Olympia, Tumwater firefighters plead for creation of RFA before joint council meeting
Moving forward with a Regional Fire Authority is a necessity, according to union leaders from the Tumwater and Olympia fire departments. The problem is getting the public on board with what at first glance seems like a new hefty fee for services they already receive.
The Olympia and Tumwater city councils met jointly on Oct. 25 in what a few of the members said was an “historic” meeting. With a goal of having the RFA proposal in front of voters by April, the cities must come to an agreement on funding sources soon. Fire departments in both cities are already strained by high call volumes and a lack of resources and training.
“Our services are costing more, and they’re going to increase,” said Steven Busz, vice president of the Olympia firefighters union. “We’re labor unions, and our labor isn’t free. It’s been determined that this is really the only way to move forward with our services at or above the level they currently are.”
Olympia City Manager Jay Burney outlined two funding proposals for the RFA, the first including an increase in property taxes. The second option shifts some city property tax dollars over to the RFA budget, and collects a Fire Benefit Charge from residences, businesses and other types of buildings in both cities. It’s an annual fee based on the fire risk associated with the size and type of structure.
Both options include funding from the county Emergency Medical Services levy as well, which is 31.9 cents per $1,000 assessed value property tax that residents already pay.
The second option, which includes the Fire Benefit Charge, would generate more revenue, Burney said. And it turns out, option one wouldn’t generate enough money to sustain the RFA in the long term. Burney said more funding is needed to allow the RFA to bend and flex to the communities’ needs as both cities grow, which could happen with the second option.
Burney said the formula for calculating the Fire Benefit Charge has been used across the country. The calculation goes as such: Fire Flow (the square root of the total square feet, multiplied by 18) x Building Category Factor x Cost per Gallon Factor x Balancing Factor x Sprinkler Discount x Exemption Factors.
It boils down to how large a structure it is, and the amount of water and resources needed to put the fire out. Instead of getting billed after a fire, the RFA would collect a fee once a year as more of a preventative measure. Property owners can think of it as paying a once-a-year fee to have their property covered in case of a fire, as well as ensure fire crews are prepared and capable of tackling it.
For example, the owner of a 1,500-square-foot home would pay an estimated $202 per year, included with their yearly property tax bill. A 2,000-square-foot home would pay $233, and a 2,500-square-foot home would pay $318.
The value of a home doesn’t go into the calculation, only its size.
Owners of mobile homes wouldn’t pay under the proposal, because they’re included in the list of exemption factors. Others include people with disabilities and low-income seniors, and others who receive property tax exemptions.
If the RFA proposal is approved, a person would be hired to help people navigate the system and what they might owe.
Several council members noted that the second option is a hard one to sell to voters, compared to the first. And the Fire Benefit Charge proposal needs 60% voter approval come April, and the higher property tax proposal needs 50% plus one.
If it’s passed, an annual appeals process is required, and it has to be reauthorized by voters after six years.
If it isn’t passed, RFA committee chair Leatta Dalhoff said need and demand isn’t just going to stop growing. If people don’t pay through the Fire Benefit Charge, they will have to pay more for services another way at some point, likely through a higher property tax than proposed in the first RFA option.
“Fire will not get cheaper, police will not get cheaper, the demands on our streets, our lights, our water, our roads and our cars will never get cheaper,” she said. “Either we present this regional solution to our community, or we have some major decisions to make for both of our jurisdictions to prevent critical mass in a crisis of response in our community. And I don’t say that lightly.”
Council member Jim Cooper said it makes more sense to approve the RFA and funding proposal because people would likely have to pay more in the long run if the two cities don’t combine departments and resources. Alongside typical fire and emergency services, the two cities would have more funding and resources for more frequent and useful training and more.
The proposal includes hiring two more transport teams, which includes 18 full-time firefighters. It also includes eight other full time positions to help the larger, singular department run smoothly.
Busz said these additions would make a huge difference for the departments’ employees, who he said are noticing how difficult their jobs are becoming.
“We’re becoming social workers, we’re running more calls than we ever have, we’re stuck on scene longer than we ever have been in the past because of a lack of resources,” he said.
He and Tumwater union vice president Rian Winter said employees at both departments have voiced their support for the RFA, especially if it means making their jobs easier and the communities happier and healthier.
This story was originally published October 31, 2022 at 7:00 AM.
.jpg)