Disqus - Latest Comments for fit123

Re: Help the fire district save your life - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:51:06 -0000

It seems that the reality of our communities need for the continuation of the EMS levy will far outweigh the few dollars in taxes that I could save casting a negative vote. Brian makes great points that I agree with: seconds do matter in an emergency. I'm in favor, and I'm voting yes!

Re: Painful realities make supporting the EMS levy necessary - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:36:15 -0000

This is seems to summarize the answer to the question that has been asked and the article is very much appreciated. The local community, serviced by South Kitsap Fire & Rescue has the opportunity to show the fire department what kind of service that we want. Response times, paramedic services, and ambulance transports are all needs that I will support in the upcoming election.

Re: School, fire district need to cut back like the rest of us - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:30:51 -0000

Making do with less is an important concept. I would propose that making do without EMS Service may be a little too drastic for the entire community. The EMS levy is a renewal of the required voter approval for continued services provided by the local fire department. We pay taxes for fire protection, but if the EMS levy expires, and the community decides to no longer support this government service, it will go away. Even in this economy, I'm not willing to pay for that risk.

Re: Even in lean times, safety has to be our first consideration - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:55:52 -0000

A politician! That's a first for me...(I think I appreciate it though?): Let me try from another perspective:
In 2001 the Washington voters approved I-747 that capped the amount local governments could raise taxes to a maximum of 1% cap. Before this, local fire departments could raise the amount by 6%, based on property assessed values. As I understand it, this is why the current EMS levy is at the 33 cents vs. the 50 cents the fire department would like it "re-set" to. Prior to I-747, voters only had to renew the EMS levy every six years, and the local fire department would "sell" the tax as a "renewal of the existing 50 cents". Now, however, secondary to I-747 the amount the fire departments and other local governments are able to raise actually lowers the amount (or keeps in check/balance) from issues like an EMS levy. If we voted to approve the existing EMS levy at 33 cents, over the course of six years that amount would be much lower. I don't know how much lower, and in part it based on the assessment of our property values by the county assessor. I suppose it could go up, if the property values were to decrease significantly. The county assessor decreasing property values would be a-typical, although I think it happened for 2008-09? Anyways, it does cost money to run the special levy's and this was explained in another article by a local Ollalla resident. Why waste $300-400k on running the levy every year, ask for it every six years, allow I-747 to help keep the taxation in check, and let us decide if we want the fire department to continue to provide EMS service. I'm not sure if I explained it correctly or any better, but thought I would give it a try.

Re: Even in lean times, safety has to be our first consideration - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:31:56 -0000

Sesswithxrays; sometimes I read your post and think, "he's got a good point" and then I read the "Chiefy Weefy" post and it makes it difficult to see past the sarcasm and hidden agendas. What gives?

Re: Even in lean times, safety has to be our first consideration - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:27:00 -0000

I appreciate the q/a session and it continues to help paint a picture of why SKFR is asking for the .50 vs. a continuation of the existing amount. These two figures seem to get confusing, but it makes sense that if the taxpayers continue funding what the fire department has now, and the request for emergency services (911 calls) continue to increase, then the same money is not paying for the same service- the service level has decreased. 50 cents is the same amount that was asked for 5 years ago, and will probably be the same amount asked for in the future. I would not want the fire department to spend $50,000 +/- to run a special levy every one, two, or three years to keep the figure at .33 cents. Ask for permission to raise to .50, it will slowly decrease and be held in check by the 1% rule, and eventually be back in the 30-36 cent figure, at which point it will be time to ask again (six years down the road). This is a vital service to the community; three basic services the local population needs most from their local governments, FIRE, POLICE, and EMS. Thanks for taking the time to write the editorial and not use "scare" tactics- the facts help.

Re: The only thing special about special levies is the waste - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:41:58 -0000

Good point. Tens-of-thousands will be spent to run this again if it did not pass the first time.

Re: The only thing special about special levies is the waste - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:40:16 -0000

Perhaps timing is not good, however, the EMS Levy is a six year levy. If it expires the money is not there. As I understand it, it provides around 35-40% of the fire departments budget. Thus, if it did not pass in spring, the fire department will spend additional tax dollars to pass it again in fall. To loose this tax revenue would be a significant hit to the budget. Every surrounding community in the area (and extended community) has said in the past, and recent past that they want thier local fire department to provide first line EMS response to medical emergency's, and have supported that request via the EMS Levy. Others have said the same thing regarding the SKFR budget; it's lean, and it's open for anyone to scrutinize. I have participated in the Community Buget Review Process and I know Wayne has attempted to recruit members of the community to evaluate the budget and ask tough questions regarding service levels and holding the fire department accountable. The timing is based upon the six year cycle of an EMS Levy.

Re: The only thing special about special levies is the waste - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:59:57 -0000

Mr. Daughtery offers a keen perspective on government and waste. I am sure that between all the government entities mentioned there is a lot of room for improvement and efficiencies. I'm not sure that the approach of, "Just Say No" is in the best interest of the citizens as a whole. There are many, many people who rely on the first response of emergency medical aid provided through a special levy such as the Emergency Medical Services tax. There are similar needs (and wants) from the libraries and School District.

$200-300 more per year, total. I think each issue needs to be considered carefully. The local fire department asking for $5.00-$8.00 more per month to pay for an increased service level (faster response time), and maintenance of it's first line paramedic and emt service is a small price to pay for the insurance policy of 24/7 emergent care. The equivalency of a paramedic showing up at your house within 4-8 minutes, offers the extended hands of the emergency room physician, with a large number of medications, IV's, intubation, and other life saving (and stabilizing) skills.

The library is not going to send it's staff to the car accident, and the school board is not going to send teachers to assist the family member who is having crushing chest pain. Each issue is very distinct and deserves very careful consideration, based on the merits and facts.

Re: Chief says levy failure would be devastating to SKFR - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:53:21 -0000

The levy as being proposed by South Kitsap is asking the question of whether or not the public would like South Kitsap Fire and Rescue to continue to provide first line Emergency Medical Services to the community of South Kitsap. The question that will be asked shortly, as I understand, is whether or not the public wants EMS services from their local fire department, "Yes or No?"

I would submit that you (seeswithxrays) have made some very valid points from your perspective and that you are going to vote "No" on SKFR's delivery of Emergency Medical Services. It is respectable and commendable and you are obviously passionate regarding your position that the fire department does not need to provide these services, nor does the public need to rely on the fire department to continue to provide these services, or make any attempt to keep the response times at a nationally recognized reasonable level. On the other hand, there are many in the community (about 9000 +/-) who use the service on an annual basis. Different people, different circumstances, different perspectives, different votes. America is a wonderful place!

Re: Fire merger still set for November ballot - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:46:10 -0000

It seems like the WSFR and SKFR EMS levy are different topics and will have different ballot proposals. The merging of the fire authority may or may not move forward and as I understand it, the fire chiefs and elected officials are meeting and discussing the issue. The preliminary report that was authorized by the agency's made a recommendation that they formally get together and explore the efficiencies, while determining if they could politically agree to make the formation and determine if it was in the communities best interest. However, the announcement of those meetings and decisions regarding the official formation has not been made. The elected officials (who are elected by the public) have yet to decide if it's in their constituents best interest.

Granted, the public as served by a future West Sound community will have to answer the same question, but that question is not being asked of the voters today.

The question that will be asked shortly, as I understand, is whether or not the public wants EMS services from their local fire department, "Yes or No?"

On the other hand, there are many in the community (about 9000 +/-) who use the service on an annual basis. Different people, different circumstances, different perspectives, different votes. America is a wonderful place!

Re: Fire chief just preying on our fears - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:12:49 -0000

I'm convinced that the paramedics and EMT's who respond 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, providing an invaluable service to the community, are still needed. The EMS Tax money being requested by the fire department pays for this service. This is the best part of living in a community: when everyone chips in, we all benefit from the whole. Ambulances and trained personnel arriving within minutes with a simple phone call for any type of medical emergency for the cost of $15-30 per month is a very small insurance policy. I've used the service twice in ten years, and I would gladly continue to pay my share of the .50 per $1000. When a child is having an anaphylaxis reaction and the airway is swelling what neighbor can I call to help? Only one: 911. Not so long ago, Doctors use to make house calls. Those days are pretty much gone- but there is a group of trained paramedics who are qualified to represent the emergency room physician out in the field, and carry a host of medications, oxygen, and tools to provide this service.

Re: SKFR resorting to scare tactics again - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:36:54 -0000

Good point. From what I've seen, schools and major business are adding the defibrillators on the walls like fire extinguishers. My understanding from recent CPR class, is using this defibrillator is more important then starting CPR. The quicker it is used, the better chance of survival. However, you still need the paramedics on site quickly for the rest of the survival picture- drugs, oxygen, advanced defibrillator skills, quick transport to the ER, etc.
Seattle pays an average of $9.28 per $1000 for taxes. It seems very high, but people are obviously willing to pay that in exchange for a host of government services. http://www.cityofseattle.ne...
Heart attacks seems like one small piece of the call volume for the local fire department. The child hit by the quad during the recent snow storm, car accidents, gunshots, falls down the stairs, general sickness, strokes are also part of the need for local 911 EMS response.

Re: Fire chief just preying on our fears - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:24:56 -0000

It's real life stories like the one above from our neighbors that reinforces the need and reality of how local EMS 911 responses make a difference. With a population of 85k and South Kitsap Fire Department responding to 8500-9000 calls a year, it would seem to me that a large portion of the population is touched by these firefighters, paramedics, and EMT's in some way. Until they prove otherwise, the fire department has my trust with my tax dollars.

Re: SKFR levy kickoff slated - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:18:24 -0000

I appreciate the honesty and facts that are presented by the local fire department. Rarely do you find people who stand for character and the principals of character. As this request for continued funding gets closer to the actual vote, the facts as presented in a logical fashion will help me continue to offer my support for this levy request. I cannot think of a more vital service then local EMS response by Paramedics and EMT's. It is disappointing that the current response time is so long, but by offering a small token of support to the fire department, I believe the community will continue to see the benefit of their tax dollars actually being put to work by adding more responders on the street.

Re: Chief says levy failure would be devastating to SKFR - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:27:38 -0000

I think the justification is based upon response times. Calls are going up, money is going down or staying nuetral= call response times going up. I think we are talking about public safety. South Kitsap has 72 responders taking care of 9000 calls per year. Gig Harbor has 70+ responders taking care of 4500 calls per year. Different communities, same problems, different level of risk.

Re: SKFR resorting to scare tactics again - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:18:59 -0000

.50 seems like the standard across the state for EMS service. I'm not sure anyone said that more calls "cannot be responded to"- Is what I've heard is that as the fire departments call volume increases, the same amount of money (30 cents) is not buying the same service. Call volumes increase, money stays the same, response times go down. What is an acceptable level is the question: 12 minutes on average, 14 minutes, 20 minutes? No EMS service and drive your kid, wife or other family member to the hospital at 35 minutes? That's the question? The voters get to answer. In Seattle you may pay $2.00 for TOTAL Fire / EMS service and get a four minute response time. South Kitsap gets to choose their acceptable level of risk based upon response time. From the website, South Kitsap serves 85k people, running 9000 calls a year: so having 72 responders working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week seems like a very low number. I'm not surprised about anything.

Re: Fire chief's threats not appreciated - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:11:22 -0000

Here's the direct link to the "facts" as outlined by SKFR: http://www.kitsapfire7.org/...
I think those facts start to paint a picture that will influence my vote. ER's, Helicopters, Local Urgent Cares, etc do not provide the service the community needs when someone is having an emergency related to medical or trauma. There's only one service that answers that call, and it's the local fire department. Response times along with well trained responders is what I'm interested in.

Re: Fire merger still set for November ballot - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:58:20 -0000

This is a good point. As a voting taxpayer, the facts will speak volumes. Some of the information posted on the fire departments website provides insightful information. The fact that the neighboring fire departments such as Central Kitsap and Gig Harbor run fewer 911 calls and have larger annual budgets helps. The fact that SKFR has a longer response time, and those response times continue to go up is interesting to note. I would submit that providing these kinds of facts, with supporting information will allow the voting public to make informed decisions regarding how much tax revenue they are willing to support local EMS response with. Paramedic and EMT services to my front door 24/7 is important. Very important. I would encourage Wayne to give us accurate information so that we can make informed decisions regarding our acceptable risk levels in the South Kitsap Community.

Re: Why can't SKFR just ask for an extension? - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:31:37 -0000

Perhaps I don't agree with the "scare tactic" strategy of black/white IF THEN statements (lay offs, no paramedic service), but even if he just said, "Please vote yes" the same principals still apply, we need the EMS paramedic service in the community. No is not an option. Everything is a risk:cost ratio. I pay insurance on my house, because I make the assumption that the fire department will not arrive in time to save the entire structure. I carry some of that risk. I'm not willing to risk that with EMS. I want the best that the community can reasonably afford- a fifty cent levy every six years is a reasonable benefit for the cost.

Re: Fire chief just preying on our fears - Port Orchard Independent

fit123 — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:04:43 -0000

My understanding is that every time the fire department runs an election, there is a cost that they have to pay. Let's say that cost is $100,000. In order to maintain "30 cents" the fire department would have to run an election every year that authorizes "30 cents for EMS". Over the life of an EMS Levy (six years) to maintain the 30 cents that would cost $600,000. That's an absolute waste of money. Instead, the EMS levy is renewed for 50 cents and over the course of six years the rate is at 30 cents. Then renewed again. $600,000 is a lot of taxpayer money.