HomeMy WebLinkAboutFire EMS 2022-03-22 Agenda Packet
Tukwila Future Fire/EMS Service Community Advisory Committee
Meeting 7
Tuesday, March 22, 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 Chair (2 min.) Verna Seal
2.Review of Agenda (1 min.) Karen Reed, facilitator
3.Review and approval of March 8 meeting summary (3 min.) Karen
4.Response to questions asked at previous meeting (5 min.) Staff Team
5.Discussion of Committee’s March 21 Council Presentation (8 min.) Verna, Hien
6.Presentation & Discussion: Options 6 and 7: Contracting for Service (35 min.)
Option 6: Renton RFA (RRFA)
Option 7: Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA)
How are these options the same? How are they different?
Review of Attachment A (not in packet--will be presented on 3.22.22)
Questions/comments from Committee
--break-- (5 min.)
7.Cross-Agency data presentation: Tukwila, PSRFA, Renton RFA (30 min.) Chief Wittwer,
Deputy Chief Golden, IAFF President James Booth
Committee Criteria:
Labor Impacts
o
Ability to serve diverse community, large business community
o
Service quality/program offerings
o
8.Committee Brainstorming: How should the City engage other residents, businesses about
these issues after the Committee’s report is submitted? (25 min.)
9.IAFF Union Comment (3 min.) IAFF President James Booth
Next Agenda (1 min.) Karen
10.
Adjourn (2 min.) Verna
11.
City of Tukwila
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee
March 8, 2022
Virtual Meeting due to COVID-19 Emergency
4:00 p.m.
DRAFT MINUTES
Present
Committee members: Verna Seal, Chair; Katrina Dohn, Peggy McCarthy, Dennis Robertson, Sally Blake, Hien
Kieu, Ramona Grove, Abdullahi Shakul, Jovita McConnell (Absent: Ben Oliver, Andy Reiswig)
City staff & consultants: David Cline, Laurel Humphrey, Norm Golden, Jay Wittwer, Vicky Carlsen, James
Booth, Jake Berry, Karen Reed, Bill Cushman
1.Welcome
Chair Seal called the meeting to order.
2.Review of Agenda
Ms. Reed reviewed the agenda.
3.Review and approval of February 1 and February 15 Committee meeting minutes
Mr. Robertson moved approval of the revised February 1, 2022, minutes and Ms. Dohn seconded. The
motion carried and the February 1, 2022, minutes were approved. Ms. Blake moved approval of the
February 15, 2022, minutes and Ms. Dohn seconded. The motion carried and the February 15, 2022,
minutes were approved.
4.Responses to questions asked at previous meeting.
Ms. Reed reviewed the updated list of responses. Additional questions:
Q: Are the percentages provided in response to question 3 available in dollar amounts as well?
Q: What is the cost per dollar of A/V in Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila?
5.Schedule Update
Committee members reviewed the schedule. The Committee Report to the Full Council is confirmed
for March 21.
6.Options List Review
Ms. Reed presented the list of 9 options.
7.Presentation on Option 5
Ms. Reed described Option 5, which is to partner with another service provider to create a Tukwila
Regional Fire Authority with a Fire Benefit Charge.
1
Q:Wouldn’t Fire District 24 need to continue if the RFA were formed? A: No, they could request to be
dissolved, unless the agreed governance model required them to send commissioners to serve on the
RFA governing board.
8.Criteria Discussion
Committee members discussed which of the criteria were most important to them. Common
responses included C (Total costs to residents and businesses), F (Quality of services), and J
(Sustainability of funding).
9.
Committee Discussion
Ms. Reed presented a recap of Options 1-5 and asked Committee members to discuss pros and cons
of each. Comments that emerged included:
Option 1 is out, Options 4 and 5 appear to get closer to sustainability.
I resist the idea that fire budget negatively impacts other departments. Engine 52 was taken out of
service to save money during the pandemic, yet I observe new budget initiatives like the
teen/senior center, financial enterprise system, and city staff. The Fire Department has remained
relatively level in costs while other departments have grown. I will propose terminology changes
to increase my comfort.
I agree, I was against the deficit manning and feel that decision was made without the knowledge
of experts in the field. Decisions like that can cost more in the long run. Not building the new
Station 54 resulted in a loss of trust.
Q: Are city funds defined and limited as they are in education? A: Some revenue sources are
restricted by law, others by internal policy.
The Teen and Senior Center has not yet been funded.
City budgeting is a complex prioritization exercise, this committee should not get into the level of
detail of discussing all city funds and expenditures.
Options 4 and 5 are possible but bother me due to having more costs.
Q: Do we know details of the Fire Benefit Charge? A: We would need to design the formula, but it is
intended to allocate funding to all owners of physical properties, with the same exemptions
generally as are in place for property tax.
Q: Do we anticipate FBC to cost as much as property tax? A: For owners of large/complicated
buildings yes—or more; for single family residential, no, it is generally less than property tax.
The most important consideration I see is how this decision will serve the residents of a diverse
community, including low income. I am leaning toward Options 4 and 5.
Options 4 and 5 sound great but expensive. I’d like to know more about the benefits of each
option.
Q: Is the administrative overhead of an RFA one time or ongoing? A: There are onetime start up
costs and ongoing administrative overhead.
Q: What is the status of the Fire Department’s reserve account – how much is in it now and how
much is added each year? A: In Tukwila, individual departments do not have reserve accounts. The
City generally has a reserve policy, which is to maintain 18% of the prior year ongoing revenue plus
a 10% contingency fund.
Q: Is money being put aside for fire vehicles/apparatus? A: The recent public safety bond issue
included funding for fire apparatus. The citywide fleet funding model was recently changed due to
the fund balance remaining much higher than needed.
2
10.Committee Presentation to City Council
Committee members discussed the draft report. Comments included:
It doesn’t make sense for the committee to suggest public engagement strategies; that is the city’s
job.
Engagement strategies could include faith-based organizations such as the mosque and
synagogue; as well social media and workshops.
Correct the first meeting date on page 3 to be 2021.
The Committee agreed to change the wording of Enhanced Services on page 7 to remove the word
“continue,” so that it states “…would prefer that new funding be secured for these services, rather
than cutting into other departments.”
11.Union Comment
Captain Booth shared that he appreciated the conversations at tonight’s meeting. The City has been
talking about these issues for years and it is the Union’s opinion that some of the options will mean
this conversation will just need to continue in a couple of years. In fire service it is important to
eliminate redundancies as redundancies don’t create sustainability. Tukwila must work with partner
agencies across Zone 3. The loss of Station 54 during the Public Safety Plan implementation was a
setback. The Union has significant resources to aid with public outreach while the city budget is
limited.
12.Next Agenda
Ms. Reed described next steps.
13.Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 5:54 P.M. by unanimous consent.
Minutes by LH
3
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee (v. 3.18.21)
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 Pending (will be presented
later)
a regional effort
3Meeting 2 Provide information on how much of their general Provided in meeting 6
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?
5Provided in Meeting 3
How many inspections does one inspector complete
packet
in 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 projected 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 Provided in Meeting 5
done with respect to the efficiency and cost Packet
reduction recommendations in the CPSM report?
Additional info on this requested at Mtg. 4
13“ Can we charge other fire agencies for responding to Provided in Meeting 4
calls in their territory? Could this offset our costs? Packet
14Meeting 4 Could we contract out inspection services and would Provided in Meeting 5
that cost less than doing it ourselves? packet
15Meeting 5 numbers of Provided in Meeting 6
Please provide comparative data on
packet
firefighters per capita and square mileage per
station for Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority,
Renton Regional Fire Authority, and Tukwila
16 In creating a Tukwila Fire District, how soon is the A new taxing district needs
to notify the assessor of
property tax revenue available after the levy?
intent to impose taxes by
August 1 for the taxes to
start the following calendar
year.
17After Inspectors: Provided in Meeting 6
meeting 5 a.packet
Which personnel typically conduct the routine
inspections, the FMO inspectors or the on-duty
firefighters?
Would routine inspections be conducted for
apartment complexes as well as commercial
buildings?
Page 18 of 12.14.2021 agenda packet, "With
additional staff, from 1.0 to 3.0 FTE’s, Tukwila could
provide regular inspections, every one to three
years, for the estimated 2,500 businesses within
Tukwila. Annual inspections could be provided for
the estimated 400-600 commercial occupancies that
have higher hazards. Additional staff, from 1.0 to
the full 3.0 FTE would increase the number of
inspections that could be completed each year."
b. How was the number of additional inspectors
determined? The Enhanced Services scenario has
been reduced to 2 FTE's from 3. The overtime
budget, according to the published 2021-2022
budget, is $60,000 per year. If the cost of one
inspector, 1 FTE is $150,000, then the overtime cost
of $60,000, would suggest only 1/2 of an FTE is
needed not 2 FTE's... so how was the need
determined? Also, contracting for these services
could match demand with capacity and keep costs
lower.
c. How much a dditional revenue could be earned if
the inspection and planning fees were increased?
It appears the average cost for both is $100... $100
per inspection and $100 per plan review. This was
calculated as follows. Financial Planning Model,
page 15, shows inspection fee revenue at $80,000
and plan review revenue at $100,000. On page 5 of
the 1.4.22 agenda packet, the number of annual
inspections and plan reviews is listed as 800 and
1000 respectively.
Cares Unit. The $250,000 of overhead seems
18“ Provided in Meeting 6
packet
very high compared to the $58,000 projected
cost for .33 FTE. What kind of costs make up
this $250,000?
19“ Provided in Meeting 6
Public Educator. Could public education be
packet
accomplished by existing City resources? Some
possibilities - messaging could be placed on the
City's website or in the Hazelnut, in-person
training could be conducted by the Emergency
Manager or Fire Chief/Deputy Chief, middle
school and high school students could visit FS
54 on a field trip as it's within walking distance
of Showalter and Foster, the City's
communication division and the Community
Connectors (if still being used) could meet with
their residential groups to share information.
20“ Is it feasible and does the Administration plan No, the City does not
to pursue enacting a utility tax on all water and currently have a plan to
sewer utilities in Tukwila City instead of just pursue a utility tax on all
those operated by the City?How much water and sewer utilities
additional revenue could be generated by this?in Tukwila notoperated
by the city.The city did
look at this a few years
back during budget
deliberations and the
council at that time
chose not to pursue it.
21“ Provide and update on what the Council is Provided in Meeting 6
packet
considering in regards to Fire Marshal Office
services?
Provide dollars associated with the data in
22Meeting 6See below
response to question 3.
Question 3:
Provide information on how much of their general 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)
Based on data posted online:
SeaTac began receiving service from Puget Sound RFA by contract in 2014.
In 2013, 25.5% of SeaTac’s General Fund expenditures went to Fire, the equivalent of 60.7% of their
property tax revenue went to Fire for that same year.
SeaTac 2013:
Fire Dept General Fund Budget: $7,969,058
Total Budgeted General Fund: $31,297,970
Total Property Taxes: $12,055,098
Renton’s RFA was started providing service in 2017.
Online data shows that in 2016, the City of Renton spent 23.9% of General Fund and the equivalent of
76.9% of their general property tax on Fire.
Renton 2016:
Fire Dept General Fund Budget: $27,970,913
Total Budgeted General Fund: $116,801,589
Total Property Taxes: $36,353,314
For comparison purposes:
Tukwila in 2021:
The Fire Department was allocated 22.1% of General Fund revenues, the equivalent of 79% of the
general property tax levy.
Tukwila 2021:
Fire Dept General Fund Budget: $13,736,860
Total Budgeted General Fund: $63,146,050
Total Property Taxes: $20,809,000
Contracting with Renton RFA or Puget
CITY OF TUKWILA FUTURE OF FIRE/EMS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
How are these options the same?
Options 6 and 7
How are they different?
2022
MARCH 22,
Sound RFA
MEETING 7 |
there will be some adjustment and will present their work at the March 22 meeting. Information in the
Option 7: Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority
Note: RFA bids discussed here are estimates. The estimates were received Tuesday and one was
Option 6: Renton Regional Fire Authority
for service with another Fire Service
Options 6 & 7 involve contracting
bids also should allow the City to refine the enhanced services cost in Option 2.
provider
Contracts
Renton RFA
with FD 40
Renton,
(pink)
FD 25
FD 37 (Covington)
Puget Sound RFA
Maple Valley)
Contracts with
FD43 (serving
and SeaTac
(yellow)
Both quote substantially less for shared use of CARES unit than the City initial estimated in Option 2.
status
Labor force would become employees of the selected RFA and would have a new shift
for Tukwila with just 4 FTE. (Tukwila
, but slightly less than
The City would contract to operate all 4 stations (explore other options in future)
How are these options the same?
currently has 5 FTE; proposal for up to 4 additional FTE from Fire Dept.)
status quo (current service levels/staffing)
expanded FMO services
Both anticipate being able to staff
pattern the Tukwila Local prefers.
Response times will not change.
quo + enhancements
Both are more than
ENHANCED SERVICES
SERVICE LEVELS
LABOR IMPACTS
estimate.
COSTS
City would retain title to fire stations and capital improvement obligations
Biggest risk: reduced City control over costs and implications for impacts
Question of how the City will fund the contract remains unaddressed.
Both agencies would offer Tukwila a nonvoting seat on their Board of
How are these options the same?
City would retain LEOFF retiree payment obligations.
exchange for the RFA picking up other costs)
on other city services to fu8nd the contract.
GOVERNANCE BOARD REPRESENTATION
CITY ASSETS AND OBLIGATIONS
for those stations.
Commissioners.
quotes are being
deducted from
Note: The RFA attributable to
reviewed to
estimates.
Tukwila are
confirm all
revenues
the cost
increases beginning 2024. PSRFA has a 5% cost cap in place; Tukwila is at
bring their salaries more in line with PSRFA beginning 2023, potentially as
PSRFA and Tukwila are entering labor negotiations in 2023; expect cost
Renton is entering labor negotiations this year; expect cost increase to
Enhancements
Status Quo +
Excluding City Retained Costs
How are these options different?
Option 2
$15.1M
option cost estimate could likely be reduced considerably.
Option 7
$14.9M
PSRFA
Estimated Options Costs
10% given inflation.
Option 6
$14.6M
RRFA
Offers are slightly different.
Status Quo
Option 1
$14.2M
-
8
2022
-
much as +/
CPI.
COST
The RFA costs to Tukwila if a
RFAs of costs
show the
contract
estimate
from the
place in
were in
2022.
terms would need to be negotiated before a service contract could be
It is possible that this negotiation will not be successful or could lengthen the
Puget Sound and Tukwila Labor Locals already have an agreement in
place to facilitate contracting & sending Tukwila employees to PSRFA.
PSRFA pays more at all levels than RRFA, except most senior staff
How are these options different?
PSRFA also pays more at all levels than Tukwila.
Tukwila Local prefers PSRFA contract
implementation schedule.
LABOR IMPACTS
signed.
-
RRFA staffs its Fire Marshal Office with civilians rather than a mix of PSRFA is more open to an annexation discussion, and having that
difference is calculated and included in the PSRFA contract cost the
If actual labor costs exceed or are less than budgeted costs, the
How are these options different?
discussion start sooner (year 1) than is RRFA
civilian and firefighters.
following year.
SERVICES OFFERED
CONTRACT TERMS
ANNEXATION
? PSRFA more interested
RRFA also preferred to
More expensive than
RFA Contract Options
Labor prefers PSRFA;
responsibility shifted
Management
Less expensive
staying at City
Less control
Less ability
Option 1
in talking
controlled options
contract is
Initial estimates more
seen as a necessary
responsibility remains
precedent by both
Management
Balancing Different Goals
More control
More ability
Less likely
expensive
Option 1
RFAs.
-
City
Eliminating management responsibility for
to raise new money for fire
Secure enhanced services
Likelihood of Annexation
Fire Dept. (pro or con?)
Secure least cost option
Potential Policy Goals
City
Cost Control
Ability of
costs
Questions? Comments?
Option 6: Contract for Service with Renton Regional Fire Authority
(v.3.21.22)
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 are 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. We
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.
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 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 TukwilaFMO FTEs (4) would be transferred to RRFA and shift to
firefighter positions.
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 RRRFA 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
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: RRannual 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 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
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-
own fire department or pursue other options (for example, a PSRFA 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 RRFA in the future
voting seat or seats at the governing board this would be subject to concurrence of RRFA (and the
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
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
. PSRFA serves the City of
SeaTac and Fire District 43 (serving the City of Maple Valley and surrounding area) by contract.
1
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.
2
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.
3
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: 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
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
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-
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
voting seat or seats at the governing board this would be subject to concurrence of PSRFA (and the
4
Comparing Tukwila Fire Dept.,
City of Tukwila Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Puget Sound RFA
and Renton RFA
March 22, 2022
Prepared For:
Meeting 7
Population, Service area, Stations, Calls for
FD 40 by contract
Renton, FD 25
Renton RFA
130,359
Renton
21,954
$43.4M
33.29
2016
128
32
7
Kent, FD 37, City of
Covington, Maple
SeaTac by contract
Puget Sound RFA
Service, Annual Budget, Staffing
225,693
Valley,
29,438
$68.3M
Kent
2010
108228
1359
Tukwila Fire
TukwilaTukwila
19,765
$14.3M
6,869
1943
9.6
5418
4
Annual Calls for service (2021)
Total Suppression Staffing
Number of Fire Stations
2022 Operating Budget
Included Jurisdictions
Population Served
Year Established
Headquarters
Staff per shift
Square Miles
Average service territory in square miles for each station
Population per firefighter, Firefighters per square mile,
Tukwila’s 4 stations in a small geographic area result in more firefighters per person, per square
Outside of downtown Renton, RRFA’s service territory is primarily single family and multifamily
Tukwila has the most urban/developed land use pattern, but all three agencies currently serve
Renton RFA
1018
0.26
4.8
Puget Sound RFA
PSRFA has a significant amount of rural/low density development
0.48
990
8.4
mile, smaller service territory for each station.
Tukwila Fire
2.4
0.18
366
some highly urbanized territory
Average service territory in
square miles for 1 station
Fire Fighter per Sq Mile
neighborhoods
Population per FF
••••
(could do this, haven’t)
Fire Levy + Fire Benefit
Single purpose agency
(38.2% in 2022)
$1.00/$1,000 AV
Fire District 40
Charge (both voter
Renton RFA
About 40%
$43.4M
$0.73
No
approved)
FD 43 (includes City of
(could do this, haven’t)
Fire Levy + Fire Benefit
Puget Sound RFA
$1.00/$1,000 AV
purpose agency
(38% in 2022)
Maple Valley)
City of SeaTac
Charge (both voter
About 40%
$68.3M
$0.96
No
approved)
-
Single
$13.1M
Capital: voter approved bond
Operations: General Fund
•
(voter approved)
Tukwila
$14.3M
Shared across city
N/A
Yes
N/AN/AN/A
22 Operating Budget
Funding Model + capital
Maximum Fire Levy Rate
% of Operating Budget
2022 Operating Budget
Finances
contracting for service
2022 Fire Levy Rate
Capital bonds for
secured from FBC
Other agencies
Admin support
20
facilities
••
bond
because we have 4
So long as we have 4 stations staffed, under any service provider our initial
It requires multiple units on scene to initiate most incident responses. The
almost always helping us. This won’t change if we contract for service or
unit on scene response time, and our effective response time will be the
“effective firefighting
Multiple units means some units from agencies outside of Tukwila are
Each agency has different first unit on scene response times.
—
first unit on scene
time it takes for those units to all arrive is called
fire stations in a very small geographic area.
Tukwila has the fastest time for the
or stay as we are.
Response Times
—
force”
same.
annex
Joint Program with PSRFA
Service Levels, Program Offerings, Enhanced
One CARES Unit
(in process)
Civilian
YesYesYesYes
2
Renton RFA
No
Joint Program with RRFA
Puget Sound RFA One CARES Unit
Uniform/Civilian
YesYesYesYesYes
3
4 years
Battalion Chief rotate into
Uniform/Civilian
-
this position every 3
Tukwila
*could be added with additional city funds.
No*No*No*
Yes
No
3
ISO (WSRB) Rating (Lower
Public Education Program
Dedicated Fire Marshal
Fire Inspection Program
Fire Marshal's Office
Services
Review/Inspection
Development
Accreditation
CARES Unit
is better)
BLS patients and relies on
Renton transports some
ALS transports are done
companies for some
private ambulance
units.
transports.
Medic 1
Renton RFA
by
PSRFA does not transport
Nearly all BLS transports
ALS transports are done
ambulance companies.
patients, except in rare
cases when all other
are made by private
transport unites are
Services & Programs, Continued
units.
Puget Sound RFA
Medic 1
engaged.
by
other transport unites are
transport patients, except
Nearly all BLS transports
ALS transports are done
ambulance companies.
in rare cases when all
are made by private
Tukwila does not
units.
Medic 1
engaged.
Tukwila
by
Basic Life Support
Advanced Life
Patient Transport
funded by the
King County
program is
:
Medic 1
EMS Levy
Definitions
Support
—
—
ALS
BLS
Rescue Boat, Rescue Swimmer, Dive Rescue, Swift Water Rescue
24/7 program shared by all Zone 3
s
South King County Fire Training Consortium (All of Zone 3)
e
members; (Tukwila has its own citywide fleet operation)
Both PSRFA and RRFA are
c
r
u
Rope Rescue, Elevator Rescue, Trench Rescue, Extrication
o
s
e
R
/
s
going Training (Fire, Medical, Technical)
m
a
Hazardous materials response team
r
g
Fire Academy (New Hire Training)
o
r
–
Fire Garage (Fleet Services)
Joint Apprenticeship Training
P–
Public Information Officer
t
n
i
o
J
Technical Rescue
3
e
n
-
Water
o
-
Z
On
•••••
•••••
Higher Longevity & Chief Officer
Lieutenant & Captain Positions
CBA in negotiations for 2023
Education Pay for Degrees
Generous Deferred Comp
(required for promotions)
RFA Labor Cost / Collective Bargaining
Compensation
Contribution
Renton RFA
Agreement (CBA) Comparison
•••••
Post Retirement Medical Benefit
Renegotiation of CBAs will increase labor costs.
Tukwila’s CBA is up to be renegotiated in 2023.
Tukwila or Renton(except at
CBA set through end of 2023
Specialty Pay Opportunities
most senior staff positions)
Higher wages than either
More Flexible Scheduling
Puget Sound RFA
platoon model because it involves fewer work hours per year.
RRFA
YesYes
No
PSFRA
YesYesYes
Other Labor Factors
Yes. City insurance has
COBRA option for 18
Very important to the firefighters
months.
Tukwila
No.
No
Insurance with
Staffing Model
Four Platoon
-
Retirement
Staff prefer the 4
Program *
Medical
Retiree
Health
Post
This schedule provides benefits to the Firefighters by creating
more promotional opportunities, less hours worked throughout the year, and only being on
duty 24 hours versus 48 hours currently. In the event of a busy shift, the Firefighter has the
The four platoon has scalability and requires less FTEs as the organization grows. It takes a
Platoon schedule is supported by the Union and Administration, but
next day off for recovery which has long term health benefits. Continuity of staffing and
working with their assigned crew which increases safety, training, and communication.
station assignment are also benefits created by 4 Platoon. Crews average more shifts
critical mass of about 60 FTEs for this system to be effective.
Tukwila is not large enough to deploy this.
Platoon)
-
RFA Schedule (4
From President James Booth:
-
The 4
opportunity to work in a variety of environments, better compensation and
The Local prefers the PSRFA option because PSRFA offers Firefighters more
hosts many regional programs (CARES, Fire Garage, Training Coalition) and
feasibility of these RFA contracting options. Tukwila would work under the
Same hourly pay but lower annual salary as Renton FF work 154 hours less per year
It is required that no staff will lose their job, compensation, or rank.
Labor Support for Contracting for Services
There would be some concessions for the Local to move to Renton.
All three involved labor unions have jointly worked to confirm the
classify to Lieutenant (same hourly pay)
has economies of scale from a larger organization.
than Tukwila. Overtime available (if desired).
Contracting Organization’s CBA.
-
Some Captains would re
••
deployment of
determine benefits and costs. The City Team knows the current service model can
provided no uniformed staff lose jobs
Tukwila would be a key player in any of these decisions. More analysis needed to
PSRFRA and RRFA both see opportunity to provide joint station serving West Hill of Tukwila,
strategic deployment of resources to better position fire stations. Tukwila would
covering a larger area with minimal impact on
response times for the initial unit on scene, likely no negative impact for full
Regionalization (by contract or annexation) would offer the ability to look at
A Contract for Service would continue the current four (4) Station model.
Feasibility with Contract for Service
The deployment of resources would be considered at the “zone” level.
-
benefit financially from the elimination of a fire station, and the re
Fire Station Model
Labor will support a move to reduce stations
joint fire station
deployment to an incident.
-
3
SeaTac, and KCFD#2
resources to a
be improved.
•
Questions? Comments?
property tax but some costs will be shifted to
current, ongoing voter
support needed for lid
Current levels funded,
more stable with FBC
prop.
Shared board, City
under review by staff based on recent
More stable than
ts, FBC renewalCosts will be funded primarily through
larger, riskier structures through the FBC
Shared control
taxes & FBC;
Tukwila RFA
included.
$17.84M*
Option 5
majority
lif
needed for lid lifts
More stable than
and FBC renewal
current, ongoing
governing board
Essentially same in all options; labor supports providing the enhanced services;
prop.
funded, more
Current levels
voter support
City controls
Tukwila Fire
Council as
Taxes & FBC
$17.84M*
Same for all options, if enhanced services are funded.
4
Option
stable.
District
5 (est. 2022 cost of $900K
Council as governing support for prop. tax cuts due to property
Higher risk of service
Tukwila Fire District
prop. taxes only,
Costs allocated
based solely on
Relies on strong
property values
ongoing voter
tax reliance
City controls
$17.84M*
Option 3
-
*Excludes cost of enhanced services; these could be funded under Options 3
board
unless new revenue Enhanced Services ty revenues used to fund the
Enhanced Services
Impacts to other
City Controls
Status Quo +
Current +
Option 2
$16.99M
depts.
added
(ES)
Fire Department
5
-
other depts.
City controls
unless new
Impacts to
COMPARING OPTIONS 1 enhanced
tus Quo
services.
Option 1
revenue
Mix of ci
Option 1
Current
$16.09M
added
a
St
)
costs to residents and
info from the RFAs
Ability of provider to
/
(including retained
Oversight Control,
diverse community
considering both
Impact on Labor
meet needs of
2022 Est. Costs
large business
accountability
Service Levels
Sustainability
Total costs,
community
businesses
Financial
costs)