HomeMy WebLinkAboutFire EMS 2022-02-01 Agenda Packet
1.Tukwila Future Fire/EMS Service Community Advisory Committee
Meeting 4
Tuesday, February 1, 2022 | 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
The meeting will be conducted on Zoom.
Join Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7558840726?pwd=d3NDRjhIQ0hYckpUUGNzRndpK2hqUT09
Phone in information: (253) 215-8782 | Meeting ID: 755 884 0726 | Passcode: 482717
Agenda
1.Welcome, Introductions Chair Verna Seal (10 min.)
2.Review of Agenda (1 min.) Karen Reed, facilitator
3.Review and approval of meeting summary from the January 4 Committee meeting (3
min.) Karen
4.Election of Vice-Chair (5 min.)
5.Response to questions asked at previous meeting (10 min.) Staff Team
6.Meeting 3 Re-cap/Continued discussion: (25 min.) Karen
Defining Fiscal Sustainability: Additional ideas? Preliminary consensus?
New question: What “Criteria” are important to you for comparing/evaluating
options?
Initial list of options – questions? Comments?
7.Fire Labor relations 101 – union rights to bargain salaries, benefits, working conditions
(15 min.) Norm Golden
Binding arbitration
8.Comparing the Options: Blank Template (5 min.) Karen
--break-- (5 min.)
9.Options 1 and 2: Status Quo; Status Quo Plus Service adds (35 min.)
Questions? Pros / Cons about these options that come to mind?
10.IAFF Union Comment (3 min.) IAFF President James Booth
Next Agenda/Adjourn (2 min.) Karen
City of Tukwila
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee
January 4, 2021
Virtual Meeting due to COVID-19 Emergency
4:00 p.m.
DRAFT MINUTES
Present
Committee members: Jim Davis, Katrina Dohn, Jovita McConnell, Peggy McCarthy, Andy Reiswig, Dennis
Robertson, Verna Seal, Sally Blake, Hien Kieu (Absent: Ben Oliver, Ramona Grove, Abdullahi Shakul)
City staff & consultants: David Cline, Laurel Humphrey, Norm Golden, Jay Wittwer, Vicky Carlsen, James
Booth, Karen Reed, Bill Cushman
1.Welcome, Introductions, Review of Agenda
Ms. Reed reviewed the meeting agenda.
2.Review and approval of December 14, 2021 Committee meeting minutes
Ms. Dohn moved approval of the minutes and Mr. Davis seconded. The motion carried and the
minutes were approved.
3.Responses to questions asked at previous meetings
Ms. Reed reviewed a list of responses.
Recap of Meeting 2 Presentations
4.
Ms. Reed reviewed the presentations and roundtable responses.
Q&A:
Are the reserve accounts outlined in the financial plan just starting this year?
-Half are in place and funded today
Is the overtime cost reflective of recent experiences or will ongoing overtime be needed in
the future? Does the strategic plan carry over the same level of overtime?
-Overtime typically relates to minimum staffing levels covering people being out.
Covid response (vaccinations, testing) also has impacted overtime costs, and this is
reimbursable.
-The strategic plan reflects an increase based on historical budgets, as opposed to
amendments.
Is it correct that the city is only allowed to increase the tax rate a certain percentage per
year?
-The maximum property tax rate allowed is $3.60/$1,000 AV, but property tax
collections can only grow 1% per year plus new construction. As assessed valuation
goes up—typically by more than 1% per year-- the levy rate goes down.
1
Isn’t high overtime cost an indicator of understaffing?
-The staffing model is 18 per shift, allowing 4 off per shift – 2 vacation, 2 “Kelly”
days, leaving a minimum of 14. The Fire Department strives to find the right
balance and anticipate departures.
Information Requests:
What cost saving recommendations in the CPSM study have been implemented or are being
considered?
Can we charge other fire agencies for responding to calls in their territory? Could this offset
our costs?
5.Committee Roundtable
Committee members each shared responses to “What are your thoughts about enhanced services?”
and “Should all or some be a priority to fund/provide in Tukwila, why or why not?” Responses and Q&A
included:
Not clear which of the enhanced service options is more important. They seem equally
important. We need to share resources with other agencies to fund this.
Q: Can we do the public education officer in some other way, with existing resource, for
example through the police department? A: Not likely; it is a requirement to become an
accredited department.
Q: Why were fire inspections discontinued? A: Staff were shifted to handling permits and
duties with the south county training consortium
CARES units seems to be the biggest bang for the buck.
Q: What are the non- financial benefits of a CARES unit? A: It frees up firefighters to do more
serious calls
Q: Is there a capacity issue in addressing CARES type calls today? A: Yes. A CARES unit would
help keep our vehicles on priority calls.
We need these enhancements if we can afford them. We need to prioritize. I like the CARES
unit, less interested in sharing it with other agencies. I liked having fire inspections done—
would welcome restoring that.
CARES unit is a priority for me. It eliminates work for firefighters. The Public education officer
is very important but could we share this with another department, including the police
department perhaps? I don’t know how important the fire marshal office staffing is.
All three are important. Q: Could we fund fewer additional staff for the fire marshal than the
maximum 3 FTE? A: We could add incrementally to the fire marshal’s office.
All three are important. Fire inspections are needed in our multi-family housing stock. Is
there some opportunity for creative financing here?
CARES and Fire Marshal office staffing are my priorities—these have greatest public safety
impacts.
Committee members each shared responses to “How do you define financial sustainability?”
Responses included:
The Fire Department is over budget every year. How can we support all our services? There
are many paths, but financial sustainability means sustaining what we have now—or better.
We’re in an economically active area. Can we handle what we have now? What will happen in
the next 4-10 years? Demand will continue to increase because growth will continue. The
level of service is high, and we should be able to sustain it. There will be fights over
resources—you need to balance between what you have and what you can afford.
2
The Fire Department’s role has evolved over time. More specialty services are provided,
homelessness and mental health crises bring the need for new skills. We need to keep the
level of service without increasing debt. We need to change with the times and combine
resources with others—we could facilitate a higher level of service by joining others.
The City is evolving. I don’t know how we can maintain service levels over time. Something
has to change.
Current revenues will not support growth in costs. Costs are growing faster than revenues.
Fiscal sustainability question is whether you can afford the services you are providing within
your revenues? Options are to find new revenues or cut. We need revenue unless we are
willing to cut other departments.
We’re in a tough spot. The Fire Department needs more revenue to do what they do now and
there is a desire for enhanced services.
3.2% increase per year in revenue is reasonable for the City. We should keep funding within
existing revenue and not ask the public for more money. Fire is a priority and should be
funded.
I agree with the comment about balancing our revenues to maintain services. Is general fund
support dependable? What about big projects like the Allentown bridge? We need to be
prepared for the unexpected. We need to look at additional funding.
I agree with that—we need to sustain the level of service and understand what is critical. We
need to be able to respond to current needs in a growing economy and be prepared for the
unexpected. We need to be efficient within existing revenue and be strategic about asking for
more.
6.State Law Options for Delivery of Fire/EMS Services
Ms. Reed presented a table comparing the statutory authority for Municipal Fire Departments, Fire
Districts, and Regional Fire Authorities
7.Potential Fire/EMS Service Delivery Options
Ms. Reed presented an overview of potential options for future service delivery.
8.Union Comment
Captain Booth expressed appreciation for the work of the Committee members.
9.Next Agenda/Adjourn
Ms. Reed reviewed the February 2022 preliminary meeting agenda.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:03 P.M. by unanimous consent.
Minutes by LH and KR
3
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee (v. 1.4.21)
Question Question Response / Status
Received
1Meeting 1 Provide number of calls by type (EMS vs Fire) per day, Calls by station district
provided on 12/14.
per station
Note that 2 stations were recently relocated which
impacts relevance of per-station call data from before
the present locations were active.
2“ Provide data/outcomes from other cities that joined a Pending (will be presented
later)
regional effort
3Meeting 2 Provide information on how much of their general Provided in Meeting 3
packet
fund budget/property tax the cities of Renton and
SeaTac were expending on Fire before they formed an
RFA (Renton) or contracted with an RFA (SeaTac)
4 Would additional fire investigation and Provided in Meeting 3
packet
permitting/fire inspector staff pay for themselves
through fees? Generally, what can we expect in terms
of Fire Marshal office generated revenue?
5 Provided in Meeting 3
How many inspections does one inspector complete in
packet
a year on average?
6 Does the Fire Department and/or City have a Provided in Meeting 3
packet
preference/priority in terms of these enhanced
services?
7 Where would the money come from to fund enhanced This will be discussed in
Meeting 4 (Feb 4)
services?
8 What is the staffing model for a CARES unit? Provided in Meeting 3
packet
9 After We can provide a 6-year
A summary of project future City revenue streams
meeting 2 forecast. (Vicky Carlsen)
(particularly sales tax) for the next ten years or so.
10“ This is a discussion item for
Definition of fiscal sustainability?
the Committee
11“ Can you provide comparables for total salary, total We will provide this data
compensation cost (TCC), retirement benefits and for Renton RFA and Puget
medial plan benefits in other fire service providers in Sound RFA when we
South King County explore those service
alternatives.
12Meeting 3 Can you provide information on what the City has See response below.
done with respect to the efficiency and cost reduction
recommendations in the CPSM report?
13“ Can we charge other fire agencies for responding to See response below.
calls in their territory? Could this offset our costs?
Responses to questions asked at Meeting 3:
12. Can you provide information on what the City has done with respect to the efficiency and cost
reduction recommendations in the CPSM report?
The City has implemented many of the recommendations in the CPSM report. Other recommendations
have been consolidated in the Enhanced Services document that breaks the suggestions into three areas
of need (Fire Marshal’s Office, Public Information and Education, and the CARES program). All of the
suggestions are being evaluated and most of the suggestions will be presented to the Community
Advisory Committee for consideration.
13. Can we charge other fire agencies for responding to calls in their area? Could this offset our costs?
The short answer is no. The Interlocal agreement (ILA) that all the Zone 3 agencies have entered into
does not allow any of the member agencies to charge for providing services to other agencies. The
agreement is a mutually beneficial arrangement that allows for appropriate resources to be immediately
dispatched to a particular incident. This provides automatic aid to all areas in Zone 3 to ensure our
community has an appropriate response that meets national standards. Most organizations in Zone 3
are not able to meet the national standards for a small residential fire on their own, but through this ILA,
each agency , through reliance on back-up from their neighboring fire agencies, can meet the national
standards not only for small residential fires but also for large commercial fires.
Updates to
Enhanced Services
Costs
Meeting 4 / February 1, 2022
Enhanced services the Fire Dept would like to add if
funding were available (in priority order):
(.33 FTE paid for –employee will
CARES unit
work for another agency; grant offset part
of costs)
(1 FTE)
Public Educator
Additional staffing for
Fire Marshal’s Office
(up to 3 additional FTE)
Enhanced Service Costs are
updated
Reasons for updates:
Shift in assumption about how these positions will be staffed. Initial
assumption was they would be civilian positions; new assumption (more
realistic) is that they will be uniformed firefighters. This increases the cost
of each position.
Shift in City practice for bringing in new vehicles to their fleet: from
purchase to lease. Estimated annual lease cost added to the cost
summary (earlier assumption was purchase and purchase price
estimates were too low).
Jan. 31version had incorrect data duplication in 2023-2028 vehicle costs
–corrected February 1 version below.
Updates to Estimated Costs,
summary
Initial EstimateJanuary Estimate
2022 Net Cost: $791,4892022 Net Cost: $1,105,696
$313,207 increase / 40%
Equivalent levy rate: $0.096Equivalent levy rate: $0.13
TABLEE: Estimated Cost of Enhanced Services (REVISED FEBRUARY 1, 2022)
Job Title/Total Compensation Cost2022202320242025202620272028
132,222 136,453 140,819 145,325 149,976 154,775 159,728
Public Educator (1 FTE)
188,610 194,646 200,874 207,302 213,936 220,782 227,847
Inspector-FF (1 FTE)
188,610 194,646 200,874 207,302 213,936 220,782 227,847
Inspector-FF (1 FTE)
204,012 210,541 217,278 224,231 231,406 238,811 246,453
Inspector-Cap (1 FTE)
62,241 64,233 66,289 68,410 70,599 72,858 75,190
CARES EMT-FF (.33 FTE)
775,696 800,518 826,134 852,571 879,853 908,008 937,065
Enhanced Programs (TCC)
Supplies/Equipment/Overhead
Pub Ed Supplies/Equip7,500 5,250 5,355 5,462 5,571 5,683 5,796
Vehicle Lease/Maint/Op12,500 12,750 13,005 13,265 13,530 13,801 14,077
Inspector-Cap Supplies/Equip7,500 5,250 5,355 5,462 5,571 5,683 5,796
Vehicle Lease/Maint/Op12,500 12,750 13,005 13,265 13,530 13,801 14,077
Inspector-FF Supplies/Equip7,500 5,250 5,355 5,462 5,571 5,683 5,796
Vehicle Lease/Maint/Op12,500 12,750 13,005 13,265 13,530 13,801 14,077
Inspector-FF Supplies/Equip7,500 5,250 5,355 5,462 5,571 5,683 5,796
Vehicle Lease/Maint/Op12,500 12,750 13,005 13,265 13,530 13,801 14,077
CARES Unit Overhead & Ops250,000 255,000 260,100 265,302 270,608 276,020 281,541
TOTAL M&O330,000 327,000 333,540 340,211 347,015353,905 361,034
TOTAL PROGRAM1,105,696 1,127,518 1,159,6751,192,782 1,226,8681,261,964 1,298,099
0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Equivalent Levy Rate (per $1,000 AV)
Meeting 3 Re-cap and Continued
Panel discussion:
.
1Enhanced Services
2. Defining Fiscal Sustainability
comparing/evaluating options?
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee
Meeting 4 February 1, 2022
Enhanced Services
Public Educator Fire Inspectors (1-3) CAREs Unit
At meeting 3 Panel comments included:
Funding Ideas
Services Priority
___________
No preference expressed (4) Fund public educator with other depts, agencies
All 3 equally important (2) Share resources if possible
CARES unit & FMO are priority (2)
CARES unit is priority (1)
Additional thoughts?
OPTIONS:
Question 1: Assume no new funding is
available, and adding these services
CARES Unit
1.
will mean cuts in other city programs.
1-2 Fire Inspectors
2.
Would you support adding any of
Public Educator program
3.
these, and if so, which options?
CARES Unit + 1-2 Fire Inspectors
4.
CARES Unit + 1-2 Fire Inspectors +
5.
Question 2: If new taxeswould be
Public Education program
required to fund these programs,
All 3 programs at full staffing
6.
which, if any of these options would
you support:
Vote for ALL items you would support,
all
Funding programs in 2022 would cost about
not just your preferred option.
$0.13
$0.10 /$1,000 A.V. in property tax or about
$1.1M
$791K.
Council has asked the Committee
financially sustainable
How do you define financial sustainability?
The definition is not the same thing as what we do in response.
Information provided by the City:
Each year, General Fund department costs overall grow
faster than the growth in General Fund revenues (3% versus
5%)
can be maintained only by imposing cuts on other general
fund department budgets.
The City is generally financially healthy.
It is very unusual in King County for a City-operated Fire
Department to be wholly supported within a City budget
without additional voter-approved measures for either fire
operations or capital, or both. Tukwila has asked voters for
capital funding support.
Meeting 3 discussion on what is
what the City should do
Most comments focused on to support fire
department service levels over time balance multiple city needs
and continue to cut elsewhere as needed; plan for the
No consensus
unexpected; consider new revenues. .
Fire Department service levels cannot be maintained over time
within available revenues without cutting other department budgets
.
(Again, some are OK with this situation, others less so.)
Possible definition of Fiscal
A fire agency is considered fiscally sustainable if it can
maintain service levels within available revenues in the
this means maintaining fire/EMS service levels without
negatively impacting services in other City departments
competing for the same funding.
Questions for later: How important is fiscal sustainability
become fiscally sustainable? (New revenues or keep
pulling money from other departments,or?)
Initial Options List &
Template
Beginning at this meeting, we will start to review the
CRITERIAYOU
What are some of the that
will apply in deciding which options
presented are more or less preferable?
costResponse
For example, is one criteria.
times
are another possible criteria. What
else is important to consider?
Fire Labor RelationsOverview
Prepared for Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee by Deputy Chief Norm
Golden, January 2022.
Changes to the working conditions of the fire department employees will need to be bargained in
good faith with the established representatives of those employees. The City of Tukwila enjoys a
mutually respectful relationship with both labor groups found in the fire department.
The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) is the union that represents theuniformed
members of the Tukwila Fire Department. The Teamsters Union represents the non-uniformed
members; and the Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, and Assistant to the Fire Chief are non-
represented employees of the City. As a public employer, Tukwila adheres to the rules found in
RCW 41.56–Public Employees Collective Bargaining.
Collective Bargaining is the process in which the union members negotiate contracts with the
City to determine the terms of employment. This includes pay, benefits, hours, leave, health
issues, safetyissues,and more. Some issues are Mandatory subjectsto bargain, and others are
Permissive subjectsto bargain.
Mandatory Subject
–Both parties (Union and City) have a statutory obligation to bargain these
subjects. (Hours, Wages, and Working Conditions)
Permissive Subject
–Both parties may choose to, or refuse to, bargain these subjects. (Internal
union affairs, unit scope, selection of bargaining representatives)
Illegal Subject
–Both parties must refrain from bargaining these subjects. (Can not bargain a
subject that is per seillegal under the law.e.g.fire fighters do not need a driver’s license to drive
the fire engine would not be a valid subject to bargain (or agree to)).
Whether a subject is mandatory, permissive, or illegal is sometimes a debatable issue. Each
subject must be analyzed to determine whether bargaining is appropriate. When evaluating
changes to the fire service in Tukwila, it is a good practice to include all represented parties at
the table. As an employer, the City retains Management Rights, whereby the Fire Department
directs the workforce, promulgates Department rules and regulations, etc. This also includes
budget modification, personnel decisions within the rules of Civil Service and the Collective
Bargaining Agreement (CBA),assignment of work and training requirements, among others.The
City and Unions usually can agree on what needs to be bargained, and the steps required to reach
an agreement.
Any disputes arising from the CBA will be resolved using the Grievance process outlined in the
CBA. The Grievance process has several steps with each step designed to find resolution. The
final step of the process is Binding Arbitration which will produce a resolution. In Binding
Arbitration,a neutral third-party is chosen to hear the case and then renders a decision. Both
parties agree to abide by this final decision.
Throughout this process it will be important to be cognizant of the need to bargain changes. The
internal work group has included representatives of the City, Union, and Fire Department to
create a unified approach to this process. The goal of collective bargaining is to promote
mutually beneficial decisions and balance the inherent power imbalance found between the
employer and employee. Strong labor relations lead to an efficientworkplace that is safer,
healthier, and higher performing.
Fire Service Options
MEETING 4 PRESENTATION
FEBRUARY 1, 2022
Option 1: Status Quo
Service Provider: City of Tukwila Fire Department
Option 2: Status Quo “Plus” – Funding for enhanced services
Service Provider: City of Tukwila Fire Department
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, authorized by the
Fire Service
voters, with boundaries co-extensive with the City: Tukwila Fire District.
Option 4: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded by both property taxes and a Fire Benefit
Options List
Charge
Service Provider: A new governmental entity and taxing district, authorized by the
voters, with boundaries co-extensive with the City: Tukwila Fire District.
Option 5: Partner with another fire service provider to create a Tukwila Regional Fire
Authority–with a fire benefit charge
Presented at Meeting 3
Service Provider: Tukwila Regional Fire Authority, a new governmental entity and taxing
district, created by voter approval to provide fire suppression and emergency medical
response.
Potential partners: adjacent fire districts or cities
Option 6: Contract for Service with Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA)
Service Provider: Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA), a separate municipal
government and taxing district created by voters to provide fire suppression and
emergency medical response.
Option 7: Contract for Service with Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PRSRFA)
Service Provider: Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSFA), a separate municipal
government and taxing district created by voters to provide fire suppression and
emergency medical response.
Option 8: Annexation into Renton RFA
(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 very difficult to reconstitute the Tukwila Fire Department after entering
into a service contract (or annexing), it makes sense to analyze what annexation might look like
as a longer-term option
Service Provider: Renton RFA (See Option 6)
Option 9: Annex into Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority
(Note: the PSRFA has indicated it may be willing to entertain direct annexation of the City
without first entering into a service contract; further discussion would be required. Because it
would be very difficult to reconstitute the Tukwila Fire Department after entering into a service
contract, it is important to consider how annexation might look as a longer-term option
Service Provider: Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (See Option 7)
Template for comparing options
Staffing Implications
Option:
Facilities & Equipment –disposition, future costs, debt, any new/different facilities to be deployed?
Service Provider:
Brief description of option:
Oversight/Control – how will Tukwila Council/Mayor be involved in service and cost decisions
affecting Tukwila going forward?
Overview of service provider (services, governance, finances (tax rates, % of budget received from
FBC, other fees, taxes))
Summary of implications of this option
Timeframe: Earliest date on which this option could be implemented.
Cost:
Major implementation steps (negotiation, council action, service provider actions, voter approval,
Service Levels:
etc.)
Oversight/Management Control:
Current service metrics for service provider (response times)
Other:
Enhanced Services Options: staffing /cost
Risks/Major unknowns:
Operational Model options: Considering a model with fewer than 4 stations in Tukwila? Cost and
service implications, implementation issues
Summary of estimated costs: cost components, estimated annual cost to City and/or taxpayers
A financial/operational summary will be attached
(Attachment A)
to each template –costs will be presented side-by-
side with other options as they are available.
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-
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.
Council action required to place a lid lift before the votersraising the
o
. 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: ǒƓķĻƩ ЌʹЉЊ. Met 93.8% of the time.
EMS turnout time goal: ǒƓķĻƩ ЋʹЌБ. Met 89.2% of the time.
Fire response time (combination of turnout and travel time) goal ǒƓķĻƩ АʹЎВ. Met 86.2% of time
EMS response time goal: ǒƓķĻƩ АʹЎЋ. Met 86.3% of time
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 ƭƷğƷǒƭ ƨǒƚ 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 ƭƷğƷǒƭ ƨǒƚ 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 forwardor 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.
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 eventssuch as the damage
to the Allentown Bridgeforce reprioritization of planned expenditures.
The City bears the cost risk associated with changes in fire department operating requirements.
Attachment A: Cost & Revenue Summary (Options 1 & 2)
Attachment B: Ways to increase funding for Fire Department.
Funding for enhanced services
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.
Including 2 additional Fire Marshal employees, the public educator and CARES Unit would have a
combined cost of approximately $897K in 2022, increasing to $1.05M by 2028, equivalent to an
additional $0.11 in property taxes in 2022. 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.
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 $204K in 2022. Two
FTEs are included in Option 2 pricing shown in Attachment A.
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
As priced, there would be 3 additional FTE one for the Public Education program and two new FTEs
for the Fire Marshal Office. 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 2 additional for Fire Marshal Office, is approximately
$897K in 2022, growing to an estimated $1.05M in 2028. This annual cost would be added to the
status quo Option 1 cost.
Adding these services without additional revenue will increase pressure for cost cutting and
efficiencies on other City departments.
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 fundingcontribution, estimated
to offset about 1/3 or $100K of the CARES unit annual cost, could be eliminated.
Attachment A: Cost & Revenue Summary (Options 1 and 2)
Attachment B: Discussion of Funding Alternatives
Attachment C: Detail on Projected Cost of Enhanced Services, 2022-2028 (REVISED
2.1.21)
Attachment A
All Figures for Year 2022 and all are ESTIMATES
Comparing Option 1 & 2 Detail on Incremental Cost in Option 2
Option 2 Status Option 2 Status
Option 1 Quo Plus Option 1 Quo Plus
Status Quo
Comparable Expenses Enhancements Incremental Expenses Status Quo Enhancements
FTE Count 65 68 FTE Count 0 3
1
Wages & Benefits Wages & Benefits
2$12,474,164 $12,999,008 $0 $524,844
Admin Overhead $67,103 $67,103 Admin Overhead $0 $0
Facilities/Capital
Facilities/Capital
Reserves/Overhead Reserves/Overhead
$113,077 $113,077 $0 $0
3
Other O&M $1,563,820 $1,936,061 Other O&M $0 $372,241
Other Reserves $0 $0 Other Reserves $0 $0
SUBTOTAL W/O Enhanced
Services Estimated Inc. Costs
$14,218,164 $15,115,249 $0 $897,085
Incremental Costs by
Enhanced Services & FMO Program
Detail
CARES CARES
$0 $312,241 $0 $312,241
Public Education $0 $152,222 Public Education $0 $152,222
Fire Marshal (status
Fire Marshal (status quo) quo)
$974,578 $974,578 $0 $0
Fire Marshal
Fire Marshal (enhanced) $0 $432,622 (enhanced) $0 $432,622
TOTAL w/Enhanced Services Est. Incremental Costs
N/A $15,115,249 $0 $897,085
Retained Costs (Items for
which the City will still be
Responsible) Incremental Offsetting
Revenue
CARES
Debt Service on FS 51,52 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $0 $100,800
Fire Marshal
Debt Service on FS 53,54 $0 $0 (enhanced) $0 $30,000
4
LEOFF 1 $261,000 $261,000 Est. Incr. Revenue $0 $130,800
TOTAL Retained City Costs $2,131,128 $2,131,128
TOTAL Est. Cost of Fire Dept.
$ 16,088,292 $16,985,377
Comparable Revenues
General Fund
Revenue/Property Tax
Equivalent $15,791,748 $16,558,033
Benefit Charge $0 $0
Supplemental Revenue
Options to Support Services
(Dedicated Voter-Approved
Property Tax)
$0 $0
Fees for Service/Ambulance
Fee Policy
$24,000 $24,000
Other Offsetting Revenue $272,544 $403,344
Total Revenue $16,088,292 $16,985,377
Notes:
(1) Option 2 assumes 2 FTE added for the Fire Marshal Office. The .33 FTE for the CARES unit is assumed to be provided by
a partner agency.
(2) Option 2 data includes wages and benefits for enhanced services FTEs, Employee costs are updated from the financial plan
to assume Fire Marshal office staff are uniformed position, rather than civilian
(3) Reserves/Overhead: Reserves shown are only those funded in the current city budget, not all the reserves in the financial
plan.
(4) Retained Costs: No cost is included for remodeling of Stations 53 and 54. There is a plan to seek voter approval for this
project in 2026.
8
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
-
For capital funding
o
Requires 60% voter approval plus validation (minimum turnout of voters
o
threshold must be met) for passage
Taxes collected to pay debt
o
Taxpayers who qualify for senior citizen/disabled person are exempted from this
o
tax
Voter approved levy lid lift
-
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
o
this tax
How much money could be raised? Here are some quick rules of thumb:
,
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.
9
Job Title/Total Compensation Cost2022202320242025202620272028
Public Educator (1 FTE) 132,222 136,453 140,819 145,325 149,976 154,775 159,728
Inspector-FF (1 FTE) 188,610 194,646 200,874 207,302 213,936 220,782 227,847
Inspector-FF (1 FTE) 188,610 194,646 200,874 207,302 213,936 220,782 227,847
Inspector-Cap (1 FTE) 204,012 210,541 217,278 224,231 231,406 238,811 246,453
CARES EMT-FF (.33 FTE) 62,241 64,233 66,289 68,410 70,599 72,858 75,190
Enhanced Programs (TCC) 775,696 800,518 826,134 852,571 879,853 908,008 937,065
Supplies/Equipment/Overhead
Pub Ed Supplies/Equip7,500 5,250 5,355 5,462 5,571 5,683 5,796
Vehicle Lease/Maint/Op 12,500 12,750 13,005 13,265 13,530 13,801 14,077
Inspector-Cap Supplies/Equip 7,500 5,250 5,355 5,462 5,571 5,683 5,796
Vehicle Lease/Maint/Op 12,500 12,750 13,005 13,265 13,530 13,801 14,077
Inspector-FF Supplies/Equip 7,500 5,250 5,355 5,462 5,571 5,683 5,796
Vehicle Lease/Maint/Op 12,500 12,750 13,005 13,265 13,530 13,801 14,077
Inspector-FF Supplies/Equip7,500 5,250 5,355 5,462 5,571 5,683 5,796
Vehicle Lease/Maint/Op12,500 12,750 13,005 13,265 13,530 13,801 14,077
CARES Unit Overhead & Ops250,000 255,000 260,100 265,302 270,608 276,020 281,541
TOTAL M&O 330,000 327,000 333,540 340,211 347,015353,905 361,034
TOTAL PROGRAM 1,105,696 1,127,518 1,159,675 1,192,782 1,226,868 1,261,964 1,298,099
0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Equivalent Levy Rate (per $1,000 AV)
Costs are revised from earlier estimate reflecting: (1) assumption that new FTEs will be uniformed staff, not civilian; and (2) new city policy on This table
shows the cost of providing the described enhanced services if Tukwila is the service provider, with a partnership on the CARES unit. leasing rather than
purchasing vehicles. bƚƷĻ ƷŷğƷ hƦƷźƚƓ Ћ źƓĭƌǒķĻƭ ƚƓƌǤ Ћ ğķķźƷźƚƓğƌ CźƩĻ LƓƭƦĻĭƷƚƩƭͲ ƓƚƷ ğƌƌ Ќ źƓĭƌǒķĻķ ŷĻƩĻ ΛğƓķ źƓ ƷŷĻ ƭƷƩğƷĻŭźĭ ŅźƓğƓĭźğƌ ƦƌğƓΜ͵