Port of Olympia Commissioners Joe Downing and Bob Iyall disclosed that they were being asked to endorse a ballot proposition on April 25 that would determine the formation of a Regional Fire Authority (RFA) in Olympia and Tumwater.
Both commissioners requested the Port staff during a meeting on Monday, February 21, to analyze the proposed RFA and its effects on the Port before the commission considers endorsing it as a group. Downing specifically wanted to know the financial impact of the RFA on their Tumwater properties.
The RFA would be funded using a Fire Benefit Charge. According to Tumwater’s website, the fee is based on a national standard and considers the firefighting resources needed for each property.
Commissioner Amy Evans Harding expressed that she was uncomfortable endorsing the ballot proposition as a group.
“We're talking about a lot of inter-jurisdictional stuff and us taking a formal position… I don't know [if] that's a good place for us to be,” she said.
“I think that all of us individually can choose to endorse it or not endorse it. I don't know that it's the best course for the Port as far as relationship-building to take a position on something that not all three of our cities came together,” Evans Harding continued.
Iyall said he held off from personally endorsing the RFA when asked about it, while Downing clarified that they don’t have to endorse the ballot measure as a group, saying it was “a little too outside” of their main functions. Downing added that they could simply wait for the vote to happen and anticipate the RFA’s impact on their properties.
Port Executive Director Sam Gibboney said that the commission would have to go through procedural requirements, such as scheduling for public comments, if the commissioners want to either endorse or oppose the proposition.
The commission would discuss the RFA again at a March 13 meeting. Gibboney said she could bring the fire chiefs of Olympia and Tumwater to better inform the commission about the issue.
CORRECTION: The original version of this story stated that the fire benefit charge "would be determined by the size and type of hazard associated with a building." This is incorrect and removed from the story. The fire benefit charge formula considers a structure's size and other factors, but not fire risks.
10 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
BobJacobs
I believe this article is incorrect when it says that the proposed Fire Benefit Charge would be determined by the "size and type of hazard associated with a building."
My understanding is that a risk-related system was considered but is not included in the proposal we will be voting on April 25.
Bob Jacobs
Wednesday, February 22, 2023 Report this
JohnGear
I haven't sat down and studied the RFA proposal in detail, but I have lots and lots of questions out the gate -- the first one being this: is Tumwater a viable municipality that can deliver city services of the quality desired within the revenue constraints it has?
I think everyone would agree that emergency services are quintessential core services of a city, and if Tumwater isn't fiscally able to deliver those core services without a Rube Goldberg regional fire authority, then maybe the whole municipal apparatus of Tumwater isn't viable.
I hope that's not offensive to anyone as that's not my intent. I intend only to say it's time that we face reality, which is that, all over the country, we've developed in such a non-productive and expensive manner that cities and towns in every state are bankrupt if you honestly book their actual liabilities (what they have to maintain) vs assets (claim on property tax revenues).
Ultimately, if Tumwater isn't capable of funding its own core services on its own tax base, then why spend all the money having a separate government at all?
Businesses merge all the time, and sometimes cities and towns must as well.
Wednesday, February 22, 2023 Report this
Larry Dzieza
Mr. Jacobs is correct. And here is the proof of that. Here is the RFA FAQ on their website that says it.
https://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/departments/city-meetings/commissions-advisory-boards/olympia-tumwater-fire-authority/fire-authority-faqs
"A fire benefit charge (FBC) is a charge based on a national standard and considers required firefighting resources, the size of the building(s) on a property, and the hazards associated with those building(s). For example, a business storing pressurized gas products would pay a larger FBC than an office building of the same size."
That is simply not true in the Plan that the RFA is set to be voted upon.
Why they persist on claiming something that is not correct after it has been pointed out to them repeatedly defies comprehension.
Thursday, February 23, 2023 Report this
JulesJames
Good on Commissioner Harding for the diplomatic shootdown. Each individual Port Commissioner is fully free to endorse, but endorsing a ballot measure as Port policy is like the Olympia City Council endorsing Bernie Sanders for President 2024.
Thursday, February 23, 2023 Report this
Southsoundguy
No RFA.
Thursday, February 23, 2023 Report this
JW
It's either the RFA or each city runs their own levy. Duplication of effort/cost is inevitable in the latter, whereas a combination provides more options down the line for efficiency. I for one like to think several steps down the line and would rather pay less in the long run for more services with the RFA than a shortsighted view of voting down whatever tax increase is in front of my face.
You're going to pay more regardless, and I would prefer to pay the lesser amount over the long haul.
It's flabbergasting to me how some of the people here think that an RFA and FBC are a brand spanking new invention from the pits of taxation hell; there are RFAs up and down the Puget Sound with FBCs and those communities seem to be thriving and doing just fine.
Thursday, February 23, 2023 Report this
JohnGear
JW, if duplication of effort is a concern, why not merge the cities of Olympia and Tumwater entirely and eliminate all the redundancies? Doing it by creating an entire new special purpose district certainly creates more administrative overhead costs than the status quo or merging the cities completely.
One of the concerns this RFA proposal prompts is one over the way special purpose districts reduce democratic control by creating a single-focus board with taxing authority over city voters but only one mission — their special purpose.
The voters thus have to keep on eye on two separate elected boards, with one having the full range of programs to be concerned with but the other only to serve its own program needs, and that second one freed from having to go through the full city budget process to compete for funds.
Responsible city governance means the elected officials have to go through the difficult but necessary process of weighing all the competing needs and balancing all the needs across all the programs vs all the resources at the same time and making the tradeoffs necessary because there’s not unlimited resources.
Friday, February 24, 2023 Report this
JW
John,
I don't consider having to "keep an eye" on two boards to be an onerous proposition; voters already do keep many boards/councils/houses etc in mind when voting every year. We have many layers of elected government as it is. The RFA is no more single-minded than a local fire district of which we have many surrounding us with dedicated fire commissioners and budgets focused on one thing: fire and EMS. There will be six (or maybe it was seven--can't remember off the top of my head) elected RFA commissioners elected at large...that is plenty of voter accountability in my book. The voters will have say in both the election of their representatives to the RFA and the six-year rotating re-authorization of the FBC. What more accountability and transparency do you want?
Friday, February 24, 2023 Report this
JohnGear
JW, thank you for your response. But I think you might have misunderstood me, I wasn’t making a claim about accountability/transparency, rather, I was responding to your comment about efficiency/duplication of effort (“It's either the RFA or each city runs their own levy. Duplication of effort/cost is inevitable in the latter, whereas a combination provides more options down the line for efficiency.).
You may not consider an additional special district to be burdensome to monitor, but I’m not sure how widely that view is shared. I know from trying person still in the work force that it’s extremely hard if not impossible to be even moderately well-informed about what our current local governments or boards supported with our property taxes are doing — from schools, the state, the city, the county, the library district and the port. Add to that the fact that they all schedule things with zero regard for what their sister governments are doing during the same period, making it impossible for any citizen who tries to follow along to do so in any sustained way unless they don’t have much of a life and aren’t working a job.
I’m not hearing the answer to my question about why fire/EMS should be split off from other city government functions and given its own board (and staff support) and taxing authority, or how that will make things more efficient. If there is an efficiency from the regional economy of scale, then why wouldn’t we seek that same gain from merging all the city functions (merging Olympia and Tumwater)? There’s a lot of functions that cities do that are even less geographically based than fire/ems response, which after all does involve serving physical places on the ground. Why merge the functions that are place-bound but not merge all the other things like city governance, HR, legal, etc.
Another concern that occurs to me, just from reading some of the pros and cons, is that the board seems likely to become a rubber stamp for the fire fighter unions, with no countervailing influence. I’m willing to bet real money that if this proposal passes, the fire board is going to end up populated > 95% with current or ex-fire department folks, year in and year out — it’s going to be difficult if not impossible for anyone not supported by the fire folks to be elected.
With fire/ems located within city governments, it’s fine for the fire/ems people to be 100% single-minded about advocating solely for their parochial interest because that tendency is balanced by the fire budget having to go through a city council that is also hearing from all the other advocates for all the other needs. But it’s not obvious that a fire board dominated by folks from the firefighter community and with taxing authority will have any motivation to restrain itself.
Saturday, February 25, 2023 Report this
JW
John,
I get your point about the cities merging, however, that is an entirely different animal to tackle. Merely merging the fire departments took multiple years of work to come up with a ballot initiative. Merging cities would be magnitudes higher in terms of time and work involved, and I can't think of any city (minus tiny little cities perhaps) that have combined in this state. While on paper this would be more efficient, I don't believe we can realistically consider it as an alternative to the RFA in any way.
As to why the fire/EMS need to split off from the cities, I would refer you to the letter the OFD union president wrote several months ago. Between that and what I've heard other firefighters say it boils down to the cities not allocating proper funding. Call volume is up over 50% in the last ten years with no proportional increase in staffing, equipment is years behind on replacement, and the fire department has to ask for special budget enhancements all year long just to get necessary gear and equipment. People point the class 2 rating of OFD specifically (I can't remember what Tumwater is--it's not as highly rated) and say that everything is fine and dandy why do they need more money, but if you talk to the guys on the line it sounds like things are about to fall off a cliff at the current trajectory.
I'm with you that I would prefer the fire department be a part of the city and get what it needs, but it sounds like the cities are either unwilling or unable to allocate to the fire department(s) the money they need to sustain their high level of service. In my opinion, the cities blow millions on wasteful pet projects and the transient population that would plug the holes in the fire department budgets, but I've given up all hope that the city leadership will stop wasting money and focus on the core services they are obligated to provide to the taxpayers.
That leads me to the conclusion that it's either the RFA which divorces the fire departments entirely from the drunken-sailor spending and mismanagement of the cities or each city passes their own levy which is a bandaid until we're back in this position again in 5-10 years as the cities continue to waste money.
As to your comments on the board rubber stamping whatever the firefighter's union wants I agree that the board would likely have a healthy share of retired/ex-FF types on it, but that is not far removed from any of our local fire districts; browsing the voter pamphlets each year reveals that many fire district board members are retired/current FFs themselves, and the impression I get from some of the county fire people I've run into and talked with over the years is that their boards aren't into rubber stamping whatever the union wants.
Saturday, February 25, 2023 Report this