Dear voters of South Pierce County Fire District 17,

Please vote “yes” on the levy lid-lift for both fire protection and (emergency medical services). As a 41-year volunteer with District 17, I know first hand to provide good service our department needs the money from the lift.


Barrie Wilcox, Roy


Dear editor,
What businesses can you call without a reservation or appointment, and they will guarantee to come to your crisis?

Your fire department remains one of the very few that respond to handle your problem or emergency 24 hours a day. But those services aren’t free, and the money your department (South Pierce Fire and Rescue) receives isn’t keeping pace with the cost of that service. I am asking you to support Proposition 1 and 2 on the November ballot.

Fire departments are restricted to a 1 percent increase to their allocated taxes by a process called a levy lid. Periodically they must ask us to “lift the lid” to allow reauthorization to collect the full allocation of collected taxes. Yes, the portion of your taxes for emergency services will go up, about $13 per $100,000 of (taxable home value), but it’s the only way they can keep pace with rising costs of fuel, medical supplies and equipment.
Your Fire Department leadership continues to search for other funds, such as grants, training scholarships and etc., to keep pace with medical and firefighting techniques. Propositions 1 and 2 will keep the people and equipment ready for your next emergency, and you still won’t need a reservation.

Roy Kadow,  Roy


Dear editor,

If you have ever used the South Pierce Fire Rescue’s services, you probably feel they did a great job with adequate training and equipment. Have you ever considered what the ambulance and its equipment costs to provide you that service? Your fire department is at a crossroads for service delivery.

The money requested in the funding measures, Propositions 1 and 2, is needed to maintain the level of service you receive due to increased costs of operations.

Current laws prevent them from collecting the true and accurate amount of your property taxes without voter reauthorization. In short, you get a discount because of the tax lid. But calls and their costs don’t provide the department any discount and costs keep increasing. In order to maintain the level of service you require causes them to ask you to “lift the lid."

What will it cost you, about $13 on a $100,000 home. Hopefully, you will not need to use your fire department in the future. If you do, they want to meet your needs, now and in the future.

Stephen Lamont, Roy


Dear editor,

This November the South Pierce Fire & Rescue board of commissioners is requesting your support of our fire district. This support comes in the form of a yes vote to lift the levy limits for operational monies collected by our fire district.

State tax laws are complex and limit the maximum amount of taxes any jurisdiction may collect. Fire districts are capped at $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed property value for fire protection and $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed property value for emergency medical services.

The money generated by the collection of these taxes are usually enough to provide basic services in a rural fire district. However, there is an additional limiting factor that must be considered when evaluating the fire district revenue.

Another state law limits the total amount of increase on existing property to 1 percent above the previous year. This limit is not compatible with the amounts allowed by the other laws. As a result, the fire district continues to fall behind in its ability to generate revenue.

By voting yes on Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 you are authorizing the return of the limits set by state law and reversing the trend of unfunded liabilities in the fire district. Remember THIS IS NOT A NEW TAX.

Please join me in support of our local fire district and VOTE YES.

Retired fire chief Skip Simmons


Dear editor,

I didn't vote for recreational marijuana. Why I didn't had nothing to do with danger to kids, it had nothing to do with cannabis being highly addictive, it had nothing to do with rise in crime or traffic accidents.

There was no reason to worry because 20 years ago the usual “reasons” given against cannabis during the vote to legalize medical marijuana in 1998 are very much the same as the reasons now being given against Eatonville allowing a cannabis business in the town limits.

And 20 years after medical marijuana became legal, none of the arguments have come true.

Among other nonsense from the opposition against medical marijuana stated, there was no evidence cannabis helped cancer patients suffering from chemo. This I know from experience is not true. There is a long list of other illnesses named which we know cannabis helps. The measure passed 58 percent to 41 percent. Compassion won that vote.

When recreational cannabis became legal it meant medical and recreational are all sold under the same roof by state law.

The only way for patients to legally obtain medical cannabis is to drive, often many miles, to a recreational shop. If there were a cannabis shop in Eatonville it would save them the hardship of a long drive, especially folks from up the line.

Clevenger quoted the town's mission statement...” to create, provide... services while protecting the present and future health, safety and general welfare of the community."

I would argue that a cannabis store would help the health of citizens who need medical cannabis, and that negating long drives for medical would add to safety. If ill people feel better, and traffic is cut down then it follows that would help the “general welfare of the community.”


Dixie A. Walter, Eatonville