JW: What the proponents of Prop 1 said at the JOLT/LWV forum is not consistent with the RFA Strategic Plan. I believe they were untruthful. I think that they probably have not read the RFA Strategic Plan, or examined the RFA Strategic Plan work papers. I have.
I cited the exact page of the exact RFA spreadsheet on which I based my statement. You cited absolutely no documentation for what you have said. The "additional firefighters" is simply NOT a part of the current funding plan for the RFA.
Yes, Olympia is in the process of creating a BLS transport unit, because the private ambulance services have not been available when needed. That ties up an engine company, for example, in the case of a broken leg (a BLS call that does not require Medic One), because they will not leave a patient until they can hand them off to a transport unit. But those positions are being created with or without an RFA. The same is true for the CARE unit that will respond to drug and behavior-type calls that now unnecessarily tie up an engine company. These additional employees are NOT A PART OF THE RFA PROPOSAL, and are NOT A PART OF THE RFA FUNDING.
Please identify yourself, and, if you respond, cite directly to documents produced by the RFA Committee, not to oral representations or campaign rhetoric that cannot be verified with the actual documents that we are voting on. It's one thing to misrepresent the facts; it's another to do it without identifying yourself.
The RFA Strategic Plan has ZERO CHANGE in firefighters over the seven-year period. NOT ONE new addition. The only change is that Tumwater goes from 34 firefighters and 9 lieutenants to 29 firefighters and 14 Lieutenants. You can see that data at https://sites.google.com/view/saveourfd/improved-service?
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
