Camas resident Gary Perman offers his final thoughts on the Region Fire Authority proposition

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

Over the past three weeks, I’ve received dozens of calls and emails from Camas and Washougal residents asking for help understanding the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) Proposition 1. What they’re hearing from the pro-RFA campaign doesn’t align with the facts.

Let’s start with the money trail. The firefighters’ union has contributed $42,000 to promote this proposition. That should raise a red flag. Why is the union so heavily invested in convincing you this is about safety and service—when it’s really about securing more money and long-term control?

They compare it to the cost of Netflix and warn that response times will slow without it. But let’s look at the facts:

• Only 2% of all calls are structural fires (homes or buildings).
• In one isolated incident in 2017, two firefighters entered a home without backup and were fined—$4,800, not thousands or millions.
• The proposed RFA brings over the same staff, does not expand services, and serves the same geography it already does.
• In a City of Camas funded survey (your tax dollars), 87% of residents said they are satisfied with fire services, and 90% are satisfied with EMS. Why fix what isn’t broken?

So What’s Really Changing?

Not service, not management,  Just the tax burden—and where your money goes.

Right now, EMS and Fire Station levies are already funded separately through taxes you just approved. The RFA would take over those services—but not the debts. You’ll still pay for the EMS and Fire Station levies on top of the new RFA tax.

Here’s the real cost breakdown, confirmed by Camas Fire leadership:

With an average assessed home value of $731,000 in Camas:

$3.61 x 731 = $2,638/year

Even if we assume the Camas City Council reduces their portion from $1.90 to $1.30 (which they haven’t promised or voted on), the cost would still be:

$3.01 x 731 = $2,200/year

Important: The Camas Finance Director confirmed on April 5, 2025, that the City Council won’t make any decision about reducing the $1.90 tax rate until November 2025. So any claim about savings is just speculation.

Same Staff. Same Services. Higher Taxes.

• No increase in emergency coverage.
• No expansion of services.
• The same management team will run the RFA—your current city council and fire department leadership.

So what’s the point of the RFA? More taxing authority.

In fact, the RFA will be allowed to increase your taxes by 1% every year, BUT if House Bill 2049 OR Senate Bill 5798 pass this month that will increase to 3%—without your vote.

And here’s the kicker: The City of Camas plans to borrow millions of dollars to help fund the RFA startup at 2.95% interest.  Have you ever been advised to take out a loan just to lend money to someone else?

Don’t Be Misled by Feel-Good Campaigns

The RFA backers are relying on emotional appeals, vague comparisons, and outdated averages (like the fantasy that Camas homes are still worth $200,000). They’re avoiding the hard truth: this is a tax grab, plain and simple.

If services stay the same, geography stays the same, and leadership stays the same—why are you being asked to pay more?

As a resident and taxpayer, I urge my neighbors in Camas and Washougal to reject this measure. The RFA is built on emotional narratives, vague promises, and shaky financial projections. Let’s hold our city accountable to real numbers, real transparency, and real fiscal responsibility. Let’s fix what needs fixing—without blank checks and unchecked power.

Vote NO on Proposition 1. Let’s protect what’s working—and demand smarter solutions that don’t punish homeowners with rising tax bills for the same service.

Gary Perman
Camas resident

---

Also read:

• 
  POLL: Why did voters reject all three tax proposals in the April 22 special election?
  Clark County voters rejected all three tax measures on the April 22 special election ballot, prompting questions about trust, affordability, and communication.
• 
  Opinion: The war on parental rights
  Nancy Churchill argues that Olympia lawmakers are undermining voter-approved parental rights by rewriting key legislation and silencing dissent.
• 
  Opinion: An Earth Day Lesson – Last year’s biggest environmental victories came from free markets
  Todd Myers argues that Earth Day should highlight free-market solutions and grassroots innovation as more effective tools for environmental stewardship than top-down mandates.
• 
  Opinion: Time to limit emergency clauses and give voters a choice
  Todd Myers urges the governor to remove emergency clauses from bills that appear intended to block voter input rather than address real emergencies.
• 
  Letter: C-TRAN Board improper meeting conduct
  Camas resident Rick Vermeers criticizes the C-TRAN Board for misusing parliamentary procedure during a controversial vote on light rail.