Washington County EMS levy could go to voters in March

WASHINGTON — With the long-awaited November elections out of the way, Washington County residents may return to the polls in a few months to vote on proposed new levies for emergency medical services.

If approved, the new property tax would help fund Washington County’s ambulance and emergency communication departments, as well as local quick response groups that help supplement emergency medical services, but don’t transport patients.

Decision-makers still aren’t sure what rate to set the levy at, however, and continue to face disagreements and confusion over how to word the ballot measure that requires a 60% approval rate from voters to take effect.

QRS groups call for 50-cent levy, while county seeks flexibility

Washington County’s EMS Advisory Committee, composed of area ambulance staff, quick response groups, and local government spokespeople have formally recommended a 50 cent levy to help pay for emergency medical services. The math works out to about $740,000 in annual revenue, based on current property values.

The cash would offer a sizable windfall to groups traditionally funded by pancake dinners and small donations, which many emergency response representatives say are no longer sufficient thanks to rising costs of training and equipment.

“EMS is not guaranteed right now,” said Hogan Miller, president of the Kalona First Responders group in an interview earlier this year. “This tax levy, it helps ensure when you call 911, you’re going to get first responders, and you’re going to get an ambulance service.”

EMS Advisory Committee members said a 50-cent levy would cover the county’s needs, even though officials could ask voters to approve an up-to 75-cent levy. While they expect their costs to keep going up, they expect property values to do the same.

“I don’t know about others, I’ve only lived five years in this county, but the taxable value of my property has gone up each of those five years,” EMS Advisory Board Chair Jim Lester said. “I believe we’ll see that amount grow each year for the services.”

But county supervisors, who get the final say on what language ends up on Washington County’s ballots, have shown some resistance to the 50-cent pitch. Several members of the county’s decision-making board have argued instead for language that allows a levy of up to 75 cents, but directs supervisors to adjust the formula as needed from one year to the next, depending on funding needs.

Washington County Supervisor Jack Seward Jr. said at a work session last month that discretion from one year to the next would ensure efficiency if EMS costs ever decrease. He also argued flexibility would help ensure taxes were adequate if training and equipment costs climb faster than property values and their associated taxes.

“If the budget that you’re projecting now at 50 cents is going to cover it, what if only 35 cents is needed in another year?” he asked. “Do we still collect 50? I don’t know that I’m for that. I would prefer to have the language giving us the authority for the 75-cent levy, and the collection based upon submitted budgets … that would give us that flexibility in case something happens.”

Some members of Washington County’s EMS advisory committee say they’re not certain the approach is legal. County Attorney Nathan Repp said state code was somewhat ambiguous on that point, but likely allow flexibility if it’s clearly stated on ballots.

Also at play is the question of whether stakeholders can convince voters to support a levy — of any funding level — at the polls.

“I don’t know why we keep pushing to go up to 75,” said Bruce Murhpy, an employee of the Washington County Ambulance Service. “I think the constituents are going to see that as a negative, if the entities that are doing this say ‘50 cents is enough.’”

Other counties have had good luck enacting EMS property taxes lately.

Voters in Henry County, Washington County’s neighbor to the south, approved a 75-cent levy for the next 15 years in Septemeber, with the caveat that revenue from the tax couldn’t exceed $1.1 million. If the levy ever generates more than that, it would automatically be lowered to ensure total revenue stays within the limit, according to Henry County Supervisor Marc Lindeen, although he doesn’t expect that situation to arise for at least a few years.

Also in Southeast Iowa, voters in Jefferson County approved a 75 cent EMS levy of their own on Election Day, although county officials there said the property tax would replace others, resulting in a net decrease in taxes. Further from Washington, voters in Butler County authorized a levy of no less than 14 cents and no more than 75.

Nov. 5 saw two proposed EMS levies fail at the ballot box, however: those in Page County and Buchanan County, both of which sought the 75-cent approach.

Supervisors say they need budget clarity

Washington County supervisors have suggested they don’t have all the information needed to determine an EMS levy yet, asking local quick response groups to submit copies of their budgets to prove the funding is necessary.

State law requires that EMS levies “raise only the amount needed,” a clause the county has interpreted as a directive to verify every emergency medical organization’s budget and expenses before punting the matter to voters.

“In order for us to properly oversee our taxing authority, we need to see — and I would like to see — a budget that supports that taxing level,” Seward said. “I don’t want to tax more than I have to, but I want the authority to tax what I need.”

Board of Supervisors Chair Richard Young said a fluctuating levy would help ensure transparency.

“I’m just saying, don’t strap us at 50 cents for 15 years,” he said. “Present a budget every year that shows how much you need, because maybe it’s only 40 cents, maybe it’s 30 cents, who knows? That’s my thinking.”

That may be a tall order.

Of the county’s 11 Quick Response Groups, Supervisor Marcus Fedler said only three had a formal budget. Many of the smaller ones have little year-to-year expense tracking, instead asking volunteer members to cover expenses for their own training and spending money on equipment about as quickly as they raise it.

“The budget doesn’t exist right now in 80% of the organizations out there,” Fedler said. “For a large part, it was a shot in the dark, so we don’t really have a budget because nobody ever really had a budget.”

Clock ticking to finalize wording

The EMS Advisory Committee have drafted a timeline, showing when the county needs to complete several bureaucratic steps in order to get a ballot approved in March.

That schedule includes a resolution declaring EMS an essential service no later than Dec. 23 of this year, and a resolution calling for the levy election by the same date. By Dec. 31, supervisors would approve the essential service designation a second time, and a third on Jan. 7, 2024.

If all that goes through, voters in Washington County can expect a special election on March 4.

Fedler said he expected to have the ballot language finalized between those Dec. 23 and Jan. 7 dates, and expected a few work sessions to iron out more details in the meantime.

“Having a resolution declaring EMS an essential service doesn’t mean we have to have verbiage,” he said. “But I imagine we’d probably have a pretty good idea what it’s going to look like by then.”

If that plan falls through, the county would have to wait until Septemeber to hold the vote, thanks to restrictions in state law that only allow EMS levy elections in the first week of March or September, or on general election dates in November.

Sooner would be better according to some advocates, like EMS Advisory Council Chair Jim Lester, who said waiting until September or November would delay funding by an additional year, since Iowa law only allows the levy to take effect in the fiscal year after it’s approved by voters.

“I’m hopeful that they can move forward and we can offer that to the public in March so the QRS services can get some very vital funding,” he said in an interview earlier this year. “The funds would be available sooner, if it was done in March … but ultimately, the advisory council makes recommendations. It’s the board of supervisors that have the final say in setting the amount and deciding when they’re going to offer it for voter approval.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com