What Science?

The FBC formula's unfair, unintuitive, and unusual approach to measuring structures and difficult to follow math is not a flaw, it is a feature.

A feature that effectively uses a veneer of "fire science" to silence challenges to its unfair impact.

The RFA says its charges are based on the science of "fire flow" and then they proceed to ignore the science and shift the costs to whomever they choose.

The FBC is a fee that is based on policy choices not objective science.

It is very questionable that the RFA's formula meets the statutory requirements as it reflects policy more than objective standards. That could result in a legal challenge that would put all of our fire and emergency services protection at risk should voters agree to create an RFA.

You can't say its based on fire science if the RFA can simply make adjustments on the basis of your preference of who you want to pay more or who you want to pay less.

The RFA states,

“The basis for the Fire Benefit Charge (FBC) assessments used or favored by most fire jurisdictions that have approved an FBC is “fire flow.” The principle is that the basic unit of public fire service is delivery of water to a fire. Fire flow increases with fire load, a determination that accounts primarily for building construction type, use-type and size (total area).”

But then it immediately contradicts this by:

Making smaller residences pay more.
Ignoring the use type by including no hazard factors - Other RFAs charge more for buildings that have fire hazards that require more fire fighting resources to control. This RFA proposal does not. In their plan, a commercial building made of match sticks housing fireworks is charged with the same risk factor as a brick structure warehousing full water bottles.
Exempting mobile homes - Even though they do catch fire and require emergency medical services and firefighters respond when they do.
Ignoring the fire science that a more complex building requires more resources - This RFA plan uses the same resource factor for a five unit ground level apartment as for a 100 unit apartment 8 stories high. The Olympia-Tumwater RFA has a single rate of 1.5 for all apartments, regardless of size, number of stories, type of construction or adjacency to other structures. This is an absurd conclusion and was questioned by the firefighters on the RFA Planning Committee.
Not the same. The RFA Committee claims that the formula is the same as used by other jurisdictions. But other jurisdictions have significantly different charges for properties. For example, the discount for fire sprinklers varies widely, the NFPA says it could be as much as 75%, yet the RFA choose 10%. Other jurisdictions use as high as 50% such as in the NorthShore Kenmore and Lake Forest Park fire districts.

Olympia Councilmember Clark Gilman votes no on the RFA and explains that one of the reasons is the way the RFA Committee said they had little flexibility in the formula they used to raise money but that it was not true.

Never mind that less than 4% of the calls are for fire, the FBC disregards the science and reality of putting out fires when it comes to the formula. Even the RFA Committee's firefighters couldn't reconcile the conflict between what the formula says its based on and what it actually does. Here it is in their own words.

Here is RFA Committee Member Steven Busz and President of the IAFF Local 468 union pointing out the 3 weights for residences in the formula is not consistent with the premise of the formula which is supposed to reflect the amount of resources required to respond to a fire.

Here is Olympia Fire Chief Todd Carson presenting facts about resources required for different types of apartment buildings not being reflected in the formula.

Neil is the consultant hired to help create the formula. Neil seems to say he doesn't know of formulas that have different rates for more hazardous apartment types than others.

Fact: Many of the minority of RFAs that use a FBC do have different rates for larger, more difficult to address fires in large, complex apartments. Renton, Puget Sound, South County, Eastside, Valley Regional are examples.

Who Pays Based on Policy, Not Fire Science

MINUTES OF VIRTUAL/HYBRID MEETING November 14, 2022

"When the Committee reviewed the first FBC model, the total FBC did not reflect shift costs between sectors. The Committee expressed concerns that the burden would be too high for residential households. Subsequently, 6% of the rate was transferred to commercial uses with 6% deducted from residential, which was reflected in all subsequent options the Committee reviewed. Based on the addition of square footage in apartments and commercial, the staff team recommends eliminating the 6% shift because it is no longer necessary to achieve the Committee’s policy goal."

The Slide below shows two things that can't be true at the same time. You can't claim that "weights increase with the size and complexity of the structure" and then say the weights are determined by "Board policy action".

RETURN TO MAIN PAGE