I am the youngest of three children. . . my sister is 80 and lost her husband last year, my brother is 76 and I am 70. Recently, my sister is having many mobility issues. She has been in the hospital as well as three weeks of rehab care. When she falls and can’t get up (usually in the middle of the night), she doesn’t call her doctor’s office; she calls “911” and her beloved firefighters show up.
My sister is not alone! Both Olympia and Tumwater have a multitude of senior citizens who turn to our firefighters and EMTs when they urgently need help. Proposition 1 will add additional services to the CARES Unit (staff to respond to urgent calls to transport patients to the hospital when needed). Vote “YES” for Proposition 1!
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.
9 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Larry Dzieza
Sorry to inform you Laurie that the RFA vote does not provide the additional CARES unit.
The RFA proponents have not been forthcoming with the fact that both the BLS and CARES additional staff are Olympia actions ALREADY underway. Those additional services for CARES (Kudos to the Olympia City Council for a great idea) are going to be there for you with or without an RFA.
Here are the facts in the RFA's own materials! See for yourself.
(hoping my technology skills are adequate to show these screenshots from the RFA and City documents.)
The RFA recognizes that the program will be in place BEFORE the RFA exists: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c9kazTHt9hG0hq2DgUQFSH4rgsuaIzqz/view?usp=share_link
Revenues are from recoveries and will actually turn a positive revenue over expenses: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LGMr8og5adH36R8558CoGphXmSpu0J4d/view?usp=share_link
The Olympia Council made sure it is funded this year: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l_iT4IyO4eJzqkTebl0V06d2l_e9-qK1/view?usp=share_link
Here is the study that lays it all out presented to the OLYMPIA city council in September of 2022.
https://olympia.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11209634&GUID=12751836-7454-4AEC-A5E8-F3C01C46FF20
Monday, March 20, 2023 Report this
JW
Larry is not fully correct in his assertions; recent developments have shown that the expected federal funding component for the program has evaporated which leaves its status in question. The RFA would fully fund and implement the program without a need for either federal funding or the startup "loan" from the city of Olympia to the program which would somehow have to be paid back.
Furthermore, the RFA would provide funding for replacing fire engines and equipment as well as needed gear that the cities are currently unable or unwilling to provide.
As I've stated previously throughout following this process, we are going to be paying more one way or another. The question is does each city want to pay more separately or combine and pay a lesser amount?
The biggest barometer for me personally is do the people on the front lines doing the actual work support or reject the RFA, because I put the most weight on their opinion since they are in the thick of it. The answer is yes. Therefore I'm inclined to support it.
Monday, March 20, 2023 Report this
Larry Dzieza
Dear JW,
First, thank you for your response. Our community needs a vigorous debate over such an important issue as this. But that vigorous debate should be based on facts that can be independently and objectively verified. To that end, please provide the public with the objective and independent evidence that the "federal funding component for the program has evaporated". If you are verifiably correct with source documentation, not just statements from interested parties, I will accept it BUT you have to answer the second question: How will you pay for it when the current plan counts on the federal funding?
Please provide the funding source that the RFA will use to replace the evaporated federal funding. It is VERY important for you to explain where the replacement money will come from as the current RFA Financial Plan assumes the federal money. If you truly believe the funding is gone, you can't claim the 18 firefighters (plus 2 admin) and the CARES program without a viable way to pay for it.
The RFA cannot claim to provide those firefighters as an RFA advantage without also providing a way to fund them.
You may comfort yourself in knowing (though not sharing with the voters) that you could increase the fire benefit charge much higher than the current $10.5 million to pay for them and without going to the public for approval. But that would require telling the public how much higher their property tax bill will be to pay for it.
You can't have it both ways.
So what is it? And how much higher will the Fire Benefit Charge have to go beyond the $10.5 million?
As always, we attempt to get the facts before the voters and let them evaluate the claims with their own eyes and critical thinking skills. Here are the source documentation from the RFA Financial plan that shows the funding for BLS/CARES as a separate revenue source that is not from the property tax nor the fire benefit charge under the line "Other Revenues". Below it is the detail of "Other Revenues" and at the bottom you will see the "BLS Transport/CARES revenue-Oly". There is an empty line awaiting a decision by Tumwater to get on board with their version of the programs. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HOsfkCORV4s2H3GqVG4_EbStubxE9uBz/view?usp=sharing
For more facts that are backed by evidence from source materials, go to www.SaveOurFD.org or jump to the relevant page at https://www.saveourfd.org/basic-life-support.
The more you know, the better your choice will be for this important service. We have a great fire department and we have the financial wherewithall to fund it without an RFA. And without an RFA we will do it more efficiently and without a new very regressive tax/fee.
Monday, March 20, 2023 Report this
Larry Dzieza
I also want to address your other points beyond the federal funding point.
Your wrote, "Furthermore, the RFA would provide funding for replacing fire engines and equipment as well as needed gear that the cities are currently unable or unwilling to provide.". Again, the data, words and numbers of the RFA do not comport with your statement.
In fact, the fire apparatus in the plan comes from the City of Tumwater that believes it is a commitment previously made to their voters from a prior vote. And if you really wanted more new fire trucks, you could get two new ones EVERY YEAR for what the RFA plans on spending on duplicative administrative costs like a new budget director, PIO/Communications Coordinator, HR director and their two staff, the IT administrator and their two staff etc.
Two brand new fire trucks, every year so that also helps address your other point you wrote,
"As I've stated previously throughout following this process, we are going to be paying more one way or another. The question is does each city want to pay more separately or combine and pay a lesser amount?"
No, you are again incorrect. You will not pay a lesser amount. Not only does the RFA pay more to fund positions whose duties are already paid for by the cities (each has the exact same positions that the RFA will duplicate) but the RFA gives all the firefighters/EMTs raises for no other reason than the combined department will be able to negotiate bigger salaries when compared to bigger departments in the state. Same people, doing the same work for the same areas just getting more money it.
Finally, as the RFA Planning team readily acknowledges it needs to build a new fire station and the plan does not have funding for it. The consultant told them they will need to borrow the money. Full disclosure, I don't have a direct document for this following statement, just common sense and 45 years of government finance experience. Credit rating agencies will assess the credit worthiness of the RFA which will be a new entity, already saddled with borrowed reserves that it must pay back, with a narrower set of revenues than the cities and little track record in paying its bills and uncertain ongoing support by the voters for its continued existence. This kind of financial risk results in a higher interest rate. A 20-year bond sold by this new agency will result in a higher interest rate that the taxpayers will have to pay than if it was left with the cities who have been good credit risks for over a 100 years. And the taxpayers will be left with a bigger bill.
So for these reasons, I believe you are incorrect, again.
While you may be content to trust opinions ("...I put the most weight on their opinion") of those who have direct interest in the outcome, I believe the public needs the facts and documents.
Fire and emergency services are too important to trust and not verify.
If you are willing to go beyond trusting the talking points of others, please go to the website www.SaveOurFD.org and see for yourself the quotes, video clips, and source documents that support the claims of the Save Our Fire Departments, Vote No on Prop. 1 folks.
Monday, March 20, 2023 Report this
JW
Larry,
Thanks for the informative reply.
For the federal funding component I believe that was discussed at city council, but I can't seem to find the meeting minutes for it. In lieu of the documentation, I'll adjourn on that point.
However, and this is again my penchant for weighting the opinions of the line workers highly so take it for what it's worth, from those I've spoken with in my own research the way the city of Olympia has the BLS transport proposal designed is that the program has to generate enough revenue to pay for itself which means the units will be transporting to overloaded hospitals that are backed up with ambulances waiting hours. The result is that these units will be frequently out of service for responding. The way Lacey runs an aid unit is that it is essentially a medical call only primary response vehicle allowing it to respond to more calls because private ambulance companies do the transporting (and the sitting at the hospital). A bigger pool of available money provided by the RFA would provide flexibility to these units to more align with the response model of our neighbor Lacey instead of being revenue-driven to survive.
I was unaware about the credit rating issue that you addressed so thank you for that.
Can you please provide me the answer from save our FD on these two issues I find key:
1) Does Save our FD acknowledge that there is a funding crisis for the fire departments? Specifically coming to mind is the Olympia fire department because of the city council meeting (it was either August or September of last year) where the city manager stated the city could not adequately fund the fire department. This was part of the council's justification for endorsing the RFA proposal.
2) If the answer to the above is yes, then what does Save our FD propose be the means to increase funding for the fire department? This has to be some sort of new revenue source as the city itself has stated the pool of money is not big enough to apportion what's needed to the fire department.
Monday, March 20, 2023 Report this
Larry Dzieza
I'm enjoying this civil and informative dialog, so here is the next installment in my answer to your questions.
No, SaveOurFD.org has not found that the facts demonstrate a funding crisis. In fact, far from it. Olympia Fire funding growth has exceeded both population and inflation. Also, the Fire Department’s share of the budget relative to other departments is greater now than it was in 2019.
But here is the most pertinent fact: 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. If you don't believe me, listen to Councilmember Cooper here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FYP7m6jPvKMpUasyV5ypCOmpKMXvizV_/view?usp=share_link
Further, less money would need 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, personally, should the facts show that our 2nd to none for all but Seattle Class 2 rated Fire Department is underfunded, support an increase for additional funding. Further, I pledge to help support that campaign, if the evidence really shows it 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.
Tuesday, March 21, 2023 Report this
PCBigLife
The cities may need more money, but this is the wrong way to do it. $10.5 million more dollars in the first year from a new “fee” on the property tax bills, and it pays for no new firefighters, fire engines or fire stations for at least seven years. Plus it can go up to $25 million without another vote. Mostly it pays for more office workers we already have like human resources, communication and finance, and it pays for raises. The Basic Life Safety EMTs are to be self funded through insurance, copays, and state funds. There isn’t money in the RFA to pay for them, there is only money to pay back a loan to get the program started. Unless the RFA Board decides to have us pay more.
If the cities think they need more money, tell us, and tell us what the money is for. If it makes sense the community will support it. But this RFA proposal doesn’t, and won’t pay for more help for the firefighters..
Tuesday, March 21, 2023 Report this
BobJacobs
My wife and I are in our 80s. Over the years we have both used the Fire Department's services for medical issues, and we have also called for a fire issue (chimney fire). The service we have received has been very professional.
I prefer to retain our fire department. Why pay more money for the same services, which is what would happen under the proposal?
And why add another layer of local government with yet another elected board? All that would do is insulate these important services from public scrutiny.
Save our Fire Departments!
Bob Jacobs
Former Olympia councilmember and mayor.
Tuesday, March 21, 2023 Report this
jimlazar
It's clear that Laurie Dolan has not read the Regional Fire Authority Strategic Plan very carefully.
It does not increase the number of firefighters, paramedics, fire engines, aid cars, or fire engines.
The $10.5 million in addition charges on property tax bills go to pay for duplicative administrative costs, already provided by the two cities, and for pay increases for existing fire employees.
The new positions are being created by Olympia, with or without an RFA.
Big new fees. No new services. Vote NO.
Tuesday, March 21, 2023 Report this