Report Inappropriate Comments

Second Installment of fact checking the not so "Best Idea"

"It’s a progressive and fair way to fund fire and medical response."

For sake of politeness, let us just call this false claim an ill-informed statement. The Fire Benefit Charge proposed by the RFA supports a structural change in our government revenue system that is by any measure extremely regressive and a contributor to income inequality. It is more regressive than most alternatives.

But you may ask, is a property tax less regressive than a Fire Benefit Charge? Let’s have the City of Olympia itself answer that for you from a recent meeting of the Olympia Finance Committee looking at funding alternatives for climate work.

“At the meeting, Braff provided information on different revenue options, including property tax, a sales tax, a private utility tax, and a municipal utility tax.

According to Braff, the city has the authority to implement property tax, which would require voter approval to approve a levy lid lift.

Braff noted that this option creates consistent and predictable funding sources imposed for a specified duration. It would increase costs to property owners.

"One of the benefits is that they are likely less progressive than other types of approaches. Higher values, not always, correlate with higher abilities to pay," Braff said.”

You can read this entire article on climate funding on the JOLT at https://www.thejoltnews.com/stories/olympias-finance-committee-looks-at-revenue-options-to-fund-climate-work,9780?

The RFA's Fire Benefit Charge is not a progressive way of funding basic services. It is not fair. It contributes to greater income inequality and if more revenues are needed we have a more progressive and stable way of raising the funding. Just like the city officials themselves all recognize.

The city has a huge amount of capacity to raise the property tax, especially since the recent jump in assessed valuations. That is done through a “levy lid lift” that is a permanent increase in property taxes and only requires a 50% vote of the people, not the 60% required by the Fire Benefit Charge. Again, you don't have to believe me, listen to Councilmember Cooper here: https://youtu.be/5xAvHHOdbfs

Further, less money would be needed to be raised if it was not in the RFA because you save millions in avoiding duplicative administrative staff and inflated salaries to match the bigger departments.

I would personally support an increase for additional funding through a levy lid lift, should the facts show that our great, second only to Seattle, Fire Department is underfunded.

Fire and emergency services are important to me, my family and friends, and that is why we need to SAVE OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT by VOTING NO ON PROP 1.

Learn more about the real facts by going to SaveOurFD.org