Public urges council to adopt EMS fee as administrators explain legal limits of levies
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters pressed Aberdeen City Council to adopt the proposed EMS fee now to avoid cuts, while city staff explained state law (RCW) treats EMS funding as a fee for cost-of-service rather than a property-tax levy, noting levies require voter approval and are frequently capped or rejected.
A public commenter urged the Aberdeen City Council to approve the proposed emergency medical services (EMS) fee in full, saying the city cannot keep dipping into the general fund or cutting other services to cover EMS costs.
"We can't continue to do that. We need to have sensible budgeting ... and we need to cover our costs now," said Unidentified Speaker 3, who told the council the change would be painful for low-income and fixed-income residents but argued delaying action would force deeper cuts later.
City administration responded with an explanation of the legal framework for EMS funding. Unidentified Speaker 2 told the council the state statute (referred to in the meeting as the RCW) treats EMS charges as a fee for the cost of that service rather than as a property-tax levy. That distinction matters because levies require voter approval, are often limited in scope, and are sometimes rejected by voters, the speaker said.
"This is a fee for the cost of service, no different than how you use your water or your sewer service," Unidentified Speaker 2 said in response to a resident's question about why the city was not using a property tax levy.
The discussion captured two separate points the council will face: the fiscal argument that the city must find a sustainable revenue source for EMS, and the statutory constraints that, according to staff, limit the city's options in how it can levy that cost. A council member earlier in the meeting had signaled support for the fee path when public comment first raised the issue.
No council vote on adopting the EMS fee was recorded in the transcript of this meeting. Administrators offered to follow up with residents who wanted more detail and indicated they would provide more information in subsequent meetings about options including partnering arrangements or other service models.
