Report Inappropriate Comments

I also want to address your other points beyond the federal funding point.

Your wrote, "Furthermore, the RFA would provide funding for replacing fire engines and equipment as well as needed gear that the cities are currently unable or unwilling to provide.". Again, the data, words and numbers of the RFA do not comport with your statement.

In fact, the fire apparatus in the plan comes from the City of Tumwater that believes it is a commitment previously made to their voters from a prior vote. And if you really wanted more new fire trucks, you could get two new ones EVERY YEAR for what the RFA plans on spending on duplicative administrative costs like a new budget director, PIO/Communications Coordinator, HR director and their two staff, the IT administrator and their two staff etc.

Two brand new fire trucks, every year so that also helps address your other point you wrote,

"As I've stated previously throughout following this process, we are going to be paying more one way or another. The question is does each city want to pay more separately or combine and pay a lesser amount?"

No, you are again incorrect. You will not pay a lesser amount. Not only does the RFA pay more to fund positions whose duties are already paid for by the cities (each has the exact same positions that the RFA will duplicate) but the RFA gives all the firefighters/EMTs raises for no other reason than the combined department will be able to negotiate bigger salaries when compared to bigger departments in the state. Same people, doing the same work for the same areas just getting more money it.

Finally, as the RFA Planning team readily acknowledges it needs to build a new fire station and the plan does not have funding for it. The consultant told them they will need to borrow the money. Full disclosure, I don't have a direct document for this following statement, just common sense and 45 years of government finance experience. Credit rating agencies will assess the credit worthiness of the RFA which will be a new entity, already saddled with borrowed reserves that it must pay back, with a narrower set of revenues than the cities and little track record in paying its bills and uncertain ongoing support by the voters for its continued existence. This kind of financial risk results in a higher interest rate. A 20-year bond sold by this new agency will result in a higher interest rate that the taxpayers will have to pay than if it was left with the cities who have been good credit risks for over a 100 years. And the taxpayers will be left with a bigger bill.

So for these reasons, I believe you are incorrect, again.

While you may be content to trust opinions ("...I put the most weight on their opinion") of those who have direct interest in the outcome, I believe the public needs the facts and documents.

Fire and emergency services are too important to trust and not verify.

If you are willing to go beyond trusting the talking points of others, please go to the website www.SaveOurFD.org and see for yourself the quotes, video clips, and source documents that support the claims of the Save Our Fire Departments, Vote No on Prop. 1 folks.