Report Inappropriate Comments

With all due respect, I believe Mr. Busz is incorrect when he states that "The FBC is calculated based on the size, risk and hazards of all structures on a property to determine what that fee is being paid." The documentation of the methodology and discussions during which Mr. Busz participated in clearly noted that hazards are not going to be used in the Tumwater Olympia RFA.

The recording of the Olympia Tumwater RFA Planning Committee - July 25, 2022 meeting states this when another firefighter on the Committee noted that the description of the formula was incorrect:

[Speaking Tumwater Fire Union Representative/Paramedic Lieutenant James Osberg] "I just want to make sure that we're messaging this correctly because up till today we have not agreed to charge anything extra for hazardous materials. And so any messaging that's going out saying that is not correct and I think it says that in this document here. We just, I just want to make sure we address that. [Speaking Karen Reed, RFA Consultant] That's correct. That sounds right, come out. So that's coming out now unless we do something really different tonight, but I don't think we have the data or the inclination to add a hazardous charge. So that's coming out."

But the language about hazards never came out of the selling of the RFA.

In addition, there were PowerPoint presentations that clearly highlighted that no hazards would be considered in the FBC. Hazard factors do not appear in the adopted plan text.

Despite this fact, the RFA website still contains a FAQ that reads, "For example, a business storing pressurized gas products would pay a larger FBC than an office building of the same size." Nope. In fact under the RFA plan a building made of matchsticks housing fireworks is charged the same as building of the same size made of concrete housing filled water bottles.

One of my points at the meeting last night is that whatever connection to fire science that the formula once had, it has long since been distorted to reflect policy objectives over science. Yes, hazards are part of the ISO methodology, no it is not in the RFA proposals. Yes, mobile homes can catch fire and require fire protection resources, no they are not charged anything in th RFA's proposal. An eight story building takes more resources than a single story building of the same square footage. I could go on more about this but you get the idea.

For these reasons, I believe, again with all due respect, that Mr. Busz is in error when he states "risk and hazards" affect the determination of the fee.