Prop. 1: Vote yes to protect fire services

History has taught us that we essentially have two institutions in this country that directly support and sustain our chosen way of life: Public safety and public education.

Our community has consistently supported both of them, and the return on investment has been nothing short of outstanding. For instance, under the highly capable leadership of Fire Chief and Administrator Al Church, we now have a class 2 insurance rating, which positions us as having one of the highest rated fire protection agencies in the state.

Now it’s time for us as voters to step in and do our part to keep it that way. I have no doubt in my mind that he’ll continue doing his.

Recently, I attended a couple of our Citizen Advisory Team meetings where Chief Church personally explained and solicited additional comments on a very innovative and fiscally sound approach to public safety. After extensive research, debate and community comment, the Board of Commissioners have overwhelmingly approved this new cost-saving measure that strategically positions the department to sustain the optimum level of service while taking every conceivable measure to reduce the financial burden to this community. It’s called a Fire Services Benefit Charge. The first three things it does is lower the current rate, adjust it according to property size, and appropriately applies an additional and permanent reduction for individual initiatives such as fire alarms and sprinklers.

This type of service is strategically aligned with the personal initiative benefits offered by insurance companies, which could result in even further savings for homeowners as well as commercial enterprises. Additionally, once the funding has reached a level of stability and sustainability, immediate actions are taken to reduce it on an as-needed basis. This kind of fiscal watchdog mentality coupled with a keen sense of professional integrity is precisely what this community needs, what it expects, and quite frankly what it is getting as we navigate our way through one of the most challenging economic periods in this nation’s history.

For those of you who haven’t had an opportunity to meet him, Chief Church is one of the most respected fire service leaders in Washington state. He was recently selected by his colleagues to serve as the President of the Washington Fire Chiefs. I personally know him as the type of leader who doesn’t just look for best practices; he looks for best ideas, and the public is always a component of that process. He has the unique capacity to see around corners, and I believe he’s found a path to get us safely through this period we have come to know as the “great recession” and prepared for any outcome. He’s relentless when it comes to serving this community and the Board of Commissioners has given him its seal of approval. Now he needs yours to get this measure approved. I wouldn’t want it any other way, as I’m sure you wouldn’t.

It’s a win-win proposition, and I sincerely urge you to vote yes for Proposition 1 on Aug. 17. It’s a lifesaver.

Bob McKenzie, Federal Way

—-

Prop. 1: Four reasons to vote no

With all due respect to the firefighters who serve our community, I am voting no on the fire department’s new tax. While the department leadership claims the current funding method is outdated, it is really the department’s operations that are outdated. Here are just four reasons why I am voting no:

1. Despite facing a 15 percent drop in revenues caused by the worst recession in decades, the fire department’s 2010 budget was still 3.6 percent higher than 2009 and 10 percent higher than 2008. While most organizations, including the city, our school district and our families are cutting their budgets, the fire department’s budget just keeps getting larger.

2. Why do we continue to pay firefighters to sleep and exercise on the job? The 2010 budget included more than $10,000 for new beds and fitness equipment at just one station. Our police officers are afforded no such luxuries.

3. Instead of charging the general population more in taxes for a service that a majority of us will never use, why doesn’t the fire department charge the people who use the service? Even a $100 per visit fee would greatly reduce the number of frivolous calls the department receives.

4. Necessity leads to innovation. Forcing the department to cut its budget will also force the department to find innovative solutions (like not duplicating the Coast Guard’s protection of the Puget Sound or making Kent provide their own fire service).

I hope these four points do not come across as a personal attack against firefighters, or some kind of anti-tax rhetoric. I am genuinely concerned that the leadership of the fire department views raising taxes as their only option while somehow you, me, the city, the school district and countless others (including 10 percent of our neighbors who can’t find a job) have had no other option but to cut expenses or find innovative solutions.

I look forward to working with my fellow citizens to find an innovative solution to the fire department’s budget woes. Please e-mail me if you are interested in joining the discussion: MatthewJarvis@Qwest.net.

Matthew Jarvis, Federal Way