The Thurston County Republican Party (TCRP) encourages a vote of "NO" on Proposition 1. The TCRP understands and acknowledges the needs of our communities to support and adequately fund critical functions such as our emergency responders. The TCRP also feels that small government and fiscal responsibility are essential components to an effective and functional government.
In the interest of fiscal responsibility, small government, transparency and accountability, we feel Proposition 1 is an irresponsible measure to put forth. While we support firefighters and emergency responders, the taxpayers are not receiving a commensurate increase in services with the fee that will be added to your property tax bills.
There is no evidence that the $10.5M in additional revenue projected to be raised by the fee will achieve that goal.
There is no evidence that taxpayers will receive an increase in service levels for the increased cost.
- If it is such a great idea and endorsed by Lacey firefighters, why have they not joined in on the Regional Fire Authority
~ By the Thurston County Republican Party Executive Board:
Matt Smith, Rainier
Jay Fratt, Olympia
Kelly Grace-Payne, Olympia
Corey Gauny, Olympia
Mary Wilks, Lacey
Gary Landis, Olympia UGA
Pat Beehler, Olympia
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
jimlazar
I don't often agree with the Thurston County Republicans. I am an elected Democratic precinct committee officer. But they hit the nail right on the head with this.
I oppose the RFA for different reasons. The Fire Benefit Charge is highly regressive -- it charges the smallest homes at a higher rate than the charges the largest homes.
It uses a "square root of the square feet" formula, that makes small locally-owned apartments buildings (five units) pay 5 times as much per unit as a large corporate-owned apartment complex of 200 units. That's just a subsidy to big corporations.
There are ZERO new firefighters or paramedics identified in the Seven-Year Strategic Plan for the RFA, but our population is growing at 2% per year. So our quality of service will decline at about 2% per year.
The planned salary scale for the RFA is off the charts. The top six brass would each cost us a quarter-million dollars per year (including benefits).
Look at the facts at www.saveourfd.org
Big new fees. No new service. Vote NO. Keep your fire service local.
Monday, April 17, 2023 Report this
Kruz81
The RFA is a bad idea. When those wanting it cannot stipulate why we need it in an easy to understand way. It raises taxes for no real ability to help fix issues.
Monday, April 17, 2023 Report this
KatAshe
I must agree with jimlazar. I also rarely regret with our Republican neighbors.
The concept of combining the two cities services, should in theory bring more efficient coordination and cost reduction. Unfortunately, in my opinion, what is being presented to us to vote on, is poorly thought out,
The authors of this, need to tear it up and start over with a plan that will offer something sensible, cost effective and provide for improved service, not the same or less, at more cost
Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Report this
FordPrefect
Unfortunately most folks will still vote for the RFA. The mailer cleverly associated a NO vote as a vote against helping firefighters which is ridiculous, but a simple and effective tactic. Everyone wants a good fire department, right?
I genuinely hope voters are smart enough to see the snake in the grass.
Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Report this
JW
This is nothing but the Republicans parroting the talking points of the No campaign.
Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Report this
Larry Dzieza
I want to address the issue in the comments about whether you agree or don't usually agree with the positions of Thurston County Republicans being relevant to taking a position on Prop 1.
Having been active on this issue since I first read about it on The JOLT, I have had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with advocates, opponents and most of all those who simply wanted to learn more about the proposed RFA.
What I found is people’s position on this issue cuts across all ideological, political, economic, and demographic divides. One of the reasons for this finding, I believe, is that fire and emergency medical services are universally valued and the need for these services transcend these social distinctions and differences.
The other reason I believe for this refreshing lack of ideological divides is that the facts of the proposal have aspects that are objectionable or of concern that checks the boxes on so many of the things our community cares about both universally and ideologically.
It turns out people universally care about getting the most value out of their tax dollars and have the common sense to see that the proposal falls short in in a myriad of ways.
Most everybody agrees that it makes no sense to pay more for the same level of service.
Some folks are against higher costs especially at a time of high inflation and economic uncertainty.
Some folks (like me) are against it because it is a regressive tax that promotes economic inequality.
Some folks (like me) are against it because they are concerned that this new organization that begins $10 million in debt and will have the “bumpy” start the City Manager of Tumwater predicted, don’t want to put their property and lives at risk to fix something that isn’t broken.
Some are concerned about creating another level government that won’t be responsible for weighing the priorities of the community and instead it elects a new set of 7 politicians beholden to only one interest group.
Some are concerned that the $10.5 million Fire Benefit Charge can be raised to $50 million without a vote of the people.
Some are concerned that this “regional” approach is not really regional. It leaves out the biggest fire authority in the county Lacey FD 3 and all the other fire jurisdictions in the county.
Some folks are against wasting money (over $2 million) for hiring HR, IT, Accounting and Finance staff, equipment, software and space to perform the operations that are currently being done by the cities.
Some are concerned that the same firefighters doing the same job for the same geographic areas will be paid over $10 million in higher salaries and benefits only because putting the Tumwater staff together with the Olympia staff makes it a bigger department and bigger departments negotiate higher salaries (“comparables”). Common sense says that 1 + 1 should not equal 3. This is the opposite of an economy of scale.
Some are concerned that the Fire Benefit Charge formula has been shaped to result in political preferences of who the cost will fall hardest upon or not at all.
Some simply can’t understand the FBC as it is overly complex and designed to silence critics with square roots and theories about fire flow and very weird counting of square footages.
Some question the formula’s fidelity to the state law. It is likely just one lawsuit away from bringing down the whole RFA financial structure and putting at risk everyone who relies on emergency services.
In short (you are probably saying to yourself, "in short"? Why did I have to read down this far to get to "short"?), whether you are fiscal conservative or a card-carrying liberal environmentalist (like me) or whether you are a renter or property owner or whether you live in Tumwater or Olympia or just a person with common sense there is something for everyone not to like with this proposal.
Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Report this