For those of you who worry about increased congestion with I-695, please understand that the congestion is the result of failed policies, not inadequate money. No amount of spending money on THE WRONG thing can fix the problem.

See below:

http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/compplan/cppfinal.pdf

3. Freeways/Highways/Arterials T-8 In order to maintain regional mobility, a balanced multi-modal transportation system shall be planned that includes freeway, highway and arterial improvements by making existing roads more efficient. These improvements should help alleviate existing traffic congestion problems, enhance high-occupancy vehicle and transit operations, and provide access to new desired growth areas, as identified in adopted land use plans. GENERAL CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROMOTING ONLY SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRAFFIC SHALL BE A LOWER PRIORITY. Transportation plans should consider the following mobility options/needs: a. Arterial high-occupancy vehicle treatments; b. Driveway access management for principal arterials within the Urban Growth Area; and c. Improvements needed for access to Manufacturing and Industrial Centers, marine and air terminals.

This comes from the metro King County Growth Management plan. Capital investment has been diverted away from general purpose lanes which people use, to transit. Even if growth of transit had doubled, this would have only changed it's market share from 3% to 6%. Since the market share for transit didn't really change, the policy has succedded only in crowding more and more people onto fewer (proportionate to the population) roads. That's what increased population density does. The planning is based upon a failed theory, that if we make things miserable enough, the people will use transit and decrease the misery. Hasn't worked. Time to try building more good old general purpose lanes for all the MAJORITY of people who want to drive their single occupancy vehicles.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 01, 1999

Answers

How about this: you are stuck in a traffic jam on the freeway. But you have the option of pulling over into the restricted lane which is wide open. But instead of having to have extra passengers in your car, all you have to do is pay a toll of 25 cents per mile. The technology exists and is in use elsewhere, to install a transponder in your car that would allow you to be billed without ever having any toll gates. Construction costs for these toll lanes would cost the taxpayer zero, because investors would fund the new lanes on the prospect of making a profit. Just like supermarkets and pizza parlors. We only get a mess when we let government try to run something with coercive financing. The free market works. Let us apply it to solve our traffic jams that exist today on a government designed and operated system. OBTW: since those who chose to pay the toll would be leaving the free lanes, they would be less crowded for the free riders.

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), September 01, 1999.

There are many things such as congestion pricing that would work, but the issue is what would make them work. Congestion pricing would work because it would so incense the populace that they would no longer listen to the mantra that most capital investment must go to transit because it is "more efficent." Congestion pricing would make people sufficiently indignant that they would insist that more roads be built, rather than more transit capital funding. when the six year capital funding for roads is only 40% of the six year funding for transit (and the roads and HOV lanes are used by transit too), we are seriously over committing resources to a mode of transport that accounts for only 3-4% (depends on if you include no fare downtown short trips) of the passenger miles. But I would LOVE to see them implement congestion pricing, for that very reason.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 01, 1999.

For those who want to know where WDOT is going:

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 established some new cautions in the federal funding of general purpose lanes. Yet ISTEA encouraged the construction of HOV lanes, which were made eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in regions not attaining federal air quality standards. CMAQ funds may be spent on new HOV lane construction, even if the HOV designation holds only at peak travel times or in the peak direction.

ISTEA also provided that under the Interstate Maintenance Program, only HOV projects would receive the 90 percent federal matching ratio formerly available for the addition of general purpose lanes. And ISTEA permitted state authorities to define an HOV as having a minimum of two occupants (HOV-2).

Until overruled by Congress, FHWA had insisted that 2+:

accomplishes little more than rearranging traffic in lanes according to number of occupants. The number of vehicles using the HOV lane may increase but this is offset by a decrease in the average vehicle occupancy in the other lanes. Use of HOV-2 does not generally accomplish the purpose for which priority treatments are implemented; i.e., to move more people in fewer vehicles and encourage people to use high occupancy vehicles

From an article entitled: Re-Thinking HOV - High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities and the Public Interest

http://www.bts.gov/NTL/DOCS/retk.html [FHWA, February 4,1985].

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 03, 1999.

Growth management is working to put an end to sprawl in King County. State and county growth management policies and regulations are demonstrating success in containing much of the newest development within cites and the designated Urban Growth Area (UGA). In the last four years, more than 90 percent of our new housing has been built in the urban area (94 percent in 1998, based on building permits issued by the cities and King County). Rural area construction declined from 15 percent in the late 1980's to 11 percent in the mid-1990's to six percent last year. While growth management is working well overall in King County, unexpectedly strong growth rates in recent years have created demanding challenges.

http://www.metrokc.gov/smartgrowth/

THE PLAN is to force more people into the urban areas (densification). THE THEORY is that this will result in decreased congestion. How we doing so far??

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 10, 1999.

Gary:

And this is related to I-695 how? Did I miss something else in the initiative, that makes it a referendum on the GMA? I don't think so. If you are upset about how GMA policies are adopted and enforced, get involved in the process of setting policy and priorities, and electing representatives. If you want a referendum on the GMA, do it. Initiative 695 is not it. The GMA is not mentioned in the initiative, and should not be an issue here. Did any of that sound familiar?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 10, 1999.

d-

This is just background information for those who believe that the loss of transit monies through MVET would lead to increased congestion. I believe it is necessary to educate people on the theory (hence referral to the Smartgrowth website) and then we can discuss the reality. If you don't desire to look and learn, don't. It's a trivial amount of storage to carry this, and you aren't paying for it. If the webmaster doesn't like it, he/she can certainly yank it off. I think it's potential fodder for the NEXT initiative personally. Humor me. If this thread becomes a monologue, why do you care? I'll be the only one being bored. ;) Gary .

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 10, 1999.

Gary:

Good answer, and I have no problem with that at all. As long as it is clear that some dissatisfaction with how some aspect of government works, is not a basis for a funding cut. The state and counties and cities are doing what the political process mandates that they do. A change in funding does not change the mandate, it just makes it harder to do.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 11, 1999.

From the Metro King County 6 year capital improvement program. $300 million for roads (including HOV lanes and busways), $861 million for transit. Roads carry 97% of passenger miles and 100% of goods and services not carried by rail. Transit carries 3%. Ever wonder why the roads are crowded?

http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/budget99/adopted/04capita.pdf

C-13 Roads Capital Improvement Program The continuing goal of the Road Services Divisions Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is to provide timely and efficient transportation improvements to the public. Transportation improvement plans are designed to ensure road safety, correspond to land use plans, and meet identified transportation needs. The Road Services Division uses the most recent population and employment forecasts in the development of this six-year program. In some cases, project scope adjustments have been made to enhance design efficiency or phase capacity increases to correspond to employment or population shifts. The Roads CIP totals $298 million for the 1999-2004 six-year period, including a 1999 new appropriation of $59.1 million. The road and bridge improvements reflected in this program, are consistent with the principles and policies of the adopted King County Comprehensive Plan. 1999 Program Highlights In 1999, the Roads CIP builds upon the flexible response budgeting policies adopted in 1998 by accelerating implementation of a broader range of projects within the first three years of the program, while remaining balanced over the six-year life of the program. Short-term borrowing may be necessary in order to accomplish this program acceleration. This proposal is a high priority of the Executive and responds to the Council Auditors 1996 Roads CIP Management Audit recommendations to pursue changes in budgeting practice in order to increase the overall level of CIP productivity and expend cash more effectively.

C-16

The Proposed Public Transportation CIP is comprised of capital infrastructure needs identified in the Six Year Transit Development Plan (6YTDP) and is primarily funded by grants, a dedicated percentage of sales tax receipts, short and long term borrowing, and an annual transfer from the operating program. The council adopted CIP totals $782.4 million (excluding the Cross Border Lease Project). Including the Cross-Border Lease project, the appropriation totals $861.2 million. The following objectives are identified in determining the types of projects to receive funding: Maintaining infrastructure and replacing aging fleets; Supporting the implementation of the service delivery system currently adopted in the 6 Y TDP; Replacement of outdated and obsolete information systems; and Projects with regional partners.

1998 adopted budget (latest posted) for transportation: $305 million and 3,425 FTEs (full time equivalent personnel) for transit, $54.4 million and 551 FTEs for roads. Ever wonder why the roads have potholes?

http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/budget99/adopted/02pe.pdf

Expense Summary for the Department of Transportation $ FTEs* 1998 Adopted Transportation Administration 2,114,242 20.65 Transit 305,843,415 3,424.98 Transportation Planning 4,180,624 56.30 Roads 54,392,447 550.50 Motor Pool 12,574,721 30.00 Equipment Repair & Replacement (ER&R) 13,354,329 43.50 Park Equipment Replacement 421,100 0.00 Total 1998 Adopted Budget 392,880,878 4,125.93

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 12, 1999.

"As long as it is clear that some dissatisfaction with how some aspect of government works, is not a basis for a funding cut. The state and counties and cities are doing what the political process mandates that they do. A change in funding does not change the mandate, it just makes it harder to do. " I don't agree AT ALL with this d. During my time in government, most program managers had a huge wish list of things that they could do or would do if the funding became available. These were progressively less cost-effective, ranging from only marginally less necessary or efficient than the bottom priority line item currently being funded to true ratholes into which you could dump money to preserve your funding line for the next FY (you lost funding for the out-years, if you didn't execute your budget each year). Like many people today, the more funding that became available, the more marginally necessary things got purchased. Do you truly think the Gates' need 40,000 sq ft for a family of four? Of course not. If something is either low priority or un-needed in government, cutting it's funding is the ideal way to eliminate it. If infinite funds were available, nothing would ever be eliminated, regardless of whether or not it was worth the price being paid. If you gave the Defense department infinite funds, they would buy every marginally effective or necessary weapon system that the military industrial complex could dream up, and they truly aren't any worse than most of the rest of government. Clearly government is necessary, but it tends to grow like a tumor until it out grows it's blood supply. If you believe it's getting too big, you take away resources. If you believe that policies need to be changed, you take away resources until the bureaucrats are ready to change the policies. And the initiative process lets you do that politely and legally, not like most countries where you put barricades in the streets and run around with red and black flags.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 13, 1999.

http://www.demographia.com/db-wtimes.htm

For further background:

A smart-growth agenda could lead to other unintended consequences. Large retail stores will be banned within urban growth boundaries, resulting in higher prices at smaller stores. Houses would have to be built on smaller lots, driving up real estate prices-something residents of Portland, Ore., a city often cited favorably by smart- growth proponents, have learned firsthand. And with fewer and smaller buildings going up, jobs in the construction industry will likely decline.

Despite its good intentions, Mr. Gore's agenda can only make major metropolitan areas less attractive by stunting their population and economic growth. And the nation's major metropolitan areas are already facing several unprecedented challenges, which smart growth is likely to make worse.

For example, cities have historically functioned as a marketplace for large-scale commercial and business activities. But the computer revolution is making it possible for large numbers of people to work from home or remote business locations. Likewise, the expanding Internet shopping industry has the potential to reduce the retailing market share of major metropolitan areas. In short, the city is becoming less necessary. As smart-growth cities attempt to corral growth, they are likely to make the emerging computer-based alternatives more attractive, hastening their own decline.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 13, 1999.

Gary writes: "Clearly government is necessary, but it tends to grow like a tumor until it out grows it's blood supply. If you believe it's getting too big, you take away resources."

I like you analogy, but not your conclusion. All of government is not a tumor, and cutting off the blood supply to an otherwise health body to kill a tumor seems just a little excessive. I would prefer to see targeted resource cuts on the specific area of unwanted growth in government, so that the entire organism can still function effectively. Funding cuts, without a cut in the service mandate, would not do that.

I return to the point I have made several times in this forum. What you consider waste and a tumor, someone else lobbied for and values. The way to effect these program choices is to get involved in the process, and elect candidates who agree with you. No one can expect to be in 100% agreement with everything done by government, and what you don't agree with will look like waste to you. The programs of the state and local governments are, nevertheless, the product of a political process that keeps our state functioning and addressing a variety of issues that no one individual can become familiar with sufficiently to make fully informed decisions.

As for unlimited funding, that isn't the alternative. We already have the 106% and IPD limits on property taxes, and other restrictions on the taxing authority granted to government. Gates has virtually unlimited funding, but governments don't.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 13, 1999.

d-

"I like you analogy, but not your conclusion. All of government is not a tumor, and cutting off the blood supply to an otherwise health body to kill a tumor seems just a little excessive. "

Actually d, 20+ years in government service convinces me that it is. EVERYBODY has their list of things they could/would do with more money and FTEs to expand their funding line. Not once in those years did I ever see a program manager say, "I'd like to return this money to the general fund/treasury/etc., because of changes in the economy, demographics, world politics, etc., this is more funding than I can spend in a way that will give the taxpayer value. Not once, d.

"I would prefer to see targeted resource cuts on the specific area of unwanted growth in government, so that the entire organism can still function effectively." This is frustrated by design by the bureaucrats. Look at the situation with Medic 1 in King County. They do not fund it out of their basic budget, that funds things of importance to various constituents (1% for art, for instance) that could NEVER make the grade for a stand-alone levy. Because Medic 1 is necessary and popular it is specifically NOT funded within 601 constraints, because levys will (almost) invariably pass. I support the mandatory taxpayer approval for new taxes and feses precisely because the bureacracy is so good at avoiding targeted cuts. In my opinion, all you can do is squeeze the fat out of the whole system.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 13, 1999.

http://www.demographia.com/d-amerdr.htm

Urban Growth Boundaries: Urban growth boundaries are a favored strategy of the anti-suburbanists. Urban growth boundaries seek to preserve open space, while forcing more dense urban development. But history suggests that, in any material sense, they will fail. Take, for example, London. In the 1930s, London established an urban growth boundary --- the "Green Belt." And while London is surrounded by 10 or more miles of Green Belt, it has not contained urban development or increased densities. London itself has lost more than 15 percent of its population. At the same time, three times as many people as have left London have settled just outside the Green Belt. The result --- much lower densities --- much greater automobile dependency.

The same is likely to occur in America. Some people may be forced to live closer together. I suspect that many more will decide to live elsewhere or live in previously rural areas beyond the urban growth boundaries. Urban areas yielding to the siren song of anti- suburbanism are likely to become less competitive.

Shopping: Anti-suburbanists are particularly hostile to suburban shopping centers in general and "big box" retailers such as Wal-Mart in particular. They mourn the loss of traditional downtowns with their smaller stores that have been driven out of business by the new suburban competition. But the proliferation of suburban shopping has brought lower prices to consumers. One has to ask, what is the purpose of an economy --- to serve consumers or to serve producers? Clearly, consumers are sovereign in the economy. Just as some mourn the loss of downtown shopping, others mourned the loss of horse drawn carriages and the Luddites sought to destroy the machinery of the industrial revolution. History proceeds, and the market changes. Retail establishments are justified by their ability to attract sufficient sales. To reverse course and favor one group of producers at the expense of another will only raise prices. The day could come that Americans, like Japanese and English, find their own products less expensive abroad. Moreover, limiting commercial construction will destroy jobs in construction and related industries.

More Dense Housing: Anti-suburbanism would require houses to be built on smaller lots, generally in already developed areas. Even Portland's anti-suburbanists metropolitan government anticipates that this will raise housing prices. Fewer people will be able to afford houses, and there will be fewer jobs in construction and related industries.

Regional Government: The anti-suburbanists are particularly concerned about the large number of municipal governments in most urbanized areas. They indicate concern about duplicative infrastructure, which they contend increases public costs. Yet there is no evidence that regional government or larger government are more efficient overall than smaller, more fractionalized governments. Indeed, larger municipal governments are more costly, as we found in a report for the city of Toronto in 1997. There are a number of reasons for this. Despite the large price tags, infrastructure is not the driving factor in local government costs --- it is rather labor, which represents 60 percent or more of annual budgets. Larger municipal governments tend to have larger staffs per capita and higher labor costs. Moreover, there are no economies of scale in larger municipal governments. Larger governments do, however provide economies of scale to special interests --- they are more susceptible to special interest control, which invariably drives costs up. These two factors --- larger payrolls and susceptibility to special interests combine with more complicated bureaucratic processes to make regional government less responsive to the people. Why should garbage collection be administered from St. Louis? Why should fire and police departments be centralized in St. Louis, Clayton or St. Charles. Where governments are larger, citizen and neighborhood interests are less important. Regional governments are necessarily less democratic than smaller municipal governments. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln:

Government of the people, by the people and for the people is government that is closer to the people. This is not to suggest that there is not a role for regional coordination and cooperation. Mandatory coordination is appropriate with respect to regional issues, such as air pollution. And, voluntary cooperation is appropriate with respect to other issues.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 13, 1999.

http://www.demographia.com/d-amerdr.htm

Urban Growth Boundaries: Urban growth boundaries are a favored strategy of the anti-suburbanists. Urban growth boundaries seek to preserve open space, while forcing more dense urban development. But history suggests that, in any material sense, they will fail. Take, for example, London. In the 1930s, London established an urban growth boundary --- the "Green Belt." And while London is surrounded by 10 or more miles of Green Belt, it has not contained urban development or increased densities. London itself has lost more than 15 percent of its population. At the same time, three times as many people as have left London have settled just outside the Green Belt. The result --- much lower densities --- much greater automobile dependency.

The same is likely to occur in America. Some people may be forced to live closer together. I suspect that many more will decide to live elsewhere or live in previously rural areas beyond the urban growth boundaries. Urban areas yielding to the siren song of anti- suburbanism are likely to become less competitive.

Shopping: Anti-suburbanists are particularly hostile to suburban shopping centers in general and "big box" retailers such as Wal-Mart in particular. They mourn the loss of traditional downtowns with their smaller stores that have been driven out of business by the new suburban competition. But the proliferation of suburban shopping has brought lower prices to consumers. One has to ask, what is the purpose of an economy --- to serve consumers or to serve producers? Clearly, consumers are sovereign in the economy. Just as some mourn the loss of downtown shopping, others mourned the loss of horse drawn carriages and the Luddites sought to destroy the machinery of the industrial revolution. History proceeds, and the market changes. Retail establishments are justified by their ability to attract sufficient sales. To reverse course and favor one group of producers at the expense of another will only raise prices. The day could come that Americans, like Japanese and English, find their own products less expensive abroad. Moreover, limiting commercial construction will destroy jobs in construction and related industries.

More Dense Housing: Anti-suburbanism would require houses to be built on smaller lots, generally in already developed areas. Even Portland's anti-suburbanists metropolitan government anticipates that this will raise housing prices. Fewer people will be able to afford houses, and there will be fewer jobs in construction and related industries.

Regional Government: The anti-suburbanists are particularly concerned about the large number of municipal governments in most urbanized areas. They indicate concern about duplicative infrastructure, which they contend increases public costs. Yet there is no evidence that regional government or larger government are more efficient overall than smaller, more fractionalized governments. Indeed, larger municipal governments are more costly, as we found in a report for the city of Toronto in 1997. There are a number of reasons for this. Despite the large price tags, infrastructure is not the driving factor in local government costs --- it is rather labor, which represents 60 percent or more of annual budgets. Larger municipal governments tend to have larger staffs per capita and higher labor costs. Moreover, there are no economies of scale in larger municipal governments. Larger governments do, however provide economies of scale to special interests --- they are more susceptible to special interest control, which invariably drives costs up. These two factors --- larger payrolls and susceptibility to special interests combine with more complicated bureaucratic processes to make regional government less responsive to the people. Why should garbage collection be administered from St. Louis? Why should fire and police departments be centralized in St. Louis, Clayton or St. Charles. Where governments are larger, citizen and neighborhood interests are less important. Regional governments are necessarily less democratic than smaller municipal governments. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln:

Government of the people, by the people and for the people is government that is closer to the people. This is not to suggest that there is not a role for regional coordination and cooperation. Mandatory coordination is appropriate with respect to regional issues, such as air pollution. And, voluntary cooperation is appropriate with respect to other issues.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 13, 1999.

Gary wrote: " Look at the situation with Medic 1 in King County. They do not fund it out of their basic budget, that funds things of importance to various constituents (1% for art, for instance) that could NEVER make the grade for a stand-alone levy."

Your point seems to be that Medic 1 should be funded out of the (King) county general fund, and art be put on the ballot and be voted down. I won't argue the relative importance of the two issues, but that is not how the legislature and the voters set up the system of services in this state.

The (King) county government, as a county government, has NO responsibility to provide a Medic One system. Look around the state, and King County it is about the only county government that is involved in providing paramedic service at all. The only reason it became a county responsibility, is because they agreed to be the sponsor of the funding proposition, in cooperation with the cities over 50,000 population. The proposition passed by a vote of the people, establishing a service mandate and a funding mechanism. Without that, King County would be in the same situation as Pierce County, or Island County, or 30+ other counties that either do not have a paramedic program or it is funded without a major county contributioon.

Before we had a Medic One levy, we did not have a paramedic program that operated county wide. After the levy was approved, we did. Voters were asked if they wanted to step up to the cost of improving the level of emergency services available to them, and they said yes. Now that it is established, and people like it, you want to change the rules. The bottom line is, it is not in the list of responsibilities of a county; and only gets added as a responsibility because of the funding proposition and the service mandate provided by the voters. That ends if they vote NO.

Why isn't the county responsible for running a county-wide fire department, or a county-wide water department, or a county-wide sewage department, or a county-wide school district? They are not in their list of responsibilities. Medic one is not in the list either, in exactly the same way. If we want the county to run a couty-wide school district, we better be willing to add some funding to their income, because they can't do it on the income they need for their other responsibilities. In exactly the same way, if we want the county to run a county-wide paramedic program, we better be willing to add the funding for that service; and that is what we have done with the Medic One levy.

If you think the county art program is a waste, I will simply repeat what I have said before. Others have lobbied for art, and value it. If you don't like how the county balances the demands of the public, get involved in the process and elect candidates that agree with you. No one should expect to agree with everything the government does, and whatever you don't agree with will look like waste to you. Those things you believe are waste were approved through a political process that also gets you roads, and police protection, and every other service of government that benefits you or your family or your friends or your neighbors. That it includes a little art is just something you may have to live with, as a cost of being a part of a civilized society. Enough people want it to keep it mandatory.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 13, 1999.

"If you don't like how the county balances the demands of the public, get involved in the process and elect candidates that agree with you. No one should expect to agree with everything the government does, and whatever you don't agree with will look like waste to you. "

I am d. Right now I'm contributing money and doing grassroots work to facilitate the passage of I-695. I am also notifying my public officials who whine about it that they've lost my vote in future elections, and supporting candidates who believe that government needs to provide essential services, not all services.

As for Medic one, far more people than just me don't share your simplistic explanation.

http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi- bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/display?storyID=379dd3037&query=medic+one

"But at the same time there was a level of community dissent, not with the value of the service provided by Medic One but with the practice of funding a popular program with a levy rather than as a basic government service.

http://www.seattle-pi.com/pi/local/levy09.shtml City and county officials said putting Medic One in regular budgets meant taking out something else -- and there was nothing they were willing to cut."

http://www.southcountyjournal.com/scjnews_archive/dkr61855.html "

Still no fiscal remedy found for Medic One Thursday, November 12, 1998

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

By Mike Ullmann Journal Reporter

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

It's been almost a year since a group of local politicians promised to find a way to pay for the region's famed Medic One service without taxing property owners.

Ideas have ranged from hiking the tab on booze to a payroll tax. The task force hasn't yet made any decision, although it faces a Dec. 31 deadline.

But when the group does make recommendations, a leading contender will almost certainly be a property tax very similar to the one County Executive Ron Sims and others pledged to eliminate.

After the Medic One levy failed, panicked officials promised to find a better way to fund the system that serves more than 1,000 square miles and 1 million people with both basic medical treatment and highly trained paramedics.

At the time, Sims said the service was too critical for funding to be decided by the voters. "

Police, Fire (including medic 1), public health, and education are accepted as essential functions of government. 1% for art aint.

.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 13, 1999.

Gary writes:

"Police, Fire (including medic 1), public health, and education are accepted as essential functions of government."

Which is exactly why King County should do the same thing Tacoma is doing, and ask the public to fund Medic 1 permanently by levy instead putting it up for a vote every six years.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 13, 1999.

Gary wrote: "As for Medic one, far more people than just me don't share your simplistic explanation."

My simplistic response to this is, "They are wrong."

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 13, 1999.

Gary wrote, "Police, Fire (including medic 1), public health, and education are accepted as essential functions of government. 1% for art aint."

What I was trying to point out before, is that two of the four "essential functions of government" are not a responsibility of a county. A county does not operate a fire department or a school system. Districts do. You include Medic 1 with fire, but it is actually not a responsibility of a fire district either. Several fire districts in this state do not even respond to minor injury or illness (BLS) cases; and most do not provide paramedic (ALS) services, unless it is funded by a special EMS tax levy. If a Medic One service is considered a basic service in King County, King County is unusual in this state. Most of the counties have no paramedic service at all, so it can hardly be considered a basic service there. How do we get a paramedic service, in any county, or city, or fire district? The government proposes to provide it, and the voters approve the funding to do it. If the funding is withdrawn, so is the service. It is simplistic, but that's how it works.

With all the possible options that King County looked at for funding, the select committee came to the realization that the primary funding would need to be a property tax levy. Not a big surprise. They were looking for an alternative that would not make the Medic One system vulnerable to a levy failure, as happened in 1997. The legislature gave them an option to do that. A countywide EMS levy can now be approved to be a permanent authorization (instead of 6 years at a time). That would fund it as a basic service, not subject to a periodic reauthorization. King County has that option when they propose to reauthorize the EMS levy in 2001, but the cities over 50,000 population need to agree. One or two may be reluctant to give King County approval, without some greater control of how the Medic One system will be managed over the long haul.

How this relates to I-695 is in the effect it has on the annual budget approval process. The concern was, why is Medic One dependant on voter approval every 6 years? Well, I-695 means it will be dependant on voter approval EVERY YEAR! A six year or permanent authorization only works because inflation in property values, and new construction values, add to the assessed value of the county each year; and add to the revenue of the Medic One program every year. The increases property value due to inflation (limited by 106% or the IPD) are what fund the increases in the cost of operation that track with inflation and the CPI. The increases in revenue due to new construction fund the additions in staff and equipment needed to serve a growing population. Every 75,000 new people means another medic unit, and it also means the relocation of some of the existing medic units because of the addition. These normal, and up to now automatic, increases will require voter approval if I-695 is approved.

So what is the problem. Just ask the voters, and they will support this "essential function of government", right? You would think so, but in 1997 the funding didn't get the 60% approval needed. That was not for the additional needed to keep up with inflation, but for the ENTIRE Medic One system. They made a mistake, and corrected it in 1998 with about an 80% approval rate. The Medic One system went without any levy funding for 1998, and King County went way beyond their responsibility to advance some funding to keep it operating until the levy was voted on in 1998, and then continued to fund it after the election in anticipation of the revenue that had been approved for 1999 - 2001.

Every year voters will be asked to approve the normal budget increase needed to keep the essential functions of government operating, if I- 695 is approved. Some other mistakes will be made. If a Medic One is too important to be subject to voter approval every 6 years, why would you want it subject to voter approval every year?

Don't tell me it is because you want government to separate the essential from the non-essential; because that won't fly. Fire is an essential function, and that is funded under an independant local government in any area served by a fire district. Education is an essential function, and that is funded under an independant local government in all areas of the state. You identify Medic One as and essential function, and it is funded as a specific levy authorization, not a part of a larger budget, in those areas that have it. In those cases, a cut is a cut of the essential service; and no adjustment of priorities can move it to some other activity of some other government.

I have gone on long enough. I-695 is poorly drafted, does not do what it intends to do well, and what it intends to do is wrong-headed.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 19, 1999.

"Every year voters will be asked to approve the normal budget increase needed to keep the essential functions of government operating, if I- 695 is approved. Some other mistakes will be made. If a Medic One is too important to be subject to voter approval every 6 years, why would you want it subject to voter approval every year? " I don't believe it is too important to be subject to voter approval every year. I believe it ought to be funded FIRST, in the basic budget. As you well know since you have followed or researched this the "no" vote was not an indication that the people didn't support Medic 1, but rather a protest vote that Medic ! should have been funded first, rather than funding lesser priorities first and putting a lesser priority up for a levy.

That is vlear if you look in the newspaper archives before the levy failure:

http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi-bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/displa y?storyID=36d4c3133f&query=Medic+one+levy+ But members of Bellevue's City Council last night criticized the county for relying on levies. Mayor Ron Smith said the county should pay for the program out of the general budget, instead of gambling that voters will approve the six-year levy. "They are taking a need-to-have service out of the budget that voters wouldn't dare say no to so they can have more money for nice-to-have things like parks," he said. "Unless they change their ways, these kind of levies will eventually crash and burn."

These comments by the mayor of Bellevue proved prophetic. So you see d, I wouldn't put it to a vote at all. I'd just fund it first, and put whatever drops out at the bottom priority to a vote. If the people want it, great, they pay for it. If the people don't want it, that's democracy. But if you truly believe in the worth of representatives in representative democracy, one would expect them to fund medic one before 1% for art.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 19, 1999.

Gary:

We need to start all over from the beginning.

1. The Mayor of Bellevue, and much of the public, simply didn't remember or understand how the Medic One program works. They got reminded of that when it failed in 1997.

2. The Mayor of Bellevue expects the COUNTY government to fund Medic One first, out of the COUNTY budget. Well, Bellevue is a contract agency that is funded from the levy for BLS and ALS services provided through the Bellevue Fire Department. Why didn't the CITY choose to fund that Medic One service first, out of the CITY budget? I'll tell you why. They recognized it is not a responsibility of the CITY unless they are funded for it. In this case by a contract with the county. Talk about simplistic, Belvue thinks because the contract was with the county for as long as the levy existed it automaticly means the county became responsible to continue to pay forever, even if the levy is defeated. Not likely.

3. You need to remember that the county only agreed to be the spnsor of the funding proposition, and the coordinating agency for the distribution of the funds. The state law made that necessary, just as it made the agreement of the cities over 50,000 population a necessity. The county did not agree to accept responsibility for providing Medic One service as one of its basic responsibilities.

4. Just because the people expect something to be so, does not make it so. People can expect Medic One to be funded first by the county, but that is not in the county job description. It only became a county job, as the conduit for the money; and expectations otherwise will not change that. If you want to make Medic One a requirement for counties, then you need to change state law (another Initiative!) and when you do, you will need to provide the funding to go along with the new "mandate". We can't have any unfunded mandates, and I noted before that King county is unique in hoe it participates in the Medic One delivery system. Everywhere else, the county governments would have to start a Medic One program practicly from scratch.

5. The bottom line is, King County is being criticised because it has been the nice guy for 20 years, helping create and operate a Medic One program that is delivered as a local service primarily through fire departments. The county does not run a fire department, but does have some paramedics in the south county, because at the time it was organized a fire department was not willing or able to do it. Instead of just collecting and distributing the money, for part of the county they actually deliver the service, as a kind of subcontractor to itself. Possibly a mistake, but necessary at the time. So, because they have played the nice guy for 20 years, the population just naturally expects that to continue even if they don't approve the levy. It is easier to play the nice guy, if the money doesn't come out of your own wallet. The county, quite properly, declined to be that nice.

6. As for art, and other county priorities, you could not cut enough out of the county government to fund Medic One without serious damage to every government function they provide. Even if the county was dumb enough to try, they couldn't do it. The funding they get for county mandated services needs to be spent on those county mandated services - including art.

Perhaps it is not always true, that you get what you pay for. The reverse is more true, that you don't get what you don't pay for. If voters won't fund Medic One, they don't get it. Simple, isn't it?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.

d-

I think it all gets back to the question of what are the essential functions of government. Those essential functions evolve somewhat over time. When the norm for counties was volunteer fire departments, that was the extent of that essential function. When the norm was a few police walking the beat, that was the expected level of service. Now it's drug lab teams, SWAT teams, paid firefighters (in some locales) and Medic One. Of course the county can fund Medic One. They did it for a short term when the levy failed (scraping together $40 million to do so). They have funded Medic one for many years, with the exception of that short period, with special levies. But they have a choice as to what to ask for a levy with, and they choose to put Medic one up for the levy, rather than items of lesser priority. If you believe that the county government should be as large as possible, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Medic one clearly has more support than subsidizing childcare and 1% for art. I personally don't believe these other items are essential functions, so to me this seems a cynical ploy to get more tax dollars. It is one of the reasons I am supporting I-695, I dislike the games that the elected representatives play with issues like

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 20, 1999.

Gary writes:

"Of course the county can fund Medic One. They did it for a short term when the levy failed (scraping together $40 million to do so)."

Key words: short term. This money also did not fund CPR training if I remember correctly. Citizen CPR training is a critical link to our system. It's one of the reasons Seattle is such a good place to have a heart attack. Chances are somebody near you will have been trained in CPR.

King County Medic One is so essential that it deserves its own funding stream. I think it should be put up for a permanent levy, just like Tacoma.

The state legislature deemed EMS levies so important that they changed the law and allowed them to be funded permanently. They did not give counties a mandate to fund them out of their budgets.

Thurston County is the only other county in the state besides King to have a countywide EMS system instead of a hodge-podge of various cities and districts. They just put up their system for a permanent levy, and it looks like it passed. Tacoma's looks like it will pass as well.

King County gets a great deal for the amount of money paid anyway. They currently charge $.33 per $1000 AV for their countywide EMS levy. Most other places in the state charge $.40-.50 per $1000 and then also have a transport charge if you need to go to the hospital. There is no transport fee in King County. You have an amazingly high level of service (best place in the world to have a heart attack) for a reasonable cost. What more could you ask for?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

BB:

I have given up on Gary, on the Medic One issue. We give him the facts, and his answer is to ignore the facts so he can continue to bash the county government spending priorities. Perhaps others have read this and learned something. Gary hasn't.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.

"I have given up on Gary, on the Medic One issue. "

What we have is a fundamental disagreement of opinion, d. The "facts" that you have given are not facts, they are an opinion on what funding priorities should be that curiously agrees almost precisely with mine, ie., that Medic one ought to be high priority. The difference is the opinion of whether this ought to be funded within 601 constraints or above and beyond 601 constraints. I have given references to other individuals that clearly hold the same opinion that I do, including the mayor of Bellevue and other elected representatives. This would imply that I have some company in my opinions, and am not a whackoo with regard to this issue.

Stating that you have given FACTS that I ignore for the purpose of bashing county priorities displays an unseemly arrogance. I am as entitled as you to my opinion as to which funding source basic, or levy, should be used for funding what we both agree is a priority service.

If by "bashing county priorities" you mean my assertion that medic one ought to be funded before less critical issues, I fear that you haven't gotten into many serious rack and stacks of spending priorities in government. I have. Trust me, this was a quiet gentlemanly discussion compared to getting five program managers in a room and trying to decide where to take a 20% baseline cut.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 20, 1999.

Gary,

What are your thoughts on a permanent levy? Seems to me this is the best way to fund this service.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

"What are your thoughts on a permanent levy? Seems to me this is the best way to fund this service."

As I have indicated repeatedly above, I would fund all high priority issues such as Medic One out of the basic (within 601 constraints) budget until that pot of money is exhausted. Once that was exhausted, I'd put lesser priority items up for levy if they could be justified.

Incidentally, this is a curious role reversal. On another thread you are apparently chastising Mr. Carson for wanting to have it both ways by objecting to an item that was approved by public vote (Sound Transit). Here you are apparently indicating that the elected officials will not choose to fund medic one appropriately from their basic budget, therefore the taxpayers should over-ride their elected representatives by voting for a levy. Curiouser and curiouser. Didn't realize that the two of you were kindred souls.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 20, 1999.

Gary writes:

"Here you are apparently indicating that the elected officials will not choose to fund medic one appropriately from their basic budget, therefore the taxpayers should over-ride their elected representatives by voting for a levy. Curiouser and curiouser. Didn't realize that the two of you were kindred souls."

First of all, I don't think that politicans necessarily believe that the most appropriate way is to fund this from the county's budget.

Secondly, why is it more appropriate to fund Medic One from the county budget instead of a permanent levy? I believe the latter is more responsible. You believe the former is more responsible. The latter provides a dedicated, permanent funding stream for a service that is totally essential. Your plan would subject Medic One to the whims of budget cutting politicians every year. That's not the way to run an emergency medical system. Why would you take a system that works and works well and put it in jeopardy?

I think you're uninformed about the history of Medic One. In the beginning, it was considered non-essential by elected officials in King County and various cities. The fire chief in Bellevue had to take out another mortgage on his own house to fund a trailer to put that city's first paramedics in. People held bake sales to fund paramedics. It was a total shoestring operation that got so much popular (not political) support a countywide levy was put on the ballot. Guess what, it passed.

The only time that the King County Medic One Levy has failed it got 58% of the vote with absolutely no support or explanation given to the public. Emergency service providers assumed that people would pass the levy without actually doing any work on supporting it. It came back to bite them in the butt. The next levy passed with something like 80% of the vote. This does not exactly provide stirring support for your position that people do not want it to be funded via levy.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

Gary:

The facts I am talking about, are concerning whose "basic budget" Medic One ought to be funded from. It is not the county, unless they are funded for it. It is not the city, unless they are funded for it. It is not the fire district, unless they are funded for it. It is not the Port of Seattle, unless they are funded for it. It goes on and on. The basic budget it needs to be funded from is yours and mine, because we voted to add that service and need to pay for it.

As for those that agree with you, that the county should just pay out in spite of the levy failure, I already responded to that. They are wrong. That is not what is provided for in state law. After a review of the options, the funding Task Force came to essentially the same conclusion. Funding for Medic One will require a property tax levy. If you ask the Mayor of Bellevue today, I believe even he will agree.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.

"That is not what is provided for in state law. " There are no provisions in state law that preclude funding medic one out of the basic budget. The basic budget contains adequate funds to cover Medic One and the other items required by law. That makes whether to put Medic one or some other item in the budget up for levy a CHOICE, not a matter of state law. You can talk this to death d, but the option exists to fund this out of the basic budget as King County demonstrated when they came up with the $40 million to fund it between the levy failure and the passage of the subsequent levy. I UNDERSTAND that YOU DON'T CONSIDER THIS TO BE A GOOD OPTION, but that is far different than saying it can't be done or that it is contrary to state law. It isn't contrary to state law. They already did it to the tune of $40 million.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 20, 1999.

BB-

"The latter provides a dedicated, permanent funding stream for a service that is totally essential. Your plan would subject Medic One to the whims of budget cutting politicians every year. "

This would imply that you have greater trust in the ability of the public to direct funding than you do in the "whims of budget cutting politicians." I take it that you would back the second part of intitiative 695, putting funding decisions to a public vote, if the revenue loss of the MVET could be made up somehow?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 20, 1999.

Gary:

One more time. The county didn't fund Medic One to the tune of $40 Million for 1998. What they agreed to do was fund it from December 31, 1997, until after the election in February 1998, so the voters would have a chance to correct a mistake. When that passed in February, the funding for the rest of 1998 was an advance on the revenue approved for 1999 through 2001. 1998 was funded on borrowed money.

When you say the county can fund Medic One from the existing budget, you are just wrong. I don't no how to say it more plainly. It can't be done. Many people have looked, and it can't be done.

The state law does not prohibit a county from funding a Medic One program out of their regular budget, but none of them do. Why do you suppose that is? BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE DONE, and still provide the services that are mandated in state law and the county charter to be provided within the funding mechanisms available to a county. If they could, they would, but they can't, so they don't. None of the counties can, so why do you expect it to be possible in King County, when they have been losing good tax paying areas to the creation of new cities?

I'll put it another way. Nothing in state law prohibits a city, or fire district, or the Port of Seattle from funding a Medic One program out of their regular budget either. Why don't you ask the Port to fund Medic One? They are a county-wide taxing district that actually operates a fire department, unlike the county. Why is it the county that gets the honor of becoming "responsible" for providing Medic One service?

The answer goes back to the EMS levy, and the fact that the county was asked to be the sponsor of the original levy as required by state law. If state law had provided that the county or a county=wide port district could sponsor the proposition, perhaps POS would now be viewed by you as "responsible" because they agreed to be a good guy and propose a funding measure. Nothing magic happened when the levy was passed to make the county forever responsible to provide Medic One. What happened is the voters agreed to fund it for 6 years, so they get the service for 6 years. That's it. End of story.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.

Sorry, the last time it was approved for only 3 years, but you get it for 4 years because of borrowed money and some "deficit spending". Next time King County (the region, not the government) will have an option to run it for 6 years, 10 years, or a permanent levy. King County (the government) and the 5 or 6 cities with over 50,000 population in 2001 will have to agree on what they will propose for a funding propositon; and then the voters can accept or reject it with 60% approval required.

Question: If I-695 is approved, and voter approval will be required annually for the funding increase needed for Medic One to continue to provide the same level of service, why not make it a permanent dedicated levy to support that service? Stable funding, no diversion of the revenue for other unnecessary programs like the hated ART, annual financial accountability, and no possibility that another mistake like 1997 will totally cut funding for a basic service. It sounds perfect.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.

Craig writes:

"This would imply that you have greater trust in the ability of the public to direct funding than you do in the "whims of budget cutting politicians." I take it that you would back the second part of intitiative 695, putting funding decisions to a public vote, if the revenue loss of the MVET could be made up somehow?"

Ha! Nice try.

The point is, Craig, that Medic One deserves its own separate, permanent funding stream. When I said "budget cutting politicians" I was referring to the type of people that questioned King County's need for (in their words) "cadillac" Medic One service. This is totally asinine. We pay less money in King County and get a higher level of service than anywhere else in the country. Like I said before, what more could you want?

Quite frankly I don't even know why we're discussing this issue. It's clear that the best way to fund Medic One is to pass a permanent levy. What is stupid is that even if such a permanent levy passes, 695 might make voters go back every year and ask themselves again if they meant it. What's the point of that?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 21, 1999.

d, BB-

It's clear that this discussion will never be resolved, and probably just ought to be dropped. We approach it from different viewpoints. Yours is that voters ought to think enough of Medic one that they fund it in perpetuity off budget (by permanent levy). Mine is that politicians ought to PRIORITIZE the things that they do with OUR money, and Medic One ought to be high on the priority list. My goal is to get the maximum government services for the tax dollar. Yours is to get the maximum tax dollars to provide government services. Since our goals are fundamentally different, we're never going to agree. About the only area of common ground here is that we both believe that Medic One is important. Let's just let it go at that.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 21, 1999.

d-

"The facts I am talking about, are concerning whose "basic budget" Medic One ought to be funded from. It is not the county, unless they are funded for it. " Actually, even Ron (tax to the max) Sims believes that the county should fund it. From a press release from Ron: \\http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/commentary/111497com.htm

Many have asked why King County can't simply fund the $37 million that would have been raised by the EMS levy in 1998 out of our $2.5 billion annual budget

I agree that EMS and Medic One should be funded by the county. We have simply never been given any tools by the state with which to pay for that service, other than a 6-year voter-approved levy with a 60% approval. This year I chaired a regional finance and governance forum aimed at sorting out which services should be provided by the county and which by the cities. I tried to find a long-term way to absorb both Emergency Medical Services and our incredibly successful Automated Fingerprint Identification System into our operating budget, if we could relieve ourselves of some other local service functions. That discussion will not be resolved overnight, but I had hoped this past levy would be the last one we would have sought.

The current 1999 King County budget is $2.8 billion. Don't tell me that $2.76 billion is dedicated money, and can't be used for anything else. King County doesne'r CHOOSE to fund Medic One out of it's existing budget because the politicians know full well that they can hold the public hostage, spending their baseline budget on things of importance to politicians, and extorting Medic One money from the taxpayers on threat of people dying. What wonderful humanitarians.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 21, 1999.

Craig:

You just repeated the same position Gary has used. Same answers apply. As for the size of the county budget, I have no problem with getting involved in the prioritizing of county funding for county responsibilities. What no one seems to want to acknowledge is that Medic One is not a county responsibility. The county agreed to sponsor the proposition 20 years ago, as required by law. They did not agree to be responsible without the levy. NO COUNTY IN THE STATE PROVIDES MEDIC ONE WITHOUT AN EMS LEVY TO SUPPORT IT. If King County is short on humanitarians, so is every other county in the state. Much of the county budget is dedicated funds, and the rest is needed for state mandated responsibilities. They have some money at the margins that is discretionary, but nothing like $40 Million/year. Even if they had it, a case would still need to be made that it is the county that should be responsible for this service; instead of cities, fire districts, or the Port of Seattle, etc. As it is, the county is only "responsible" as long as the funding is required to go through their books.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 21, 1999.

"Medic One is not a county responsibility" Nor is "our incredibly successful Automated Fingerprint Identification System " nor subsidizing day care workers or $540K for arts projects (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/090899.htm) nor planting 200,000 treees along the I-90 corridor (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/090199.htm) nor $5.3 million for affordable housing (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/070799.htm) nor $418K for cultural education program grants (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/052199pg.htm) nor

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 21, 1999.

"Medic One is not a county responsibility" Nor is "our incredibly successful Automated Fingerprint Identification System " nor subsidizing day care workers or $540K for arts projects (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/090899.htm) nor planting 200,000 treees along the I-90 corridor (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/090199.htm) nor $5.3 million for affordable housing (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/070799.htm) nor $418K for cultural education program grants (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/052199pg.htm) nor donation of 22 acres of "surplus" property and $750K to build low income property in Woodinville(http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/020299.htm) nor $640K to assist low income home purchase (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/021699.htm) nor $775K for a 120 acre clay pit (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/022399.htm) nor a tremendous number of other nice to have and social engineering projects that they do, BUT THEY CHOOSE TO FUND THEM. They could put each and every one of these up for a levy, but they CHOOSE to fund them out of their basic budget and CHOOSE to fund Medic one with a levy because they know damn well that these programs do not enjoy near the popular support that Medic One does. But at this point I'm throwing in with Henriksen, you guys have a totally different agenda; increasing the money going to government, that motivates what you say and do. Clearly, this is an effective tactic, holding Medic One hostage. But it reinforces the need for I-695. I very much want to vote on every tax increase.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 21, 1999.

"NO COUNTY IN THE STATE PROVIDES MEDIC ONE WITHOUT AN EMS LEVY TO SUPPORT IT."

That's right! Because of one of two reasons: they have no need for EMS or because they know that they can "coerce" voters into approving the funding.

Yes, a permanent levy would be ONE solution. However don't beleive that it is a "dedicated" revenue stream that can't be touched. If politicians want the funds they will find a way to get at them. If you don't believe me, check our state history. At one time it was state law that ALL (as in 100%) of the timber taxes were to be set asside for education. In the boom years a big surplus would form and in the bust years that surplus would be drawn upon. But somewhere along the line a big surplus formed and Olympia got greedy. Anyone notice that now we have to have levies to support basic building maintenance? NO levy is safe from raiding, Olympia can change the rules at any time!

-- Mike Smith (smithm@pos-data.com), September 21, 1999.

Gary and Craig: I think it is clear we can agree to disagree on this issue, as with I-695.

Mike Smith: All the counties don't fund Medic One without a levy, because they either don't need it or can't coerce voters into approval of the levy? Actually, several areas do need it, and some think the entire state needs paramedic level EMS services. Some areas can't justify it because the operational criteria basicly require having about 75,000 people within a 10 minute response distance from the medic unit.

Other parts of the state do have Paramedic services, similar to Medic One; including Thurston County and Tacoma that I understand are now funded by a permanent EMS levy of up to 40 or 50 cents. The King County levy has never been over 30 cents. Much of Pierce County has paramedic service funded by fire district EMS levies of 40 to 50 cents. Other parts of the state, like Spokane, Snohomish and Clark Counties probably have similar situations, but I don't know much about them. They have the population to make it possible, and if it is possible it has probably been authorized by the voters.

As for coercing the voters, this is where we have a major disconnect. I-695 requires that voters approve every tax or fee increase. Voters approved the EMS levies in these places, in order to fund a program the voters wanted and were willing to pay for. What is your problem? Isn't that what you want to happen with every fee and tax?

Cities are authorized funding by the state, for their mandated responsibilities. Some of those are worded broadly, and could include optional services like Medic One, particularly as an expansion of the scope of practice of the fire department basic EMS work. Fire Districts are in a similar situation. Both cities and fire districts do not automaticly or routinely do that because the funding level provided in state law would be inadequate to do it well.

Counties don't even have a fire department, and the only effective way to provide Medic One services is by an integrated service operated through or in close cooperation with the cities and fire districts. In other words, if the county is going to do it they need to contract with the cities and fire districts to get it done. That is essentially what is done in King County. What I am getting at is this: The essential element of the county involvement in providing Medic One services in King County, is the funding for the contracts. That funding has always been provided from the EMS levy.

So I ask you, without the revenue from the EMS levy, why would any county voluntarilly transfer funds from the county basic budget, to the budgets of the cities and fire districts in the county, to provide a service that the county has no responsibility to provide?

There is no reason they would do that without the levy. If the cities and fire districts want to provide paramedic level services, as an expansion of their existing basic EMS work, they can do it out of their own budgets.

Except thay can't, or at least not all of them can. Seattle could, and did before the EMS levy. The rest of the county needed a bigger service area, more people, and more funding. Some areas of the county have all-volunteer fire protection, but because of the county- wide EMS levy they still have access to paramedic level services as if they lived in a big city. The local fire district couldn't do that without the cooperation of the entire county to make that possible.

So how did that cooperation happen? 20 years ago communities recognized they needed to do this together if it was going to be effective, and fire districts and cities that were already struggling to provide basic services didn't have the "extra" money to chip in to create a paramedic program. A state law was passed, that effectively required cooperation in order to create a Medic One type program. In order to be county-wide, the county must be involved to collect and distribute the money authorized by the voters. Any cities over 50,000 population have an effective veto on anything proposed by the county. If the county does not run a county-wide EMS levy, each city and fire district can run their own EMS levy and do the best they can with whatever is authorized by the voters, but without the coordination that results from a county-wide system. That is what is happening in Pierce County; and the service does not extend to all areas, and the costs are higher than in King County.

Your comments indicated you didn't understand the Medic One program, or its history, or the legal basis for the funding mechanism. I hope this helped explain it to you.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 21, 1999.

P.S. One more comment on your post. You indicated some skepticism that funding from an EMS levy could be skimmed for other purposes. Actually, in King County we have 20 years of financial records that show that has not happened. The state auditor reviews these records at least annually, to verify they are spent for the purposes authorized. The cities and fire districts check the numbers, because if the money is diverted it means less available for them to provide the services. Up to now, reauthorization has been required at least every 6 years, and if any money had been diverted the county knows the chances for a reauthorization vanish. If I-695 is approved, you could feel even better about a permanent levy, because even if the levy is permanent any increase in the tax amount would need voter approval; probably every year.

This site seems to attract all those who have lost all faith in governmental institutions. In this case, your skepticism is unfounded.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 21, 1999.

"Actually, in King County we have 20 years of financial records that show that has not happened"

Yeah d-

And Ferdinand no doubt had 1492 years of financial documentation to show Isabella that no one had provided funding to sail off the edge of the earth, too. What the hell has that to do with whether or not the Earth is round? How many years have you been so immersed in government-speak that you have lost your common sense? Or is this just a put-on to waste everyone's time and bandwidth?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Mark:

What it is, is my response to Mike and his concern that Medic One money could be diverted to other purposes. I agree that is possible with regular budget revenue, but not for "targeted" revenue authorized by the voters. (Another reason an EMS levy is better than putting EMS in the annual budget battles of any local government) Every expense needs to be within the scope approved in the funding proposition. Did you have some information to contradict that, or was your criticism personal rather than factual?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.

d-

You have effectively answered the question. Your answer is just a put-on to waste everyone's time and bandwidth!

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Mark: You have effectively answered my question. Personal, not factual.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 22, 1999.

"Personal, not factual. "

In my case, d, these are not mutually exclusive, unlike many or the no on I-695 crowd.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

An interesting finding on the King County Metro website whining about the potential effects of a loss of MVET. (http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/I-695/potentialimpacts.htm) They give the potential effects on transit at $100 million per year. They give the potential effect on roads (including HOV lanes and busways that the transit travels on) of $80 million OVER SIX YEARS.

Given that Metro has poured billions into transit over the years and the transit use rate has stayed about where it was ten years ago despite massive subsidies, about 48 one-way trips per capita per year (See the SmartGrowth metrics), maybe it's time we decided that transit isn't the answer. Why don't we take $200 million out of transit, and increase the roads funding from $13 million a year to $100 million a year, and see if the roads don't get a little less congested.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 28, 1999.