HomeMy WebLinkAboutFire EMS 2022-03-08 MinutesCity of Tukwila
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee
March 8, 2022
Virtual Meeting due to COVID-19 Emergency
4:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Present
Committee members: Verna Seal, Chair; Katrina Dohn, Peggy McCarthy, Dennis Robertson, Sally Blake, Hien
Kieu, Ramona Grove, Abduiiahi Shakui, Jovita McConnell (Absent: Ben Oliver, Andy Reiswig)
Citystaff& consultants: David Cline, Laurel Humphrey, Norm Golden, Jay Wittwer, Vicky Carisen, James
Booth, Jake Berry, Karen Reed, Bili Cushman
1. Welcome
Chair Seal called the meeting to order.
Review of Agenda
Ms. Reed reviewed the agenda.
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.
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.
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).
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.
• I disagree that the public safety plan funding is the same as a dedicated reserve fund for fire.
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 willjust 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