Voters to decide EMS again, this time for good
Published on Wed, Aug 4, 2010 by Rebecca CarrRead More City/government
Voter apathy, unusual timing and a cost-saving decision by the county converged to make this year’s EMS levy a challenging decision for the Mukilteo City Council.
Facing a complicated situation, the council voted 6-1 to place the measure unchanged on the November ballot, should not enough voters approve it – or even send in their ballots – in August.
Richard Emery was the lone ‘no’ vote, saying he prefers a six-year proposal over a permanent one regardless.
Alternatively, the council could have decreased the amount, the longevity or both, or voted not to renew the levy at all.
Learning from experience –it took three tries to pass the current levy – councilmembers hedged their bets and agreed earlier this year to place the issue on both the Aug. 17 primary ballot, and the Nov. 2 general ballot.
Should it pass in August, there is time to remove it from November’s ballot without incurring those costs.
Where it gets complicated is that the council must decide the parameters of November’s proposal – due to the county by Aug. 10 – before hearing the final results of the primary, which aren’t official until Aug. 17.
One school of thought is, if the voters turn down August’s proposal of 50 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value, and its permanent status, it doesn’t make sense to ask the same question in November.
The council majority, however, felt that the numbers are what they are, and those needs aren’t likely to change in the future.
If the measure fails in August, it would more likely be due to not enough voters bothering to mail in their primary ballots than not enough actually supporting the levy, councilmembers reasoned.
Complicating it even more is the county’s decision not to mail the voters’ pamphlet in August, instead providing it online only. (Voters will receive the usual hard copy by mail for November’s election.)
Tony Tinsley said that revising the measure for the November ballot is essentially setting August’s proposal up for failure, since voters might simply hold out for a smaller package in the general election.
“Because the ballots just came out, we’d be telling voters, ‘Hey, vote against this now and get a cheaper (proposal) in November,’” he said.
Councilmember Jennifer Gregerson agreed with Tinsley’s point, but also said it might make more sense to repackage it should it have to go back in November. Since the financial needs aren’t likely to change, that compromise would likely be in the longevity, she said.
Most councilmembers and Mayor Joe Marine are optimistic it won’t be an issue, however. Marine even braved correcting his “if” to “when” in referring to August’s positive outcome.
Resident Charlie Pancerzewski chided the council for what he calls misrepresenting the current levy amount. While the levy was approved at 35 cents, changes in property values have reduced it to its current 23 cents. The quarterly city newsletter implies the 35-rate voters passed originally is in effect, not the current rate, he said.
“Looking at these numbers, we were some of the biggest skeptics going in,” said Kirk Galatas, president of Mukilteo Firefighters’ Local 3482. “But we believe (the current rate) is not going to be sustainable given decreased home values.”
Firefighters don’t believe the city will ever get to the point where residents say they no longer need or want to fund EMS, he said.
The union would like to see fire service have its own dedicated fund in the future along with EMS, Galatas told the council.
Pancerzewki also criticized the proposed annual 5 percent hike in EMS payroll expenses, which he pointed out amounts to a 30-percent increase in six years.
That number includes all personnel costs, not just salary, Galatas said, and is not guaranteed.
The council also unanimously approved appointing Councilmember Gregerson and residents Sheila Countryman-Bean and David Zunkel to the committee that will write the pro argument for the November ballot, the same trio that wrote the August ballot’s pro argument.
And in a bit of stress-saving foresight, city attorney Angela Belbeck recommended a motion – also unanimously approved – that authorizes Marine to withdraw the November measure should the levy pass in August, saving the city that related cost.
Facing a complicated situation, the council voted 6-1 to place the measure unchanged on the November ballot, should not enough voters approve it – or even send in their ballots – in August.
Richard Emery was the lone ‘no’ vote, saying he prefers a six-year proposal over a permanent one regardless.
Alternatively, the council could have decreased the amount, the longevity or both, or voted not to renew the levy at all.
Learning from experience –it took three tries to pass the current levy – councilmembers hedged their bets and agreed earlier this year to place the issue on both the Aug. 17 primary ballot, and the Nov. 2 general ballot.
Should it pass in August, there is time to remove it from November’s ballot without incurring those costs.
Where it gets complicated is that the council must decide the parameters of November’s proposal – due to the county by Aug. 10 – before hearing the final results of the primary, which aren’t official until Aug. 17.
One school of thought is, if the voters turn down August’s proposal of 50 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value, and its permanent status, it doesn’t make sense to ask the same question in November.
The council majority, however, felt that the numbers are what they are, and those needs aren’t likely to change in the future.
If the measure fails in August, it would more likely be due to not enough voters bothering to mail in their primary ballots than not enough actually supporting the levy, councilmembers reasoned.
Complicating it even more is the county’s decision not to mail the voters’ pamphlet in August, instead providing it online only. (Voters will receive the usual hard copy by mail for November’s election.)
Tony Tinsley said that revising the measure for the November ballot is essentially setting August’s proposal up for failure, since voters might simply hold out for a smaller package in the general election.
“Because the ballots just came out, we’d be telling voters, ‘Hey, vote against this now and get a cheaper (proposal) in November,’” he said.
Councilmember Jennifer Gregerson agreed with Tinsley’s point, but also said it might make more sense to repackage it should it have to go back in November. Since the financial needs aren’t likely to change, that compromise would likely be in the longevity, she said.
Most councilmembers and Mayor Joe Marine are optimistic it won’t be an issue, however. Marine even braved correcting his “if” to “when” in referring to August’s positive outcome.
Resident Charlie Pancerzewski chided the council for what he calls misrepresenting the current levy amount. While the levy was approved at 35 cents, changes in property values have reduced it to its current 23 cents. The quarterly city newsletter implies the 35-rate voters passed originally is in effect, not the current rate, he said.
“Looking at these numbers, we were some of the biggest skeptics going in,” said Kirk Galatas, president of Mukilteo Firefighters’ Local 3482. “But we believe (the current rate) is not going to be sustainable given decreased home values.”
Firefighters don’t believe the city will ever get to the point where residents say they no longer need or want to fund EMS, he said.
The union would like to see fire service have its own dedicated fund in the future along with EMS, Galatas told the council.
Pancerzewki also criticized the proposed annual 5 percent hike in EMS payroll expenses, which he pointed out amounts to a 30-percent increase in six years.
That number includes all personnel costs, not just salary, Galatas said, and is not guaranteed.
The council also unanimously approved appointing Councilmember Gregerson and residents Sheila Countryman-Bean and David Zunkel to the committee that will write the pro argument for the November ballot, the same trio that wrote the August ballot’s pro argument.
And in a bit of stress-saving foresight, city attorney Angela Belbeck recommended a motion – also unanimously approved – that authorizes Marine to withdraw the November measure should the levy pass in August, saving the city that related cost.