Fire Benefit Charge

Here is a great example of how unscientific, irrational and unfair the formula is.  It also likely outside the legal requirements of the state law.

Assume a building that has 100 units and totals 100,000 s/f and each unit is 1,000 s/f in size.  

If treated by the RFA as an apartment, its FBC would be $4,876.99

If it was converted into an condominium, the total FBC charge for the 100 units same building is $13,330.00!

A formula based on the Fire Science would not charge the exact same building nearly three times as much just because the building legal status changed from an apartment to a condo.  The building presents the same fire fighting resource response yet the legal status results in radically different charges.  

This single example blows a giant hole through the RFA's claim that the FBC charge is based on, "The amount of the FBC is based on the fire-response needs of structures".  If the same structure gets two different charges based on its legal, not structural status, then the FBC is NOT based on the fire fighting response needs.

Why is this happening?  The RFA, despite being able to use many different alternatives, selected a formula that charges by parcel numbers as cataloged at the County Assessor's Office.  Because each of the 100 condos in our example have their own parcel # they are each charged as if they are a single residence.  But the same building, moments before filing  for a condo conversion was being charged as an apartment complex with a single parcel number.  Is this reasonable basis to charge them differently?

This demonstrates that this RFA misrepresents the FBC basis and fails to meet the rational FBC requirements that are required by the State RFA law.

"(5) A benefit charge imposed must be reasonably proportioned to the measurable benefits to property resulting from the services afforded by the authority." - RCW 52.26

Summary of Problems with the Fire Benefit Charge

• Incredibly regressive, where the poor pay more.

• It is based on how many gallons of water it takes to put out a fire yet only 2% of Olympia and 4% of Tumwater calls are for fires and up to 60% of the RFA can be funded by the FBC.

• The proponents say it is based on the science of putting out fires but the reality is its based on POLICY choices and just gives lip service to the science.

• The formula uses the square root of the square footage of buildings on a parcel of land in ways that the public doesn't.  It includes the areas that people don't live in like sheds, garages, balconies and more.

• The formula and its application are so obscure that most RFA members can barely comprehend it: