Report Inappropriate Comments

Excerpted from https://www.saveourfd.org/

The RFA Pro Side intends the FBC to be increased

When Mr. Kmet writes that the first year FBC of $10.5 million is equal to $0.50 of a property tax levy he fails to mention is that the FBC can go up to $50 million in the second year of operation by a simple majority vote by an unelected RFA Board. If you “do the math” you can see that amount the FBC can be raised without a vote is equal to a property tax of $2.25.

It is time to quit misleading the public about this. The consultants have said it, the RFA members have said it, the real reason for the RFA is to gain access to the FBC. They call it a “pathway” and a “platform” and “sustainable” funding for improving services in the future. Yes, you are not going to get improved services in today’s plan (see Pat Cole article in JOLT). The improved services the proponents speak about only come after they make large non-voter approved fee increases. Unlike the property tax that can only grow at 1% a year without a vote, the FBC’s increase can be quadrupled by the RFA Board. But cities don’t get to use the FBC under state law, so they are creating the RFA.

If they really intended the FBC to be funded at the $10.5 million level, equal to $0.50 on the property tax, they could have exercised the option of not doing the FBC at all and set the rate at $1.50, which is permitted in state law by simple majority vote. In fact, the last financial plan showed how easy it would be to do. As the chart from the RFA financial plan below shows from 10/1/2023 titled “Department Organization & Financial Planning Strategies”, the $1.50 levy would be sufficient to fund the planned budget throughout the 7-year period. Ok, yes, the cities would need to add a small additional $300,000 to the $10 million loan in the first year, but there is more than enough capacity to pay that back.

And they could have done that without requiring the 60% majority that they need with an FBC. Why did the legislature put that super majority requirement in? Because the FBC is such a powerful revenue tool and they wanted to make triple sure that the voters knew what they were getting into before they entrusted their elected officials with that extraordinary taxing power.

But we all know the intent is not to leave the charge at $10.5 million. The intent is to raise the FBC and by a lot.

If Olympia annexes the SE side around Yelm Highway as planned, it will need to be raised.

If they want to build more fire stations that you already know you need, you need to raise it.

If they want to hire the firefighters to reduce the hours of the current firefighters, they need to increase the FBC.

If they want to buy more fire trucks than are already being paid for without the RFA, you need to raise the FBC.

The RFA Committee created a “bare bones” budget in the words of Councilmember Cooper, providing just enough money to inflate the firefighters pay and cover the additional overhead to run the new level of government.

Here is a video of Tumwater Councilmember Althauser saying that to get the improvements not funded in the plan that were spelled out by IAFF Local 2409 Lieutenant James Osberg earlier in the meeting, the FBC would need to be at least $20 million. Althauser didn’t propose leveling with the voters about that reality and changing the plan. Rather he assured the other RFA members that the plan creates the “mechanism” and a “pathway” to get there. Not that is a but that is not a message he wants to share with voters. There will be time after the RFA is approved for the FBC to be increased. Watch it go down here: https://youtu.be/I0NZDR3Hqfs