Last week I wrote that I still like to read a newspaper rather than trying to find news on the internet and read the online versions. I understand as we move to electronic media, the reaction of the readers is quicker and often there are more comments due to the ease of doing so. Often, however, some of the comments that are made do lack much in terms of accuracy and in being factual and of course some make comments anonymously. With that said, there are a number of issues we will tackle this week.
The EMS issue of course is gaining headlines and much discussion. For many years, the City of Junction City has provided Emergency Medical Service to the entire Geary County area. In 1967, an agreement was made between the City and the County in which 1/3 of the unreimbursed costs are paid by the City and 2/3rds by the County. The term unreimbursed deals with payments from individuals or health care insurances or programs such as Medicare for example. I assume over the years there has been some changes in what was billed, but as far as I know the method upon which the City bills has not changed in the past 5 or 6 years and perhaps well before that there were other costs that were included. The key issue is that there is a desire to change is that at what the City considers is a bad time.
I don’t think there is any argument that the agreement needs to be renewed , but remember it stood “Tried and True” for over 50 years. The City budget for 2023 has been locked in place for over 18 months and the 2024 budget was completed and published before there was even a notion of the desire to change it. The
Fire Department had presented budget data to the County in mid-June as well. A new agreement will not lower the costs as the expenses to operate the EMS continue to increase. There is a cost to a high-quality EMS service which includes more services than just an ambulance.
City staff is concerned that a drop in revenue will equate to an increase in the need for additional tax dollars from property owners in the City. I mentioned the split above. So, City property tax payers have the 1/3, but since the City assessed valuation is over 70% of the County valuation, the City tax payers are covering about 80 percent of the total bill and property owners in the unincorporated area and the other 2 cities in the County are covering 20%. If less is paid by the County then the City percentage goes even higher and up to the 85% or higher range. I am estimating in the 3 mill range or a 6 %increase to just City tax payers. When someone says the County pays the cost, that is all property in the County and that includes the City of Junction City.
We have heard comments that the City has sent inflated numbers to the County. We have a professional staff and that does not happen. For the person who has requested a forensic audit, go ahead and pay the bill because our staff is professional and has it correct. In other words, “Bring It.” Do not question the integrity of the City staff. The issue is what to include in the split and again nothing had changed from “past practice. ”Also remember that not only does the City provide EMS service to the County but many other services as well. The City Commission had voted to discontinue service outside the City limits is not paid, but an operating loss will mean an increase in City taxes or cutting other services and projects. We believe the City offers outstanding service and is the best option for all. One just has to do the “Math” to see what the costs of other options is to tax payers. With the year ending, items like “cash balances” have an impact City finances and ultimately City property tax payers. Also, someone said the City would lay off employees if the County decides to use another EMS option. There is simply no truth to that.
This past week, the City Commission voted to increase water and wastewater or sewer rates. That is not something that anyone enjoys but reflects the needs of the City to provide services. There is no “filling of pockets”, but the need to make upgrades as needed and dictated. Some costs are due to past decisions and lack of maintenance, but also regulations change. No sense putting blame on anyone, but we just need to move ahead.
I also saw a comment that that someone said the City does not have sidewalks everywhere. Not going to argue that, but how do we cover the costs?
Yes there are many issues that have to be addressed and everyone has different opinions and we read those on the internet. Just as one resident told me this week when she called me about last week’s article. There is still something good about picking up a newspaper