HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole July 30 2002DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Committee Of The Whole
3
4 July 30, 2002
5
6
7 The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
8 Nelson in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham,
9 Washington.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Seth Fleetwood
Dan McShane
Sharon Roy
Absent:
Sam Crawford
1. PRESENTATION OF THE EMS STRATEGIC PLAN BY CONSULTANTS
TRI -DATA (AB2002 -297)
(Clerk's Note: The beginning of the meeting was not audiotaped, and there
are no clerk's notes.)
unidentified speaker 1 stated they've done a tremendous job since 1974. In
2002 and in the past few years, they've experienced increased population, density,
and workload. All of these factors contribute to new challenges to the system.
Population has been growing at a dramatic rate. Since 1990, the population of the
county has increased by over 30 percent. The City of Bellingham has grown 27
percent. Proportional with the population demand, call load has gone up by about
19 percent since 1997. Operationally, the system is doing very well. There are
future challenges. They can make a lot of very good recommendations for
solutions to keep it at that level.
35 Unidentified speaker 2 stated that the Medic One program is the hub of the
36 system and represents the highest life- saving capability. The emergency medical
37 services (EMS) system includes all the fire departments in the 17 districts and
38 smaller cities. They do first response. He presented the strategic plan (on file). It
39 takes the corporate approach to strategic planning, which includes a mission,
40 vision, and goals and objectives. The goals and objectives are divided into tasks.
41 The goals and objectives were listed in the request for proposals (RFP) as critical
42 issues. The strategic planning committee identified four critical issues. Three of
43 those issues are funding, system coordination, and system integration. There is a
44 big difference between the volunteer providers in the rural areas and developed
45 areas, compared to the Medic One program in Bellingham. There is a large
46 spectrum of sophistication and capability. System integration is about getting all
Committee of the Whole, 7/30/2002, Page 1
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 these parts of the EMS system to work more smoothly. The coordination
2 mechanism is the organizational design of a structure.
3
4 The fourth critical issue, volunteer recruitment and retention, is a problem
5 being experienced nationwide. It is a very important problem. It is becoming
6 increasingly difficult to tap that volunteer labor during the day. More and more
7 people are not working near their home. It will impact greatly on the future costs
8 of the 17 fire districts in Whatcom County if that initiative isn't supported.
9
10 The Medic One program is $5.4 million, not including the fire department
11 budgets. About $2.8 million is collected in charges for transportation. The County
12 and City of Bellingham each contribute $1.3 million. The issue of funding is on the
13 front burner. As EMS consultants, they put saving lives in front of funding issues,
14 but there is an already excellent system here. The Medic One program is enviable
15 nationwide, due to the fact that they've integrated fire suppression and medicine
16 to this degree. Funding is the burning issue.
17
18 There is more and more stress being put on the County's and City's general
19 funds. The EMS tax levy would free up this amount in the general fund. Projects
20 are that this amount will increase every year.
21
22 Unidentified speaker 3 stated they talked about funding alternatives. There
23 are three alternatives. One alternative is to keep the status quo. Another
24 alternative was to have a County levy lid lift, which uses the County's existing
25 taxing authority. The third option is using the EMS levy. Other options were
26 discussed, but those options would require approval from the State legislature.
27 Those are not viable options. The advantage of the status quo is that they
28 wouldn't have to increase any taxes. The disadvantage is that EMS must compete
29 with all of the County's other priorities.
30
31 If the County can't find a way to fund the service with the existing resources
32 and had to go above the property tax limitation of one percent, they would have to
33 go for a vote. There is not assurance that full funding would be available in the
34 future, given the budget situation. If they keep the same approach, there is a
35 continual coordination between the County's and City's budgets on how they are
36 going to fund the proper amounts.
37
38 The committee recommended an EMS levy approach. The Revised Code of
39 Washington (RCW) allows the County to go up to $.50 per $1,000 of assessed
40 value. It doesn't affect any of the other general property taxes for the County.
41 The advantage of this is that it offers a dedicated funding source. It doesn't have
42 competition for funding of other City and County services. It is reliable and stable
43 for the approved period. It will provide for one jurisdiction, which would be the
44 County if it is a countywide EMS levy, to have centralized oversight and
45 responsibility for funding the program. One disadvantage is that it would have to
46 go through the extra process of going to the voters. It must be approved by 60
47 percent of the voters. It would increase property taxes unless there was an
Committee of the Whole, 7/30/2002, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
offsetting reduction, which isn't likely. The other real disadvantage, mostly for the
fire districts, is that several fire districts already have an EMS levy. Given the way
the laws operate, the countywide levy supercedes their levy.
The committee talked about whether or not to have a six -year, ten -year, or
a permanent levy. The committee decided on a six -year levy. There are a number
of advantages. One advantage is that it is difficult to plan for much longer than six
or ten years. If there is a permanent levy, they could become constrained by the
one percent tax rate. The levy must be authorized by 60 percent of the voters.
Each city with a population over 50,000 must approve the proposed levy. There
are different things the levy would pay for, given differing levy rates. Part of it is
driven by the programming needs. In the end, both councils will decide the
appropriate levy rate.
Unidentified speaker 4 stated the strategic planning committee felt that the
councils should understand the potential of the EMS levy, in terms of further EMS
system development. They can almost ignore the $.22 because it would take $.22
to fund what they have in place today, with no improvements, if they were to have
an EMS levy in place now. However, they are talking about a recommendation for
a six -year EMS levy that would commence in 2004. When they take the existing
system and extrapolate out inflation, what will happen with ambulance fees, and
salary increases, they are talking about a baseline for the next six years being
$.27. This $.27 would only pay for what is in place today. The strategic planning
committee looked at what the system should look like in six years. When they
start putting together a menu of what they might want the system to look like in
six years, they get into higher levy rates. The Medic One program has already
charted out a five -year plan, including improvements they would require. That
levy rate would be $.32. That includes a fifth medic unit that would be in service
in 2005. A $.50 levy is the maximum potential, but is not recommended. It would
bring in about $6 million. The unknown is between the $.32 rate and the $.40
rate. The unknown difference is that some of the improvements the County
providers would like to make over the next six years have not been identified.
Some improvements to the fire districts would require a rate close to $.40.
Unidentified speaker stated that EMS isn't just Medic One. There is a whole
spectrum of care, including first responders through the hospital care. When they
looked at this, they looked at it from basic life support (BLS), which are the first
responders to Medic One.
Caskey - Schreiber asked if the committee identified a need for a fifth Medic
Unit. Unidentified speaker 4 stated they projected call volume.
One of the reasons for the unknown rate is because the volunteer providers
and fire districts are at different states of development, with different needs and
ideas of how they want to improve. In the strategic planning sessions, they
decided it is antithetical to achieve economies of scale with 17 separate fire
districts and other fire departments. They should come together and decide upon
Committee of the Whole, 7/30/2002, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
a collective course of action. The strategic planning commission decided they
could use the money as an incentive to bring the districts and departments
together, if the City and County opted for a levy that is higher than a break -even
point.
The next critical issue is the Medic One program. It is organized in terms of
management and planning. The 17 fire districts and other smaller cities should do
the same. He developed a model on how that might be achieved, for their
consideration. Despite the fact that the Medic One program is an excellent
program, there are still problems when it meshes with BLS first responder
programs. The strategic planning committee heard that, because the Medic One
program is based in the Bellingham Fire Department, the County may feel it
doesn't have equal share in making decisions on how to structure the Medic One
program. The system coordination and integration mechanisms try to fix that
problem. However, the vast majority of medical calls are in and around the City of
Bellingham, which is exactly where the medic units are.
The fire districts that are farther out in the county raised an issue that, if
they need a medic unit, it would take 30 minutes to get there. They couldn't
argue for placing one up there because some areas, such as Sumas, have two calls
every three days. Even if half of them were an advanced life support (ALS) call,
they are talking about one call every three days. They wouldn't put a medic unit
out there for one call every three days. However, it could still be a thorn in the
side of the people in Sumas. BLS providers universally talked about a need for
more support.
By law, an EMS levy is a County initiative. The monies would come into the
County. The strategic planning committee was concerned about whether the EMS
levy would become a de facto plan for redistribution of income. There was
considerable worry about that. One of the ideas was to make a distribution
formula. The monies would come in. Based on the County assessed value and
City assessed value, they would simply divide the money between the two.
Unidentified speaker stated that right now, assessed value is 37 percent in
the City of Bellingham and 63 percent in the County. That doesn't include
annexations that will take place in Bellingham over the next years, so they have to
figure that in as well.
Unidentified speaker 4 stated that Bellingham is basically one - third. If the
tax levy were established to bring in $3 million, then $1 million would go to the
City of Bellingham and $2 million would go to the County. The question becomes
what would happen to the $2 million from the County. Right now, the contribution
to the Medic One program is $1.3 million. There is a presumption by the planning
committee that this group would contract with the City for the Medic One program
and pay its share this way. With this contractual relationship, the County has a
Committee of the Whole, 7/30/2002, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
better opportunity to negotiate costs. To access those monies, the fire districts
would have to come to the table.
There is another distribution formula based on dividing the leftover dollars.
The fire districts are working now on a system for equitably supporting EMS
development in the county.
The coop, in conjunction with the Medic One program, is not just a group
that advises the County on how to distribute funds. There is a mechanism
between the coop and the Medic One program to start solving some of the
integration problems between less and more sophisticated providers.
There is an argument for why they would consider a funding level over and
above meeting the immediate needs of the Medic One program. There are issues
identified by the strategic planning committee that they will bump into over the
next six years, such as ALS response times in the outer reaches of the county.
The Medic One program is a county program housed and operated in the
Bellingham Fire Department. There are annexation issues. As the EMS providers
in the county develop, they are going to have to determine how far out the Medic
One program will go and what the call volume warrants. The 17 fire districts and
smaller incorporated cities have ambulances out there that are not being used for
patient transport. Eventually that issue will come up. The model being proposed
would be the form to work those issues.
At a rate of $.40, only $1.2 million would be left over after providing for the
medic one program. It is not enough money to be applied to the volunteer
retention problem. In some places in the county, the call volume is getting larger.
Those areas are looking or will look at paid staff. The more they look at the
numbers, the more they became doubtful that the tax levy would be able to
provide what they need for personnel. It would be better spent supporting things
like training and medical supplies.
The question came up about whether the County needs a point person to
operate the cooperative. When a group is all volunteers, without staff, things
sometimes flounder.
If they create the cooperative, and there is a paid staff person, there would
be a focal point use standard, nationwide recruitment and volunteer
methodologies.
Brenner asked how difficult it would be to get approval from the legislature
for other funding. Unidentified speaker stated King County lost an EMS levy five or
six years ago. The voters turned it down. King County decided to go back to the
voters in a year or so. Given the environment, he's not sure they will be able to
do it. They would have to lobby the legislature. If they want to do that, funding
will not be until next year.
Committee of the Whole, 7/30/2002, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner asked if the County would impose the tax here, and why the
legislature would care. Unidentified speaker stated that he sits on several State
committees. When it comes to EMS funding, the State feels that the EMS levy is
what the County should use.
Brenner asked if anyone has ever taken it to them and been turned down.
Unidentified speaker stated no one has asked because the message has been not
to waste their time.
Brenner asked about needing 60 percent voter approval versus needing a
simple majority. Unidentified speaker stated a simple majority is all that is
required for the County lid lift. The County has the authority to go up to $1.80
through the general property tax.
Desler stated a recent survey showed that Whatcom County is the only
county in the State that funds the EMS system from its general fund.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the EMS levy needs to be approved by 60 percent
of the registered voters or 60 percent of those who vote. Unidentified speaker
stated it has to be approved by 60 percent of 40 percent of those who voted in the
last election. If they hit the 40 percent, and 60 percent of that 40 percent
approves it, it would pass.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how to get it approved. Unidentified speaker stated
they would have to create a campaign. Whoever puts on that campaign will have
to do a lot of public education.
Unidentified speaker stated that the more the major stakeholders back this
idea, the better the chance of approval.
Caskey- Schreiber asked who would be the opponent to a levy. If the
Bellingham Medic One unit and firefighters are okay with this, then she supports it.
Unidentified speaker stated that if Medic One were to not see themselves getting
some of the things they need over the next six years, the contractual agreement
wouldn't exist, and they may change their minds.
Unidentified speaker stated there is some concern about the fire districts
that already have their own EMS levy. They will lose money for their own
operations.
Dave Hanson, County Fire Commission President, stated the way that this
system is set up, those fire districts that lose money would also receive money
back in other ways. It was set up this way so that no one would be hurt.
Dr. Mark Wayne, Medical Director, stated an important issue is that it has to
be funded at a level that permits them to do it right. To approve a levy amount
that would only provide for a bare bones budget is unrealistic. There would be
Committee of the Whole, 7/30/2002, Page 6
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 opposition to that, which would be legitimate opposition. He recommends a levy
2 rate of about $.40. When they talk about integration, they need to be careful. It
3 sounds like there are a bunch of broken pots out there that need to be put back
4 together. However, they don't have that. They are the envy of a lot of other
5 places. They may not be able to fund everything the right way, but they operate a
6 system that integrates the City and County and that is incredibly unique in the
7 state and nationally. The improvements are to make better what is already good.
8 They are starting to get people to integrate. The County Council's job is to go to
9 the public, do what they have to and fund it at a level that is right, and to take the
10 burden of the general fund of the County's and City's backs. They are selling life
11 to the public. They are selling a system that they already agree with. They will
12 still have a user fee for some. It's a win -win for everyone.
13
14 Dave Williams, Strategic Planning Committee member, stated none of the
15 current money from the general fund directly supports the fire district portion of
16 EMS response. All that comes from the fire taxes. All the fire districts out there
17 are currently struggling with meeting with their legally mandated requirements to
18 fight fires and respond to emergencies because of the EMS drain. The $.32 meets
19 the costs of the Whatcom Medic One transport, but the $.40 allows those fire
20 districts and municipalities to begin to do other things with some funding. The
21 dedicated funding for fire response can go back to dealing with fire response.
22
23 Fleetwood asked if there was consensus among the committee to
24 recommend a levy rate of $.40. Unidentified speaker stated they haven't voted on
25 it, but it is a common figure they discussed.
26
27 Fleetwood asked if the committee recommended when the levy would go to
28 the voters. Unidentified speaker stated the committee assumed it would go to the
29 public in 2003. Last month, it was brought to the committee's attention that there
30 is interest in putting it on the ballot this November. Personally, he thinks that's
31 too quick. The less the stakeholders have an opportunity to figure out what they
32 are going to do, the more likely they are going to throw their hands up and oppose
33 the tax levy.
34
35 Unidentified speaker stated the City may be ready, but the 17 fire districts
36 have not become ready. They need an opportunity to get on board.
37
38 Caskey- Schreiber stated it is better to make sure it will pass.
39
40 Brenner stated they are not talking about a special election next year. They
41 are talking about the election in November 2003. Unidentified speaker stated it is
42 up to the Council. They've heard different things. To get on the ballot, it needs to
43 be ready by the third week in September. There was some discussion about a
44 spring election. Failing that, there would be the election in November next year.
45
46 Brenner stated she is completely opposed to a special election. If they
47 really want to get the stakeholders on board, do it at a general election this year
Committee of the Whole, 7/30/2002, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
or next year. She asked if they can put several options on the budget. She would
rather have something than nothing. Unidentified speaker stated the voters
always go for the lowest number.
Unidentified speaker stated the King County levy failed because there were
so many things on the ballot that people didn't know what they were voting for, so
they voted down everything.
Desler stated the law requires that it be a set rate.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A. The remainder of the meeting was
not audiotaped and there are no clerk's notes.)
2. DISCUSSION WITH A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE WHATCOM
COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION
(AB2002 -018)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on September 10 , 2002.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 7/30/2002, Page 8