Proposed Regional Fire Authority: What’s wrong with the proposed Fire Benefit Charge?

Larry Dzieza

Proposition 1’s central feature is a new financing mechanism called a Fire Benefit Charge (FBC), a fee to be paid by property owners along with their property tax bills.  The FBC is set to collect $10.5 million for the RFA in the first year with the ability to increase it up to $50 million in the subsequent year. 

It is very likely that the RFAs formula fails

 to meet the criteria for fairness and reasonableness required by state law.

The RFA Plan uses a formula proponents claim is based on “fire flow” and a principle, "…that the basic unit of public fire service is delivery of water to a fire.”

The first failure of their the formula is it is not based on what fire departments actually deliver.  What fire departments mostly deliver isn’t water to a fire: It’s responding to emergency medical calls.  Only 2% of Olympia’s calls and only 4% of Tumwater’s calls are for fires.

FBC is out of proportion to ‘benefits’

State law allows the FBC to fund up to 60% of the Fire Department’s total budget and requires that the formula “…must be reasonably proportioned to the measurable benefits to property resulting from the services afforded by the authority”.  When these two principles meet, it works out that the RFA’s proposed FBC is out of proportion by as much as a 30 to 1 mismatch (i.e., up to 60% of the budget to cover 2% of the workload).

Moving past this obvious problem, there is strong evidence that the RFA does not meet its own claims that the formula is grounded in the science of fighting fires.

The RFA Formula

Here is the actual proposed formula:

RFA formula

If you have a hard time understanding it, be comforted to know that so did the RFA Planning Committee members.  This unusual and arbitrary approach to measuring structures, plus difficult to follow math is not a flaw; it provides a veneer of "fire science" to silence challenges to its unfair and regressive impact.

Consultants to RFAs have been promoting this formula, but only four of the 14 current RFAs employ a Fire Benefit Charge; all four use a variant of this formula.  Yet, nothing in the state law that creates the RFA mentions “fire flow,” square roots, “Building Category Factor,” “Balancing Factor” or “costs per gallon” as the basis for a fire benefit charge.  

Comparing the formula to rocket science

When asked about the formula’s details the consultants’ responses were not forthcoming, often dismissive of the Committee.  At one point a consultant deflected the question about the number 18 by saying, “I would relate that to another formula we all know, the question to me is E being the speed of light why do they square it?” 

Councilmember Cooper

The RFA consultant was forced to admit the statute makes no mention of “fire flow” in a response to a question by Councilmember Cooper.

It’s the water. No, it’s choosing the winners and losers

It would be one thing if the formula’s roots in fire science were being adhered to in its application.  But it is not.  RFA undercuts the formula’s connection to the fire science of “fire flow” by modifying and adjusting the formula to achieve policy and political considerations -- including– shifting costs to their preferred groups and interests.

In this telling example of sacrificing the science for a desired outcome, a consultant admits that the reason for the building category weights has nothing to do with the science.  Rather it is based on a premise that he apparently independently discovered: If a category of structure, say one- to four-family houses, has 80% of the square footage in an RFA it should produce 80% of the revenue.  

That premise is not in the law and is inconsistent with the formula being based on the resources it takes to fight fires.  Jim Cooper says, “… in your example that only works if 80% of the cost of fighting fire comes from residential … it costs a lot more to fight a commercial structure fire and the weight is being carried by our residents.” Apparently channeling the concerns of Tumwater City Manager John Doan, the consultant Neil Blindheim says the quiet part out loud about what would happen if the RFA formula actually followed the fire science. as He paraphrased Doan when he said, “You know, I wouldn't want to go to that Chamber of Commerce meeting to tell what the commercial rates are going to be.”

Actual fire science considers “…building construction, occupancy, adjacent exposed buildings, and fire communication paths between buildings, according to the International Organization for Standards”  That suggests properties with buildings that are more difficult for firefighters to respond to should pay more. However, the proposed RFA formula tips its hat to these elements and then quickly moves on to ignore or distort them.

Complex buildings that can more easily catch fire and spread to other buildings, or contain flammable materials and are built of more combustible materials, would be charged a higher insurance rate than a brick warehouse housing bricks standing in the middle of a 2-acre lot with no other buildings nearby. But the proposed RFA’s FBC ignores these obvious fire risks, for convenience, and to achieve the RFA Planning Committee’s desired policy and budget outcomes. 

More problems in the formula

Exempting mobile homes – All mobile homes were exempted from the charges even though they do catch fire and firefighters respond when they do. The RFA Planning Committee did this, in an apparent concession to Tumwater who argued that some people who own mobile homes are low-income.  However, State law already provides low-income property owners with exemptions. Further, the RFA’s exemption is in violation of the state law that requires such category wide exemptions to be established in the Plan “…based on criteria they establish by resolution”.  The RFA Plan does not include such exemption criteria for mobile homes and even if they did, it would need to show that mobile homes receive no benefit from fire protection.

All apartments require the same fire resources – This RFA Plan uses the same resource weighting for a five-unit ground level apartment as for a 100-unit apartment 8 stories high.  The Olympia-Tumwater RFA formula has a single factor all apartments, regardless of size, number of stories, type of construction or adjacency to other structures. This factor is nearly three times higher than the highest weight for single family houses. Plus small garden style apartments pay more per square foot than the more difficult to serve high-rises.  This does not reflect firefighting reality and in this video a fire chief pointed that out during the RFA Committee deliberations. 

No fire science basis for the 10% sprinkler discount.  The discount for fire sprinklers varies widely among different jurisdictions; the National Fire Protection Association says the effect of a sprinkler system might be as much as 75%, yet the RFA Planning Committee chose 10%.  Other jurisdictions use as high as 50%, such as in Kenmore and Lake Forest Park.

The “Cost per Gallon” is not what you think it is. The Cost per Gallon is a manufactured concept with no link to the ISO or fire science.  It is a consultant’s budget device that can be dialed to match the desired spending of the RFA.  Some RFAs admit to that.  It is not based on cost of the application of water on a fire and the proceeds can be used for any purpose, including simply building a reserve of surplus taxpayer money.

Three tiers of charges for single-family houses not justified.  The RFA sets the rates for residences with up to four units in three tiers based on square footage but according to the firefighter union representative Steven Busz, this is unwarranted as each building would receive the same response.

Source: RFA Adopted Plan 1

Condomania - The single best example of the unscientific, irrational and unfair nature of the formula relates to the treatment of condominiums.

A building that has 100 living units and totals 100,000 s/f and each unit is 1,000 s/f in size as an apartment would have an FBC of $4,876.99. 

But if that building was converted into a condominium, the total FBC charge for the same 100 units is $13,330.00!  A formula that is reasonably proportioned to the measurable benefit received cannot possibly result in such a difference. The RFA's claim that "The amount of the FBC is based on the fire-response needs of structures" is clearly false.  If the same structure gets two different charges based on its legal, not structural status, then the FBC is NOT based on the firefighting response needs.

One of the more disturbing problems is the inescapable regressivity of the formula being promulgated by consultants throughout the state.  It is appalling that otherwise progressive politicians in Olympia and Tumwater would choose a way to make the poor pay more than the wealthy for necessities like fire and emergency services.

The formula’s good because other RFAs haven’t been sued?

The consultants convinced RFA Planning Committee members that there was less risk in using their recommended formula because other RFAs haven’t been sued in court.  The consultants told the committee the RFA would risk losing 35% of their revenue (see video, above) if they used a different formula approach than what the other four RFAs were using, and it was later found to not meet the state law requirements or even just delayed revenue collections while being litigated.  The consultants recommended that if the RFA Planning Committee really wanted to change the formula, they should stand down for a year for the alternative to be vetted.  Frustrated and browbeaten, the RFA Committee members held their noses and voted for it.

In summary, the consultants’ position is that by adopting the formula used by the other four RFAs with FBCs, Olympia and Tumwater would acquire some kind of herd immunity, despite the formula never being tested by a legal challenge.

That leaves us, the voters, with a proposal that is not only inequitable, but also unlikely to survive a legal challenge.  And, as the consultant cautioned, this would result in a real fire funding crisis. 

For more information about this aspect of the RFA proposal and other concerns go to SaveOurFD.org.

Larry Dzieza is a former budget director and budget analyst for multiple state agencies. For several years also served as an adjunct professor at The Evergreen State College, teaching budget and finance and “digital government” to students in the college’s Master of Public Administration graduate program.

The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and not necessarily those of The JOLT's staff or board of directors.  Got something to say about a topic of interest to Thurston County residents? Send it to us and we’ll most likely publish it. See the Contribute your news button at the top of every page.

Editor's Note:  To see the March 29, 2023, debate, sponsored by The JOLT and the League of Women Voters of Thurston County, between proponents and opponents of Proposition 1, please click here.