I spent 28 years of my life bargaining labor/management contracts in the Spokane Public Schools: 4 years bargaining on the labor side of the table and 20 years doing “interest-based” bargaining for management. In interest-based bargaining, teams made up of equal numbers of labor and management members would develop solutions to complex problems. I learned that the best solutions come from front line workers.
Serving these past six years as your 22nd LD [legislative district] state representative only reinforced my long-held belief that real solutions come from those workers closest to the front line. This is why I am working hard to pass Proposition 1, the Olympia-Tumwater Fire District Authority. . .
Our Firefighters/EMTs are asking for our help - not for a pay raise - but
because they are afraid of a future where staffing levels, equipment, and
facilities continue to degrade as they have over the past decade. Please don’t let the opposition confuse you - it’s simple - it’s about helping those who are there for us in our moments of greatest need, no questions asked.
Whenever a new, better idea is introduced to any community, there will be an opposition group that forms to frighten voters away from the “unknown.”
Those opposing Proposition 1 are suggesting two major problems.
The Regional Fire Authority is a totally untested concept. This is false.
Regional Fire Authorities were authorized by the state legislature in 2004. Since that time, many communities have successfully established fire authorities, and actually developed the fire benefit charge to more successfully sustain the ongoing needs of their fire departments. Proposition 1 has been modeled after their successes. You can learn about the history and the ongoing work of these successful regional fire authorities at:
2) The fire benefit charge is a regressive fee. This is false.
The fire benefit charge is primarily based on the square footage of each dwelling. My husband and I live in a 2-bedroom condo. We have many good friends who own lovely homes on the waterfront. Because the square footage of our condo is far less than the square footage of their large homes, we will pay less.
For firefighters, the size of the home is more important than the value of the home (as you know, home value is used to calculate our property taxes and school taxes).
One of the primary reasons I ran for the state legislature was to help pass the recently approved capital gains tax. I promise I would never be part of a campaign to establish a regressive fee!
For me, the most trustworthy voices in this campaign are those of our
Firefighters/EMTs. They are the frontline heroes who run into burning buildings to save us. Please join me in voting “Yes” on April 25th for Proposition 1, Olympia-Tumwater Regional Fire Authority.
~ Laurie Dolan, Olympia
The writer is a former State Representative from the 22nd Legislative District.
The opinions above are, of course, those of the writer and not of The JOLT. Got something you want to get off your chest? Post your comment below, or write it up and send it to us. We'll likely run it the same day we get it.
Editor's Note: To see the March 29, 2023, debate between proponents and opponents of Proposition 1, please click here.
17 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Larry Dzieza
With all due respect to former Rep. Dolan, the RFA issue is not about trusting firefighters. It’s about how best to provide and use funding in ways that protects the public. We believe that our state's regressive tax system should not be made worse by this new fee and that if additional revenues are needed there is a better, more fair and less risky way to do so. We believe that creating yet another level of government officials and money added for another duplicated bureaucracy to serve the new organization would be better used to provide real firefighters and equipment.
Under your position we need to just give the firefighters a blank check to fill in with whatever they say they need and that we will have to pay for. That is not a responsible role for our elected officials to take.
What the RFA proposal says it will do is what the public needs to know about, not how much you trust and respect firefighters. The opposition also values and respects firefighters but voters and policy makers need to trust but verify claims made. We did the verification and found that the platitudes and talking points of the RFA supporters to be lacking in substance and documentation.
Please go to SaveOurFD.org and see the source documents, the videos and spreadsheets that demonstrate that the “No on Prop. 1” has the receipts that back up our statements and positions. The No on Prop 1 side doesn’t seek to confuse, it seeks to clarify the facts. Then ask for that level of proof from the “yes” side and judge for yourself.
What is demonstrably false is Laurie Dolan’s claim that the NO side says RFA’s “is a totally untested concept”. That is absurd and just plain wrong. What she may be reading is the recognized fact (we have the video of the RFA Planning Committee saying this) that the funding formula used to extract millions of dollars from the public has never been tested in court.
The successful RFA approach you refer to has huge risks that do happen in real life. Look no further than West Thurston Regional Fire Authority, which is now closing two of its five fire stations and reducing fire staff after voters failed to pass its maintenance and operations levy – the same kind of vote that would be required here six years from this November. With a 60% RFA vote required, the risks are great.
Certainly, firefighters are trustworthy. And so are police officers, public works officials, parks and arts department staff and other city employees. Under your logic, would we want each of these groups to peel away from city government and have their own commissioners, taxing authority and administrative staffs?
We say no. Vote no on Proposition 1. See SaveOurFD.org for the facts.
Monday, April 3, 2023 Report this
JW
"We did the verification and found that the platitudes and talking points of the RFA supporters to be lacking in substance and documentation."
I'm not sure who you've even spoken to at the fire departments, but I've found every one of their claims to have merit. It was evident at the forum that you can't get past your spreadsheets and graphs to have a human conversation and realize what is actually going on.
Monday, April 3, 2023 Report this
FordPrefect
Ms. Dolan, the link you posted doesn’t work. You’re also missing the plot. Whether or not it’s a regressive tax is not the issue. Why do we need more government to fund our fire departments? Why don’t you include how much you would personally pay for the FBC? Do you think your “many good friends who own lovely homes on the waterfront” appreciate your point of view? Have you considered that rent prices will have increase to compensate for the FBC? We don’t need additional taxes to pay for our emergency services. We need your successors to spend the tax revenue they have responsibly. Considering that you’re boasting about establishing the new capital gains tax, I doubt you understand how this affects real families.
…
Well said, Larry. Our fire departments need more funding, not more bureaucracy.
There is plenty of money being spent on services that don’t benefit the majority of people of Tumwater and Olympia. Chief among them is Intercity Transit. All day and all night, nearly empty buses roam around town for the low price of $74.5M (collected from sales taxes last year). Their total resources available stood around $235M at the beginning of the year. I posted a link in the previous article if anyone is interested in seeing their budget.
We need safe, clean and efficient public transportation. Not free rides for drug addicts. The grocery store is a 15 minute drive from my house. Using the bus routes it takes over an hour and a half. We aren’t getting the service we paid for!
Fund our fire departments by ditching the buses! If you want a big-city living with public transit, then you need big-city revenue to pay for it. Olympia is the wrong town.
We are not big enough and our tax sales tax revenue is further blunted by a city council that puts the needs of the homeless before the contributing businesses downtown. Our town has so much potential and it is being squandered by poor management. The RFA proposal is more evidence of the same.
Monday, April 3, 2023 Report this
PCBigLife
There is no question that we absolutely trust firefighters about how to fight a fire. Of course we do. But that’s not what we’re voting on, we are not being asked how to fight fires. We’re being asked whether the RFA is the right way to fund and support our fire departments. And the answer to that question is a resounding no.
As has been pointed out, and nobody disagrees, the new Fire Benefit Fee doesn’t hire a single firefighter, nor buy any fire engines, nor build any fire stations for seven years. So how does that help?
The cities have other choices that would be much less expensive and much more effective. If they need more money and want to ask us, here’s one better way. With a simple $.25 levy lift they could hire 18 firefighters, plus buy a fire engine every year, plus fund their new CARES program which is specifically designed to help relieve pressure on the fire department by handling some of the non-fire calls. And they wouldn’t need to waste over $2 million a year on extra duplicate overhead positions.
We all want to support our firefighters and fire departments. They provide a vital service, and we have tremendous respect and appreciation for firefighters. Which is precisely why we say vote no on the RFA, and tell the cities to send us a proposal that we can support that actually does help the fire department.
Monday, April 3, 2023 Report this
jimlazar
This proposal does not help reduce the work load on existing firefighters, but it does raise our property tax bills a lot.
Unfortunately, the Fire Benefit charge is NOT simply based on the "square feet" of building. They are based on the "square root of the square feet" of building. This means that larger buildings pay an exponentially lower fire benefit charge per square foot than larger buildings.
This is most egregious for apartment buildings. As small apartment building, owned by a local investor, has five apartments of about 800 square feet each. She will pay $195/year per apartment, or about $16/month, and this will put upward pressure on rent. By contrast, a huge apartment complex in town owned by a national property investment corporation has 200 apartments, 40-times as big. Because of the "square root of the square feet" formula, they will pay only about $35/year per apartment, or about $3/month.
The Fire Benefit Charge formula is most unfair to the local landlords who mostly work directly with their tenants to try to provide affordable housing. The increase in property tax bills is hardly anything at all to the big corporate property owners. It should be the other way arounds: fires in large apartment buildings are much harder for firefighters to manage: hundreds of people to evacuate, specialized equipment needed, and much more danger.
And all this to generate $10.5 million in new "fees" (which look, act, and quack like a tax) which provides not a single additional firefighter, not a single addition fire engine, and not a single new fire station. That is the fact for the first seven years of the published RFA Strategic Plan. See the details at: https://sites.google.com/view/saveourfd/improved-service?
If we just keep the two fire departments as they are, and raise taxes by the same $10.5 million, we could afford to hire two dozen new firefighters and paramedics, add a new fire engine or two every year (they last about 15 years), and be able to build a reserve fund for new equipment. That would provide meaningful improvement in service. This poorly-designed RFA proposal does none of those things.
Big new fees. No new service. Vote NO!
Monday, April 3, 2023 Report this
JW
Jim Lazar did you watch the debate?
I did, and the issue of firefighters not being hired or fire engines being purchased was clearly laid to rest. So either you are misinformed due to ignorance or you are lying. Which is it?
Monday, April 3, 2023 Report this
Honestyandrealityguy
I pray that they hire the best and the brightest. Those with a record of working at the highest level. I fear losing a family member or friend over some capricious and arbitrary discrimination practice.
Monday, April 3, 2023 Report this
Larry Dzieza
JW, I spoke with the Fire Chiefs of both cities at great length. We had a beneficial and civil conversation that resulted in changes in some (but far from all) of the egregious aspects of the formula and shared data and documents with officials from both cities. Based on their emails and comments, I believe we all felt the conversations were helpful.
I was also the only non-uniformed, non-city employed person to attend the RFA Townhall held at the Tumwater fire station and had an opportunity to ask questions and interact at great length (I was the only member of the public there). I was also able to talk with many of the fire fighters who attended.
I also watched ALL of the RFA meetings and read the materials they made available.
I also talked with and exchanged emails with several other RFAs. I spoke with state legislative staff on the committees that have purview over the RFA law. I reviewed the legal opinions on the MSRC website (the link that is currently broken posted by Rep. Dolan goes there) and discussed with their staff the current practices and law relating to RFAs.
I have also been on calls and zooms with the city managers and the RFA consultants.
JW, you say ‘I've found every one of their [fire departments] claims to have merit.” Is your conclusion based on the same standard as former Rep. Dolan which, I hope fairly, characterize as “trust”? If not, would you be so kind as to share the research you did to determine the merits of their claims?
If you have the facts, please share them. Like Churchill or Maybe Keynes said, “When I find new information I change my mind; What do you do?
Monday, April 3, 2023 Report this
JW
Larry,
Council member Parshley clearly explained at length how the 18 FFs would be funded in the RFA (to include citing the line item, I believe it was $4 million) and how different the funding for the positions would be compared to how they would have to roll it out if Olympia did it alone. She specifically mentioned that the 18 FFs on the aid units would have to raise revenue through insurance/Medicare reimbursement to support themselves.
Lt. Busz also clearly explained that there would be seven fully-funded accounts for things like station upgrades, maintenance, and, yes, fire engines with fire engines being planned for delivery in 2025.
Not to mention all of the other firefighters I have personally spoken to that have reiterated and reinforced every one of the needs and problems that the 'pro' side has brought up. Interestingly, more than a few have stated that neither you or your fellows have spoken to them or anyone of their coworkers that they are aware of.
This is why, after being on the fence for some time, I have landed in the yes camp. Your side will continue to push false narratives in the face of the facts and it is slimy.
Monday, April 3, 2023 Report this
BobJacobs
I am quite surprised at what Laurie Dolan wrote.
She says she trusts firefighters and we should too. Well, we do trust them -- to do the jobs they are trained and valued for. But this ballot issue is not about trusting them to do their jobs. It is about financial and organizational structures. That is not their job or expertise.
Lori also cites two "two major problems". Unfortunately, in both cases she is simply wrong.
1. Opponents have NOT claimed that the Regional Fire Authority approach is "untested". Look at the video of the community forum last Wednesday, sponsored by JOLT and the League of Women Voters. Or look at the extensive documentation on the website saveourfd.org.
2. The proposed Fire Benefit Charge IS regressive. Look at the same sources.
We have two well functioning and highly integrated fire departments in Olympia and Tumwater. They coordinate closely with each other and with other departments in their cities such as police, planning, and public works. Olympia and Tumwater have access to additional funding without establishing a new "authority" with its own new set of elected officials and administrative staff.
I say Save Our Fire Departments and let them do their jobs.
Bob Jacobs
Former Mayor, Olympia
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Report this
Larry Dzieza
Did you see the spreadsheet that contains the line item that Parshley talked about?
Would you like to see it? Go to the SaveOurFD.org and learn that the line she is referring to is a budget item ALREADY included in the City of Olympia’s current funding plan.
Some of the Pro RFA spokespeople try to take credit for a program that will exist with or without an RFA. Some Pro RFA folks have ceased making this claim because it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, because it is in the Olympia plan that the RFA would inherit if the RFA is approved.
I am happy to send to you the RFAs, not mine, Excel spreadsheet and multiple RFA PowerPoints that proves it. Or you can go to our website at https://www.saveourfd.org/improved-service. There you will read a quote from the "Internal Working Draft not for public disclosure" PowerPoint of June 4, 2022 received through a public records request:
"Assume BLS Transport is in place in Olympia at 8/1/23. Use their financial model which has 18 new FF and 2 admin staff for Olympia only."
Your personal attack that unfairly and crudely charged the SaveOurFD volunteers of “pushing false narratives” and “slimy” made me want to write something back in the same tone. I won’t stoop to that level in my reply to your attack.
JW, this is not a social media flame war. That is not what The JOLT nor the SaveOurFD.org is about.
The SaveOurFD volunteers have no economic motive in this issue. They are dedicated volunteers trying to provide evidence and facts to the voters so they can make informed choices. Many are current and former public servants and we all value the role of government in providing essential public services like fire and EMS. We seek the best policy course for our community that provides efficient and excellent service and is funded in a way that is fair.
JW, please stick to the facts and refrain from personal attacks.
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Report this
JohnGear
My wife and I suffered a severe house fire in 1993 when the house next door caught fire and was completely destroyed. It spread to our house and we lost our roof and we out of the house for several months during reconstruction. The local firefighters saved our bacon for sure. So we have absolutely nothing but great regard for firefighters, as firefighters.
And I was trained in damage control and firefighting in the Navy both as a sailor and later as a damage control officer. So I have huge tremendous professional respect for firefighters - as firefighters.
But this debate is about administration and funding, not about “trusting” anyone.
There’s no magic that happens if we create a whole new special district and the attendant layer of administrative overhead. This seems similar to what is happening in higher education all over the country — we get more and more administrators for our money, rather than front line troops who deliver the goods.
The virtue of the property tax is that it is ultimately a wealth tax, and those with the most wealth to protect pay the most — it could be more progressive, sure, but at least it is not regressive. The “fire benefit charge” being proposed is a truly strange regressive mechanism — I would love to have been in the room when someone came up with the bizarre idea of basing the charge on the square root of the area instead of on the total value of the property at risk of fire. It makes no sense except as a way to shift the costs off the largest property owners and onto others.
The bottom line that comes clear when you research this long enough is that the proposed new district seems simply to be an effort to get out of the bind imposed by property tax limitations without having to level with the voters and ask the voters for a levy lift. In other words, the trust that is lacking is the trust that the voters will make the right decision on funding the existing fire services.
We, the voters, will end up supporting three local governments (the RFA, Oly, and Tumwater) where today there are two (Oly, Tumwater) — there is no way that is more efficient. If the RFA passes, we will have to pay for a new local government, which will compete forever more for voter support with the host cities and the schools, which are struggling terribly right now. The real question should be whether Olympia and Tumwater should merge, or whether Tumwater should disincorporate, thus merging its fire services with the county.
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Report this
jimlazar
JW: YES, I watched the JOLT/LWV forum, and NO, I do not agree with you. I think you misunderstood the discussion, and have not read the RFA Strategic Plan.
The seven-year RFA Strategic Plan contains ZERO increase in firefighters. In year 1, it is 71 firefighters and 28 firefighter-paramedics, and in year seven it is71 firefighters and 28 firefighter-paramedics. The Yelm Highway fire station, identified by the City of Olympia for development as part of the Yelm Highway Community Park, is nowhere to be found in the RFA Strategic Plan.
I base everything I say on the public documents obtained by www.saveourfd.org You can look at the facts on that website. Direct excerpts from the RFA Strategic Plan, and videos from the RFA Planning Committee meetings.
Please use your real name in future communications. The public has a right to know if you are a paid shill for the campaign, a current or former IAFF employee, or a citizen who happens to have strong opinions. Hiding behind two letters is simply cowardice. Making stuff up, and refusing to point to the source documents you rely on is dishonest.
The firefighters and EMTs that Olympia is currently hiring to staff the BLS transport unit and the people who might be hired for the CARE unit are positions completely independent of approval of the RFA. If the RFA is approved, they will be located within the RFA; if not, they will be City of Olympia employees.
The RFA budget does not include their salaries, benefits, or equipment. These costs will either be paid for with user fees (charges of over $1,000 for transport, with some of that paid by insurance, and some by the patients), or with grants, or else the RFA will have to increase the Fire Benefit Charges above the $417/year estimated for my house.
In any event, these positions are unrelated to approval of the RFA. There are no new firefighters funded in the RFA Seven-Year Strategic Plan. None. Not one. Zero. It's right there on the RFASTRAT tab of the RFA Workbook entitled TORFA_Strat_Plan_22.10.14_LK available from the City of Tumwater by public records request.
Big new fees. No new service. Vote NO.
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Report this
BevBassett
This Regional Fire Authority, or totally new layer of local governmental - another new agency with its very own bureaucracy and its own elected officials - originally appointed by our current elected officials - takes us one big irreparable step away from what we currently have and have had for about 100 years: What we have is funded by property taxes which are legally limited to increases of no more than 1% per year. What they're propositioning us with is a sort of blank check substitute for a straightforward honest fire department answerable to our elected officials.
Money's always short at the City of Olympia, especially when you spend such big bucks on fancy consultants like these special RFA consultants. And our elected officials - rather than accept responsibility for our fire department and make their budget work better through smarter use of monies they have available, our officials would dearly love to unburden themselves and get that troublesome and expensive fire department monkey off their backs.
Finally, Rep Dolan
Proposition 1 unloads the many problems that go along with providing fire and emergency services. First, it makes the property tax support for fire and emergency into a "fee" instead, with big potential cost increases that wouldn't be allowed if it met the definition of a tax. But by making it a fee, it also prevents it from universally providing services for every citizen through tax dollars. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for emergency services might not be high enough to cover costs for some people for whom the city might come up short and need to make up a shortfall. A fee could be the full cost for everyone; a tax would limit spending by those least able to pay for essential emergency services.
Second, the RFA removes the burden of pent-up needed capital expenditures on the City's budget. There are new fire stations, new equipment and increased workforce as population expands which will need to be addressed long before the 7 years that they'll be addressed by the RFA's plan. Opponents of the RFA have offered to work with the City and firefighters to help design a levy lid lift that would meet future needs. We want to see our firefighter's needs met optimally, absolutely. However, we would like to see those future needs med in a much more cost effective way than bloating the bureaucracy as this Proposition 1 will do. We respect our firefighters and will work in good faith to find excellent solutions. But the solutions need to be fair to the taxpayers and citizens as well as to the firefighters.
Finally, former Rep Dolan is only one of a chorus of elected officials saying such things as "Whenever a new, better idea is introduced to any community, there will be an opposition group that forms to frighten voters away from the “unknown.”" She and other elected officials portray this Proposition 1 as support for firefighters and nonsupport for the Proposition as a frightening opposition group fearful of the unknown. Good grief! Give me a break!
We are civil society who watch the inner workings of the City of Olympia and see the big picture. We want fairness for all in our tax structure and services. We want a city that is affordable and livable for the people who live here right now and for our children's future in a changing climate and world. We want real solutions and not some half-baked obtuse scheme that offloads the hard work of finding best solutions in a way that's easiest on the most affluent of us.
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Report this
JW
What I said was not a personal attack. Someone is lying.
Either what you say is not true, or what the firefighters and the city council member said at the forum is not true. Both cannot be true at the same time.
I understand it is not a good look to say that the firefighters are not truthful, hence why many posts start with some variation of "of course we trust our firefighters but...." However, when the post starts with that and then the body of text following it details how everything they said was false what conclusion are we supposed to draw? If they were lying with what they said at the town hall then just come out and say it. I've been driven to the point where either Option A is the truth or Option B. I'll throw in my lot with the firefighters.
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Report this
jimlazar
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?
Tuesday, April 4, 2023 Report this
JW
I am not a "paid shill" of the campaign. I've been a JOLT reader for years ever since the founder gave me a business card at a festival while wearing his goofy outfit that he wore well. And I'll be here after the campaign is over and the votes are counted because I find the stories to be interesting and more varied than what the Olympian pumps out. However, I dislike the fact that the comments section is turning into a giant echo chamber of the same 5+ people pumping each other up and any dissenting voice is called a "shill".
I appreciate that you finally admitted that you find them untrustworthy. It would be nice for the platitudes about trusting firefighters to cease because they cannot both be trustworthy yet trying to deceive the voters at the same time. I find it an utterly hard pill to swallow that the firefighters at the forum, on the videos that I've seen posted on their pages, and composing their unions would be either so nefarious as to push a lie on the voters or so dumb as to not even know what was going to help them do their jobs. They aren't idiots. What I was referencing when I used the word slimy was not a particular person but the implied tactics of representing the "No" side as the brain trust that has to shine the light to the lying and/or dumb fire department personnel with a nice coat of "but of course we trust our firefighters!" paint brushed on top.
Wednesday, April 5, 2023 Report this