The Regional Fire Authority planning committee held a public hearing on the Fire Benefit Charge, one of the funding components in the proposed Olympia-Tumwater Fire Authority operation, on Monday, January 9.
At Olympia's city council chamber, members of the planning committee – chair Leatta Dahlhoff, Michael Althauser, Eileen Swarthout, Jim Cooper, and Lisa Parshley gathered to listen to seven community members air their opinions on the proposed FBC.
Olympia Mayor Cheryl Selby attended the public meeting with committee members.
Dahlhoff said the public hearing is in compliance with the State of Washington’s revised code that requires the planning committee to hold a public hearing on the proposal to impose benefit charges “for the support of its legally authorized activities that will maintain or improve fire protection and emergency medical services afforded in the authority.”
Before opening the public hearing, Olympia City Manager Jay Burney gave an overview of FBC. He also announced the availability of an online calculator for the FBC.
"There is a calculator on that site where you can put in your parcel number, and you can see an estimated FBC at this time," Burney said. A similar calculator was developed by Olympia resident Larry Dzieza in November 2021 (see RELATED story).
Each public commenter was given three minutes to testify.
RFA a "new tax"
According to Larry Dzieza, the RFA is not needed.
Dzieza described the RFA as a "new tax" which would not give Olympia and Tumwater a new fire station, fire trucks, or more firefighters.
"What you get is unnecessary overhead cost – hiring new public information officer, Human Resources, and accounting staff to do the work that the cities are already doing today, Dzieza remarked"
Dzieza noted that the taxpayers would pay for the upkeep of newly-elected commissioners and their staff if the RFA is approved by voters.
"Instead of getting better service, we get another level of government costing $2.2 million more each year. That is the cost of buying a new fire truck and three ambulances every year," Dzieza commented.
He added that the RFA's $10 million target budget would only pay for the same firefighters. "The firefighters we have today will cost more. Tumwater firefighters will get an increase to match Olympia's pay level. They all get paid more on the ground that a bigger fire department pays the firefighters more."
Dzieza warned the public not to be misled by RFA advocates that the RFA would improve the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response times. "Improvements are all already on their way as the city is moving to take over Basic Life Support ambulance services from the private sector."
FBC, significant tax increase
Jim Lazar reiterated his opposition to a levy lid lift to fund the RFA, saying it is a regressive proposal.
He cited the RFA information in the past meetings, which showed that a small 6,000-square-foot apartment building with ten units owned by a local investor would pay 23 cents a square foot. A large corporate-owned apartment complex of 600,000 square feet would pay only three cents a square foot.
Lazar said this overcharges local investors.
The FBC, according to the RFA planning committee, is a fee based on the fire risk associated with the size and type of structures. But Lazar called it a tax, which he said would be one of the most significant tax increases in history.
"It would be better if it were a tax because a fee is not deductible from federal income tax," Lazar said, adding he supported a levy lid lift to finance fire department operations.
He enumerated the advantage of opting for a levy lid lift:
"The net cost to the citizens of your two communities would be substantially lower because taxes are deductible and fees are not," Lazar said.
Tumwater community member Walter Jorgensen expressed concern about the FBC formula with the square root in the computation.
"The square root being used as a function and that formula is beyond absurd. I've never heard anyone attempt to explain how it relates to or makes the fee equitable. It seems counterintuitive," Jorgensen remarked.
Jorgensen said the calls for fire and medical needs are missing in the formula, which is entirely dependent on references to fire structure.
"Most of the calls are medically related, which is extremely important. It should be a big part of how you determine the fee. It relates to many other things, including the kinds of vehicles that the emergency first responders use – firetrucks vs. ambulances," he said.
Property tax vs. FBC
Tumwater firefighter Brad Ridgeway noted discussions in the RFA planning committee meetings of whether to do a property tax or FBC to finance the RFA operations. "[But] taking a dollar per $1,000 assessed value is not an option."
Under the RFA model, Ridgeway said the proposed Olympia Tumwater Fire Authority would be directly accountable to the citizens through its board of commissioners, who would reassess the FBC to meet the budgetary need. "[FBC fee] could go down, especially in a year with a levy reassessment."
Former Tumwater Mayor Pete Kmet spoke in favor of the RFA and FBC.
"Creating an RFA, funded partly by the FBC, will address the critical response times. It will also add a CARES unit for calls that are not life-threatening and new transport units to take less critical patients to the hospital," said Kmet, who appeared at the Olympia City chambers.
He underscored that the FBC would provide a "diverse and stable source of funding for the RFA."
Unlike FBC, Kmet added, the property tax can be increased more than 1% a year, but they do not keep up with inflation, adding, "The FBC eliminates to front-load the revenues because each year [property tax] has to be adjusted for the revenue they need each year."
Steven Busz, an Olympia firefighter who is president of the firefighter's union and who sits on the RFA planning committee meeting as an ex officio member, said the property tax does not consider the risk and resources needed for public safety. "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."
Citing Thurston County data, Busz said a homeowner pays an average of $1.72 per 1,000 assessed value for fire levy rate in an unincorporated fire department.
At the proposed Olympia-Tumwater RFA, Busz informed that the combined fire levy and FBC rate is projected to start at $1.54.
"It is 18 cents less per $1,000 assessed value than what unincorporated Thurston County is paying on average. By the end of its sixth year, this potentially is reduced to $1.40/$1,000 AV, or 32 cents less," Busz added.
He urged the people to vote in favor of the RFA, with FBC as proposed. "This identified funding source for the proposed RFA will provide increased resources and personnel. This fire benefit charge will provide a fair and consistent funding mechanism well into the future. This RFA will improve our fire departments' services to its communities and citizens."
Jim Rio, who owns one rental property, said he tried to keep the rental as low as possible but said he would have to pass on to his tenants the higher costs due to an FBC.
CORRECTIONS: January 11, 2023 - A correction has been made to Jim Lazar's quote following his comment below. We identified Steven Busz and identified him by his affiliation, and made corrections to the spelling of Councilmember Lisa Parshley's name. We corrected grammatical errors as well. We regret these errors.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Larry Dzieza
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.
Tuesday, January 10, 2023 Report this
Southsoundguy
Do not let the rhetoric truck into believing the RFA is a forgone conclusion. Say NO to the RFA!
Tuesday, January 10, 2023 Report this
jimlazar
To make a small correction, I do NOT "favor a levy lid lift to fund the RFA."
If the cities need more money, to support fire departments and other operations, I support a levy lid lift to local City property taxes to fund those operations. A levy lid lift would provide more money for fire, more for police, more for parks, and more for street repairs.
The RFA is a terrible idea, and people should vote resoundingly NO.
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 Report this
JulesJames
Regrettably, I didn't notice this meeting. I would have attended and my three minutes would be something like: "The RFA is a tax dodge. Two municipal governments unable to balance the budget within the 1% per year levy lid are creating a new taxing authority to circumvent voter intent. The absurdity of debating RFA structure taxation formulas for mobile homes verses high rise apartments when the vast majority of fire departments' work is for non-structure calls is an irrelevant red herring. But to that point: we should never forget that when public opposition was rising against the RFA, its proponents suddenly found 10 Empire State Buildings worth of uncounted commercial square footage. Taxation formulas suddenly were fudged into more palatable. At the core -- first and last -- is a funding scheme that disrespects the voter. As such, if passed, the voter should expect more of the same: taxation formulas re-adjusting for non-credible reasons - but higher after the vote."
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 Report this
PeteKmet
My comments regarding property tax vs. the benefit charge got a bit garbled in the article. Here is what I said.
Because under State Law property taxes cannot increase more than 1% a year, they do not keep up with inflation. Thus, if you rely solely on a property tax levy, the measure must be crafted to collect more money than is needed for the first several years, so there are sufficient funds to pay later year expenses. This is unfair to the voters. And even with this, you would need to periodically ask the voters to increase the levy to keep up with inflation.
A FBC eliminates this need to front load revenues because under state law it must be adjusted each year to collect only the revenue that’s needed.
Dedicating these revenues to fire and medical services will be more transparent and accountable to the voters, not buried in a City’s budget. And creating a RFA means fire and medical services will not have to compete for funding with other city services like parks, police and public works.
Pete Kmet
Wednesday, January 11, 2023 Report this
JW
The comparable levy rate of $1.54 with the RFA is not bad...you'd think the the fire department was coming to your house and taking your money at gunpoint with how dramatic some of these detractors are. That's cheaper than where I live and with much better service provided.
I'd trust the money with the fire department for their sole use far more than a city council of buffoons to split between the fire department and whatever pet political projects they dream up.
Thursday, January 12, 2023 Report this