HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2022-05-23 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETTukwila City Council Agenda
❖ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ❖
�q
J*KOLA
`''�r
1905%%%
Allan Ekberg, Mayor Councilmembers: + Kathy Hougardy + De'Sean Quinn
David Cline, City Administrator + Kate Kruller + Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson
Thomas McLeod, Council President ❖Mohamed Abdi ❖ Tosh Sharp
THE MEETING WILL
BASED ON THE
ANY PUBLIC AGENCY,
RCW 42.30 UNLESS
BE CONDUCTED
GOVERNOR'S
SUBJECT
(A) THE
BOTH ON-SITE AT TUKWILA CITY HALL AND ALSO VIRTUALLY,
PROCLAMATION 20-28 ADOPTED MARCH 24, 2020 WHICH SAYS IN PART:
TO RCW 42.30, IS PROHIBITED FROM CONDUCTING ANY MEETING, SUBJECT TO
MEETING IS NOT CONDUCTED IN-PERSON AND INSTEAD PROVIDES AN OPTIONS)
FOR THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND THE
THE PHONE
For Technical
Monday, May 23, 2022; 7:00
PROCEEDINGS THROUGH, AT MINIMUM, TELEPHONIC ACCESS, ..."
NUMBER FOR THE PUBLIC TO LISTEN TO THE MEETING IS:
1-253-292-9750, ACCESS CODE: 670077847#.
Click here to: Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
Support during the meeting call: 1-206-433-7155.
PM
1. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. LAND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The City of Tukwila is located on the ancestral lands of the Coast Satish peop/e.
We acknowledge their continuing connections to land, waters and culture.
We pay our respects to their elders past, present and emerging.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS—
including comment
on items both on and
not on the meeting
agenda
* 2021-2022 Update * Those wishing to provide public comments now have
the opportunity to verbally address the City Council both on-site at Tukwila City Hall
or via phone or Microsoft Teams for up to 5 minutes for items both on
on the meeting agenda. To take advantage of this option, please email
citycouncil@tukwilawa.gov with your name and the topic you wish to speak
and not
on by
meeting.
to
5:00 PM on the date of the meeting.
Please clearly indicate that your message is for public comment during the
You will receive further instructions and be called upon during the meeting
address the City Council.
4. SPECIAL ISSUES
a. A contract for consulting services for an Economic Development
Plan.
b. A request for a 1.0 full time employee (grant funded) for the
Transportation Demand Management Program.
c. An ordinance revising Tukwila Municipal Code Section 16.04.250
regarding construction permits.
d. Final Report from the Future of Fire/Emergency Medical Services
Community Advisory Committee. Verna Seal, Chair.
e. 2021 Year End Financial Report.
f. An update on the Minimum Wage Initiative Effort.
Pg.1
Pg.31
Pg.39
Pg.51
Pg.173
Pg.217
5. REPORTS
a. Mayor
b. City Council
c. Staff
(continued...)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
May 23, 2022
Page 2
6. MISCELLANEOUS
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION
8. ADJOURN TO SPECIAL MEETING
❖ SPECIAL MEETING ❖
• Ord #2673 • Res #2047
1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of Vouchers
b. Authorize the Mayor to sign a contract with Long Painting
Company to paint the exterior of Fire Station 53, in the amount
of $49,377.65. [Reviewed and forwarded to Consent by the
Transportation and Infrastructure Services Committee on 5/16/22. J
Pg.233
3. NEW BUSINESS
For discussion of Consent Agenda items only, if necessary.
4. ADJOURNMENT
This agenda is available at www.tukwilawa.gov, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Remote Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped (and video taped as of 9/14/20). Available at www.tukwilawa.gov)
WELCOME TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The Tukwila City Council encourages community participation in the local government process and
welcomes attendance and public comment at its meetings.
MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of each month. The City Council takes
formal action in the form of motions, resolutions and ordinances at Regular Meetings.
Committee of the Whole Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month. The
City Council considers current issues, discusses policy matters in detail, and coordinates the work of
the Council at Committee of the Whole meetings.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the public are given the opportunity to address the Council for up to 5 minutes on items both on
and not on the meeting agenda during Public Comments. The City Council will also accept comments on an
agenda item when the item is presented in the agenda, but speakers are limited to commenting once per
item each meeting.
When recognized by the Presiding Officer, please go to the podium if on-site or turn on your microphone if
attending virtually and state your name dearly for the record. The City Council appreciates hearing from you
but may not respond or answer questions during the meeting. Members of the City Council or City staff may
follow up with you following the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings are required by law before the Council can take action on matters affecting the public
interest such as land -use laws, annexations, rezone requests, public safety issues, etc. The City Council
Rules of Procedure provide the following guidelines for Public Hearings:
1. City staff will provide a report summarizing and providing context to the issue at hand.
2. The proponent shall speak first and is allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation.
3. The opponent is then allowed 15 minutes to make a presentation.
4. Each side is then allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal.
5. After the proponents and opponents have used their speaking time, the Council may ask further
clarifying questions of the speakers.
6. Members of the public who wish to address the Council on the hearing topic may speak for 5
minutes each.
7. Speakers are asked to sign in on forms provided by the City Clerk.
8. The Council may ask clarifying questions of speakers and the speakers may respond.
9. Speakers should address their comments to the City Council.
10. If a large number of people wish to speak to the issue, the Council may limit the total amount of
comment time dedicated to the Public Hearing.
11. Once the Presiding Officer closes the public hearing, no further comments will be accepted, and the
issue is open for Councilmember discussion.
12. Any hearing being held or ordered to be held by the City Council may be continued in the manner as
set forth by RCW 42.30.100.
For more information about the City Council, including its complete Rules of
Procedure, please visit: https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/city-council/
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mryor'.t revicn
Council review
5/23/22
DCS
6/6/22
DCS
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM No.
4.A.
STAFF SPONSOR: DEREK SPECK
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/23/22
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Economic Development Plan
CATEGORY ® Discussion
MtgDate 5/23/22
® Motion
Mtg Date 6/6/22
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
Other
bitg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ®t\Iayor ❑ Adnzin Svcs ❑ OCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Pc R ❑ Police ❑ PIF
SPONSOR'S
SUMMARY
Staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeking a consultant to assist the City to
create an economic development plan and recommends the City select Community
Attributes. The Council is being asked to authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with
Community Attributes in the amount of $50,000.
REVIEWED BY
❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance ® Planning & Community Dev.
❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm.
DATE: 5/16/22
❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
COMMITTEE CHAIR: DELOSTRINOS JOHNSON
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Mayor's Office/Economic Development Division
COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED
$50,000
AMOUNT BUDGETED
$50,000
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0
Fund Source: GENERAL FUND, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION BUDGET (MR003700)
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/23/22
6/6/22
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
5/23/22
Informational Memorandum dated 5/10/22
Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
Summary of Ratings
Qualifications for Community Attributes
Minutes from the Planning and Community Development Committee meeting of 5/16/22
6/6/22
1
2
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Community Development Committee
FROM: Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: May 10, 2022
SUBJECT: Economic Development Plan
ISSUE
Staff requests Council approval to contract with Community Attributes to provide consulting
services to create an economic development plan for Tukwila.
BACKGROUND
One of the strategies in the Economic Development chapter ("Element") of the City's
Comprehensive Plan is to create an economic development plan to further achieve the City's
vision for its economy. In late 2021 the Council amended the 2022 budget to include $150,000
to create that plan, including outreach and creating a business contacts database. On March 31,
2022 the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeking consultants to help create the
plan. See attached. The City received Statements of Qualifications from five firms.
DISCUSSION
The City's Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Plan, Zoning, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), other
infrastructure plans, budget, and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan provide
significant vision and strategy related to economic development. The Comprehensive Plan
even includes a chapter on economic development.
Even with the many existing plans that relate to the City's economy, creating an economic
development plan would provide an opportunity to review and update the City's vision for its
economy and provide additional context, options, and guidance for staff and policy makers.
Due to the close relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and a new economic
development plan, the City's Economic Development staff will coordinate closely with the City's
Community Development staff.
Staff anticipates the scope of the project would be:
1. Basic Plan: This work includes hiring a consultant to conduct research, analysis, writing,
graphic design, and producing a document. It would also include standard community
outreach such as an online survey, a limited phone survey, and some public meetings.
2. Expanded Outreach: This work may include multiple community-based organizations or
firms to assist with outreach to various groups based on culture, language, age, etc. It
would include tailoring those contracts to work with those groups on outreach methods
appropriate for each group. These methods may include surveys, conversations,
interviews, focus groups, or other ways. As appropriate, methods would include
interpretation, translation, childcare, and participation incentives.
It is important to note that the City plans to engage with our community on many projects
3
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
this year and we need to be sensitive to "survey fatigue" or confusion. Economic
Development staff adjust the outreach to coordinate with these other efforts.
Staff would determine the specific outreach process in coordination with the consultant,
once they are selected.
3. Improved Business Contacts Database: This purpose of this component is to improve
our business contacts database which would improve outreach needed to develop the
Plan but would also improve ongoing outreach. The component would include a
combination of purchasing a software tool and contacting our businesses to update
and/or collect their contact information, including the language their local management
prefers. This database could help other departments with their business outreach (for
example, in emergencies) and staff would coordinate with those other departments.
There would be an ongoing maintenance cost but we do not yet have an estimate for
that.
The City received Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from five firms. Economic Development
staff and the City Administrator reviewed all SOQs. The rating sheet is attached. Four of the
firms could perform this work for Tukwila. Of those, two were rated qualified and two were rated
highly qualified. Economic development staff held follow-up conversations with the two firms
rated highly qualified. Staff recommends the City select Community Attributes. Although it's
clear that four of the firms are qualified to do the work, Community Attributes stood out because
it has experience making community outreach fun and engaging and its final documents are
more user friendly for the public. Community Attributes' SOQ is attached.
At this time staff is seeking Council approval to enter into a contract with Community Attributes
for up to $50,000. This would be enough to create the Basic Plan as described above. Once
Community Attributes is under contract, staff will work with them to create a proposal for
enhanced community outreach as described above. At that time, staff will return to Council for
approval of the full community outreach plan and, if needed, authorization to increase the
contract with Community Attributes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This contract would be for up to $50,000 which is already included in the economic development
division's budget for 2022.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is being asked to forward this item to the May 23, 2022 Committee of the Whole
and June 6, 2022 Regular Meeting to authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Community
Attributes for consulting services for creating an economic development plan up to $50,000.
ATTACHMENTS
Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
Summary of Ratings
Statement of Qualifications from Community Attributes
4
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The City of Tukwila is seeking a consultant to help us create an economic development plan.
Background
Tukwila is a small city with a big economy. With over 2,000 businesses and 40,000 jobs, more
people are employed in the City of Tukwila than in 29 counties in the State of Washington.
Tukwila has high concentrations of businesses in manufacturing, aerospace, retail, and
entertainment. Anchored by Westfield Southcenter, businesses in Tukwila generate over $2
billion of taxable retail sales annually.
Project Scope
The City has a Comprehensive Plan that includes a chapter on economic development and a
Strategic Plan that includes goals related to the city's financial health, business community,
economy, identity, and image. The City would like to create an economic development plan (or
strategy) that provides additional clarity, consensus, and prioritization to help the City focus its
economic development work. The product of this project could be an economic development
plan (or strategy), or an update to the economic development chapter in the Comprehensive
Plan. In addition to the "work product", we would like the process to be one that builds
relationships with businesses and residents and a greater sense of understanding and
connection.
Many of the questions we would like to explore are fairly obvious such as: Should we update our
vision for attracting and retaining certain industry sectors? How do we ensure our retail and
entertainment cluster remains strong and growing? How should we update our visions for
various business districts to help them grow into great neighborhoods? How do we ensure our
residents have access to education and training for better futures? How can we ensure diversity
of our businesses in a way that provides ongoing sustainable tax revenue? Of course, more
questions will arise as we engage with businesses and residents.
City staff is looking forward to working closely with the consultant team on this project and co -
developing the project scope.
Equitable and Inclusive Community Outreach
The City of Tukwila is one of the most diverse communities in the Nation and values its
diversity. The majority of people who live in Tukwila are people of color and over 40% were born
in a country other than the United States. More than 80 languages are spoken in our schools
and over 50% of our residents speak a language other than English at home. The City is
committed to equitable access to opportunity for Tukwila residents and has a City Council
adopted equity policy. As such, equitable outreach and engagement will be a key component of
creating the economic development plan.
5
Budget
The City has allocated $50,000 for this project. Additional funding is available as needed to
contract with community-based organizations to ensure equitable community outreach.
Selection Criteria
Please describe your project team's qualifications including your:
• experience helping cities with projects of this type
• ability to achieve great results relative to the project budget
• knowledge of the City of Tukwila
• ability to meet the anticipated project schedule
• experience and capability conducting community outreach, especially with BIPOC
populations, recent immigrants and refugees, and people who are English language
learners
Please describe your project team's organizational structure including any sub -contractors.
Please list the primary team members who would be assigned to this project and provide any
additional information about their qualifications.
Please describe specific suggestions on how to ensure equitable outreach for this project.
Selection Process
Staff will review statements of qualifications as we receive them and will follow up with the
consultant if we have additional questions. We anticipate staff will select a preferred consultant
and bring that recommendation forward with a proposed contract to the City Council for
approval.
Anticipated Schedule
May 6, 2022
May 16, 2022
May 23, 2022
June 6, 2022
June 2022
July 2022
Fall 2022
November 2022
Staff selection of preferred consultant; begin contract discussions
City Council committee consideration of staff recommendation
City Council consideration of staff recommendation
City Council authorization to execute contract
Project planning; research begins
Community outreach begins
Council presentations and discussions
City Council adopts the Plan
Note: This schedule and process is subject to change.
Submittal
Please submit your qualifications as a Microsoft Word or PDF formats. Submittals will become
public records.
Please email your statement of qualifications to the contact below by 5:00 PM April 25, 2022.
Contact
For more information, contact Derek Speck at 206-790-2187 or Derek.Speck@TukwilaWA.gov.
6
City of Tukwila
Economic Development Plan RFQ Evaluation Sheet
Evaluation Criteria
Beckwith
Berk
Better
City
CAI
EcoNW
1) Experience & capability with similar
projects
Q
HQ
SQ
HQ
Q
2) Experience & capability with outreach
and equity
Q
HQ
LQ
HQ
HQ
3) Experience & capability with
communication, production, and
graphic design
Q
HQ
LQ
HQ
Q
4) Capacity to complete project on
schedule
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
5) Knowledge of Tukwila
SQ
HQ
LQ
HQ
HQ
6) Return on City investment
(bang for the buck)
Q
Q
LQ
HQ
Q
7) Overall
Q
HQ
SQ
HQ
Q
Comments
and redevelopment.
with paid community partners for equitable
regional aerospace economy.
Northwest. Not much info on outreach. Product
A strength is keeping their message simple.
data from Soundside Alliance project. Strongest in fun
of the final document. Their RFQ included links to
for staff to easily see examples of work.
detailed financial analysis, and in-depth
development plans.
1. Beckwith strengths appear to be planning
2. Berk has good recent experience contracting
engagement. Very well understands the
3. Better Cities has no experience in Pacific
appears to be just summary of input.
4. CAI already has workforce and regional
public participation and public readability
their economic development strategies
5. EcoNW's strengths appear to be for planning,
research. Fewer examples of economic
Ratings: LQ = Less Qualified/Unknown; SQ = Somewhat Qualified; Q = Qualified HQ = Highly Qualified
7
8
•
cai
April 25, 2022
community
attributesinc
Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator
City of Tukwila Mayor's Office
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA
Re: Economic Development Strategy
Dear Mr. Speck,
500 Union Street, Suite 2001 Seattle, WA 98101
206 523 6683 1 communityattributes.com
Community Attributes Inc. (CAI) is pleased to present this proposal to support the City of Tukwila in
developing an Economic Development Strategy.
CAI is a recognized leader in data analytics, community engagement and outreach, and economic
development strategy. We work with communities and organizations throughout the western United States
to construct data -driven, impactful studies and strategies. Tukwila desires assistance to build upon its
economic development planning to date to clarify, prioritize, and develop consensus around specific courses
of action to increase prosperity for its diverse communities. Tukwila has enjoyed a particularly strong,
dynamic economy but structural changes resulting from the pandemic, including the growth of remote work
and online retailing, are forcing all cities in the region to adapt and react, making this a critical time to think
strategically about how to leverage available resources to create prosperity for all.
Our team is ideally suited to serve Tukwila in this role. Our value lies in the following key attributes and core
competencies:
• Deep understanding of principals of economic development, site selection, business attraction,
retention and expansion, and supply chain relationships honed through past work with regional
economic development organizations, counties and cities throughout the western United States
• Rigorous data analysis to help stakeholders understand regional economic trends, market
opportunities and actionable strategies to grow local economies
• Specific experience with equitable economic development and equity metrics, and a track record of
working to improve equity outcomes in regions with strong growth, high housing costs, and limited
land supply
• A culture of transparency and objectivity with the flexibility to adapt to meet Tukwila's needs
We work collaboratively with our clients to plan and implement better futures for their communities, and
we hope to partner with the City of Tukwila to proactively plan for economic growth that sustains and
enhances the quality of life for all of the city's current and future residents. Thank you for your
consideration, and we look forward to discussing our proposal and approach. Please feel free to contact us
at (206) 523-6683 (office) or (319) 621-2483 (Project Manager direct).
Sincerely,
Elliot Weiss, Project Manager
Community Attributes Inc.
elliot@communityattributes.com
(319) 621-2483
Chris Mefford, President and CEO
Community Attributes Inc. (auth. representative)
chrisPcommunityattributes.com
(206) 617-9576
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 1
9
FI RN
PROFILE
cai
•.*
rel
community
attributesinc
Community Attributes Inc. (CAI) supports all phases of community and economic development—from
visioning to implementation. We aim to support decision-making by linking community priorities with
economic opportunities in the context of regional economic trends and available resources. The hallmarks
of our practice are flexibility, responsiveness, and innovation, all of which we whole-heartedly employ to
meet our clients' needs. We're passionate about delivering viable reports and products that help city
officials and their stakeholders improve the quality of life within their communities. CAI currently employs
10 staff members across three main teams focused on economics, planning and data systems.
Our project experience includes economic development strategies for large and small cities and regions,
including places with robust, retail and industrial sector -centered economies, such as Kent, Tacoma, and
Spokane, and Vancouver, Washington. Critically, we are experienced in identifying equity considerations in
these places, and in integrating solutions to such pressing challenges into an actionable strategic plan. We
recently led the development of an economic recovery framework for the greater Seattle region, which
addressed equity issues head-on by acknowledging the region's challenges and by analyzing how the
COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated them. We understand Tukwila's need for a detailed economic
development roadmap, and we will bring our extensive experience to bear in identifying challenges and
pioneering solutions so that Tukwila can improve, expand and diversify its already robust economy.
Elliot Weiss, an experienced planner with over a decade of consulting experience at the intersection of
planning, design, and development, will lead this work for CAI. Elliot joined CAI in 2012 and has since led
numerous economic development strategies, including award-winning recovery work for communities
working to overcome the impacts of a natural disaster. Other staff at CAI, including Bryan Lobel, Cassie
Byerly, and Michaela Jellicoe, will offer critical support on this project, and their resumes are included in this
proposal.
We enjoy a collaborative relationship with our clients, and we are happy to further discuss and refine any
aspect of our proposal. If we are selected, we look forward to working closely with staff to identify and
refine a detailed project scope to meet Tukwila's needs. Thank you for your consideration.
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 2
10
Tillamook Cheese Factory T1lllaal00k
TrAamock, OR k
The Tillamook Cheese Factory located on the west mast of
Gregor, is both a mayor food production fealty and regional
tourist draw. The lacilly is the Mtginel 1lemook Cheese pro-
duclinn factory and produces approximately 161.000 pounds
of clweces each day It amp draws abut 1 million visitors par
year. The factory is a successful axanaVe el "Make in Heck.
Sell in Front'. wher0n it is a major food p1000011on factory wall
fully Integrated 010tor and retail1acllltles. -
OUR QUALIFICATIONS
Selected Project Experience
Community Attributes has partnered with local governments throughout the western United States on
community and economic development projects, including strategies and action plans. The following is a
selection of our relevant work which we have successfully delivered within schedule and budget.
Relevant Project Experience: Economic Development Strategy
SOUNDSIDE ALLIANCE: ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
The Soundside Alliance for Economic Development is a partnership of five cities (Burien, Des Moines,
Normandy Park, SeaTac and Tukwila), the Port of Seattle and Highline College dedicated to promoting
economic opportunity in Southwest King County. To support their mission, CAI mapped and assessed
primary source data to evaluate the economic and workforce assets of the region and determine potential
opportunities to leverage and augment these resources to expand middle-class jobs and promote business
growth. The conclusions of this report provided future guidance and direction for policy initiatives in the
region. (2015)
CITY OF KENT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
For the City of Kent, Community Attributes Inc. provided project management of an economic development
plan. CAI developed industrial and commercial profiles which analyzed employment, real estate, retail,
commercial and demographic data for Kent's major commercial and industrial activity centers. Stakeholder
engagement efforts included interviews with representatives from government and private sector leaders,
business forum facilitation and workshops. The report included assessments of strategic advantages,
challenges and opportunities to support and grow the commercial, industrial, residential and retail assets in
the City of Kent. CAI conducted a second phase focusing on stakeholder feedback analysis, including
interviews with City Councilmembers and facilitation of three business forums. (2014)
FouRaMM
MB!
FIVE
DETAILED STRATEGIES
1 CITY IMAGE & BRANDING
2 PLACE -MAKING
3 BUSINESS CUM,
4 CLUSTER GROW
5 KENT INDUSTRIF
AS REGIONAL IN
6 WORKFORCE....
PLAN IMPLEMEN
& COORDINATI(
APPENDIX A:
FURTHER READINC
SOURCES
40
GATEWAYS dC�
5 KENT INDUSTRIAL VALLEY
Strategy 5.3 Position the Industrial Valley as an Amenity
for both Industrial Users & Surrounding Communities
® Encourage Retail and Hospitality In KIV
Articulate clear City policies that encourage additional retail, service end
hospitality development at Me most visible gateways and Intersections of
the RIO.
® Put Window on Manufactudng
Partner WC Kent Industrial Valley manutactanng firms to explore pass-
baitIes for indoor or outdoor visitor viewing areas 101 local manulecturing,
labncation, assembly or food protesting operations.
Conduct a' Made In Kent" Retail Tour
Organize and promote retail lours and marketing collateral tar local manu-
facturers K prominent brands via Kent Chamber of Commerce. Cay and
consortium of Interested Ilrms in the Kent Industrial Valley.
IMICI Activate the Slack Space
Partner with landowners and tenants to identity appoduruties lar adaptive
revenue-generebng reuse of underutiflzed warehouses, storage lots, slack
space and vacant or overlooked Industrial buildings and sites in the KIV
Cross Listed Action Steps
® Gray to Green
® Lrghl the 51reet
® Add Biking and Punning Trails
NEE Finish the Kent Valley Loop Trail
® Sponsor RnTech Events In AIV
® Make In Back. Sell In Front
® Expand Allowable Uses In KIV
215100 2025 GOALS
Community Attributes Inc. I City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 3
11
The Kent EDSP is available at:
https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=2758
TRI COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: COMPRHENSIVE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS)
CAI prepared a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the Tri County Economic
Development District (TEDD). The CEDS presented goals, objectives and milestones for a three -county
region of northeast Washington. Cities across the three counties ranged in size, with varying economic
drivers and community needs. CAI worked with stakeholders, including a CEDS Committee and the TEDD
Board of Directors, to ensure that the adopted strategy effectively represented the needs of the region's
residents and businesses. As part of the strategy, CAI deployed a business survey to ascertain the economic
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and developed strategies to support economic recovery and resiliency.
(2021)
Project Cost: $100,000
Project Manager: Elliot Weiss
Project Team: Bryan Lobel, Cassie Byerly, Michaela Jellicoe
CITY OF BOISE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
For the City of Boise, Idaho, CAI led the development of the City's first economic development strategic
plan. The plan identified goals around regional collaboration, quality of life, target industries and workforce
development, and included strategies and actions meant to make tangible progress toward the goals. As
part of the effort, CAI conducted 13 focus groups with over 100 local leaders from business and industry,
community organizations, City and partner jurisdictions, and educational institutions. (2021)
Project Cost: $95,000
Project Manager: Elliot Weiss
Project Team: Chris Mefford, Bryan Lobel, Cassie Byerly, Michaela Jellicoe, Ethan Schmidt
CITY OF TACOMA: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
Community Attributes led the development of an entirely new Economic Development Strategic Plan for
the City of Tacoma. The City is undergoing a time of great change, with energy and revitalization rippling
across both its neighborhoods and through its newly diverse and dynamic economy. A key component of
this strategy is the close integration and coordination of the City's actions and direction with those of other
key organizations and entities - such as the Greater Seattle Partners, and the Pierce County Economic
Development Board (EDB). While the implementation -focused Plan is developing strategies across eight
different focus areas, its fundamental orientation will be toward achieving increased social and economic
equity in Tacoma through specific actions and strategies. In addition to focused engagement with business
leaders and stakeholders in the community, our intensive workshopping with City staff has led to the
development of an extraordinarily specific, targeted, and realistic plan that manages to dream big while
mapping out exactly which relationships and resources will be required to achieve the City's vision. (2019-
2020)
The Tacoma EDSP is available at:
https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/cedd/CED Main/CoT Strategic Plan 2020 2025.pdf
Project Cost: $65,000
Project Manager: Bryan Lobel
Project Team: Chris Mefford, Elliot Weiss
Community Attributes Inc. l CityofTukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 4
12
City of Tacoma Ecanomie Development Strategic Plan
TH
REE Overview
AcLion in the Near Term
The following pages hist 39 PRIORITY ACTIONS that the City of Tacoma can begin to undertake now that well have
a significant impact in the near term • and that welt signal its intent in these eight FOCUS AREAS of economic development
and develop momentum for the rest of the STRATEGIES and ACTIONS contained in Section q of this Pan These priority
actions are intended to focus the City's finite and limited resourcesin as practical and impactful a way as possible in the
near term. The following pages may also be used as a CHECKLIST to periodically track and update progress
on implementation
Focus Areasm bold type at the top
describe the general category of
Priority Action
Q
behramigir
EMdneaetto... And Oninttith rae>indgmieratnr.1L,
mna...,
ry boomon db. anaangry.ofSmall &ante. s}pw
.ilcwdin§ buanteaa plater& market resee.rh, nnsu»a it
force am ora. asnstarce
IMIMEQ
leelieteeelsere
radaab Pr*g additional assistance to looser --o..- k r
experienc
ng er
oiected to undergo gentrification and
repay tenons. suchul m¢mispert5 rnl.
emend floor nvmd-use near sp e.and emoenceno
wine
EIMMI Q aa�aW.e
Engage ea one -on m
dspeneetc*r ren lrafr
roues' Twama to loom ademed ongoing and new rex
ea Taring we small dames.ani orrtn..anaaiarea aa.
Objectives for each focus Area are
presented below in regular type.
Priority Actions airs to achieve
Objectives.
CAl led the
development of
Tacoma's economic
development strategic
plan, with equity and
prosperity as the
guiding values for the
planning process and
strategic direction.
City all -atom 1 Economic Development Strategic Plan
TWO Values
Equity & Prosperity
The City of Tacoma's mission isto achieve equity in service
delivery. decision-making and community engagement.
This mission requires a commitment to identify and eliminate
underlying drivers of social and economic inequity within
Tacoma. Opportunity and advancement for all requires broad
civic and community participation. Livable neighborhoods
without physical barriers to economic opportunity. and a
robust economy that ensures wealth creation opportunities
for all.
Social and economic equity must be reflected in specific
actions - including economic development actions outlined
in this Plan Throughout this pia h. specific actions that
conttbute to equity in Tacoma's economic development
policies and programs are marked with. an Icon [right]
These actions present an explicit plan., with in the- plan
for moving the City of Tacoma toward greater social
and economic equity.
Equality versus Equity
Specnic actions embedded wrthen
Delaited Strategies & Actions
presented in Section 4 of Nis pion
Ural support greater ecptynntheColy
of Tacamo's service delivery.
decision•rnaPvng and community
mgogerretoroh, iiit4eciwiermrfrnn
December 2019 1 Tacoma In 2o1g Section Two 5
CITY OF MCMINNVILLE, OR: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
CAI produced an economic development strategic plan to guide the City of McMinnville's investment to
support sustainable and equitable growth. The strategy focuses on placemaking, recreation, leisure
activities, entrepreneurship, medicine, and education. It leverages critical assets like Linfield College and
Chemeketa Community College, the Willamette Valley Medical Center, and an award-winning historic
downtown, creating a roadmap that maximizes the City's strategic location in Oregon's wine country, nearly
equidistant from Portland and the Oregon coast. As part of the strategic planning process, CAI deployed a
survey, held industry focus groups, facilitated public meetings, engaged with an advisory committee and
coordinated with a larger team. CAI's work also included a robust data profile, which analyzed the City's
existing challenges and opportunities. (2018-2019)
The McMinnville EDSP is available at:
https://www.mcminnvilleoregon.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/1675/ed strategic
plan.pdf
Project Cost: $50,000
Project Manager: Elliot Weiss
Community Attributes Inc. I City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 5
13
Project Team: Chris Mefford, Bryan Lobel, Michaela Jellicoe
CITY OF KENMORE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE
With abundant change happening in both Kenmore and the region, the City needed a refreshed look at the
its market position and relative strengths and opportunities as they relate to economic development.
Communities connected by SR522 are experiencing major change in terms of economic activity,
infrastructure and investment. As such , CAI led an update of its economic development strategy. The plan is
rooted in current market and industry dynamics as well as the City's capacity for commercial growth and
how that impacts future opportunities. The plan will leverage these analytics to inform and guide
stakeholder engagement, culminating in development of an actionable strategic roadmap for City staff and
policy makers in the short and long term. (2017-2018)
The Kenmore Economic Development Strategy is available here:
https://www.kenmorewa.gov/home/showdocument?id=1445
Project Cost: $49,050
Project Manager: Mark Goodman
Project Team: Chris Mefford, Elliot Weiss, Bryan Lobel, Kristina Gallant
CITY OF ASTORIA, OR: FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
CAI led a five-year economic development strategy for the City of Astoria, Oregon. Final economic
development strategies, actions and implementation measures drew from an economic opportunity analysis
(EOA) and stakeholder engagement. CAI's analysis of economic opportunities presented an overview of
regional economic and demographic data, and a comparison to national trends. CAI applied buildable lands
methodologies to estimate and inventory available employment lands. Stakeholder engagement included
industry focus groups with leaders in sectors such as food manufacturing and education. CAI also facilitated
a community forum or open house to garner feedback on proposed economic development strategies. The
final report features strategies with recommendations on disposition, marketing and recruitment for key
redevelopment sites in the Astoria area. (2017)
advance asboria
Astoria's economy was founded on and dominated by resource industries -
including fur trading, fishing & canneries, and timber - for aver 150 years
PIP
y�7=7.2 ', re�eumama�
0 By the late 2Dth century these industries had declined significantly
as drivers of the local & regional economy
OdzusjILter Nernst, State of Oregon,1991.2015
111111111101101111iiiii0
Mown P oeM„ hare WI
LL aa.to aaweaenla, Inter ondrsnNide/les hat stea* deared hi.h h. deop 197C,
Game. Rag Inwe rromam n mmma hmy.to a Mayne. 7
llistorieel EmploymentHamm lullabies, Gln ofM.11,1999.2015
i1kIlIII�ilitIL��
advance asboria »
mrmePomnzOnacrE40n
glik Astoria's economy was founded on and dominated by resource industries -
including fur trading, fishing & canneries, and timber - tor over 150 years
tuna trap Nowa "going camp ua.gon�ess.ef
By the late 20th century these industries had declined significantly
as drivers of the local & regional economy
tl...nos:I.Liter Nerved, Siete of Oregon, 19914015
\;—\j , /
V
11111111111111011m11i®iii
'91'1
�e"Ml9
P
Mown.,551. Astoria,
In the 1940t, em„
1974, Bumblebee
seemoo moved ns
Marla, ar, cloned
ale. cannery In
iiAils .to a0wn Mienu tawaaru9nrar00 0asmyawrnaWye nromm�rn:
a
Crave.nagaroreraraw atwat I»etrvaretoawbvm 79
Nielerieel Employment in flumes loLueaee, Gln of Nm"e,1990.T015
iICInnII1IIkIlli1111111 [It
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 6
14
The Astoria Economic Development Strategy is available here:
https://www.astoria.or.us/Assets/dept 3/pm/pdf/cai.astoria eds%202017.pdf
Project Cost: $80,000
Project Manager: Elliot Weiss
Project Team: Chris Mefford, Bryan Lobel, Michaela Jellicoe
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL: REGIONAL ECONOMIC STRATEGY
CAI worked with the Puget Sound Regional Council to develop a new Regional Economic Strategy (CEDS)
for the four -county region of King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties. The CEDS, called Amazing Place,
incorporated stakeholder feedback from representatives of major industries, economic development
organizations, government agencies, workforce councils and municipal boards. CAI provided technical
assistance and economic analysis to ground the strategy in a quantitative and qualitative assessment of
regional strengths and opportunities. (2016 - 2017)
The Regional Economic Strategy is available here:
https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/amazingplacestrategy.pdf
Project Cost: $109,700
Project Manager: Chris Mefford
Project Team: Elliot Weiss, Bryan Lobel, Michaela Jellicoe
Relevant Project Experience: Economic Resiliency & Recovery
GREATER SEATTLE PARTNERS: COVID-19 REGIONAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY
FRAMEWORK
Community Attributes is providing research and facilitation to support GSP in the development of a
Regional Economic Recovery Framework. CAI and GSP brought together a Task Force of public, private, and
non-profit sector representatives from all aspects of the economy to collaborate on strategy, resources and
alignment. The Task Force consists of five Work Groups (Trade, External Investment, and Growth Sectors;
Policy and Advocacy; Small Business; Workforce and Talent; and Tourism and Marketing). CAI has
conducted interviews with Task Force members, deployed an online survey to gather input, and is
conducting meetings to inform the goals and strategies in the Framework. Equity and inclusion represent a
key focus of this effort and permeate the recovery framework. The outcome of this process will be a best -in -
class, data -driven Regional Economic Recovery Framework and an Action Plan that will include clear and
committed actions to implement in the near-term. In addition to developing the strategy, CAI developed a
website to represent the planning process, along with custom data dashboards to track key metrics. (2020 -
2021)
The framework is available here: https://greater-seattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Economic-
Recovery-Plan final 0921 sm.pdf
Project Cost: $105,000
Project Manager: Chris Mefford
Project Team: Elliot Weiss, Madalina Calen, Bryan Lobel, Michaela Jellicoe
Community Attributes Inc. l City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 7
15
THE ECONOMIC CHALLENGE
Covid created an economic crisis, but it also revealed an even deeper crisis. Even os Greater Seattle rose ID superstar status in the decade pre-Covid,
cracks were forming in the foundation of its economy:
Shortage of good jobs
A 3% unemplayrnent rote
pre-Covid obscured the fact
that nearly 900,000 people in
Greater Seattle were out of work
or shirk in low-wage jobs. The
shore of people out of work in
Greater Seattle was 30% higher
than in Minneapolis -5t. Poul.'
More than one in three employed
people in Greater Searle were
in low-wage jobs that paid less
than $18 per hour, and many
others were struggling to get by
in o region where the living wage
for most families is $25 per hour
Or more-'
Huge race and gender disparities
across the economy
Rose- and gender-based disparities were
ma ee in terms of both income and business
ownership. For example, just 38% of women of
color with collegedegrees in Greater Seattle
hod a good job f$251hr • benefits), versus f S%
of white men with college degrees.` Greater
Seattle ranked in the bottom third of large
metro areas in terms of Block and Hispanic
representation in tech jobs and management
roles.' In terms of business ownership, 35%
of the workforce land 30% of college degree
holders) in Greater Seattle were people of color,
but they only owned 8%al high-growth firms.'
People out of work en
Greater Seattle was
30% higher
than in Minneapolis, St. Paul
38% of women
ur:rilh::ollege degrees
Compared to 65% of white
men with college degrees
Too few successful
new businesses
Amidst a booming tech economy,
Greater Seattle's entrepreneurship
ecosystem loitered. Between
2009 and 2019, the number al
jobs in young firms (less Mon
five years old) in Greater Seattle
grew by less than 8%. In other
high-growth and high-tech metro
areas, young firms expanded
rapidly -jobs in these businesses
increased by 12% in Mania,
nearly 25% in Deriver, aver
30% in Nashville, and over47%
in Austin
The number of jobs in young
firms in Greater Seattle
grew Less
than 8%
Compared Inc 47% in Austin
In short, Covid hit o Greater Seattle economy that -contrary m appearances- was already inder-performing, largely because it was failing to develop
and elevate the immense talents of its diverse population. PolicyLink hos hied up the casts of this status quo. the region's economy would be $33 billion
larger every year if racial disparities in income and employment were eliminated.' The cost of exclusion would surely top $50 billion if gender disparities were
included. I1 Greeter Seattle's economy grew by $50 billion, it would voult past Philadelphia and Boston, becoming the 8th -Ingest economy in the country.
CAI provided
analysis,
facilitation and
strategy
development for
Forward
Together, the
Greater Seattle
region's equity -
focused
recovery
strategy from
the COVID-19
pandemic and
systemic
economic
inequities,
STATE OF WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS AND SWOT
ANALYSIS FOR WASHINGTON STATE
Community Attributes, in partnership with ECONorthwest, conducted a SWOT analysis of Washington's
industries as input into a comprehensive business competitiveness analysis of the state's economy for the
Legislative Committee on Economic Development and International Relations (LCEDIR), administered by
the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. The SWOT process involved the use of existing industry studies and
plans and secondary data from several state and federal sources. The analysis was bolstered by qualitative
input from various stakeholders, including industry experts and Department of Commerce sector leads. CAI
gathered insights and perspectives on any creative opportunities or overlooked threats and an equity lens
to jobs growth, wage growth, and small business development from a racial and geographic perspective.
Project Cost: $50,000
Project Manager: Michaela Jellicoe
Project Team: Madalina Calen, Ethan Schmidt, Cassie Byerly
Community Attributes Inc. I City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 8
16
CITY OF SEATTLE OED: COVID-19 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
CAI worked with the City of Seattle Office of Economic Development to design and deploy an online survey
to assess the impacts of the pandemic on small businesses across the Seattle region. The analysis provides a
clearer understanding of near term, COVID-19-related business impacts for local elected officials and
business and community leaders to help them articulate the need for policy interventions. Two rounds of
the survey were conducted in March and May. CAI conducted a longitudinal data collection and analysis to
determine changes in the scale and nature of the impact over time, and represented the results through a
series of infographics. (2020-2021)
Project Cost: $126,000
Project Manager: Chris Mefford
Project Team: Elliot Weiss, Madalina Calen, Bryan Lobel, Michaela Jellicoe
King, Pierce, Snohomish Counties
COVID-19 Business Impacts Survey
4,739
Respondents
through April 1, 2020
ORGANIZATION TYPE
Independent worker (contractor, 1660 36%
freelance, gig worker, no employees}
Privately held business w/ern ployees 2,349 S196
Franchised business operation 141 396
P ub1 id y traded corporation 25 1%
Not-for-profit organization 469 1046
Total 4644 10095
BUSINESS OWNER OUTLOOK
1,000
750
500
250
0
SSin e-Loeat8 Businesses
539
Two to Four Locations
130
Five or more
Not worried, no negative impacts {26,155 not shown)
Some impaets, but we'll make it
■ Worried about impacts and staying in business
IN Very worried, don't know if we'll make it through
■ Will likely go out of business
CURRENT LAYOFFS (excluding independent contractors)
"Have you reduced your staff capacity?"
931 927
639
No, we hada not Yes, we haw reaead Yes, we have laid off Yes, VA havelald[fr
reduced staffing emptoyee or contract employees or contract employees AND
workers haur5 Yowlers reducedempVey,n
contract workeis hours
RESPONDENTS BY INDUSTRY
Top Six Industries
Retail (Strores or
E -Commerce)
738
Healthca re or
Social Assistance
637
0 Hospitality or
Food Services
402
RENTS & LEASES
Professional or
Technical Services
651
eArts, Entertainment,
Recreation
635
0 Educational
Services
370
310 34%
of businesses express say they are unable to
concerns about paying rent
BUSINESS CONCERNS
Lack of cash reserves
Temporary closures
Cancelled events
Peduced participation at gatherincg
inati+nor u
Cit her
2
300 600 900 1,200 1,500 1,800 2,100 2,400 2,700 3,000
Note; Survey led by Seattle Office of Economrc Development, with
support from Greater Seattle Partners and Seattle Metropolitan Chamber
of Commerce. The survey responses are not a representative sample of
all local businesses, and the survey was not designed to serve that goal.
Survey respondents are apt to present a selection bias toward business
more negatively affected..
CAI designed, deployed, and analyzed results for a regional COULD -19 pandemic impacts survey. We
designed infographics to summarize the results in an accessible and impactful manner.
Other Relevant Project Work
ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRY CLUSTER ANALYSIS
• Port of Whitman County, Washington: Industrial Feasibility and Strategic Plan
• Washington State University: Economic Impact Analysis
Community Attributes Inc. i City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 9
17
• City of Issaquah, Washington: Economic Clusters Study
• City of Spokane Valley, Washington Tourism and Retail Strategic Plans
• City of Seattle: Othello -Graham Retail Trade Analysis and Strategy
• Washington Aerospace Partnership: Aerospace Industry Economic Impact Study
• EDC of Seattle -King County: Washington State Maritime Industry Cluster Analysis
WORKFORCE AND JOBS ANALYSIS
CAI brings distinctive expertise in assessing data related to local and regional workforces and education and
training institutions. This expertise informs our strategies to highlight industry needs and relevant talent
pipelines.
• Workforce Development Council of Seattle -King County Talent Pipeline Reports
• Workforce Central Skills Gap Analysis and Sector Strategies
• Soundside Alliance Economic and Workforce Strategic Assessment
• City of Seattle Construction Equity Hiring Analysis
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY
• City of Post Falls, Idaho: Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan
• City of Spokane Valley, Washington: Economic Development Element and Comprehensive Plan
• City of Colville, Washington: Economic Development Element and Comprehensive Plan
• San Juan County, Washington: Comprehensive Plan Visioning and Resource Lands Analysis
• Island County, Washington: Economic Development Element
• Mason County, Washington: Economic Development Element
TECHNOLOGY TOOLS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
• Columbia River Economic Development Council: Site Selection Application:
https://credc.caimaps.info/cailive?county=Clark&state=Washington&tab=edu
• International Regions Benchmarking Consortium: http://caimaps.info/irbc#RegionalProfile
• Workforce Development Council of Seattle -King County: Talent Pipeline Application:
http://caimaps.info/wdc/#Dashboard
Key Staff
Community Attributes has in-house the experience, expertise, and capacity to do this work well in close
collaboration with the City of Tukwila. The resumes that follow provide detailed credentials and project
experience for staff anticipated to lead and support this project. Additional analysts are available to support
the work, as needed.
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 10
18
CHRIS MEFFORD President & CEO 1 5% dedication 1 0% on-site
Chris will serve as principal -in -charge and provide principal -level oversight.
Chris founded Community Attributes Inc. in Seattle in 2005. Chris is expert in regional
economic development and planning, financial feasibility, transportation planning, and
socio-economic and demographic analysis. Chris speaks to audiences on the regional
economy and its relevance to community development. His current work supports
economic stabilization efforts and recovering strategies throughout the Seattle region.
Prior to founding CAI, Chris led market analyses and managed projects with Seattle
consulting firms, served as a senior planner for the Puget Sound Regional Council and was a
transportation and land use planner with a local transportation planning firm. Currently,
Chris is the Interim CEO at Greater Seattle Partners.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Economic Recovery Framework
GREATER SEATTLE PARTNERS
Greater Seattle, WA 1 2020
Tukwila Urban Center Market Analysis
CITY OF TUKWILA
Tukwila, WA 1 2012
Highway 99 Economic Impacts
SOUND TRANSIT
Seattle, WA 1 2015
Strategic Plan
SEATTLE METROPOLITAN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
Seattle, WA 1 2018-2019
Industrial Lands Land Use and Employment Study
CITY OF SEATTLE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Seattle, WA 1 2016-2017
Regional Affordable Housing Task Force Facilitation
KING COUNTY
King County, WA 1 2017-2018
Okanogan County Economic Recovery Plan and Website
NORTH CENTRAL WASHINGTON ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Okanogan County, WA 1 2016
Tacoma 5 -Year Arts Plan
CITY OF TACOMA
Tacoma, WA 1 2016
Strategic Plan
TRADE DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE
Seattle, WA 1 2016-2017
Housing Task Force Facilitation
KING COUNTY
King County, WA 1 2017-2018
Regional Economic Strategy
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
Puget Sound Region, WA 1 2016
New Market Aircraft Pitch
ECONOMIC ALLIANCE OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Snohomish County, WA 1 2018
SKILLS
Economic Development
Market Analysis
Strategic Planning
Public Outreach and Facilitation
EDUCATION
Data Analysis
Financial Plans
Public Policy
Master of Business Administration, 2002
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Master of Urban and Regional Planning, 1995
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA
Bachelor of Arts, Mathematics, Economics 1991.
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA
MEMBERSHIPS
Board Member, Leadership Tomorrow
Member, Urban Land Institute
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 11
19
ELLIOT WEISS, AICP Senior Planner 1 40% dedication 1 20% on-site
Elliot will serve as project manager and manage day-to-day communication with the City
of Tukwila and provide leadership across all project work.
Elliot joined Community Attributes in 2012 and has served as a project manager for planning
and economic development projects for several years. Elliot's ability to synthesize the fields
of planning, urban design and commercial real estate make him uniquely capable of
identifying realistic and impactful interventions that advance community and economic
development objectives. As a project manager, Elliot has delivered award-winning work for
his clients, including the North Stillaguamish Valley Economic Redevelopment Plan, which
won the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2040 award in 2016. He has a passion for
creating and supporting vibrant and productive places that reflect community priorities.
Prior to joining CAI in 2012, Elliot worked as an independent planning consultant and served
in AmeriCorps, leading projects involving energy-efficient affordable housing, community development and pedestrian
and bicycle transportation in under -served urban areas.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Economic Development Strategic Plan
CITY OF BOISE
Boise, ID 1 2021
Economic Development Strategic Plan
CITY OF MCMINNVILLE
McMinnville, OR 1 2018
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
TRI COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Colville, WA 1 2021
Economic Development Strategic Plan Update
CITY OF KENMORE
Kenmore, WA 1 2017-2018
Economic Recovery Framework
GREATER SEATTLE PARTNERS
Greater Seattle, WA 1 2020
Five -Year Economic Development Strategy
CITY OF ASTORIA
Astoria, OR 1 2017
Development Feasibility Analysis
CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward, CA 1 2021-2022
Arlington/Darrington Community Revitalization Plan
America's Best Communities Competition
CITIES OF ARLINGTON AND DARRINGTON
Snohomish County, WA 1 2015
Town Center Feasibility Analysis
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND
Mercer Island, WA 1 2021
Economic Redevelopment Plan
ECONOMIC ALLIANCE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Snohomish County, WA 12015
Tourism and Retail Strategies
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Spokane Valley, WA 12015-2016
Economic Development Action Plan
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
Lynnwood, WA 1 2015
SKILLS
Development Feasibility Analysis Policy Evaluation
Economic Development Strategy Public Outreach
Land Use Planning Housing Policy
EDUCATION
Master of Urban and Regional Planning, 2012
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Certificate in Real Estate Development, 2012
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Bachelor of Arts International Studies, 2009
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA
MEMBERSHIPS
Member, American Planning Association
Member, American Institute of Certified Planners
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 12
20
MICHAELA JELLICOE Senior Economist 1 15% dedication 1 0% on-site
Michaela will support infrastructure and municipal finance analyses, including for tax
revenue projections.
Michaela is a senior economist and project manager with skills in municipal finance, impact
fee analysis, talent pipeline and other workforce analyses, economic impact analysis, and
industry cluster studies. She currently leads CAI's municipal finance and impact fee
practice, supporting municipalities with infrastructure finance planning. Michaela has
supported jurisdictions in Washington, Oregon, and California with impact fee analysis,
and has presented findings to stakeholders, elected officials and more. Previously,
Michaela worked as a research assistant at Purdue University, conducting economic
analysis, econometric modeling, data collection and visualization, and extensive research.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Employment Lands Study
COLUMBIA RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
Clark County, WA 1 2019-2020
Northline Village Economic Benefits Analysis
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
Lynnwood, WA 1 2019
Industrial and Maritime Strategy Analysis
CITY OF SEATTLE OFFICE OF PLANNING &
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Seattle, WA 1 2019 - Ongoing
Multifamily Tax Impact Evaluation
CITY OF SEATTLE
Seattle, WA 1 2019
Shoreline Housing Action Plan
CITY OF SHORELINE
Shoreline, WA 1 2020-2021
Park System Development Charge Update
CITY OF TUALATIN
Tualatin, OR 1 2017 - 2018
Park Impact Fee Update
CITY OF WASHOUGAL
Washougal, WA 1 2021
Transportation Impact Fee Support
CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward, CA 1 2021
Fire Impact Fee Support
CITY OF SHORELINE
Shoreline, WA 1 2016 - 2017
Buildable Lands Program Methodology
WHATCOM COUNTY
Whatcom County, WA 1 2019 - 2020
Economic Impact Analysis
PORTS OF TACOMA AND SEATTLE; NORTHWEST
SEAPORT ALLIANCE
Puget Sound Region, WA 1 2018 - 2019
Park Impact Fee
CITY OF SHORELINE
Shoreline, WA 1 2016 - 2017
Northline Village Economic Benefits Analysis
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
Lynnwood, WA 1 2019
Fire District Impact Fee
CITY OF BOTHELL
Bothell, WA 1 2016
SKILLS
Impact Fee Program Development Statistical Analysis
Development Feasibility Analysis Policy Evaluation
Input -Output Analysis Survey Design
Statistical Model Design Data Collection
EDUCATION
Master of Science Agricultural Economics, 2014
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN
Bachelor of Arts Economics and Political Science, 2008
Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 13
21
BRYAN LOBEL, AICP Senior Planner 1 35% dedication 10% on-site
Bryan will support analysis, strategy development and implementation measures.
Bryan is a leader in economic development strategy with foundations in economic
geography, urban industrial development and neighborhood planning and design. Trained as
an urban planner, Bryan studied downtown Los Angeles's Fashion District before working
with city planning departments at Glendale and Los Angeles. There he contributed to a LEED
for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) pilot project—the Cornfields -Arroyo Seco
Plan—to balance jobs and housing in an evolving neighborhood on the L.A. River. In Glendale,
Bryan supported the implementation of the City's new Downtown Specific Plan. In the past
ten years at Community Attributes, Bryan has helped model the feasibility and economic and
fiscal impacts of development regulations extensively. Most recently, Bryan heavily
supported the development of the City of Shoreline's Housing Action Plan, including its
housing needs assessment and strategy development.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Sammamish Town Center Feasibility
CITY OF SAMMAMISH
Sammamish, WA 1 2015
Economic Recovery Framework
GREATER SEATTLE PARTNERS
Greater Seattle, WA 1 2020
Economic Development Strategic Plan
CITY OF TACOMA
Tacoma, WA 1 2019 - 2020
Economic Redevelopment Plan
ECONOMIC ALLIANCE OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Snohomish County, WA 1 2015
Okanogan County Economic Recovery Plan and Website
NORTH CENTRAL WASHINGTON ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Okanogan County, WA 12015-2016
COVID-19 Small Business Impact Support
CITY OF SEATTLE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Seattle, WA 1 2020
Economic Development Plan
CITY OF KENT
Kent, WA 1 2013-2014
Lynnwood Economic Development Action Plan
LYNNWOOD OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Lynnwood, WA 1 2013 - 2014
Comprehensive Industrial Lands Analysis
PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
Central Puget Sound, WA 1 2014 - 2015
Arlington/Darrington Community Revitalization Plan -
America's Best Communities Competition
CITY OF ARLINGTON AND DARRINGTON
Snohomish County, WA 1 2015
SKILLS
Economic & Market
Analysis
Economic Development
Strategy
Land Use Planning and
Development Regulations
GIS Analysis & Mapping
EDUCATION
Stakeholder Engagement
Industrial Land Assessment
Master of Urban Planning, 2008
University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)
Los Angeles, CA
Bachelor of Arts English & Spanish Language and
Literatures, 2005
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO
MEMBERSHIPS
Member, American Planning Association
Member, American Institute of Certified Planners
Community Attributes Inc. I City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 14
22
CASSIE BYERLY Planning Analyst 1 45% dedication 1 10% on-site
Cassie will support the landscape assessment and socioeconomic profile.
Cassie joined CAI in 2020. She brings a blend of legislative and planning research and
analysis experience to the Economics and Planning team. Her recent work includes data
analysis and interpretation for a variety of long-term strategic economic and planning
policies and plans and a comprehensive assessment and analysis of the financial impact,
demographics, and efficiency of Pierce County's volunteer board and commission system.
Prior to CAI, she led a team of graduate students in developing an Inclusionary Housing Plan
for the City of Huntington Woods, Michigan and analyzed housing and economic impacts of
the A2Zero Carbon Neutrality Plan for the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Cassie brings five
years of strategic communications and legislative experience from her time as a Press Secretary in the U.S. Senate.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Economic Development Strategic Plan
CITY OF BOISE
Boise, ID 1 2021- Ongoing
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Plan
Update
TRI -COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Tri -County Region, WA 12021 - Ongoing
Analysis of Volunteer Board and Commission System
PIERCE COUNTY
Pierce County, WA 1 2021 - Ongoing
Climate Entrepreneurs Strategic Assessment
CITY OF BOISE
Boise, ID 1 2021 - Ongoing
Washington Agricultural Fairs Economic and Social
Impact and Reach
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Washington 1 2021.
Business Competitiveness and SWOT Analysis of
Washington State's Economy
OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR/
ECONORTHWEST
Washington 1 2021- Ongoing
Food Industry Market Analysis
FARESTART
Puget Sound Region, WA 1 2021
Sound Transit Apprenticeship Retention and
Completion Disparity Analysis
SOUND TRANSIT
Seattle, WA 1 2020 - Ongoing
SKILLS
Economic Development Stakeholder Engagement
Strategy Qualitative Analysis
Land Use Planning and Development Regulations
EDUCATION
Master of Urban and Regional Planning, 2020
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Bachelor of Arts English & International Studies, 2014
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
MEMBERSHIPS
Member, American Planning Association
Member, Washington Planning Association
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 15
23
PROJECT U\DERSTA\DING & APPROACH
Project Understanding
Tukwila has always been an economic and cultural crossroads of great importance. Named in Chinook
jargon for the hazelnut trees that once sustained the original inhabitants in the Duwamish and Green River
valleys, the city today lies at the confluence of vital arteries of regional commerce and encompasses one of
the most diverse collections of international communities in the world. It's nearly 21,000 residents speak
dozens of languages, with fully half speaking a non-English language at home and 41% born outside the USA.
At last count, the city was home to over 47,000 jobs - 2.25 times the number of residents - a vital economic
center and commuter destination for workers all over the region (Exhibit 1). Once a fertile agricultural
economy, today's Tukwila residents of Allentown, Foster, and Thorndyke live a stone's throw from major
hubs of aerospace (including The Boeing Company, Tukwila's largest single employer), distribution
(including Amazon, UPS, and USPS facilities), data centers, manufacturing, and hospitality and retail (at
Westfield Southcenter - the Puget Sound's largest shopping center).
Exhibit 1: Commuter Origins of Tukwila Workers, 2019
Where Workers Live Who are 2019
Employed in Tukwila
Seattle 1 2.6%
Kent 7.3%
Renton 5.6%
Tacoma 4.2%
Federal Way 4.1%
Auburn 3.6%
Burien 2.5%
Bellevue 2.4%
Tukwila 1.9%
SeaTac 1.9%
Des Moines 1.5%
Fairwood 1.2%
Kirkland 1.2%
Everett 1.1%
Maple Valley 1.1%
Puyallup 1.0%
Sammamish 1.0%
South Hill 1.0%
Other 44.8%
2009 - 2019
Average
13.6%
7.2%
5.6%
3.9%
4.0%
3.1%
2.5%
2.6%
2.0%
1.8%
1.6%
1.2%
1.3%
1.2%
1.1%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
44.6%
Source: U.S. Census On the Mop LEHD, 2019; Community Attributes, 2022.
Tukwila has planned proactively to outline its economic objectives and identify its strengths and
weaknesses. The city's 2012 Strategic Plan focused on Tukwila's role as a regional employment center and
sought to strengthen links to its business community; it was updated in 2018 to prioritize the key role of
commercial space diversity for the city's economy. The city's 2015 Comprehensive Plan included a detailed
Economic Development element outlining goals, policies, and strategies to strengthen and diversify the
Community Attributes Inc. I City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 16
24
city's economy. Core issues at the time included a major perceived loss of employment (from 48,000 in 2000
to 40,000 by 2013) closely related to declines in manufacturing such as at Boeing, and declining retail sales.
Since the time that these plans were produced and analyses undertaken, major structural shifts affecting
Tukwila's economy have occurred - not least of which was the transformational worldwide Covid-19
pandemic and its acceleration of remote work and online retailing. While retail sales had indeed been in
decline for some years following the Great Recession as families saved money, spent less, and recovered
financially, the region had actually entered a period of sustained growth and retail sales per capita were on
the rise in Tukwila (Exhibit 2) - despite the growing effects of online shopping on brick and mortar retailers.
When the pandemic hit, retail sales in all categories declined dramatically, but accommodation and food
services were disproportionally impacted as even more retail trade shifted online. In Tukwila, the Food
Services and Accommodation category declined 46% from 2019-2020, while retail trade only declined 20%
(Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 2: Taxable Retail Sales per Capita, City of Tukwila, 2005-2020
TRS/capita Population
$180,000 25,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
mils 2021$
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$o
$149,800
$138,600 20,000
5116,700 5122,300
$105,300 $104,500 5110,300
15,000
$89,800
10,000
5,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: Washington Department of Revenue, 2010; Community Attributes, 2022.
Exhibit 3: Top Taxable Retail Sales Industries, City of Tukwila, 2005-2020
Retail Trade
Construction
Accommodation
II 111 111 Ili 111 awnFood Seradervices
hdolesale T
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: Washington Department of Revenue, 2010; PSRC, 2022; Community Attributes, 2022.
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 17
25
ill
id
Id
HI
oh
iil
11
111
1 i
li
ili
Retail Trade
Construction
Accommodation
II 111 111 Ili 111 awnFood Seradervices
hdolesale T
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: Washington Department of Revenue, 2010; PSRC, 2022; Community Attributes, 2022.
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 17
25
Our Approach
The shifting of the structural conditions underlying Tukwila's historically strong and dynamic economy
require the city to react and adapt. What's more, Tukwila increasingly desires prosperity that is shared
equitably by all of the city's communities, including historically underrepresented, low-income, and non-
English speaking households. At Community Attributes, we are experts at the core tasks necessary for
successful execution of long-term planning to guide diverse and equitable development, short-term
prioritization of resources, and the curation of durable partnerships and momentum. Successful economic
development plans achieve buy -in from communities and stakeholders with critical perspectives on an
area's economy early and often and leverage their insights and ideas as the foundation for action.
EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY OUTREACH
In working with Tukwila to prioritize community economic objectives and identify action -oriented
strategies to achieve them, CAI will develop a detailed plan for multi -channel, phased community and
stakeholder engagement collaboratively with City staff and key partners. We will tailor our methods to the
communities we seek to reach and utilize a suite of outreach tools in multiple languages to engage and
incorporate critical and underrepresented perspectives and voices. CAI's approach is unique and will ensure
that Tukwila emerges from this planning process with a strategy that is equitable, impactful, and actionable.
In Tukwila, we will work with the city and its economic development partners early to identify key
"influencers" in the community that can get the word out to the diverse communities we want at the table in
this process. We will create and maintain a project website as a central clearinghouse of information on this
project in multiple languages where events, surveys, interactive maps, comment forms and draft content can
be hosted. And we'll utilize information design in a playful and engaging way to make planning more fun and
accessible to individuals and groups that might not normally participate.
HI Moral You'll aver believe how Ostona has changed
n five years) Today in astaa
there are strong homegrown industnes (not jtst tour) Mke and
a from below) . These industries provide more
Ipa from types of Job opportLnities, baw} thrn we've had in years) We even have
Lard fykk from types of b,rresses 6 senses)
that we've never had in town before) Ohl and that (vacant/ix dertileed) site at
iSill'o koatrarl — it"s now a Ifdi ri *eon usejlll
Love,
bar refine)
hstrr
met , et
mcrcerterorse
mmtore €, food
,shaft fc d B trewm.
.bb Cpywturlties• BArcstss Fr Szoces
fuCa' la) _ISS over crtEe
_oho for to ots oor rwrd ka"oars reset
adreprererrd oppoAurtes so:[hsbrefucnlcwn raal
!10,011b5'',pit or ,,ark-fronElEo rMWrced moNfoctlrl
(%her77 (9 d rl) 0te07 lfil I[ El)
nr ll•e'oeu, yo la MlpcJ/wwweunurmunYuy.wmfradnmvOilaia i.
r_•. uF;es rc n. Induces anaµ-. are contact r.fo N- 1,7
"Postcards from the future" were designed for the City of Astoria, Oregon's economic development planning process as a fun way
to try to gather insights into citizens' economic visions for their changing town.
A key factor to the success of economic development planning in a place as diverse and dynamic as Tukwila
will be convening and building a durable coalition of partners, staff, and community leaders to curate and
shepherd economic strategies toward implementation. Out outreach plan will be designed with this in mind.
EMPOWERING DATA TO IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES
Data analytics are a hallmark of our practice, and our analyses provide objective foundations for strategy.
We leverage robust analytics to tell nuanced stories about local and regional economies. In preparing the
Community Attributes Inc. City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 18
26
ground for economic development, diversification and equity strategies, CAI will first level -set the
understanding of Tukwila's economic foundations and recent trends by updating the city's demographic and
economic profile with recently -released 2020 U.S. Census data and 2016-2020 American Community
Survey data. We will continue the good work already underway by looking at Tukwila's strengths,
weaknesses, and opportunities and evaluating Tukwila's business climate. We will re -assess Tukwila's target
clusters to understand whether a competitive advantage continues to exist in specific industries, and how to
synergize new sectors with traditional ones. We will also assess the recent and projected fiscal impacts of
Tukwila's businesses with a focus on ensuring sustainable tax revenues into the future.
STRONG NEIGHBORHOODS, STRONG ECONOMY
Ultimately, economic development planning is about making life better for residents and workers in
Tukwila. As such, Tukwila's neighborhoods and its commercial and residential spaces, infrastructure, and
public services are both a driver of economic success and a beneficiary of it. To power equitable growth, the
city and its partners must strengthen Tukwila's neighborhoods and its physical fabric. Quality of life is a
powerful economic development tool, and the city must make sure that it continues to lead in livability,
allowing residents to prosper. CAI will identify key catalytic site, typology, and development priorities for
public investment with the most potential for leveraging private activity.
In conclusion, if CAI is chosen as Tukwila's partner for this important work, we look forward to co -
developing a scope of services to meet Tukwila's needs and executing that work on time and on budget. We
have the capacity to complete this project over the summer and autumn of 2022, with a target adoption
date by the end of the year. CAI will channel Tukwila's economic development work to date into an
actionable plan that is implementation focused and accessible and will deliver tools for the city and its
partners to guide and track progress toward achieving its economic development vision and goals in the
years to come.
Community Attributes Inc. 1 City of Tukwila Economic Development Strategy Qualifications Page 19
27
28
Meeting Minutes
City of Tukwila
City Council Planning & Community Development Committee
May 16, 2022 - 5:30 p.m. - Hybrid Meeting; Hazelnut Conference Room & MS Teams
Councilmembers Present: Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson, Chair; Kathy Hougardy, De'Sean Quinn
Staff Present: Brandon Miles, Derek Speck, Rachel Bianchi, Nora Gierloff, Laurel
Humphrey, Jerry Hight, Nancy Eklund
Chair Delostrinos Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Consultant Contract: Economic Development Plan
Staff is seeking Council approval of a contract with Community Attributes in the amount of
up to $50,000 for activities associated with the Economic Development Plan.
*
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to May 23, 2022 Committee of the Whole.
B. Ordinance: Construction Permits
Staff is seeking Council approval of an ordinance that will revise the Building Code to clarify
and streamline procedures relating to construction permits. Chair Delostrinos Johnson
referenced receipt of a comment letter from Segale Properties.
Item(s) for follow-up
• Provide language that clarifies permit extensions in response to the comment letter
• Consider email notification of upcoming permit expirations in addition to the 30- day letter
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to May 23, 2022 Committee of the Whole.
C. Housing Types in Low Density Residential Zones - Recent Emails
Committee members and staff discussed issues around a property that has been operating as
a fourplex in a Low -Density Residential Zone without legal permits. Housing types will be
further evaluated as part of the Comprehensive Planning process, including potential grant
funding from the Department of Commerce.
Committee Recommendation
Discussion only.
29
30
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayors review
Council review
5/23/22
AT
6/6/22
AT
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM No.
4.B.
STAFF SPONSOR: ALISON TURNER
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/23/22
AGENDA ITEM TITLE New Grant Funded Transportation Demand Management full time position
CATEGORY ® Discussion
Mtn Date 5/23/22
® Motion
Mcg Date 6/6/22
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
ilitg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
AItg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ® DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PTV
SPONSOR'S The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program is creating a new grant -funded
SUMMARY Sustainable Transportation Communications Specialist contract position. The Council is
being asked to approve the new grant -funded position.
REVIEWED BY
Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev.
❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: 5/16/22 COMMITTEE CHAIR: KRULLER
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
Department of Community Development
Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED
AMOUNT BUDGETED
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/23/22
6/6/22
MTG. DATE
5/23/22
ATTACHMENTS
Informational Memorandum dated 5/10/22
Class Specification - Sustainable Trans Comm Spec
Minutes from the 5/16 T&I Committee Meeting
6/6/22
31
32
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Department of Community Development - Nora Gierloff, AICP, Director
TO: Transportation & Infrastructure Services Committee
FROM: Nora Gierloff, AICP, DCD Director
BY: Nancy Eklund, AICP, Long -Range Planning Supervisor
Alison Turner, Sustainable Transportation Program Manager
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: May 10, 2022
SUBJECT: New TDM FTE Position (Grant -Funded)
ISSUE
The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program is creating a new grant -funded Sustainable
Transportation Communications Specialist position.
BACKGROUND
Staffing level of the TDM Team varies according to project scopes and available grant funding. Since
mid -2019, the team has consisted of 2 full-time employees (FTE). With new project grant awards since
2020, the addition of a new FTE will support the team to complete project deliverables.
DISCUSSION
The new position will be full time with benefits and will be funded by 4 grants: WSDOT TDM/CTR,
WSDOT Regional Mobility Grant, King County Metro grant, and a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program grant. The Communications Specialist will report to the Program
Manager and work alongside the Outreach Coordinator. The role will coordinate communications and
media to reach residents, commuters, and employers in Tukwila and South King County. Social
marketing campaigns and educational resources will help priority populations access sustainable
transportation options, reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality in Tukwila.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There will be no impact to the general fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to approve the new grant -funded TDM position (1.0 FTE) for 1 year for
estimated $70,000.00 and consider this item at the May 23, 2022, Committee of the Whole meeting
and subsequent June 6, 2022, Regular Meeting Consent Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Class Specification - Sustainable Trans Comm Spec
Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Sauthcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov
33
34
5/6/22, 4:31 PM City of Tukwila - Class Specification Bulletin
CITY OF TUKWILA
Established Date: May 6, 2022
Revision Date: May 6, 2022
Sustainable
Transportation
Communications
Specialist
Bargaining Unit: Not Applicable
Class Code:
9087
SALARY RANGE
$25.00 - $30.00 Hourly
$4,333.33 - $5,200.00 Monthly
$52,000.00 - $62,400.00 Annually
FLSA:
Non -Exempt
DESCRIPTION:
The Sustainable Transportation Communications Specialist plays an integral role on Tukwila's
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Team. Tukwila's TDM Program helps people
access sustainable transportation options that reduce drive -alone travel in Tukwila and South
King County.
Working under the direction of the Program Manager, the Communications Specialist
coordinates communications and media for TDM projects. The position develops social
marketing campaigns, maintains the Program's web presence, and creates promotional
materials and educational resources. The position supports residents, workers, visitors,
employers, property managers, and students by identifying solutions to transportation barriers
and addressing the specific needs of those who travel in Tukwila and South King County.
This is a full-time, grant -funded, limited -term position through June 2023, with the potential to
extend. The position may occasionally include evening/weekend hours to staff
events/meetings. The position has an office location at the City of Tukwila and involves some
fieldwork.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
• Develop and implement social marketing campaigns to influence behavior change and
encourage sustainable transportation choices;
• Create promotional materials such as ads, videos, brochures, flyers and mailers;
https://agency.governmentjobs.com/tukwilawa/default.cfm?action=specbulletin&ClassSpecl D=1468967&headerfooter=0
3&
5/6/22, 4:31 PM
City of Tukwila - Class Specification Bulletin
• Create content and manage communications for newsletters and social media posts;
• Manage website content and updates;
• Create presentations, training materials, and educational resources;
• Work with contractors on special projects;
• Track rewards program participation, communicate with participants, fulfill rewards, and
process mailings;
• Participate in outreach efforts, presentations and trainings; and
• Participate in grant writing and reporting.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES:
• Strong communication skills, including written, interpersonal, presentation, facilitation,
and listening skills;
• Skill with creating content and using social media platforms;
• Video production skill desired
• Proficiency in use of office software programs and video conference platforms;
• Proficiency with Adobe Creative Suite and other design tools;
• Demonstrates the necessary attitude, knowledge, and skills to deliver culturally
competent services;
• Passionate about transit, active transportation, and helping others make sustainable
travel choices;
• Knowledge of transportation demand management (TDM) principles is a plus;
• Bi/Multilingual in Somali, Spanish, Vietnamese, or other language spoken by a
substantial number of residents is desired.
EDUCATION EXPERIENCE AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS:
Minimum Qualifications: (A) Graduation from a four-year college or university with a degree in
communications, marketing, graphic design, or a field of discipline related to the assigned
area; AND (B) one year of marketing and community engagement experience; OR (C) Any
equivalent combination of experience and education that meets the minimum requirements.
h36://agency.governmentjobs.com/tukwilawa/default.cfm?action=specbulletin&ClassSpecID=1468967&headerfooter=0 2/2
City of Tukwila
City Council Transportation & Infrastructure Services Committee
Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2022 5:30 p.m. - Hybrid Meeting; Duwamish Conference Room & MS Teams
Councilmembers Present: Mohamed Abdi, Acting Chair; Tosh Sharp
Staff Present: David Cline, Hari Ponnekanti, Griffin Lerner, Brittany Robinson, Seong
Kim, Henry Ancira, Bryan Still, Alison Turner, Cody Lee Gray
Acting Chair Abdi called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Grant Award: Green River Trail Improvements Project
Staff is seeking Council approval to accept a Transportation Alternative Program grant award in
the amount of $989,000 for the Green River Trail Improvements Project. The City match is
$308,000 and included in the project budget.
Committee Recommendation
Divided: Councilmember Abdi was in favor of the award, and Councilmember Sharp was not.
Return to Committee.
B. Grant Applications: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program & South 152"d St. Safe Routes
to School Projects
Staff is seeking Committee approval to apply for $500,000 from WSDOT's Pedestrian &
Bicycle Program for neighborhood traffic calming improvements in Allentown. Staff is also
seeking Committee approval to apply for $2,750,000 from WSDOT's Safe Routes to School
program for the S. 152nd Street Project.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval.
C. Contract: Fire Station 53 Exterior Painting Project
Staff is seeking Council approval of a contract with Long Painting Company in the amount of
$49,377.65 for the Fire Station 53 Exterior Painting Project.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to May 23, 2022 Special Meeting Consent Agenda
D. Transportation Demand Management 1.0 FTE Request
Staff is seeking Council authorization of a new 1.0 fully grant -backed FTE to support the
*Transportation Demand Management Program.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to May 23, 2022 Committee of the Whole.
37
38
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
05/23/22
JH
06/06/22
JH
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM No.
4.C.
STAFF SPONSOR: JERRY HIGHT
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/23/22
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Revise TMC section 16.04.250.0 & E with new section F
CATEGORY ® Discussion
Mt Date 5/23/22
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
Ordinance
Alts Date 6/6/22
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ® DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PIF
SPONSOR'S
SUMMARY
Revision of TMC 16.04.250 Procedures applicable to all construction permits section E.
Expiration of permits and permit application to reflect two separate sections: E. "Expiration
of permits" and F. "Time limitation of permit applications" and revise C. "Work without a
permit." Revisions are for clarity and customer service.
REVIEWED BY
❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance ® Planning & Community Dev.
❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm.
DATE: 5/16/22
❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
COMMITTEE CHAIR: DELOSTRINOS-JOHNSON
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Department of Community Development
COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED
$N/A
AMOUNT BUDGETED
$N/A
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$N/A
Fund Source: N/A
Comments: N/A
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/23/22
6/6/22
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
5/23/22
Informational Memorandum with attachments (Updated)
Draft Ordinance (updated)
Minutes from the 5/16/22 Planning and Community Development Committee meeting
6/6/22
39
40
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Development & Neighborhoods
FROM: Nora Gierloff, Director Department of Community Development
BY: Jerry E. Hight, Building Official.
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: May 16, 2022 (updated after the 5/16/22 PCD Committee meeting)
SUBJECT: Revising 16.04.250 Procedures applicable to all construction permits,
ISSUE
There is a need for clarity of permit requirements in 16.04.250 Procedures applicable to all
construction permits, in order to provide better customer service.
BACKGROUND
The time limitation of permit applications has caused concerns in the past when permit
applications have exceed the allowed 180 days and expired during plan review. Revising
section 16.04.250 E. Expiration of permits and permit applications, into two separate sections;
Expiration of permits and Time limitation of permit applications is required. This will clarify how
expiration of permits and the timelines of permit applications are to be address.
Section 16.04.250 C. Work without a permit, has also been clarified to reflect permits required
by the Washington State adopted codes are required prior to starting work or the permit fees will
be doubled.
DISCUSSION
Should council approve revising the TMC 16.04.250 Procedures applicable to all construction
permits section E. Expiration of permits and permit applications to reflect two separate sections:
E. Expiration of permits and F. Time limitation of permit applications and revise C. Work without
a permit.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to approve the adopting ordinance for the TMC 16.04 Revisions
at the May 23, 2022, Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent June 6, 2022 Regular
meeting consent agenda.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Revised Ordinance of 16.04.250 in DRAFT Form
Revised Ordinance of 16.04.250 in Final Form
Note: A minor verbiage was changed in section 16.04.250 E requiring the applicant to call for
inspections to extend the permit; Each valid inspection requested by the applicant shall extend
the permit for an addition 180 days.
41
42
ATTACHMENT "A"
16.04.250 Procedures applicable to all construction permits.
[Original] C. Work without a permit. Any person who commences work before obtaining the
necessary permits shall be subject to an investigation fee. The investigation fee shall be equal to
the established permit fee in accordance with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of
the City Council. This fee, which shall constitute an investigation fee, shall be imposed and
collected in all cases, whether or not a permit is subsequently issued.
[New] C. Work without a permit. Any person who commences work before obtaining the
necessary permits required by the Washington State adopted codes to construct, enlarge, alter,
repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install,
enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing
system, or to cause any such work to be performed, on a building, structure, before obtaining the
necessary permits shall be charged double the fee established by the fee schedule adopted by
resolution of the City Council.
Explanation: The new verbiage clarifies the fees and the type of work that requires a permit
prior to starting construction.
[Original] E. Expiration of permits and permit applications. All permits issued under the
Washington State adopted codes shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by
such permit is commenced within 180 days after issuance or the work is suspended or
abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. Permits shall have an
inspection performed in order to continue to be valid for an additional 180 days. The Building
Official may grant a maximum of two permit extensions for periods not more than 180 days
each. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to request a permit application extension. The
applicant shall request the extension in writing and demonstrate justifiable cause.
[Revised] E. Expiration of permits. Permits issued under the Washington State adopted codes
shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within
180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or
abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. An inspection shall be
requested for work that requires approval in order for the permit to continue to be valid for an
additional 180 days. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, two extensions of
time, for periods not more than 180 days each. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to
request a permit extension. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause
demonstrated.
Explanation: The new verbiage clarifies when permits expire and that the applicant is
responsible for requesting a permit extension. [The Permit Center does send a courtesy letter to
the applicant 30 days prior to expiration. However, the letter is sent to the applicant which could
be an individual that has since relocated and doesn't receive the letter.]
43
[New] F. Time limitation of permit application. A permit application shall be submitted for
review under Washington State adopted codes for proposed work. If corrections are noted during
review of the application the Permit Center will issue a consolidated list of corrections from all
departments to the design professional in responsible charge identified on the application.
The applicant shall amend the documents and submit them to the Permit Center within 180 days
of the issuance of the consolidated list of corrections, or the application shall be deemed to have
been abandoned and shall expire. Each time the Permit Center receives amended documents
within the 180 -day time limit, the application will be amended for an additional 180 days before
expiration.
Expired permit applications cannot be renewed. To obtain a new permit a new permit application
shall be submitted along with required submittal documents and a new fee shall be paid in
accordance with the current permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
Explanation: Under the current 16.04.250.E expiration of permits and permit applications, some
permit applications expired during plan review. The new verbiage clarifies time limitations of
permit applications and action required for expired applications. Typically, an application for a
permit is submitted and goes through a review process within 180 days that ends with the
issuance of a permit, unless the applicant abandons the application.
44
NOTE: Shaded text (in subparagraph E on page 2) denotes a
change made after the Planning and Community
Development meeting on May 16, 2022.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REVISING TUKWILA MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 16.04.250 TO CLARIFY REGULATIONS
REGARDING EXPIRATION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS,
TIME LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS,
AND ADDITIONAL FEES REQUIRED WHEN WORK IS
STARTED WITHOUT A PERMIT; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, existing time limitations on construction permit applications have
resulted in applications expiring during plan review; and
WHEREAS, Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 16.04.250 requires changes to
clarify regulations regarding expiration of construction permits and the time limitations of
construction permit applications; and
WHEREAS, changes to TMC Section 16.04.250 will also clarify that additional fees
are required when work is started without permits;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. TMC Section 16.04.250 Amended. Ordinance Nos. 2171 §1 (part)
and 2648 §4, as codified at Tukwila Municipal Code Section 16.04.250, "Procedures
applicable to all construction permits," are amended to read as follows:
16.04.250 Procedures applicable to all construction permits
A. Permit and plan review fees applicable to all construction permits shall be in
accordance with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
B. Work covered without inspection or work not ready at the time of inspection
may be charged a re -inspection fee at the hourly rate in accordance with the permit fee
schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
CC: Legislative Development\TMC 16.04.250 re permit expiration and time limitations strike-thru 5-17-22
JH:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton
Page 1 of 4
45
C. Work without a permit. Any person who commences work before obtaining
the necessary permits required by the Washington State adopted codes and Tukwila
Municipal Code to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the
occupancy of a building or structure; or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove,
convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system; or to cause any
such work to be performed on a building or structure before obtaining the necessary
permits shall be charged double the fee
investigation fee shall be equal to the established permit fee established in accordance
with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. This fee, which
shall constitute an investigation fee, shall be imposed and collected in all cases,
whether or not a is subsequently i'sued.
D. Fee refunds. The Building Official may refund any permit fee paid by the
original permit applicant that was erroneously paid or collected. The Building Official
may also authorize the refund of not more than 80% of the permit fee when no work has
been done under a permit issued in accordance with the code. Where a plan review fee
has been collected, no refund will be authorized once it has been determined that the
application is complete, and the plan review process has commenced. Refund of any
permit fee paid shall be requested by the original permit applicant in writing and not later
than 180 days after the date of fee payment.
E. Expiration of permits and permit applications. All pPermits issued under
the Washington State adopted codes and Tukwila Municipal Code shall become invalid
unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days
after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or
abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. Permits
- _ _ _ •• e Each valid inspection requested by the applicant
shall extend the permit for an additional 180 days. n„ inspection shall be rani ested for
work that requires approval in order for the permit to continue to be valid for an
additional 180 days. The Building Official may is authorized to grant, in writing, a
maximum of two permit two extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days
each. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to request a permit application
extension. The applicant shall request the extension shall be requested in writing and
demonstrate justifiable cause shall be demonstrated.
F. Time limitation of permit application.
1. All proposed work under Washington State adopted codes and Tukwila
Municipal Code shall require a complete permit application, plans, and submittal
documents. All documents shall be submitted electronically. After each department
completes review of the submittal documents, the Permit Center shall return the
electronic plan, with corrections, to the applicant, as identified on the application, for
review and amendment.
2, The applicant shall then resubmit the amended electronic plan to the
Permit Center within 180 days of notification, or the application shall be deemed to have
been abandoned and shall expire. Each time the Permit Center receives amended
documents within the 180 day time limit, the application will be extended for an
additional 180 days before expiration.
CC: Legislative Development\TMC 16.04.250 re permit expiration and time limitations strike-thru 5-17-22
JH:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton
46
Page 2 of 4
3. An expired permit application cannot be renewed and is not entitled to a
refund. In order to obtain a new permit, a new permit application shall be submitted
along with the required submittal documents and a new fee shall be paid in accordance
with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council, which may be
amended from time to time.
G. Reactivating expired permit for final. Expired permits that have
completed the inspection process and need only final inspection approval may be
reactivated. Reactivation shall require a new permit application, and the fee shall be in
accordance with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. The
Building Official may grant one 30 -day extension to an expired permit for the purpose of
performing a final inspection and closing out the permit as long as not more than 90
days have passed since the permit expired. Provided no changes have been made or
will be made in the plans or scope of work, the 30 -day extension commences on the
date of written approval. If work required under a final inspection is not completed
within the 30 -day extension period, the permit shall expire.
. Owner -occupied residential remodel permits. Owner -occupied
residential remodel permits for projects not exceeding $20,000.00 in valuation are
eligible for a flat fee per the following:
1. The flat fee includes all permit and other associated fees in accordance
with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
2. The valuation will be cumulative during a rolling one-year period.
3. All requirements for submittal documents and inspections are as required
for a new house under this section; only the fee is reduced.
4. Projects that exceed the $20,000.00 limit will be subject to the standard
permit fees in accordance with the permit fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City
Council.
H . Appeals. All references to Board of Appeals are amended as follows:
Any person, firm or corporation may register an appeal of a decision or determination of
the Building Official provided that such appeal is made in writing within 14 calendar
days after such person, firm or corporation shall have been notified of the Building
Official's decision. Any person, firm or corporation shall be permitted to appeal a
decision of the Building Official to the Tukwila Hearing Examiner when it is claimed that
any one of the following conditions exists.
1. The true intent of the code or ordinance has been incorrectly interpreted.
2. The provisions of the code or ordinance do not fully apply.
3. The decision is unreasonable or arbitrary as it applies to alternatives or
new materials.
4. Notice of Appeal procedures shall be in accordance with TMC Section
18.116.030.
CC: Legislative Development\TMC 16.04.250 re permit expiration and time limitations strike-thru 5-17-22
JH:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton
Page 3 of 4
47
f J. Violations. Whenever the authority having jurisdiction determines there are
violations of this code, a Notice of Violation shall be issued to confirm such findings.
Any Notice of Violation issued pursuant to this code shall be served upon the owner,
operator, occupant or other person responsible for the condition or violation, either by
personal service or mail, or by delivering the same to and leaving it with some person of
responsibility upon the premises. For unattended or abandoned locations, a copy of
such Notice of Violation shall be posted on the premises in a conspicuous place, at or
near the entrance to such premises, and the Notice of Violation shall be mailed by
registered or certified mail, with return receipt requested, to the last known address of
the owner, occupant or both.
K. Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation who shall willfully violate or fails to
comply with a Notice of Violation is liable for the monetary penalties prescribed in TMC
Section 8.45.120.A.2.
Section 2. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser Authorized. Upon
approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to
make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors;
references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance
numbering and section/subsection numbering.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause
or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City and shall take effect and be in full force
five days after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 2022.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number:
CC: Legislative Development\TMC 16.04.250 re permit expiration and time limitations strike-thru 5-17-22
JH:bjs Review and analysis by Barbara Saxton
48
Page 4of4
Meeting Minutes
City of Tukwila
City Council Planning & Community Development Committee
May 16, 2022 - 5:30 p.m. - Hybrid Meeting; Hazelnut Conference Room & MS Teams
Councilmembers Present: Cynthia Delostrinos Johnson, Chair; Kathy Hougardy, De'Sean Quinn
Staff Present: Brandon Miles, Derek Speck, Rachel Bianchi, Nora Gierloff, Laurel
Humphrey, Jerry Hight, Nancy Eklund
Chair Delostrinos Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Consultant Contract: Economic Development Plan
Staff is seeking Council approval of a contract with Community Attributes in the amount of
up to $50,000 for activities associated with the Economic Development Plan.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to May 23, 2022 Committee of the Whole.
B. Ordinance: Construction Permits
Staff is seeking Council approval of an ordinance that will revise the Building Code to clarify
and streamline procedures relating to construction permits. Chair Delostrinos Johnson
*referenced receipt of a comment letter from Segale Properties.
Item(s) for follow-up
• Provide language that clarifies permit extensions in response to the comment letter
• Consider email notification of upcoming permit expirations in addition to the 30- day letter
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to May 23, 2022 Committee of the Whole.
C. Housing Types in Low Density Residential Zones - Recent Emails
Committee members and staff discussed issues around a property that has been operating as
a fourplex in a Low -Density Residential Zone without legal permits. Housing types will be
further evaluated as part of the Comprehensive Planning process, including potential grant
funding from the Department of Commerce.
Committee Recommendation
Discussion only.
49
50
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
k\)* , - ,. �4s Initials
syr
ITEM No.
O 00
Z
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
r���r
5/23/22
LH
0
4.D.
\\,....n
1908
ITEM INFORMATION
STAFF SPONSOR: LAUREL HUMPHREY
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/23/22
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Final Report from the Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee
CATEGORY
11
Mtg
Discussion
Date 5/23/22
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR
11
Council
►1
Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance
11
Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PIS
SPONSOR'S The Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee has concluded its
SUMMARY meetings and ready to present its final recommendations and report to the City Council.
REVIEWED BY ❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev.
❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/23/22
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
5/23/22
Presentation
Report
51
52
Future of Fire/EMS Community
Advisory Committee
Presentation of Committee Report
and Recommendations
Presentation to Tukwila City Council
May 23, 2022
Presenters:
Verna Seal, Committee Chairperson
Hien Kieu, Committee Vice -Chair
Karen Reed, Facilitator
Committee Mission —
per City Council direction
Provide findings and recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on the following
items:
1. Sustainability of the Fire Department service levels within existing City revenues
2. Any additional Fire Department programs and staffing services that should be
priorities to fund in the near-term (0-6 years) "Enhanced Services"
3. Criteria for evaluating the City's options for future fire/EMS service delivery
4. Recommendation as to the preferred option or options for ensuring future provision
of high-quality fire/EMS service in the City at a sustainable cost
5. Public engagement strategies for the City to consider as part of deliberations
following delivery of the Advisory Committee's report
Committee Members, Timeline
MEMBERS
Verna Seal, Chair
Hien Kieu, Vice -Chair
Sally Blake
Jim Davis
Katrina Dohn
Ramona Grove
Peggy McCarthy
Jovita McConnell
Ben Oliver
Andy Reiswig
Dennis Robertson
Abdullahi Shakul
• Committee met 10 times, from November 2021 through May 2022
• Supported by Staff Team, independent facilitator and financial consultant
• Provided a status report to Council in March
The Committee Explored Nine Different
Options for Future Fire/EMS Service Delivery
• Four options involved remaining as a stand-alone Tukwila Fire agency
• remaining part of the City, with the same or enhanced services, or
• Creating a new, independent Tukwila -based municipal agency
• Five options involve joining with another fire agency
• Creating a new regional fire authority in partnership with an adjacent fire
district
• Joining an existing regional fire authority -- by contract or annexation
• Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA)
• Renton Regional Fire Authority
Options 1-9
• The Staff Team identified these
as potentially workable options
Blue cells are "Tukwila Only" options
Green Cells are options in which Tukwila
partners with other agencies
Option 1: Status Quo
Option 2: Status Quo "Plus" — Funding for enhanced
services
Option 3: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded solely by
property taxes (no Fire Benefit Charge)
Option 4: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded by both
property taxes and a Fire Benefit Charge
Option 5: Partner with another fire service provider to
create a Tukwila Regional Fire Authority—with a Fire Benefit
Charge
Option 6: Contract for Service with Renton Regional Fire
Authority (RRFA)
Option 7: Contract for Service with Puget Sound Regional
Fire Authority (PSRFA)
Option 8: Annexation into Renton RFA, after contract
Option 9: Annex into PSRFA, after contract
The Committee evaluated
all nine options in terms
of how well each
addresses the eight
criteria selected by the
Committee
Cost,
Service Quality, and
Funding Sustainability
are the Committee's
top 3 criteria
Table 4: The Committee's Eight Criteria for Evaluating
Fire/EMS Service Options
(not presented in priority order)
• Ability of provider to meet needs of a diverse community
• Ability of provider to meet needs of a larger business
community
• Total costs, considering both costs to residents and
businesses
• Impact on the fire department labor force, recruitment,
and retention
• Control over operational and financial decisions
• Overall quality of services (response times and more)
• Accountability for outcomes/ability to measure outcomes
• Sustainability of funding
Key Recommendation: Begin work as soon as
possible to negotiate a service contract with Puget
Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA) as a bridge
to near-term annexation
• Combination of Options 7 & 9
• This is the Committee's consensus (supported by 11 of 12 members*)
• The timeframe requested by PSRFA is very short
• Council direction by July 15
• Negotiated contract by September 1
• Contract would begin January 1, 2023
* Minority statement appended at back of report
Benefits of a short-term contract with PSRFA
that includes a clear, fast schedule to annex
• Immediately secure important service enhancements for residents and businesses at a
lower cost than these enhancements can be provided by the City
• CARES unit (non -emergent call response and follow up)
• Enhanced fire marshal office services
• Public education program
• A contract is a necessary step in moving to the Committee's preferred outcome of
annexing to PSRFA
• PSRFA Board will not entertain directly moving to an annexation vote
• Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA) Board has adopted the same policy position
• IAFF Local 2088 strongly prefers moving to combine with PSRFA
• Under a contract, they immediately become PSRFA employees
• Response times will not change
• 4 Tukwila fire stations, current staffing in those stations, will continue
• Secures the benefits of further regionalization of fire/EMS service
There are downsides to a contract, which is why a
near-term annexation schedule is very important
to the Committee
• The City can determine service levels but loses control over costs
• The cost is expected to be slightly more than the status quo (but includes
the enhanced services)
• The City will not have a vote on the PSRFA board (it will have a nonvoting
seat)
• If the City later decides to get out of the contract, it will be extremely
difficult to reconstitute a city fire department or move to another service
provider
• The employees, apparatus, equipment, and fire stations (if transfer of ownership
negotiated) will have moved to PSRFA
Annexation is Committee's ultimate goal
• The City would have a voice and a vote on the PSRFA Board
• The cost of the Fire Department would be shifted off the City's
budget—more room for other services --but the City tax burden would
need to be reduced if annexation is approved by voters
• Voters in Tukwila must approve annexation
• Once annexed, Tukwila voters will have a say in how their fire service
is funded
• Annexation enables further efficiencies, regionalization of fire/EMS
• Direct annexation to PSRFA, without first contracting, was the Committee's initial consensus preference
• Direct annexation is not possible due to the policy position of both the PSRFA and RRFA Governing Boards
• As a result, contracting as a bridge to annexation is the Committee's final consensus recommendation
Annexation is not a guaranteed outcome of a
short-term service contract
• Annexation requires later agreement by both the City Council and the
PSRFA Board on an annexation plan
• Annexation timeline
• Treatment of fire stations (if not already addressed in service contract)
• Governance Board representation
• Other financial issues (reserve funding)
• Then, the voters of Tukwila need to weigh in: a simple majority vote is
required for annexation
Option Cost comparison all costs are estimates
Table 7: Comparing How Options 1-9 Address the Eight Criteria (2022 Cost Estimates) -- excerpts --
Option 1
Status Quo
Option 2
Status Quo +
Enhanced
Serviced
2022 Est. $14.2M $15M
Fire/EMS
Service Costs
(excluding City
retained costs)
City retained $2.13M
costs under this
option
Option 3
Tukwila Fire
District—
funded only
with
property
taxes; City
Council as
governing
board
$17.9M3
LEOFF, debt service, cost
to purchase fire marshal
services
$2.13M
$3.03M
Option 4
Option 5
Tukwila Fire
District—
prop. tax &
Fire Benefit
Charge(FBC)
City Council
as governing
board
$17.9M3
$3.03M
Tukwila RFA
– property
tax & FBC;
Shared
governing
board, City
majority
$17.9M3
$3.03M
Option 6
Contract for
Service with
Renton RFA
$14.56M
(based on
bid estimate
submitted
by RRFA)
$2.13M
Option 7
Contract for
Service with
Puget Sound
RFA
$14.9M
(based on
bid estimate
submitted
by PSRFA)
$2.13M
Option 8
Annexation
into Renton
RFA
$14.4M
(assuming
$0.90 fire
levy; FBC
data needs
additional
review)
$2.74M
Option 9
Annexation
into Puget
Sound RFA
$14.2M
(assuming
$0.90 fire
levy; FBC
data needs
additional
review)
$2.97M
Notes on Costs
• All are estimates—final numbers will be different
• Options 3, 4 and 5 are the most expensive because they involve
standing up a new, relatively small government agency:
• Administrative staffing and cost
• Cash flow
• Reserves
• By law, the City cannot transfer its fire marshal office service
responsibility: it must always either provide this service itself, or
contract for it. The cost of the service depends on the provider
(Contracts in Options 3,4,5,8,9). Impacts City retained costs
Notes on Regional Fire Authorities
• A regional fire authority has the same powers, duties and funding
sources as a fire district
• The main difference is that a fire authority has great flexibility in how
it can structure its governing board
Tukwila Fire
Puget Sound RFA Renton RFA
(PSRFA) — created in 2010 (RRFA)—created in 2016
Population Served
Included Jurisdictions
Governance
Structure
21,798 (residents)
Tukwila
The Mayor and City
Council of Tukwila
Square Miles 9.6
2022 Operating
Budget
$14.3M
225,693
130,359
Kent, FD 37 (includes City of Covington), FD 43 and 1 Renton, FD 25; FD 40 by contract
SeaTac by contract
• 3 elected officials from the City of Kent
• 3 commissioners from FD 37
• 3 nonvoting members: one each from the two
contract agencies, and one from the City of
Covington
• 3 elected officials from the City
of Renton
• 3 commissioners from FD 25.
• 1 nonvoting member from FD
40
108
33.29
$68.3M
$43.4M
Notes on funding sources
The City uses General Fund revenues to pay for the Fire
Department operations.
2 fire station replacements funded with voter approved
bonds; 2 more stations will need to be replaced in next
decade (+1- $30M).
Apparatus, equipment funded through Public Safety Plan.
Firefighters get an inflation -based COLA each year. Staff
costs are about 80% of the total department annual cost.
The Fire Department generates some fees for service (fire
marshal office).
Fire Department budget in 2022 equates to 79.6% of all
City property tax revenues. This will grow over time.
Both have two major funding sources:
1. Fire Levy of up to $1.00 per $1,000 Assessed Value.
2. Fire Benefit Charge (FBC) – a fee, not a tax
• FBC is a risk-based fee: structures that will need
more fire resources to put out a fire will pay more.
Tends to reduce costs for single-family residential
structures.
• FBC is not subject to +1% collections cap that is in
place for property taxes.
• FBC provides great financial stability—in times of
inflation or recession, service levels can be
sustained.
Service Levels, Staffing, Fire Assets
• Service levels (response times) do not change under any option, because
fire/EMS response is dispatched in an integrated way across South King
County --so long as the same number of fire stations and apparatus are in
service
• Enhanced services can be provided under any option. PSRFA and RRFA
currently provide the three enhanced services the City Fire Department has
prioritized
• Under any option with a new service provider, all Fire Department
employees become employees of the new service provider *— without a
loss of salary, rank, benefits (*except Chief, Dep. Chief)
• Fire apparatus and equipment also transfer to the new provider, typically
at no cost (taxpayers have already paid once). Fire station ownership/
maintenance is negotiated
Summary of the Committee's Other
Recommendations
• Is the City's fire/EMS service sustainable?
• Service enhancements?
• Engaging with the community on this challenge.
Fiscal Sustainability
L
• The Committee observes that the City has a fiscal sustainability
challenge broader than any single City Department: it is a challenge
for the entire City General Fund
• The Fire Department can be a big part of the solution to this
challenge
• 2nd largest department
• Critical public safety service, popular with voters
• Many options in how service can be provided in the City
Service Enhancements
• Fire Department suggested 3 service enhancements (in priority
order):
• CARES Unit
• Public Education Program
• Increased Fire Marshal Office Staffing
• Committee supports adding these services if the Council can find the
necessary revenue to fund them
• These service are currently provided by PRSFA and RRFA, at a lower
cost than the City could provide them (shared costs in larger revenue
base, different service delivery models)
Engaging with the Community
• The Tukwila community will be interested in learning about any
change to be implemented for provision of fire/EMS service
• Key items will be cost, what's changing, service level impacts, why the
change.
• Background on the current situation will also be needed
• Use a variety of strategies to engage
• Time is short to implement the Committee's recommendation
In closing
• This was a challenging task -- a lot of financial and operational detail
• The Committee membership was diverse, a good cross section of the
City
• The staff team provided excellent support for our work
• After reviewing all the information, we reached a strong consensus
recommendation (not unanimous)
• The timeline ahead is short
• Thank you for the opportunity to serve the community, and to share
our recommendations with you
Questions? Comments?
Thank you!
REPORT of the FUTURE of FIRE/EMS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 2022
Executive Summary
Over the last 15 years, the Puget Sound region has seen increasing regionalization of fire and emergency
medical services (EMS) in response to cost pressures on cities and smaller fire districts. This move to
regionalization has been particularly significant in south King County. The primary motivations for
regionalization of fire /EMS services have been a desire to capture potential economies of scale, unify
administration and programs, facilitate sharing of resources, reduce the pace of cost escalation, secure
voter -approved dedicated funding such as fire benefit charges and levy lid lifts, and improve the ability
to offer additional services through cost-sharing. These same motivations have led the City of Tukwila
(City) to explore regionalization of fire/EMS services since at least 2010.
The City faces a significantly worsening financial picture in the next biennium, with City administration
officials anticipating a gap of as much as 10-15% between General Fund revenues and expenses by 2024.
One of the major opportunities to address this funding gap is to implement changes in funding for, and
potentially jurisdiction over, the City's second largest department—the Fire Department.
The Mayor and City Council appointed the Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee in
October 2021. The Committee was tasked with recommending how fire/EMS services should be
provided in Tukwila in the future. Over the course of ten meetings in a seven-month period, we
explored the current situation and nine options for future fire/EMS service delivery. The main
advantages and disadvantages of each of these nine options is outlined in the summary table below.
The consensus view of the Committee is that the best option for the City is to annex into Puget Sound
Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA). However, the PSRFA board's current policy position is to require the
City enter into a service contract with PSRFA prior to annexing. While there are downsides to a service
contract, on balance the Committee's consensus view is that the City should immediately engage in
negotiations with PSRFA to secure a service contract as a bridge to near-term annexation. We do not
support a long-term service contract with PSRFA; annexation is the goal. Essentially, we are
recommending Options 7 and 9 together, with an annexation vote taking place as soon as possible.
The cost of a service contract with PSRFA is subject to negotiation. Based on current information, a
contract will be slightly more expensive than the current Fire Department cost but would offer
important service enhancements to the Tukwila community. We understand the Fire Department union
leadership strongly supports moving to a contract for service with PSRFA, with the ultimate objective of
annexation.
The timeline is short: PSRFA is asking for City Council direction by July 15 to start negotiation on a
service contract that would begin January 2023. Given work already accomplished over the last few
months, and the alignment of the two labor unions, this should be feasible. Importantly, the Committee
does not support a long-term service contract with PSRFA: annexation offers many benefits in terms of
governance and revenues to pay for the fire/EMS service that a service contract does not offer. We
strongly encourage the City to ensure that any service contract with PSRFA includes a commitment by
both parties to work towards placing an annexation ballot measure before the City's voters as soon as
practicable.
75
76
Benefits and Disadvantages of the Nine Options Reviewed, Summarized
Option
Advantages
Disadvantages
Option 1: Status Quo
• Requires no changes to current
operations, assuming revenues are
made available
• Misses opportunity to benefit
from further regionalization
• City financial challenges un-
addressed, unless City secures
additional revenue
Option 2: Status Quo
"Plus" — Funding for
enhanced services
• Important service enhancements
secured: CARES unit, public
education program, and additional
Fire Marshal Office staffing
• Misses opportunities to benefit
from further regionalization
• Funding remains unaddressed,
unless City secures additional
revenue
Option 3: Create a
Tukwila Fire District,
funded solely by
property taxes (no Fire
Benefit Charge)
• Fire department costs largely
removed from City budget (some
retained costs remain)
• City can retain control over the
services and budgets if Council
chooses to serve as the governing
board.
• Misses opportunities to benefit
from further regionalization
• Financially unstable as it would
require voter support for repeat
excess levies
• Adds expense of creating a new
agency.
Option 4: Create a
Tukwila Fire District,
funded by both property
taxes and a Fire Benefit
Charge (FBC)
• Fire department costs largely
removed from City budget
• City can retain control
• FBC adds significant financial
stability/sustainability
• Misses opportunities to benefit
from further regionalization
• Adds expense of creating a new
agency
Option 5: Partner with
another fire service
provider to create a
Tukwila Regional Fire
Authority (RFA) —with a
fire benefit charge
• Fire department costs largely
removed from the City budget.
• City has significant control over
operation, depending on how
governance board structured
• Regionalization benefits depend
on size of the partnering agency
• Adds expense of creating a new
agency
Option 6: Contract for
Service with Renton
Regional Fire Authority
(RRFA)
• Cost is comparable to status quo
but includes enhanced services.
• City no longer has management
responsibility for Fire Department
• Firefighters become RRFA
employees, their preferred
outcome
• City remains responsible to fund
funding; funding not addressed
• City loses control over costs
• City cannot reconstitute fire
department if contract doesn't
work out
• Negotiation of agreements to
combine labor force needed;
outcome unclear
Option 7: Contract for
Service with Puget
Sound Regional Fire
Authority (PSRFA)
• Cost is comparable to status quo
(and RRFA contract) but includes
enhanced services
• City no longer has management
responsibility for Fire Department.
• Firefighters become PSRFA
employees, their preferred
outcome
• City remains responsible to fund
funding; funding not addressed
• City loses control over costs
• City cannot reconstitute fire
department if contract doesn't
work out
77
Option
Advantages
Disadvantages
Option 8: Annex into
• Fire department costs largely
• Must contract first, with
RRFA, after initially
removed from City budget upon
associated downsides
contracting for service
annexation
• Little leverage in annexation
• Preliminary costs comparable to
negotiation
other options
• Voter support for annexation
• Firefighters prefer to remaining
with City
unknown
Option 9: Annex into
• Fire department costs removed
• Must contract first, with
PSRFA, after initially
from City budget
associated downsides
contracting for service
• Preliminary costs comparable to
• Little leverage in annexation
other options
negotiation
• Firefighters prefer going to PSRFA
• Voter support for annexation
unknown
78
Table of Contents
Section Topic Page
Introduction 1
II. The Committee's Mission, Membership, Timeline, and Process 1
III. Tukwila's Current Fire/EMS Services—An Overview 3
• Findings from A Seven -Year Financial Forecast for the Fire Department
Operations 5
IV. Is the City Fire Department Sustainable Within Existing City Revenues? 7
V. Additional Fire Department Programs, Staffing or Services that should be
Priorities to Fund in the Next Six Years 10
VI. Committee Criteria for Evaluating the City's Options for Future Fire/EMS
Service Delivery 12
VII. Committee Recommendation on the Preferred Option or Options for
Ensuring Provision of High -Quality Fire/EMS Service in the City at a
Sustainable Cost 14
• Comparing the Three Different Potential Service Providers 14
• Ten Key Points Underscoring Differences and Similarities between the
Nine Options 21
• Committee Deliberations on the Options 23
• Committee's Preferred Outcome: Direction Annexation into PSRFA 24
• The Committee's Preferred Option(s) absent the ability to annex into
PSRFA: Contract with PSRFA as a Bridge to Annexation 27
• Benefits and Disadvantages of all Options, in summary 28
VIII. Public Engagement Strategies the City Should Consider as Part of its
Deliberations Following Delivery of this Report. 30
IX. Conclusion 30
Minority Statement 32
Tables and Figures
Item Title Page
Table 1 Tukwila Fire Department Facts 4
Figure 1 List of Nine Future Fire/EMS Service Delivery Options Considered
by the Committee 6
Table 2 City General Fund -Supported Departments and Major Revenues 7
Table 3 Service Enhancement Cost Estimate Comparison 12
Table 4 The Committee's Eight Criteria for Evaluating Fire/EMS Service
Options 13
Table 5 Comparing Tukwila Fire Dept., Puget Sound Regional Fire
Authority and Renton Regional Fire Authority 15
Table 6 Nine Potential Fire Fire/EMS Service Delivery Options Reviewed:
Key Differences and Similarities 17
Table 7 Comparing How Options 1-9 Address the Eight Criteria 25
79
Attachments
# Title Page
A Committee Member Names and Affiliations A-1
B Staff and Consultant Support Team A-2
C Templates describing all Nine Options A-3
D Estimated 2022 Costs of the Nine Options A-38
E Results of Informal Committee Survey Evaluating A-40
Options as against the Eight Criteria and Overall
80
REPORT of the FUTURE of FIRE/EMS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 2022
I. Introduction
Over the last 15 years, the Puget Sound region has seen increasing regionalization of fire and emergency
medical service (EMS) in response to cost pressures on cities and smaller fire districts. This move to
regionalization has been particularly significant in south King County. The primary motivations for
regionalization of fire /EMS services have been a desire to capture potential economies of scale, unify
administration and programs, facilitate sharing of resources, reduce the pace of cost escalation, and
improve the ability to offer additional services through cost-sharing. The City of Tukwila has been
exploring fire/EMS regionalization since at least 2010 but no agreement has been reached on a move
away from the current City Fire Department operations. A 2015 effort to annex to the Puget Sound
Regional Fire Authority ended when the City Council determined not to place the measure before the
voters. The City instead focused on the significant capital investment needed for new fire stations,
equipment and apparatus, and put this before the voters in 2016 as part of the Public Safety Plan. In
November 2016, the City's voters supported this funding with 60% approval and since then, two new
fire stations have been built and opened, and, through other City funding contributions, new fire
apparatus and equipment purchased.
The City of Tukwila now faces a significantly worsening financial picture in the next biennium, with the
City administration anticipating a gap of as much as 10-15% between General Fund revenues and
expenses by 2024. One of the major opportunities to address this funding gap is to implement changes
in funding for, and potentially jurisdiction over, the City's second largest department—the Fire
Department.
The City Council appointed the Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee in October 2021 and
tasked it with recommending how fire/EMS services should be provided in Tukwila in the future.
Fire/EMS service is a critical public safety service, one that each of us on the Committee relies upon. We
took our mission very seriously. The Committee considered nine different options for fire/EMS service
delivery. These options were developed by the staff and consultant team supporting our work. There
are many important considerations, and the interests of all parts of the city—administration, employees,
residents and business community ---are not neatly aligned to favor any single option available to us.
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Committee.
II. The Committee's Mission, Membership, Timeline, and Process
The Committee's mission was to provide findings and recommendations on five issues:
• Is the Fire Department sustainable within existing City revenues?
• Are there any additional Fire Department programs, staffing or services that should be priorities
to fund in the next six years?
• What criteria should be used to evaluate the City's options for future fire/EMS service delivery?
• What recommendations does the Committee have as to the preferred option or options for
ensuring provision of high-quality fire/EMS service in the City at a sustainable cost?
1
81
• What public engagement strategies should the City consider as a part of its deliberations
following delivery of this report?
Our report addresses each of these five issues in turn below. First, we provide a summary of the
Committee and our process.
The Committee is comprised of twelve (12) Council -appointed members, including City residents,
business leaders and nonprofit agency representatives representing the diversity of the Tukwila
community: Attachment A to this report presents the names of the members. Members were identified
through a process publicly soliciting interest from the community. The City Council appointed former
Councilmember Verna Seal to serve as our Chair; the Committee selected Hien Kieu as our Vice -Chair.
We were asked to report back by the end of April, but the work involved required additional time. We
met ten times in the development of this report, for two -hours each meeting. The tenth meeting was
added to our original nine -meeting schedule in order that we could complete our work. Our first
meeting was November 9, 2021, and our last meeting was held May 3, 2022. Due to the pandemic, all
our meetings were held remotely by Zoom. All our meetings were open to the public and all our
agendas, meeting notes, and meeting materials were posted on the City's website.
We were supported by a team of City staff from the Fire Department and City administration, an
independent facilitator and financial consultant. The staff and consultant team members are identified
on Attachment B.
We note that while two of our members are former City Councilmembers, one is a retired City
firefighter, and one is a former finance director for the City, Committee members otherwise did not
come to this project with a deep knowledge of either City finances or fire/EMS service. This was a very
intensive effort in terms of learning about fire operations and funding options—for every Committee
member. The information provided in this report is based on the information presented to us by City
staff and the consultant team, and our own varied experience and observations.
The major topics of discussion at our meetings are listed below, in the order in which we considered
them:
• Review of operations, revenues and expenses of the Fire Department
• Review of City General Fund revenues and expenses
• Discussion of our observations about current levels of fire/EMS service in the City
• Review and discussion of a seven-year financial model for the Fire Department, prepared for us
by a financial consultant, showing how costs of the Fire Department would grow over the next 7
years with the current staffing configuration
• Review of service enhancements that are a priority for the Fire Department to add in the next
few years
• Discussion of financial sustainability for the Fire Department
• Identification of eight criteria for evaluating future Fire/EMS service options
• Review of information on nine different future Fire/EMS service options (list presented at
Figure 1)
• Review and input on a status update to the City Council (presented mid -way through our work)
• Completion of a homework exercise on public engagement strategies
82
• Completion of a survey evaluating all nine options across all eight criteria we identified
• Discussion of survey results and development of a recommended future option.
• Additional consideration of recommendations when it became clear after our ninth meeting
that our consensus preferred option – moving directly to seek annexation to Puget Sound
Regional Fire Authority—is not acceptable to PSRFA at this time.
Per our Committee Charter, each Committee member had one vote. A Committee recommendation
requires support of at least 60% of us present and voting, and a consensus recommendation requires
support of at least 80% of us present and voting. Our Charter also allows for summary dissenting
statements where Committee members are in strong disagreement with their fellow Committee
members, and a minority statement from one Committee member is appended to this report
This report has been approved unanimously by all twelve Committee members as presenting an
accurate documentation of our deliberations, findings and recommendations.
III. Tukwila's Current Fire/EMS Services—An Overview
The Committee is unanimous in its assessment that the City currently enjoys high-quality fire/EMS
service. Tukwila is a challenging City to serve, in that its daytime population – with employees and
visitors to Westfield Mall and surrounding commercial enterprises – exceeds 150,000, but there are only
21,798 residents in the City. The Fire Department is well positioned to serve this varied population
through four fire stations located in the City, two of them essentially brand new as a result of funding
provided by the City's 2016 voter -approved public safety bond measure. The concentration of four fire
stations in an area less than 10 square miles exceeds what is typical of most urban areas and is the result
of annexations of territory into the City over the past few decades.
The Fire Department has 65 staff, with at least three firefighters on duty at each fire station, 24-7-365.
This staffing level enables one apparatus (fire truck, ladder truck) to respond out of each of the four
stations. The Fire Department's apparatus and equipment are relatively new and in good condition.
Because of the City's concentration of fire stations, Tukwila has the fastest "first unit on scene" response
time in Zone 3. Zone 3 is the south King County area in which all 911 calls are jointly dispatched through
Valley Communications Center ("ValleyCom"). That said, nearly all fire incidents, and many EMS calls,
require more than one fire engine and its crew. This is where the City – like all others in Zone 3—is
reliant on its neighbors to support incident response. ValleyCom dispatches the nearest available units
to any incident. Those units may be from Tukwila—but they may also be from North Highline Fire
District, Renton Regional Fire Authority, Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority, or other agencies further
away. A major fire may require more units than the entire City Fire Department staffs on any given day.
There are no City reserves established solely for support of the Fire Department. The Fire Department
does not have a dedicated funding stream for either ongoing capital or operational reserves. The Fire
Department does generate a modest amount of revenue from operation of the Fire Marshal Office, and
the City receives a share of King County regional EMS levy money to support its basic life support
operations. All other funding for the Department come from General Fund revenues, including an
3
83
allocation of resources each biennium through Council funding of the City's Public Safety Plan to support
apparatus and equipment replacement.
The Fire Department's budget over the last ten years has grown at a rate of 3.2% per year on average,
excluding fire station construction costs. Fire Department staffing over this time has been stable.
Primary cost drivers for the Department are labor costs: cost of living adjustments and overtime
expense. The Department's budget does not include a share of central overhead services (human
resources, finance, information technology) that support all City departments. Table 1 below
summarizes some key facts about the Fire Department
Table 1: Tukwila Fire Department Facts
2022 Fire Department Annual Budget
(as amended)
$14.22 Million
Fire Dept. as % of General Fund
23%
Fire Department Major Funding
Sources
General Fund (93%), fees from Fire Marshal Office services
(.5%), share of regional EMS levy (3.5%), and other (3%)
Growth in Fire Department Budget,
annualized, in last 10 years versus
growth in City General Fund Budget
over same period
2012-2022 Fire Dept budget
increase, annual average:
3.2%
2012-2022 General Fund
budget increase, annual
avg.: 3%
Major budget expenditures
Note: reserves/overhead is a share of the
Salaries 66%
Benefits 22%
Administrative overhead: .04%
Reserves/Overhead .07%%
Other O&M 11%
Public Safety Plan funding allocated this
year to the Fire Department
Number of employees
*logistics, training, equipment
management
Administrative staffing: 3
Support Services*: 3
Fire Marshal's Office 5
Operations (fire suppression/EMS) 54
Total 65
Labor Affiliation
Note: All employees except the Fire Chief,
IAFF- Local 2088 — all uniformed staff
Teamsters Union — project manager, administrative
assistant
Deputy Fire Chief, and assistant to the fire
Chief are unionized
Fire Stations
Four; 2 stations are new, Stations 51 and 52 (Headquarters)
2 stations are older, Stations 53 and 54
Annual calls for service (2021)
Note: COVID caused a drop in call volume
Total: 6,869
EMS calls: 4,592
Fire calls: 1,974 (including automatic fire alarms)
Other: 303
over2019 and 2020. In 2021 the calls for
service increased and are close to 2018
call volumes.
# of fire apparatus fully staffed from
each fire station
One. A Battalion Chief command vehicle, in addition to the
fire engine, is in service from fire station 52.
Patient Transport
Private ambulance transports are the primary means of
transporting patients.
84
Regionalized Fire -Related Services in
911 dispatch — Valley Communications
which Tukwila participates (and helps
Medic 1 (Advanced Life Support) -- King County
fund)
Training Consortium (managed by Puget Sound RFA)
WA Fire Careers Project (managed by Puget Sound RFA)
Response Time (2020)
Target (First unit on scene
Actual % of responses
Turnout + Travel Time
90% of the time within target)
meeting target:
Fire: 7 min.59 sec. or less
Fire: 86.2%
EMS: 7 min. 52 sec. or less
EMS: 86.3%
Findings from A Seven -Year Financial Forecast for the Fire Department Operations
To provide us more detail on future anticipated fire Department expenses, the City secured the
assistance of public finance consultant Bill Cushman. Mr. Cushman developed a seven-year financial
strategic financial plan to identify the costs of maintaining current staffing levels and four fire stations
over the next seven-year period. This financial forecast was completed in December 2021. Some key
inputs into the forecast are:
• Including funding for a series of operational reserves at levels that will support anticipated
expenditures over the period other than station replacement. These reserves exceed the
current set asides budgeted by the City
• Excludes the cost of two additional fire station replacements
• Assumes a 5% annual growth in assessed value of real property in the City
• Projects Fire Department costs growing at 3.2% on average (including the 6.3% salary Cost of
Living Adjustments (COLA) received by firefighters in 2022, and assuming a 3.2% CPI beyond
2022)
• No City General Property Tax lid lift in the interim.
Major findings in the forecast include:
• In 2021, the Fire Department budget equated to 79.6% of all City property tax revenues.
• In 2022, the Fire Department budget grew to the equivalent of 82.4% of City property tax
revenue.
• The 2022 Fire Department budget, as amended, equals a property tax rate in Tukwila of $1.80
per $1,000 of assessed value.
• By 2028, the Fire Department Budget is projected to equate to 93.6% of all City property tax
revenues.
Inflation thus far in 2022 is already higher than projected in the financial forecast, so if the forecast were
updated today, the projected spending would be higher. Staff Cost of Living Allowances (COLA) are
based on June CPI data.
It is important to anticipate future Fire Department costs in considering the City's options. A few key
points are outlined below.
• If the City retains the Fire Department, it will almost certainly need to secure voter -approved
funding to rebuild Stations 53 and 54, within the decade. Current rough estimates of the cost to
replace these two stations is $30-40M. It is possible that joint funding for a Station 54
5
85
replacement could be secured at much lower cost through collaboration with neighboring
agencies.
• The City will also need to maintain the quality of its fire apparatus and equipment. The 2016
public safety bond was also intended to allocate specific funding for these needs for the next
twenty years. Due to construction cost escalation, bond funding was not used for these
purposes, but instead is funded through the City's Public Safety Plan for the next fifteen years
(after that, the General Fund will absorb these costs).
• The seven-year financial forecast estimates annual reserve funding needs of $1.09M per year if
the City were to continue to support apparatus, equipment needs plus facility maintenance (not
replacement), and employee retirement payouts on a pay-as-you-go basis.
• The City will need to remain competitive in hiring and retaining firefighters and fire
administrators. We note that the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSFRA) salaries are
significantly higher than the City's current fire salaries, but the Renton Regional Fire Authority
(RRFA) salaries are lower, except for all but their longest serving employees (we expect that may
change as RRFA is now in labor negotiations with its fire union).
Fortunately, the City has options for how to proceed. As noted above, we were presented with nine
different options for future fire/EMS service delivery, listed in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1:
List of Nine Future Fire/EMS Service Delivery Options Considered
by the Committee
Option 1: Status Quo
Option 2: Status Quo "Plus" — Funding for enhanced services
Option 3: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded solely by property taxes (no
Fire Benefit Charge)
Option 4: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded by both property taxes and a
Fire Benefit Charge
Option 5: Partner with another fire service provider to create a Tukwila
Regional Fire Authority (RFA) —with a fire benefit charge
Option 6: Contract for Service with Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA)
Option 7: Contract for Service with Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority
(PSRFA)
Option 8: Annex into RRFA, after initially contracting for service
Option 9: Annex into PSRFA, after initially contracting for service
The balance of this report examines the five questions posed to us by the City Council regarding these
options.
86
IV. Is the City Fire Department Sustainable Within Existing City
Revenues?
After considering a lot of information about City revenues and expenses, we think that this question is
probably the wrong lens for discussing financial sustainability. Generally, we view "fiscal sustainability"
as the ability to sustain service levels over time within available revenues. The problem with focusing on
the Fire Department alone here is that the Fire Department is just one of many City departments
dependent on the City's General Fund.
The City Finance Director has provided us information confirming that the City's General Fund revenues
grow more slowly each and every year than do the City's General Fund expenses. Specifically, overall
General Fund revenues grow at about 3% a year, and status quo expenses (the cost of doing the same
things as the prior year) have grown annually at around 5% over the last decade. The gap between
revenues and status quo expenses is the major challenge each budget cycle. We note that the inflation
spike that began last year may significantly increase this gap in the next few years, particularly to the
extent the City's unionized employees are entitled to annual cost of living increases, (like unionized
employees elsewhere in government and the private sector). Labor costs (salaries and benefits)
comprise over 68% of the City's General Fund.
The City's General Fund supports a range of important services, from a variety of sources. General Fund
revenues are typically unrestricted -- they can be applied to many uses. In contrast, many other City
revenues are strictly limited in terms of the uses to which they can be applied). The major General Fund
departments and revenue sources are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: City General Fund -Supported Departments and Major Revenues
Departments
Major Revenues by % (2021)
Police Department
In descending order of magnitude:
Fire Department
Sales Tax (28.1%)
Parks & Recreation
Property Tax (27%)
Public Works
Utility Tax (9.4%)
Municipal Court
Other Taxes (admission, gambling) (7.3%)
Finance
Business Licenses (5.7%)
Community Development
Other government agency grants, shared
Mayor's Office
revenues (5.1%)
Administrative services, which also includes:
• Technology & Innovation Services
A variety of other revenues contribute an
• Human Resources
additional 17.4%
• City Clerk's Office
• Community Services & Engagement
Each budget cycle, the City Council must make difficult decisions about how to balance the budget (a
requirement of state law—cities cannot run deficits like the federal government). Basically, the cost of
status quo operations always exceeds in total the status quo revenues available. Cuts, efficiencies and
new revenues must all be considered across the entire General Fund budget in order to balance the
7
87
budget. In this sense, one can argue nothing in the General Fund is sustainable without efficiencies, cuts
elsewhere, or new revenues.
Over the last decade, the City Council has found new revenues, with voter support, to fund public safety
capital projects (the justice center, two new fire stations, and fire apparatus/equipment) and the City's
pool (creating the Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District). The City has been able to add a few staff
over these same years to many General Fund programs. Fire Department staffing has remained
essentially flat over the last decade, but there have been significant investments in capital and
equipment for the department during this time.
Our observation is that the City has a fiscal sustainability challenge broader than any single City
Department: it is a challenge for the entire City General Fund. That said, we can understand why the
City has created the Committee, and why the administration and Council are focusing particularly on
sustainability of fire/EMS service:
First, the Fire Department is the second largest department in terms of budget. If there is a way to
either increase funding for—or entirely eliminate – the cost of the Fire Department in the City budget, it
will have significant impact in improving the overall health of the General Fund and all the important
City services it funds.
Second, fire/EMS is a critical public safety service and is very popular. A well -reasoned request to voters
for Fire Department funding support is likely to be better received than a request for general
government support, or support for many other City programs.
Third, and more to the point of the mission with which the Committee has been tasked, there are many
options for the delivery of high-quality fire service to the City other than the current model of a city -
funded City Department operation. In fact, in the area around Tukwila, we have seen a dramatic
transformation to move away from City -funded fire service in the last 15 years.
• In 2007, the Cities of Auburn, Algona and Pacific secured voter approval and new dedicated
funding to form the Valley Regional Fire Authority, uniting the fire departments of the Cities
of Auburn (serving Algona by contract) and Pacific.
• In 2010, Kent and Fire District 37 secured voter approval and new dedicated funding to form
what is now the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority.
• Maple Valley Fire District secured voter approval for a levy lid lift for dedicated fire funding
and began contracting with PSRFA in mid -2018.
• In 2014, the City of SeaTac, after determining it could not financially annex into a fire
authority, instead began contracting with PSRFA, transferring all its fire department staff,
apparatus, and equipment to the PSRFA as part of that arrangement.
• Most recently, in 2016 Renton and Fire District 25 secured voter approval and new
dedicated funding to form a regional fire authority.
The partners forming, or contracting with, these new "regional fire authorities" recognized that they
were more likely to be able to control the growth in cost of service by banding together in a larger
operation, with a single fire service administration and support services system overseeing their
combined territories.
88
Notably, all three of these regional fire authorities received voter approved funding through levy lid lifts
of property taxes and a fire benefit charge. All three utilize both property taxes and a voter approved
financial tool not available to cities: a "Fire Benefit Charge" (FBC) supporting operations and capital
expenditures which is not subject to the year-to-year 1% collection limitations of property taxes. An FBC
is a fee, not a tax, charged to property owners with physical structures on their real property; the fee is
sized to reflect an estimate of the fire agency assets needed to respond to a fire at those structures. (See
discussion below in Section VII of this report).
There are other options available to change how fire service in the City is operated or funded besides
joining or creating a regional fire authority. These are explored in more detail below, but basically
include:
(1) creating a fire district
(2) contracting for service from another fire service provider; or
(3) providing additional dedicated funding for the Fire Department with voter approval.
A note about regional fire authorities: a regional fire authority or "RFA," can be created by voters
pursuant to Chapter 52.26 RCW. An RFA has essentially the same revenue authority and service
responsibility as a fire district but can only be created by combining the operations of at least two
different agencies that have authority to provide fire service. The main difference between a fire district
and a regional fire authority is that the latter has great flexibility in how it sets up its governance board.
This makes it possible for multiple, different types of fire jurisdictions to come together and structure a
governance solution that works for them.
It is also worth noting what is happening in other cities in King County. Today, only 7 of 39 cities in King
County operate a Fire Department. The rest have annexed into, or have service contracts with, another
agency (another City, a Fire District, or a Regional Fire Authority).
A contract for service by itself doesn't address the revenue challenge a city may have — the city still has
to pay for the contract. However, a city (particularly a small city) will typically find it far less expensive
to contract for fire service than to create its own fire department. Thus, we see Newcastle, Medina,
Hunts Point, Yarrow Point, Clyde Hill, and Beaux Arts Village all contract with Bellevue for fire service.
Annexation into another fire service provider is most often observed in cities created in the last 30 years
—long after their area was served already by a fire district. For example, Shoreline chose to not stand up
a fire department when it was incorporated, and instead retained service from their existing fire district.
Those cities that do still operate a Fire Department typically have dedicated voter -approved levies to
support either (or both) operations and capital for the departments. Tukwila has secured voter support
for fire capital projects (through the 2016 public safety bond) but has never asked for operational
support for fire. In comparison, in 2019, the City of Bothell secured voter approval for both a Fire
Capital Levy and a Fire Operations Levy.
Beyond considering the Fire Department finances, we are not privy to an understanding of all the
various funding demands now before the City.
9
89
In terms of additional revenue sources that the City could use to fund fire/EMS services, we did not
spend a significant amount of time on this topic, but we understand that:
• Any increase in property taxes above the 1% annual collection amount allowed by law
requires voter approval. The City could seek authority for a general property tax lid lift to
support all General Fund operations, or it could target that request to support specific City
functions, such as fire/EMS service. A levy lid lift requires approval of 50% +1 of voters.
• The City imposes a wide array of taxes now, but does not impose a business and
occupations (B&O) tax. This could be authorized by the City Council without voter approval.
• There is capacity to increase utility taxes by Council action, either with or without voter
approval.
• Major capital funding for any City construction projects is most likely secured by asking
voters for an excess levy to repay City -issued bonds. This requires 60% voter approval.
The Committee expresses no opinion as to the advisability of pursuing a B&O tax or utility tax. We note
below the possibility of a seeking a dedicated property tax levy to support any option in which the City
remains responsible for funding fire/EMS services. We have noted above the likely need for a bond
measure to fund two additional fire stations in the next decade if the Fire Department remains a City
operation.
In sum, it appears to us that the City has a General Fund sustainability issue. The Fire Department is the
second largest department in the City and there are many options for securing high quality fire/EMS
services, so it makes sense to explore these options for multiple reasons. The City should anticipate
significant revenue needs for the Fire Department in the years ahead.
V. Additional Fire Department Programs, Staffing or Services that
should be Priorities to Fund in the Next Six Years
In the context of the General Fund budget challenge, it may seem confusing to explore expanding Fire
Department service offerings, however, this is the second query in our mission. In this part of our work,
the Fire Department presented to us three priority service enhancements. In descending order of
priority for the Fire Department, these are:
• Adding services of a CARES Unit—by sharing a unit with an adjacent fire agency. CARES
Units are vehicles staffed by a firefighter and a nurse or social worker. They respond to low
acuity calls where there is no emergent medical need. It is often difficult to determine the
acuity of a call before arriving on scene, so often CARES Units are deployed in a follow-up
capacity that represents a true service level improvement for community members having
difficulty with medications or other health issues. Agencies around the state are now
deploying this service. They are finding that a CARES unit can reduce calls for service and
keep other units available for priority calls. Both RRFA and PSRFA currently operate a CARES
unit. Some of the cost of these units can currently be defrayed from funding from King
10
90
County—funding Tukwila is entitled to but cannot draw on because it is not offering the
service.
o 2022 Estimated Annual Cost of standing up a CARES unit in partnership with another
agency that also doesn't have a CARES unit: $308,706
o 2022 offsetting funding available from King County: $100,800
• Adding an employee (plus vehicle and supplies) to operate a Public Education Program.
o 2022 Estimated Annual Cost: $152,222
• Increasing staffing for the Fire Marshal Office (FMO) by up to 4 additional employees, in
addition to the existing five personnel in the FMO. Fees for service currently generate about
$302,000 each year from the FMO. Under state law, fire marshal services are core city
functions: cities control the service levels and fees and cannot transfer this responsibility by
annexation of fire responsibility to another agency. In other words, the annexing city must
decide whether to staff the function on its own, or contract for the service from its new fire
service provider.
o 2022 Estimated Annual Cost for adding two (2) additional FMO employees: $307,180.
o 2022 Estimated additional annual revenue from adding these two employees: $302,000,
doubling current FMO revenue.
The Committee does not feel we are knowledgeable enough to offer other potential service
enhancements, so we focused on the Fire Department recommendations. We questioned whether
some or all these services could be provided by contracting with other agencies, or whether they could
be provided by other existing City personnel. We questioned how much revenue would be generated by
additional FMO staff.
In the end, the Committee has reached a consensus that we support the addition of all three of these
enhanced services, but only if the City Council can find the necessary revenues to fund them.
Why do we support adding these enhancements? For several reasons:
• CARES programs directly address the increasing complexity of service demands on the Fire
Department, which include increased homelessness and mental health issues. A CARES unit can
also reduce calls for service and keep other units available for priority calls—an important cost
saving aspect to consider.
• Particularly in a diverse community such as Tukwila, education around fire safety can be life-
saving for those who grew up in other cultures. It can also be an important public safety service
for all residents, and for children in particular – schools are a big audience for most fire service
public education programs. Both RRFA and PSRFA currently have Public Education Programs.
• The City currently has limited Fire Marshal Office (FMO) offerings. Business community
representatives on the Committee note their concerns about the time it can take to get a fire -
related building permit, and the lack of routine fire inspection service offered by the City. The
Fire Department's expertise in identifying safety issues and outlining solutions is not something
that businesses can easily buy from a private sector vendor. Quick response from the Fire
11
91
Marshal can make the difference between a business being able to stay open or needing to
close --and can save months in the time it takes to permit a new business—an economic
development issue. A well -staffed and operated program can offset much of its cost from fees.
The staff team supporting us adjusted some of the cost data shown above after receiving contract cost
estimates from RRFA and PSRFA. Both RFAs currently offer all three service enhancements, and both
offered to provide them to Tukwila for less money than the costs estimated above, as summarized in
Table 3. (These cost estimates are preliminary, as are all cost estimates presented in our report).
Table 3: Service Enhancement Cost Estimate Comparison
Service Enhancement
2022 Cost Estimate if Provided
through Tukwila Fire Department
2022 Contract Cost Estimate Presented
by PSRFA and RRFA
RRFA
PSRFA
CARES Unit
Contract estimates
were to have access
to the RFA CARES
units currently in
place
Initial estimate: (new unit in
partnership with another agency
that doesn't now have a CARES unit)
$308,706, less $100,800 in regional
revenue = $207,906 net
Revised estimate: reduce cost by
$167K by contracting with an RFA,
for a net cost of about $0 – $66K,
depending on RFA.
$0
Renton indicates
they can fund this
just for the
contribution of the
$100,800
$66K
(regional
revenue would
go to PSRFA)
Fire Marshal Office
$900,000 (5 FTEs today)
+ $307,180 for 2 additional FTEs
Less offsetting revenue of $605,088
= $602,092 net cost
$610,937
(with fee revenue
back to City – for a
net cost of a few
thousand dollars)
$840,377
(with fee
revenue coming
back to the
City—net cost of
about $240K)
Public Education
Officer
$122,813
Not itemized in the
bid (no staff would
be added by
agency)
$64,585 (no staff
would be added
by agency)
Note: The RRFA FMO cost estimate is significantly lower than the PSRFA cost estimate because the RRFA uses
civilians to staff the office, rather than uniformed firefighters.
VI. Committee Criteria for Evaluating the City's Options for Future
Fire/EMS Service Delivery
The Committee had several discussions about criteria that should be used to evaluate the nine future
fire/EMS service delivery options presented to us. We developed these criteria early in our process,
after reviewing the list of nine options, but before being briefed on all but the first two options (status
quo and status quo plus service enhancements). We settled on the eight criteria presented in Table 4.
92
12
Table 4: The Committee's Eight Criteria for Evaluating Fire/EMS Service Options
(not presented in priority order)
• Ability of provider to meet needs of a diverse community
• Ability of provider to meet needs of a larger business community
• Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses
• Impact on the fire department labor force, recruitment, and retention
• Control over operational and financial decisions
• Overall quality of services (response times and more)
• Accountability for outcomes/ability to measure outcomes
• Sustainability of funding
A note about each of these eight criteria and why we feel each is important:
• Ability of provider to meet needs of a diverse community: Tukwila has a very diverse
population, and our fire/EMS services should be able to help residents and others regardless of
language or cultural differences.
• Ability of provider to meet needs of a larger business community: The business community is
our economic engine, providing jobs and making this City a desirable visitor destination.
Business tax revenues support programs across the city. Supporting the business community's
fire/EMS needs supports the financial health of the City.
• Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses: In light of the financial
challenges the City has described for us, total cost is important. If the same or better -quality
services can be secured for less money, that needs to be seriously considered.
• Impact on the fire department labor force, recruitment, and retention: Fire Department staff
have shared their strong preference to move to employment with the PSRFA, or as a second
choice, the RRFA. They see increased opportunity for advancement in a larger organization, and
compensation rates are also higher at the PSFRA. Employee preferences are an important
consideration.
• Control over operational and financial decisions: Given the size of the Fire Department budget,
it is important to be able to control how costs change from year-to-year to mitigate the need to
raise taxes or make other service cuts to General Fund programs (including Fire).
• Overall quality of services (response times and more): We enjoy the fastest "first unit on
scene" response times in Zone 3 today. It will be difficult to get the community to support any
reduction in service levels. Program offerings– such as the enhanced services—should also be
considered; the three service enhancements discussed above are all currently being provided by
neighboring RFAs.
• Accountability for outcomes/ability to measure outcomes: This is simply an important basic
good business practice for ensuring the public's money is being put to good use.
13
93
• Sustainability of funding: If funding for a critical public safety service such as fire/EMS is not
sustainable, we will see service levels reduced—which will face community opposition—or other
City programs cut, which is also undesirable. If the City's finances cannot sustain the Fire
Department into the future, this is a serious problem. As discussed above, we see financial
sustainability as a General Fund issue, one that is not about the Fire Department alone. In the
exploration of future service options, we do see that fire agencies have financial tools (a Fire
Benefit Charge, specifically) that cities do not have, and which can provide significant financial
stability through either recessionary periods or times of high inflation.
We also discussed what each of us felt were our top three most important criteria. The results of that
exercise identified strong concurrence that the following three criteria are the most important:
• Total costs to residents and businesses
• Quality of services, and
• Sustainability of funding
VII. Committee Recommendations on the Preferred Option or Options for
Ensuring Provision of High -Quality Fire/EMS Service in the City at a
Sustainable Cost
The committee was presented with nine different options to provide high-quality fire/EMS service to the
City. We reviewed each of these options in some depth.
Comparing the Three Different Potential Service Providers
All these options propose one of three different service providers:
• The City of Tukwila Fire Department- - as it is, or reconstituted in a new unit of
government (a fire district or regional fire authority)
• The Renton Regional Fire Authority
• The Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority
Table 5 below presents comparative data on these three agencies: how big they are, how they are
funded, what services they provide, how they are governed today.
The nine options are summarized in Table 6 below, which highlights the key differences and similarities
between each option.
The complete detailed templates for all nine options are provided in Attachment C. The estimated cost
of each option is presented in more detail at Attachment D and summarized in Table 7 below.
14
94
Table 5: Comparing Tukwila Fire Department, Puget Sound RFA and Renton RFA
Tukwila Fire
Puget Sound RFA
(PSRFA)
Renton RFA
(RRFA)
Population Served
Included Jurisdictions
Headquarters
Year Established
Governance Structure
Square Miles
2022 Operating Budget
Annual Calls for service
(2021)
Number of Fire Stations
Total Suppression
Staffing
Staff per shift
Funding Model + capital
bond
Maximum Fire Levy Rate
2022 Fire Levy Rate
21,798 (residents)
Tukwila
Tukwila
1943
The Mayor and City
Council of Tukwila
9.6
$14.3M
6,869
4
54
18
Operations: General Fund
Capital: voter approved
bond
N/A
N/A
225,693
Kent, FD 37 (includes
City of Covington), FD
43 and
SeaTac by contract
Kent
2010
A board comprised of
three elected officials
from the City of Kent,
three commissioners
from FD 37, and 3
nonvoting members:
one each from the two
contract agencies, and
one from the City of
Covington
108
$68.3M
29,438
13
228
59
Fire Levy + Fire Benefit
Charge (FBC) (both
voter- approved)
FBC approved for 10 yrs.
(through 2031)
$1.00/81,000 AV
$0.96/$1,000 AV
130,359
Renton, FD 25
FD 40 by contract
Renton
2016
A board comprised of
three elected officials
from the City of Renton
and three commissioners
from FD 25. FD 40, which
contracts with RRFA for
service, has a nonvoting
seat.
33.29
$43.4M
21,954
7
128
F
32
Fire Levy + Fire Benefit
Charge (both voter -
approved)
FBC is permanent
$1.00/$1,000 AV
$0.73/$1,000 AV
15
95
Tukwila Fire
Puget Sound RFA
(PSRFA)
Renton RFA
% of Operating Budget
secured from FBC
Other agencies
contracting for service
Capital bonds for
facilities
Administrative support
ISO (WSRB) Rating
(Lower is better)
Accreditation
CARES Unit
Public Education
Program
Fire Marshal's Office
Dedicated Fire Marshal
Fire Inspection Program
Development
Review/Inspection
Patient Transport
Health insurance with
retiree program
Post-retirement medical
Four Platoon staffing
model**
N/A
N/A
Yes
(voter -approved)
Central administrative
staff serve all City
departments
3
No
No*
No*
Uniform/Civilian
Battalion Chiefs rotate
into this position every 3-
4 years
No*
Yes
38% in 2022
City of SeaTac
FD 43 (includes City of
Maple Valley)
No
The RFA could issue
bonds in the future
Admin staff serve the
agency
3
Yes
38.2% in 2022
Fire District 40
No
The RFA could issue
bonds in the future
Admin staff serve the
agency
2
No (in process)
Joint Program with RRFA Joint Program with PSRFA
One CARES Unit One CARES Unit
Yes
Yes
Uniform/Civilian Civilian
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
All 3 agencies do not transport patients except in rare cases when all other
transport units are engaged. Nearly all Basic Life Support transports are made by
private ambulance companies. Advanced Life Support transports are provided by
Medic 1.
No
Yes.
No
Yes
Yes
Yes No
Yes
Yes
*Could be added with additional City funds.
**Four platoon is preferred by staff; it is very difficult to implement in a small department like Tukwila's.
16
96
Table 6: Nine Potential Future Fire/EMS Service Delivery Options Reviewed: Key Differences and Similarities
Options 1-4 (blue cells) are "Tukwila only" options; Options 5-9 (green cells) involve partnering with or being served by another fire agency
Option
Service Provider
Primary Funding Sources
Anticipated Service
Levels
Governance/
Management
Control
Fire Dept.
Employees and
Assets
Voter approval
required?
Option 1:
Status Quo
City of Tukwila
Fire Department
City retains funding
responsibility. General
Fund revenues.
Same
City retains full
control over
management, budget
Remain with
City
No.
City could ask voters to
approve a property tax
levy for Dept.
operations, and/or for
future capital bonds.
Option 2:
Status Quo "Plus"
– Funding for
enhanced services
City of Tukwila
Fire Department.
City retains funding
responsibility. General
Fund revenues,
Enhanced service cost is
approximately $740K a
year, potentially less if
contracted out with one of
the adjacent RFAs.
Enhanced. This
option includes
funding for three
enhanced services:
Fire Marshal Office,
addition of a public
educator position,
and contracting for
a CARES unit
City retains full
control over
management and
budget (except to the
extent enhanced
services are
contracted out)
Remain with
City
No.
City could ask voters to
approve a property tax
levy for Dept.
operations, and/or for
future capital bonds.
Option 3:
Create a Tukwila
Fire District,
funded solely by
property taxes
(no Fire Benefit
Charge)
A new
governmental
entity and taxing
district,
boundaries co-
extensive with
the City limits
Funding responsibility
shifts to the new fire
district. The cost of the fire
department comes off the
City's budget, except City
retains the cost of funding
LEOFF retiree costs, fire
marshal and fire station
debt service ("retained
costs").
The new District would be
funded by a fire levy
(property tax) of up to
$1.50/$1,000 of assessed
value (A.V.), and an excess
As modelled,
enhanced services
were not
included—but they
could be added
with sufficient
funding.
The City Council
could remain as the
governing board,
serving as Fire
District
Commissioners, or
could propose a
structure of five
directly -elected fire
commissioners.
Transferred to
Fire District
Yes
(50%+1)
Excess levies need 60%
voter approval. Will
need periodic voter
support to restore
property tax collections
17
Option
Service Provider
Primary Funding Sources
Anticipated Service
Levels
Governance/
Management
Control
Fire Dept.
Employees and
Assets
Voter approval
required?
levy to support the current
department budget plus
the additional cost of
standing up a new agency
(administrative services
and staffing, reserves, cash
flow).
Option 4:
Create a Tukwila
Fire District,
funded by both
property taxes
and a Fire Benefit
Charge
A new
governmental
entity and taxing
district,
boundaries co-
extensive with
City limits.
Funding responsibility
shifts to the new Fire
District.
The cost of the fire
department comes off the
City's budget, except for
retained costs (see Option
3).
The new District would
impose a fire levy of up to
$1.00 and a fire benefit
charge (a fee, not a tax,
sized to reflect the fire
assets needed to respond
to a fire at physical
structures on property).
Budget would need to
include additional cost of
setting up a new agency
(administration, reserves,
cash flow)
As modelled,
enhanced services
were not
included—but they
could be added
Same as Option 3:
City Council could
remain the governing
board or could
decide that a directly
elected board of
commissioners
should govern.
Transferred to
Fire District
Yes
(60% because an FBC is
included in the
financing model)
Option 5: Partner
with another fire
service provider
to create a
Tukwila Regional
A new govern-
mental entity
and taxing
district. Requires
partnering with
Funding responsibility
shifts to the new RFA. The
cost of the fire department
comes off the City's budget
except for retained costs.
As modelled,
enhanced services
were not
included—but they
could be added
The RFA would have
a governance board
separate from the
City Council. It could
be structured to
Transferred to
RFA
Yes
(60%)
18
Option
Service Provider
Primary Funding Sources
Anticipated Service
Levels
Governance/
Management
Control
Fire Dept.
Employees and
Assets
Voter approval
required?
Fire Authority
(RFA) —with a fire
benefit charge
another fire
agency. Potential
partners include
adjacent fire
districts or cities.
The new RFA funding
would be as in Option 4: a
maximum $1.00 fire levy
and a fire benefit charge
(defined above in Option
4). Budget would need to
include additional cost of
setting up a new agency
(administration, reserves,
cash flow)
include City Council
members or directly
elected
commissioners or a
mix of both.
Representation of
the partner agency
would need to be
considered/added to
the board structure.
Option 6:
Contract for
Service with
Renton Regional
Fire Authority
(RRFA)
RRFA, a separate
municipal
government and
taxing district.
Funding responsibility
remains with City, including
retained costs.
Could seek additional
funding from City voters
through dedicated
property tax levies to pay
for contract costs. Future
capital costs could be bond
funded.
Response times
same as status quo.
Enhanced services
would be offered.
RFA would control
the cost of service
delivery. To reduce
cost, City could opt
out of enhanced
services or seek 3-
station contract (cost
not modelled)
Employees,
apparatus and
equipment
transferred to
RFA. City would
retain stations.
No.
City could ask voters to
approve a property tax
levy for Dept.
operations, and/or for
future capital bonds.
Option 7:
Contract for
Service with
Puget Sound
Regional Fire
Authority (PSRFA)
PSRFA, a
separate
municipal
government and
taxing district
Funding responsibility
remains with City, including
retained costs.
Could seek additional
funding from City voters
through dedicated
property tax levies to pay
for contract costs. Future
capital costs could be bond
funded.
Response times
same as status quo.
Enhanced services
would be offered.
RFA would control
the cost of service
delivery; To reduce
cost, City could opt
out of enhanced
services or seek 3-
station contract (not
modelled)
Employees,
apparatus and
equipment
transferred to
RFA. City would
retain stations.
No.
City could ask voters to
approve a property tax
levy for Dept.
operations, and/or for
future capital bonds.
19
Option
Service Provider
Primary Funding Sources
Anticipated Service
Levels
Governance/
Management
Control
Fire Dept.
Employees and
Assets
Voter approval
required?
Option 8: Annex
into RRFA, after
RRFA. Funding
responsibility
The RRFA is funded by a
maximum fire levy of $1.00
Response times
same as status quo.
The RFA Board
controls service
Employees,
apparatus and
Yes
50%+1
initially
shifts to the RFA
and a fire benefit charge.
Enhanced services
levels and costs. City
equipment
contracting for
when annexation
The cost of the fire
would be offered.
would negotiate for a
transferred to
service
takes effect.
department comes off the
City's budget except for
retained costs.
# of seats on the
governing board.
RFA. Station
ownership
negotiated.
Option 9: Annex
into PSRFA, after
PSRFA. Funding
responsibility
The PSRFA is funded by a
maximum fire levy of $1.00
Response times
same as status quo.
The RFA Board
controls service
Employees,
apparatus and
Yes
50%+1
initially
shifts to the RFA
and a fire benefit charge
Enhanced services
levels and costs. City
equipment
contracting for
when annexation
The cost of the fire
would be offered.
would negotiate for a
transferred to
service
takes effect.
department comes off the
City's budget except for
retained costs.
# of seats on the
governing board.
RFA. Station
ownership
negotiated.
Note: All options are also financially supported by a share of regional EMS levy revenues, and include the ability to charge fees for some services
20
Ten Key Points Underscoring Differences and Similarities between the Nine Options
Before discussing our recommendations there are ten key points that are important to understanding
the similarities and differences between the nine options.
1. Because fire dispatch is regionalized across Zone 3, response times do not change under any
option, so long as that option continues a 4 -station configuration for Tukwila. An integral part
of the City's ability to deliver the current high level of service is the collaboration and integration
of fire/EMS services in south King County. Fire agencies across the south county "Zone 3"
area—which includes Tukwila-- jointly fund and operate firefighter recruitment, firefighter
training, public information officer services, and other aspects of fire service. More importantly,
due to the regionalized dispatch of all fire response units in Zone 3, fire responders from
multiple adjacent fire agencies respond daily to incidents in Tukwila. Similarly, Tukwila fire units
respond daily to events in adjacent jurisdictions. This regionalized deployment of fire/EMS
services is necessary to provide effective response on any major incident in any south County
jurisdiction. In effect, the Zone 3 dispatching protocols integrate all fire agencies into something
like a single fire department for all south King County.
2. Enhanced services can be provided—or not—under any option. The cost of these services is
less if provided by PSRFA or RRFA as compared to the City.
3. RFAs are essentially identical to fire districts in terms of their service authority and revenue
authority. The only difference is that a RFA must involve at least two fire agencies partnering
together to create an RFA, and the RFA statutes provide great flexibility in terms of how the
governance board can be structured as compared to a fire district.
4. A Fire Benefit Charge (FBC) provides important revenue stabilization and service sustainability
for fire agencies—either fire districts or RFAs—but Cities do not have this same authority. The
FBC is not a tax, it is a fee that is based on the fire -response resources needed for different sizes
and types of physical structures. The larger and riskier the structure in the event of a fire, the
higher the FBC. FBCs have proven popular with voters since they come with reduced fire
property taxes and shift costs away from single family residential properties to larger
commercial and multi -family properties. The amount of that cost shift depends on the fire
agency FBC formula. All fire agencies in the state with an FBC use a similar formula but tailor it
each year to adjust how much money is collected in total, and from which property types (single
family, multi family, commercial, etc.).
The FBC is not subject to the 101% collection year-to-year cap that applies to property tax. The
only limit is that FBC collections in a year cannot exceed 60% of the operating budget for the
agency. The FBC must be initially authorized by voters (60% threshold) and after six years must
again be reauthorized by voters – for another six or ten years, or permanently. RRFA has a ten
year FBC in place now; PSRFA has a permanent FBC.
From a fire agency perspective, FBCs are popular because the combination of a $1.00 fire levy
and an FBC can generate more revenue than a $1.50 fire levy alone (the fire levy maximum rate
21
101
is dropped by one-third if the fire agency uses an FBC) and can be adjusted annually to provide
more revenue without going to the voters.
Cities do not have the same statutory ability to implement an FBC as fire agencies: cities can
only use an FBC to fund service enhancements, not other existing fire costs. So, in Tukwila's case,
only the enhanced services or other additions to the budget could be funded by a City FBC.
5. Creating a new taxing jurisdiction/separate municipality requires significant additional cost.
Today, the Fire Department is supported by central city overhead. The costs of that support are
not in the Fire Department's budget. If a new fire agency is created —supported by property
taxes, and possibly a fire benefit charge—it must provide for the staffing and cost of
administration (finance, human resources, information technology, asset management, etc.) as
well as reserves to fund operating and capital expenses and cash flow. This is why Options 3, 4,
and 5 are the most expensive options.
6. Both PSRFA and RRFA boards have a policy position (not a legal requirement) that any agency
that would like to annex to them must first enter into a contract. Annexation requires the
consent of both the RFA and the City and then the approval of City voters. The City cannot force
annexation to happen. As we understand it, the stated reasons for the RFAs' position that a
contract must precede annexation, based on conversations between City administration and
RFA administrators and board members, is to allow the RFA, City government, and city residents
and businesses an opportunity to get to know each other. However, it is worth noting that
because fire dispatch is regionalized, firefighters from across all Zone 3 agencies work together
daily to respond to incidents. Zone 3 agencies have established several regionalized services to
reduce operational costs; Tukwila participates in most, but not all, of these regionalized services
today. Tukwila Fire staff have strong positive relationships with their fellow Zone 3 agency staff.
Late in our deliberations, we were told that the PSRFA Chief was open to a short timeline (1-2
years) for moving from a contract to annexation. In comparison, RRFA spoke to City staff about
wanting a five-year initial contract term before annexation would be considered. We then were
told that PSRFA might be open to exploring directly annexing Tukwila without first having a
contract. The Committee was asked if direct annexation was of interest and we agreed it was—
in fact, this turned out to be our consensus preference as an option. Based on our preliminary
support for this option, the Mayor sent a letter to the PSRFA Board seeking to explore annexing
as a first step (the City Council and Committee received copies of this letter). Unfortunately, the
PSRFA Board declined to open up a discussion with the City on this possibility at this time.
7. Contracting for service involves transferring the City's fire employees and assets (excluding
stations) to the new contract service provider. There are both advantages and disadvantages
to contracting. The biggest risk we see is that it is a one-way street: it will be extremely difficult,
if not impossible to reconstitute a City Fire department in the future. Even moving to a new
contract service provider or annexing to a different agency would be much more difficult as all
the assets and personnel needed to serve Tukwila would be in ownership of the first contract
agency. While it would be possible to transfer assets, it is unclear how firefighters could be
22
102
moved from the contract agency back to Tukwila. The current SeaTac-PSRFA contract has a
term requiring SeaTac, in the event it terminates the contract in the first 15 years, to rehire any
firefighters laid off by the RFA as a result (up to the minimum staffing requirement) "if the clty
has sufficient resources." It is not clear that a laid -off firefighter could be compelled to take the
job so offered, or how the "sufficiency of resources" would be determined. That said, if there
could be a near term move to annexation, the risk of needing to reconstitute a fire department
could be minimized. And, to the extent the City prefers annexation as the ultimate outcome, it
appears that contracting is currently the only bridge to accomplish that.
8. In any option that shifts funding off the City's Budget (including Options 3,4,5,8 and 9), the
City will need to take steps to concurrently reduce its taxes in order to keep the cost of these
options manageable for residents and businesses. If the City can eliminate over $12+ million
from its budget, there will be an important policy choice for the Council. We would be very
opposed to any of these options if the City made no reductions in its budget. Should taxes be
reduced by this same amount as the Fire Department budget? Should some amount be
retained for other City purposes—particularly given the financial pressure on the City? We do
not have a recommendation on these questions.
9. In any option where the City remains responsible to fund Fire/EMS costs (including Options 1,
2, 6 and 7) the City could seek voter support for additional funding. This would likely take the
form of a voter approved levy lid lift.
10. All costs shown are preliminary estimates. Cost is an important consideration, but the cost
information we have is preliminary. Several corrections were made to the cost comparison data
just over the course of our work. While PSRFA and RRFA both submitted an estimated cost for
Tukwila to contract for services, those estimates are subject to negotiation. Similarly, for
annexation, we have estimates of the cost and impact by building sector, of both the PSRFA and
RRFA FBCs if they were applied to Tukwila properties; this FBC information, however, needs
further detailed review to ensure it is accurate and complete.
Committee Deliberations on the Options
After having been presented with all nine fire/EMS service options, we began our deliberations. We
started by completing an online survey in which we rated each option in terms of how well it meets each
of the eight criteria we agreed upon, and how we felt about each option overall. We did this individually
after our eighth meeting, and then reconvened to review and discuss the survey results together at
meeting nine. The results of the survey (completed by 10 of 12 committee members) are presented at
Attachment E in three parts: (1) the raw data with our comments; (2) a series of bar charts showing how
each option fared in terms of meeting each of the eight criteria; and (3) a one-page table summarizing
the results. Option 9 (Annexing into PSRFA after first contracting) was the highest rated option. Table 7
summarizes some of the key data points relevant to us in completing the survey as they relate to our
eight criteria.
After reviewing the survey results and discussing them at our ninth meeting, an iteration of Option 9 –
direct annexation to PSRFA without first contracting -- was rated the highest. At the point of our
23
103
deliberations (and when we completed the survey) we were waiting to hear whether "annexation first"
might in fact be an option. Following this round of deliberations where we reached consensus to
support direct annexation to PSRFA, it was confirmed that this remains off the table for now. Annexing
to either PSRFA or RRFA will, under their current policies, require that we first contract for service.
Committee's Preferred Outcome: Direct Annexation into PSRFA
Our initial preferred option — with consensus level (80% +) support from Committee members-- is for
the City to directly annex into PSRFA. Our reasons are outlined below. As noted, this does not appear
to be a realistic option at this time. Instead, the only path to annexing appears to be through a contract
first. A couple of potential downsides of annexing—other than the fact that this does not appear to be
an available option at this time—are noted in italics.
Ability of provider to meet needs of a diverse community
• As community diversity increases, particularly along our shared border with SeaTac, it will be
helpful to have a single agency providing these services.
• PSRFA offers all three enhanced services
Ability of provider to meet needs of a larger business community
• PSRFA has the enhanced FMO services that our business community wants and should have.
Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses
• Although the estimates are preliminary, this is one of the lower cost options we looked at and it
provides the enhanced services. Based on preliminary cost information, it is expected to be
equivalent to annexing into RRFA and less expensive than the status quo with enhanced
services.
• There could be a significant opportunity for cost savings over time if PSRFA were able to
relocate and expand Station 54 to serve not just Tukwila but also North SeaTac. We expect this
would only be undertaken if it could be demonstrated to have no detrimental impact on
response times.
• It is essential to understand that unless the City takes steps to reduce the City Budget after the
costs of the Fire Department are transferred to the PSRFA we would not support this option
because it would result in a very large tax increase. By what means, and in what amount the
City rolls back its taxes and fees, are key policy decisions associated with annexation.
Impact on the fire department labor force, recruitment, and retention
• Moving to PSRFA is the Fire Department staff's preferred outcome.
• Labor's support will be needed in any transition.
• Tukwila and PSRFA Unions have met and identified no issues in their CBA's if they were to
merge.
• Moving to PSRFA provides more opportunities for advancement for our firefighters and will
increase their salary, benefits, and shift staffing pattern.
104
24
Table 7: Comparing How Options 1-9 Address the Eight Criteria (Page 1 of 2)
Committee Identified
Criteria
2022 Est. Fire/EMS
Service Costs (excluding
City retained costs)'
Option 1
Option 2
Status Quo Status Quo +
Enhanced Services'
$14.2M $15M
City retained costs under
this option'
$2.13M $2.13M
Ability of provider to
meet needs of diverse
community/ large
business community
Option 1 doesn't
include enhanced
services.
Option 3
Tukwila Fire District—
funded only with
property taxes; City
Council as governing
board
$17.9M3
$3.03M
Option 4
Tukwila Fire District—
property tax and FBC
City Council as
governing board
$17.9M3
$3.03M
Same for all options if enhanced services are funded.
Total costs, considering
both costs to residents
and businesses
Mix of city revenues used to fund the Fire
Department
Costs allocated based
solely on property
values
Option 5
Tukwila RFA –
property tax & FBC;
Shared governing
board, City majority
$17.9M3
$3.03M
Costs will be funded primarily through property
tax but some costs will be shifted to larger,
riskier structures through the FBC
Impact on Labor Essentially same in all options 1-5; labor supports providing the enhanced services
Oversight Control,
accountability
Service Levels
Financial Sustainability
City controls
City Controls
Current Current + Enhanced
Services
Impacts general fund
departments unless
new revenue added
Impacts general fund
departments
unless new revenue
added
City controls
Higher risk of service
cuts due to property
tax reliance
Relies on strong
ongoing voter support
for prop. tax "lid lifts,"
excess levies
City controls
Current levels funded,
more stable with FBC
included
More stable than
current. Ongoing voter
support needed for lid
lifts and FBC renewal
Shared control
Current levels funded,
more stable with FBC
included.
More stable than
current. Ongoing voter
support needed for lid
lifts, FBC renewal
1. Enhanced services include a shared CARES unit, 2 additional FMO staff, and a public education program.
2. Retained costs differ by option. In Options 3,4,5,8 and 9 the City needs to contract back for FMO services; the cost of this service differs depending on
the provider (Tukwila staff, RRFA or PSRFA). Other retained costs include debt service on fire stations and LEOFF 1 retiree payments.
3. Options 3, 4 and 5 are more expensive due to the need to stand up a new administrative structure, fund reserves and provide for cash flow.
Administrative cost estimates in these options are likely underestimated.
25
Table 7: Comparing How Options 1-9 Address the Eight Criteria (Page 2 of 2)
Option 6 Option 7 Option 8 Option 9
Contract for Service with Renton
RFA
2022 Est. Costs of
Fire/EMS service (excl.
retained costs)
$14.56M
(based on bid estimate
submitted by RRFA)
Contract for Service with
Puget Sound RFA
$14.9M
(based on bid estimate
submitted by PSRFA)
Annexation into Renton RFA
$14.4M
(assuming $0.90 fire levy; FBC
data needs additional review)
Annexation into Puget Sound
RFA
$14.2M
(assuming $0.90 fire levy; FBC
data needs additional review)
2022 Est. City retained
costs (see footnote 2)
$2.13M
$2.13M
$2.74M $2.97M
Ability of provider to
meet needs of diverse
community/ large
business community
Includes enhanced services
Includes enhanced services
Includes enhanced services Includes enhanced services
Total costs, Paid for by mix of City revenues
considering both costs as is the current fire dept.
to residents and
businesses
Paid for by mix of City
revenues as is the current
fire dept.
Paid for by mix of fire levy and
fire benefit charge. FBC formula
is currently very similar to PSRFA
FBC.
Paid for by mix of fire levy and
fire benefit charge.
FBC formula currently is very
similar to RRFA FBC formula.
Impact on Labor
Fire Dept employees become
RRFA employees. RRFA currently
pays less than Tukwila or PSRFA
except at senior levels, but labor
negotiations ongoing. RRFA must
make several adjustments to its
collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) to bring on Tukwila.
Fire Dept employees
become PSRFA employees.
PSRFA currently pays more
than Tukwila or RRFA.
Fire Dept employees will already
be RRFA employees if contract
for service precedes annexation.
RRFA will have to make several
adjustments to its CBA o bring
on Tukwila.
Fire Dept employees will already
be PSRFA employees if contract
for service precedes annexation.
If annexation is the first move,
employees become PSRFA
employees upon annexation.
PSRFA currently pays more than
RRFA or Tukwila.
Oversight Control,
accountability
City controls which services it
purchases; RFA controls delivery
and cost of the service
City controls which services
it purchases; RFA controls
delivery and cost of the
service
City would have some seats on
the RFA board which makes
budget and service level
decisions; (# of seats to be
negotiated)
City would have some seats on
the RFA board which makes
budget and service level
decisions; (# of seats to be
negotiated)
Service Levels
Response times unchanged;
enhanced services offered
Response times unchanged; RFA Board controls service RFA Board controls service
enhanced services offered levels & taxpayer cost. RFA now levels & taxpayer cost. RFA now
provides the enhanced services provides the enhanced services
Financial Sustainability
Unchanged from status quo: City
retains cost risk and
responsibility
Unchanged from status
quo: City retains cost risk
and responsibility
More stable than current; FBC
will need voter support to
renew in 10 years; levy lid lift
vote expected in 1-3 years
More stable than current. FBC is
permanently authorized. Fire
levy was lifted in 2019 and has
inflation adjustor.
26
Control over operational and financial decisions
• The City may welcome the ability to transfer control of the Fire Department given how many
other issues are on its plate.
• The City will have less control in this option than in the status quo, but the City would expect to
have some seats on the PSRFA governing board (though not a controlling number of seats).
Overall quality of services (response times and more)
• PSRFA is an accredited agency, which speaks to its high level of service. To maintain that
accreditation, the PSRFA must continue to provide high service levels and conduct rigorous data
collection to verify its continued qualifications.
• The agency has reserves and plans for future apparatus, equipment, and station replacement.
• PSRFA hosts all of the regionalized Zone 3 programs.
Accountability for outcomes/ability to measure outcomes
• PSFRA must undertake rigorous data collection and reports to ensure it retains its accredited
status.
Sustainability of funding
• Annexing would remove the cost of the Fire Department from the City Budget (except for fire
marshal services which would be contracted)
• PSRFA has a permanent FBC (approved by voters in 2021)
• Voters in the PSRFA approved a restoration of the fire levy in 2019
• The downside to a permanent FBC is that it gives the RFA a lot of revenue generating capability
without needing to ask for voter support.
The Committee's Preferred Option absent the ability to directly annex into PSRFA: Contract
with PSRFA as a Bridge to Annexation
While there are downsides to a service contract, on balance the Committee's consensus view is that
the City should immediately engage in negotiations with PSRFA to secure a service contract with that
agency as a bridge to near-term annexation. Essentially, we are recommending Options 7 and 9
together. The cost of a service contract with PSRFA is subject to negotiation. Based on current
information, a contract will be slightly more expensive than the current Fire Department cost but would
offer all three priority service enhancements to the Tukwila community, specifically, a strongly staffed
fire marshal office, a public education program, and access to the services of a CARES unit. We
understand the Fire Department union leadership strongly supports moving to a contract for service
with PSRFA, with the ultimate objective of annexation.
The timeline is short to complete a contract negotiation. PSRFA has said it will want a firm direction on
whether the City wishes to enter a service contract no later than July 15, 2022, and that contract
negotiations must be complete by September 1 for a service contract starting January 2023. PSRFA has
further indicated there is no commitment to engage in these service contract discussions with Tukwila
next year if this timeline cannot be met.
27
107
While this timeline is a challenge, we think the negotiations could be completed relatively quickly, given
the alignment of the two labor unions and all the work that has been undertaken in the last few months
to secure and review a contract bid from PSRFA.
The Committee does not support a long-term service contract with PSRFA. The lack of control over
costs, the lack of a vote on the PSRFA governing board, and the lack of any additional City revenues to
support contract cost increases, are very concerning aspects of a long-term fire/EMS service contract.
For a short time, these downsides seem manageable. We understand that annexation cannot be
guaranteed if we enter a contract (future board/council decisions and a vote of the people are needed),
so the City should negotiate carefully. For all the reasons outlined above, we believe annexation in the
near term is the best outcome. The service contract is the necessary bridge to near-term annexation.
Because of this, we strongly encourage the City to ensure that any fire/EMS service contract with PSRFA
includes a commitment by both parties to work towards placing an annexation ballot measure before
the City's voters as soon as practicable.
Committee Member Peggy McCarthy does not support this recommendation, for the reasons outlined in
her minority statement appended at the back of this report.
Benefits and Disadvantages of all Options, in summary
Option 1: Status Quo The main benefit of this option is that it doesn't require any change (assuming the
City continues to find funds for current services). Disadvantages however are that the financial
challenges that prompted this whole effort remain unaddressed unless the City secures voter approval
for additional revenue. Other downsides include the missed opportunities around regionalization, and
the fact that the Fire Department labor force strongly desires a change to PSRFA.
Option 2: Status Quo Plus Enhanced Services. The main benefit of this option is that it secures
additional services that would benefit the community – but we can support this only if the City secures
additional revenues to fund them. The request for additional revenues could be expanded to support
Fire Department operations in general, addressing the financial sustainability issue. Downsides are the
same as Option 1.
Option 3: Tukwila Fire Department Funded with Property Taxes (No FBC). The main benefits of this
option are that it gets the Fire Department off the City's budget, and the City could retain control over
the new agency if the City Council is the governance board. The downsides are financial: the current
Fire Department budget cannot be maintained with the maximum $1.50/$1,000 A.V. fire levy (the 2022
fire budget, without central overhead costs, equates to $1.80/$1,000 A.V. property tax). This option
would be heavily dependent on 60% voter approval of excess levies to maintain service levels. The other
financial downside is the additional cost necessary to stand up a new agency with administrative staffing
and support costs, plus the cost of funding reserves each year, plus the cost of working capital (needed
in the months between receipt of property taxes from the County.) This option also simply reconstitutes
the existing City department in a new government—it does not advance regionalization.
Option 4: Tukwila Fire Department Funded with Property Taxes and an FBC. The main benefits of this
option are that it gets the Fire Department off the City's budget, and the City could retain control over
the new agency if the City Council is the governance board. The advantages are the financial
sustainability of an FBC—which the City cannot deploy under current state law (an effort to change the
28
108
law this year in Olympia was unsuccessful but could be attempted in future sessions). Like Options 3
and 5, another disadvantage is the higher total cost since the new agency will require administrative
staffing and services, reserves, and cash flow.
Option 5: Tukwila Regional Fire Authority. The main benefit of this is the same as Option 4: the
department comes off the City budget. One difference is that governance control would need to be
shared with the RFA partner agency (the City alone cannot create an RFA). The partner modelled is a
practically defunct fire district a few blocks in size, already served by the City, that is about to be
dissolved by the state. Other potential partners include adjacent fire districts including those serving
the Burien and West Hill areas — but neither of those agencies are currently interested in pursuing this
option. This option otherwise shares the financial sustainability advantages of Option 4. Some
advantages of regionalization could be secured if the City partnered with another functional fire district
to create the RFA. Like Options 3 and 4, a disadvantage is the higher total cost since the new agency will
require administrative staffing and services, reserves, and cash flow.
Option 6: Contract for Service from RRFA. The benefits of this option are that it appears to be one of
the least expensive options. The initial estimate from the RRFA for a contract is slightly less expensive
than the PSRFA contract, but some sizeable costs are missing from this estimate, including the cost of
dispatch services, capital reserve funding, and the cost of bringing on the Tukwila labor force at pay
rates ensuring no salary decrease. This option would be a necessary precedent to annexing with the
RRFA. The downsides of this option are first, under a contract, the City loses financial control, and it
cannot reconstitute the Fire Department if the contract proves unacceptable over time. Second, the
ability to implement this option is uncertain: it will require a negotiation to integrate the two existing
labor forces which may or may not succeed. Third, this option does not address the City's financial
sustainability challenge — unless voters approved a special levy to support the cost of the contract.
Option 7: Contract for Service from PSRFA. The benefits of this option are that it also appears to be one
of the least expensive options, although the bid estimate is somewhat higher than the RRFA bid. This
option is a necessary precented to our preferred option: annexation to the PSRFA. The labor issues in
Option 6 and 8 are minimal, as the Tukwila and PSRFA Unions have met and identified no issues in their
CBA's if they were to merge. The downsides of this option are that the City loses financial control and
cannot reconstitute the Fire Department if the contract proves unacceptable. The option does not
address the City's financial concerns unless voters are asked to approve a special levy to support the
cost of the contract. This City's firefighters most prefer an outcome in which they become employees of
PSRFA.
Option 8: Annexing to RRFA after initially contracting for service. The benefits of this option are that it
gets the Fire Department off the City's budget, and firefighters prefer to move to an RFA as their
employer rather than remain at the City. Annexing to RRFA is estimated to cost just slightly more than
annexing to PSRFA but these are very preliminary numbers. The major downsides are the risk of the
initial contracting period (discussed in Option 6), and the whole annexation process itself. The City
would have very little leverage in the annexation negotiation and annexation is contingent upon
approval of the RRFA Board, the City Council, and ultimately, the voters.
Option 9: Annexing to PSRFA after initially contracting for service. Like Option 8, the benefits of this
option are that it gets the Fire Department off the City's budget, and firefighters prefer to move to an
RFA as their employer rather than remain at the City. Annexing to PSFA is estimated to cost just slightly
29
109
less than annexing to RRFA but these are very preliminary numbers. The major downsides are the risk of
the initial contracting period (discussed in Option 7), and the whole annexation process itself. As in
Option 8, the City would have very little leverage in the annexation negotiation and annexation is
contingent upon approval of the PSRFA Board, the City Council, and ultimately, the voters.
VIII. Public Engagement Strategies the City Should Consider as Part of its
Deliberations Following Delivery of this Report
Committee members completed a homework assignment between meetings to develop
recommendations on this issue—the fifth task in our mission. Our individual views here are strongly
aligned. That said, we are not experts in public communications, so our input is at a fairly high level.
First, we believe the community will be interested in learning about the future for the fire department,
especially if the recommendation is to make a significant change from the current operating model.
Second, we think the Community should be educated about the several items, including but not limited
to:
• The cost/financial impact of any proposed change. If the proposed action will cost more
(overall, or to a segment of the community), what are the associated benefits?
• Details of the changes proposed and how it will affect residents and businesses
• Impacts on service levels, response times
• Why is a change being proposed?
• Some background on how the fire department operates today and the services it provides
Third, we encourage the City to use a wide array of strategies to engage the community, potentially
including some or all of the following:
• Town Hall meetings
• Social media
• Flyers/direct mail/letters to residents and businesses
• Tukwila blog posts
• Tukwila news outlets articles
• Providing information flyers at community gathering places, such as mosques and churches.
• Communication through councilmembers
IX. Conclusion
Tukwila residents and businesses are fortunate to receive a very high level of Fire/EMS services today
from the Fire Department. We have four fire stations serving our small City, two of which were
completely rebuilt just two years ago with the proceeds of City voter -approved bonds. The City is
funding ongoing needs for apparatus and equipment replacement. We have dedicated firefighters on
110
30
staff, and they operate using a relatively new inventory of fire apparatus and equipment; the City
continues to invest in these assets each year. Largely because of the large number of fire stations in the
City, we enjoy the fastest "first unit on scene" response time in all of South King County.
High-quality fire/EMS service is expensive to provide, and in response to this we have seen extensive
regionalization of these services across south King County in the last 15 years. Tukwila benefits from
many aspects of this regionalization but remains a relatively small, stand-alone fire service, one of only
seven cities in the County operating a fire department today.
The City has many options in terms of how Fire/EMS services are provided in the future. We were
presented with nine options for consideration and examined each of these in detail. General Fund
budget challenges increase the importance of exploring these options. That said, the City's financial
challenges cannot be wholly laid at the door of the Fire Department.
Each of the options we reviewed have benefits and drawbacks. Based on the information we have been
provided, and the eight criteria we identified as most relevant to making a choice among these options,
our consensus preferred option is to annex directly to PSRFA. Unfortunately, direct annexation does not
appear to be something either PSRFA or RRFA are willing to consider at this time.
In light of this reality, our recommendation to the City is to capture the opportunity before us and
immediate seek to enter into a service contract with PSRFA as a bridge to near-term annexation.
While cost is a very important consideration in making a choice of what to do, financial estimates of
each option are preliminary and will change over time and upon closer examination. And cost is only one
of the eight criteria we identify as being important. We encourage the City to consider all eight criteria
presented.
We thank the City Council for the opportunity to serve on this Committee. It was a very challenging
effort and involved the review and consideration of a great amount of information. We are grateful to
the City administration and Fire Department for their support of our efforts. We look forward to
discussing our recommendations with you.
Minority Statement by Committee Member Peggy McCarthy
Annexing into the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority is not the best solution for the City's fire service. If
this were done, one of Tukwila's fire stations would close. The PSRFA communicated during both the
2021/2022 Fire Advisory study and the 2015 study its intent to reduce the number of Tukwila fire stations
from 4 to 3 if annexation occurs. Fire Station 52 on Tukwila Hill has been the target for reduced fire
services in the past and is a likely candidate for closure. All four of the City's fire stations need to remain
open and operational to safeguard Tukwila residents, businesses, and property. Fire danger continues to
intensify and density within the city continues to increase exacerbating the need for fire services.
Annexing would mean control over all Tukwila fire service decisions would transfer outside the city,
including decisions on levels of service and the cost of services. These decisions would be made by the
voting members of the PSRFA governance board, comprised currently of three City of Kent council
members and three King County Fire District 37 representatives. This Board would decide the fire benefit
charge assessed on Tukwila property and as needed, place measures for property tax increases on the
ballot, with Tukwila property subject to these tax increases. With 71,209 registers voters in Kent as
opposed to 11,206 in Tukwila, a ballot measure could easily pass even if Tukwila voters opposed it.
Tukwila's potential representation on the Board would be a minority position and insufficient to change
a majority vote. Thus, the Tukwila community would have little say in the level of fire services received
or the cost of these services.
Lastly, annexing would be a permanent decision. There is no going back. Although annexing would
provide a funding source for fire services outside the City's general fund, the cost to taxpayers and the
loss of control over fire service decisions outweigh this benefit. Annexation is not the optimal solution.
Contracting with the PSRFA as a first step to annexation is not the best solution for the Tukwila fire services
either. Annexation is not guaranteed. It is subject to approval by both the PSRFA Board and the Tukwila
voters. If annexation doesn't happen, the City would have no other choice than to continue contracting
for fire services from PSRFA, regardless of the cost or degree of satisfaction. Reconstituting the fire
department or contracting with another fire authority would be difficult and therefore not considered an
option.
The best solution for obtaining additional funding for fire services, retaining control within the Tukwila
community over fire service decisions, and providing Tukwila firefighters with governance dedicated
solely to fire services is to form a Tukwila Fire District, funded by a fire benefit charge (FBC) and property
taxes. Creating a Tukwila Fire Authority by joining the Tukwila Fire Department with the small, inactive
fire district currently served by the Department is another option that meets these goals. Lastly, if change
of governance is not a goal, then continuation of the Tukwila Fire Department with an ask to the Tukwila
voters for additional fire service funding is another good solution.
32
112
Attachments
# Title Page
A Committee Member Names and Affiliations A-1
B Staff and Consultant Support Team A-2
C Templates describing all Nine Options A-3
D Estimated 2022 Costs of the Nine Options A-38
E Results of Informal Committee Survey Evaluating A-40
Options as against the Eight Criteria and Overall
33
113
Attachment A
City of Tukwila
Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Committee Members and Affiliations
Member
Affiliation
Sally Blake
Resident
Jim Davis
General Manager, DoubleTree Suites by Hilton, Seattle-
Airport-Southcenter
Katrina Dohn
Resident
Ramona Grove
Resident
Hien Kieu (Vice -Chair)
Executive Director, Partners in Employment (PIE)
Peggy McCarthy
Resident
Jovita McConnell
Resident
Ben Oliver
President and CEO, Starfire Sports, Tukwila
Andy Reiswig
Director, Facilities, Physical Security & Real Estate, BECU
Dennis Robertson
Resident
Abdullahi Shakul
Resident
Verna Seal (Chair)
Resident
A-1
114
Attachment B
Committee Support Team
Name
Title
Allan Ekberg
Mayor
David Cline
City Administrator
Vicky Carlsen
Finance Director
Jay Wittwer
Fire Chief
Norm Golden
Deputy Fire Chief
James Booth
IAFF Local 2088 President
Jake Berry
Public Safety Analyst
Laurel Humphrey
Legislative Analyst
Bill Cushman
Fire Agency Strategic Financial Planner
Karen Reed
Facilitator, Karen Reed Consulting LLC
A-2
115
ATTACHMENT C: TEMPLATES DESCRIBING ALL NINE OPTIONS
The attached templates were developed for and shared with the Committee to introduce the nine
future Fire/EMS options considered.
The "Attachment A" referenced in these templates is presented as ATTACHMENT D to this report.
116
A-3
Option 1: Status Quo
Service Provider: City of Tukwila Fire Department
Brief description of option:
• City retains the Fire Department and maintains current service levels as community grows.
• City could either continue to cut other departments to maintain service levels, or, to relieve
funding pressure on other City departments and fund growth in costs of fire service, the City
could pursue a variety of options, including:
(1) a voter -approved general fund property tax "levy lid lift" to support all general fund
services; and/or
(2) A voter- approved levy lid lift dedicated to support the fire department.
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes))
• Tukwila is a city, a general purpose government responsible to provide a variety of services.
The current city property tax rate is $2.18 per $1,000 A.V. The City does not impose a fire
benefit charge. The City also collects a variety of other taxes and can also charge fees for many
services.
Timeframe: Earliest date on which this option could be implemented.
• N/A, except to the extent additional voter -approved funding is recommended.
• If additional funding is recommended, a ballot measure can be submitted for voter approval at
any election; new taxes are imposed effective January of the following calendar year. It would
usually take several months to develop a plan for the resolution and engage in the public
education effort in advance of the election.
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
etc.)
• No action to maintain existing department.
• Additional funding could be secured by cutting other department budgets or seeking additional
voter -approved funds.
o Council action required to place a property tax "lid lift' before the voters—raising the
"lid" on the property tax rate above the 1% cap. Lid lifts typically require simple
majority approval; they can be permanent or time limited; funds generated may be
limited to certain purposes (fire/EMS) or general city purposes; time limited levies may
also include an annual inflation adjustment. See ATTACHMENT B
Current service metrics for service provider (response times)
In 2020:
Fire turnout out time goal: under 3:01. Met 93.8% of the time.
EMS turnout time goal: under2:38. Met 89.2% of the time.
Fire response time (combination of turnout and travel time) goal under 7:59. Met 86.2% of time
EMS response time goal: under7:52. Met 86.3% of time
A-4
117
Enhanced Services Options: staffing /cost
• N/A—the status quo model assumes no enhanced services.
Operational Model options: Considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost and
service implications, implementation issues
As raised in the CPSM report, it is possible for the City to reduce the number of fire stations from 4 to 3
to save money with a modest impact on response times. Precise response time impacts have not been
modelled and would depend upon whether there were corresponding reductions in staffing / available
units staffed. Community concerns could be anticipated from any station closure.
Closure of a fire station, reduction in staffing and reduction in the number of response units on duty
would all require union agreement; staffing level reductions are likely to be strongly opposed by the
union. Without a reduction in staffing, savings from a station closure would be relatively modest.
Summary of estimated costs: cost components, estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers
See ATTACHMENT A
Staffing Implications
The status quo model would continue current staffing.
Facilities & Equipment —disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployed?
N/A
City is planning to issue $30M in bonds in 2027 to fund remodel of the remaining 2 city fire stations
(Stations 53 and 54) The bonds will require voter approval.
Oversight/Control — how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions affecting
Tukwila going forward?
Under this option, the Mayor and City Council remain full oversight authority over the department
operations and funding
Summary of implications of this option
Cost: As modelled in the financial plan, the cost of the status quo option is expected to increase 3.2%
on average per year over the next 7 years. This compares to a historical growth rate in City general
fund revenues of 3%/year. Without additional revenue, the status quo option will require ongoing
cuts/efficiencies in other (?) departments in order to fund the Fire Department at the current level of
service.
The City does have the ability to seek voter approval for property tax increases to fund part or all of the
fire departments costs going forward—or to support any or all general fund departments.
In addition, the City is considering seeking voter approval of $30M (approx.) in bonds in 2026 from
voters (tax collections would start in 2027) to fund remodeling of Stations 53 and 54.
Service Levels: The current service levels are among the best in South County, in terms of response
times. This is largely due to the number of fire stations in the City.
A-5
118
Oversight/Management Control: The cost and level of service offered by the department are fully
under the control of the City Council and Mayor, excepting that changes to working conditions must be
negotiated with the fire union.
Other: The City currently participates in several regional cost-sharing programs for fire service. There
may be future opportunities to increase cost-sharing, however, as a standalone department, there are
limits to the economies of scale that the City can secure.
Risks/Major Unkowns: The City is financially healthy, but unanticipated events—such as the damage
to the Allentown Bridge—force reprioritization of planned expenditures.
The City bears the cost risk associated with changes in fire department operating requirements.
Attachment B (presented after Option 2): Ways to increase funding for Fire Department.
A-6
119
Option 2: Status Quo "Plus" — Funding for enhanced services (v. 4.6.22)
Service Provider: City of Tukwila Fire Department
Brief description of option:
City retains the Fire Department and enhances service levels in (up to) three areas:
1. Fire Marshal (providing permit review, fire inspection, fire investigation services). Existing
division has 4 employees; proposals including adding 1 to 3 additional FTE.
2. Public Education (providing education about fire prevention and fire safety in the
community). Proposal includes adding 1 FTE to perform this function.
3. CARES unit. A low -acuity incident response unit. Because the City has so few calls of this
nature, the proposal is to partner with adjacent service providers in the operation and
funding.
These service adds combined cost approximately $791K in 2022, increasing to just over $956K by
2028, equivalent to an addition $0.09 to $0.10/per $1,000 in assessed value in property tax; These
programs could not be supported without reducing other City department budgets or securing
additional revenues.
If the City chose to seek new revenue to specifically fund the service adds, a voter -approved levy lid
lift is one funding option. That lid could also include authority to support other fire department costs.
(See Attachment B)
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes))
• Tukwila is a city, a general purpose government responsible to provide a variety of services.
The current city property tax rate is $2.18 per $1,000 A.V. The City does not impose a fire
benefit charge. The City also collects a variety of other taxes and can also charge fees for
many services.
Timeframe: Earliest date on which this option could be implemented
Additional funding to support fire and other general fund services can be submitted for voter
approval at any election, with the property taxes imposed starting the following January.
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
etc.)
Council could impose cuts on other departments to fund these additional services. Alternately,
additional funding could be secured by cutting other department budgets or seeking additional funds.
Council action required to place a lid lift before the voters. Lid lifts typically require simple majority
approval; they can be permanent or time limited; time limited levies may also include an annual
inflation adjustment.
Current service metrics for service provider (response times) —
See Option 1.
A-7
120
The proposed enhanced services will not change the current service targets or outcomes in terms of
response times; they are designed to provide other benefits to the community.
Enhanced Services Options: All enhanced services are funded in this Option.
• Public Education – one FTE to provide education about fire safety in schools.
• CARES – one FTE would support this unit with one-third of his/her time. This is proposed as a
shared expense with adjacent fire service providers.
• Fire Marshal—up to three FTEs. Each FTE would cost approximately 154K in 2022.
Operational Model options: Considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost and
service implications
See Option 1 discussion.
Summary of estimated costs: cost components / estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers
See Attachment A.
Service/Performance Levels proposed
There are no specific service levels associated with the three enhanced service programs.
Staffing Implications
Addition of all three programs at the maximum level would add 4 FTE; the partial FTE for the CARES
unit would be an employee with a partner agency.
Attachment A models the Fire Marshal Office staffing with 2 additional FTE, rather than 3.
Facilities & Equipment –disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployed?
Additional vehicles and equipment would be provided fore each additional fire inspector and for the
public educator. These costs are included in the cost estimates.
Oversight/Control – how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions
affecting Tukwila going forward?
Same as for Option 1 (status quo), excepting that the CARES unit would be jointly -funded with other
agencies and so decisions around future funding/staffing would require agreement of those partners.
Summary of implications of this option in terms of service level, oversight, cost.
Cost: The cost for all enhanced programs, at the maximum staffing (3 additional for Fire Marshal
Office) is approximately $791K in 2022, growing to an estimated $956K in 2028. This would be added
to the status quo Option 1 cost.
A-8
121
Adding these services without additional revenue will increase pressure for cost cutting and
efficiencies on other City departments.
Note: based on later received information from the RFAs about what they would charge Tukwila to
contract for a CARES unit, the cost of the CARES unit (and the total enhanced services cost estimate)
can be reduced by an estimated $167K.
Service Levels: Each enhanced service program proposed provides different additional services to the
community. Addition of these programs is not expected to change response times.
Oversight/Management Control: The Mayor and Council retain control over this option, subject to
negotiation as required with the union.
Other:
Risks/Major unknowns: There is a risk that the CARES unit regional funding contribution, estimated
to offset about 1/3 or $100K of the CARES unit annual cost, could be eliminated.
Attachment B: Discussion of Funding Alternatives
Attachment C: Detail on Projected Cost of Enhanced Services, 2022-2028
122
A-9
Option 2, Attachment B
Subject: Options to increase funding, with voter approval, to fully the fire department and not
reduce services in other departments -- and/or providing funding to increase/enhance services
provided by the fire department.
Options include:
Voter approved excess property tax levy
o For capital funding
o Requires 60% voter approval plus validation (minimum turnout of voters
threshold must be met) for passage
o Taxes collected to pay debt
o Taxpayers who qualify for senior citizen/disabled person are exempted from this
tax
Voter approved levy lid lift
o Typically used for operational funding
o Simple majority vote for approval
o Time limited (6 -years, permanent)
o Would allow the City to increase the regular property tax levy more than 1%
o Cannot exceed maximum levy limit
o Taxpayers who qualify for senior citizen/disabled person may be exempted from
this tax
How much money could be raised? Here are some quick rules of thumb:
Based on the City's current assessed value of $8.031 billion,
• Each penny increase in the property tax levy rate will generate approximately $80,000 in
additional property tax revenue. A parcel of real property with an assessed value of
$500,000, would see a $5 increase in the annual property tax bill for every penny
increase in the property tax.
• A 10 -cent increase in property tax would generate approximately $800,000 in additional
revenue in a year, and that same parcel valued at $500,000 would realize a $50 annual
increase in property tax.
A-1 0
123
Option 2 Table C: Estimated Cost of Enhanced Services (this information is pulled from the Financial Strategic Plan presented at Mtg. 2)
Enhanced Services
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Public Educator
115,313
119,003
122,811
126,741
130,796
134,982
139,301
Pub Ed Supplies (1)
5,000
2,500
2,550
2,601
2,653
2,706
2,760
Pub Ed Vehicles M&O
2,500
2,550
2,601
2,653
2,706
2,760
2,815
122,813
124,053
127,962
131,995
136,155
140,448
144,877
Fire Inspector 1
145,090
154,231
159,166
164,260
169,516
174,941
180,539
Inspector 1 Supplies
6,000
3,000
3,060
3,121
3,184
3,247
3,312
Inspector 1 Vehicle
2,500
2,550
2,601
2,653
2,706
2,760
2,815
153,590
159,781
164,827
170,034
175,406
180,948
186,666
Fire Inspector 2
145,090
154,231
159,166
164,260
169,516
174,941
180,539
Inspector 2 Supplies
6,000
3,000
3,060
3,121
3,184
3,247
3,312
Inspector 2 Vehicle
2,500
2,550
2,601
2,653
2,706
2,760
2,815
153,590
159,781
164,827
170,034
175,406
180,948
186,666
Fire Inspector 3
145,090
154,231
159,166
164,260
169,516
174,941
180,539
Inspector 3 Supplies
6,000
3,000
3,060
3,121
3,184
3,247
3,312
Inspector 3 Vehicle
2,500
2,550
2,601
2,653
2,706
2,760
2,815
153,590
159,781
164,827
170,034
175,406
180,948
186,666
CARES EMT (.33 FTE)
58,706
60,585
62,523
64,524
66,589
68,720
70,919
CARES M&O
250,000
255,000
260,100
265,302
270,608
276,020
281,541
308,706
315,585
322,623
329,826
337,197
344,740
352,459
Note: based on later received information from the RFAs about what they would charge Tukwila to contract for a CARES unit, the cost of the CARES unit
can be reduced by an estimated $167K
Enhanced Services Budget
892,290
918,980
945,067
971,923
999,570
1,028,032
1,057,335
Offsetting Revenues
CARES Grant*
(100,800)
(100,800)
(100,800)
(100,800)
(100,800)
(100,800)
(100,800)
Enhanced Services Net Cost
791,489
818,181
844,266
871,123
898,770
927,232
956,534
Levy Rate for Enhanced
Services (assuming 5% annual
AV growth)
0.096
0.094
0.093
0.091
0.089
0.088
0.086
A-11
Option 3: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded solely by property taxes (no
Fire Benefit Charge)
Service Provider: A new governmental entity and taxing district—the Tukwila Fire District --
authorized by the voters, with boundaries that are the same as the City boundaries.
Brief description of option
State law (RCW 52.02.160) provides that a city may by resolution seek voter approval to create a fire
district with boundaries the same as city boundaries.
The governance for the new District can be either:
(1) the City Council; or
(2) an independently elected board of seven fire commissioners (since the budget for the
district would exceed $10M a year (RCW 52.14.140(3) (c)).
The City would either transfer ownership or lease all fire department assets to the new fire district.
The bonds on Stations 51 and 52 would still need to be repaid by the City – there may be legal
barriers to transferring title to stations while the debt is outstanding. (Note that transfer of
equipment and/or facilities may trigger the obligation to pay a sales & use tax.)
All employees of the Fire Department are also transferred to the Fire District; employees retain their
seniority, retirement, vacation leave, etc. rights (RCW 52.02.180). The current collective bargaining
agreement would be subject to renegotiation if either the new District leadership or the union so
desired.
The new District would need to hire additional administrative staff and would have some start-up
costs. The number of staff hired, and the overall cost would depend on whether, and to the extent to
which, the new District contracted for administrative services from the City or others.
There are four main components to this additional set of costs:
• Start up costs (new computers, phones, etc.) estimate $1-$2 million in one-time costs.
• Ongoing administrative costs: estimates range from $1-2.5 million per year
o If the City provided some administrative services, the cost would be less.
o Some services could not be provided by the City: even with the City's help, the District
would probably need a minimum of 2-3 administrative staff, and would need
independent legal counsel, would need to pay for an annual audit, etc.
• Because districts are reliant solely on property taxes (plus self -generated revenues and
grants) for ongoing revenue, and because property tax is transmitted only twice a year by the
state to taxing districts (May, October), the City would need to loan the District "fund
balance" – cash to pay the bills between January -May. This would take the form of a loan
repayable to the City over a few years.
• Property tax reliance also means that the excess levy would need to be sized to support
operations over time—excess levy reserve funds the first few years to pay costs in the last
few years.
A-1 2
125
In this option, the new Tukwila Fire District would not have a Fire Benefit Charge; it would rely almost
entirely on property tax for funding (plus self -generated revenues and grants—a minor piece today,
but there is room to grow revenue here).
Based on a midpoint range $1.75M in ongoing administrative staffing and administrative costs, and
excluding one-time start-up costs, fund balance loan costs, enhanced services, LEOFF and fire station
debt (retained by City), the total operating cost of the Fire Department under this model requires a
total levy rate -- is estimated at $1.99/$1,000 AV in 2022, before calculating the excess levy reserve
needed. The gap between $1.50 (the maximum fire levy rate) and this higher cost range would need
to be covered by either (or both):
• A City cash contribution each year
• A voter -approved excess levy (60% approval required) – a $0.49 cent excess levy in 2022
(before calculating the bump in the rate needed to maintain purchasing power and address
inflation over 5-6 years).
Both the basic fire levy and any excess levy would need to be restored by voters periodically to
maintain purchasing power.
An excess levy for the District could not be submitted for voter approval at the same election that the
District is being created, so at least initially, a City contribution would be necessary to maintain
current services—and one could not assume the voters would approve the excess levies once placed
on the ballot.
The cost of operating the Fire Department would come off the City's budget, except that the currently
outstanding fire station bonds would remain a city obligation, as would any funding support the City
provided to the District. The taxes to repay the fire station bonds, earlier approved by voters, would
not be affected.
The City's levy capacity would be reduced by the amount of the fire district's initial levy ($1.50 per
$1,000 A.V.) (RCW 52.02.160(b)(ii)). Note that this a greater reduction on the City's levy than if the
City were to contract for services with another agency (no levy reduction) or annex into another
agency (reduction depends on their financing structure). The City's new maximum property tax rate
would be $2.10/$1,000 AV ($3.60/$1,000 AV less $1.50/$1,000 AV). The City's current levy rate is
$2.18 (but the City would no longer have the expense of the Fire Department on its books).
As part of the ballot measure to create the District, the City would want to consider committing to
voters that it will reduce the City property tax levy by the amount of funding the City no longer pays
to support the Fire Department. This could later be recouped by the City as banked capacity if it so
chose.
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes)
The new Tukwila Fire District would be a separate unit of local government. Under this option the
District would utilize solely property tax, grants and fees for its operations. In reality, the District
would have the ability to ask its voters for a benefit charge at any time – the point of Option 3 is to
explore whether the District could rely solely on the maximum fire levy allowed by law and maintain
current service levels: the answer to that is "no."
A-1 3
126
The District would have a maximum fire levy rate of $1.50/$1,000 AV. Once created by voters, the
District could also ask voters to approve excess levies to support operations, and could also ask voters
to approve taxes to pay off bonds (for station upgrades).
Timeframe: Earliest date on which this option could be implemented
The timeframe for this would be relatively quick. The vote to create a new Tukwila Fire District must
be placed before the voters at a general election (November) following adoption by the City Council
of a resolution to create the District, however, the City would need to develop a workable financial
plan for the District in advance of bringing this to the voters.
If the proposal is to have an independently elected board of commissioners (rather than the Council
serving as the governing board), the election of all seven initial fire commissioners must be on the
same ballot as the vote to create the district. (RCW 52.02.160(2)(b)). To ensure a robust election,
there would need to be time to advertise the offices and encourage candidates to run for
commissioner positions. (Candidates need to be District residents).
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
etc.)
The City would need to develop the financial plan for the District and the Council would need to
determine its preferred governance model. The Council would adopt a resolution outlining these
matters. The Council must hold a public hearing before passage.
Under this Option 3, the financing plan would be the traditional property tax funded approach. This
would involve both the maximum $1.50/$1,000 fire levy as well as a share of regional EMS levy funds,
City contributions, grants and fees charged by the new District, and excess levies later approved by
voters after the District is created.
The existing collective bargaining agreement would be transferred to the new district; it could be
renegotiated at the request of either party.
Creation of the District requires a simple majority of voters (50% + 1) to approve, no validation
requirement.
If the Council started with a plan that included the Council as the governing body for the Fire District,
it could later convert to a board of voter -selected commissioners.
Current service metrics for service provider (response time)
If the District were able—through city grants or voter -approved excess levies—to generate sufficient
dollars to maintain the equivalent of current City funding for the department plus start up and
additional administrative costs, current service levels could be maintained. If not, service levels could
be expected to deteriorate.
Enhanced Services Options: staffing/cost
Enhanced services could only be funded through a voter approved excess levy or City contributions.
As a reminder, the total cost of all three enhanced services, with 3 fire investigators, has a net cost of
$1.1M in 2022 — a property tax levy rate of about $0.13.
A-14
127
A-1 5
128
Operational Model options: Considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost and
service implications, implementation issues
The District would need to negotiate any reduction in the number of stations/firefighters with the
union.
Summary of estimated costs: cost components, estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers
See Attachment A.
What is modeled is the maximum fire levy ($1.50/$1,000 AV) plus an excess levy (assumed to be
generating revenues in Year 1) in an amount necessary to maintain current service levels in 2022. The
average of the low- and high- start-up and administrative costs are included. The resulting cost is an
estimated $15,968,164 or the equivalent of $1.99 in property tax in 2022. This excludes City retained
costs (debt service on the existing station bonds and LEOFF payments), incorporates Department -
generated revenues and grants, but excludes the cost of borrowing fund balance from the City or the
bump in the excess levy rate needed to support the operation over 5-6 years).
The excess levy rate is estimated at $0.49, before calculating the excess levy reserve fund rate (to
address inflation and declining purchasing power of the levy).
Staffing implications
All Fire Dept. staff would transfer to the District and retain their seniority and accrued benefits.
Additional administrative staffing would be needed (unless city provided these services by contract).
Facilities & Equipment –disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployers?
Facilities and apparatus could be transferred or leased to the new District – but stations with debt
may need to be retained by the City. The City would remain responsible for debt repayment.
Equipment would be transferred.
Oversight/Control – how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions
affecting Tukwila going forward?
The answer to this depends on the governance structure. If the City Council remains the oversight
Board, the City retains a high level of oversight and control, provided that the Council will need to act
as a fiduciary for both the City and the District and it is possible that interests may diverge. This is
manageable—the City Council currently sits as the board of the City's independent parks district.
If a new board of commissioners governs the District, then the City would have little or no control
over the operations, costs and service levels. The District Commissioners would be accountable to
the voters.
Summary of implications of this option
Cost: Costs of this option are higher than Option 1 or 2 because of the additional start-up and
administrative costs (assuming the goal is to maintain service levels). Funding is less stable than the
current situation (Option 1) because voters would need to approve a significant excess levy on a
periodic basis, as well as lid lifts to restore the $1.50 fire levy.
Additional information added since this option was first presented: Costs will need to include
administration for the new agency, as well as reserves and working capital. Also, the City will need to
A-1 5
128
contract for provision of fire marshal office services with the new agency (the City can keep the fees
generated to offset the cost).
Unless the City chose to subsidize the district to maintain its service levels, this option removes the
cost of the fire department from the City budget.
Service Levels: Without additional voter approved excess property tax levies or a cash transfer from
the City, service levels could not be maintained in this Option. Precise impacts are unknown.
Oversight/Management Control: The City Council or a new independently elected board of
commissioners would control the fire district. If there is a new board of commissioners, there is the
possibility of conflicting goals and priorities between the City and District.
Other:
Risks/Major unknowns: The major risks are in the ability of the funding to maintain service levels. It
is unknown whether voters would approve excess levies to maintain current service levels, or
whether the City would fund the initial year gap between $1.50 and actual costs. If funds were not
provided, the impact on service levels has not been precisely mapped but would likely entail
reduction in staffing and stations.
Another general risk is that the heavy dependence on property tax—collections of which can only
grow at a rate of 1% per year plus the tax on new construction – means that the Fire District will need
to ask voters for levy lid lifts every 4-6 years to restore purchasing power.
There would be some risk to the City in terms of its financial flexibility if its property tax levy capacity
is reduced by $1.50; as noted.
A-16
129
Option 6 Attachment B: (Below) simple funding diagram
In Option 3, the $1.50 maximum regular property tax rate for a fire district won't cover beginning (or
ongoing) expenses of the Department given current service levels/operations. The funding gap would
need to be made up by revenues from the City contributions, or a voter approved excess levy. Unless the
City fills the funding gap, the District will need to ask the voters for a significant excess property tax levy
to cover base expenses.
$
Operating expenses
Amount provided b
F nding gap
property tax at $1.50
Time >
The funding Gap can be filled by either:
1. City contributions
2. Excess levies (60% voter approval)
...or some mix of the two. Additional fee revenue could help, but not enough to defray much of the
total. The other alternative is to reduce costs and service levels to close the gap. Both the excess levy
and the regular fire levy would need to be resubmitted to voters periodically (about every 4-6 years) to
restore purchasing power/levy rate to the original rate.
A-1 7
130
Option 4: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded by both property taxes and a
Fire Benefit Charge (v.4.6.22)
Service Provider: A new taxing district, authorized by the voters, with boundaries co -extensive with
the City: Tukwila Fire District.
Brief description of option: This option is the same as Option 3, except that:
The financing plan would include a Fire Benefit Charge. A Fire Benefit Charge (FBC) is a fee, not a tax,
and is allocated to individual property owners based on the size, risk and hazard associated with
structures on real property (rather than based on the value of those properties as is the case for
property tax).
In exchange for the ability to levy a FBC, the maximum fire levy allowed drops from $1.50 to $1.00.
The FBC is sized to collect the balance of needed revenues over and above the $1.00 fire levy. The
FBC cannot exceed 60% of the District's operating budget.
At current service levels, and using a mid-range estimate for additional administrative costs, the FBC
would need to collect the equivalent of $7,109,058. This is about 45% of the estimated 2022
operating budget (excluding one-time start-up costs) and is equivalent to an $0.89 levy in 2022.
The City would need to develop a proposed FBC formula. Note that the fire district governing board
can change that formula from year to year without seeking voter approval.
A difference between Option 3 and Option 4: 60% voter approval is required to create the new
district—rather than 50%, since it includes an FBC.
As in Option 3, the City's levy capacity is reduced, but only by $1.00 (the maximum fire levy amount).
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes))
Same as Option 3: a Tukwila Fire District would be a separate unit of local government, with its own
governing board, taxes, annual budget, responsibilities and authorities. It could charge fees for
service and apply for grants.
The FBC would have to be sized to support somewhere between 42-47% of the initial budget,
excluding start-up costs.
Timeframe: Earliest date on which this option could be implemented
The timeframe would be similar to Option 3, however, there would need to be work done to develop
the FBC formula.
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
etc.)
The same as for Option 3, with the addition of work to develop the FBC formula, and the fact that
60% voter approval is needed to create a fire district that can impose a FBC.
A-1 8
131
Current service metrics for service provider (response time)...
With equivalent funding as the current operation (and an additional increment for administrative
costs and start up costs), one could expect the new Fire District could maintain current Tukwila Fire
Dept. service levels. If sufficient funding were not secured, service levels would be impacted.
Enhanced Services Options: staffing/cost
Enhanced services could be funded through either increasing the FBC collections (up to the 60%
operating budget maximum) or voter -approved excess levies.
Operational Model options: Considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost and
service implications, implementation issues
Same as for Option 3
Summary of estimated costs components / estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers
See Attachment A.
Staffing implications
All existing employees in the Fire Department would transfer over. Depending on the approach to
providing administrative services—contract with City or hire new staff—there would be additional
personnel involved.
Facilities & Equipment –disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployed?
Same as Option 3
Oversight/Control – how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions
affecting Tukwila going forward?
Same as Option 3
Summary of implications of this option
Cost: Having an FBC provides additional revenue stability/sustainability/scalability as opposed to
being solely dependent on property taxes—because the FBC can be raised without any year-to-year
limit, other than total collections cannot exceed 60% of operating costs.
Additional information added since this option was first presented: Costs will need to include
administration for the new agency, as well as reserves and working capital. Also, the City will need to
contract for provision of fire marshal office services with the new agency (the City can keep the fees
generated to offset the cost).
Service Levels: It will be easier to maintain service levels in any option with an FBC as compared to an
Option primarily reliant on property tax—because of the revenue flexibility that the FBC provides.
Oversight/Management Control: Same as Option 3.
Other: Commercial and multi -family property owners may be less supportive of a model with a FBC,
because costs are shifted to them (reflecting the additional resources the District must have in place
to serve them as compared to responding just to single family residences).
A-1 9
132
The FBC must be renewed periodically by voters. These elections have been highly successful in other
districts with FBCs in recent years.
Risks/Major unknowns: At this time, we cannot propose a detailed FBC for a new fire district, so we
do not know the magnitude of the cost shift will be towards multi -family and commercial structures,
away from single family homes. The City could target any policy outcome it desired in terms of a FBC
formula — but the governing board can change that starting formula in any following year.
Simple Diagram of how Option 4 works:
$
Cost of maintaining service over time
Property tax levy lid lift
Amount collected by FBC
Amount collected by $1.00 max property to
o'
Time
Note that even with an FBC, an agency will want to periodically seek a property tax lid lift to restore
purchasing power of its fire levy, and keep FBC collections within a preferred range (and under the 60%
operating budget max.)
A-20
133
Option 5: Partner with another fire service provider to create a Tukwila
Regional Fire Authority—with a fire benefit charge (v. 4.6.22)
Service Provider: Tukwila Regional Fire Authority, a new governmental entity and taxing district,
created by voter approval.
Brief description of option: The City and another adjacent or proximate fire service provider(s) would
negotiate a plan for creation of a regional fire authority and submit it to the voters of the member
jurisdictions for approval. A regional fire authority has essentially the same service and revenue
generating authority as a fire district, however, it has broad discretion to shape its
governance/oversight board to meet the needs of the participating partners. The City cannot create
an RFA on its own, it must partner with another agency (or agencies) which also must have authority
to provide fire service.
Potential partner agencies—adjacent or proximate non -RFA fire service providers—include:
• FD 24 (a small "paper district" served by Tukwila)
• FD 2 (serving Burien/Normandy Park)
• FD 11 (serving the North Highline area)
• FD 20 (Serving West Hill/Skyway)
• Seattle FD
The Tukwila FD has reached out to all these potential partners except the first (FD 24)) and reports
that they are not interested in pursuing this option at this time. Similarly, these partners are not
interested in merging with TFD (creation of an RFA provides more flexibility on governance so would
likely be preferred by Tukwila). That said, uninterested partners could change their mind over time.
This option assumes the City can work to firm up FD24 management/governance and that they are
the agency Tukwila would partner with to create a Tukwila RFA. FD 24 does not currently have a
board of commissioners in place, or any employees with whom the City could negotiate, but this
presumably can be remedied with some work. FD 24 is very small; just a few blocks of area.
Like Option 3 and 4, an RFA would require that an administrative structure be stood up to support the
new agency. Costs would be in the same range as for Options 3-4. Also like Options 3 and 4, all
employees and the current collective bargaining agreement would be transferred to the new agency;
employees would retain their seniority, benefits, accrued vacation, etc.
Current operational costs suggest a fire benefit charge (FBC) and a $1.00/$1,000 AV Fire Levy is the
most stable approach to fund the current Tukwila operation. Therefore, financially and
operationally, there is essentially no difference between this option and Option 4, since the service
area and AV are basically identical. The difference here is in the process and governance and the type
of separate government formed (an RFA versus a fire district).
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes))
An RFA can provide all the same services that a city fire department or a fire district can provide. It
also has essentially the same financial authorities.
A-21
134
As with a fire district, an RFA imposing a fire benefit charge, is limited to $1.00 / $1,000 A.V. in
property taxes. Like a fire district, an RFA would be eligible to receive a share of regional EMS
revenues, apply for grants, and charge fees for service.
Timeframe: Earliest date on which this option could be implemented
The negotiation of an RFA plan is a somewhat lengthy process and can take a year or more. After
formal approval of the plan, it can be placed on the ballot at any election. Voters in all member
jurisdictions are entitled to vote. Generally, the goal is to vote in February or April to ensure the RFA
taxes can be imposed the following January rather than be delayed a year. With a fire benefit charge
involved, a 60% approval vote must be secured to create the RFA.
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
etc.)
Creating an RFA starts with the partner agencies creating a formal planning committee to develop an
"RFA plan" outlining funding, services, operations, and governance for the proposed agency. The
committee must have 3 elected officials from each participating agency. The plan must be approved
by the legislative body of all participating agencies, and then submitted to the voters for approval.
As with creation of a Tukwila Fire District, all fire department employees of both agencies would be
transferred to the new RFA, with their seniority, accrued vacation leave and other benefits retained.
The major issues determined by the RFA Planning Committee are:
• Governance -- will the governing body be directly elected, or appointed by the member
agencies; if directly elected, members can be at -large or districted)
• Finance — establishing the FBC formula, reserves
• Operations—establishing the organizational chart.
Securing needed voter approval for any option (Option 3, 4 or this option) will require a public
education campaign. A "pro" campaign would typically be very helpful and would typically be led by
the IAFF. This highlights the importance of union support for any option requiring a vote.
Current service metrics for service provider (response time)
Assuming the RFA raised funds at the level required to support the current Tukwila Fire Dept., there
would be no change in service levels.
Enhanced Services Options: staffing/cost
The RFA could choose to fund these services. The cost would be the same as for the other Tukwila
Options 2-4.
Operational Model Options: Considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost and
service implications.
Same as for Options 3-4. Would require union support.
Summary of estimated cost components / estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers
See Attachment A.
The cost is essentially the same as Option 4, however, there would be additional transaction costs to
accommodate the negotiation of the RFA plan with FD 24 (or another partner).
A-22
135
Staffing implications
Like Options 3 and 4, by law all employees and the current collective bargaining agreement would be
transferred to the new agency; employees would retain their seniority, benefits, accrued vacation,
etc.
Facilities & Equipment —disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployers?
Same as Options 3 and 4 —assets would be transferred over to the RFA, excepting that the City may
need to retain title to stations with bonded debt. Typically, the RFA would not pay for these assets.
Oversight/Control — how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions
affecting Tukwila going forward?
This would depend on the governance model. Tukwila could retain majority control on the
governance board if FD24 agreed, and the parties chose a board of directly elected members.
Summary of implications of this option
Cost: Costs would be essentially the same as Option 4 (Fire District with FBC), except that transaction
costs would be higher due to the need to negotiate with FD 24.
Additional information added since this option was first presented: Costs will need to include
administration for the new agency, as well as reserves and working capital. Also, the City will need to
contract for provision of fire marshal office services with the new agency (the City can keep the fees
generated to offset the cost).
Service Levels: Current service levels could be maintained under this financing model ($1.00 Fire Levy
and Fire Benefit Charge)
Oversight/Management Control: If partnering with FD 24, Tukwila could maintain majority control
over the RFA Board through claiming a majority of seats. But engagement of a representative(s) of FD
24 on an ongoing basis would be pat of the discourse at the RFA board.
Other: Additional transaction time/cost to stand up FD 24 and negotiate an RFA plan with them.
Risks/Major Unknowns: Can FD 24 be brought to a position that it can negotiate with the City? How
long will that take? Would they agree to negotiate the creation of an RFA with the City? The precise
nature of the FBC formula that would be negotiated is also unknown so cost impacts on various
sectors of the Tukwila community cannot be estimated.
As with any FBC, the amount collected and formula for collection can be changed each year by the
governing board; the check here is that the governing board members are accountable to voters.
A-23
136
Option 6: Contract for Service with Renton Regional Fire Authority
(v.3.22.22)
Service Provider: Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA), a separate municipal corporation and taxing
authority under state law.
Brief description of option: The City could seek to contract for fire services from the Renton Regional
Fire Authority. The RRFA boundaries include the city of Renton and Fire District 25. In addition, RRFA
serves Fire District 40 by contract. The RRFA was created by a vote of the residents of Renton and
Fire District 25 in 2016. The RRFA has imposed a fire benefit charge (FBC) since its inception, and thus
has a maximum fire levy rate of 1.00/$1,000 A.V.
Potential service contract terms have been discussed with RRFA. RRFA staff have expressed interest in
entering a service contract with the City. Estimated cost of contracting in 2022 are presented in
Attachment A. The contract fee would be paid by the City, supported by City taxes and other general
fund revenues.
The RRFA contract price in Attachment A is based on all Tukwila employees moving over to RRFA and
working under the Renton Collective Bargaining Agreement. There are some differences in wages and
working conditions that would need to be resolved prior to joining the RRFA. The cost estimate does
not include cost of ensuring no hourly wage losses to Tukwila Firefighters — but RRFA is going into
union negotiations this year and costs will be substantially different next year (this is a significant
unknown for this contract offer). All parties agree that a mutually acceptable agreement can be
reached in the event this option is selected.
The contract discussed and priced would continue operations at current staffing levels out of all four
City fire stations. As a result, response times would not change from the status quo.
The City would likely retain title to all four fire stations if it contracted with RRFA. The RRFA would
assume basic maintenance responsibilities for the stations.
In terms of enhanced services:
• RRFA has a public education program and a price to extend that to Tukwila is included in the
contract
• RRFA and PSRFA share a CARES program with each RFA having a unit in their respective areas.
The CARES unit would cover Tukwila under this agreement.
• RRFA offers fire marshal services; the staffing is provided with civilians, rather than
firefighters and is thus considerably less expensive. The Tukwila FMO staff would all transfer
over to the RRFA but would transfer back to fire operations. The FMO work would be carried
out by RRFA adding four additional civilian staff FTEs.
RRFA prefers to have a service contract as a precedent to Tukwila annexing. The service contract
could include a time at which the parties would begin to discuss annexation. Annexation into RRFA
will be described in Option 8.
A-24
137
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes))
RRFA was created by voters in 2016; its original (and current) member agencies are Renton and Fire
District 25. Fire District 40 (serving unincorporated areas to the east of Renton) is served by contract.
RRFA serves an area of about 43 square miles with a population of nearly 131,000 residents. RRFA
operates out of 7 fire stations.
RFA's governing board is composed three Renton City Council members and three Fire District 25
Commissioners, plus one non-voting Board Member from Fire District 40.
The RRFA fire levy has a fire benefit charge (FBC) that was renewed by voters in 2021 for an additional
10 years. The RRFA raises 38.2% of its annual revenue needs from the FBC (excluding costs to serve
FD 40).
The RRFA maximum fire levy rate is $1.00/$1,000 A.V.; RRFA has not asked voters to lift the fire levy
rate since the RFA was created in 2016; it is currently at $0.73/$1,000 A.V.
Timeframe: Earliest date on which this option could be implemented
This option could be implemented relatively quickly, with a start date as soon as January 1, 2023. Both
parties agree the transition process would ideally take six months. The main variable is how quickly
the parties can reach agreement on CBA terms and contract terms. If the City wishes to hold an
advisory vote before proceeding, it would extend the timeline.
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
etc.)
The parties would need to complete negotiation of a service contract, and a new CBA would need to
be in place that had approval of both labor unions. Both legislative bodies would need to approve the
contract. No voter approval is required however, the City Council/Mayor may choose to have an
advisory vote before moving forward with the option.
Current service metrics for service provider (response time)
Response times would remain unchanged under this option as compared to the status quo, because
all 4 Tukwila stations would be operating with equivalent numbers of staff, and to the extent
responses today involve multiple agencies, that would continue.
Enhanced Services Options: Staffing/Cost
As noted above:
• RRFA has a public education program and a price to extend that to Tukwila is included in the
contract
• RRFA has a CARES program that would include Tukwila under this agreement.
• RRFA offers full fire marshal services and would staff an additional four (4) FTEs to meet the
needs of Tukwila. The City's FMO FTEs (4) would be transferred to RRFA and shift to
firefighter positions.
A-25
138
Operational Model Options: Considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost and
service implications, implementation issues:
The price quote from RRFA includes operation of all 4 Tukwila stations. The City could choose now, or
at a later time, to contract for the operation of 3, rather than 4 Tukwila stations. This would likely first
require an investment to expand a neighboring PSRFA facility but could then be implemented with
minor response time impacts. If a service contract is in place, the Labor Union is in favor of exploring
options that would look at more efficient response models that include reducing the number of fire
stations in Tukwila, so long as there is not reduction in the number of uniformed personnel employed.
The City could seek a commitment from RRFA to explore the feasibility, cost and service impact of
shifting to a three -station model at a later date.
Summary of estimated cost components / estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers
See Attachment A.
Staffing implications
All existing Fire Department employees except the Fire Chief, and possibly the Deputy Fire Chief,
would transfer over to RRFA with seniority and accrued benefits retained.
There are some differences in the wage and benefit packages between RRFA and Tukwila that would
need to be resolved before a contract with RRFA could proceed. Renton overall pays slightly less than
Tukwila or PSRFA but is going into union negotiations this year.
Facilities & Equipment —disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployed?
The City would retain ownership of all fire stations under this model and have a nominally priced
lease with RRFA in which the city retained responsibility for major maintenance and capital
improvements and the RFA assumed responsibility for utilities and basic maintenance.
Equipment (fire trucks, etc.) would likely be transferred to RRFA, in exchange for RRFA assuming
liability for accrued benefits of the staff transferring over to the RFA.
Oversight/Control — how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions
affecting Tukwila going forward?
As a recipient of contract services, the Mayor and Council will have a very limited role in cost
decisions, but they will be able to determine the level of service that the City wishes to purchase —
they can define the number of staff to be in place at each station. The manner in which the service is
provided will be determined by the provider within the contract terms.
The City would have a nonvoting seat on the RRFA governing board.
Summary of implications of this option
Cost: Estimated by RRFA at $14.56M (contract fee) if the contract were in place in 2022; the City
would continue to have retained costs of approximately $2.1M (for debt service and LEOFF 1); after
deducting offsetting revenues, the net cost in 2022 is estimated at $16.43M.
Service Levels: For the most part, services will be provided from the existing Tukwila fire stations, by
the same staff and equipment currently providing the service. With equivalent staffing and the same
A-26
139
four stations in operation as a contract requirement, response times should be maintained; in
addition, the City would have access to enhanced services (included in the cost quote).
Oversight/Management Control: RRFA's board would control the annual budget and operations of
the RFA, including operations in Tukwila subject to contract requirements. The City would be
assuming the cost risk of the fire operation that it did not control– the RRFA would inform the City
each year of its anticipated contract costs for the following year; unlike PSRFA, the contract that RRFA
has with District 40 does not include a "true up" provision: the budgeted costs are what Tukwila
would pay.
The City would retain responsibility and control over the condition of the fire stations.
The City would have a nonvoting seat on the RRFA governing board.
Other: RRFA is currently pursuing accreditation.
It is possible that the parties could reach agreement over time on a three -station model that would be
less costly to the City with minimal response time impact.
RRFA has a stable/sustainable/scalable set of revenues for its operations, including a fire benefit
charge (voter reauthorization required in 10 years).
RRFA is much larger than Tukwila and is arguably in a better position to secure economies of scale for
a larger operation than the City.
Risks/Major Unknowns: Cost risk from year to year is the major risk under this option, and the City's
financial challenges would remain unaddressed. A levy lid lift to support a fire contract may be seen
as less attractive to City voters than a lid lift to support City -controlled fire services.
once the City pursues this option, it would be very difficult to change course, and re -start the City's
own fire department or pursue other options (for example, a PSRFA contract or annexation into PSFA)
because the City would have no staff or vehicles to bring to the table.
If the City wished to annex to RRFA in the future—to get the cost off the City's books and secure a
voting seat or seats at the governing board – this would be subject to concurrence of RRFA (and the
City's voters).
A-27
140
Option 7: Contract for Service with Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority
(v. 3.21.22)
Service Provider: Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA), a separate municipal corporation and
taxing authority under state law.
Brief description of option: The City could seek to contract for fire services from the Puget Sound
Regional Fire Authority. The PSRFA boundaries include the cities of Kent and Covington, and Fire
District 37. In addition, PSRFA serves the City SeaTac and Fire District 43 (Maple Valley) by contract.
The PSRFA was created by a vote of the residents of Kent, Covington, and FD 37 in 2010. The PSRFA
has imposed a fire benefit charge (FBC) since its inception, and thus has a maximum fire levy rate of
1.00/$1,000 A.V.
Potential service contract terms have been discussed with PSRFA. PSRFA staff have expressed strong
interest in entering a service contract with the City. Estimated cost of contracting in 2022 are
presented in Attachment A. The contract fee would be paid by the City, supported by City taxes and
other general fund revenues.
All fire department employees, excepting the Chief and possibly the Deputy Chief, would be hired by
the PSRFA, retaining their seniority and accrued benefits. The two IAFF units have an agreement in
place to facilitate this transfer.
The contract discussed and priced would continue operations at current staffing levels out of all four
city fire stations.
The City would likely retain title to all four fire stations if it contracted with PSRFA. The PSRFA would
assume basic maintenance responsibilities for the stations.
In terms of enhanced services:
• PSRFA has a public education program and a price to extend that to Tukwila is included in the
contract
• PSRFA and RRFA share a CARES program with each RFA having a unit in their respective areas.
The CARES unit would cover Tukwila under this agreement. PSRFA offers fire marshal
services. All the current Tukwila FMO staff would transfer to PSRFA. PSRFA would add four (4)
FTEs to the FMO to provide FMO service to Tukwila.
PSRFA prefers to have a service contract as a precedent to Tukwila annexing. The service contract
could include a time at which the parties would begin to discuss annexation; PSRFA's chief has
indicated he would be willing to engage on annexation with Tukwila immediately, to be implemented
(if voters approved) as soon as three years from the start of a contract. Annexation into PSRFA is
described in Option 9. The PSRFA contract with SeaTac has a minimum term of 5 years.
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes))
PSRFA was created by voters in 2010; its original (and current) member agencies are Kent and Fire
District 37. The City of Covington is within District 37's service territory. PSRFA serves the City of
SeaTac and Fire District 43 (serving the City of Maple Valley and surrounding area) by contract.
A-28
141
Puget Sound Fire serves an area of about 108 square miles with a population of nearly 227,000
residents. PSRFA operates out of 13 fire stations.
PSRFA operates the South King County Fire Training Consortium, a joint CARES program with Renton
RFA, and a subregional fleet services garage serving fire agencies in south King County, including
Renton RFA.
PSRFA is an accredited organization, which means it offers and maintains a range of high-quality
program offerings, services and staffing. Puget Sound Fire employs approximately 350 people, with
271 of those being uniformed personnel. As with Tukwila, Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) services
are provided through the King County Medic One program.
The PSRFA board is composed of three Kent City Council members, three Fire District 37
Commissioners, three non-voting Advisory Board Members, one from the City of Covington, the City
of SeaTac, and King County Fire District #43 Board of Commissioners.
The PSRFA fire levy was restored to the $1.00 maximum rate by voters in 2019. The 2022 PSRFA Fire
Levy rate is $0.93/$1,000 A.V. Voters approved permanent Fire Benefit Charge authority in
November 2020. PSRFA raises about 40% of its annual revenue needs from the FBC (excluding
contract city service costs), with the balance from its fire levy and other revenues.
Timeframe: Earliest date on which this option could be implemented
This option could be implemented relatively quickly, with a start date as soon as January 1, 2023, is a
reasonable start date. Both parties agree the transition process would ideally take six months. The
main variable is how quickly the parties can reach agreement on contract terms. If the City
determines to hold an advisory vote before proceeding, the timeline would be extended
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
etc.)
The parties would need to complete negotiation of a service contract, and it would need to be
approved by both legislative bodies. No voter approval is required, however, the City Council/Mayor
may choose to have an advisory vote before moving forward with the option (not required by law).
Current service metrics for service provider (response time)
Response times would remain unchanged under this option as compared to the status quo, because
all 4 Tukwila stations would be operating with equivalent numbers of staff, and responses requiring
multiple agency response would continue to have access to those units.
Enhanced Services Options: Staffing/Cost
As noted above:
• PSRFA has a public education program and a price to extend that to Tukwila is included in the
contract
• PSRFA has a CARES program that would include Tukwila under this agreement.
• PSRFA offers full fire marshal services and would staff an additional four (4) FTEs to meet the
needs of Tukwila.
A-29
142
Operational Model Options: Considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost n
service implications, implementation issues
The price quote from PSRFA includes operation of all 4 Tukwila stations. The City could choose now,
or at a later time, to contract for the operation of 3, rather than 4 Tukwila stations. This would likely
require expansion of a neighboring facility now used by PSRFA but could then be implemented with
minor response time impacts. If a service contract is in place, the Labor Union is in favor of exploring
options that would look at more efficient response models that include reducing the number of fire
stations in Tukwila, so long as there is no reduction in the number of uniformed personnel employed.
The City seek could a commitment by PSRFA to explore the feasibility, cost and service impact of
shifting to a three -station model at a later date.
Summary of estimated cost components / estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers
See Attachment A.
Staffing implications
All existing Fire Department employees except the Fire Chief, and possibly the Deputy Fire Chief,
would transfer over to PSRFA with seniority and accrued benefits retained.
Salaries for all positions are slightly higher at PSRFA than Tukwila, and there are some minor
differences in the benefits packages. The Locals have an agreement in place supporting transfer of
Tukwila employees over to PSRFA; no new CBA would be needed.
Facilities & Equipment —disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployed?
The City would likely retain ownership of all fire stations under this model and have a nominally
priced lease with PSRFA in which the city retained responsibility for major maintenance and capital
improvements and the RFA assumed responsibility for utilities and basic maintenance.
Equipment (fire trucks, etc.) would likely be transferred to PSRFA, in exchange for PSRFA assuming
liability for accrued benefits of the staff transferring over to the RFA.
Oversight/Control — how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions
affecting Tukwila going forward?
As a recipient of contract services, the Mayor and Council will have a very limited role in cost
decisions, but they will be able to determine the level of service that the City wishes to purchase —
they can define the number of staff to be in place at each station. The manner in which the service is
provided will be determined by the provider within the contract terms.
The City would have a nonvoting seat on the PSRFA governing board.
Summary of implications of this option
Cost: Estimated by PSRFA at $14.9M (contract fee), assuming the contract were in place in 2022. The
City would continue to have retained costs of approximately $2.1M (for debt service and LEOFF 1);
after deducting offsetting revenues, the net cost in 2022 is estimated at $16.77M.
A-30
143
Service Levels: For the most part, services will be provided from the existing Tukwila fire stations, by
the same staff and equipment currently providing the service. With equivalent staffing and the same
four stations in operation as a contract requirement, response times should be maintained; in
addition, the City would have access to enhanced services (included in the cost quote).
Oversight/Management Control: PSRFA's board would control the annual budget and operations of
the RFA, including operations in Tukwila subject to contract requirements. The City would be
assuming the cost risk of the fire operation that it did not control– the PSRFA would inform the City
each year of its anticipated contract costs for the following year; the contract provides a "true up" in
the event the actual costs experienced by PSRFA are higher or lower than anticipated.
The City would retain responsibility and control over the condition of the fire stations.
The City would have a nonvoting seat on the PSRFA governing board.
Other: PSRFA is a fully accredited fire organization (CFAI) under the Center for Public Safety
Excellence. This is one of the recommendations, for Tukwila, made in the CPSM report.
It is possible that the parties could reach agreement over time on a three -station model that would be
less costly to the City with minimal response time impact.
PSRFA has a stable/sustainable/scalable set of revenues for its operations, including a permanent
authorization for a fire benefit charge.
RRFA is much larger than Tukwila and is arguably in a better position to secure economies of scale for
a larger operation than the City.
Risks/Major Unknowns: Cost risk from year to year is the major risk under this option, and the City's
financial challenges would remain unaddressed. A levy lid lift to support a fire contract may be seen
as less attractive to City voters than a lid lift to support City -controlled fire services.
Once the City pursues this option, it would be very difficult to change course and re -start the City's
own fire department or pursue other options (for example, a RRFA contract or annexation into RRFA)
because the City would have no staff or vehicles to bring to the table.
If the City wished to annex to PSRFA in the future—to get the cost off the City's books and secure a
voting seat or seats at the governing board – this would be subject to concurrence of PSRFA (and the
City's voters).
A-31
144
Option 8: Annexation into Renton RFA (revised 4.6.22)
(Note: the RRFA has indicated it is not willing to have the City annex directly into the RFA without first
partnering in a service contract capacity for some number of years. However, because it would be
extremely difficult to reconstitute the Tukwila Fire Department after entering into a service contract
(or annexing), it makes sense to analyze what annexation would look like as a longer- term option,
based on what we know today.
Service Provider: Renton RFA
(See Option 6 for description)
Brief description of option
Subject to agreement between the RRFA Board and the City, and approval of a simple majority of City
voters, the City could annex into the RRFA. If the City were annexed, the City would no longer have
responsibility for funding the Fire Department costs. Property owners in the City would be subject the
RRFA fire levy and fire benefit charge (FBC).
The RFA Board would control the budget and service levels provided. Both the governance structure
and the FBC formula may be changed by vote of the RFA Board. The RRFA will need to have its FBC
renewed by voters in 10 years. Well before then, the RRFA will likely need to ask voters to restore its
Fire Levy (currently down to $0.73/$1,000 A.V. from the $1.00 maximum rate); this lid lift would
require a simple majority approval of all RFA voters.
Annexation may require the transfer of the fire stations to the RFA, with a right of reversion should
the RFA cease to use a site as a fire station. Whether there would be a cost associated with the
reversion would be negotiated.
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes))
See: Option 6
Timeframe: Earliest date on which this option could be implemented
It would be several years before the City would know if this is an option that RRFA would agree to,
and under what terms.
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
etc.)
Based on the current stance of the RRFA, to annex into the RRFA the City would need to first enter
into a service contract and then in a few years, see if the RRFA was willing to agree to an annexation.
If so, the process for annexing into RRFA would be as follows:
• The parties would negotiate an annexation plan
• The plan would need to be approved by both legislative bodies
• The City would then submit the annexation question to the City's voters. A simple majority
approval is required.
A-32
145
Current service metrics for service provider (response time)
See Option 6.
Once annexed, service level decisions would be made by the RFA Board; there would not be a
contract obligation with the City. The RRFA would decide on its service levels and program offerings.
Enhanced Services Options: staffing/cost
Under annexation, the RRFA would make the decisions about what services to offer. The RRFA
currently offers the three enhanced services the Fire Department has prioritized.
Note that the Fire Marshal Office services are not provided automatically under annexation: a
separate contract is necessary. The cost estimate for annexation assumes the City and RFA will
contract for the amount included for FMO service in the RFA's contract offer (Option 6). This FMO
contract cost is added to the City's retained costs in Attachment A.
Operational Model Options: considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost and
service implications
There is likely to be serious consideration to save money by shifting one of Tukwila's fire stations to a
sub -regional station. It seems unlikely that the RRFA and PSRFA Boards would pursue this unless there
were overall service level benefits (or no significant reductions), in addition to cost savings.
The City could seek to negotiate some commitments around this as part of the annexation plan.
Summary of estimated cost components/ estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers.
See Attachment A.
Note that the FBC formula could be changed in any year by the RFA Board. If the City perceives that
the current formula would result in a significant subsidy by Tukwila property owners of others in the
RFA, adjustments to the formula could be part of the negotiation around the annexation, but there
are limitations on the parties' ability to tie the hands of future Boards in terms of budget and services.
Staffing Implications
Staff would already be RFA employees (since a contract precedes annexation).
Facilities & Equipment —disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployed?
The City would have negotiate the future ownership of the fire stations and responsibilities for capital
upgrades and maintenance. Continued city ownership or transfer with conditions are both possible.
A-33
146
Oversight/Control — how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions
affecting Tukwila going forward?
The City would need to negotiate terms for adding Tukwila to the governance board. The RRFA board
currently has 3 representatives from Renton and 3 from Fire District 25 (which is vastly smaller in size,
population and assessed value than Renton). Tukwila would have some representation on the Board
but would not have a controlling interest.
Note that the RFA Board can change its governance structure at any time without going to the voters.
The RRFA Board members are currently all elected officials from member agencies; by law, some or all
of them could be directly elected by voters in the RFA.
Summary of implications of this option
Cost: $14.4 M cost paid by city taxpayers to RFA awe excluding cost of fire marshal City for fire
marshal office staffing.
Service Levels: Service level decisions would be controlled by the RFA Governing Board. The RRFA
has a very stable funding model with the combination of the FBC and fire levy and thus has the
capacity to maintain service levels despite changes in the economy/costs of service.
Oversight/Management Control: Tukwila would have some direct representation on the RFA board
(assuming its current model is continued). Tukwila would not have a controlling interest on the board.
Other: The timeline on annexation is typically 18 months to 2 years from the time negotiations begin.
If the City annexes, it loses some of its property tax capacity by law: that capacity is shifted to the RFA.
Because the RRFA has an FBC, the reduction in capacity is $1.00 from the City's statutory maximum
(currently in excess of $3.00). This will require a slight decrease in the city's current general levy
(about 6 cents out of the 2022 general City levy rate of $2.159/$1,000 AV rate).
In order to secure voter approval for annexation, the City is likely to need to reduce its property tax
levy by some amount, since the fire budget is no longer part of the City's budget. This amount
becomes "banked property tax capacity" that can later be used by the City Council without voter
approval.
Risks/Major Unknowns:
• What agreement will ultimately be reached between the parties around governance, FBC
formula policies, future fire services in Tukwila?
• What leverage will the City have in the negotiation for annexation if key issues are not
addressed in the initial contract negotiation?
• Will the voters of Tukwila approve annexation?
• How will the cost change over time? (true for any option)
• How will the FBC estimate change after the data base is reviewed in detail?
A-34
147
Option 9: Annex into Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (revised 4.6.22)
(Note: the PSRFA has indicated it will require a contract as a precedent to annexation, but that it may
be willing to begin annexation discussions in year 1 of a contract. Because it would be difficult to
reconstitute the City Fire Department after entering into a service contract, it is important to consider
how annexation might look, based on what we know now.)
Service Provider: Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA)
(See Option 7).
Brief description of option:
Subject to agreement between the PSRFA Board and the City, and approval of a simple majority of
City voters, the City could annex into the PSRFA. If the City were annexed, the City would no longer
have responsibility for funding the Fire Department costs. Property owners in the City would be
subject the PSRFA fire levy and fire benefit charge (FBC).
The PSRFA Board would control the budget and service levels provided. Both the governance
structure and the FBC formula may be changed by vote of the PSRFA Board. The PSRFA has a
permanent FBC in place. Voters recently also restored the fire levy to $1.00 — the rate is currently
$0.93/$1,000 A.V. At some point, the PSRFA will need ask voters to restore its Fire Levy; this lid lift
would require a simple majority approval of all RFA voters.
Annexation may require the transfer of the fire stations to the RFA, with a right of reversion should
the RFA cease to use a site as a fire station. Whether there would be a cost associated with the
reversion would be negotiated.
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes))
See Option 7 for description of PSRFA.
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
etc.)
The City would need to first enter into a service contract, and then commence annexation
negotiations. The process for annexing is as follows:
• The parties would negotiate an annexation plan
• The plan would need to be approved by both legislative bodies
• The City would then submit the annexation question to the City's voters. A simple majority
approval is required.
Current service metrics for service provider (response time)
Once annexed, service level decisions would be made by the RFA Board; there would not be a
contract obligation with the City. The PSRFA would decide on its service levels and program offerings.
Enhanced Services Options: staffing/cost
A-35
148
Under annexation, the PSRFA would make the decisions about what services to offer. The PSRFA
currently offers the three enhanced services the Fire Department has prioritized.
Note that the Fire Marshal Office services are not provided automatically under annexation: a
separate contract is necessary. The cost estimate for annexation assumes the City and RFA will
contract for the amount included for FMO service in the RFA's contract offer (Option 7). This FMO
contract cost is added to the City's retained costs in Attachment A.
Operational Model Options: considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost and
service implications
There is likely to be serious consideration to save money by shifting one of Tukwila's fire stations to a
sub -regional station. It seems unlikely that the RRFA and PSRFA Boards would pursue this unless there
were overall service level benefits (or no significant reductions), in addition to cost savings.
The City could seek to negotiate some commitments around this as part of the annexation plan.
Summary of estimated cost components/ estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers.
See Attachment A.
Note that the FBC formula could be changed in any year by the RFA Board. If the City perceives that
the current formula would result in a significant subsidy by Tukwila property owners of others in the
RFA, adjustments to the formula could be part of the negotiation around the annexation, but there
are limitations on the parties' ability to tie the hands of future Boards in terms of budget and services.
Staffing Implications
Staff would already be RFA employees (since a contract precedes annexation).
Facilities & Equipment –disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployed?
The City would have negotiate the future ownership of the fire stations and responsibilities for capital
upgrades and maintenance. Continued city ownership or transfer with conditions are both possible.
Oversight/Control – how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions
affecting Tukwila going forward?
The City would need to negotiate terms for adding Tukwila to the governance board. The PSRFA
board currently has 3 representatives from Kent and 3 from Fire District 37, together with 3 non-
voting representatives (Covington—part of District 37, and the two contract clients—Sea Tac and Fire
District 43).
Note that the RFA Board can change its governance structure at any time without going to the voters.
The PSRFA Board members are currently all elected officials from member agencies; by law, some or
all of them could be directly elected by voters in the RFA.
A-36
149
Summary of implications of this option
Cost: $14.2 cost paid by city taxpayers to RFA awe excluding the cost to the City for fire marshal
office staffing.
Service Levels: Service level decisions would be controlled by the RFA Governing Board. The PSRFA
has a very stable funding model with the combination of the FBC and fire levy and thus has the
capacity to maintain service levels despite changes in the economy/costs of service.
Oversight/Management Control: Tukwila would have some direct representation on the RFA board
(assuming its current model is continued). Tukwila would not have a controlling interest on the board.
Other: The timeline on annexation is typically 18 months to 2 years from the time negotiations begin.
If the City annexes, it loses some of its property tax capacity by law: that capacity is shifted to the RFA.
Because the RRFA has an FBC, the reduction in capacity is $1.00 from the City's statutory maximum
(currently in excess of $3.00). This will require a slight decrease in the city's current general levy
(about 6 cents out of the 2022 general City levy rate of $2.159/$1,000 AV rate).
In order to secure voter approval for annexation, the City is likely to need to reduce its property tax
levy by some amount, since the fire budget is no longer part of the City's budget. This amount
becomes "banked property tax capacity" that can later be used by the City Council without voter
approval.
Risks/Major Unknowns:
• What agreement will ultimately be reached between the parties around governance, FBC
formula policies, future fire services in Tukwila?
• What leverage will the City have in the negotiation for annexation if key issues are not
addressed in the initial contract negotiation?
• Will the voters of Tukwila approve annexation?
• How will the cost change over time? (true for any option)
• How will the FBC estimate change after the data base is reviewed in detail?
A-37
150
FN 1
FN 2
FN 3
FN 3a
FN 9
Attachment D
Referred to as "Attachment A" in the Options Templates included at Attachment C of the Committee Report
All Figures for Year 2022 and all are ESTIMATES
Comparing Options 1 - 9
Comparable Expenses
FTE Count'
Wages & Benefits 2
Admin Overhead
Facilities/Capital
Reserves/Overhead3
Other O&M3a
Other Reserves9
Option 1 Status
Quo
65
$12,474,164
$67,103
$113,077
$1,563,820
$0
Option 2 Status
Quo Plus
Enhancements
68
$12,999,008
$67,103
$113,077
$1,784,861
so
Option 3 Tukwila
Fire District
w/Property
Taxes
75
$13,665,337
$422,553
$113,077
$2,087,460
$1,590,000
Option 4 Tukwila
Fire District
w/Property
Taxes & FBC
75
$13,665,337
$422,553
$113,077
$2,087,460
$1,590,000
Option 5 Partner
w/another Fire
Provider to
Create Tukwila
RFA w/FBC
75
$13,665,337
$422,553
$113,077
$2,087,460
$1,590,000
Option 6
Contract for
Service
w/Renton
Regional Fire
Authority (RRFA)
52
$9,462,749
$4,249,099
$850,409
$0
so
Option 7
Contract for
Service w/Puget
Sound Regional
Fire Authority
(PSRFA)
52
$10,474,671
$2,886,778
Option 8
Annexation into
Renton RFA
Option 9
Annexation into
Puget Sound RFA
$621,468
$265,980
$650,000
0
so
$0
so
so
so
0
$0
$0
so
so
$0
SUBTOTAL
$14,218,164
$14,964,049
$17,878,427
$17,878,427
$17,878,427
$14,562,257
$14,898,896 $14,419,396 $14,196,240
FN 3b Retained Costs (Items City will Continue to be Responsible for)3b
FN 4
FN 4a
FN 5
Debt Service on FS 51,52
Debt Service on FS 53,544
FMO Contract Cost4a
LEOFF 1
TOTAL City -Retained Costs
$1,870,128
so
$0
$261,000
$2,131,128
$1,870,128
$0
$0
$261,000
$2,131,128
$1,870,128
$0
$900,000
$261,000
$3,031,128
$1,870,128
$0
$900,000
$261,000
$3,031,128
$1,870,128
$0
$900,000
$261,000
$3,031,128
$1,870,128
$0
$o
$261,000
$2,131,128
$1,870,128
$0
$a
$261,000
$2,131,128
$1,870,128
$0
$610,937
$261,000
$2,742,065
$1,870,128
$0
$840,377
$261,000
$2,971,505
Estimated Cost of Fire Depts
Est Cost w/Enhanced Services
One -Time Startup Costs
$16,349,292
N/A
$17,095,177
$17,095,177
$20,909,555
$21,655,440
$1,000,000
$20,909,555
$21,655,440
$1,000,000
$20,909,555
$21,655,440
$1,000,000
$16,693,385
Included
$17,030,024
Included
$17,161,461
Included
$17,167,745
Included
Offsetting Revenues
General Fund
FN 7 Revenue/Property Tax
Equivalent'
RFA/District Taxing Authority
Fire Benefit Charge
Excess Levy
Debt Service on FS51/52
FN 8 LEOFF 18
FN 6 FMO Revenue6
Fees for Service/Ambulance
Fee Policy
CARES Funding
EMS Levy
Estimated Revenues5
FN 10 Add't Reserves for RFA1°
FN 5
$13,390,964 $13,733,505 $5,583,105 $827,200 $827,200 $13,331,713 $13,668,352 $308,393 $537,833
$0 $0 $12,047,859 $8,031,906 $8,031,906 $0 $0 $7,228,715 $7,228,715
$0 $0 $0 $9,092,121 $9,092,121 $0 $0 $6,579,744 56,127,147
$0 $0 $320,263 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 51,870,128 $1,870,128 51,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128
$261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000
$302,544 $605,088 $302,544 $302,544 $302,544 $605,088 $605,088 $605,088 $605,088
$24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000
$0 $100,800 $0 $0 $0 $100,800 $100,800 $100,800 $100,800
$500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656
$16,349,292 $17,095,177 $20,909,555 $20,909,555 $20,909,555 $16,693,385 $17,030,024 $17,478,524 $17,255,368
$0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $o $317,063 $87,623
A-38
Attachment D
Referred to as "Attachment A" in the Options Templates included at Attachment C of the Committee Report
Notes:
(1) FTEs differ depending on the option. Option 1 shows current Tukwila FD staffing. Option 2 assumes 2 FTE added for the Fire Marshal Office and also
includes 1 FTE for Public Education. Options 3-5 remove the 3 FTE for enhanced services but add 10 FTE for the administrative staffing needed to support
a stand alone agency. Contract Options 6 & 7 show 52 FTE: this is the number that the contract cost is based on; the contracting agencies would absorb
all additional Tukwila fire staff and the city would pay for them through a share of other costs (overhead, etc.). In Options 8 & 9, all FTE are part of a
larger agency already after the initial contracting phase.
(2) Wages & Benefits. Option 2 data includes wages and benefits for the enhanced services FTEs. Employee costs are updated from the financial plan to
assume Fire Marshal office staff are uniformed position, rather than civilian, and reflect an assumption that CARES unit will be contracted from an agency
that now has a CARES unit.
(3) Reserves/Overhead: Reserves shown are only those funded in the current city budget, not all the reserves in the financial plan. In Options 6 & 7,
reserves are increased to reflect the contract bids which both would require the City contribute to various reserve funds as part of the contract cost.
(3a) Other O&M. O&M is adjusted to reflect vehicles and equipment needs of additional staff.
(3b) Retained Costs differ by option, in that the City must contract for Fire Marshal Office services under Options 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. Taxpayers will support
this cost through their City Taxes.
(4) Retained Costs: No cost is included for remodeling of Stations 53 and 54.
(4a) FMO Contract Cost in Options 3-5 reflect the current FMO costs of the City Fire Dept. Accordingly, these costs were removed from Comparable
Expenses for these options W/B as well as Admin OH. In Options 6 and 7, the costs are included in the contract fee. In Options 8 & 9, the costs are pulled
from the contract bids.
(5) Estimated Total Costs and Total Revenues do not include one time start-up costs of approximately $1mm (likely more, depending on structure).
(6) FMO Revenue. Additional revenue can be expected from enhancement of the FMO. Under Option 2, adding the two FTE is assumed to increase FMO
revenue by $300k. This higher amount of total FMO revenue is included in Options 6, 7, 8, and 9.
(7) Assessed Value for Tukwila is assumed to be $8,031,906,000
(8) LEOFF 1 is a retained City cost under all options and will be funded through general city revenues.
(9) Other Reserves includes $1.09mm in reserves plus a $5mm loan from City to be repaid over 10 years to fund working capital and cash flow needs.
(10) Additional Reserves for RFA. These additional amounts reflect the fact that, as a part of a much larger agency, the expenses and revenues allocable
to, or coming from Tukwila, don't necessarily line up exactly from year to year.
A-39
Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee Options Rating Survey
Option 1: Status Quo
Number of responses: 10
Times Chosen
8
7 7
6
6
5 5
4 4 4
4
3 3 3 3
2 2 222 2 2 2
2
1 1 1110 111110
11 1 11 111 11 1 10"00 0"'0 11100 10100 "0' 0 101110
aej� a��� �' y\a �\��' ��° `z e� �\°�' o� e��\ of \)o �a`�� 4ok
z t a o J
toJ` °. °o' „lc, e� ° ��w� \\cj \`oj ca`•
,9 �� ‹,` o° o� oma �a'0� a'6. ta�
0 0 0 �` e
�`�� �a�` a� .0 .4 Ota GOJ 5'6a` o,
P� P, -o ,�o \e Lo O� Q,c �J -�
• 5 = very positive
• 2 = somewhat negative
• 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative
• 1 = very negative • 0 - Don't know
Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option.
Number of responses: 7
Text answers:
Doesn't seem feasible or efficient.
The City needs to prioritize the Fire Department and give it the resources it needs for it to be effective. It
seems untenable that other departments and projects have been given budget far in excess of what has been
allocated to the Fire Department and that important services such as fire inspections have been discontinued.
I believe the fire fighters are not happy and would prefer leaving the City because funding of their services had
not been made a priority. Additionally, they would receive better pay and benefits at PSRFA. Regarding
funding sustainabiliy, the city seems to have a lot of money - revenues are back to pre -pandemic levels (as
reported), an additional $40M is scheduled to be spent on the PW shops (original budget of $30M, new budget
of — $80M), a new multi-million dollar teen/senior center is proposed, additional staff are being added to other
departments.
While the Status Quo option maintains the type and quality of service we have now, it does not provide fiscal
sustainability for the city's budget (unless it is found that one fire station is not needed) or enhanced services
for the city's population. It is very clear that this needs to change and perhaps different management would
provide better oversight on the budget.
A-40
153
Financial sustainability and ability to meet the needs of a diverse community is of concern with this option.
This options provides better local control at a very high total dollars cost --especially if enhanced services are
added.
A bigger pool of resources would assist with the diverse needs of the community.
With time, ability of meeting needs of businesses will be affected without financial sustainability.
There will be a negative impact on labor force recruitment and retention. The one goal all fire departments
share is the desire to offer their community the highest quality services possible.
Overall control over operational and financial services should be made by the most knowledgeable and
experienced professionals in the fire services. This is not meant to criticize, just state facts. Since continually
listening to council meetings for a couple years it is obvious to me that the council has their hands full. Much
more so as the years have gone by. Very complicated and huge issues on their plates. It is also obvious to me
that even council members with years on the council don't have a full understanding of the fire department.
How could they with all that they have to deal with now. Operational and financial decisions should be made
by the professionals most knowledgeable and experienced in the fire service.
Quality of services and response times ( which are good ) would possibly be affected negatively without
financial sustainability in the projected years to come.
We need all the enhanced services and this option does not do anything to attain that.
Remaining in the status quo does not solve financial sustainability issues in the future.
Totally against this option.
This option is simply not sustainable. I have heard some creative options on how to keep the fire department a
float and wonder why these options were not previously even suggested or explored which tells me that they
are not feasible.
Option 2: Status Quo "Plus" - funding for enhanced services
Number of responses: 9
Times Chosen
8
6
4
6 6
5 5
114 4 4
31 33 3 33
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
i011
111 11.00
1 1 111 1 11 1110 00 0 00 0 0"'0 11111
,00 O,0 0'0 0 "' 0
0
�ae�� aetc. 5`a tc� t �° `� et �\°c °� e�,\ °t ��` �a`�� °s�,r\
e t a g ° J
kQ s�Q 4s�' °c e°� aJ �a� a� �a�
c1 a\°° aL` �c° �a� °oma wa\� °-e
Pte P�0 \.�Q L°� �,e Pc° `'J) 0
• 5 = very positive
2 = somewhat negative
154
• 4= somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative
• 1 = very negative • 0 - Don't know
A-41
Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option.
Number of responses: 5
Text answers:
The Enhanced Services add ons would provide more of the specific services the city needs but the lack of fiscal
sustainability is still a huge reason not to favor this option (unless it is found that one fire station is not
needed). Left with the city continuing to manage this I'm concerned the same fiscal forecast will resurface and
voters will be back to square one. And yet the positive aspect of this system of oversight makes the council
very accountable to Tukwila voters but only if the voters are made aware of it and current councils do not kick
the issue down the road.
Ability to meet the needs of a diverse community is still a concern even with the addition of enhancement
services.
This option is slightly better than Option 1 but at an even higher, unsustainable cost.
A bigger pool of resources would assist with the diverse needs of the community.
With time, ability of meeting needs of businesses will be affected.
There will be a negative impact on labor force recruitment and retention.
The one goal all fire departments share is the desire to offer their community the highest quality services
possible. Enhanced services would cost us more and we basically cannot afford it. The community would not
receive ALL of these enhanced services as well.
Overall control over operational and financial services should be made by the most knowledgeable and
experienced personnel in the fire services.
Quality of services and response times ( which are good ) would possibly be affected negatively without
financial sustainability in the projected years to come.
Accountability and measuring outcomes would possibly deteriorate in the years to come. Overall control over
operational and financial services should be made by the most knowledgeable and experienced professionals
in the fire services.
Remaining in the status quo does not solve financial sustainability issues in the future nor does paying
additional monies for enhanced services.
Again, I fear that if we try to do the enhanced services ourselves, we will be in worse shape than we were with
just status quo. Why reinvent the wheel.
A-42
155
Option 3: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded solely by property taxes (no Fire
Benefit Charge)
Number of responses: 9
Times Chosen
6
5
4
4
3 3 3 3 33 3 33 3
2110
111010
2:111110
11 010 0 0 0 0 Ili°
0 00
4 4 4
1
0 00 0
e c csoa ,. o J
Jia J\d o'0 of o� • �� k° °k N•§s
co to c, \a`o ec a�� ` ���� to
,c.Q ,c� �c(2` °� \°� ao. Sao a•p a�
. a\c° aL` ��° tai\ °�° tial °,et
P�\ P�\ °k ��� °� Ore Pc° '7 �.'\
• 5 = very positive
• 2 = somewhat negative
• 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative
• 1 = very negative 0 - Don't know
Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option.
Number of responses: 6
Text answers:
How much more can we ask the public to fund from property taxes? Not feasible.
I don't fully understand this option but what I think I heard in the meetings is that this option wouldn't produce
sufficient revenue to sustain the fire service.
Option 3 doesn't improve the quality or type of service provided by the fire department, as the enhanced
services are not included, and could even cause a decline (unless it is found that one fire station is not
needed). It simply costs too much (even without the enhanced services) and is not fiscally sustainable. It also
maintains a reduced share of the costs for properties at greater risk of needing fire services. I think this is a
bad time for the government to ask more of taxpayers. And it seems that there has to be some unnecessary
overhead costs involved in going back to the voters year after year asking them to secure funding for a very
basic government service.
This option still doesn't fully address the ability to meet the needs of a diverse community. Sustainability of
funding depends heavily on property tax and overtime, the cost would still overrun the revenue from property
tax + city revenue.
A-43
156
This option is slightly better than Opt's 1 & 2 but is only sustainable from a cost standpoint if citizens vote for
property tax lid lifts for fire/public safety. Also, it cost significantly more and still leaves the cost equally shared
between residential, multi -family, and business while the cost generations are not equal.
Meeting needs of diverse community would be status quo. Meeting needs of business community could reduce
in time with this option. This option too expensive. Labor force does not support this option. The professionals
with the most knowledge and experience in the fire service should be making the decisions on operations and
finances. No enhanced services with this option. Not a good option for financial sustainability. This option very
low in my opinion.
Option 4: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded by both property taxes and a Fire
Benefit Charge
Number of responses: 9
Times Chosen
6
4 4 4 4 4
4
3 3 3 3 33 33 3 3 3
22 2 222 121
2
II11
111010
1 1 111 10110 0 0 °I11110 1010 1110 010 11110 011010
0
eta eta • �a `\�� k� `� et • �\o� e�, •t Jam` 0a\�4o of .
e t a y o J
.6' J`a• cc o� ox o ro ok `�4°
S° co y oo \ao ,ec Ja�.w1 �\\� �\�� taw
�`�� Q �.�� tea\`°yw a`o� t‘ -4
et0� `o eta ��t�a o eta
to a J a
Po Qo o , Lo O, Pc qJ \-\
• 5= very positive
* 2= somewhat negative
• 4= somewhat positive • 3= neither positive or negative
• 1= very negative • 0- Don't know
Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option.
Number of responses: 4
Text answers:
The projected costs in this scenario are high - would it really cost $2.6M (per Attachment A - $1 M additional
salary and benefit, addition $730K for Admin Overhead and $900K for FMO - these costs are included in the
wages and benefits of Option 1) to fund the finance department and other administrative services for a Tukwila
RFA? If the City were paid to provide these services, it would be added revenue to them. If the City is looking
for a financing vehicle, similar to the MPD, this seems the way to go. Regarding sustainability, the FBC would
need to be voted on periodically (every 10 years?) and the voters may need to vote to finance apparatus
purchases.
A-44
157
I have the same reservations about Option 4 as Option 3 but see that the Fire Benefit Charge is a step in the
right direction for funding stability and distributing the costs for higher risk properties.
This Option is slightly better than Opt 3 because it also includes a Fire Benefit Charge possibility that
distributes cost more fairly. It is still very costly.
No enhanced services and would cost more dollars to attain them. This option more expensive.
Possibility of needs of business community not being met in time.
Relies on voter approval.
Labor force does not support this option. Supports enhanced services.
Am not in favor of this option at all.
Option 5: Partner with another fire service provider to create a Tukwila Regional Fire
Authority --- with a Fire Benefit Charge
Number of responses: 9
Times Chosen
6
4 4 4 4 4 4
4
11
3 3 33 3 31 33
222 Ili
2 2 222 2 22
211 1 1 1
0 00 '000 '0 0' '00 110100 0 0 0 011110
0
r `\`a�\ eS �
�`. Ca��
°�6, �,. 6�: 6.
✓ g o c0aaer
,e ,• ° Cr
t t �a0a\C°°0 a
o`<Q o`Q c, oc‘ \°, of raap at
o
a a O� et c 5`
ib• 64<•
P� P�o ,So \�Q Lo 0 P• `'� \-\`
• 5 = very positive
• 2 = somewhat negative
• 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative
1 = very negative • 0 - Don't know
Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option.
Number of responses: 4
Text answers:
Similar comments as Option 3.
I have the same reservations as Options 4 and 3 and the same positive opinion that the Fire Benefit Charge is a
step in the right direction for funding stability and distributing the costs for higher risk properties. Maybe
accountability would improve with more eyes on the issue? A-45
158
000 00
This Option is similar to Opt 4 except the City gives up some control. It is still very costly and requires voter
approval of funding increases.
I fear meeting the needs of a diverse community would not be a priority with all that would have to be worked
out starting a RFA.
Starting your own RFA would incur costs such as IT support, payroll administrations, personnel server ( a very
complicated issue) , apparatus maintenance and financially planning for future apparatus replacement and
station maintenance and replacement of station 54 for example. This option too expensive as well.
Option 6: Contract for Service with Renton RFA
Number of responses: 9
6
Times Chosen
4
4
4 4
5
3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3
2 12110 0 11 2 10 0
1 1 1
0110
121 1 2 1 0 0 01 10
212 122
11 ll 0 0 il 10 01 110
0
aet� .•\6Q' ()c 5`a t•\��
os °e et �\o�. o` et,\ oO` 4\
a`�� 4o°fir
e t a Co
Q of
�to�` Qt0 `off apo eto \�� \\� \`� tam\
o� o` oy °� \off \Qoa �°` map` ta\\
w
.0 ��� wa�� aZ` ��t° et
a\ o° O"' �ta\ �o e
• 5= very positive
• 2= somewhat negative
• 4= somewhat positive • 3= neither positive or negative
1= very negative • 0- Don't know
Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option.
Number of responses: 5
Text answers:
Doesn't sound like Renton is interested in this option, so that negates any potential positives of this option.
No going back if this option is selected. No control over service delivery other than through contracting
specifications. Expensive in comparison with status quo. Firefighters would most likely prefer this
arrangement to status quo - different management, better benefits and pay.
This option really doesn't change anything about fiscal sustainability for the better. I appreciate that enhanced
services are provided.
A-46
159
A contract requires the City to transfer Fire staff and equipment to RFA. If, for some reason the costs or services
are not satisfactory how does the City go forward to provide Fire Services? The City's negotiating position is
rather terrible. This option is totally unacceptable.
Providing to a diverse community not as accessible as PSRFA. The pool of resources are not as varied and
extensive. Enhanced Services not as developed.
Our area is so unique with the residential population compared to the 100,000 plus population that comes to
Tukwila during the day for business hence experienced in providing for the needs of a large business
community. It is hard to compare Renton with this. They are more residential obviously.
Contract required before annexation. More expensive for us that way.
Impact on labor force, Renton RFA is not the preferential option for TFD personnel. They are not rated as
"excellent" like PSRFA.
Professionals with the most experience and knowledge in the fire service should have control over the
operational and financial decisions.
Am unaware of the overall quality of services from Renton Fire. There is more to this than just response times.
Enhanced services purchased ( Comparing Options 1-9 under service levels, option 6) and unaware of quality
of their enhanced services. Their needs are definitely different than ours.
Considered a ladder to financial sustainability but would take much longer than PSRFA.
Overall I would pick this option AFTER PSRFA with and without a contract.
Option 7: Contract for Service with Puget Sound RFA
Number of responses: 9
Times Chosen
8
7
6 6
6
4
3 3 33 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2222
2
11 11110
11 111100
111110
1 11o"000 0 000 "00 101100 1 1111111 " 0
j� atw �•a i•\��. �° oe _el)t �o�cc.'e�,\ t ��` `� ca�� °``te'
e t 0 .�
toy•i°J `o \ao et a\�woN � \\� saw
`� kQ 5Ch °t` �o, o� �a° a° ta��
o\`6 o\`6 ,°<a\`o Qat °�co �o e�a ``C3 � y`' �o e
4 4 4
• 5= very positive
• 2= somewhat negative
• 4= somewhat positive • 3= neither positive or negative
• 1 = very negative • 0- Don't know
Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option.
Number of responses: 5
Text answers:
A-47
160
No control over decision making so no control over cost containment or service levels. However, Renton's
profile is more similar to Tukwila's that Puget Sound's is (complex city, not a lot of rural area) and they seem to
be more cost conscious. They are a smaller organization and may be more willing to partner with Tukwila -
more of a peer relationship than a top down relationship. I have not heard that they want to close fire station
52, so this is a plus in my opinion
This option really doesn't change anything about fiscal sustainability for the better. I appreciate that
enhanced services are provided.
This Option is more costly (in the short term) than Opt 6 and is equally, totally unacceptable for the same
reasons.
Have more resources and a bigger pool to draw from to provide for a diverse community and having the
enhanced services will benefit this criteria immensely. ( Different language's available, CARES, Public
Education, Fire Prevention and PIO ( Public Information Officer for media etc. )
Additional resources would be available with this option benefiting businesses. It is a fair practice to determine
the level of combustible materials in businesses as compared to a home owner and what would be needed for
services.
Labor force supports this option.
Control over operational and financial decisions should be made by the professionals most experienced and
knowledgeable regarding the fire service.
Quality of services is already good and can only get better with enhanced services. The PSRFA has a great
reputation and excellent rating.
This RFA has been in operation for over a decade and has established accountability and measuring of
outcomes.
This is the best option for sustainability of funding due to sharing of resources, only paying one Chief and
getting all three enhanced services.
TFD is already participating with PSRFA in training, Zone 3 operations ,fleet maintenance and the Fire Marshalls
office. This is a definitely an advantage to joining PSRFA with already established operations.
This is my next choice of options if we cannot immediately annex into PARFA
I think in order to get to annexation we are going to have do have a contract first. If not, how do we get to
annexation without having to fund the fire department for another at least two years?
A-48
161
Option 8: Annex into Renton RFA (after first entering into a service contract)
Number of responses: 9
Times Chosen
8
7 7
6
6
4 44
0
Saes Saes �`'\ae o��oi oQeta ok� koc° °kkJ ���o
°0,c° °��to o�y eo a� \o ec \QJa� �a°� �a���c ta\�a
a\e e ae- ,6 tai °oma way ore
P� P�°� \�Q cow O -e Peo `'�� ��
32 100 ' '00 ' 000 0"00
4
111000
3
1
0110' 11 000 0 110
5
4 4
• 5 = very positive
• 2 = somewhat negative
• 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative
® 1 = very negative • 0 - Don't know
Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option.
Number of responses: 5
Text answers:
Renton doesn't sound interested, so this is not a viable option.
No control over decision making so no control over cost containment or service levels. However, Renton's
profile is more similar to Tukwila's that Puget Sound's is (complex city, not a lot of rural area) and they seem to
be more cost-conscious. They are a smaller organization and may be more willing to partner with Tukwila -
more of a peer relationship than a top-down relationship. I have not heard that they want to close fire station
52, so this is a plus in my opinion but of course, they could decide this later unilaterally. No recourse if this
option doesn't work. Voter's may not agree - property taxes have doubled in the last 5 years and their is some
discontent about how the PSP was handled.
This positives aspects of this option are it 1) provides a secure source of funding outside of the city's
responsibility, thus making the fire departments expenses sustainable, 2) provides enhanced services that are
better able to serve the most common EMS needs of our residential and business communities, 3) comes in at
a reasonable cost when compared to some of the options 3, 4, and 5 and is comparable to the other options,
and 4) provides a FBC which distributes the cost of fighting a fire more equitably.
This option provides excellent service combined with sustainable, equitable costs. It is acceptable to me.
A-49
162
Providing to a diverse community not as accessible as PSRFA. The pool of resources are not as varied and
extensive. Enhanced Services not as developed.
Our area is so unique with the residential population compared to the 100,000 plus population that comes to
Tukwila during the day for business hence experienced in providing for the needs of a large business
community. It is hard to compare Renton with this. They are more residential obviously.
Contract required before annexation.
Impact on labor force, Renton RFA is not the preferential option for TFD personnel. They are not rated as
"excellent" like PSRFA.
Professionals with the most experience and knowledge in the fire service should have control over the
operational and financial decisions.
Am unaware of the overall quality of services from Renton Fire. There is more to this than just response times.
Considered a ladder to financial sustainability but would take much longer than PSRFA.
Overall I would pick this option 3rd after PSRFA with and without a contract.
Option 9: Annex into Puget Sound RFA (after first entering into a service contract
Number of responses: 9
Times Chosen
10
8
8 7
6 1 6 6
6
5
44
4 3
2 122 2 2222 22
2 1 1 1 1 1 111 '000, ,0,00 i11111
.0 ,0000 10 110
1
100 11111 11000 110010
0
�e: c` �' ae�\��. otoe ta'`° ySy
ep;\ °J�` kJ0a`�% o`�R•
r\:
\aet ,\ae o�5` oil ode �o s�o' ok `dao
c°, Quo �� ` �a� �e� Ja •o��� o��� oto
�Q o� oy o� �° �Q sa �a ca
•t� . ' a\C, � 0° ta oJ� yea\ 0
Pp`` 0\ ,So'` W,09?) Low o Qc° �J �.�
•
5= very positive
•
2= somewhat negative
• 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative
1 = very negative • 0 - Don't know
Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option.
Number of responses: 7
Text answers:
This makes sense, as we would have the enhanced services, as well as partnering with a well-established RFA.
We can start with a contract, and then build the program over a couple of years.
The City would lose control over decision-making and thus control over costs and services; PSRFA has stated
they would eliminate fire station 52 which would adversely impact City safety, especially for those who live on
Tukwila Hill (in the FS 52 area, 3 people lost their lives due to fire in 2021 and several families, 37 - 4CS,_re
163
displaced due to another fire in 2020 - examples of the fire threat and consequences); PSRFA costs are high
compared with Renton and in general. Since the PSRFA's FBC is permanent, they have the ability to continue to
increase costs in tandem with property values increases, and again, the City would have no control over this.
Tukwila is a more dense, complex city compared with the PSRFA area - we do not have large areas of sparsely
populated, rural land; we do have a huge gas line that extends east/west beneath the central business district
and other high risk situations - and would be better served by Renton RFA if the decision is made to annex. My
first choice continues to be the status quo with a more robust FMO (could this be contracted out? Fire
inspections are a high priority), Cares services from Renton (cost would be covered by the $100K from King
County) and contracted educational services or use of City's existing communication group.
As with Option 8 the positives aspects of Option 9 are it 1) provides a secure source of funding outside of the
city's responsibility, thus making the fire departments expenses sustainable, 2) provides enhanced services
that are better able to serve the most common EMS needs of our residential and business communities, 3)
comes in at a reasonable cost when compared to some of the options 3, 4, and 5 and is comparable to the
other options, and 4) provides a FBC which distributes the cost of fighting a fire more equitably. Additionally, it
seems to be what the fire fighters want as it will probable provide higher wages and better working
conditions/hours per week and has a FBC that does not have to go back to the voters for approval, making it
more sustainable.
With a larger consortium with shared personnel, there is greater ability to meet the needs of a large and
diverse community. This option gives me more confidence in meeting this criteria. Additionally, it would
provide the most impact on the labor force by having more personnel on duty at one time to alleviate the
hardship experience by firefighters. This option and the contract into PSRFA are my top two options.
This option also provides excellent service combined with sustainable, equitable costs. It is my first choice for
two reasons. First, our FF's prefer it. Second, the PSFA provides service to Seatac which is a neighboring city
and we can logically share fire stations. It is acceptable to me.
Have more resources and a bigger pool to draw from to provide for a diverse community and having the
enhanced services will benefit this criteria immensely. ( Different language's available, CARES, Public
Education, Fire Prevention and PIO ( Public Information Officer for media etc. ) Their enhanced services are
established and have a good reputation. They will also share in Hazardous Material operations, Technical
Rescue ( Water and Rope ) for example because they are already established in our region.
Additional resources would be available with this option benefiting businesses. It is a fair practice to determine
the level of combustible materials in businesses as compared to a home owner and what would be needed for
services.
Labor force supports this option.
Control over operational and financial decisions should be made by the professionals most experienced and
knowledgeable regarding the fire service. Easier for a dedicated entity to plan for future knowing requirements
needed.
Quality of services is already good and can only get better with enhanced services. The PSRFA has a great
reputation and excellent rating.
This RFA has been in operation for over a decade and has established accountability and measuring of
outcomes.
This is the best option for sustainability of funding due to sharing of resources, only paying one Chief and
getting all three enhanced services. TFD is already participating with PSRFA in training ( very important) , Zone
3 operations ,fleet maintenance and the Fire Marshalls office. This is a definitely an advantage to joining PSRFA
with already established operations.
This is my first choice option.
A-51
164
I think this is the way to go. My only worry, as I said in the contract option, is we have to figure out how to fund
fire while we move to annexation. Also, the only way this will work is with full support of the union, the
administration, and the council.
A-52
165
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
166
2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Weighted Averages
Ability of provider to meet needs of diverse community
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:
Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract
Enhanced
Services
District -
Property
Taxes
District + RFA - with with Renton
Fire Benefit other RFA
Charge agency
Option 7: Option 8: Option 9:
Contract Annex to Annex to
with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound
Sound RFA RFA
Ability of provider to meet needs of large business community
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire
Enhanced District -
Services Property Fire Benefit
Taxes Charge
Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Option 7: Option 8: Option 9:
Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract Contract Annex to Annex to
District + RFA - with with Renton with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound
other RFA Sound RFA RFA
agency
pal of 5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Weighted Averages
Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire
Enhanced District -
Services Property Fire Benefit
Taxes Charge
i
Option 4:
Tukwila Fire
District +
Option 5: Option 6:
Tukwila Fire Contract
RFA - with with Renton
other RFA
agency
Option 7:
Contract
with Puget
Sound RFA
Impact on labor force, recruitment and retention
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire
Enhanced District -
Services Property
Taxes
Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:
Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract
District + RFA - with with Renton
Fire Benefit other agency RFA
Charge
Option 7:
Contract
with Puget
Sound RFA
Option 8: Option 9:
Annex to Annex to
Renton RFA Puget Sound
RFA
Option 8: Option 9:
Annex to Annex to
Renton RFA Puget Sound
RFA
pat of 5
167
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
168
2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Weighted Averages
Control over operational and financial decisions
Option 1:
Status Quo
Option 2: Option 3:
Status Quo + Tukwila Fire
Enhanced District -
Services Property
Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:
Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract
District + RFA - with with Renton
Option 7: Option 8: Option 9:
Contract Annex to Annex to
with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound
Fire Benefit other agency RFA Sound RFA
Taxes Charge
Overall quality of services (response times and more)
Option 1:
Status Quo
Option 2: Option 3:
Status Quo + Tukwila Fire
Enhanced District -
Services Property
Taxes
Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:
Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract
District + RFA - with with Renton
Fire Benefit other agency RFA
Charge
RFA
Option 7: Option 8: Option 9:
Contract Annex to Annex to
with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound
Sound RFA RFA
paA of 5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Weighted Averages
Accountability for outcomes/ ability to measure outcomes
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:
Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract
Enhanced District - District + Fire RFA - with with Renton
Services Property Benefit other agency RFA
Taxes Charge
Sustainability of funding
i
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire
Enhanced District -
Services Property
Taxes
Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:
Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract
District + RFA - with with Renton
Fire Benefit other agency RFA
Charge
Option 7:
Contract
with Puget
Sound RFA
Option 7:
Contract
with Puget
Sound RFA
Option 8: Option 9:
Annex to Annex to
Renton RFA Puget Sound
RFA
Option 8: Option 9:
Annex to Annex to
Renton RFA Puget Sound
RFA
pa4 of 51 69
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
170
2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Weighted Averages
My overall rating of this option
Option 1:
Status Quo
Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:
Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract
Enhanced District - District + Fire RFA - with with Renton
Services Property Benefit other agency RFA
Taxes Charge
Option 7: Option 8: Option 9:
Contract Annex to Annex to
with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound
Sound RFA RFA
pate5.5of5
City of Tukwila Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Survey Results Summary
Total Reponses: 10
Numbers reflect Weighted Average by Response - 5 = 5 points, 1 = 1 point
#
Questions
Option 1:
Status Quo
Option 2:
Status
Quo +
Enhanced
Services
Option 3:
Tukwila
Fire District
- Property
Taxes
Option 4:
Tukwila
Fire District
+ Fire
Benefit
Charge
Option 5:
Tukwila
Fire RFA -
with other
agency
Option 6:
Contract
with
Renton RFA
Option 7:
Contract
with Puget
Sound RFA
Option 8:
Annex to
Renton RFA
Option 9:
Annex to
Puget
Sound RFA
1
Ability of provider to meet needs of diverse community
3.6
3.8
3.1
3.7
3.7
3.3
4.5
3.9
4.6
2
Ability of provider to meet needs of large business
community
3.8
4.1
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.2
4.6
3
Total costs, considering both costs to residents and
businesses
2.9
2.2
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.5
2.9
3.4
3.6
4
Impact on labor force, recruitment and retention
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
3.0
4.0
3.9
4.9
5
Control over operational and financial decisions
4.3
4.1
3.6
3.9
3.7
2.6
3.1
3.0
2.9
6
Overall quality of services (response times and more)
4.1
4.1
3.3
3.7
3.7
4.0
4.6
4.0
4.4
7
Accountability for outcomes/ ability to measure outcomes
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.7
2.6
3.2
2.8
3.2
8
Sustainability of funding
1.8
1.6
1.9
2.3
2.6
2.3
2.8
3.8
4.3
My overall rating of this option
2.4
2.3
2.0
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.8
3.6
4.1
Cells are shaded to denote the two highest (green) and two lowest (peach) ratings in each row.
A-58
172
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
A.41,----- Initials
ITEM No.
44,
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
Q l
0
5/23/22
Vicky
4.E.
29Q$
ITEM INFORMATION
STAFF SPONSOR: VICKY CARLSEN
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/23/22
AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2021 Year -End Financial Report
CATEGORY
�I
Mtg
Discussion
Date 5/23/22
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD 11 Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW
SPONSOR'S 2021 Year -End Financial Results
SUMMARY
REVIEWED BY ❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety
❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm.
DATE: 5/23/22 COMMITTEE
//
❑
Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev.
Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
CHAIR: QUINN
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN. Finance
COMMITTEE
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/23/22
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
5/23/22
Informational Memorandum 5/23/22
173
174
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
CC: Mayor Ekberg
FROM: Vicky Carlsen, Finance Director
BY: Aaron Williams, Fiscal Manager
DATE: May 23, 2022
SUBJECT: 2021 Year -End Financial Summary
ISSUE
The year-end financial report summarizes for the City Council the Citywide financial results and highlights
significant items or trends through 2021.
DISCUSSION
2020 was an unprecedented year due to the COVID-19 health emergency which negatively impacted local,
state, and national economies. The pandemic resulted in stay-at-home orders with businesses closing to
in-person activity for several weeks. Unemployment soared and many small businesses closed.
While 2021 saw improvement over 2020, the effects of COVID-19 on City revenues and service levels
continued to be impacted, although not to the extent that they were in 2020. Businesses were open but
mask and proof of vaccination mandates were in effect for several months. While some revenue sources
are returning to near pre -pandemic levels, others are not rebounding as quickly.
The City's main revenue sources: sales, gambling, utility, and admission taxes all increased over 2020
levels, However, sales tax, the City's largest revenue source, was below 2019 levels. Business license
revenue has returned to expected levels. 2020 saw a one-time spike due to timing of license expiration
dates when the licensing function was transferred to the State. Culture and Rec fees are higher than 2020
but much lower than pre -pandemic levels. ARPA funds were utilized to bring back programs including day
camps and before & after school activities.
Expenditures in the general fund were below budget primarily due to vacancies throughout the organization.
Expenditures were also below budget due to lower than expected fleet costs and costs associated with the
finance ERP system shifting to 2022 rather than 2021.
Highlights for 2021 are as follows:
• General Fund revenues totaled $67.2 million and expenditures totaled $62.9 million. Unreserved fund
balance in the General Fund ended the year at $17.2 million, exceeding reserve policy
requirements by $5.6 million. It should be noted that of the $5.6 million, $1.45 million was allocated
in 2022 through the mid -biennium budget amendment for one-time projects. $1.3 million was
allocated to the arterial street fund for the EIS alternative access study and $150 thousand was
allocated to the economic development plan
175
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
• All General Fund departments finished the year under budget, primarily due to inability to fill vacant
positions
• Enterprise funds exceed reserve balance requirements
• As part of the Public Safety Plan:
o Fire Station 52 opened in January
• Completed construction of 53rd Ave S, from S 137th St to S 144th St. Project included new street
improvements, drainage, curbs, gutters, driveway adjustments, new sidewalks, and
undergrounding of utilities
• Substantial completion of the Boeing Access Road over Airport Way bridge seismic retrofit. Project
utilized federal Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee (BRAC) funding at 86.5% for design and
100% for construction
• Began a 3 -year investment in the Southcenter Business District for extensive sewer rehabilitation
• Refunded outstanding 2011 and 2014 LTGO bonds resulting in savings of over $97 thousand in future
debt service costs
• Reserve policy met or exceeded in general fund, contingency fund, enterprise funds, and employee
healthcare fund, sustaining healthy financial position
ATTACHMENTS
Year -End 2021 Financial Report
• Highlights of 2021
• General Fund financial reports
• Other Fund financial reports
176
CITY OF TUKWILA
2021 YEAR-END FINANCIAL REPORT
Highlights
178
General Fund and Contingency (Reserve) Fund
Revenue and Expenditures, Ending Fund Balance
General fund revenue was $67.2 million while general fund expenditures were $62.9 million. While revenue was
$963 thousand above budget, expenditures were below budget by $2.6 million. Gambling and excise tax was the
greatest single contributor to the increase in revenues, exceeding expectations by over $1 million, continuing the
pattern of volatility and unpredictability. The under budget in expenditures is primarily due to unfilled, budgeted
positions; mostly in the police department.
The general fund ended the year with a fund balance of 17.2 million, which exceeds the reserve policy by
approximately $5.6 million. During the mid -biennium budget process, $1.45 million of the $5.6 million was allocated
in 2022 to one-time projects. $1.3 million was allocated to the arterial street fund for the EIS alternative access
study and $150 thousand was allocated to the economic development plan.
Any use of excess reserve funds should be utilized for one-time expenditures and not for ongoing expenditures.
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
co$40,000
0
t
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
$66,197
General Fund
2021 Revenues & Expenditures
Budget vs Actual
$67,160
$65,490
$62,904
Revenues Expenditures
■ 2021 Budget ■ 2021 Actua I
179
General Revenues — Taxes
Sales and Use Tax
Combined sales and use taxes brought in $20.0 million in 2021 which is $836 thousand greater than the annual
budget. Sales tax is almost back to 2019 levels but is still lagging behind inflationary increases.
$22,000
$20,000
-10
r $18,000
H $16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$20,579
20,444
Sales Tax
20,511
$17,036
$20,061
$19,225
2019 2020 2021
—*—Actual —0—Budget
Property Tax
For 2021, property tax revenue totaled $17.1 million; an increase of $873 thousand when compared to the prior
year. When compared to the annual budget, property taxes were $224 thousand above budget.
Thousands
180
$18,000
$17,500
$17,000
$16,500
$16,000
$15,500
$15,000
$14,500
$14,000
Property Tax
$17,124
$15,546
2019
2020
Actual —0—Budget
2021
Utility Tax
For 2021, utility taxes were $82 thousand above budget with total revenue of $3.7 million. When compared to the
prior year, utility taxes decreased by almost $660 thousand. The decrease is attributed to $742 thousand solid
waste tax that was collected in 2020 that was dedicated to street projects. This revenue is now being recorded in
the Arterial Street fund.
Thousands
$6,000
$5,500
$5,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
Utility Tax
$5,015
$4,438
$4,352
$3,754
$3,692
$3,610
2019 2020 2021
.0—Actual Budget
Interfund Utility Tax was $2.3 million; $45 thousand under budget but an increase of $169 thousand compared to
the prior year.
$2,600
$2,500
,,, $2,400
c
c
vi $2,300
0
t
~ $2,200
$2,100
$2,000
$2,359
$2,373
Interfund Utility Tax
$2,412
$2,154
$2,367
$2,322
2019 2020 2021
.—Actual tBudget
181
Gambling Tax
Gambling and excise taxes totaled $4.4 million for the year, which is more than $1.0 million above the annual
budget.
$5,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
ro$3,000
H $2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
Admissions Tax
$4,426
Gambling and Excise Tax
$4,426
2019
$2,683
2020
--Actual —S—Budget
2021
Admissions tax totaled $540 thousand for the year, which is $60 thousand below the annual budget. Revenues
were up $331 thousand compared to the prior year, which represents a 160% increase. Admissions taxes were
significantly impacted by COVID-19 and are still well -below pre -pandemic levels.
0
s
H
182
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$-
$957
Admissions Tax
$870
2019
2020
--Actual --Budget
2021
General Revenues — Licenses and Permits
Business Licenses
Business license revenue totaled $3.2 million for the year, finishing $115 thousand below the annual budget. Due
to the transition to the State handling City licenses, revenue timing in 2019-2021 was impacted as renewals were
adjusted to the State license renewal cycles.
Thousands
$5,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
Business License Revenue
$4,356
$4,222
$3,037
$3,172
$3,320
2019 2020 2021
Actual —0—Budget
$3,205
Building Permits
Revenue from Building Permits and Fees was $1.7 million which is $658 thousand below the annual budget.
Number of building permits in 2021 was higher than 2020; 1,498 compared to 1,429, but the total value was
significantly lower; $82,103,963 in 2021 compared to $135,909,213 in 2020.
Thousands
$2,500
$2,300
$2,100
$1,900
$1,700
$1,500
$1,300
$1,100
$900
$700
Building Permits Revenue
$2,231
$2,127
•
$2,116
$1,961
2019 2020 2021
tActual tBudget
$2,375
$1,717
183
Ongoing Expenditures
Departmental
Total Department expenditures for 2021 were $57.3 million, which is an increase of approximately $1.7 million
compared to the prior year.
$20.0
$18.0
$16.0
$14.0
• $12.0
c
0
$10.0
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
$-
$10.0
$9.0
$8.0
$7.0
• $6.0
• $5.0
$4.0
184
$7.6
$18.9
$6.4 $6.6
$17.7
Departmental Expenditures
$17.9
$12.6
$12.9
Police Fire
$5.1
1
■ 2019 ■ 2020 2021
Departmental Expenditures
$4.3 $4.2
Public Works/Streets Parks/Recreation
$3.6 $3.9
$3.3
L
DCD
■ 2019 ■ 2020 kd 2021
$2.4 $2.3 $2.2
$13.5
$8.8 $8.8 $9.0
Mayor Support
By Category
Salaries and benefits were below budget by $1.9 million but an increase of $962 thousand compared to the prior
year. All other General Fund expenditures totaled $20.0 million which was $696 thousand below the annual budget
but an increase of $1.5 million compared the prior year. Much of the salary and benefit savings was due to vacant
(not frozen) positions; many of which were in the police department.
$50.0
$45.0
$40.0
$35.0
Ln $30.0
c
0
$25.0
$20.0
$42.7
General Fund Expenditures- By Category
$41.9
$42.9
$22.6
$18.5
$20.0
Salaries and Benefits Supplies and Services
■ 2019 ■ 2020 2021
185
Fund Balance
General Fund
The General Fund ended 2021 with $17.2 million unreserved fund balance and exceeds reserve policy by
approximately $5.6 million. The fund balance policy states that fund balance in the general shall equal or exceed
18% of the previous year general fund revenue, exclusive of significant non-operating, non-recurring revenue.
The Contingency Fund ended the year with a fund balance of $6.75 million, which meets the fund balance policy
requirement. The fund balance policy states that fund balance in the general shall equal or exceed 10% of the
previous year general fund revenue, exclusive of significant non-operating, non-recurring revenue.
$20.0
$18.o
$16.0
$14.0
,,, $12.0
0
186
$10.0
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
$-
General Fund, Contingency Fund Balances
General Fund
■ 2019 2020 2021
Contingiency Fund
FUND
General
Contingnecy
Ending Fund Balance
$ 17,229,816
6,754,065
Other Funds
Capital Projects Funds
The City completed construction of 53rd Avenue South, from South 137th Street to South 144th Street, which
included new street improvements, drainage, curbs, gutters, and driveway adjustments. It also included new
sidewalks to this residential corridor, as well as undergrounding utility wires. The City issued bonds in a prior year
to cover the General Fund portion of the project, the bulk of the financing. Water, Sewer, and Surface Water fees
collected by the City paid for the corresponding utility improvements. A state Transportation Improvement Board
grant was also instrumental in the funding of this project.
The City also substantially completed construction of the Boeing Access Road over Airport Way Bridge Seismic
Retrofit Project with funding from the federal Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee (BRAC). BRAC funded
86.5% of design and 100% of construction.
The City made substantial progress of Phase One of the consolidated Public Works Shops project, constructing a
new Fleet & Facilities building that meets current and future needs. The City issued bonds in a prior year to cover
the General Fund portion of the project, or 50 percent of the financing. Water, Sewer, and Surface Water fees
collected by the City paid for the other 50 percent.
All facilities included in the Public Safety Plan have been completed and are in use. Both the Justice Center and
Fire Station 51 opened in September of 2020 and Fire Station 52 opened in early 2021. The Fire Department also
purchased an aid car and battalion chief vehicle, bunker gear, helmets, and some mobile data computers; all paid
for by Public Safety Plan funds.
Enterprise Funds
The City repaired damaged concrete at Sewer Lift Station No. 12, and the entire wet well was recoated. In addition,
the control panel at Sewer Lift Station No. 4 was in poor condition and was located deep below grade. The control
panel was replaced and moved into an enclosure above grade. Electrical and accessibility upgrades to the two
sewer lift stations created a safer environment for the maintenance crew. Both projects were funded entirely by the
Sewer fund.
The City restored fish access to Riverton Creek and reestablished previously inaccessible rearing habitat at the
confluence with the Duwamish River. Construction included the removal of two culverts with flap gates and
associated fill, wall demolition, the installation of a new trail bridge, a new soldier pile wall, structural tie -backs along
the adjacent road, channel realignment, boulder, gravel and wood placement, native plant restoration and art work.
A grant from the Recreation and Conservation office was instrumental in completing this project, along with grant
funding from King County and utility revenue from the City's Surface Water fund.
The City's reserve policy states that, at the close of each fiscal year, unrestricted balances in Enterprise funds shall
equal or exceed 20% of the prior year's revenue exclusive of the effects of GASB Statement 68 as well as significant
non-operating, non-recurring revenues. At the close of the 2021 fiscal year, the unrestricted fund balances of the
Enterprise funds comply with the City's reserve policy.
Healthcare fund
The Active Employees Insurance fund has an IBNR (incurred but not reported) reserve of 2.5 times the actuarily
determined IBNR exceeding the reserve policy requirement of 1.5 times the actuarily determined IBNR.
187
188
CITY OF TUKWILA
2021 YEAR-END FINANCIAL REPORT
General Fund
Financial Reports
190
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
CITY OF TUKWILA
Year to Date as of December 31, 2021
R
o
w
SUMMARY BY REVENUE TYPE
BUDGET
ACTUAL
2021 ANNUAL
2021
ALLOCATED
2019
2020
2021
% CHANGE
GT-
2021 BDGT
ALLOCATED
BDGT
% REVD
2019/
2020
2020/
2021
1
PROPERTY TAX
$ 16,900,000
$ 16,900,000
$ 15,545,878
$ 16,251,567
$ 17,124,167
$ 224,167
101%
5%
5%
2
SALES TAX -RETAIL
18,650,000
18,650,000
19,949,591
16,435,510
19,345,233
695,233
104%
(18)%
18%
3
SALES TAX -CRIMINAL JUSTICE
575,000
575,000
629,031
600,524
715,729
140,729
124%
(5)%
19%
4
ADMISSIONS TAX
600,000
600,000
956,833
208,353
539,690
(60,310)
90%
(78)%
159%
5
UTILITY TAX
3,610,000
3,610,000
3,753,595
4,352,386
3,692,456
82,456
102%
16%
(15)%
6
INTERFUND UTILITY TAX
2,367,200
2,367,200
2,358,608
2,153,573
2,322,420
(44,780)
98%
(9)%
8%
7
GAMBLING & EXCISE TAX
3,336,000
3,336,000
3,998,515
2,682,681
4,367,189
1,031,189
131%
(33)%
63%
8
TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE
46,038,200
46,038,200
47,192,051
42,684,593
48,106,884
2,068,684
104%
(10)%
13%
9
BUSINESS LICENSES
3,320,000
3,320,000
3,036,775
4,356,217
3,204,915
(115,085)
97%
43%
(26)%
10
RENTAL HOUSING
51,000
51,000
39,523
50,483
55,495
4,495
109%
28%
10%
11
BUILDING PERMITS
2,375,100
2,375,100
2,115,648
1,960,999
1,717,081
(658,019)
72%
(7)%
(12)%
12
TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS
5,746,100
5,746,100
5,191,945
6,367,699
4,977,491
(768,609)
87%
23%
(22)%
13
SALES TAX MITIGATION
1,323,000
1,323,000
655,127
-
1,323,895
895
100%
(100)%
0%
14
FRANCHISE FEE
2,625,000
2,625,000
2,674,030
2,670,454
2,644,448
19,448
101%
(0)%
(1)%
15
GRANT REVENUE
504,247
504,247
770,078
978,160
841,231
336,984
167%
27%
(14)%
16
ARPA REVENUE
904,500
904,500
-
-
817,324
(87,176)
90%
0%
0%
17
STATE ENTITLEMENTS
456,500
456,500
539,001
505,925
573,014
116,514
126%
(6)%
13%
18
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
567,229
567,229
561,318
559,209
536,719
(30,510)
95%
(0)%
(4)%
19
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
6,380,476
6,380,476
5,199,554
4,713,747
6,736,631
356,155
106%
(9)%
43%
20
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
26,400
26,400
58,494
28,580
31,948
5,548
121%
(51)%
12%
21
SECURITY
767,600
767,600
665,306
1,029,927
1,005,479
237,879
131%
55%
(2)%
22
TRANSPORTATION
44,000
44,000
(7,884)
3,441
1,320
(42,680)
3%
(144)%
(62)%
23
PLAN CHECK AND REVIEW FEES
1,140,300
1,140,300
1,511,497
760,500
732,564
(407,736)
64%
(50)%
(4)%
24
CULTURE AND REC FEES
397,500
397,500
525,919
41,731
112,934
(284,566)
28%
(92)%
171%
25
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES
2,375,800
2,375,800
2,753,332
1,864,178
1,884,245
(491,555)
79%
(32)%
1%
26
FINES & PENALTIES
274,175
274,175
244,709
177,019
290,634
16,459
106%
(28)%
64%
27
MISC
865,959
865,959
1,309,046
908,503
647,756
(218,203)
75%
(31)%
(29)%
28
INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION
2,661,382
2,661,382
2,545,644
2,637,289
2,661,382
-
100%
4%
1%
29
TOTAL OTHER INCOME
3,801,516
3,801,516
4,099,399
3,722,811
3,599,772
(201,744)
95%
(9)%
(3)%
30
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE
64,342,092
64,342,092
64,436,282
59,353,028
65,305,024
962,932
101%
(8)%
10%
31
TRANSFERS IN
1,858,817
1,855,001
-
1,100,000
1,855,001
-
100%
0%
69%
32
TOTAL REVENUE
$ 66,200,909
$ 66,197,092
$ 64,436,282
$ 60,453,028
$ 67,160,024
$ 962,932
101%
(0)
0
Percent of year
100%
191
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF TUKWILA
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Year -to -Date as of December 31, 2021
EXPENDITURES BY
DEPARTMENT
BUDGET
BUDGET
ACTUAL
ACTUAL
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
2021
ANNUAL
2021
ALLOCATED
2019
2020
2021
Allocated Budget
vs Actuals
OVER/(UNDER)
Allocated Budget
vs Actuals
OVER/(UNDER)
% CHANGE
%
EXPENDED
2019/
2020
2020/
2021
01 City Council
$ 363,618
$ 363,618
' $ 381,903
$ 351,396
$ 338,693
' $ (24,926)
93%
-8%
-4%
03 Mayor's Office
2,178,126
2,178,126
2,355,805
2,280,110
2,152,513
(25,613)
99%
-3%
-6%
04 Administrative Services
5,158,639
5,158,639
4,726,846
4,751,297
5,005,893
(152,746)
97%
1%
5%
05 Finance
2,991,615
2,991,615
2,392,462
2,402,140
2,434,453
(557,162)
81%
0%
1%
07 Recreation
4,573,403
4,573,403
5,061,090
4,273,655
4,225,108
(348,295)
92%
-16%
-1%
08 Community Development
4,375,887
4,375,887
3,557,282
3,278,151
3,910,667
(465,220)
89%
-8%
19%
09 Municipal Court
1,348,456
1,348,456
1,297,382
1,292,626
1,209,940
(138,516)
90%
0%
-6%
10 Police
18,512,591
18,512,591
18,907,947
17,682,031
17,927,963
(584,628)
97%
-6%
1%
11 Fire
13,736,860
13,736,860
12,562,278
12,850,658
13,471,379
(265,481)
98%
2%
5%
13 Public Works
6,817,377
6,817,377
7,571,784
6,379,120
6,583,077
(234,300)
97%
-16%
3%
Subtotal
60,056,572
60,056,572
58,814,778
55,541,184
57,259,686
(2,796,886)
95%
-6%
`fel
20 Dept 20
5,433,545
5,433,545
6,434,427
4,862,449
5,644,523
210,979
104%
-24%
16%
Total Expenditures
$ 65,490,117
$ 65,490,117
$ 65,249,205
$ 60,403,633
$ 62,904,209
$ (2,585,907)
96%
-7%
4%
Percent of year completed
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF TUKWILA
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
100%
Year -to -Date as of December 31, 2021
Percent of year completed
192
100%
SALARIES AND BENEFITS
BUDGET
ACTUAL
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
2021
ANNUAL
2021
ALLOCATED
2019
2020
2021
Allocated Budget
vs Actuals
OVER/(UNDER)
Allocated Budget
vs Actuals
OVER/(UNDER)
% CHANGE
%
EXPENDED
2019/
2020
2020/
2021
11
Salaries
$ 29,325,215
$ 29,325,215
$ 28,550,123
$ 28,119,885
$ 27,887,462
$ (1,437,753)
95%
-2%
-1%
12
Extra Labor
515,220
515,220
819,391
131,789
206,427
(308,793)
40%
-84%
57%
13
Overtime
2,181,615
2,181,615
1,724,479
1,367,623
2,274,124
92,509
104%
-21%
66%
15
Holiday Pay
515,500
515,500
460,543
443,224
429,309
(86,191)
83%
-4%
-3%
21
FICA
1,922,890
1,922,890
1,858,800
1,739,528
1,774,345
(148,546)
92%
-6%
2%
22
Pension-LEOFF
899,828
899,828
970,203
1,020,215
953,421
53,593
106%
5%
-7%
23
Pension-PERS/PSERS
1,631,377
1,631,377
1,770,053
1,662,169
1,518,973
(112,404)
93%
-6%
-9%
24
Industrial Insurance
875,820
875,820
774,596
859,956
892,567
16,747
102%
11%
4%
25
Medical & Dental
6,904,119
6,904,119
5,745,036
6,486,004
6,901,878
(2,241)
100%
13%
6%
26
Unemployment
-
-
18,273
93,070
45,019
45,019
-
409%
-52%
28
Uniform/Clothing
8,525
8,525
6,353
4,734
6,489
(2,036)
76%
-25%
37%
Total Salaries & Benefits
$ 44,780,109
$ 44,780,109
$ 42,697,850
$ 41,928,197
$ 42,890,015
$ (1,890,094)
96%
-2%
2%
Percent of year completed
192
100%
SUPPLIES, SERVICES AND
CAPITAL
BUDGET
ACTUAL
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
2021
ANNUAL
2021
ALLOCATED
2019
2020
2021
Allocated Budget
vs Actuals
OVER/(UNDER)
% CHANGE
%
EXPENDED
2019/
2020
2020/
2021
0
Transfers
$ 5,433,545
$ 5,433,545
$ 6,434,427
$ 4,862,449
$ 5,644,523
$
210,979
104%
-24%
16%
31
Supplies
1,092,211
1,092,211
1,506,788
893,023
972,766
(119,445)
89%
-41%
9%
34
Items Purchased for resale
13,000
13,000
17,794
2,624
3,274
(9,726)
25%
-85%
25%
35
Small Tools
66,450
66,450
111,793
140,071
128,721
62,271
194%
25%
-8%
41
Professional Services
5,995,071
5,995,071
6,262,192
5,593,708
5,822,337
(172,734)
97%
-11%
4%
42
Communication
481,810
481,810
396,598
482,845
442,383
(39,427)
92%
22%
-8%
43
Travel
84,696
84,696
197,517
33,735
27,378
(57,318)
32%
-83%
-19%
44
Advertising
34,750
34,750
22,981
15,666
15,095
(19,655)
43%
-32%
-4%
45
Rentals and Leases
2,193,137
2,193,137
2,685,516
1,780,511
1,771,840
(421,297)
81%
-34%
0%
46
Insurance
1,030,329
1,030,329
889,957
987,671
1,120,068
89,739
109%
11%
13%
47
Public Utilities
1,991,445
1,991,445
1,983,981
1,817,328
2,250,189
258,744
113%
-8%
24%
48
Repairs and Maintenance
651,669
651,669
708,384
910,635
715,551
63,882
110%
29%
-21%
49
Miscellaneous
1,123,230
1,123,230
1,224,377
949,675
963,565
(159,665)
86%
-22%
1%
6*
Capital Expenditures
518,665
518,665
109,051
5,495
136,506
(382,160)
26%
-95%
2384%
Total Operating Expenses
20,710,008
20,710,008
22,551,356
18,475,436
20,014,195
(695,813)
97%
-18%
8%
Total Expenses
$ 65,490,117
$ 65,490,117
$ 65,249,205
$ 60,403,633
$ 62,904,209
I $ (2,585,907)
96%
-7%
4%
Percent of year completed
192
100%
CITY OF TUKWILA
2021 YEAR-END FINANCIAL REPORT
Other Funds
Financial Reports
194
City of Tukwila
Contingency Fund 105 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings $ 20,000 $ 66,960 $
Transfers in
46,960 334.8%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 20,000 66,960
46,960 334.8%
238,936 238,936
Total Revenues
20,000 305,896
285,896 1529.5%
EXPENDITURES:
Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
20,000 305,896
6,448,169 6,448,169
285,896 1529.5%
Ending Fund Balance $ 6,468,169 $ 6,754,065 $ 285,896 104.4%
195
City of Tukwila
Drug Seizure Fund 109 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings $ 500 $ - $ (500)
Seizure Revenue 60,000 300,000 240,000
Other - 71,381 71,381
Total Miscellaneous Revenue
0.0%
500.0%
60,500 371,381
310,881 613.9%
Total Revenues
60,500 371,381
310,881 613.9%
EXPENDITURES:
31 Office & Operating Supplies
35 Small Tools & Minor Equipment
41 Professional Services
43 Travel
49 Miscellaneous
6" Capital Outlay
40,000 22,669 (17,331)
1,907 1,907
100,000 (100,000)
6,595 6,595
19,589 19,589
60,000 58,881
Transfers Out 26,000
56.7%
0.0%
(1,119) 98.1%
26,000 - 100.0%
Total Expenditures
226,000 135,641
(90,359) 60.0%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(165,500) 235,740
331,534 331,534
401,240 -142.4%
Ending Fund Balance $ 166,034 $ 567,273 $ 401,240 341.7%
196
City of Tukwila
Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 101 Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
General Revenue
Hotel/Motel Taxes $ 400,000 $ 540,329 $ 140,329 135.1%
Total General Revenue 400,000 540,329 140,329 135.1%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings 6,000 1,942 (4,059) 32.4%
Other - 10,680 10,680
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 6,000 12,622 6,622 210.4%
Total Revenues
406,000 552,950
146,950 136.2%
EXPENDITURES:
11 Salaries 59,674 60,695 1,021 101.7%
2* Personnel Benefits 19,126 19,182 56 100.3%
31 Office and operating supplies 5,000 5,714 714 114.3%
41 Professional Services 675,000 290,512 (384,488) 43.0%
42 Communication - 331 331
43 Travel 10,000 2,366 (7,634) 23.7%
44 Advertising 250,000 114,424 (135,576) 45.8%
49 Miscellaneous 58,000 4,767 (53,233) 8.2%
Indirect Cost Allocation 24,981
24,981 - 100.0%
Total Expenditures
1,101,781 522,973
(578,808) 47.5%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(695,781) 29,977
1,712,389 1,712,389
725,758 -4.3%
Ending Fund Balance
$ 1,016,608 $ 1,742,366 $ 725,758 171.4%
197
City of Tukwila
Debt Service Funds 2XX - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings $ 2,000 $ 154 $ (1,846) 7.7%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 2,000 154 (1,846) 7.7%
Transfers In
Contributions SCORE
Proceeds from refunded debt
3,681,376
376,895
3,870,501
3,646,679
3,870,500
(34,697) 99.1%
(376,895) 0.0%
(1) 100.0%
Total Revenues
7,930,772 7,517,333 (413,439) 94.8%
EXPENDITURES:
71 Debt Service Principal
83 Debt Service Interest
84 Debt Issue Costs
5,838,936
2,435,889
40,500
5,661,560
2,236,367
40,500
(177,376)
(199,522)
97.0%
91.8%
100.0%
Total Expenditures
8,315,326 7,938,428
(376,898) 95.5%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(384,554) (421,095)
421,095 421,095
(36,541) 109.5%
Ending Fund Balance $ 36,541 $ - $ (36,541) 0.0%
198
City of Tukwila
Debt Service UTGO - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
General Revenue
Property Taxes
Total General Revenue
Miscellaneous Revenue
$ 3,605,000 $ 3,906,139 $ 301,139 108.4%
3,605,000 3,906,139 301,139 108.4%
Investment earnings 171 171
Total Miscellaneous Revenue - 171 171
Total Revenues
3,605,000 3,906,309
301,309 108.4%
EXPENDITURES:
71 Debt Service Principal
83 Debt Service Interest/Misc Fees
960,000 960,000 100.0%
2,642,975 2,642,975 100.0%
Total Expenditures 3,602,975
3,602,975 - 100.0%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
2,025 303,334
9,959 9,959
301,309 14979.5%
Ending Fund Balance $ 11,984 $ 313,293 $ 301,309 2614.3%
199
City of Tukwila
Debt Service LID, Guaranty Funds - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Miscellaneous Revenue
LID Assesment Interest $ 159,000 $ 168,710 $ 9,710 106.1%
LID Assesment Principal 445,000 375,889 (69,111) 84.5%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 604,000 544,599 (59,401) 90.2%
Total Revenues
604,000 544,599 (59,401) 90.2%
EXPENDITURES:
71 Debt Service Principal
83 Debt Service Interest/Misc Fees
445,000 370,000
203,588 177,713
(75,000) 83.1%
(25,876) 87.3%
Total Expenditures 648,588
547,713 (100,876) 84.4%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(44,588) (3,114)
1,343,385 1,343,385
41,474 7.0%
Ending Fund Balance $ 1,298,797 $ 1,340,271 $ 41,474 103.2%
200
City of Tukwila
Street Fund 103 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Intergovernmental Revenue
State Entitlements - MVFT Cities $ 200,000 $ 294,508 $ 94,508 147.3%
Total Intergovernmental Revenue 200,000 294,508 94,508 147.3%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Charges for services 369,000 (369,000) 0.0%
Investment earnings 20,000 667 (19,333) 3.3%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 389,000 667 (388,333) 0.2%
Transfers In 100,000
100,000 100.0%
Total Revenues 689,000
395,174 (293,826) 57.4%
EXPENDITURES:
11 Salaries
12 Extra Labor
2* Benefits
31 Office and Operating Supplies
35 Small Tools and Minor Equipment
41 Professional Services
44 Advertising
48 Repairs and Maintenance
6* Capital outlay
100,000
369,000
13,466 13,466
418 418
5,488 5,488
100,046 100,046
(100,000)
49,550 49,550
1,347 1,347
21,964 21,964
(369,000)
0.0%
0.0%
Total Expenditures
469,000 192,280
(276,720) 41.0%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
220,000 202,895
504,912 504,912
(17,105) 92.2%
Ending Fund Balance
$ 724,912 $ 707,806 $ (17,105) 97.6%
EXPENDITURES BY PROJECT:
Traffic Calming
Safe Routes -S 152nd St
53rd Ave S
42nd Ave S Phase III
Wetland monitoring
Total Expenditures by Project
100,000
369,000
151,994 51,994
2,499 (366,501)
34,983 34,983
87 87
2,717 2,717
152.0%
0.7%
469,000 192,280
(276,720) 41.0%
201
City of Tukwila
Arterial Street Fund 104 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
General Revenue
Parking Tax $ 450,000 $ 488,144 $ 38,144 108.5%
Solid Waste Utility Tax 950,000 1,047,023 97,023 110.2%
MVFT Cities 110,000 150,215 40,215 136.6%
Real Estate Excise Taxes 500,000 1,516,767 1,016,767 303.4%
Total General Revenue 2,010,000 3,202,148 1,192,148 159.3%
Charges for Sevices
Traffic Impact Fees 303,000 251,088 (51,912) 82.9%
Total Charges for Services 303,000 251,088 (51,912) 82.9%
Intergovemmental Revenue
Federal Grants 982,000 1,261,113 279,113 128.4%
State Grants 326,000 (326,000) 0.0%
Total Intergovernmental Revenue 1,308,000 1,261,113 (46,887) 96.4%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings 30,000 933 (29,067) 3.1%
Contributions/Donations 30,000 104,100 74,100 347.0%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 60,000 105,033 45,033 175.1 %
Transfers In 1,666,852 1,666,850 (2) 100.0%
Total Revenues 5,347,852 6,486,232 1,138,380 121.3%
EXPENDITURES:
11 Salaries 242,843 317,535 74,692 130.8%
2* Benefits 83,458 117,790 34,332 141.1%
31 Office and Operating Supplies 421 421
35 Small Tools and Minor Equipment 22,020 22,020
41 Professional Services 821,000 582,396 (238,604) 70.9%
44 Advertising 2,576 2,576
48 Repairs and Maintenance 1,610,000 1,161,071 (448,929) 72.1%
Total Operating Expenses 2,757,301 2,203,810 (553,491) 79.9%
Capital Expenses
6* Capital Outlay 1,008,000 1,534,425 526,425 152.2%
1,008,000 1,534,425 526,425 152.2%
Transfers Out 485,000 485,000 100.0%
Total Expenditures 4,250,301 4,223,235 (27,066) 99.4%
Change in fund balances 1,097,551 2,262,997 1,165,446 206.2%
Beginning Fund Balance 1,419,190 1,419,190
Ending Fund Balance $ 2,516,741 $ 3,682,187 $ 1,165,446 146.3%
EXPENDITURES BY PROJECT:
Overlay 1,200,000 1,280,300 80,300 106.7%
BAR Bridge over Airport Way 882,000 1,114,766 232,766 126.4%
42nd Ave S Bridge Replacement 678,000 450,591 (227,409) 66.5%
42nd Ave Bridge Emergency Repair 192,984 192,984
West Valley Hwy (1-405 - Strander Blvd) (5,000) 327,983 332,983 -6559.7%
Allentown Truck Reroute Project 27,200 27,200
Wetland Monitoring 50,000 21,413 (28,587) 42.8%
Transportation Element of Comp Plan 400,000 (400,000) 0.0%
Overhead 326,301 203,838 (122,463) 62.5%
ADA Improvements 35,000 16,103 (18,897) 46.0%
Green River trail improvements 74,000 (74,000) 0.0%
Annual Bridge Inpsections 75,000 31,812 (43,188) 42.4%
Annual Traffic Signals & Counts 50,000 32,652 (17,348) 65.3%
Tukwila Pedestrian Bridge Repairs 38,593 38,593
Transfer Out - Park Imp fees to 301 485,000 485,000 100.0%
Total Expenditures by Project 4,250,301 4,223,235 (27,066) 99.4%
202
City of Tukwila
Land Acquisition, Rec and Park Development Fund 301 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
General Revenue
Excess Prop Tax Levy - Dwmsh Hill $ 304,000 $ 159,442 $ (144,558) 52.4%
Real Estate Excise Taxes 949,149 949,149
Total General Revenue 304,000 1,108,591 804,591 364.7%
Fees and Penalties
Park Impact Fees
Total Fees and Penalties
Intergovernmental Revenue
State Grants- Duwamish Hill Preserve
Total Intergovernmental Revenue
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings
Total Miscellaneous Revenue
101,000 43,780
(57,220) 43.3%
101,000 43,780
1,500,000
(57,220) 43.3%
(1,500,000) 0.0%
1,500,000
5,000 2,128
(1,500,000) 0.0%
(2,872) 42.6%
5,000 2,128
(2,872) 42.6%
Transfers In 518,550 518,550 - 100.0%
Total Revenues 2,428,550 1,673,050 (755,500) 68.9%
EXPENDITURES:
11 Salaries 7,789 7,789 -
2* Benefits - 1,496 1,496
31 Office and Operating Supplies - 33,476 33,476
41 Professional Services 239,000 349,952 110,952 146.4%
49 Miscellaneous 2,101 2,101
Total Operating Expenses 239,000 394,989 155,989 165.3%
Capital Expenses
6* Capital Outlay 2,266,000 - (2,266,000) 0.0%
2,266,000
(2,266,000) 0.0%
Transfers Out 149,500 149,495 (5) 100.0%
Total Expenditures 2,654,500 544,485 (2,110,015) 20.5%
Change in fund balances (225,950) 1,128,565 1,354,515 -499.5%
Beginning Fund Balance 1,767,280 1,767,280
Ending Fund Balance $ 1,541,330 $ 2,895,845 $ 1,354,515 187.9%
EXPENDITURES BY PROJECT:
Park Acquisitions 1,400,000 25,733 (1,374,267) 1.8%
Open Space Improvements 500,000 (500,000) 0.0%
Park Improvements 405,000 153,967 (251,033) 38.0%
Parks Maintenance - 76,298 76,298
Arts Projects 50,000 98,351 48,351 196.7%
Multipurpose trails 50,000 (50,000) 0.0%
Tukwila Pond 100,000 40,489 (59,511) 40.5%
Other 151 151
Total Expenditures by Project 2,505,000 394,989 (2,110,011) 15.8%
203
City of Tukwila
Facility Replacement Fund 302 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings $ 10,000 $ 2,629 $ (7,371) 26.3%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 10,000 2,629 (7,371) 26.3%
Sale of Capital Assets
400,000 867,500
467,500 216.9%
Total Revenues
410,000 870,129
460,129 212.2%
EXPENDITURES:
41 Professional Services
47 Public Utility Services
Total Operating Expenses
Transfers Out
35,000 9,767
(25,233) 27.9%
11,562 11,562
35,000 21,329
790,000 786,184
(13,671) 60.9%
(3,816) 99.5%
Total Expenditures
825,000 807,512 (17,488) 97.9%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(415,000) 62,617
1,867,144 1,867,144
477,617 -15.1%
Ending Fund Balance
$ 1,452,144 $ 1,929,761 $ 477,617 132.9%
204
City of Tukwila
General Governmnet Improvements Fund 303 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings $ 500 $ 700 $ 200 140.0%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 500 700 200 140.0%
Transfers In 300,000
300,000 - 100.0%
Total Revenues
300,500 300,700 200 100.1%
EXPENDITURES:
2* Benefits (31) (31)
41 Professional Services 90,000 (90,000) 0.0%
48 Repairs and Maintenance - 135,346 135,346
Total Operating Expenses 90,000 135,315 45,315 150.4%
Capital Expenses
6" Capital Outlay
Total Capital Expenses
150,000
(150,000) 0.0%
150,000
(150,000) 0.0%
Total Expenditures 240,000
135,315 (104,685) 56.4%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
60,500 165,385
512,648 512,648
104,885 273.4%
$ 573,148 $ 678,033 $ 104,885 118.3%
EXPENDITURES BY PROJECT:
TCC -Retrofit HVAC Chiller 10,000 17,013 7,013 170.1%
TCC -Exterior Paint/Stain Building 140,000 118,333 (21,667) 84.5%
City Hall Campus Seismic Study 40,000 (40,000) 0.0%
Other 50,000 (31) (50,031) -0.1%
Total Expenditures by Project 240,000 135,315 (104,685) 56.4%
205
City of Tukwila
Fire Impact Fees Fund 304- Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Charges for Sevices
Fire Impact Fees $ 300,000 $ 25,383 $ (274,617) 8.5%
Total Charges for Services 300,000 25,383 (274,617) 8.5%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings
Total Miscellaneous Revenue
500
(500) 0.0%
500
(500) 0.0%
Total Revenues 300,500
25,383 (275,117) 8.4%
EXPENDITURES:
Transfers Out
300,000 25,383
(274,617) 8.5%
Total Expenditures
300,000 25,383
(274,617) 8.5%
Change in fund balances 500 (500) 0.0%
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance $ 500 $ - $ (500) 0.0%
206
City of Tukwila
Public Safety Plan Fund 305- Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
General Revenue
Mitigation Fees (Tukwila South) $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 100.0%
Excise Tax 500,000 567,617 67,617 113.5%
Total Intergovernmental Revenue 800,000 867,617 67,617 108.5%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings
Proceeds from sales of Capital Assets
Total Miscellaneous Revenue
Transfers In
40,000 1,378
5,565,000 261,845
(38,622)
(5,303,155)
3.4%
4.7%
5,605,000 263,223
374,750 100,130
(5,341,777) 4.7%
(274,620) 26.7%
Total Revenues
6,779,750 1,230,970 (5,548,780) 18.2%
EXPENDITURES:
35 Small Tools and Minor Equipment
41 Professional Services
45 Operating Rentals & Leases
47 Public Utility Services
48 Repairs & Maintenance
6* Capital Outlay
Transfer Out
174,000
725,000
108,691
12,057
12,938
5,748
5,845
2,184,052
(65,309)
12,057
12,938
5,748
5,845
1,459,052
62.5%
301.2%
899,000 2,329,331
2,068,817 1,988,230
1,430,331 259.1%
(80,587) 96.1%
Total Expenditures
2,967,817 4,317,561
1,349,744 145.5%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
3,811,933 (3,086,590)
3,164,263 3,164,263
(6,898,523) -81.0%
Ending Fund Balance $ 6,976,196 $
77,672 $ (6,898,523) 1.1%
EXPENDITURES BY PROJECT:
Fire Station 52
Justice Center
Fire Station 51
Fire Equipment & Apparatus
Fire Station 54
Debt Service Transfer
Transfer for Teen/Senior Intergen Center
Total Expenditures by Project
525,000
200,000
574,000
1,068,817
600,000
1,267,324
863,824
123,279
376,266
18,051
1,068,817
600,000
742,324
663,824
123,279
(197,734)
18,051
241.4%
431.9%
65.6%
100.0%
100.0%
2,967,817 4,317,561
1,349,744 145.5%
207
City of Tukwila
City Facilities Fund 306- Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Miscellaneous Revenue
Bond proceeds
Investment earnings
Total Miscellaneous Revenue
$ 2,850,000 $ 2,850,000 $
5,384
5,384
100.0%
2,850,000 2,855,384
Transfers In 1,750,000
5,384 100.2%
1,750,000 100.0%
Total Revenues
4,600,000 4,605,384
5,384 100.1%
EXPENDITURES:
41 Professional Services
6* Capital Outlay
Transfer Out
600,000
5,862,408 6,106,202
(600,000) 0.0%
243,794 104.2%
6,462,408 6,106,202 (356,206) 94.5%
Total Expenditures
6,462,408 6,106,202 (356,206) 94.5%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(1,862,408) (1,500,818)
5,000,862 5,000,862
361,590 80.6%
Ending Fund Balance
$ 3,138,454 $ 3,500,044 $ 361,590 111.5%
EXPENDITURES BY PROJECT:
Public Works Shops
Minkler Improvements
Intergenerational Teen/Senior Center
5,862,408 5,744,843 (117,565) 98.0%
- 40,491 40,491
600,000 320,867 (279,133) 53.5%
Total Expenditures by Project 6,462,408 6,106,202 (356,206) 94.5%
208
City of Tukwila
Water Fund 401 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Charges for Services
Water Sales $ 6,664,000 $ 6,771,116 $ 107,116 101.6%
Security - 210 210
Total Charges for Services
6,664,000 6,771,326
107,326 101.6%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings 38,000 23,820 (14,180)
Connection Fees 20,000 67,865 47,865
Sale of Capital Assets - 9,174 9,174
Other - 405 405
Total Miscellaneous Revenue
62.7%
339.3%
58,000 101,264 43,264 174.6%
Total Revenues
6,722,000 6,872,590
150,590 102.2%
EXPENDITURES:
11 Salaries 671,284 531,880 (139,404) 79.2%
12 Extra Labor 4,000 1,987 (2,013) 49.7%
13 Overtime 10,000 15,551 5,551 155.5%
2* Benefits 338,031 307,429 (30,602) 90.9%
31 Office and Operating Supplies 144,700 106,208 (38,492) 73.4%
33 Water Purchased for Resale 3,352,000 2,688,048 (663,952) 80.2%
35 Small Tools and Minor Equipment 15,000 4,010 (10,990) 26.7%
41 Professional Services 934,250 218,592 (715,658) 23.4%
42 Communication 7,000 7,982 982 114.0%
43 Travel 1,500 625 (875) 41.7%
44 Advertising - 1,332 1,332 -
45 Operating Rentals and Leases 139,269 145,074 5,805 104.2%
46 Insurance 18,069 18,657 588 103.3%
47 Public Utility Services 32,000 26,499 (5,501) 82.8%
48 Repairs and Maintenance 19,000 129,034 110,034 679.1%
49 Miscellaneous 1,033,500 1,084,534 51,034 104.9%
Total Operating Expenses 6,719,603 5,287,442 (1,432,161) 78.7%
Capital Expenses
6* Capital Outlay 810,000 5,385 (804,615) 0.7%
7* Debt Service Principal 135,945 121,492 (14,453) 89.4%
8* Debt Service Interest 7,753 8,567 814 110.5%
Transfer Out
Indirect Cost Allocation
953,698 135,444 (818,254) 14.2%
404,832 402,541 (2,291) 99.4%
698,111 698,111 100.0%
Total Expenditures
8,776,244 6,523,538
(2,252,706) 74.3%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(2,054,244) 349,052
6,441,207 6,441,207
2,403,296 -17.0%
Ending Fund Balance
$ 4,386,963 $ 6,790,260 $ 2,403,296 154.8%
209
City of Tukwila
Sewer Fund 402 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Charges for Services
Sewer Sales
Total Charges for Services
$ 9,952,000 $ 9,422,525 $ (529,475) 94.7%
9,952,000 9,422,525 (529,475) 94.7%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings 55,000 90 (54,910) 0.2%
Connection Fees 25,000 163,200 138,200 652.8%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 80,000 163,290 83,290 204.1%
Total Revenues
10,032,000 9,585,815
(446,185) 95.6%
EXPENDITURES:
11 Salaries 673,038 707,814 34,776 105.2%
12 Extra Labor - 1,924 1,924 -
13 Overtime 7,000 5,305 (1,695) 75.8%
2* Benefits 309,020 304,691 (4,329) 98.6%
31 Office and Operating Supplies 22,600 14,031 (8,569) 62.1%
33 Metro Sewage Treatment 4,977,000 4,173,212 (803,788) 83.8%
35 Small Tools and Minor Equipment 5,000 958 (4,042) 19.2%
41 Professional Services 582,100 352,564 (229,536) 60.6%
42 Communication 6,000 7,607 1,607 126.8%
43 Travel 2,000 72 (1,928) 3.6%
44 Advertising - 2,690 2,690 -
45 Operating Rentals and Leases 89,752 92,020 2,268 102.5%
46 Insurance 9,035 9,329 294 103.3%
47 Public Utility Services 46,000 39,274 (6,726) 85.4%
48 Repairs and Maintenance 45,000 420,368 375,368 934.2%
49 Miscellaneous 1,285,700 1,184,097 (101,603) 92.1%
Total Operating Expenses 8,059,245 7,315,956 (743,289) 90.8%
Capital Expenses
6* Capital Outlay 2,625,000 1,040,818 (1,584,182) 39.7%
7* Debt Service Principal 330,886 330,886 0 100.0%
8* Debt Service Interest 20,786 23,072 2,286 111.0%
Transfer Out
Indirect Cost Allocation
2,976,672 1,394,776 (1,581,896) 46.9%
750,730 749,449 (1,281) 99.8%
588,149 588,149 100.0%
Total Expenditures
12, 374, 796 10, 048, 330
(2,326,466) 81.2%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(2,342,796) (462,515)
13, 364, 976 13, 364, 976
1,880,281 19.7%
Ending Fund Balance
$ 11,022,180 $ 12,902,461 $ 1,880,281 117.1%
210
City of Tukwila
Golf Course Fund 411 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
General Revenue
Excise Taxes $ 3,000 $ 2,895 $ (105) 96.5%
Total General Revenue 3,000 2,895 (105) 96.5%
Charges for Services
Sale of Merchandise 167,942 184,398 16,456 109.8%
Green Fees, Instruction 1,588,697 1,652,636 63,939 104.0%
Total Charges for Services 1,756,639 1,837,034 80,395 104.6%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings 1,000 943 (57) 94.3%
Rents and Concessions 437,361 427,601 (9,760) 97.8%
Other 20,000 435 (19,565) 2.2%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 458,361 428,979 (29,382) 93.6%
Transfers In 300,000 300,000 - 100.0%
Total Revenues 2,518,000 2,568,908 50,908 102.0%
EXPENDITURES:
11 Salaries 696,731 735,090 38,359 105.5%
12 Extra Labor 85,000 42,421 (42,579) 49.9%
13 Overtime 1,010 9,540 8,530 944.6%
2* Benefits 348,107 340,420 (7,687) 97.8%
31 Office and Operating Supplies 84,000 134,702 50,702 160.4%
34 Items purcashed for resale 139,000 151,331 12,331 108.9%
35 Small Tools and Minor Equipment 92,000 86,597 (5,403) 94.1%
41 Professional Services 4,000 101,393 97,393 2534.8%
42 Communication 5,600 7,669 2,069 136.9%
43 Travel 500 - (500) 0.0%
44 Advertising 5,000 11,073 6,073 221.5%
45 Operating Rentals and Leases 37,500 33,962 (3,538) 90.6%
46 Insurance 18,069 20,428 2,359 113.1%
47 Public Utility Services 71,700 77,679 5,979 108.3%
48 Repairs and Maintenance 80,000 39,495 (40,505) 49.4%
49 Miscellaneous 78,500 76,674 (1,826) 97.7%
Total Operating Expenses 1,746,717 1,868,473 121,756 107.0%
Capital Expenses
6* Capital Outlay
Transfer Out
Indirect Cost Allocation
50,000 234,871 184,871 469.7%
50,000 234,871 184,871 469.7%
500 500 - 100.0%
206,798 206,798 100.0%
Total Expenditures 2,004,015 2,310,642 306,627 115.3%
Change in fund balances 513,985 258,265 (255,720) 50.2%
Beginning Fund Balance 542,239 542,239
Ending Fund Balance $ 1,056,224 $ 800,505 $ (255,720) 75.8%
211
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Fund 412 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Charges for Services
Surface Water Sales
Total Charges for Services
Intergovernmental Revenue
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings
Total Miscellaneous Revenue
$ 7,000,000 $ 7,021,365 $
21,365 100.3%
7,000,000 7,021,365
1,833,000 1,540,242
50,000 8,137
21,365 100.3%
(292,758) 84.0%
(41,863) 16.3%
50,000 8,137
(41,863) 16.3%
Total Revenues
8,883,000 8,569,744
(313,256) 78.5%
EXPENDITURES:
11 Salaries 1,131,410 1,115,957 (15,453) 98.6%
12 Extra Labor 8,000 5,334 (2,666) 66.7%
13 Overtime 13,000 11,384 (1,616) 87.6%
2" Benefits 549,898 547,128 (2,770) 99.5%
31 Office and Operating Supplies 137,500 28,562 (108,938) 20.8%
35 Small Tools and Minor Equipment 6,500 3,315 (3,185) 51.0%
41 Professional Services 2,714,900 760,156 (1,954,744) 28.0%
42 Communication 7,000 6,408 (592) 91.5%
43 Travel 2,000 1,181 (819) 59.1%
44 Advertising - 1,265 1,265
45 Operating Rentals and Leases 288,324 293,404 5,080 101.8%
46 Insurance 27,104 27,996 892 103.3%
47 Public Utility Services 107,020 63,329 (43,691) 59.2%
48 Repairs and Maintenance 39,000 83,022 44,022 212.9%
49 Miscellaneous 798,000 809,017 11,017 101.4%
Total Operating Expenses 5,829,656 3,757,458 (2,072,198) 64.5%
Capital Expenses
6* Capital Outlay 1,815,000 2,683,638 868,638 147.9%
7* Debt Service Principal 289,792 278,217 (11,575) 96.0%
8* Debt Service Interest 8,046 8,107 61 100.8%
Transfer Out
Indirect Cost Allocation
2,112,838 2,969,962 857,124 140.6%
567,421 564,254 (3,168) 99.4%
622,199 622,199 - 100.0%
Total Expenditures
9,132,114 7,913,872
(1,218,242) 86.7%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(249,114)
4,883,236
655,872
4,883,236
904,986 -263.3%
Ending Fund Balance
$ 4,634,122 $ 5,539,108 $ 904,986 119.5%
212
City of Tukwila
Equipment Rental/Replacement Fund 501
As of December 31, 2021
Revenue and Expenditures
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Charges for Services
ERR O&M Dept Charges $ 1,938,418 $ 1,633,350 $ (305,068) 84.3%
Equipment Replacement Charges 401,400 401,401 1 100.0%
Total Charges for Services 2,339,818 2,034,751 (305,067) 87.0%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings 20,000 6,171 (13,829) 30.9%
Insurance Proceeds 20,000 184,443 164,443 922.2%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 40,000 190,614 150,614 476.5%
Sale of Capital Assets 5,000 102,400 97,400 2048.0%
Transfers In 426,000 345,413 (80,587) 81.1%
Total Revenues
2,810,818 2,673,177
(137,641) 95.1%
EXPENDITURES:
11 Salaries 371,554 323,032 (48,522) 86.9%
12 Extra Labor 32,000 (32,000) 0.0%
13 Overtime 1,875 7,314 5,439 390.1%
2* Benefits 224,472 203,671 (20,801) 90.7%
31 Office and Operating Supplies 3,000 5,698 2,698 189.9%
34 Items Purchased for Resale 655,000 514,145 (140,855) 78.5%
35 Small Tools and Minor Equipment 7,500 6,484 (1,016) 86.5%
41 Professional Services 5,500 3,234 (2,266) 58.8%
42 Communication 5,500 4,691 (809) 85.3%
43 Travel 1,500 2,357 857 157.1%
45 Operating Rentals and Leases 73,164 59,289 (13,875) 81.0%
46 Insurance 99,000 96,446 (2,554) 97.4%
48 Repairs and Maintenance 120,000 52,926 (67,074) 44.1%
49 Miscellaneous 20,000 35,226 15,226 176.1%
64 Capital Outlay 1,609,400 762,958 (846,442) 47.4%
Indirect Cost Allocation 330,403 330,403 100.0%
Total Expenditures
3,559,868 2,407,873
(1,151,995) 67.6%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(749,050) 265,305 1,014,355 -35.4%
4,349,783 4,349,783
Ending Fund Balance $ 3,600,733 $ 4,615,087 $ 1,014,355 128.2%
213
City of Tukwila
Insurance Fund 502 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Charges for Services
Employee Benefit Programs $ 1,000 $ 352 $ (648) 35.2%
Total Charges for Services 1,000 352 (648) 35.2%
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings 30,000 5,877
Employer Trust Contributions 7,927,924 7,161,351
Employee Trust Contibutions 160,000 202,186
(24,123)
(766,573)
42,186
19.6%
90.3%
126.4%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 8,117,924 7,369,413
(748,511) 90.8%
Total Revenues
8,118,924 7,369,765
(749,159) 90.8%
EXPENDITURES:
25 Medical, Dental, Life, Optical
41 Professional Services
49 Miscellaneous
7,836,633
100,000
21,000
Indirect Cost Allocation 178,821
6,587,724
82,500
10,470
(1,248,909)
(17,500)
(10,530)
84.1%
82.5%
49.9%
178,821 - 100.0%
Total Expenditures
8,136,454 6,859,515
(1,276,939) 84.3%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(17,530) 510,250
87,542 87,542
527,780 -2910.7%
Ending Fund Balance $ 70,012 $ 597,792 $ 527,780 853.8%
214
City of Tukwila
LEOFF Insurance Fund 503 - Revenue and Expenditures
As of December 31, 2021
2021
Variance
Annual Actual Over/(Under) % of Annual
Budget YTD Results Budget Budget
REVENUE:
Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment earnings $ 1,000 $ 405 $ (595) 40.5%
Employer Trust Contributions 315,000 270,249 (44,751) 85.8%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue 316,000 270,654 (45,346) 85.7%
Total Revenues
316,000 270,654
(45,346) 85.7%
EXPENDITURES:
25 Medical, Dental, Life, Optical 469,500
41 Professional Services 5,000
49 Miscellaneous 500
Indirect Cost Allocation 11,920
331,071
(138,429) 70.5%
(5,000) 0.0%
(500) 0.0%
11,920 100.0%
Total Expenditures
486,920 342,991 (143,929) 70.4%
Change in fund balances
Beginning Fund Balance
(170,920) (72,336)
336,595 336,595
98,584 42.3%
Ending Fund Balance $ 165,675 $ 264,258 $ 98,584 159.5%
215
216
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
A.41,----- Initials
ITEM No.
44,
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
Q
o
5/23/22
LH
4.F.
290$
ITEM INFORMATION
STAFF SPONSOR: LAUREL HUMPHREY
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 5/23/22
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Minimum Wage Initiative Effort
CATEGORY
11
Mfg
Discussion
Date 5/23/22
❑ Motion
Mtg Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
SPONSOR
11
Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance ❑ Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW
SPONSOR'S The Finance & Governance Committee requested a fact -based report on the current Transit
SUMMARY Riders Union Minimum Wage Initiative Effort and forwarded the topic to the Committee of
the Whole.
REVIEWED BY ❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ Community Svcs/Safety
❑ LTAC ❑ Arts Comm.
DATE: 4/25/22 COMMITTEE
//
❑
Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev.
Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
CHAIR: QUINN
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
5/23/22
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
5/23/22
Information Memo dated 4/14/2022 (updated after 4/25 FIN Committee)
Transit Riders Union Initiative Text
Association of Washington Cities Guidelines for Elected and Appointed Officials
Minutes from the 4/25 Finance & Governance Committee Meeting
217
218
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Finance & Governance Committee
FROM: Laurel Humphrey, Legislative Analyst
DATE: April 14, 2022 (Updated following 4125/22 Committee)
SUBJECT: Minimum Wage Initiative
ISSUE
The Finance & Governance Committee requested information on the current minimum wage
initiative effort, the initiative process and the City Council's role, and minimum wage laws in
SeaTac and Seattle.
BACKGROUND
Power of Initiative
Tukwila Municipal Code Section 1.12.010 grants Tukwila residents the power of initiative and
referendum according to State law. The power of initiative refers to the authority of the
voters to directly initiate and enact legislation. To do this, an individual or group must create
a petition and obtain signatures from at least 15% of the total number of registered voters on
the day of the last preceding general election. If the proper form and number of signatures is
sufficient, the City Council is required to either pass the proposed ordinance or place it on the
ballot. The City Council could also pass its own ordinance related to minimum wages and
standards under its existing authority.
Current Initiative Effort
The Transit Riders Union is currently gathering signatures for an initiative petition that
proposes to "establish fair labor standards and protect the rights of workers by: (1) ensuring
that the vast majority of employees in the City of Tukwila receive a minimum wage
comparable to employees in neighboring cities of SeaTac and Seattle; (2) requiring covered
employers to offer additional hours of work to qualified part-time employees before hiring
new employees to fill those hours; and (3) adopting enforcement requirements." It requires
that every large employer pay an hourly wage not less than the wage in the City of SeaTac
beginning July 1, 2023, then adjusted annually based upon 100% of the annual average
growth rate of the Seattle -Tacoma -Bellevue CPI -W. Unlike SeaTac, the proposal would cover
all sectors, not just hospitality and transportation. Employers with 15-500 employees
worldwide would get a phase-in period, and businesses with fewer than 15 employees or an
annual gross revenue under $2 million would be exempt. The complete initiative text is
attached to this memo and includes enforcement provisions that would be the responsibility
of the city, which is not budgeted currently and may require additional staff resources.
The Transit Riders Union needs 1,661 valid signatures based upon the last general election.
The TRU has indicated via email to the City Clerk an anticipated submission in mid-June.
219
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Initiative Process
The following is excerpted from the Municipal Research and Services Center's "Initiative and
Referendum Guide for Washington Cities and Charter Counties."
INITIATIVE PROCESS IN A NONCHARTER CODE CITY
Assuming that a code city has formally adopted the power of initiative and that the subject of
an ordinance is an appropriate one for an initiative, the initiative process is basically as
follows:
1. The proponent of the initiative must obtain signatures on the petition equal in number to
15 percent of the total number of registered voters within the city as of the date of the last
preceding city general election. RCW 35A.11.100.
2. Everyone who signs the initiative petition must add to their signature his or her place of
residence, giving the street and the number. Petitions must also be printed in the form
required by RCW 35A.01.040. These requirements are outlined in detail in Appendix K.
3. The signed petition must be filed with the officer designated to receive the petition (usually
the city clerk), who then has three working days to transmit it to the county auditor who will
review and determine the validity and adequacy of the signatures on the petition. After
review, the county auditor must attach a certificate to the petition indicating whether or not
it has been signed by a sufficient number of registered voters. This written certificate is then
transmitted to the city officer with whom the petition was originally filed.
4. If the number of signatures is found to be insufficient, the petitioners have 10 additional
days to amend the petition by supplying additional signatures. The amended petition is then
resubmitted to the receiving officer who retransmits the petition to the county auditor. If the
county auditor finds the number of signatures insufficient a second time, then the petition is
returned to the person filing it. Any taxpayer then has the option of filing an action in superior
court to determine if the petition is sufficient.
5. If the county auditor determines that the number of signatures is sufficient, then the city
council has two options. The first is for the city council to pass the proposed ordinance,
without alteration, within 20 days after the county auditor's certificate of sufficiency has been
received by the council. The second is to submit the measure to a vote of the people.
6. The ballot title of any initiative is to be composed of three elements: (a) an identification of
the enacting legislative body and a statement of the subject matter; (b) a concise description
of the measure; (c) a question asking the voters whether the enactment should be approved
or rejected by the voters. The concise statement must be prepared by the city attorney and
may not exceed 75 words. RCW 29A.36.071.
220
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
7. Once the ballot title is filed, the county auditor will notify the proponents of the initiative of
the exact language of the ballot title. If the persons filing the initiative are dissatisfied with the
ballot title formulated by the city attorney, they may file an appeal within 10 days to the
superior court of the county where the issue is to appear on the ballot. They must indicate
their objections and ask for amendment. The court will hold a hearing and render a decision
certifying the correct ballot title. The decision of the superior court is final. RCW 29A.36.090.
8. The election will be held by special election not less than 45 days after the certificate of
sufficiency is received by the council. The special election dates are listed in RCW 29A.04.330.
(See Appendix L.) If a general election is scheduled within 90 days, the election on the
initiative will take place on that date instead of on the next special election date (assuming
that the general election date is at least 45 days after sufficiency of the petitions is certified).
9. The city clerk must cause the ordinance that will be submitted to the voters at an election
to be published at least once in each of the daily newspapers in the city between five and 20
days before the election. If there are no daily newspapers, then publication must be in each of
the weekly newspapers.
10. If a majority of the number of votes cast favor the proposed measure, it is adopted and
will become effective upon certification of the election results. An ordinance that has been
adopted by means of the initiative process after an election of the people may be repealed or
amended only by a vote of the people. This means that the city council may not merely
amend or repeal such an ordinance, as is usually the case. However, the city council may
initiate the amendment or repeal of the ordinance and then submit the proposition to a vote
of the people
Other Minimum Wage Laws
Jurisdiction
Rate
Annual Increase
Source
United States
$7.25
No
D.O.L. Website
Washington State
$14.49
Yes, based upon the
US City Average CPI -
W.
Link to RCW
Seattle
$17.27 ($15.75 for
smaller businesses)
Yes, based upon the
Seattle -Tacoma -
Bremerton CPI -W
Link to code.
SeaTac
$17.53 for hospitality
and transportation
workers
Yes, tied to
Washington State's
rate of increase.
Link to code.
221
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
Political Limitations
City staff and Councilmembers are prohibited by law from using public resources related to
supporting or opposing a ballot initiative or making a statement implying a city position,
unless that position has been approved by the full Council and meets the public notice
standards required by State law. Councilmembers may use their personal resources and may
make personal statements related to ballot initiatives.
Committee Follow-up
The Finance & Governance Committee discussed this information at its April 25, 2022 meeting
and requested the following:
1. CityAttorney Input
The City Attorney has been asked to review the information and will follow up under
separate cover.
2. Enforcement in SeaTac and Seattle
SeaTac's code provides that persons claiming violations of the chapter may bring action
against the employer in King County Superior court. It also required the City to adopt
auditing procedures as well as authorizes the City Attorney to investigate and initiate
legal action, but does not obligate the City Attorney to expend funds/resources in
pursuit of this.
Seattle's code delegates enforcement to the Office of Labor Standards, which is a City
department with 31 FTEs. The Office of Labor Standards will initiate an investigation,
make a determination, and issue a notice of violation if appropriate.
3. Can the City Council amend the initiative language prior to putting it on the ballot?
No. The City Council must submit the proposed ordinance without alteration.
4. Provide additional information on how Councilmembers can legally interact with ballot
measures.
See added second attachment to this memo.
RECOMMENDATION
Discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS
• Transit Riders Union Initiative
• Association of Washington Cities: Guidelines for Elected and Appointed Officials'
Participation in Election Activity
222
AN ORDINANCE concerning labor standards for certain employees.
Section 1. Findings.
1. The people of the City of Tukwila hereby adopt this citizen initiative addressing labor
standards for certain employees, for the purpose of ensuring that, to the extent
reasonably practicable, people employed in Tukwila have good wages and access to
sufficient hours of work.
2. The City of Tukwila is one of largest job centers in Washington State, including
thousands of retail and food service jobs at and around the Westfield Southcenter Mall.
Wages and working conditions in Tukwila contribute to setting the standard for the entire
region
3. The statewide minimum wage is not sufficient to afford rising rents and costs of living in
Washington State. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's Out of
Reach 2021 report, a worker making Washington's minimum wage would have to work
70 hours each week to afford a modest one -bedroom rental home at Fair Market Rent.
4. When working families earn insufficient income due to low wages and involuntary under-
employment, they struggle to pay for basic necessities like health care, child care, and
groceries, and they are more likely to be evicted and become homeless.
5. Tukwila's neighboring cities of SeaTac and Seattle enacted higher minimum wages in
2013 and 2014, but until now Tukwila has not followed suit.
Section 2. Intent.
It is the intent of the people to establish fair labor standards and protect the rights of workers by:
(1) ensuring that the vast majority of employees in the City of Tukwila receive a minimum wage
comparable to employees in neighboring cities of SeaTac and Seattle; (2) requiring covered
employers to offer additional hours of work to qualified part-time employees before hiring new
employees to fill those hours; and (3) adopting enforcement requirements.
Section 3. Large Employers Shall Pay Minimum Wages Comparable to Those in
Neighboring Cities.
1. Effective July 1, 2023, every large employer shall pay to each employee an hourly
wage of not less than the 2022 "living wage rate" in the City of SeaTac, established
pursuant to SeaTac Municipal Code Section 7.45.050, adjusted for 2023 by the annual
rate of inflation.
2. On January 1, 2024, and on each January 1 thereafter, the hourly minimum wage shall
increase by the annual rate of inflation to maintain employee purchasing power.
3. By December 31, 2022, and by October 15 of each year thereafter, the Finance
Department shall establish and publish the applicable hourly minimum wage for the
following year using the annual rate of inflation.
-1-
223
4. For purposes of this chapter, the annual rate of inflation means 100 percent of the
annual average growth rate of the bi-monthly Seattle -Tacoma -Bellevue Area Consumer
Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, termed CPI -W, for the 12 -
month period ending in August, provided that the percentage increase shall not be less
than zero.
5. An employer must pay to its employees:
a. All tips and gratuities; and
b. All service charges as defined under RCW 49.46.160 except those that, pursuant
to RCW 49.46.160, are itemized as not being payable to the employee or
employees servicing the customer.
Tips and service charges paid to an employee are in addition to, and may not count
towards, the employee's hourly minimum wage.
Section 4. Other Covered Employers Shall Have a Multiyear Phase -In Period.
Other covered employers shall phase in the new minimum wage, as follows:
1. Effective July 1, 2023, other covered employers shall pay employees not less than the
hourly minimum wage established under Section 3 minus Two Dollars ($2) per hour.
2. Effective July 1, 2024, other covered employers shall pay employees not less than the
hourly minimum wage established under Section 3 minus One Dollar ($1) per hour.
3. Effective July 1, 2025, and thereafter, all covered employers shall pay employees not
less than the hourly minimum wage established under Section 3.
Section 5. Coverage and Employer Classifications.
1. Covered employers must pay employees at least the minimum wage established by this
chapter for each hour worked within the City.
2. Employer classification for the current calendar year will be calculated based upon the
average number of employees during all weeks in the previous calendar year in which
the employer had at least one employee. For employers that did not have any employees
during the previous calendar year, classification will be based upon the average number
of employees during the most recent three months of the current year. In this
determination, all employees will be counted, regardless of their location, and including
employees who worked in full-time employment, part-time employment, joint
employment, temporary employment, or through the services of a temporary services or
staffing agency or similar entity.
3. Employer classification for the current calendar year will be calculated based upon the
gross revenue for the previous year. For employers that did not have gross revenue
during the previous calendar year, annual gross revenue will be calculated from the gross
revenue during the most recent three months of the current year.
4. For the purposes of employer classification, separate entities will be considered a single
employer if they form an integrated enterprise or they are under joint control by one of
-2-
224
those entities or a separate entity. The factors to consider in making this assessment
include, but are not limited to:
a. Degree of interrelation between the operations of multiple entities;
b. Degree to which the entities share common management;
c. Centralized control of labor relations; and
d. Degree of common ownership or financial control over the entities.
Section 6. Part -Time Employees Shall Have Fair Access to Additional Hours.
1. Before hiring additional employees or subcontractors, including hiring through the use of
temporary services or staffing agencies, covered employers must offer additional hours of
work to existing employees who, in the employer's good faith and reasonable judgment,
have the skills and experience to perform the work, and shall use a reasonable,
transparent, and nondiscriminatory process to distribute the hours of work among those
existing employees.
2. This section shall not be construed to require any employer to offer an employee work
hours if the employer would be required to compensate the employee at time -and -a -half
or other premium rate under any law or collective bargaining agreement, nor to prohibit
any employer from offering such work hours.
Section 7. Retaliation Prohibited.
1. No employer or any other person shall interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or
the attempt to exercise, any right protected under this chapter.
2. No employer or any other person shall take any adverse action against any person
because the person has exercised in good faith the rights under this chapter. Such rights
include but are not limited to the right to make inquiries about the rights protected under
this chapter; the right to inform others about their rights under this chapter; the right to
inform the person's employer, union, or similar organization, and/or the person's legal
counsel or any other person about an alleged violation of this chapter; the right to bring a
civil action for an alleged violation of this chapter; the right to testify in a proceeding under
or related to this chapter; the right to refuse to participate in an activity that would result in
a violation of city, state, or federal law; and the right to oppose any policy, practice, or act
that is unlawful under this chapter.
3. For the purposes of this section, an adverse action means denying a job or promotion,
demoting, terminating, failing to rehire after a seasonal interruption of work, threatening,
penalizing, retaliating, engaging in unfair immigration -related practices, filing a false
report with a government agency, changing an employee's status to nonemployee,
decreasing or declining to provide additional work hours when they otherwise would have
been offered, scheduling an employee for hours outside of their availability, or otherwise
discriminating against any person for any reason prohibited by this chapter. "Adverse
action" for an employee may involve any aspect of employment, including pay, work
-3-
225
hours, responsibilities, or other material change in the terms and conditions of
employment.
4. No employer or any other person shall communicate to a person exercising rights
protected under this chapter, directly or indirectly, the willingness to inform a government
employee that the person is not lawfully in the United States, or to report, or to make an
implied or express assertion of a willingness to report, suspected citizenship or
immigration status of the person or a family member of the person to a federal, state, or
local agency because the person has exercised a right under this chapter.
5. It shall be a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if an employer or any other person takes
an adverse action against a person within 90 days of the person's exercise of any right
protected in this chapter. However, in the case of seasonal work that ended before the
close of the 90 -day period, the presumption also applies if the employer fails to rehire a
former employee at the next opportunity for work in the same position. The employer may
rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the adverse action was
taken for a permissible purpose.
6. Standard of Proof. Proof of retaliation under this chapter shall be sufficient upon a
showing that an employer or any other person has taken an adverse action against a
person and the person's exercise of rights protected in this chapter was a motivating
factor in the adverse action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have
been taken in the absence of such protected activity.
7. The protections afforded under this section shall apply to any person who mistakenly but
in good faith alleges violations of this chapter.
Section 8. Enforcement.
1. Any person or class of persons that suffers financial injury as a result of a violation of this
chapter or is the subject of prohibited retaliation under this chapter, or any other
individual or entity acting on their behalf, may bring a civil action in a court of competent
jurisdiction against the employer or other person violating this chapter and, upon
prevailing, shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs and such legal or
equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation,
the payment of any unpaid wages plus interest due to the person and liquidated damages
in an additional amount of up to twice the unpaid wages; compensatory damages; and a
penalty payable to any aggrieved party of up to $5,000 if the aggrieved party was subject
to prohibited retaliation. For the purposes of this section, an aggrieved party means an
employee or other person who suffers tangible or intangible harm due to an employer or
other person's violation of this chapter. Interest shall accrue from the date the unpaid
wages were first due at the higher of twelve percent per annum or the maximum rate
permitted under RCW 19.52.020.
2. For purposes of determining membership within a class of persons entitled to bring an
action under this section, two or more employees are similarly situated if they:
a. Are or were employed by the same employer or employers, whether concurrently
or otherwise, at some point during the applicable statute of limitations period;
-4-
226
b. Allege one or more violations that raise similar questions as to liability; and
c. Seek similar forms of relief.
d. Employees shall not be considered dissimilar solely because their claims seek
damages that differ in amount, or their job titles or other means of classifying
employees differ in ways that are unrelated to their claims.
3. Each covered employer shall retain records as required by RCW 49.46.070, as well as
such information as the City may require to confirm compliance with this chapter. If an
employer fails to retain such records, there shall be a presumption, rebuttable by clear
and convincing evidence, that the employer violated this chapter for the periods and for
each employee for whom records were not retained.
4. Employers shall permit authorized City representatives access to work sites and relevant
records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the chapter and investigating
complaints of noncompliance, including production for inspection and copying of
employment records. The City may designate representatives, including city contractors
and representatives of unions or worker advocacy organizations, to access the worksite
and relevant records.
5. Complaints that any provision of this chapter has been violated may also be presented to
the City Attorney, who is hereby authorized to investigate and, if they deem appropriate,
initiate legal or other action to remedy any violation of this chapter.
6. The City has the authority to issue administrative citations and to order injunctive relief
including reinstatement, restitution, payment of back wages, or other forms of relief.
7. The City may, in the exercise of its authority and performance of its functions and
services, agree by contract or otherwise to participate jointly or in cooperation with
Washington State, King County, or any city, town, or other incorporated place, or
subdivision thereof, or engage outside counsel, to enforce this chapter.
8. The remedies and penalties provided under this chapter are cumulative and are not
intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies or penalties, including existing
remedies for enforcement of Tukwila Municipal Code chapters.
9. The statute of limitations for any enforcement action shall be five (5) years.
Section 9. A new section is added to TMC Chapter 5.04 as follows:
1. The Finance Director may deny, suspend, or revoke any license under this chapter for
violation of this ordinance.
2. The Finance Director must deny, suspend, or revoke any license under this chapter for
repeated intentional violations of this ordinance.
3. Any action by the Finance Director under this section shall be subject to the procedures
and requirements of TMC subsections 5.04.110.0 and 5.04.110.D and Section 5.04.112,
as well as other due process rights that a court may require.
-5-
227
Section 10. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
"City" means the City of Tukwila.
"Covered employer" means an employer that either (1) employs at least 15
employees regardless of where those employees are employed, or (2) has
annual gross revenue over $2 million.
"Effective date" is the effective date of this ordinance.
"Employee" is defined as set forth in RCW 49.46.010. An employer bears the
burden of proof that the individual is, as a matter of economic reality, in
business for oneself rather than dependent upon the alleged employer.
"Employer" is defined as set forth in RCW 49.46.010.
"Employer classification" includes the determination of whether an employer is a covered
employer and whether a covered employer is a large employer.
"Franchise" means an agreement, express or implied, oral or written by which:
1. A person is granted the right to engage in the business of offering, selling, or
distributing goods or services under a marketing plan prescribed or suggested in
substantial part by the grantor or its affiliate;
2. The operation of the business is substantially associated with a trademark, service
mark, trade name, advertising, or other commercial symbol; designating, owned by, or
licensed by the grantor or its affiliate; and
3.The person pays, agrees to pay, or is required to pay, directly or indirectly, a franchise
fee. The term, "franchise fee" is meant to be construed broadly to include any instance in
which the grantor or its affiliate derives income or profit from a person who enters into a
franchise agreement with the grantor.
"Hour worked within the City" is to be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning, including all
hours worked within the geographic boundaries of the City, excluding time spent in the City
solely for the purpose of travelling through the City from a point of origin outside the City to a
destination outside the City, with no employment-related or commercial stops in the City except
for refueling or the employee's personal meals or errands.
"Large Employer" means all employers that employ more than 500 employees, regardless of
where those employees are employed, and all franchisees associated with a franchisor or a
network of franchises with franchisees that employ more than 500 employees in aggregate.
-6-
228
"Other covered employer" means a covered employer that does not qualify as a large
employer.
"Service charge" is defined as set forth in RCW 49.46.160(2)(c).
"Tips" means a verifiable sum to be presented by a customer as a gift or
gratuity in recognition of some service performed for the customer by the
employee receiving the tip.
"Wage" is defined as set forth in RCW 49.46.010.
Section 11. Other Legal Requirements.
This ordinance shall not be construed to preempt, limit, or otherwise affect the applicability of
any other law, regulation, requirement, policy, or standard that provides for greater wages or
compensation; and nothing in this ordinance shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any
power or duty in conflict with federal or state law.
Section 12. Rulemaking.
Within 180 days after the effective date, the City shall adopt rules and procedures to implement
and ensure compliance with this chapter, which shall require employers to maintain adequate
records and to annually certify compliance with this chapter. The City shall seek feedback from
worker organizations and covered employers before finalizing the rules and procedures.
Section 13. Constitutional Subject.
For constitutional purposes, this measure's subject "concerns labor standards for certain
employers." See Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac, 183 Wash. 2d 770, 783, 357 P.3d 1040,
1047 (2015) (upholding this statement of subject for an initiative that set a minimum wage and
addressed employees' access to hours).
Section 14. Codification. All sections of this ordinance except section 9 shall be codified in a
new chapter of the Tukwila Municipal Code.
Section 15. Election date. In the event that the election on this measure takes place later than
November 8, 2022, the Finance Department must establish and publish the initial minimum
wage within 30 days of the effective date.
Section 16. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and
severable. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, subsection, or portion of this
ordinance, or the application thereof to any employer, employee, or circumstance, is held to be
invalid, it shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its
application to other persons or circumstances.
-7-
229
230
Guidelines for elected and appointed
officials' participation in elections activity
L
ASSOCIATION
OF WASHINGTON
I 1 1
Elected officials and city staff should understand Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) guidelines before
participating in any elections activities, including taking a position on a ballot measure or endorsing acandidate for
political office. Below are some common examples of activities city officials may and may not do. It is not intended to
be comprehensive. A complete listing of the PDC Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
can be found on their website pdc.wa.gov. If you have any questions, please call the PDC at (360) 753-1111 or
consult your jurisdiction's legal counsel.
General provisions
Activities that are allowed:
• City employees or elected officials may, on their
own time during non -work hours (and not with
the use of city property or equipment),
participate in campaign -related activities.
• Elected officials may make statements
supporting or opposing an initiative or
referendum in response to a specific media
inquiry. All city officials may respond to requests
for factual information as part of their normal job
duty.
• City officials may use their title for identification
purposes in endorsements supporting or
opposing a candidate or an initiative or
referendum, but should not use public facilities or
equipment for communications and should make
clear that it is their personal view.
• City employees or elected officials may place on
their individual agency calendar basic
information if they are scheduled to be out of the
office to attend campaign events.
• A city may provide a facility, if it is available, for a
public forum, making arrangements for all sides
to be represented.
• A city may allow use of a public meeting space,
if it is available as normal and regular conduct,
to community groups for campaign activities. If a
city normally charges for the use of these
facilities, then the city must charge all users
equally.
• City employees may wear lapel buttons at work if
the city has a policy permitting employees to
wear political buttons.
• Private employee vehicles displaying
bumper stickers may be parked on public
property.
• City officials may encourage staff and members
of the public to vote, as long as such
encouragement routinely occurs for other
elections.
Activities that are not allowed:
• City employees or elected officials may not use
public facilities, supplies, or equipment, for any
campaign purpose. This includes phones,
copiers, mail facilities, computers, email,
websites, social media, uniforms purchased with
city funds, and paper products. City officials may
not reimbursethe city for usage of these facilities.
City officials may not use city vehicles to
transport or displaypolitical material.
• City officials may not promote or oppose a
candidate or ballot measure during work
hours. This includes gathering signatures,
distributing materials, coordinating
speakers/fundraising/ phone banks, etc. It
does not include elected official statements
on ballot measures in response to a specific
media inquiry.
• City officials may not maintain individual
campaign -related events on agency -
wide distributed calendars.
• City employees may not oppose or support an
issue or candidate before a civic group on city
work time. It must be on personal time.
• City officials may not post signs advocating for or
against candidates or ballot measures on any city
property.
• City employees or elected officials may
not pressure city employees to participate
in campaign activities for a ballot measure
or candidate, take a position, or
coordinate informational activities with
campaign work.
Association of Washington Cities 1 1076 Franklin St SE, Olympia, WA 98501 1 wacities.org 1 360.753.4137
231
A12111_110
Strong Cities
Great State
ASSOCIATION
OF WASHINGTON
CiiiES
Ballot measures
Activities that are allowed:
• Elected officials and city staff may speak at
community forums and clubs during regular work
hours to make an objective and fair presentation
of the facts on a ballot measure if it is normal
and regular conduct. City equipment (projector,
laptop) may be used for thepresentation.
• Elected officials may attend an event any time
during the day and give their opinion about a
ballot measure, as long as they are not being
compensated by the city or using any public
equipment, facility or vehicle (with exceptions
for specific inquiries).
• City employees or elected officials may use their
job title with the city in a letter to the editor (written
on their own time using their own computer). They
must clarify that they are expressing their own
opinion, and not speaking for the city.
• A city employee may respond to a political inquiry
by providing routine factual information if that is
part of their normal job duty.
• Members of an elected council may vote to
support or oppose an initiative or referendum. If
your council plans to vote to take a position on an
initiative or referendum, the notice of the meeting
when the vote will be taken must include the title
and number of the ballot proposition. Council
members or the public must have an equal
opportunity to express an opposing view.
• Elected officials may make statements supporting
or opposing an initiative or referendum in
response to a specific media inquiry. All city
officials may respond to requests for factual
information as part of their normal job duty.
• A city may use its website, newsletter, or other
publications to provide citizens with information
about an issue that directly impacts the city,
looking at all available information. If you routinely
provide objective and fair facts on a ballot
measure or controversial issue, you may present
objective and fair presentation of facts on the
ballot propositions.
• If your website or newsletter publishes resolutions
or reports on council activity, you may report on
action taken on a resolution.
• Distribution of all information must be to "normal
and regular" recipients, using the publication's
regular schedule. Repeated distribution of the
same information may be considered campaign
activity by the PDC.
Association of Washington Cities
232
1
• A city website may be used to inform citizens
about anticipated ballot measure impacts, and
allow readers to explore an issue through detailed
links, if part of normal conduct and do not link to
campaigns. Websites may be updated according
to the city's normal procedures.
• City employees may provide in-house
contingency planning (what if an initiative or
referendum passes). This isn't a public activity.
This includes researching the impact of a ballot
proposition for the purpose of gathering facts.
• City employees may respond to requests for
public records even if the records will be used in
support or opposition of a measure, as long as the
record isn't exempt from disclosure under state
law.
Activities that are not allowed:
• City officials may not use public facilities, supplies
or equipment, for any campaign purpose. This
includes phones, copiers, mail facilities,
computers, email, social media, websites,
uniforms purchased with city funds, and paper
products. City officials may not reimburse the city
for usage of these facilities. City officials may not
use city vehicles to transport or display political
material.
• City officials may not promote or oppose a
candidate or ballot measure during work hours.
This includes gathering signatures, distributing
materials, coordinating speakers/fundraising/
phone banks, etc. It does not include elected
official statements on ballot measures in response
to a specific media inquiry.
• City officials may not produce information that
targets specific subgroups. This does not refer to
mailing to groups that are on the city's regular
distribution list.
• City employees may not oppose or support an
issue or candidate before a civic group on city
work time. It must be on personal time.
• City officials may not have a petition available for
signature at city hall, or other city facility or
vehicle.
• City officials may not post signs advocating for or
against candidates or ballot measures on any city
property.
• City employees or elected officials may not
pressure city employees to participate in
campaign activities for a ballot measure or
candidate, take a position or coordinate
informational activities with campaign work.
1076 Franklin St SE, Olympia, WA 98501 1 wacities.org 1 360.753.4137
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
06/06/22
JR
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM NO.
Spec 2.B.
233
STAFF SPONSOR: HENRY ANCIRA
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 06/06/22
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Fire
Contract
Station
53 Exterior Painting Project
Award
CATEGORY ❑ Discussion
Mtg Date
Motion
Date 06/06/22
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
1
Mtg
SPONSOR ❑Council Mayor HR DCD ❑Finance Fire TS P&R ❑Police PIV Court
SPONSOR'S Bids for the Fire Station 53 Exterior Painting Project were received by three contractors
SUMMARY with the lowest bid from Long Painting Company. Long Painting Company has contracted
with the City for previous projects and done satisfactory work, including the exterior
painting of the Tukwila Community Center in 2021. Council is being asked to approve the
contract with Long Painting Company in the amount of $44,848.00 plus tax of $4,529.65,
for a contract total of $49,377.65.
REVIEVG'ED BY
Trans&Infrastructure
❑ CommunitySvs/Safety ❑ Finance Comm. ❑ Planning/Economic Dev.
❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
COMMITTEE CHAIR: KATE KRULLER
❑ LTAC
DATE: 05/16/22
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
Public Works Department
Unanimous Approval; Forward to Regular Consent Agenda
COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$49,377.65 $50,000.00 $0.00
Fund Source:
Comments: 2021-2026 CIP, Page 47
MTG. DATE
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
06/06/22
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
06/06/22
Informational Memorandum dated 05/13/22
2021-2026 CIP, Page 47
Long Painting Contract
Minutes from Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting of 05/16/22
233
234
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
Public Works Department - Hari Ponnekanti, Director/CityEngineer
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Services Committee
FROM: Hari Ponnekanti, Public Works Director/ City Engineer
By: Henry Ancira, Facilities Superintendent
CC: Mayor Allan Ekberg
DATE: May 13, 2022
SUBJECT: Fire Station 53 Exterior Painting Project
Project No. 92230301
Contract Award
Issue
Approve a contract with Long Painting Company to paint the exterior of Fire Station 53.
Background
Station 53 was built in 1995, which is when the exterior was last painted. It is located in the North end
of Tukwila in a residential neighborhood. Painting the exterior of Fire Station 53 will protect and
preserve the building, prevent issues such as rot, and provide a positive aesthetic.
Analysis
Bids for the Fire Station 53 Exterior Painting Project were received by three contractors. The bids were
checked, tabulated, and no errors were found. The lowest bid was received from Long Painting
Company. Long Painting Company has contracted with the City for previous projects and done
satisfactory work, including painting the exterior of the Tukwila Community Center in 2021.
Financial Impact
The lowest bid was from Long Painting Company, with a cost estimate of $44,848.00, plus tax of
$4,529.65, for a contract total of $49,377.65. The Fire Station 53 Exterior Painting Project budget
allocated in the 2021-2026 CIP is sufficient to cover the contract costs.
Cost Estimate 2022 Project Budget
Long Painting Contract $44,848.00 $50,000
Sales Tax (10.1%) 4,529.65
Total 49,377.65
Recommendation
Council is being asked to approve the contract with Long Painting Company in the amount of $49,377.65
and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the May 23, 2022, Special Meeting.
Attachments 2021 CIP, Pg 47
Long Painting Contract
F/eet& FaciiityServices -14000 Interurban Avenue, Tukvvi/a, WA 98168 - 206-431-0166
ukmin City Hail • 5200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 981 SS • 206433,1000 • Website: Tukwiiami.gov
235
236
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2021 to 2026
PROJECT: Facility Improvements Project No. Various
DESCRIPTION: Yearly improvements and required maintenance to City facilities that are located throughout the City.
JUSTIFICATION: Maintenance of existing facilities and required updating and improvements.
STATUS: Ongoing.
MAINT. IMPACT: None.
COMMENT: Ongoing project, only one year actuals are shown in first column.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's)
2019 2020
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Engineering
4
50
50
50
50
50
50
304
Land (R/W)
0
Construction
32
156
140
150
150
150
150
150
150
1,228
TOTAL EXPENSES
32
160
190
150
200
200
200
200
200
1,532
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
0
Proposed Grant
0
Mitigation Actual
0
Mitigation Expected
0
City Oper. Revenue
32
160
190
150
200
200
200
200
200
1,532
TOTAL SOURCES
32
160
190
150
200
200
200
200
200
1,532
Facility Projects scheduled for 2021-2022
TCC Exterior Paint/Stain
TCC Retrofit HVAC Chiller
City Hall Seismic Study
City Hall Siding Repairs
Fire Station 53 Exterior Paint/Stain
$ 140,000 2021
10,000 2021
40,000 2021
$ 190,000
100,000 2022
50,000 2022
$ 150,000
2021 - 2026 Capital Improvement Program 47
237
238
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA98188
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
Contract Number:
This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, Washington, a non -charter
optional municipal code city hereinafter referred to as "the City," and LONG PAINTING COMPANY,
hereinafter referred to as "the Contractor," whose principal office is located at 21414 68TH AVENUE
SOUTH, KENT, WA 98032.
WHEREAS, the City has determined the need to have certain services performed for its citizens
but does not have the manpower or expertise to perform such services; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to have the Contractor perform such services pursuant to certain terms
and conditions; now, therefore,
IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1. Scone and Schedule of Services to be Performed by Contractor. The Contractor shall perform
those services described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if
fully set forth. In performing such services, the Contractor shall at all times comply with all Federal,
State, and local statutes, rules and ordinances applicable to the performance of such services and the
handling of any funds used in connection therewith. The Contractor shall request and obtain prior
written approval from the City if the scope or schedule is to be modified in any way.
2. Compensation and Method of Payment. The City shall pay the Contractor for services rendered
according to the rate and method set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference. The total amount to be paid shall not exceed $49,377.65 (including tax).
3. Contractor Budget. The Contractor shall apply the funds received under this Agreement within the
maximum limits set forth in this Agreement. The Contractor shall request prior approval from the City
whenever the Contractor desires to amend its budget in any way.
4. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing
upon execution of this agreement, and ending December 31, 2022, unless sooner terminated
under the provisions hereinafter specified.
5. Independent Contractor. Contractor and City agree that Contractor is an independent contractor with
respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither
Contractor nor any employee of Contractor shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees
by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for
withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or contributing to the State
Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the
Contractor, or any employee of the Contractor.
6. Indemnification. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Public Entity, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or
suits including attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement,
except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the Public Entity.
CA Revised May 2020 Page 1 of 4
239
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115,
then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property
caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Contractor and the Public Entity, its
officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Contractor's liability hereunder shall be only to the
extent of the Contractor's negligence. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the
indemnification provided herein constitutes the Contractor's waiver of immunity under Industrial
Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually
negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of
this Agreement.
7. Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance
against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors. Contractor's maintenance of insurance, its scope of coverage and limits as required
herein shall not be construed to limit the liability of the Contractor to the coverage provided by such
insurance, or otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types and with the limits
described below:
1. Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and
property damage of $1,000,000 per accident. Automobile liability insurance shall cover all
owned, non -owned, hired and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services
Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If
necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage.
2. Commercial General Liability insurance with limits no less than $2,000,000 each occurrence,
$2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products -completed operations aggregate
limit. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be as least at broad as ISO occurrence
form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent
contractors, products -completed operations, stop gap liability, personal injury and advertising
injury, and liability assumed under an insured contract. The Commercial General Liability
insurance shall be endorsed to provide a per project general aggregate limit using ISO form
CG 25 03 05 09 or an equivalent endorsement. There shall be no exclusion for liability
arising from explosion, collapse or underground property damage. The City shall be named
as an additional insured under the Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance policy
with respect to the work performed for the City using ISO Additional Insured endorsement CG
20 10 10 01 and Additional Insured -Completed Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or
substitute endorsements providing at least as broad coverage.
3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of
Washington.
B. Public Entity Full Availability of Contractor Limits. If the Contractor maintains higher insurance
limits than the minimums shown above, the Public Entity shall be insured for the full available limits
of Commercial General and Excess or Umbrella liability maintained by the Contractor, irrespective
of whether such limits maintained by the Contractor are greater than those required by this Contract
or whether any certificate of insurance furnished to the Public Entity evidences limits of liability
lower than those maintained by the Contractor.
C. Other Insurance Provision. The Contractor's Automobile Liability and Commercial General
Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain that they shall be primary
insurance with respect to the City. Any insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage
maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with
it.
D. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating
of not less than A: VII.
CA Revised May 2020 Page 2 of 4
240
E. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of
the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured
endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of
the work. Upon request by the City, the Contractor shall furnish certified copies of all required
insurance policies, including endorsements, required in this Agreement and evidence of all
subcontractors' coverage.
F. Subcontractors. The Contractor shall cause each and every Subcontractor to provide insurance
coverage that complies with all applicable requirements of the Contractor -provided insurance as
set forth herein, except the Contractor shall have sole responsibility for determining the limits of
coverage required to be obtained by Subcontractors. The Contractor shall ensure that the Public
Entity is an additional insured on each and every Subcontractor's Commercial General liability
insurance policy using an endorsement as least as broad as ISO CG 20 10 10 01 for ongoing
operations and CG 20 37 10 01 for completed operations.
G. Notice of Cancellation. The Contractor shall provide the City and all Additional Insureds for this
work with written notice of any policy cancellation, within two business days of their receipt of such
notice.
H. Failure to Maintain Insurance. Failure on the part of the Contractor to maintain the insurance as
required shall constitute a material breach of contract, upon which the City may, after giving five
business days notice to the Contractor to correct the breach, immediately terminate the contract
or, at its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection
therewith, with any sums so expended to be repaid to the City on demand, or at the sole discretion
of the City, offset against funds due the Contractor from the City.
8. Record Keeping and Reporting.
A. The Contractor shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial and
programmatic records which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any
nature expended and services performed in the performance of this Agreement and other such
records as may be deemed necessary by the City to ensure the performance of this Agreement.
B. These records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years after termination hereof unless
permission to destroy them is granted by the office of the archivist in accordance with RCW Chapter
40.14 and by the City.
9. Audits and Inspections. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this
Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by law during the performance of
this Agreement.
10. Termination. This Agreement may at any time be terminated by the City giving to the Contractor thirty
(30) days written notice of the City's intention to terminate the same. Failure to provide products on
schedule may result in contract termination. If the Contractor's insurance coverage is canceled for any
reason, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately.
11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant, with regard to the work performed by it under this
Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, age,
veteran status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, political affiliation, the
presence of any disability, or any other protected class status under state or federal law, in the
selection and retention of employees or procurement of materials or supplies.
12. Assignment and Subcontract. The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the
services contemplated by this Agreement without the written consent of the City.
13. Entire Agreement: Modification. This Agreement, together with attachments or addenda, represents
the entire and integrated Agreement between the City and the Contractor and supersedes all prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements written or oral. No amendment or modification of this
Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by the parties.
CA Revised May 2020 Page 3 of 4
241
14. Severability and Survival. If any term, condition or provision of this Agreement is declared void or
unenforceable or limited in its application or effect, such event shall not affect any other provisions
hereof and all other provisions shall remain fully enforceable. The provisions of this Agreement, which
by their sense and context are reasonably intended to survive the completion, expiration or cancellation
of this Agreement, shall survive termination of this Agreement.
15. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address:
City Clerk, City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Notices to the Contractor shall be sent to the address provided by the Contractor upon the
signature line below.
16. Applicable Law: Venue: Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other
proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and
agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such
action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit.
DATED this day of , 20_
CITY OF TUKWILA CONTRACTOR
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
City Clerk, Christy O'Flaherty
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By:
Printed Name and Title: John Fisher, President
Address: 21414 68th Ave S, Kent, WA 98032
CA Revised May 2020 Page 4 of 4
242
EXAI5tT
March 16, 2022
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mike Sodon
Project: Tukwila Fire station 53 Exterior Repaint
IkilLONG
PAINTING COMPANY
Scope of Work: Pressure wash, Spot prime and apply two full coats of finish to all previously
painted surfaces and wood shakes.
,BASE BID PRICING UNIT VALUE
1) Base Bid LS $ 44,848.00
General Clarifications:
• Assumes matching existing colors & color schemes.
• Owner will be responsible for cutting all shrubs and trees needed for use to access
scope of work.
• Proposal assumes overlaying all existing caulking.
• Proposal assumes all existing stained wood shake will be cleaned with a Tight detergent,
primed and two full coats of Superpaint finish.
• Proposal assumes work to be completed before July 7, 2022.
Base Bid Inclusions:
• Includes a 1 -year warranty from date of completion.
• Lifts and safety equipment as necessary to complete this scope.
• Mask and protect all finishes not scheduled for paint.
• Pressure wash all exterior surfaces including fencing.
• Apply two coats of finish or to cover for color and millage whichever is more of Sherwin
Williams Superpaint to all previously painted surfaces.
• Prime and apply apply two coats of finish or to cover for color and millage whichever is
more of Sherwin Williams Superpaint to all wood shake to match wood shake existing
color.
• Prep four OH Bay doors and apply one full coat of Bondplex followed by a full coat of
Shercryl.
• Prep and apply finish to bollards.
• Prep and apply finish to all gutters and downspouts to match existing color.
• Clean all work areas daily.
Exclusions:
• Washington sales tax
• Painting green window frames and mullions.
• Stained man doors.
• Painting or staining fences.
21414 681h Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032
(253) 234-8050
'OUR PARTNER IN SAFETY, QUALITY AND SERVICE"
w w w. to ngpain ti ng. coin
1120 NE 146" Street
Vancouver, WA 98685
(360) 952-4400
243
1LONG
PAINTING COMPANY
Please feel free to contact me at (253) 234-8084, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
LONG PAINTING COMPANY
Mitchell Higgins
Project Manager/Estimator - Email: Mitchellh(a�Iongpaintinq.com
21414 68th Avenue S.
Kent, WA 98032
(253) 234-8050
244
'OUR PARTNER IN SAFETY, QUALITY AND SERVICE"
www_longpainling.com
1120 NE 1461h Street
Vancouver, WA 98685
(360) 952-4400
City of Tukwila
City Council Transportation & Infrastructure Services Committee
Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2022 5:30 p.m. - Hybrid Meeting; Duwamish Conference Room & MS Teams
Councilmembers Present: Mohamed Abdi, Acting Chair; Tosh Sharp
Staff Present: David Cline, Hari Ponnekanti, Griffin Lerner, Brittany Robinson, Seong
Kim, Henry Ancira, Bryan Still, Alison Turner, Cody Lee Gray
Acting Chair Abdi called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
I. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Grant Award: Green River Trail Improvements Project
Staff is seeking Council approval to accept a Transportation Alternative Program grant award in
the amount of $989,000 for the Green River Trail Improvements Project. The City match is
$308,000 and included in the project budget.
Committee Recommendation
Divided: Councilmember Abdi was in favor of the award, and Councilmember Sharp was not.
Return to Committee.
B. Grant Applications: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program & South 152"d St. Safe Routes
to School Projects
Staff is seeking Committee approval to apply for $500,000 from WSDOT's Pedestrian &
Bicycle Program for neighborhood traffic calming improvements in Allentown. Staff is also
seeking Committee approval to apply for $2,750,000 from WSDOT's Safe Routes to School
program for the S. 152nd Street Project.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval.
C. Contract: Fire Station 53 Exterior Painting Project
Staff is seeking Council approval of a contract with Long Painting Company in the amount of
$49,377.65 for the Fire Station 53 Exterior Painting Project.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to May 23, 2022 Special Meeting Consent Agenda
D. Transportation Demand Management 1.0 FTE Request
Staff is seeking Council authorization of a new 1.0 fully grant -backed FTE to support the
Transportation Demand Management Program.
Committee Recommendation
Unanimous approval. Forward to May 23, 2022 Committee of the Whole.
245
246
UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS
MAY — JUNE 2022
City Council meetings and Council Committee meetings will be conducted in a hybrid model, with in-person and virtual attendance available.
MAY 23 MON
MAY 24 TUE
MAY25 WED
MAY 26 THU
MAY 27 FRI
MAY 28 SAT
Community Services and>Arts
Safety Committee
5:30 PM
City Hall — Hazelnut Room
Hybrid Meeting
Finance and Governance
Committee
5:30 PM
6300 Building — Duwamish
Room on 2nd Floor
Hybrid Meeting
S. City Council
Committee of the Whole
Meeting
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
Hybrid Meeting
Special Meeting
to immediately follow the
Committee of the Whole
Meeting.
(IIV
ALLENTOWN TRUCK
REROUTE PROJECT
UPDATE
Join City staff monthly for
updates on the Truck
Reroute project and
other projects happening
in your neighborhood.
5:30 PM
Tukwila Communit
Center y
Click here for more
information.
Commission
6:00 PM
Tukwila Community Center—
Executive Conference Room
➢ Planning
Commission
6:30 PM
Virtual Meeting
Give Blood =Save 3lives
oo too too
o 0 o
DONATE BLOOD AND
ENTER TO WIN A
CULINARY -THEMED PRIZE
Your donation is critical!
Our community is
dangerously low on the
platelets and Type O
blood needed to supply
each of the cancer and
surgery patients. To
schedule an appointment,
call 1-800-398-7888.
Click hereformore
informationto
and t
schedule an
appointment online.
TUKWILA
For
iNAL BLV ,
Committee
INTERNATIONAL
BOULEVARD ACTION
COMMITTEE
TRASH PICK-UP DAY
more information, call Sharon
Mann at
206-200-3616.
MAY30 MON
MAY31 TUE
JUN1 WED
JUN2 THU
JUN3 FRI
JUN SAT
* * * * *
Oil
HANDS -ONLY
CPR/AED CLASSES
➢ Equity & Social
Justice
Commission
5:30 PM�
Virtual Meeting
A
ANNUAL POPS CONCERT
Purchase tickets online to avoid
the in-person lines.
Sat, Jun 4 7:30 PM
Sun, Jun 5 3:00 PM
Foster Performing Arts Center
Click here for more information
and buy tickets.
MEMORIAL DAY
Join the Medic One
Foundation for a free online
Hands -only CPR/AED class to
gain the lifesaving skills and
knowledge necessary when
responding to a sudden
cardiac arrest.
11:00 AM -12:00 PM
Click here for more dates
and to register.
R € ME MB € P & HONOR
-I. II.
- -
City offices and
Community Center closed.
THE CITY WANTS COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON 2023-2024 BIENNIAL BUDGET
PUBLIC FACILITY ACCESS
Current in-person office hours
The new budget cycle will be challenging for the City. Revenues are slow to return to pre -pandemic levels. Inflation is at its highest
level in 40 years, resulting in higher costs for supplies, materials and wages. We have a budget tool that you can make budget
adjustments. Your challenge is to develop a balanced budget. Click here for more information.
OEM MENUS
CityClerk&Finance
Cif yHaIllAncipalaffire5
DAYS
Mon &Wed
NOUAS
8:30m -4:00p,
RENEW YOUR PET LICENSE THRU JUNE 30 AND HAVE YOUR LATE FEES WAIVED
License your pet by calling 206-433-1800 Option 0 or pay in-person at the Tukwila City Hall (please see office hours on the left).
HumonServkes
EA 'Was Suite llS
Mon&Wed
8:30a -4SOpu
Click here if you would like to pay for your pet license online.
Pub!kWorks &OCD
" Mudding sn110'
Man&Wed
8:30a4-4:00mSTORMWATER
MANAGEMENT ACTION PLANNING (SMAP) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION
The City is seeking public input to help prioritize one watershed in the city that would benefit most from stormwater management
Nortrnentunicesore Prn„woo..movz
,iewe„nfi. IlohnewaN,re;,rn0ot;a,.2..a.,AN
actions intended to conserve, protect or restore streams; reduce pollutant loading; and address hydrologic impacts from
development. For the selected watershed, the City will identify and develop strategies and/or actions to reduce pollution and
improve overall water quality. Please help guide the process and better focus our funding resources by completing the online
survey by June 10th. Click here for more information on the SMAP work completed so far.
TUKWILA WORKS RELAUNCH - ONLINE REPORTING TOOL
Report non -emergency issues such as potholes, streetlight outages, code violations, etc., and track issues. Download the SeeClickFix app for your mobile device or
access the Tukwila Works reporting tool here: Tukwila Works Reporting Tool
yY� DRIVE THRU PICK-UP 3118 S 140TH ST TUESDAYS, THURSDAYS AND SATURDAYS 10:00 AM —2:00 PM
y VOLUNTEERS — In need of volunteers between 8 AM — 1 PM for food packaging Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and food distributions
A Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Click here to sign-up to volunteer.
DONORS — Please donate at TukwilaPantry.org.
STILL WATER SNACKPACK NEEDS YOUR DONATIONS AND VOLUNTEER HELP!
r SnackPack serves food bags on Fridays to Tukwila students in need. For more information, call 206-717-4709 or email TukSnackPack@gmail.com.
Volunteers needed on Wednesdays, 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM, Thursdays 9 AM -10 AM and Fridays 9:30 AM -11:00 AM.
Please donate to feed our Tukwila kids. Click here to donate online or mail checks to Still Waters, PO Box 88576, Tukwila WA 98138.
NEW TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO TUKWILA COMMUNITY CENTER MON THRU SAT 5 AM —1 AM SUNDAYS 6 AM —12 AM
KC Metro Transit has launched a new pilot program that will provide on -demand transportation service from anywhere in Tukwila to the Tukwila Community
Center. Click here for more information and rates.
Kinn counts, COVID-19 TESTING
Rapid, over the counter COVID tests are now widely available around King County. These tests are also known as home-based self -collected COVID tests or
antigen tests provide results in 15 minutes. Click here for more information.
Click here to find COVID testing sites by location in King County.
COVID-19 VACCINATION
All Washingtonians ages 5 and up are eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. For more information, visit Getting vaccinated in King County or call 206-477-3977.
You can also search at vaccinelocator.doh.wa.gov Interpreters available for assistance. Telephone -to -text relay service: Dial 711 or 1-800-833-6384. Tactile
interpretation: seattledbsc.org.
MEDICARE WORKSHOPS ON ENROLLMENT AND BENEFITS
K 1 N G
COUNTY
Learn about Medicare enrollment, eligibility, benefits and costs in online workshops. You can also get answers to your Medicare questions from a
health insurance benefits advisor. Click here for more information.
LIBRARY
SYST E 11
GET CERTIFIED AT YOUR LIBRARY FOR FREE!
Take free online classes, practice tests and Certiport certification exams. Get certified in MS Office, Adobe, QuickBooks, coding and more! You will
KCLS library PIN to Click here for information
need your card number and access some resources. more and registration.
FREE TECH COURSES & EARN BELLEVUE COLLEGE CREDIT!
Take free tech courses from Cisco, and apply for college credit from Bellevue College. The courses are online, self -paced and free.
Click here for more information and register to enroll in the tech courses.
at, Seattle NEED HELP WITH PAYING YOUR UTILITY BILLS?
IFI' City Light Seattle City Light and Seattle SPU offer bill assistance and payment plans to their customers. Click here for more information or
call 206-684-3000.
247
Tentative Agenda Schedule
MEETING 1 —
REGULAR
MEETING 2—
C.O.W.
MEETING 3—
REGULAR
MEETING 4 —
C.O.W.
MAY 2
See below link for the agenda
packet to view the agenda items:
May 2, 2022
Regular Meeting
MAY 9
See below link for the agenda
packet to view the agenda items:
May 9, 2022
Committee of the Whole Meeting
MAY 16
See below link for the agenda
packet to view the agenda items:
May 16, 2022
Regular Meeting
MAY 23
See below link for the agenda
packet to view the agenda items:
May 23, 2022
Committee of the Whole / Special
Meeting
MEETING 1 —
REGULAR
MEETING 2—
C.O.W.
MEETING 3—
REGULAR
MEETING 4 —
C.O.W.
JUNE 6
PRESENTATIONS
Police Department Life Saving
Award: Officer Brian Hunter.
- Introduction of the "Tukwila, City of
Opportunity Scholarship"
recipients.
CONSENT AGENDA
- Authorize the Mayor to accept the
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)
Transportation Demand
Management/Commute Trip
Reduction, WSDOT Regional
Mobility Grant, King County Metro
Grant, and Federal Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement grant to add 1.0 FTE
(full-time employee) in the TDM
team for 1 year, in the amount of
$70,000 (funding coming to the
City).
- Authorize the Mayor to sign an
Interlocal Agreement between the
Cities of SeaTac, Des Moines,
Covington, and Tukwila for the
Minor Home Repair Program.
- Authorize the Mayor to sign a grant
agreement with Partners in
Employment for the Youth Ecology
& Restoration Stewards (YERS)
program, in the amount of $43,940
(funding coming to the City).
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
- COVID-19 Bi -weekly Report
- Authorize the Mayor to sign a
contract with Community Attributes
for consulting services for an
Economic Development Plan in the
amount of $50,000.
- An ordinance revising Tukwila
Municipal Code Section 16.04.250
to clarify regulations regarding
expiration of construction permits,
time limits on construction permit
applications, and additional fees
require when work is started
without a permit.
NEW BUSINESS
- Approve an application for Lodging
Tax funds from the City of Tukwila
for the Summer Gut Check
Wrestling Tournament in the
amount of $6,000.
- Authorize the Mayor to accept the
Transportation Alternative Program
grant with Puget Sound Regional
Council for the Green River Trail
Improvements project, in the
amount of $989,000 (local match of
$308,000).
JUNE 13
PRESENTATION
Annual State of the Court Address.
PUBLIC HEARING
A resolution adopting the 2023-2027
Six -Year Transportation Improvement
Program.
SPECIAL ISSUES
- A resolution adopting the 2023 -
2027 Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program.
- An ordinance amending Ordinance
No. 2080 §2 and 1733 §2, as
codified at Tukwila Municipal Code
Section 3.20.020, "Admissions Tax
Levied," to update the Admissions
Tax collection process for Foster
Golf Course revenues.
- A contract amendment with Axon
Enterprise for Police Department
body cameras, tasers, marked
police vehicles outfitted with dash
cameras and software licenses to
continue using Evidence.com, in
the amount of $972,747.23 (over
the 5 -year agreement).
Special Meeting to follow
Committee of the Whole Meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
- Authorize the Mayor to sign a
contract for Small Drainage
Construction, in the amount of
$623,161.
- Authorize the Mayor to sign
Contract Amendment for Small
Drainage Construction
Management, in the amount of
$99,000.
- Approve an application for Lodging
Tax funds from the City of Tukwila
for Paint Sponsorship in the
amount of $10,000.
JUNE 20
JUNE 27
SPECIAL ISSUES
-Healthcare Broker Contract.
Plan-
- Briefing on Comprehensive
Update.
Special Meeting to follow
Committee of the Whole Meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
- Authorize the Mayor to sign
Amendment #1 to Contract #17-123
with Axon Enterprise for Police
Department body cameras, tasers,
marked police vehicles outfitted with
dash cameras and software licenses
to continue using Evidence.com, in
the amount of $972,747.23 (over the
5 -year agreement).
- Authorize the Mayor to sign a
contract for the 2022 Overlay and
Repair Program in the amount of
$1,300,000 (plus contingency).
- Authorize the Mayor to sign a
contract for the design of the Gilliam
Creek project in the amount of
$40,000.
- Authorize the Mayor to sign a
contract for healthcare broker
services.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
- A resolution adopting the 2023-2027
Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program.
- An ordinance amending Ordinance
No. 2080 §2 and 1733 §2, as
codified at Tukwila Municipal Code
Section 3.20.020, "Admissions Tax
Levied," to update the Admissions
Tax collection process for Foster
Golf Course revenues.
, W ':
i lU N E T
E E NT
FREEDOM U A Y
tilllIMPUR
Regular Meeting cancelled
due to the holiday.
248