2 to 1 a proposal for increased rural transit service. I'd be willing to bet that was some program manager finding a rathole to stuff end of fiscal year money down. It is VERY embarassing when you can't execute your program. It makes it appear that you have more tax money than you need, which most programs do. Especially WDOT. The problem, d, is prioritization. No amount of money will ever be enough if it's spent ineffectively, and program managers are rewarded for managing bigger budgets. It's kind of like a cost plus 10% contract. The more I spend, the more I make. Why should I try to be efficient, it just costs me money. You really DO need to do this for awhile. I see that you have an academic understanding of the process, but the reality is way different than they teach you in civics class. And it's not just here. My sister was a program manager for California. Same thing there. She finally took early retirement in disgust. Now they hire her back (at twice the salary she made when she worked for them) as a consultant. She grits her teeth and puts up with it (for $100 an hour). A loss of funding isn't a loss of service unless someone wants to punish you. If that's the case, they cut the service and continue to fund low priority tatholes, to "teach you a lesson." I assume you are young and naive, but if you really get into the program management business, you'll quickly learn all the tricks. And the path to success is always the same, more budget

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

I-695 does not apply to library fines. The initiative specifically exmepts fines. So, those who say otherwise may be deliberately lying, or perhaps they are ignorant.

As far as copying charges go, where is it written that Libraries are responsible for providing a copying machine? Can't the "Friends of the Library" provide the service? Imagine how many more books libraries could buy if they didn't buy copiers. Likewise for other state agencies.

Finally, there is nothing stopping society or the legislature from amending I-695 down the road to exempt certain types of fees. Give I-695 a try, we can always amend it later.

-- Matthew M. Warren (Mattinsky@msn.com), October 04, 1999.

Don't support initiatives you don't understand.

The language of the initiaitive explicitly states that ALL tax and fee increases are subject to a vote.

Don't mislead voters by proclaiming that it will NOT be necessary to vote on things like library fees and copy charges. It's written in the initiative and if you are pro-695, then you MUST adhere to the way the initiative is written.

And for the record: Colorado votes on all TAX increases. They do not have to vote on FEE increases, meaning that they are not mired down by monthly visits to the polls to decide fee increases - things like copy charges, the price of coffee in a hospital lunch room and library fees.

Don't use scare tactics and don't omit the facts.

-- Diana (washingtonian@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999.

"Don't mislead voters by proclaiming that it will NOT be necessary to vote on things like library fees and copy charges. It's written in the initiative and if you are pro-695, then you MUST adhere to the way the initiative is written. "

I hate to be common sensical here, but why are we talking about library fines or copying charges? I probably have spent more of my life in libraries than the average person, and doubt seriously that my lifetime library fines total $10. Library fines are a nuisance fee designed to pay for the reminders to return overdue books. I would be amazed if they constituted 1% of the library's budget. Similarly, copying fees aren't any huge amount of anyone's budget either. If you don't like the cost or if the services aren't available, check out the book and take it to Kinkos, for crying out loud. And it wouldn't take any great effort to roll a dozen of these nit- annoy fees into one package and present it at the time of a regularly scheduled election. Just another punch hole in the absentee ballot. While elections are indeed fairly expensive, the marginal cost of adding one more issue to a currently scheduled election is quite modest. Having a special election devoted to raising late fees 10 cents a day, strikes me as a pretty ludicrous scenario.

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

I have a better idea. Instead of whining about library fees and charges why don't we just start a movement to remove libraries from the government trough??

Why is a government agency the recipient of money from charities? Why can't 'friends of the library' fund the library? I see something really flaky about ALL government entities that receive OUR TAX DOLLARS and then go on to beg and wheedle for 'charitable' contributions.

Maybe the cops should start carrying around a little can that says 'Please donate and help pay my salary'

Maybe the fire department should have it's guys at grocery stores ringing bells to pay for gas.

Maybe Gary should have a bunch of little Lockettes hanging out at the mall selling candy bars.

Thanks for pointing at the library and opening a whole new reason to take more money away from government.

If they can't extort it they beg for it..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 04, 1999.

From the For What It's Worth Dept:

1999-2000 Estimated Revenues for Library Fund SUMMIT 1998 1999 2000 2000 CODE SOURCE ACTUAL ADOPTED ENDORSED PROPOSED 441610 Copy Services 132,096 150,000 150,000 150,000 448720 Rural Library Services 102,440 100,000 100,000 100,000 459700 Fines/Fees 320,672 341,670 341,670 341,670 469990 Other Miscellaneous Revenue 2,985 3,000 3,000 3,000 485190 Sale of Fixed Assets 21,437 20,000 20,000 20,000 587001 Cable Franchise Fees 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 587001 General Subfund 25,737,209 28,190,520 30,881,342 30,989,342 987900 Cumulative Reserve Subfund 53,488 53,488 53,488 0 TOTAL REVENUE 26,420,327 28,908,678 31,599,500 31,654,012

Sorry, didn't format well. The website is http://www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us/budget/00budget/spl.pdf

What is shows is that copying fees and fines together make up almost $500,00 of the Seattle Library systems $31.65 million dollar annual budget.

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

Again, for those who continue to refuse the I-695 initiative, the initiative specifically exempts fines. Therefore, libraries can raise their fines with impunity.

Furthermore, all governmental agencies are free to raise fees and/or taxes prior to Jan. 1, 2000.

With the huger surplus of the government, we will have ample time to amend I-695, if necessary.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 04, 1999.

Mark:

An interesting non-response. When you don't want to address the facts, so you claim superior knowledge, dismiss my comments, and do not address any of the substantive information I posted. Well, you have not demonstrated any superior knowledge yet. I won't restate any of my comments, but I suggest you read them again and see if you can find something you want to dispute on a factual or rational basis. Medic One is not exactly unique, but it is unusual - perhaps beyond the vast experience you have had as a program manager.

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

"Medic One is not exactly unique, but it is unusual - perhaps beyond the vast experience you have had as a program manager" My experience as a program manager is certainly beyond the "half-vast" non-experience you have apparently had. Have you ever done any program managing at all, or is this just something you read in a Poli Sci text?

And if there was something substantive in your post that I missed, it was amazingly subtle.

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

Mark:

All of it is substantive. Anything you can actually show to be incorrect would start to demonstrate you actually have some of that vast experience you refer to. And, yes, I have managed programs and budgets in the millions, for years. I had to respond quickly, and didn't have enough time to address you comments fully. Were you a federal program manager? If that was your experience, I can understand your comment about changing priorities, and enough budget to deal with them. 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 06, 1999.