Opinion: County Fire Commission Proposal Falls Short

Anderson Observer Opinion

Confusion, lack of consensus and half-baked are just three ways to describe the upcoming special referendum by the Anderson County Fire Protection Commission seeking an increase in funding.

The scheduled May 18 vote is missing not only details but consensus support from within the fire departments which would be impacted by the vote. 

While there has been some general discussion of an acute need for constituent funding to upgrade and maintain equipment, an issue with which few would take issue, the current measure falls short when it comes to details on such needs. It also fails to explain how the money will be shared across all departments. 

The ballot initiative asks for an increase of four mils, from six to 10. If approved by voters, supporters of the measure say it would represent the first tax increase for the commission since 1986. But even that is a bit misleading, since the value of a mil and the resulting funding has increased every year during those three-plus decades. The annual fire commission millage is currently $689,000, which is more than double the value of their millage in 1986. So there has been an increase in funding, even though the actual rate of the millage has not changed.

It doesn’t help that there is also a lack of pubic awareness on the purpose, mission and areas under the jurisdiction of the fire commission.  There are 27 stations under the general umbrella of the Anderson County Fire Commission. 

Complete list here. To find eligible voting precincts, visit here. 

But other fire departments, including the City of Anderson, City of Belton, Town of Honea Path, Town of Williamston and Piedmont are not part of the group, so not all voters in the county will be eligible to vote on the measure. Why the measure, which has been bantered about for more than a year, was not included on last November’s general election ballot is both curious and costly to the county, since it requires a special election for the sole purpose of this referendum.

Even within departments covered by the commission there  is not complete support for the measure. Some, even some within the fire departments, have suggest the referendum is half-baked and there needs to be a more detailed discussion of how the money would be used and distributed to various departments before increasing taxes.

The actual text on the referendum ballot does little to help clarify the proposal. It reads:

“Do you favor the levy and collection of a tax of not more than ten (10) mills upon all of the taxable property in the Anderson County Fire Protection Commission for the purposes of paying the operational costs of the Anderson County Fire Protection Commission?” 

The wording fo the referendum exemplifies the vague nature of the request to increase funding without offering details to voters or firefighters as to how the funds will be used.

There is little question there needs to be a serious commitment to those who serve as firefighters across the county. Many have devoted a big part of their lives as volunteers to keep citizens safe, while others have chosen to devote their lives to a career in the same pursuit. 

Funding for such services has always been lean, leading to a never ending series of fund raisers and need for funding from other sources when possible. 

There is likely an excellent argument to be made for an increase in taxpayer support to help maintain readiness. The cost of fire trucks, protective suits and the long list of other gear needed to keep our firefighters safe and ready to serve the community is substantial and deserving of support. It is also likely that each of the 27 fire departments in question could provide a detailed list of needs and their costs beyond what is already in the fire commission’s annual budget. (Overview of that budget here). But none have been asked to do so, at least with such information for public consumption. 

Providing such details would also open up other options, including asking Anderson County Council to increase their funding, but the commission has seemingly chose to roll the dice on a referendum instead. 

The current proposal is rushed and fails to provide those critical details concerning how the funding requested in the current referendum will provide support in areas of critical need across the county. 

Meanwhile, those who have watched how local and county governments work over the decades can testify that when you ask taxpayers for an increase, you need to do it right the first time or risk short-selling the need and missing a true long-term solution. Passing a vague, flawed referendum will not serve anyone well.

The service provided by our fire fighters and their departments deserves a more thoughtful, detailed, long-term, strategic plan that has close to unanimous support among the 27 fire departments, instead of the confusing referendum set for May 18.   

The Anderson County Legislative Delegation could have kicked the request back to the commission for a more detailed proposal, but chose to allow the half-baked proposal to go forward, by a vote of 5-3, with Sen. Richard Cash, Rep. Jonathon Hill and Rep. Anne Thayer opposing the move.

Now the voters should now do what they did not and reject this proposal from the fire commission that lacks a comprehensive, strategic and specific plan for funding.