Report Inappropriate Comments

(Continued from above)

If I had time, I would address the specific problems with Mr. Kmet’s “it isn’t regressive” argument but his argument does not stand up to scrutiny. You can go to the SaveOurFD.org website and click on the regressive page. Or you can watch this and see the FBC expert say the formula is “by its nature, regressive” in response to the overwhelming desire by the committee to get rid of the regressive effect of the square rooting of square footages. https://youtu.be/-F-wqQ5vLv

But beyond regressive, the formula is very likely violates the RFA laws that call for the formula to "...be reasonably proportioned to the measurable benefits to property resulting from the services afforded by the authority." - RCW 52.26. There is no better case that the proposed formula is unreasonable as when the alleged foundation for it is based on the physics of "fire flow" is undermined by the type of ownership the building. Somehow the amount of fire fighting resources required is less when the same building is an apartment versus when the same building is converted into a condominium. How the fire knows this, remains a mystery.

Even worse is the inherent and more pervasive problem that the fire behaves differently depending upon how many buildings are on the parcel. The FBC is a parcel based calculation. Three buildings on a single parcel are calculated as a single entity. With the square root in the formula, that means that those three buildings' total square footage are added together before the square root is applied. The result is that they are charged less, much less, than if each building was on its own parcel. This absurdity would never pass the test of reasonable apportionment.

Finally, we need to drill into the fiction of the the "Building Category Factor" in the formula. The RFA says its "based on the building size and use". It is the weighting that assigns a 1.5 multiplier to the charge for apartments, one of three multipliers for houses and one of six multipliers ranging from .6x to 5x for commercial buildings.

Throughout the RFA's formula development process these multipliers were manipulated based on the desired outcome for revenues and decisions on what group will bear the burden. Not even the slightest tip of the hat to fire science.

For these reasons, the RFAs FBC formula is vulnerable to legal challenge and huge revenue delays and losses and delays and losses that would make all of us vulnerable to losing the protection of our great fire departments.

Your No Vote is the most important vote you will make in terms of our community's public safety in a generation.