HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2014-09-15 Item 6A - Discussion - Fire Exploratory Committee Update and RecommendationCOUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
09/15/14
LH
Aldi1C
tA
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
Mtg Date
Mtg
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD ❑ .Finance ❑ Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW
SPONSOR'S The 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee has completed its work and has arrived at a
SUMMARY recommendation that the City fully explore the feasibility of annexing to the Kent Regional
Fire Authority, and that a Steering Committee be formed to address a series of
recommended phases.
REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ CA &P Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm.
DATE: COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN.
COMMITTEE
ITEM INFORMATION
ITEM No.
17
STAFI, SPONSOR: LAUREL HUMPHREY
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 09/15/14
AGENDA ITEM TITLE 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee Recommendation
CA I'EGORY ►1 Discussion
09/15/14
/1
Motion
Date
❑ Resolution
Mtg Date
❑ Ordinance
Mtg Date
❑ Bid Award
Mtg Date
❑ Public Hearing
Mtg Date
❑ Other
Mtg Date
Mtg Date
Mtg
SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ HR ❑ DCD ❑ .Finance ❑ Fire ❑ IT ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ PW
SPONSOR'S The 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee has completed its work and has arrived at a
SUMMARY recommendation that the City fully explore the feasibility of annexing to the Kent Regional
Fire Authority, and that a Steering Committee be formed to address a series of
recommended phases.
REVIEWED BY ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ CA &P Cmte ❑ F &S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte
❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ 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
MTG. DATE
ATTACHMENTS
09/15/14
Informational Memorandm dated October 10, 2014
Fire Department Summary
Comparison of Fire Service Options
RFA Online Reference List
Recommended Phases and Timeline
Fire Benefit Charge 101
17
18
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Tukwila City Council
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
FROM: Fire Exploratory Committee
DATE: September 10, 2014
SUBJECT: 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee Recommendation
City of Tukwila
ISSUE
The cost of providing high quality fire service to the community is high, and secure and long term
financial sustainability is a challenge within a city's authorized taxing structure. To maintain or improve
existing levels of service as departmental costs increase, cities must either reallocate existing revenue
or identify a new revenue source. Many communities regionally and nationally have pursued regional
consolidation strategies as a cost - effective way to deliver high - quality fire and life- safety services. This
has been accomplished primarily through fire district annexations, interlocal agreements and through
formation of or annexation to Regional Fire Authorities (RFAs). Consolidation can result in lowered costs
due to economies of scale obtained by reducing duplication of facilities, leadership, equipment and
other expenses within close geographical areas. Statewide, there is typically robust community support
for funding dedicated to fire and life safety services. In addition, the dedicated funding source associated
with a fire district or an RFA has potential to free up revenue capacity for member jurisdictions without
detriment to service levels. In June 2010, the City Council formally authorized the exploration of
alternative structures for the provision of fire and life safety services in Tukwila.
BACKGROUND
Fire Exploratory Committee (July— November2010): A Fire Exploratory Committee with members from
the City Council, City Administration, and the Fire Department formed to research and analyze the
options of creating an RFA, joining the Kent RFA, or remaining a municipal department. The 2010 FEC
reached a unanimous recommendation to the City Council to approve the creation of a joint committee
with representation from Tukwila and from the Kent RFA to further explore consolidation between the
two.
Joint Fire Exploratory Committee (January 2011 — June 2012): Following three meetings, this
Committee was suspended to allow the City of Tukwila to respond to significant organizational changes.
In June 2012 the JFEC official terminated without recommendation due to the Kent RFA's discussions
with the City of SeaTac regarding a service contract. Kent RFA did not have the staffing capacity to
undertake both processes at once. The JFEC acknowledged a desire to resume the exploratory
process once those deliberation reached conclusion. SeaTac's contract for services with the Kent RFA
took effect on January 1, 2014.
2014 Fire Exploratory Committee (April — August 2014): In response to the City's Strategic Plan and
with the previous commitment to revisit the fire service consolidation discussion, in late 2013 Mayor
Haggerton requested the formation of a new Fire Exploratory Committee with representation from City
Council, City Administration, and the Fire Department. In February 2014, the Mayor's Office sent letters
to the Chiefs of the Kent RFA, King County Fire Protection District No. 2, and the City of Renton. All
three responded that they would like to further discuss opportunities for partnership. The 2014 Fire
Exploratory Committee commenced its meetings in April 2014.
19
RECOMMENDATION: 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee page 2
2014 FIRE EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE
Scope
The 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee was tasked to build on past and current regional efforts to
research, evaluate, and provide recommendations regarding options for fire and life safety services in
Tukwila, focusing on three scenarios:
• Remain a Municipal Fire Department
• Provide services via contract or other agreement with a neighboring jurisdiction
• Create or join a Regional Fire Authority (RFA), a special purpose district established by voter
approval.
Membership
The Fire Exploratory Committee comprised the individuals listed below. The Committee opted not to
have a Chair, and the Council Analyst accepted responsibility for coordination of agendas, meeting
summaries, and presentations.
• Verna Seal, Councilmember
• Kate Kruller, Councilmember
• David Cline, City Administrator
• Chris Flores, Acting Fire Chief
• Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director
• Vicky Carlsen, Deputy Finance Director
• Chuck Woolley, Firefighter
• Jim Evans, Firefighter
• Dawn Judkins, Firefighter
• Laurel Humphrey, Council Analyst
Schedule
April 18, 2014
Introductions, review of timeline, goals, meeting schedule /frequency
May 2, 2014
Review: Current Fire Department budget and preliminary table of service
options
May 16,
2014
Presentation: SeaTac's decision to contract with Kent RFA
May 30,
2014
Partnership discussion with Chief Jim Schneider, Kent RFA
June 6,
2014
Partnership discussion with Chief Mike Marrs, KCFD #2 and North Highline
FD
June 13,
2014
Partnership discussion with City of Renton
June 27,
2014
Presentation and discussion of fire benefit charge
July 3,
2014
Review of draft charter
July 11,
2014
Discussion of service delivery models and draft outline of report
July 18,
2014
Continued discussion of service delivery models
August 1,
2014
Draft recommendation
August 7,
2014
2nd partnership discussion with Chief Schneider and Larry Rabel, Kent RFA
August 29,
2014
Committee recommendation discussion
September 4,
2014
Committee recommendation discussion
20
RECOMMENDATION: 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee page 3
ANALYSIS /EVALUATION
During its inaugural meeting on April 18, 2014, the 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee discussed its
purpose and goals with each member having an opportunity to speak. Committee members agreed on
the importance of an objective and transparent review process in order to deliver an unbiased, thorough
recommendation that takes into consideration costs, quality of service, and efficient use of resources.
The Committee conducted its review of available service delivery options over the course of 14 meetings
consisting of presentations, partnership discussions with neighboring jurisdictions, and group dialogue,
focusing on the following areas of analysis:
Review of Status Quo
Committee members familiarized themselves with the budget, staffing and services currently provided
by the Fire Department (Attachment 1, Fire Department Summary).
Review of Service Delivery Options
The Committee reviewed and discussed different fire service scenarios, and considered advantages
and disadvantages of each. The Committee met with representatives from the City of SeaTac to learn
from their recent decision to contract for services with the Kent RFA (Attachment 2, Comparison of Fire
Service Options).
Review of Fire Benefit Charge Fundamentals
The Committee received an informational presentation called "Fire Benefit Charge 101," which provided
information on the statutory basis for the FBC, the factors used in the Kent RFA formula, hypothetical
application of that formula to various parcels in Tukwila, and a funding and budget scenario considering
the FBC as a source of revenue.
Review of Partnership Opportunities
The Committee met with representatives from the City of Renton, Fire District #2 /North Highline, and
the Kent RFA to discuss partnership opportunities, revealing the following information:
• The City of Renton is initiating a planning committee with representatives from the City and
from Fire District 25 to explore the feasibility of establishing a new RFA. If an RFA is
successfully established between those two entities, they are open to exploring future
consolidation with other parties, including Tukwila. Committee Analysis: Unknown status
but bears future potential.
• Fire District No. 2 contracts with the North Highline Fire District, and Mike Marrs acts as Fire
Chief for both agencies. A fire benefit charge for the North Highline Fire District passed with
70% approval at the August 5 election. At this time neither District currently plans to annex an
area or to create or join a regional fire authority. Committee Analysis: Remove from
consideration.
• The Kent RFA is interested in further exploring feasibility of partnering with the City of Tukwila.
In a follow up discussion, Kent RFA leadership expressed the possibility of revising their fire
benefit charge formula to better accommodate the specific demographic makeup of Tukwila.
Renewal of the fire benefit charge will be on the ballot in April 2016. The Committee admires
the leadership and experience in this established RFA, and acknowledges the highly
successful partnership established via Tukwila's participation in the South King County Fire
Training Consortium. Committee Analysis: Preliminary analysis indicates annexation into
the Kent RFA may be financially feasible and with probable benefit to the community.
21
RECOMMENDATION: 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee page 4
RECOMMENDATION
With unanimous approval, the 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee believes that it is highly likely that long
term sustainability of high quality fire service in the City of Tukwila would be improved by a consolidation
effort, and furthermore, that the City of Tukwila should fully explore the feasibility of partnering with the
Kent Regional Fire Authority to complete the work that was unfinished in 2010 -2011. We acknowledge
that maintaining or increasing the service levels of a municipal fire department will remain an ongoing
challenge within the taxing authority of the City, and we did not find an argument against pursuing an
alternative.
What has changed?
In 2010, exploration of consolidation was put on hold for the reasons noted above, and since that time
a few factors have changed that the Committee believes makes consideration of annexation into Kent
RFA an even more attractive option. First, the RCW was amended to streamline the annexation process
by requiring a vote only from the area to be annexed. Second, the Kent RFA completed its process
with the City of SeaTac and now has the expressed interest and resources available to seriously explore
annexation of Tukwila. Finally, preliminary financial analysis and the potential to revise the fire benefit
charge formula to suit Tukwila's demographics indicate that this could be financially advantageous for
the City and the community.
Why a Regional Fire Authority?
It is clear that consolidation of fire services offers many benefits relating to the distribution of costs over
a larger population, elimination of duplicated resources, and maximization of efficiencies. In addition,
implementation of a fire benefit charge offers a funding mechanism that factors in square footage and
other fire service needs, thereby distributing costs fairly among residences and commercial properties.
Establishing a dedicated funding source exclusively for fire service also has the benefit of giving the
City more budgetary flexibility, freeing capacity for other essential services. Furthermore, in contrast
with a fire district, a regional fire authority has a system of governance that includes voting members
from each represented jurisdiction. (Attachment 3, RFA Reference List)
Why the Kent Regional Fire Authority?
The Kent Regional Fire Authority is regionally respected for its successes, leadership, and experience.
It has been in operation since 2010 and has cleared many of the early challenges associated with the
creation of a new organizational and governmental entity. The City of Tukwila and its Fire Department
have already established and enjoyed a highly successful relationship due to participation in the South
King County Regional Training Consortium, administered by Kent RFA. Kent RFA leadership has
expressed a desire to continue exploring the feasibility of annexation of Tukwila, and furthermore, has
offered to the Committee the potential to revise its fire benefit charge formula in a way that would suit
Tukwila's unique demographics and its high volume retail base.
Is there an alternative?
If analysis of joining the Kent RFA proves it to be unfeasible, or it becomes clear that there is no
community support, the City has no contractual obligation or promise to continue down that path. The
City will maintain the status quo, but considering the advantages offered by the regional fire authority
structure, the Committee encourages the City to keep close watch on the developments in Renton as
they explore formation of their own RFA. If formation of a new RFA is successful, there is potential for
future partnership that could be revisited when the time is right.
22
RECOMMENDATION: 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee page 5
Where do we go from here?
The Committee believes that in order to make an ultimate decision on this matter the Council will need
more detailed information on key issues regarding the fire benefit charge, potential revenues, personnel
integration, operations, and more. The Committee has identified a series of key phases that we
recommend if further exploration is to occur. First, a detailed analysis of financial feasibility should be
conducted in order to consider the fire benefit charge formula and its application in Tukwila along with
projected revenues. A task force relating to messaging and engagement should be deployed to provide
a steady flow of information and continually gauge community support. If Council and community
support continues, representatives from Tukwila and the Kent RFA will then come together to negotiate
amendments to the RFA Plan to allow annexation, while union negotiations are occurring concurrently.
The amended RFA Plan must then be approved by both governmental bodies, voters must approve the
annexation, the RFA Plan, and the fire benefit charge, and if successful, an interlocal agreement will be
negotiated based upon the approved RFA Plan. The Committee believes a reasonable timeline for
implementation has potential to culminate in a vote in early 2016. This recommended timeline
assumes that the Council receives regular briefings and each phase will only proceed if Council
and community support exist. (Attachment 4, Recommended Phases and Timeline)
Summary of Recommendation
The 2014 Fire Exploratory Committee recommends to the Mayor and the City Council that the City of
Tukwila should fully explore the feasibility of annexing to the Kent Regional Fire Authority. If it is
supportive, the City Council can endorse this recommendation by a motion either this evening, or at a
future Regular Meeting following additional Committee of the Whole discussion. The Committee
suggests a motion to endorse further exploration of feasibility of annexing to the Kent Regional
Fire Authority and the creation of a Steering Committee to address the phases recommended
by the Fire Exploratory Committee.
Attachments:
1. Fire Department Summary
2. Comparison of Fire Service Options
3. Regional Fire Authority Online Reference List
4. Recommended Phases and Timeline
5. Fire Benefit Charge 101
23
City of Tukwila Fire Department
2013 Summary
City of Tukwila
Assessed Value
Area
AV per Square Mile
2014 Regular Tax Levy
2014 Levy Rate
Residents
Jobs
Estimated daytime population
4.6 billion
9.7 square miles
474 million
$14,100,000
$2.98
19,486
42,000
150,000
Fire Department
Number of Stations
Staff Levels
Minimum Staffing Level
Staffing Model
Total Calls for Service
• Aid /Medical
• Fire Response
• Other
4
18
13
48 hour shifts, 3
4803
3330
313
1160
crews
Services Provided: Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical, Fire
Prevention /Marshal, Emergency Management, Hazardous Materials,
Technical Rescue, Marine Operations, Explorer Post, Public Education
FTEs
Uniformed 62
• Chief 1
• Assistant Chief 1
• Battalion Chiefs 5
• Captains 16
• Firefighters 39
Civilian 5
• Administrative 2
• FMO Project Manager 1
• FMO Clerical 1
• CERT /Public Ed 1
Total 67
25
Budget
Fire Department
General Fund 2013 Actuals
Notes
Administration
Suppression
Prevention
Training
Facilities
HazMat
Rescue
Emergency Preparedness
Rescue & Emergency
Communication /Dispatch
$ 834,054
8,119,818
721,553
364,764
111,490
64,008
8,237
310,404
45,228
129,354
Oversight - Chief, Asst. Chief, Admin Support
Daily field operations
Enforcing codes, public outreach
Training, quality control, safety
Operations and maintenance of stations
Hazardous material response and mitigation
Specialized rescue response and mitigation
Foundation for emergency management in City
Life support
Valley Com charges
Total General Fund
$ 10,708,909
*General Fund Total includes O &M = $425,935 and ER &R = $112,053
Facilities
Year Built Square Footage
Maintenance
Costs
Fire Station 51
Fire Station 52
Fire Station 53
Fire Station 54
Fund 303 Expenses (Facility
Improvements)
1975
1971
1997
1961
15,519
3,300
6,109
4,000
$ 35,488
9,531
14,723
17,361
6,964
Total Maintenance Costs
$ 84,067
Fleet Information
2,221 tech hours, 32% of total tech hours
26
Continue Municipal
Fire Department
Join Existing Regional Fire
Authority
Create Regional Fire Authority
Annex to Existing Fire District
Create Fire District
Contract with Neighboring
Jurisdiction
Potential Partners
N/A
Kent RFA
City of Renton
FD 2
North Highline
FD 2 (Burien, Normandy Park)
North Highline (Boulevard Park,
Top Hat, Beverly Park, Shorewood,
Mt. View, South Park, White
Cen ter)
None
Kent RFA
Statutory Provisions
N/A
RCW 52.26
RCW 52.26
RCW 52.04
RCW 52.02
RCW 35A.11.040
RCW 39.34
Approval Process
N/A
1. City Council adopts a resolution
requesting the annexation.
2. RFA Board adopts a resolution
amending its plan to establish
terms of annexation.
3. City Council adopts another
resolution approving the
annexation and related plan
amendment.
4. Election — majority approval
required in the City only.
(RCW 52.26.300)
1. Planning committee formed
(three elected officials from each
partner)
2. Committee adopts a Regional
Fire Protection Authority Service
Plan
3. Each partner governing body
certifies Plan and places issue on
ballot
4. Election — majority approval of
combined area required (60%
approval if fire benefit charge
proposed)
1. City Council initiates by
ordinance.
2. Fire Commissioners concur.
3. Election — majority approval
required in City and in District
(RCW 52.04.061, 071)
1. Petition signed by not less than
10 percent of registered voters
who voted in last municipal
election
2. Election requiring 3/5 majority
approval
1. Upon development of an ILA,
each participating jurisdiction's
elected body will approve by
adoption of a resolution.
Governance
7 member City Council
3 Kent City Councilmembers, 3
Fire District 37 Commissioners, 1
non - voting advisory board
member from Covington,
appointed by Covington Council, 1
non - voting advisory board
member from SeaTac, appointed
by SeaTac Council PLUS
negotiated role for Tukwila
To be specified in the Plan.
Elected officials of participating
jurisdictions and elected
commissioners of the authority
(RCW 52.26.080)
3, 5, or 7 Commissioners directly
elected at -large or by district.
3, 5, or 7 Commissioners elected
at -large or by district.
Negotiated advisory (non- voting)
role
Revenues /Funding
$10,600,000 Budget;
$1.50 tax levy, EMS
levy, grants, inspection
and permit fees, City
general fund
$1.00 levy plus FBC per
established formula
$1.00 per $1,000 with a FBC or
$1.50 operating levy
$1.00 per $1,000 with a FBC or
$1.50 operating levy
$1.00 per $1,000 with a FBC or
$1.50 operating levy
City budget
Advantages
*History, legacy,
tradition
*No change -risk
*Retain leadership,
governance
*Current labor contract
good
*Local control of assets
*Fully integrated EMS
*Economies of scale
*More staff and resources to
meet service demands
*Dedicated funding source
*Direct correlation between
funding and service
*FBC distributes costs relative to
service requirement
*Relief to City's budget
*Excellent relationship
*Economies of scale
*Dedicated funding source
*Direct correlation between
funding and service
*FBC distributes costs relative to
service needs
*Relief to City's budget
*More staff and resources to
meet service demands
*Economies of scale
*Dedicated funding source
*Direct correlation between
funding and service
*Relief to City's budget
*FBC distributes costs relative to
service needs
*Relief to City's budget
Same
*Economies of Scale
*Stepping stone to future
annexation
*Staffing flexibility
*Does not require ballot measure
Continue Municipal
Fire Department
Join Existing Regional Fire
Authority
Create Regional Fire Authority
Annex to Existing Fire District
Create Fire District
Contract with Neighboring
Jurisdiction
established via training
consortium
*Experienced, established RFA
with effective leadership
*Potential for future expansion to
the West
*Compatible shift schedules
*FBC may be tailored to Tukwila's
demographic needs
Challenges
*Tax - limiting legislation
* Volatility of general
fund revenue streams
*Expensive with no
other funding options
*Staff limitations due to
budget
*Overtime costs
*Facility deficits
*Apparatus access
limitations
*No aid car in service
*Small - scaled staffing
*Reduced governance, control
over service delivery
*Requires 60% voter approval,
then 50% approval every six years
*Must consolidate labor contracts
*Separation of certain services
(EMS, fire inspectors)
*Reduced governance, control
over service delivery
*Requires 60% voter approval,
then 50% approval every six years
*Must consolidate labor contracts
*Separation of certain services
(EMS, fire inspectors)
*Loss of governance
*Loss of governance
*No potential partners
*Loss of governance, although
advisory participation is
negotiated
*Must be funded from existing
City Budget
Perspectives on
partnership
N/A
Kent RFA leadership is interested
in continuing discussions on a
possible annexation of Tukwila to
the RFA.
The City of Renton plans to
explore the feasibility of
establishing an RFA with
representatives from the City and
from FD 25. If an RFA is
established they are open to
future partnership opportunities.
Neither FD 2 or North Highline
plans to create or join an RFA.
Neither FD 2 or North Highline is
interested in annexation at this
time.
N/A
Regional Fire Authority— Online Reference List
RFA FAQ by Valley Regional and Riverside Fire Authority legal counsel:
http: / /www.awcnet.org /portals /0/ documents /training/materials/ conference /2011 /24sustainapproachfi
reservicerfafaq.pdf
Chapter 52.26 Revised Code of Washington — Regional Fire Service Authorities:
http:// app.leg.wa.gov /rcw /default.aspx ?cite =52.26
MRSC Regional Fire Protection Service Authorities Information and Resource Page:
http: / /www.mrsc.org/ subjects /governance /spd /rfpsa.aspx
• Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority (King County) - Includes City of Kent and King
County FPD No. 37 (Covington annexed) - Election held April 27, 2010 - Effective July 1, 2010
• North County Regional Fire Authority (Snohomish County) - Snohomish County FPD Nos. 14 and
• North Mason Regional Fire Service Authority (Mason County) - Includes Mason County Fire
District No. 2 and Mason County Fire District No. 8 - Effective January 1, 2014
• Riverside Fire Authority (Lewis County) - City of Centralia and Lewis County Fire District No. 12 -
Election in November 2007
• South Whatcom Fire Authority (Whatcom County) - Whatcom County FPD Nos. 2, 6, 9, and 10 -
Election in November 2008
• Valley Regional Fire Authority (King County) - Cities of Algona, Auburn, and Pacific - Election in
November 2006, formed in January 2007
• South East Thurston Fire Authority (Thurston County) - Includes Yelm, Thurston County FPD No.
2, FPD No. 4 (Rainier annexed) - Election held on February 9, 2010
• West Thurston Regional Fire Authority (Thurston County) - Includes Thurston County FPD No. 1
and Thurston County FPD No. 11 - Election in August 2009
MRSC Index to Electronic Documents: http: / /www.mrsc.org/ research /libraryresults.aspx ?cat =2431
Kent Regional Fire Authority: http: / /www.kentfirerfa.org/
Kent RFA Annual Reports, Budgets and Plan: http:// www. kentfirerfa .org /index.aspx ?nid =94
31
Financial Analysis
• Review data, forecast FBC revenue, determine feasibility
• City Council receives briefings at this stage and throughout
Messaging and Engageme
• Steady flow of information to electeds, public and press
• Stakeholder input
Plan Amendment
• Assets, vehicles, capital, LEOFF 1, governance, etc.
Labor Negotiations
• Concurrent with other phases
Resolutions
• City Council adopts resolution requesting annexation
• RFA Board adopts resolution amending Plan to allow annexation
• City Council places measure on ballot
• Voters must approve annexation, Plan amendment, FBC
• Voter outreach 2 -4 months
ILA Developme
• ILA is developed based upon an adopted RFA Plan
2014
Q4
2015
Q1
Q1 -Q4
Q2 -Q3
Q2 -Q4
Q4
2016
Q1
April
Q3 -Q4
t,�
Fire Benefit Charge
101
September 15, 2014
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
Agenda:
•'• Basics of FBC
•:• Factors in Kent RFA model
•:• FBC as applied to Tukwila parcels
•:• Fire budget and potential capacity
Basics of FBC
❖ Initial imposition of FBC requires 60% voter
approval (RCW 52.26.220)
❖ Renewing existing FBC requires 60 for RFAs %,
renew every 6 years (RCW 52.26.220)
❖ The FBC takes the place of the 3rd 50 cent
property tax levy (RCW 52.26.240)
❖ Cannot exceed 60% of the annual operating
budget (RCW 52.26.220)
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
Basics of FBC, continued
• Imposed on personal property and improvements
to real property (RCws2.z6.1so)
• FBC is added to property tax bills
• County charges a fee to collect the funds
(currently 1 %)
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
Basics of FBC - Formula
+ Formula shall be reasonably proportioned to
the measurable benefits to property
(RCW 52.26.180)
• Any other method that reasonably apportions
the benefit charges is acceptable. (RCW 52.26.180)
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
Exceptions, limitations
❖ Property owned by religious organizations
(RCW 52.26.180)
❖ Property not assessed and subjected to ad
valorem taxation under Title 84 (RCW 52.26.180)
❖ Property that is subject to a contract for
services (RCW 52.26.180)
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
Exceptions, limitations, continued
+ Low income, seniors that qualify for
exemptions under RCW 84.36.381 through
84.36.389 are exempt from a portion of the
FBC. 25 %, 50% or 75% exemption
What is not exempt
+ Non profit organizations
•'• School districts
❖ Government entities that do not have a fire
department
1.
Kent RFA Factors and Formulas
2014 Kent Fire Department Benefit Charge Formula;
5q12 re root of total square floatage X 18 X Category Factor X Fire Flow Factor X Response Factor X Risk Factor X Applicable Discount FBC
Total square footage of structure (s)
Category Factors:
as
a'.
4
cri
cri
Lai
4
.-+-
CM
a,
Li,
".
as
as
as,
8
0,
as
�L
§
cr.
cr.
`71.•
cJ
8
S
ar
§
g4
as
e
®
as
cri
'71
al
8
4
as
ci
cr.
8
4
.g
CI
8
4
Si
r-r,
8
+4
g
cr,
8
c.
47
an
e-
Cr+
8
4
8-
i
d■
8
4
...
8
k.m idential
Mobile Homes
Apartments
Commercial
0.63
0.76
1.60
1.00
0.83
0.76
1.60
1.00
0.83
0.76
1.60
1.00
0.83
0.76
1.60
1.00
0.83
0.76
1.60
1.20
0.83
0.76
1.60
1.20
0.83
0.76
1.60
1.20
0.83
0.76
1.60
1.10
0.83
0.76
3.25
1.40
0.83
0.76
3.25
1.10
0.63
0.76
3.2s
1.50
0.83
0.76
6..;• 0
1.50
0.83
0.76
6.70
2.05
0.83
0.76
8.60
2.05
0.83
0.76
11.10
3.05
0.6::
0.71.
14. .•
3.05
Fire Flow Factor
0.270160•132'
Response Factor:"
Kesidental
Manufactured Homes
A partrn eats
Commercial
1.05
1.00
1.51
1.18
1.13
1.00
1.51
1.18
1.35
1.00
1.51
1.18
1.65
1.00
1.54
1.18
1.65
1.00
1.54
1.18
2.25
1.00
1.54
1.18
2.25
1.00
1.51
1.75
2.25
7.00
1.54
1.75
2.25
1.00
1.54
1.75
2.25
1.00
1.5.1
2.65
2.25
1.00
1.51
1.20
2.25
1.00
1.5.1
1.20
2.25
1.00
1.54
4.20
2.25
1.00
1.54
4.20
2.25
1.00
1.54
4.20
2.25
1.00
1.54
4.20
Risk Facto r_.'"
Light Hazard
:D -dinary Hazard - 1
Ordinary Hazard - 2
Extra Hazard - 1
iNtra '-lzizard -2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
7.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.00
7.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.40
D iscounts:
Automatic Fire Svin,fles
Manual Local Alarm
Manual Central Alarm
Automatic Local Alarm
Automatic Central Alarm
1.-i culti,a1
0.900 I
0.900
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900 I
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.000 I
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
I 0.000
0.900
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
I 0.900
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
I 0.900
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900 I
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900 I
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900 I
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
0.900
0.980
0.950
0.970
0.925
0.250
▪ ire flow factor is imti mated until final tax and property data is certified by the King County Assess.: -
"Riponse factor is based upon the nutn ber of firefighters needed to deliver the required fireflow
* " Risk ractor&*pgily to comrnercia I property. are defined by the NFP.15. and are a5htned by Inxpettion perrDrrhed by the Fi re Au th bri ty.
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
Potential changes to formula for
Tukwila parcels
❖ Add factor for retail sector
+ Revise square footage categories
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
FBC as applied to Tukwila parcels - residential
1,500 square feet, $188,000 A.V.:
FBC = $164.15
3rd $0.50 fire levy = $94.00
(parcel #0040000471)
3,350 square feet, $253,000 A.V.:
FBC = $315.40
3'd $0.50 fire levy = $126.00
(parcel #8687800005)
Typical response for a house fire: 5 apparatus, 1 rehab vehicle, 2
BCs, 1 admin chief, 1 MSO, 1 fire investigator, 1 safety officer
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
$400
$300
$200
$100
so
FBC to 3rd $O.5 Tax Levy - residential
Residential Properties
SCE Ft 1,500
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
2,420
3,350
0
-FBC Tax
12
FBC as applied to Tukwila parcels — apartments
11,900 square feet, 25 units, $1,127,000 A.V.:
FBC = $1,307.20
3rd $0.50 fire levy = $563.50
Each unit's share would be $52.29
(parcel #0040000327 — Park Ave Apts)
Typical response for an apartment fire:
8 apparatus, 2 medic units with 2 paramedics in each, 1 rehab vehicle,
2 BCs, 1 admin chief, 1 MSO, 1 fire investigator, 1 safety officer
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
FBC as applied to Tukwila parcels — apartments
160,700 square feet, 188 units, $13,872,000, A.V., no
discounts:
FBC = $25,819.84
3rd $0.50 fire levy = $6,936.00
Each unit's share would be $137.34
(parcel #0003000008 — Terrace Apts)
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$.5,000
O
FBC to 3rd $O.5 Tax Levy — apartments
Apartment Complexes
Sq Ft 11,900
60,255
-FBC Tax
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
160,700
FBC as applied to Tukwila parcels — commercial
16,828 square feet, $2,315,400, A.V., no discounts:
FBC = $1,545.64
3rd $0.50 fire levy = $1,157.70
(parcel #0223400040 — SRO Properties)
Typical response for a commercial fire:
8 apparatus, 2 medic units with 2 paramedics in each, 1 rehab vehicle,
2 BCs, 1 admin chief, 1 MSO, 1 fire investigator, 1 safety officer
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
FBC as applied to Tukwila parcels — commercial
621,525 square feet, $27,997,400 A.V., no discounts:
FBC = $49,113.95
3rd $0.50 fire levy = $13,998.70
(parcel #3523049119)
FBC to 3rd $O.5 Tax Levy — commercial
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
0
Commercial Properties
Sa Ft 16,828
8
164,928
FBC -Tax
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
621,525
Potential Capacity if Kent RFA
(30,000 foot level)
- Fire budget compared to levy -
In Dollars (estimated)
Current Fire budget $10,600,000
Reduction of property tax
levy ($1.00/$1,000 AV) - 4,700,000
Potential capacity for City $5,900,000
w
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014
A
Levy Rate (estimated)
Current Fire budget expressed
as levy rate $2.23
Loss of levy to RFA
($1.00/$1,000 AV) - 1.00
Net tax capacity for City $1.23
Q &A
The City of opportunity,
the community of choice.
Fire Exploratory Committee - 2014