HomeMy WebLinkAboutFire EMS 2022-05-03 Agenda Packet
V 4.4.22
Tukwila Future Fire/EMS Service Community Advisory Committee
Meeting 10
Tuesday, May 3, 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 (2 min.) Chair Verna Seal
2.Review of Agenda (1 min.) Karen Reed, facilitator
3.Review and approval of April 19 meeting summary (3 min.) Karen
4.Response to questions asked at previous meeting (5 min.) Staff Team
Fire impact fees—how impacted by annexation
5.Additional Adjustments to Attachment A. (10 min.) Karen, Jake Berry
6.Committee Discussion – if direct annexation is not possible, what other/alternate
recommendations does the Committee want to make? (35 min.)
Supporting materials:
Summary of existing PSRFA contracts, Q&A
o
Survey results (one page version)
o
--Break--
7.Review of Draft Committee Report & Direction to Finalize (35 min.) Karen
8.Does the Group need an additional meeting? If so, when? (5 min.) Verna
Tuesday May 10, 4-6?
9.Next steps/anticipated timing of reporting to Council (5 min.) City Administrator David
Cline, Karen
10.IAFF Union Comment (3 min.) IAFF President James Booth
11.If this is the last meeting-- Roundtable Comments from Committee (10 min.)
12.Adjourn (1 min.) Verna
City of Tukwila
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee
April 19, 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,
Ramona Grove, Andy Reiswig, Jim Davis, Ben Oliver (Absent: Hien Kieu, Jovita McConnell, Abdullahi Shakul)
City staff & consultants: Allan Ekberg, David Cline, Laurel Humphrey, Norm Golden, Jay Wittwer, Vicky
Carlsen, James Booth, Jake Berry, Karen Reed
1.Welcome
Chair Seal called the meeting to order.
2.Review of Agenda
Ms. Reed reviewed the agenda.
3.Review and approval of April 5, 2022, Committee meeting minutes
Mr. Robertson moved approval of the minutes and Ms. Seal seconded. The motion carried and the
minutes were approved.
Responses to questions asked at previous meeting.
4.
Ms. Reed reviewed the updated list of responses.
Q: What recourse would we have if an RFA chose to close Station 52? A: 52 is located in a good
spot for the region and not a likely candidate for closure. Language could be put in the agreement
to ensure this. PSRFA has recently evaluated station coverage in Tukwila and has not indicated a
desire to reduce a station.
I don’t agree with all of Administration’s response to my question about 2012-2021 budget data
and the Fire Department’s perceived negative impact to other departments. This message has
been used repeatedly and the data doesn’t support it.
Cities can’t run in a deficit. We need to provide another source of money to pay for fire service.
Blaming of the Fire Department for the city’s budgetary issues is not productive and should stop.
Q: Did Fire Administration meet with PSRFA to discuss bypassing a contract? A: City
Administration submitted a letter inquiring about this possibility.
Provide the potential annexation timeline again.
1
Review of Draft Annotated Outline of Committee Report
5.
Ms. Reed reviewed a draft report outline.
Q: Do concise or detailed reports work better for Councilmembers? A: It depends on the
Councilmember. One approach is to provide an executive summary backed up by detail.
Review & Discussion of Survey Results
6.
Ms. Reed reviewed the Options Rating Survey results and asked committee members 1) Did you find
completing the survey to be challenging? and 2) What reactions do you have to the results?
I had difficulty with options 3-5 because we were told these weren’t feasible. I personally
thought Option 5 would be a good solution.
It was time consuming but straightforward.
I tried not to think about past discussions/decision. I tried to be objective based on the current
information.
I focused on major points.
It was time consuming but offered a great review of each option.
The survey included good summaries and was a helpful exercise.
All fire chiefs should be knowledgeable about fire operations. Our fire chief could fill that role.
Councilmembers don’t get paid much and most have day jobs. They are expected to be experts
in Public Works, Parks, Fire, Police, Planning. Moving Fire off of their plate and to a Fire
Commission would help their workload.
7.Committee Discussion
Ms. Reed facilitated a discussion around the following questions:
A) Is the Fire Department financially sustainable?
The issue is not if the Fire Department is sustainable, its if the City budget is sustainable. The
budget problem is the city has continuously not raised the levy lid.
Consensus existed to include language around the city’s overall budget problem, indicating that
the recommendation on fire is a way to address the overall issue.
B) What is the committee’s view on enhanced services? Is the consensus still that they should be
added if they don’t cut into other services?
If we added enhanced services the city would have to cut elsewhere.
Q: I don’t see the cost component of the enhanced services. A: We did provide an initial estimate
for each of the 3, but revised the estimate slightly downward for the CARES unit. The
information is summarized in attachment A.
All 3 are equally important, especially for the criteria of meeting the needs of a diverse
community.
Q: How is staff time allocated for CARES unit? A: Generally it is a 40 hour workweek.
The need for CARES is a sign of the times. Public education is very important for different
cultures and meeting the needs of the community. Children need to learn fire safety.
Q: I don’t see how CARES or public educator solves the problem of language access – how is that
going to help? A: Larger agencies have more resources to spend on language services like
interpretation.
Community diversity does not just mean cultural diversity but also age, ability, housing status,
etc.
I support CARES because of the wear and tear on roads caused by the ladder truck can be
diminished if a CARES unit can be sent instead.
2
FMO staffing is crucial for the business community, including problem solving and also
accommodating development.
Consensus existed that the three enhanced services are important.
C) What is the committee’s view on evaluation criteria – are the top three still the most important?
Consensus existed that the criteria are still valid. In the interest of time, the group did not talk
about whether to include a comment about their most important criteria and will come back to that.
D) What is the preferred option/s for ensuring future provision of high-quality fire/EMS service in the
city at a sustainable cost. Karen noted that we were not yet clear on whether direct annexation
would be acceptable to PRSRA, but the Mayor has sent a letter requesting this based on feedback
from the Committee at its last meeting. The PSRFA board will take up the Mayor’s letter at their
board meeting tomorrow night.
I support directly annexation to PSRFA because of the enhanced services. PSRFA is well
established and has IT, payroll, apparatus maintenance, HR all in place. There is only one Chief
so there are savings in bureaucracy. The City Council already has a full plate. PSRFA is
accredited. We already participate in the training consortium. It will be great to share resources
around hazmat and technical rescue, PIO. I see regionalization as an inevitability as the
population grows.
We share a border with SeaTac, and PSRFA provides services there. The Station 54 service area
needs to be resolved. This could be a path to future annexation by SeaTac. The FD personnel
wants to join PSRFA and we need the union’s help with the process.
I support Option 9 (direct annexation).
I support Option 9 for the reasons already mentioned.
I support option 9 but am concerned about the interim solution until annexation can be
completed, maybe the contract is the answer.
I’m not supportive of an interim contract because what happens if negotiation fails.
PSRFA’s fire benefit charge could go up, and where is the cost control? Nobody in the city would
have a say.
Q I disagree with the calculations for Options 1-5 in Attachment A – the costs are overstated. A:
The staff team will review the calculations
Q: How does annexation affect the collection of fire impact fees?
Q: What will happen to staff capacity freed up by annexation? For example, fire has the most
complicated payroll in the city. A: That is a Council conversation to be addressed via the budget
process.
Contracting does not make sense to me either as it is rife with issues. I prefer annexation, and
PSRFA seems the better option.
I support Option 9.
I support Option 9 based on the way it is structured. The people with the most expertise make
decisions.
I support options 1, 2, or 5.
Union Comment
8.
Captain Booth thanked committee members for the work.
9.Next Agenda
Ms. Reed previewed the next agenda.
3
10.Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 6:06 P.M. by unanimous consent.
Minutes by LH
4
Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee (v. 4.12.22)
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
3 Meeting 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?
5 Provided 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
1
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?
2
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 6 Provided in Meeting 7
packet
response to question 3.
23Meeting 7 Clarify how capital needs for the Fire Provided in Meeting 8
packet
Department are met now
3
How much are SeaTac and Renton paying now
24“ SeaTac information
provided previously;
for fire service?
Renton information
provided in Meeting 8
packet
If the City annexes to PSRFA, will the RFA close
25Meeting 8 Provided in Meeting 8
packet
station 52 and if so, how will that impact
response times?
26Meeting 9 How does annexation affect the collection of fire See below.
impact fees?
27 Does Attachment A double count the cost of the Yes, this is an error. See
meeting packet for
FMO contract for options 3-5?
corrections. In sum, even
after correcting the double
counting, the cost of these
options is likely higher than
presented in Meeting 8 due
to the size/cost of the
administrative structure.
Question 26? How does annexation affect the collection of fire impact fees?
A: The City would continue to collect Fire Impact Fees under all scenarios, including annexation, since
these fees are used for stations and apparatus. Per RCW 82.020.050 (4) and RCW 82.02.090 (7) Fire
impact fees must be used for "fire protection facilities" which includes stations and fire apparatus. If
ownership and responsibility for these stations and apparatus changed under any scenario, then these
impact fees may also change as well.
4
Overview/Recap of the Approaches that the Two RFAs have taken inExisting Service Contracts
April 2022
Item Puget Sound RFA Renton RFA
Contract Bid given to Tukwila$14.2M$14.4M
Note: these numbers are
There may be an opportunity to reduce the
preliminary, subject to refinement
PSRFA reserves cost since the City’s we know RRFA’s number exclude some costs—
and negotiation
equipment, apparatus and 2 of 4 facilities particularly some labor costs and dispatch costs
are in very good shape
Who else does the RFA contract Maple Valley Fire District Fire District 40
with? City of SeaTac
Governance Contract agencies have a nonvoting seat on the governance board. A liaison to the contract agency is also
identified.
What happens to the City’s fire They all go to the RFA, except the Chief and possibly the deputy chief. Staff transferred retain rank and do
department employees?not take a pay cut.
What does the City pay for? In both cases, the City would pay for the operational staff needed to operate the 4 city stations at current
staffing levels. This is 52 Firefighters(13 per day (4-shifts)
The other firefighters at the Citygo over to the RFA and are absorbed in different parts of the agency
but aren’t charged back to the City
The RFAs charge overhead for capital/equipment/apparatus reserves. The allocation formulas are
different for each overhead item and differ as between the two agencies.
How long will the proposed The Sea Tac contract& Maple Valley contracts are The FD 40 contract is for 20 years.
contract term be? How soon could for 20 years. It cannot be terminated in the first 8 years except or
the City terminate if it wanted to? material breach.
They cannot be terminated in the first five years
except for material breach. Thereafter, voluntary termination requires 3 years
Note: The terms are subject to Thereafter, voluntary termination requires 2 years advance notice.
negotiation. advance notice
What do the contracts say about The contracts do not make reference to annexation.The contract with FC 40 does not make any reference
annexation? to annexation
Note:this would be a topic for
negotiation
What do the contracts say about The City is required to make the RFA whole for some Not discussedsince no FD 40 employees were
what happens to firefighters if the transferred as part of the current contract.
accrued employee costs.
City ends the contract?
If the termination happens after the first 7 years but
Note: the terms are subject to
before the first 15 years of the contract, and:
negotiation.
the City re-establishes its fire department,
Item Puget Sound RFA Renton RFA
the RFA fires employees as a result of the
contract ending
“the City has sufficient resources”
..then, the City is required to rehire up to the
number of employees required for minimum staffing
under the contract that are laid off by the RFA (those
employees could decline the offer and go elsewhere).
Additional staff above that amount that are laid off
have an option to seek employment with the City.
If the termination happens after the first 15 years,
and layoffs will happen, the RFA must give all
personnel the option to transfer to the City in order
of seniority. If additional layoffs still needed, City
must offer employment to those folks before hiring
other personnel.
If the City isn’t seeking to re-establish its fire
department, the parties will “work cooperatively
and make reasonable efforts to place any laid off
employees with the entity that becomes
responsible” for fire service delivery in the City.
PaymentsSeaTac is invoiced quarterly.Semi-annual invoices.
There is an annual true-up in the contract amount if No true-up of expenses.
the billing for the prior year was lower or higher
than the actual expenses incurred by the RFA—the
difference is applied to the SeaTac bill the next year.
Title to stations, apparatus Apparatus title is transferred. Equipment is transferred. These could be sold back to theoriginal entity.
Facilities are leased or transferred
OPTION 7: CONTRACTING WITH PSRFA: Questions from Dennis Robertson
Why does the Option 7 (PSRFA contract) only call for for 52 FF’s when Opt 1 (status 1 quo) has 65?-
Why the difference?
All 65 employees, except the Fire Chief and possibly the Deputy Fire Chief, are transferred to the PSRFA
but the city, under the contract, only pays directly for 52 which is the count needed to staff the 4
stations. The others fill vacancies elsewhere. If they go to an overhead position, we’ll pay a piece of them
in the overhead. Certain positions in the larger organization do not need to be duplicated. For example,
only one fire chief is needed.
Will there be more overtime required from the lower PSRFA proposed FF headcount?
No. They have a larger staff pool to draw from so there should be less OT.
Will 52 at PSRFA be able to provide the same level of service as 65 in Tukwila?
Yes, this is the current ops staffing for the 4 stations.
If I divide the two Estimated Fire Dept costs by the number of FF’s I end up with $251.5K per FF for
Tukwila and $327.5K per FF at the PSRFA. Why the large cost difference?
Again, the 52 is operations staffing. The Cityalso will have to pay overhead, in addition to costs for the 52
personnel. In Tukwila, the fire department budget does not reflect any central overhead; those costs are
accounted for in other departments; primarily finance, human resources, and technology.
What happens to the 13 FF’s left over?
They are employed by the PSRFA at their current classification, again with the exception of the Tukwila
Fire Chief and possibly Deputy Chief.
What happens to the plans for remodeling/replacing FS #54? Will the PSRFA pay for the new station?
Will Tukwila citizens be expected to come up another bond issue?
This will be a subject of future negotiation. PSRFA is unlikely to pay for the whole thing if Tukwila is still in
a contract, but Tukwila would just pay a share of the station. The City would most likely have to issue
bonds to fund this.
If the PSRFA contract with Tukwila mirrors the contract they have with SeaTac (and if I read it
correctly) then:
-The RFA uses a ‘true up’ clause for Labor costs for staffing the fire stations. Meaning any over,
or under runs against the contracted budget for the year will be paid/repaid in the following
year. This does not provide much incentive for the PSRFA to live by the agreed budget for the
year.
Yes this is a downside we have identified previously for the Committee with the PSRFA contract.
-In addition, the amount of the contracted budget amounts initially agreed upon for
Operation Costs and Administrative Costs are automatically increased by the full local CPI-W.
Whether or not the actual costs go up or down by that amount.
Yes, this is the policy choice they made. The City’s bill in any year may be more or less expensive than
their actual costs. But the true-up will capture the difference in the following year.
-Total Capital Costs for apparatus, etc. (automatically adjusted by annual CPI-W increases)
plus a reserve fund will be paid by the City. The reserve fund will be returned upon
Apparatus remains with PSRFA, unless the City negotiates the ability to get them back.
-Disposition of FF’s transferred to PSRFA upon termination is interesting. If the termination
PSRFA
happens before 2029 and if the City reestablishes its own Fire Department and if the
determines that FF’s must be laid off and if the City has sufficient resources (who determines
what sufficient resources means?) the City must rehire any FF’s laid off by the PSRFA up to the
number originally transferred.
How I read the above is that the PSRFA doesn’t have to layoff or give FF’s back at contract
termination but the City has to rehire if the PSRFA wants to lay any off at contract
termination.
You are reading that right. And we don’t know how many FF they will want to offload, which is why it
makes it difficult to reconstitute the department if the City wants to get out of the contract. Presumably,
PRSRFA will want to offload a significant number of staff since they will have 4 fire stations worth of staff
to find other jobs for. But those FTEs laid off do not have to come back to Tukwila if they don’t want—
they can go try to find jobs elsewhere.
The biggest issue is that Tukwila can’t afford to continue with its current Revenue to Expense ratio.
That’s why the special Fire Commission was put together (and spent so much time looking at dollar
issues). If the Opt 7 (contract with PSRFA) is adapted and if it has a predicted cost of $17,030,024
versus Opt 1 (as is) with a predicted cost of $16,349,292 how does this help the Revenue vs Cost
problem? Option 7 will cost $680,732/year more.
This is one of the challenges with contracting first. The City may be able to reduce the bid cost in
negotiations with PSRFA, but that is TBD.
It appears that if Annexation is not successful (at least not in the near future) that Opt 7 leaves the
City in a worst position. Both financially, because costs go up by $681K/year and strategically because
the contract (if similar to Seatac’s) potentially makes getting out of the contract difficult.
It’s a matter of how concerned you are about the risk of the contract relationship not working out, or
the PSRFA having full cost control (the only response for the City if the costs rise a lot is to consider
cutting services from the contract, like the enhanced services). However, to the extent the group is
interested in annexation, it appears that a contract is the only bridge to get there.
City of Tukwila Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Survey Results Summary
Total Reponses: 10
Numbers reflect Weighted Average by Response - 5 = 5points, 1 = 1 point
Option 1: Option 6: Option 8: Option 9:
Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 7:
Status Quo Contract Annex to Annex to
Status Tukwila Tukwila Tukwila Contract
with Renton RFA Puget
Quo + Fire District Fire District Fire RFA - with Puget
Renton RFA Sound RFA
Enhanced - Property + Fire with other Sound RFA
# Questions
Services Taxes Benefit agency
Charge
1 Ability of provider to meet needs of diverse community 3.63.8 3.1 3.7 3.7 3.3 4.5 3.9 4.6
Ability of provider to meet needs of large business
2 community 3.84.1 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.2 4.6
3 Total costs, considering both costs to residents and
businesses 2.92.2 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.6
4
Impact on labor force,recruitment and retention 2.22.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 3.0 4.0 3.9 4.9
5
Control over operational and financial decisions 4.34.1 3.6 3.9 3.7 2.6 3.1 3.0 2.9
6
Overallquality of services(response times and more) 4.14.1 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.4
7
Accountability for outcomes/ability to measure outcomes3.83.7 3.6 3.8 3.7 2.6 3.2 2.8 3.2
8
Sustainabilityoffunding 1.81.6 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.8 3.8 4.3
Myoverall rating ofthisoption 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.8 3.64.1
Cells are shaded to denote the two highest (green) and two lowest (peach) ratings in each row.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
REPORT of the FUTURE of FIRE/EMS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 2022
DRAFT DATED 4.29.22
Executive Summary
Over the last 15 years, the Puget Sound region has seen increasing regionalization of fire and emergency
medical services (EMS) in response to cost pressures on cities and smaller fire districts. This move to
regionalization has been particularly significant in south King County. The primary motivations for
regionalization of fire /EMS services have been a desire to capture potential economies of scale, unify
administration and programs, reduce the pace of cost escalation, secure voter-approved dedicated
funding such as fire benefit charges and levy lid lifts, and improve the ability to offer additional services
through cost-sharing. These same motivations have led the City of Tukwila (City) to explore
regionalization of fire/EMS services since at least 2010.
The City faces a significantly worsening financial picture in the next biennium, with City administration
officials anticipating a gap of as much as 10-15% between General Fund revenues and expenses by 2024.
One of the major opportunities to address this funding gap is to implement changes in funding for, and
potentially jurisdiction over, the City’s second largest department—the Fire Department.
The Mayor and City Council appointed the Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee in
October 2021. The Committee was tasked with recommending how fire/EMS services should be
provided in Tukwila in the future. Over the course of ten meetings in a seven-month period, we explored
the current situation and nine options for future fire/EMS service delivery. The main advantages and
disadvantages of each of these nine options is outlined in the summary table below. Our preferred
option—seeking to directly annex into Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA)-- is an iteration of
one of these options, but direct annexation is not possible under the PSRFA board’s current policy
direction, which is to require a service contract with PSRFA prior to taking up the possibility of
annexation.
Fire/EMS service is a critical public safety service. There are many important considerations for the
Council here, and the interests of all parts of the city—administration, employees, residents and
business community ---are not neatly aligned to favor any single option available to us.
Given that reality, our recommendation to the City is to …. \[TBD at Meeting 10\]
Benefits and Disadvantages of the Nine Options Reviewed, Summarized
Option Advantages Disadvantages
Option 1: Status Quo
Requires no changes to current Misses opportunity to benefit
operations, assuming revenues are from further regionalization
made available
City financial challenges un-
addressed, unless City secures
additional revenue
Option 2: Status Quo
Important service enhancements Misses opportunities to benefit
“Plus” – Funding for
secured: CARES unit, public from further regionalization
enhanced services
education program, and additional
Funding remains unaddressed,
Fire Marshal Office staffing
unless City secures additional
revenue
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Option Advantages Disadvantages
Option 3: Create a
Fire department costs largely Misses opportunities to benefit
Tukwila Fire District,
removed from City budget (some from further regionalization
funded solely by
retained costs remain)
Financially unstable as it would
property taxes (no Fire
City can retain control over the require voter support for repeat
Benefit Charge)
services and budgets if Council excess levies
chooses to serve as the governing
Adds expense of creating a new
board.
agency.
Option 4: Create a
Fire department costs largely Misses opportunities to benefit
Tukwila Fire District,
removed from City budget from further regionalization
funded by both property
City can retain control Adds expense of creating a new
taxes and a Fire Benefit
agency
FBC adds significant financial
Charge (FBC)
stability/sustainability
Option 5: Partner with
Fire department costslargely Regionalization benefits depend
another fire service
removed from the City budget. on size of the partnering agency
provider to create a
City has significant control over Adds expense of creating a new
Tukwila Regional Fire
operation, depending on how agency
Authority (RFA) –with a
governance board structured
fire benefit charge
Option 6: Contract for
Cost is comparable to status quo City remains responsible to fund
Service with Renton
but includes enhanced services. funding; funding not addressed
Regional Fire Authority
City no longer has management City loses control over costs
(RRFA)
responsibility for Fire Department
City cannot reconstitute fire
Firefighters become RRFA department if contract doesn’t
employees, their preferred work out
outcome
Negotiation of agreements to
combine labor force needed;
outcome unclear
Option 7: Contract for
Cost is comparable to status quo City remains responsible to fund
Service with Puget
(and RRFA contract) but includes funding; funding not addressed
Sound Regional Fire
enhanced services
City loses control over costs
Authority (PSRFA)
City no longer has management
City cannot reconstitute fire
responsibility for Fire Department.
department if contract doesn’t
Firefighters become PSRFA work out
employees, their preferred
outcome
Option 8: Annex into
Fire department costs largely Must contract first, with
RRFA, after initially
removed from City budget upon associated downsides
contracting for service
annexation
Little leverage in annexation
Preliminary costs comparable to negotiation
other options
Voter support for annexation
Firefighters prefer to remaining unknown
with City
Option 9: Annex into
Fire department costs removed Must contract first, with
PSRFA, after initially
from City budget associated downsides
contracting for service
Preliminary costs comparable to Little leverage in annexation
other options negotiation
Firefighters prefer going to PSRFA Voter support for annexation
unknown
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Table of Contents
Section Topic Page
I.Introduction 1
II.The Committee’s Mission, Membership, Timeline, and Process 1
III.Tukwila’s Current Fire/EMS Services—An Overview
Findings from A Seven-Year Financial Forecast for the Fire Department
Operations 3
IV.Is the City Fire Department Sustainable Within Existing City Revenues? 6
V.Additional Fire Department Programs, Staffing or Services that should be
Priorities to Fund in the Next Six Years 10
VI.Committee Criteria for Evaluating the City’s Options for Future Fire/EMS
Service Delivery12
VII.Committee Recommendation on the Preferred Option or Options for
Ensuring Provision of High-Quality Fire/EMS Service in the City at a
Sustainable Cost 14
Comparing the Three Different Potential Service Providers 14
Ten Key Points Underscoring Differences and Similarities between the
Nine Options 21
Committee Deliberations on the Options 23
Committee’s Preferred Outcome: Direction Annexation into PSRFA 26
The Committee’s Preferred Option(s) absent the ability to annex into
PSRFA 27
Benefits and Disadvantages of all Options, in summary 27
VIII.Public Engagement Strategies the City Should Consider as Part of its
Deliberations Following Delivery of this Report. 29
IX.Conclusion 30
Tables and Figures
Item Title Page
Table 1Tukwila Fire Department Facts4
Figure 1 List of Nine Future Fire/EMS Service Delivery Options Considered
by the Committee 6
Table 2City General Fund-Supported Departments and Major Revenues7
Table 3Service Enhancement Cost Estimate Comparison 12
Table 4The Committee’s Eight Criteria for Evaluating Fire/EMS Service
Options13
Table 5Comparing Tukwila Fire Dept., Puget Sound Regional Fire
Authority and Renton Regional Fire Authority 15
Table 5Nine Potential Fire Fire/EMS Service Delivery Options Reviewed;
Key Differences and Similarities 17
Table 6Comparing How Options 1-9 Address the Eight Criteria 24
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Attachments
# Title Page
A Committee Member Names and Affiliations
B Staff and Consultant Support Team
C Templates describing all Nine Options
D Estimated 2022 Costs of the Nine Options
E Results of Informal Committee Survey Evaluating
Options as against the Eight Criteria and Overall
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
REPORT of the FUTURE of FIRE/EMS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 2022
DRAFT DATED 4.22.22
I.Introduction
Over the last 15 years, the Puget Sound region has seen increasing regionalization of fire and emergency
medical service (EMS) in response to cost pressures on cities and smaller fire districts. This move to
regionalization has been particularly significant in south King County. The primary motivations for
regionalization of fire /EMS services have been a desire to capture potential economies of scale, unify
administration and programs, reduce the pace of cost escalation, and improve the ability to offer
additional services through cost-sharing. The City of Tukwila has been exploring fire/EMS
regionalization since at least 2010 but no agreement has been reached on a move away from the
current City Fire Department operations. A 2015 effort to annex to the Puget Sound Regional Fire
Authority ended when the City Council determined not to place the measure before the voters. The City
instead focused on the significant capital investment needed for new fire stations, equipment and
apparatus, and put this before the voters in 2016 as part of the Public Safety Plan. In November 2016,
the City’s voters supported this funding with 60% approval and since then, two new fire stations have
been built and opened, and, through other City funding contributions, new fire apparatus and
equipment purchased.
The City of Tukwila now faces a significantly worsening financial picture in the next biennium, with the
City administration anticipating a gap of as much as 10-15% between General Fund revenues and
expenses by 2024. One of the major opportunities at to address this funding gap is to implement
changes in funding for, and potentially jurisdiction over, the City’s second largest department—the Fire
Department.
The City Council appointed the Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee in October 2021 and
tasked it with recommending how fire/EMS services should be provided in Tukwila in the future.
Fire/EMS service is a critical public safety service, one that each of us on the Committee relies upon. We
took our mission very seriously. The Committee considered nine different options for fire/EMS service
delivery. These options were developed by the staff and consultant team supporting our work. There
are many important considerations, and the interests of all parts of the city—administration, employees,
residents and business community ---are not neatly aligned to favor any single option available to us.
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Committee.
II.The Committee’s Mission, Membership, Timeline, and Process
The Committee’s mission was to provide findings and recommendations on five issues:
Is the Fire Department sustainable within existing City revenues?
Are there any additional Fire Department programs, staffing or services that should be priorities
to fund in the next six years?
What criteria should be used to evaluate the City’s options for future fire/EMS service delivery?
1
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
What recommendations does the Committee have as to the preferred option or options for
ensuring provision of high-quality fire/EMS service in the City at a sustainable cost?
What public engagement strategies should the City consider as a part of its deliberations
following delivery of this report?
Our report addresses each of these five issues in turn below. First, we provide a summary of the
Committee and our process.
The Committee is comprised of twelve (12) Council-appointed members, including City residents,
business leaders and nonprofit agency representatives representing the diversity of the Tukwila
community: Attachment A to this report presents the names of the members. Members were identified
through a process publicly soliciting interest from the community. The City Council appointed former
Councilmember Verna Seal to serve as our Chair; the Committee selected Hien Kieu as our Vice-Chair.
We were asked to report back by the end of April, but the work involved required additional time. We
met ten times in the development of this report, for two-hours each meeting. The tenth meeting was
added to our original nine-meeting schedule in order that we could complete our work. Our first
meeting was November 9, 2021, and our last meeting was held May 3, 2022. Due to the pandemic, all
our meetings were held remotely by Zoom. All our meetings were open to the public and all our
agendas, meeting notes, and meeting materials were posted on the City’s website.
We were supported by a team of City staff from the Fire Department and City administration, an
independent facilitator and financial consultant. The staff and consultant team members are identified
on Attachment B.
We note that while two of our members are former City Councilmembers, one is a retired City
firefighter, and one is a former finance director for the City, Committee members otherwise did not
come to this project with a deep knowledge of either City finances or fire/EMS service. This was a very
intensive effort in terms of learning about fire operations and funding options—for every Committee
member. The information provided in this report is based on the information presented to us by City
staff and the consultant team, and our own varied experience and observations.
The major topics of discussion at our meetings are listed below, in the order in which we considered
them:
Review of operations, revenues and expenses of the Fire Department
Review of City General Fund revenues and expenses
Discussion of our observations about current levels of fire/EMS service in the City
Review and discussion of a seven-year financial model for the Fire Department, prepared for us
by a financial consultant, showing how costs of the Fire Department would grow over the next 7
years with the current staffing configuration
Review of service enhancements that are a priority for the Fire Department to add in the next
few years
Discussion of financial sustainability for the Fire Department
Identification of eight criteria for evaluating future Fire/EMS service options
Review of information on nine different future Fire/EMS service options (list presented at
Figure 1)
Review and input on a status update to the City Council (presented mid-way through our work)
2
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Completion of a homework exercise on public engagement strategies
Completion of a survey evaluating all nine options across all eight criteria we identified
Discussion of survey results and development of a recommended future option.
Additional consideration of recommendations when it became clear after our ninth meeting
that our consensus preferred option – moving directly to seek annexation to Puget Sound
Regional Fire Authority—is not acceptable to PSRFA at this time.
Per our Committee Charter, each Committee member had one vote. A Committee recommendation
requires support of at least 60% of us present and voting, and a consensus recommendation requires
support of at least 80% of us present and voting. Our Charter also allows for summary dissenting
statements where Committee members are in strong disagreement with their fellow Committee
members. This report has been approved by XX of us as presenting an accurate documentation of our
deliberations, findings and recommendations.
III.Tukwila’s Current Fire/EMS Services—An Overview
The Committee is unanimous in its assessment that the City currently enjoys high-quality fire/EMS
service. Tukwila is a challenging City to serve, in that its daytime population – with employees and
visitors to Westfield Mall and surrounding commercial enterprises – exceeds 150,000, but there are only
21,798 residents in the City. The Fire Department is well positioned to serve this varied population
through four fire stations located in the City, two of them essentially brand new as a result of funding
provided by the City’s 2016 voter-approved public safety bond measure. The concentration of four fire
stations in an area less than 10 square miles exceeds what is typical of most urban areas and is the result
of annexations of territory into the City over the past few decades.
The Fire Department has 65 staff, with at least three firefighters on duty at each fire station, 24-7-365.
This staffing level enables one apparatus (fire truck, ladder truck) to respond out of each of the four
stations. The Fire Department’s apparatus and equipment are relatively new and in good condition.
Because of the City’s concentration of fire stations, Tukwila has the fastest “first unit on scene” response
time in Zone 3. Zone 3 is the south King County area in which all 911 calls are jointly dispatched through
Valley Communications Center (“ValleyCom”). That said, nearly all fire incidents, and many EMS calls,
require more than one fire engine and its crew. This is where the City – like all others in Zone 3—is
reliant on its neighbors to support incident response. ValleyCom dispatches the nearest available units
to any incident. Those units may be from Tukwila—but they may also be from North Highline Fire
District, Renton Regional Fire Authority, Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority, or other agencies further
away. A major fire may require more units than the entire City Fire Department staffs on any given day.
There are no City reserves established solely for support of the Fire Department. The Fire Department
does not have a dedicated funding stream for either ongoing capital or operational reserves. The Fire
Department does generate a modest amount of revenue from operation of the Fire Marshal Office, and
the City receives a share of King County regional EMS levy money to support its basic life support
operations. All other funding for the Department come from General Fund revenues, including an
allocation of resources each biennium through Council funding of the City’s Public Safety Plan to support
apparatus and equipment replacement.
3
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
The Fire Department’s budget over the last ten years has grown at a rate of 3.2% per year on average,
excluding fire station construction costs. Fire Department staffing over this time has been stable. The
Department’s budget does not include a share of central overhead services (human resources, finance,
information technology) that support all City departments. Table 1 below summarizes some key facts
about the Fire Department
Table 1: Tukwila Fire Department Facts
2022 Fire Department Annual Budget $14.22Million
(as amended)
Fire Dept.as % of General Fund23%
Fire Department Major Funding General Fund (93%), fees from Fire Marshal Office services
Sources (.5%), share of regional EMS levy (3.5%), and other (3%)
Growth in Fire Department Budget, 2012-2022 Fire Dept budget 2012-2022 General Fund
annualized, in last 10 years versus increase, annual average: budget increase, annual
growth in City General Fund Budget 3.2% avg.: 3%
over same period
Major budget expenditures Salaries66%
Benefits 22%
: reserves/overhead is a share of the
Note
Administrative overhead: .04%
Public Safety Plan funding allocated this
Reserves/Overhead .07%%
year to the Fire Department
Other O&M 11%
Number of employeesAdministrative staffing: 3
Support Services*: 3
*Fire Marshal’s Office 5
logistics, equipment management
Operations (fire suppression/EMS) 54
Total 65
Labor Affiliation IAFF- Local 2088 – all uniformed staff
Note: All employees except the Fire Chief, Teamsters Union – project manager, administrative
Deputy Fire Chief, and assistant to the fire
assistant
Chief are unionized
Fire Stations Four; 2 stations are new, Stations 51 and 52 (Headquarters)
2 stations are older, Stations 53 and 54
Annual calls for service (2021)Total: 6,869
Note: COVID caused a drop in call volume EMS calls: 4,592
over 2019 and 2020. In 2021 the calls for
Fire calls: 1,974 (including automatic fire alarms)
service increased and are close to 2018
Other: 303
call volumes. to levels above those two
years and close to the call volume of 2018.
# of fire apparatus fully staffed from One. We also have the Battalion Chief command vehicle, in
each fire station addition to the fire engine, in service from fire station 52.
Patient Transport Private ambulance transports are the primary means of
transporting patients.
Regionalized Fire-Related Services in 911 dispatch – Valley Communications
which Tukwila participates (and helps Medic 1 (Advanced Life Support) -- King County
fund) Training Consortium (managed by Puget Sound RFA)
WA Fire Careers Project (managed by Puget Sound RFA)
4
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Response Time (2020) Target (First unit on scene Actual % of responses
Turnout + Travel Time 90% of the time within target) meeting target:
Fire: 7 min.59 sec. or less Fire: 86.2%
EMS: 7 min. 52 sec. or less EMS: 86.3%
Findings from A Seven-Year Financial Forecast for the Fire Department Operations
To provide us more detail on future anticipated fire Department expenses, the City secured the
assistance of public finance consultant Bill Cushman. Mr. Cushman developed a seven-year financial
strategic financial plan to identify the costs of maintaining current staffing levels and four fire stations
over the next seven- year period. This financial forecast was completed in December 2021. Some key
inputs into the forecast are:
Including funding for a series of operational reserves at levels that will support anticipated
expenditures over the period other than station replacement. These reserves exceed the
current set asides budgeted by the City
Excludes the cost of two additional fire station replacements
Assumes a 5% annual growth in assessed value of real property in the City
Projects Fire Department costs growing at 3.2% on average (including the 6.3% salary Cost of
Living Adjustments (COLA) received by firefighters in 2022, and assuming a 3.2% CPI beyond
2022)
No City General Property Tax lid lift in the interim.
Major findings in the forecast include:
In 2021, the Fire Department budget equated to 79.6% of all City property tax revenues.
In 2022, the Fire Department budget grew to the equivalent of 82.4% of City property tax
revenue.
The 2022 Fire Department budget, as amended, equals a property tax rate in Tukwila of $1.80
per $1,000 of assessed value.
By 2028, the Fire Department Budget is projected to equate to 93.6% of all City property tax
revenues.
Inflation thus far in 2022 is already higher than projected in the financial forecast, so if the forecast were
updated today, the projected spending would be higher. Staff Cost of Living Allowances (COLA) are
based on June CPI data.
It is important to anticipate future Fire Department costs in considering the City’s options. A few key
points are outlined below.
If the City retains the Fire Department, it will almost certainly need to secure voter-approved
funding to rebuild Stations 53 and 54, within the decade. Current rough estimates of the cost to
replace these two stations is $30-40M. It is possible that joint funding for a Station 54
replacement could be secured at much lower cost through collaboration with neighboring
agencies.
5
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
The City will also need to maintain the quality of its fire apparatus and equipment. The 2016
public safety bond was also intended to allocate specific funding for these needs for the next
twenty years. Due to cost escalations, bond funding was not used for these purposes, but
instead is funded through the City’s Public Safety Plan for the next fifteen years (after that, the
General Fund will absorb these costs).
The seven-year financial forecast estimates annual reserve funding needs of $1.09M per year if
the City were to continue to support apparatus, equipment needs plus facility maintenance (not
replacement), and employee retirement payouts on a pay-as-you-go basis.
The City will need to remain competitive in hiring and retaining firefighters and fire
administrators. We note that the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSFRA) salaries are
significantly higher than the City’s current fire salaries, but the Renton Regional Fire Authority
(RRFA) salaries are lower, except for all but their longest serving employees (we expect that may
change as RRFA is now in labor negotiations with its fire union).
Fortunately, the City has options for how to proceed. As noted above, we were presented with nine
different options for future fire/EMS service delivery, listed in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1:
List of Nine Future Fire/EMS Service Delivery Options Considered
by the Committee
Option 1: Status Quo
Option 2: Status Quo “Plus” – Funding for enhanced services
Option 3: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded solely by property taxes (no
Fire Benefit Charge)
Option 4: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded by both property taxes and a
Fire Benefit Charge
Option 5: Partner with another fire service provider to create a Tukwila
Regional Fire Authority (RFA) –with a fire benefit charge
Option 6: Contract for Service with Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA)
Option 7: Contract for Service with Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority
(PSRFA)
Option 8: Annex into RRFA, after initially contracting for service
Option 9: Annex into PSRFA, after initially contracting for service
The balance of this report examines the five questions posed to us by the City Council regarding these
options.
IV.Is the City Fire Department Sustainable Within Existing City
Revenues?
After considering a lot of information about City revenues and expenses, we think that this question is
probably the wrong lens for discussing financial sustainability. Generally, we view “fiscal sustainability”
as the ability to sustain service levels over time within available revenues. The problem with focusing on
6
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
the Fire Department alone here is that the Fire Department is just one of many City departments
dependent on the City’s General Fund.
The City Finance Director has provided us information confirming that the City’s General Fund revenues
grow more slowly each and every year than do the City’s General Fund expenses. Specifically, overall
General Fund revenues grow at about 3% a year, and status quo expenses (the cost of doing the same
things as the prior year) have grown annually at around 5% over the last decade. The gap between
revenues and status quo expenses is the major challenge each budget cycle. We note that the inflation
spike that began last year may significantly increase this gap in the next few years, particularly to the
extent the City’s unionized employees are entitled to annual cost of living increases, (like unionized
employees elsewhere in government and the private sector). Labor costs (salaries and benefits)
comprise over 68% of the City’s General Fund.
The City’s General Fund supports a range of important services, from a variety of sources. General Fund
revenues are typically unrestricted -- they can be applied to many uses. In contrast, many other City
revenues are strictly limited in terms of the uses to which they can be applied). The major General Fund
departments and revenue sources are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: City General Fund-Supported Departments and Major Revenues
Departments Major Revenues by % (2021)
Police Department In descending order of magnitude:
Fire Department Sales Tax (28.1%)
Parks & Recreation Property Tax (27%)
Public Works Utility Tax (9.4%)
Community Development Other Taxes (admission, gambling) (7.3%)
Mayor’s Office/Administrative services, which Business Licenses (5.7%)
also includes: Other government agency grants, shared
revenues (5.1%)
Technology & Innovation Services
Human Resources
A variety of other revenues contribute an
Finance Department
additional 17.4%
City Clerk’s Office
Each budget cycle, the City Council must make difficult decisions about how to balance the budget (a
requirement of state law—cities cannot run deficits like the federal government). Basically, the cost of
status quo operations always exceeds in total the status quo revenues available. Cuts, efficiencies and
new revenues must all be considered across the entire General Fund budget in order to balance the
budget. In this sense, one can argue nothing in the General Fund is sustainable without efficiencies, cuts
elsewhere, or new revenues.
Over the last decade, the City Council has found new revenues, with voter support, to fund public safety
capital projects (the justice center, two new fire stations, and fire apparatus/equipment) and the City’s
pool (creating the Tukwila Pool Metropolitan Park District). The City has been able to add a few staff
over these same years to many General Fund programs. Fire Department staffing has remained
7
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
essentially flat over the last decade, but there have been significant investments in capital and
equipment for the department during this time.
Our observation is that the City has a fiscal sustainability challenge broader than any single City
Department: it is a challenge for the entire City General Fund. That said, we can understand why the
City has created our Committee, and why the administration and Council are focusing particularly on
sustainability of fire/EMS service:
First, the Fire Department is the second largest department in terms of budget. If there is a way to
either increase funding for—or entirely eliminate – the cost of the Fire Department for the City budget,
it will have significant impact in improving the overall health of the General Fund and all the important
City services it funds.
Second, fire/EMS is a critical public safety service and is very popular. A well-reasoned request to voters
for Fire Department funding support is likely to be better received than a request for general
government support, or support for many other City programs.
Third, and more to the point of the mission with which we have been tasked, there are many options for
the delivery of high-quality fire service to the City other than the current model of a city-funded City
Department operation. In fact, in the area around Tukwila, we have seen a dramatic transformation to
move away from City-funded fire service in the last 15 years.
In 2007, the Cities of Auburn, Algona and Pacific secured voter approval and new dedicated
funding to form the Valley Regional Fire Authority, uniting the fire departments of the Cities
of Auburn (serving Algona by contract) and Pacific.
In 2010, Kent and Fire District 37 secured voter approval and new dedicated funding to form
what is now the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority.
Maple Valley Fire District secured voter approval a levy lid lift for dedicated funding and
began contracting with PSRFA in mid-2018.
In 2014, the City of SeaTac, after determining it could not financially annex into a fire
authority, instead began contracting with PSRFA, transferring all its fire department staff,
apparatus, and equipment to the PSRFA as part of that arrangement.
Most recently, in 2016 Renton and Fire District 25 secured voter approval and new
dedicated funding to form a regional fire authority.
The partners forming, or contracting with, these new “regional fire authorities” recognized that they
were more likely to be able to control the growth in cost of service by banding together in a larger
operation, with a single fire service administration and support services system overseeing their
combined territories.
Notably, all three of these regional fire authorities received voter approved funding through levy lid lifts
of property taxes and a fire benefit charge. All three utilize both property taxes and a voter approved
financial tool not available to cities: a “Fire Benefit Charge” (FBC) supporting operations and capital
expenditures which is not subject to the year-to-year 1% collection limitations of property taxes. An FBC
is a fee, not a tax, charged to property owners with physical structures on their real property; the fee is
sized to reflect an estimate of the fire agency assets needed to respond to a fire at those structures. (See
discussion below in Section VII of this report).
8
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
There are other options available to change how fire service in the City is operated or funded besides
joining or creating a regional fire authority. These are explored in more detail below, but basically
include:
(1) creating a fire district;
(2) contracting for service from another fire service provider; or
(3) providing additional dedicated funding for the Fire Department with voter approval.
A note about regional fire authorities: a regional fire authority or “RFA,” can be created by voters
pursuant to Chapter 52.26 RCW. An RFA has essentially the same revenue authority and service
responsibility as a fire district but can only be created by combining the operations of at least two
different agencies that have authority to provide fire service. The main difference between a fire district
and a regional fire authority is that the latter has great flexibility in how it sets up its governance board.
This makes it possible for multiple, different types of fire jurisdictions to come together and structure a
governance solution that works for them.
It is also worth noting what is happening in other cities in King County. Today, only 7 of 39 cities in King
County operate a Fire Department. The rest have annexed into, or have service contracts with, another
agency (another City, a Fire District, or a Regional Fire Authority).
A contract for service by itself doesn’t address the revenue challenge a city may have – the city still has
to pay for the contract. However, a city (particularly a small city) will typically find it far less expensive
to contract for fire service than to create its own fire department. Thus, we see Newcastle, Medina,
Hunts Point, Yarrow Point, Clyde Hill, and Beaux Arts Village all contract with Bellevue for fire service.
Annexation into another fire service provider is most often observed in cities created in the last 30 years
–long after their area was served already by a fire district. For example, Shoreline chose to not stand up
a fire department when it was incorporated, and instead retained service from their existing fire district.
Those cities that do still operate a Fire Department typically have dedicated voter-approved levies to
support either (or both) operations and capital for the departments. Tukwila has secured voter support
for fire capital projects (through the 2016 public safety bond) but has never asked for operational
support for fire. In comparison, in 2019, the City of Bothell secured voter approval for both a Fire
Capital Levy and a Fire Operations Levy.
Beyond considering the Fire Department finances, we are not privy to an understanding of all the
various funding demands now before the City.
In terms of additional revenue sources that the City could use to fund fire/EMS services, we did not
spend a significant amount of time on this topic, but we understand that:
Any increase in property taxes above the 1% annual collection amount allowed by law
requires voter approval. The City could seek authority for a general property tax lid lift to
support all General Fund operations, or it could target that request to support specific City
functions, such as fire/EMS service. A levy lid lift requires approval of 50% +1 of voters.
9
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
The City imposes a wide array of taxes now, but does not impose a business and
occupations (B&O) tax. This could be authorized by the City Council without voter approval.
There is capacity to increase utility taxes by Council action, either with or without voter
approval.
Major capital funding for any City construction projects is most likely secured by asking
voters for an excess levy to repay City-issued bonds. This requires 60% voter approval.
The Committee expresses no opinion as to the advisability of pursuing a B&O tax or utility tax. We note
below the possibility of a seeking a dedicated property tax levy to support any option in which the City
remains responsible for funding fire/EMS services. We have noted above the likely need for a bond
measure to fund two additional fire stations in the next decade if the Fire Department remains a City
operation.
In sum, it appears to us that the City has a General Fund sustainability issue. The Fire Department is the
second largest department in the City and there are many options for securing high quality fire/EMS
services, so it makes sense to explore these options for multiple reasons. The City should anticipate
significant revenue needs for the Fire Department in the years ahead.
V.Additional Fire Department Programs, Staffing or Services that
should be Priorities to Fund in the Next Six Years
In the context of the General Fund budget challenge, it may seem confusing to explore expanding Fire
Department service offerings, however, this is the second query in our mission. In this part of our work,
the Fire Department presented to us three priority service enhancements. In descending order of
priority for the Fire Department, these are:
Adding services of a CARES Unit—by sharing a unit with an adjacent fire agency. CARES
Units are vehicles staffed by a firefighter and a nurse or social worker. They respond to low
acuity calls where there is no emergent medical need. It is often difficult to determine the
acuity of a call before arriving on scene, so often CARES Units are deployed in a follow-up
capacity that represents a true service level improvement for community members having
difficulty with medications or other health issues. Agencies around the state are now
deploying this service. They are finding that a CARES unit can reduce calls for service and
keep other units available for priority calls. Both RRFA and PSRFA currently operate a CARES
unit. Some of the cost of these units can currently be defrayed from funding from King
County—funding Tukwila is entitled to but cannot draw on because it is not offering the
service.
2022 Estimated Annual Cost of standing up a CARES unit in partnership with another
o
agency that also doesn’t have a CARES unit: $308,706
2022 offsetting funding available from King County: $100,800
o
10
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Adding an employee (plus vehicle and supplies) to operate a Public Education Program.
2022 Estimated Annual Cost: $152,222
o
Increasing staffing for the Fire Marshal Office (FMO) by up to 4 additional employees, in
addition to the existing five personnel in the FMO. Fees for service currently generate about
$302,000 each year from the FMO. Under state law, fire marshal services are core city
functions: cities control the service levels and fees and cannot transfer this responsibility by
annexation of fire responsibility to another agency. In other words, the annexing city must
decide whether to staff the function on its own, or contract for the service from its new fire
service provider.
2022 Estimated Annual Cost for adding two (2) additional FMO employees: $307,180.
o
2022 Estimated additional annual revenue from adding these two employees: $302,000,
o
doubling current FMO revenue.
The Committee does not feel we are knowledgeable enough to offer other potential service
enhancements, so we focused on the Fire Department recommendations. We questioned whether
some or all these services could be provided by contracting with other agencies, or whether they could
be provided by other existing City personnel. We questioned how much revenue would be generated by
additional FMO staff.
In the end, the Committee has reached a consensus that we support the addition of all three of these
enhanced services, but only if they do not require cutting other existing services—either in the Fire
Department or elsewhere.
Why do we support adding these enhancements? For several reasons:
CARES programs directly address the increasing complexity of service demands on the
department—increasing, homelessness and mental health issues most notably. A CARES unit
can also reduce calls for service and keep other units available for priority calls—an important
cost saving aspect to consider.
Particularly in a diverse community such as Tukwila, education around fire safety can be life-
saving for those who grew up in other cultures. It can also be an important public safety service
for all residents, and for children in particular – schools are a big audience for most fire service
public education programs. Both RRFA and PSRFA currently have Public Education Programs.
The City currently has limited Fire Marshal Office (FMO) offerings. Business community
representatives on the Committee note their concerns about the time it can take to get a fire-
related building permit, and the lack of routine fire inspection service offered by the City. The
Fire Department’s expertise in identifying safety issues and outlining solutions is not something
that businesses can easily buy from a private sector vendor. Quick response from the Fire
Marshal can make the difference between a business being able to stay open or needing to
close --and can save months in the time it takes to permit a new business—an economic
development issue. A well-staffed and operated program can offset much of its cost from fees.
11
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
The staff team supporting us adjusted some of the cost data shown above after receiving contract cost
estimates from RRFA and PSRFA. Both RFAs currently offer all three service enhancements, and both
offered to provide them to Tukwila for less money than the costs estimated above, as summarized in
Table 3. (These cost estimates are preliminary, as are all cost estimates presented in our report).
Table 3: Service Enhancement Cost Estimate Comparison
Service Enhancement 2022 Cost Estimate if Provided 2022 Contract Cost Estimate Presented
through Tukwila Fire Department by PSRFA and RRFA
RRFA PSRFA
CARES Unit Initial estimate: (new unit in $0 $66K
Contract estimates partnership with another agency
were to have access that doesn’t now have a CARES unit) Renton indicates (regional
to the RFA CARES $308,706, less $100,800 in regional they can fund this revenue would
units currently in revenue = $207,906 net just for the go to PSRFA)
place Revised estimate: reduce cost by contribution of the
$167K by contracting with an RFA, $100,800
for a net cost of about $0 – $66K,
depending on RFA.
Fire Marshal Office $900,000 (5 FTEs today) $610,937 $840,377
(with fee revenue (with fee
+ $307,180 for 2 additional FTEs back to City – for a revenue coming
net cost of a few back to the
Less offsetting revenue of $605,088 thousand dollars) City—net cost of
= $602,092 net cost about $240K)
Public Education $122,813 Not itemized in the $64,585 (no staff
Officer bid (no staff would would be added
be added by by agency)
agency)
Note: The RRFA FMO cost estimate is significantly lower than the PSRFA cost estimate because the RRFA uses
civilians to staff the office, rather than uniformed firefighters.
VI.Committee Criteria for Evaluating the City’s Options for Future
Fire/EMS Service Delivery
The Committee had several discussions about criteria that should be used to evaluate the nine future
fire/EMS service delivery options presented to us. We developed these criteria early in our process,
after reviewing the list of nine options, but before being briefed on all but the first two options (status
quo and status quo plus service enhancements). We settled on the eight criteria presented in Table 4.
12
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Table 4: The Committee’s Eight Criteria for Evaluating Fire/EMS Service Options
(not presented in priority order)
Ability of provider to meet needs of a diverse community
Ability of provider to meet needs of a larger business community
Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses
Impact on the fire department labor force, recruitment, and retention
Control over operational and financial decisions
Overall quality of services (response times and more)
Accountability for outcomes/ability to measure outcomes
Sustainability of funding
A note about each of these eight criteria and why we feel each is important:
Ability of provider to meet needs of a diverse community: Tukwila has a very diverse
population, and our fire/EMS services should be able to help residents and others regardless of
language or cultural differences.
Ability of provider to meet needs of a larger business community: The business community is
our economic engine, providing jobs and making this City a desirable visitor destination.
Business tax revenues support programs across the city. Supporting the business community’s
fire/EMS needs supports the financial health of the City.
Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses: In light of the financial
challenges the City has described for us, total cost is important. If the same or better-quality
services can be secured for less money, that needs to be seriously considered.
Impact on the fire department labor force, recruitment, and retention: Fire Department staff
have shared their strong preference to move to employment with the PSRFA, or as a second
choice, the RRFA. They see increased opportunity for advancement in a larger organization, and
compensation rates are also higher at the PSFRA. Employee preferences are an important
consideration.
Control over operational and financial decisions: Given the size of the Fire Department budget,
it is important to be able to control how costs change from year-to-year to mitigate the need to
raise taxes or make other service cuts to General Fund programs (including Fire).
Overall quality of services (response times and more): We enjoy the fastest “first unit on
scene” response times in Zone 3 today. It will be difficult to get the community to support any
reduction in service levels. Program offerings– such as the enhanced services—should also be
considered; the three service enhancements discussed above are all currently being provided by
neighboring RFAs.
Accountability for outcomes/ability to measure outcomes: This is simply an important basic
good business practice for ensuring the public’s money is being put to good use.
13
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Sustainability of funding: If funding for a critical public safety service such as fire/EMS is not
sustainable, we will see service levels reduced—which will face community opposition—or other
City programs cut, which is also undesirable. If the City’s finances cannot sustain the Fire
Department into the future, this is a serious problem. As discussed above, we see financial
sustainability as a General Fund issue, one that is not about the Fire Department alone. In the
exploration of future service options, we do see that fire agencies have financial tools (a Fire
Benefit Charge, specifically) that cities do not have, and which can provide significant financial
stability through either recessionary periods or times of high inflation.
We also discussed what each of us felt were our top three most important criteria. The results of that
exercise identified strong concurrence that the following three criteria are the most important:
Total costs to residents and businesses
Quality of services, and
Sustainability of funding
VII.Committee Recommendations on the Preferred Option or Options for
Ensuring Provision of High-Quality Fire/EMS Service in the City at a
Sustainable Cost
The committee was presented with nine different options to provide high-quality fire/EMS service to the
City. We reviewed each of these options in some depth.
Comparing the Three Different Potential Service Providers
All these options propose one of three different service providers:
The City of Tukwila Fire Department- - as it is, or reconstituted in a new unit of
government (a fire district or regional fire authority)
The Renton Regional Fire Authority
The Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority
Table 5 below presents comparative data on these three agencies: how big they are, how they are
funded, what services they provide, how they are governed today.
The nine options are summarized in Table 6 below, which highlights the key differences and similarities
between each option.
The complete detailed templates for all nine options are provided in Attachment C. The estimated cost
of each option is presented in more detail at Attachment D and summarized in Table 7 below.
14
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Table 5: Comparing Tukwila Fire Department, Puget Sound RFA and Renton RFA
Tukwila FirePuget Sound RFA Renton RFA
(PSRFA)(RRFA)
Population Served 19,765225,693130,359
Included Jurisdictions TukwilaKent, FD 37(includes Renton, FD 25
City of Covington), FD FD 40 by contract
43 and
SeaTac by contract
Headquarters TukwilaKentRenton
Year Established 194320102016
Governance Structure The Mayor and City A board comprised of A board comprised of
Council of Tukwila three elected officials three elected officials
from the City of Kent, from the City of Renton
three commissioners and three commissioners
from FD 37, and 3 from FD 25. FD 40, which
nonvoting members: contract with RRFA for
one each from the two service, has a nonvoting
contract agencies, and seat.
one from the City of
Coving
Square Miles 9.610833.29
2022 Operating Budget$14.3M$68.3M$43.4M
Annual Calls for service 6,86929,43821,954
(2021)
Number of Fire Stations 4137
Total Suppression 54228128
Staffing
Staff per shift 185932
2022 Operating Budget $14.3M $68.3M $43.4M
Funding Model + capital Operations: General Fund Fire Levy + Fire Benefit Fire Levy + Fire Benefit
bond Capital: voter approved Charge (FBC) (both Charge (both voter-
bond voter- approved) approved)
FBC approved for 10 yrs. FBC is permanent
(through 2031)
Maximum Fire Levy Rate N/A $1.00/$1,000 AV $1.00/$1,000 AV
15
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Tukwila FirePuget Sound RFA Renton RFA
(PSRFA)(RRFA)
2022 Fire Levy Rate N/A $0.96/$1,000 AV $0.73/$1,000 AV
% of Operating Budget N/A 38% in 2022 38.2% in 2022
secured from FBC
Other agencies N/A City of SeaTac Fire District 40
contracting for service FD 43 (includes City of
Maple Valley)
Capital bonds for Yes NoNo
facilities (voter-approved) The RFA could issue The RFA could issue
bonds in the future bonds in the future
Administrative support Central administrative Admin staff serve the Admin staff serve the
staff serve all City agency agency
departments
ISO (WSRB) Rating 33 2
(Lower is better)
Accreditation No Yes No (in process)
CARES Unit No* Joint Program with RRFAJoint Program with PSRFA
One CARES Unit One CARES Unit
Public Education No* Yes Yes
Program
Fire Marshal's Office Uniform/Civilian Uniform/Civilian Civilian
Dedicated Fire Marshal Battalion Chiefsrotate Yes Yes
into this position every 3-
4 years
Fire Inspection Program No* Yes Yes
Development Yes Yes Yes
Review/Inspection
Patient Transport All 3 agencies do not transport patients except in rare cases when all other
transport units are engaged. Nearly all Basic Life Support transports are made by
private ambulance companies. Advanced Life Support transports are provided by
Medic 1. A
Health insurance with No Yes Yes
retiree program
Post retirement medical Yes. City has 18-month Yes No
COBRA option
Four Platoon staffing No Yes Yes
model**
*Could be added with additional city funds.
**Four platoon is preferred by staff; it is very difficult to implement in a small department like Tukwila’s.
16
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Table 6: Nine Potential Future Fire/EMS Service Delivery Options Reviewed; Key Differences and Similarities
Options 1-4 (blue cells) are “Tukwila only” options; Options 5-9 (green cells) involve partnering with or being served by another fire agency
OptionService Provider Primary Funding SourcesAnticipated Service Governance/ Fire Dept. Voter approval
LevelsManagement Employees and required?
ControlAssets
Option 1: City of Tukwila City retains funding SameCity retains full Remain with
Status Quo Fire Department responsibility. General control over City No.
Fund revenues. management, budget City could ask voters to
approve a property tax
levy for Dept.
operations, and/or for
future capital bonds.
Option 2: City of Tukwila City retains funding Enhanced. This City retains full Remain with No.
Status Quo “Plus” Fire Department. responsibility. General option includes control over City City could ask voters to
– Funding for Fund revenues, funding for three management and approve a property tax
enhanced services Enhanced service cost is enhanced services: budget (except to the levy for Dept.
approximately $740K a Fire Marshal Office, extent enhanced operations, and/or for
year, potentially less if addition of a public services are future capital bonds.
contracted out with one of educator position, contracted out)
the adjacent RFAs. and contracting for
a CARES unit
Option 3: A new Funding responsibility As modelled, The City Council Transferred to Yes
Create a Tukwila governmental shifts to the new fire enhanced services could remain as the Fire District (50%+1)
Fire District, entity and taxing district. The cost of the fire were not governing board, Excess levies need 60%
funded solely by district, department comes off the included—but they serving as Fire voter approval. Will
property taxes boundaries co-City’s budget, except City could be added District need periodic voter
(no Fire Benefit extensive with retains the cost of funding with sufficient Commissioners, or support to restore
Charge)the CitylimitsLEOFFretiree costs, fire funding. could propose a property taxcollections
marshal and fire station structure of five
debt service (“retained directly-elected fire
costs”). commissioners.
The new District would be
funded by a fire levy
(property tax) of up to
$1.50/$1,000 of assessed
value (A.V.),and an excess
17
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Option Service Provider Primary Funding Sources Anticipated Service Governance/ Fire Dept. Voter approval
Levels Management Employees and required?
Control Assets
levy to support the current
department budget plus
the additional cost of
standing up a new agency
(administrative services
and staffing, reserves, cash
flow).
Option 4: A new Funding responsibility As modelled, Same as Option 3: Transferred to Yes
Create a Tukwila governmental shifts to the new Fire enhanced services City Council could Fire District (60% because an FBC is
Fire District, entity and taxing District. were not remain the governing included in the
funded by both district, The cost of the fire included—but they board or could financing model)
property taxes boundaries co-department comes off the could be added decide that a directly
and a Fire Benefit extensive with City’s budget, except for elected board of
Charge City limits. retained costs (see Option commissioners
3). should govern.
The new District would
impose a fire levy of up to
$1.00 and a fire benefit
charge (a fee, not a tax,
sized to reflect the fire
assets needed to respond
to a fire at physical
structures on property).
Budget would need to
include additional cost of
setting up a new agency
(administration, reserves,
cash flow)
Option 5: Partner A new govern-Funding responsibility As modelled, The RFA would have Transferred to Yes
with another fire mental entity shifts to the new RFA. The enhanced services a governance board RFA (60%)
service provider and taxing cost of the fire department were not separate from the
to create a district. Requires comes off the City’s budget included—but they City Council. It could
Tukwila Regional partnering with except for retained costs. could be added be structured to
18
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Option Service Provider Primary Funding Sources Anticipated Service Governance/ Fire Dept. Voter approval
Levels Management Employees and required?
Control Assets
Fire Authority another fire The new RFA funding include City Council
(RFA) –with a fire agency. Potential would be as in Option 4: a members or directly
benefit charge partners include maximum $1.00 fire levy elected
adjacent fire and a fire benefit charge commissioners or a
districts or cities. (defined above in Option mix of both.
4). Budget would need to Representation of
include additional cost of the partner agency
setting up a new agency would need to be
(administration, reserves, considered/added to
cash flow) the board structure.
Option 6: RRFA, a separate Funding responsibility Response times RFA would control Employees, No.
Contract for municipal remains with City, including same as status quo. the cost of service apparatus and City could ask voters to
Service with government and retained costs. Enhanced services delivery. To reduce equipment approve a property tax
Renton Regional taxing district. would be offered. cost, City could opt transferred to levy for Dept.
Fire Authority Could seek additional out of enhanced RFA. City would operations, and/or for
(RRFA)funding from City voters servicesor seek 3-retain stations.future capital bonds.
through dedicated station contract (cost
property tax leviesto pay not modelled)
for contract costs. Future
capital costs could be bond
funded.
Option 7: PSRFA, a Funding responsibility Response times RFA would control Employees, No.
Contract for separate remains with City, including same as status quo. the cost of service apparatus and City could ask voters to
Service with municipal retained costs. Enhanced services delivery; To reduce equipment approve a property tax
Puget Sound government and would be offered. cost, City could opt transferred to levy for Dept.
Regional Fire taxing district Could seek additional out of enhanced RFA. City would operations, and/or for
Authority (PSRFA) funding from City voters services or seek 3-retain stations. future capital bonds.
through dedicated station contract (not
property tax levies to pay modelled)
for contract costs. Future
capital costs could be bond
funded.
19
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Option Service Provider Primary Funding Sources Anticipated Service Governance/ Fire Dept. Voter approval
Levels Management Employees and required?
Control Assets
Option 8: Annex RRFA. Funding The RRFA is funded by a Response times The RFA Board Employees, Yes –
into RRFA, after responsibility maximum fire levy of $1.00 same as status quo. controls service apparatus and 50%+1
initially shifts to the RFA and a fire benefit charge. Enhanced services levels and costs. City equipment
contracting for when annexation The cost of the fire would be offered. would negotiate for a transferred to
service takes effect. department comes off the # of seats on the RFA. Station
City’s budget except for governing board. ownership
retained costs. negotiated.
Option 9: Annex PSRFA. Funding The PSRFA is funded by a Response times The RFA Board Employees, Yes
into PSRFA, after responsibility maximum fire levy of $1.00 same as status quo. controls service apparatus and – 50%+1
initially shifts to the RFA and a fire benefit charge Enhanced services levels and costs. City equipment
contracting for when annexation The cost of the fire would be offered. would negotiate for a transferred to
service takes effect. department comes off the # of seats on the RFA. Station
City’s budget except for governing board. ownership
retained costs. negotiated.
Note: All options are also financially supported by a share of regional EMS levy revenues, and include the ability to charge fees for some services
20
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Ten Key Points Underscoring Differences and Similarities between the Nine Options
Before discussing our recommendations there are ten key points that are important to understanding
the similarities and differences between the nine options.
1.Because fire dispatch is regionalized across Zone 3, response times do not change under any
option, so long as that option continues a 4-station configuration for Tukwila. An integral part
of the City’s ability to deliver the current high level of service is the collaboration and integration
of fire/EMS services in south King County. Fire agencies across the south county “Zone 3”
area—which includes Tukwila-- jointly fund and operate firefighter recruitment, training, public
information officer services, and other aspects of fire service. More importantly, due to the
regionalized dispatch of all fire response units in Zone 3, fire responders from multiple adjacent
fire agencies respond daily to incidents in Tukwila. Similarly, Tukwila fire units respond daily to
events in adjacent jurisdictions. This regionalized deployment of fire/EMS services is necessary
to provide effective response on any major incident in any south County jurisdiction. In effect,
the Zone 3 dispatching protocols integrate all fire agencies into something like a single fire
department for all south King County.
2.Enhanced services can be provided—or not—under any option. The cost of these services is
less if provided by PSRFA or RRFA as compared to the City.
3.RFAs are essentially identical to fire districts in terms of their service authority and revenue
authority. The only difference is that a RFA must involve at least two fire agencies partnering
together to create an RFA, and the RFA statutes provide great flexibility in terms of how the
governance board can be structured as compared to a fire district.
4.A Fire Benefit Charge (FBC) provides important revenue stabilization and service sustainability
for fire agencies—either fire districts or RFAs—but Cities do not have this same authority. The
FBC is not a tax, it is a fee that is based on the fire-response resources needed for different sizes
and types of physical structures. The larger and riskier the structure in the event of a fire, the
higher the FBC. FBCs have proven popular with voters since they come with reduced fire
property taxes and shift costs away from single family residential properties to larger
commercial and multi-family properties. The amount of that cost shift depends on the fire
agency FBC formula. All fire agencies in the state with an FBC use a similar formula but tailor it
each year to adjust how much money is collected in total, and from which property types (single
family, multi family, commercial, etc.).
The FBC is not subject to the 101% collection year-to -year cap that applies to property tax. The
only limit is that FBC collections in a year cannot exceed 60% of the operating budget for the
agency. The FBC must be initially authorized by voters (60% threshold) and after 6 years must
again be reauthorized by voters – for another 6 or 10 years, or permanently. RRFA has a 10-year
FBC in place now; PSRFA has a permanent FBC.
From a fire agency perspective, FBCs are popular because the combination of a $1.00 fire levy
and an FBC can generate more revenue than a $1.50 fire levy alone (the fire levy maximum rate
21
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
is dropped by one-third if the fire agency uses an FBC) and can be adjusted annually to provide
more revenue without going to the voters.
Cities do not have the same statutory ability to implement an FBC as fire agencies: cities can
only use an FBC to fund service enhancements, not other existing fire costs. So, in Tukwila’s case,
only the enhanced services or other additions to the budget could be funded by a City FBC.
5.Creating a new taxing jurisdiction/separate municipality requires significant additional cost.
Today, the Fire Department is supported by central city overhead. The costs of that support are
not in the Fire Department’s budget. If a new fire agency is created –supported by property
taxes, and possibly a fire benefit charge—it must provide for the staffing and cost of
administration (finance, human resources, information technology, asset management, etc.) as
well as reserves to fund operating and capital expenses and cash flow. This is why Options 3, 4,
and 5 are the most expensive options.
6.Both PSRFA and RRFA boards have a policy position (not a legal requirement) that any agency
that would like to annex to them must first enter into a contract. Annexation requires the
consent of both the RFA and the City and then the approval of City voters. The City cannot force
annexation to happen. As we understand it, the stated reasons for the RFAs’ position that a
contract must precede annexation, based on conversations between City administration and
RFA administrators and board members, is to allow the RFA, City government, and city residents
and businesses an opportunity to get to know each other. However, it is worth noting that
because fire dispatch is regionalized, firefighters from across all Zone 3 agencies work together
daily to respond to incidents. Zone 3 agencies have established several regionalized services to
reduce operational costs; Tukwila participates in most, but not all, of these regionalized services
today. Tukwila Fire staff have strong positive relationships with their fellow Zone 3 agency staff.
Late in our deliberations, we were told that the PSRFA Chief was open to a short timeline (1-2
years) for moving from a contract to annexation. In comparison, RRFA spoke to City staff about
wanting a five-year initial contract term before annexation would be considered. We then were
told that PSRFA might be open to exploring directly annexing Tukwila without first having a
contract. The Committee was asked if direct annexation was of interest and we agreed it was—
in fact, this turned out to be our consensus preference as an option. Based on our preliminary
support for this option, the Mayor sent a letter to the PSRFA Board seeking to explore annexing
as a first step (the City Council and Committee received copies of this letter). Unfortunately, the
PSRFA Board declined to open up a discussion with the City on this possibility at this time.
7.Contracting for service involves transferring the City’s fire employees and assets (excluding
stations) to the new contract service provider. There are both advantages and disadvantages
to contracting. The biggest risk we see is that it is a one-way street: it will be extremely difficult,
if not impossible to reconstitute a City Fire department in the future. Even moving to a new
contract service provider or annexing to a different agency would be much more difficult as all
the assets and personnel needed to serve Tukwila would be in ownership of the first contract
agency. While it would be possible to transfer assets, it is unclear how firefighters could be
22
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
moved from the contract agency back to Tukwila. The current SeaTac-PSRFA contract has a
term requiring SeaTac, in the event it terminates the contract in the first 15 years, to rehire any
firefighters laid off by the RFA as a result (up to the minimum staffing requirement) “if the cIty
has sufficient resources.” It is not clear that a laid-off firefighter could be compelled to take the
job so offered, or how the “sufficiency of resources” would be determined. That said, if there
could be a near term move to annexation, the risk of needing to reconstitute a fire department
could be minimized. And, to the extent the City prefers annexation as the ultimate outcome, it
appears that contracting is currently the only bridge to accomplish that.
8.In any option that shifts funding off the City’s Budget (including Options 3,4,5,8 and 9), the
City will need to take steps to concurrently reduce its taxes in order to keep the cost of these
options manageable for residents and businesses. If the City can eliminate over $12+ million
from its budget, there will be an important policy choice for the Council. We would be very
opposed to any of these options if the City made no reductions in its budget. Should taxes be
reduced by this same amount as the Fire Department budget? Should some amount be
retained for other City purposes—particularly given the financial pressure on the City? We do
not have a recommendation on these questions.
9.In any option where the City remains responsible to fund Fire/EMS costs (including Options 1,
2, 6 and 7) the City could seek voter support for additional funding. This would likely take the
form of a voter approved levy lid lift.
10.All costs shown are preliminary estimates. Cost is an important consideration, but the cost
information we have is preliminary. Several corrections were made to the cost comparison data
just over the course of our work. While PSRFA and RRFA both submitted an estimated cost for
Tukwila to contract for services, those estimates are subject to negotiation. Similarly, for
annexation, we have estimates of the cost and impact by building sector, of both the PSRFA and
RRFA FBCs if they were applied to Tukwila properties; this FBC information, however, needs
further detailed review to ensure it is accurate and complete.
Committee Deliberations on the Options
Once the Committee had been presented with all nine service options, we began our deliberations. We
started by completing an online survey in which we rated each option in terms of how well it meets each
of the eight criteria we agreed upon, and how we felt about each option overall. We did this individually
after our eighth meeting, and then reconvened to review and discuss the survey results together at
meeting nine. The results of the survey (completed by 9 of 12 committee members) are presented at
Attachment E in three parts: (1) the raw data with our comments; (2) a series of bar charts showing how
each option fared in terms of meeting each of the eight criteria; and (3) a one-page table summarizing
the results. Option 9 (Annexing into PSRFA after first contracting) was the highest rated option. Table 7
summarizes some of the key data points relevant to us in completing the survey as they relate to our
eight criteria.
After reviewing the survey results and discussing them at our ninth meeting, an iteration of Option 9 –
direct annexation to PSRFA without first contracting -- was rated the highest. At the point of our
23
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
deliberations (and when we completed the survey) we were waiting to hear whether “annexation first”
might in fact be an option. Following this round of deliberations where we reached consensus to
support direct annexation to PSRFA, it was confirmed that this remains off the table for now. Annexing
to either PSRFA or RRFA will, under their current policies, require that we first contract for service.
24
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Table 7: Comparing How Options 1-9 Address the Eight Criteria(Page 1 of 2)
Committee Identified Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Criteria
Status Quo Status Quo +Tukwila Fire District—Tukwila Fire District—Tukwila RFA –
Enhanced Services 1 funded only with property tax and FBC property tax & FBC;
property taxes; City City Council as Shared governing
Council as governing governing board board, City majority
board
2022 Est. Fire/EMS $14.2M $15M $17.9M 3 $17.9M 3 $17.9M 3
Service Costs (excluding
2
City retained costs)
City retained costs under $2.13M$2.13M$3.03M$3.03M$3.03M
2
this option
Ability of provider to Option 1 doesn’t Same for all options, if enhanced services are funded.
meet needs of diverse include enhanced
community/ large services.
business community
Total costs, considering Mix of city revenues used to fund the Fire Costs allocated based Costs will be funded primarily through property
both costs to residents Department solely on property tax but some costs will be shifted to larger,
and businesses values riskier structures through the FBC
Impact on LaborEssentially same in all options 1-5; labor supports providing the enhanced services
Oversight Control, City controls City Controls City controls City controls Shared control
accountability
Service LevelsCurrentCurrent + Enhanced Higher risk of service Current levels funded, Current levels funded,
Services cuts due to property more stablewith FBC more stable with FBC
tax reliance includedincluded.
Financial SustainabilityImpacts general fund Impacts general fund Relies on strong More stable than More stable than
departments unless departmentsongoing voter support current. Ongoing voter current. Ongoing voter
new revenue added unless new revenue for prop. tax “lid lifts,” support needed for lid support needed for lid
addedexcess levieslifts and FBC renewallifts, FBC renewal
1.Enhanced services include a shared CARES unit, 2 additional FMO staff, and a public education program.
2.Retained costs differ by option. In Options 3,4,5,8 and 9 the City needs to contract back for FMO services; the cost of this service differs depending on
the provider (Tukwila staff, RRFA or PSRFA). Other retained costs include debt service on fire stations and LEOFF 1 retiree payments.
3.
Options 3, 4 and 5 are more expensive due to the need to stand up a new administrative structure, fund reserves and provide for cash flow.
Administrative cost estimates in these options are likely underestimated.
25
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Table 7: Comparing How Options 1-9 Address the Eight Criteria (Page 2 of 2)
Option 6Option 7Option 8Option 9
Contract for Service with Renton Contract for Service with Annexation into Renton RFA Annexation into Puget Sound
RFA Puget Sound RFA RFA
2022 Est. Costs of $14.56M $14.9M $14.4M $14.2M
Fire/EMS service (excl. (based on bid estimate (based on bid estimate (assuming $0.90 fire levy; FBC (assuming $0.90 fire levy; FBC
retained costs) submitted by RRFA)submitted by PSRFA) data needs additional review) data needs additional review)
2022 Est. City retained $2.13M $2.13M $2.74M $2.97M
costs
(see footnote 2)
Ability of provider to Includes enhanced services Includes enhanced services Includes enhanced services Includes enhanced services
meet needs of diverse
community/ large
business community
Total costs, Paid for by mix of City revenues Paid for by mix of City Paid for by mix of fire levy and Paid for by mix of fire levy and
considering both costs as is the current fire dept. revenues as is the current fire benefit charge. FBC formula fire benefit charge.
to residents and fire dept. is currently very similar to PSRFA
FBC formula currently is very
businesses FBC. similar to RRFA FBC formula.
Impact on Labor Fire Dept employees become Fire Dept employees Fire Dept employees will already Fire Dept employees will already
RRFA employees. RRFA currently become PSRFA employees. be RRFA employees if contract be PSRFA employees if contract
pays less than Tukwila or PSRFA PSRFA currently pays more for service precedes annexation. for service precedes annexation.
except at senior levels, but labor than Tukwila or RRFA. RRFA will have to make several If annexation is the first move,
negotiations ongoing. RRFA must adjustments to its CBA o bring employees become PSRFA
make several adjustments to its on Tukwila. employees upon annexation.
collective bargaining agreement PSRFA currently pays more than
(CBA) to bring on Tukwila.RRFA or Tukwila.
Oversight Control, City controls which services it City controls which services City would have some seats on City would have some seats on
accountabilitypurchases; RFA controls delivery it purchases; RFA controls the RFA board which makes the RFA board which makes
and cost of the service delivery and cost of the budget and service level budget and service level
service decisions; (# of seats to be decisions; (# of seats to be
negotiated)negotiated)
Service LevelsResponse times unchanged; Response times unchanged; RFA Board controlsservice RFA Board controlsservice
enhanced services offeredenhanced services offered levels& taxpayer cost. RFA now levels& taxpayer cost. RFA now
provides the enhanced services provides the enhanced services
Financial SustainabilityUnchanged from status quo: City Unchanged from status More stable than current; FBC More stable than current.FBC is
retains cost risk and quo: City retains cost risk will need voter support to permanently authorized. Fire
responsibility and responsibility renew in 10 years; levy lid lift levy was lifted in 2019 and has
vote expected in 1-3 years inflation adjustor.
26
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Committee’s Preferred Outcome: Direct Annexation into PSRFA
Our initial preferred option – with consensus level (80% +) support from Committee members-- is for
the City to directly annexing into PSRFA. Our reasons are outlined below. As noted, this does not
appear to be a realistic option at this time. Instead, the only path to annexing appears to be through a
contract first. A couple of potential downsides of annexing—other than the fact that this does not
appear to be an available option at this time—are noted in italics.
Ability of provider to meet needs of a diverse community
As community diversity increases, particularly along our shared border with SeaTac, it will be
helpful to have a single agency providing these services.
PSRFA offers all three enhanced services
Ability of provider to meet needs of a larger business community
PSRFA has the enhanced FMO services that our business community wants and should have.
Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses
Although the estimates are preliminary, this is one of the lower cost options we looked at and it
provides the enhanced services. Based on preliminary cost information, it is expected to be
equivalent to annexing into RRFA and less expensive than the status quo with enhanced
services.
There could be a significant opportunity for cost savings over time if PSRFA were able to
relocate and expand Station 54 to serve not just Tukwila but also North SeaTac. We expect this
would only be undertaken if it could be demonstrated to have no detrimental impact on
response times.
It is essential to understand that unless the City takes steps to reduce the City Budget after the
costs of the Fire Department are transferred to the PSRFA we would not support this option
because it would result in a very large tax increase. By what means, and in what amount the
City rolls back its taxes and fees, are key policy decisions associated with annexation.
Impact on the fire department labor force, recruitment, and retention
Moving to PSRFA is the Fire Department staff’s preferred outcome.
Labor’s support will be needed in any transition.
Tukwila and PSRFA Unions have met and identified no issues in their CBA's if they were to
merge.
Moving to PSRFA provides more opportunities for advancement for our firefighters and will
increase their salary, benefits, and shift staffing pattern.
Control over operational and financial decisions
The City may welcome the ability to transfer control of the Fire Department given how many
other issues are on its plate.
The City will have less control in this option than in the status quo, but the City would expect to
have some seats on the PSRFA governing board (though not a controlling number of seats).
27
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Overall quality of services (response times and more)
PSRFA is an accredited agency, which speaks to its high level of service. To maintain that
accreditation, the PSRFA must continue to provide high service levels and conduct rigorous data
collection to verify its continued qualifications.
The agency has reserves and plans for future apparatus, equipment, and station replacement.
PSRFA hosts all of the regionalized Zone 3 programs.
Accountability for outcomes/ability to measure outcomes
PSFRA must undertake rigorous data collection and reports to ensure it retains its accredited
status.
Sustainability of funding
Annexing would remove the cost of the Fire Department from the City Budget (except for fire
marshal services which would be contracted)
PSRFA has a permanent FBC (approved by voters in 2021)
Voters in the PSRFA approved a restoration of the fire levy in 2019
The downside to a permanent FBC is that it gives the RFA a lot of revenue generating capability
without needing to ask for voter support.
The Committee’s Preferred Option(s) absent the ability to directly annex into PSRFA
\[to be completed based on input at Meeting 10.\]
Benefits and Disadvantages ofall Options, in summary
\[subject to change based on Committee input at Meeting 10\]
Option 1: Status Quo The main benefit of this option is that it doesn’t require any change (assuming the
City continues to find funds for current services). Disadvantages however are that the financial
challenges that prompted this whole effort remain unaddressed unless the City secures voter approval
for additional revenue. Other downsides include the missed opportunities around regionalization, and
the fact that the Fire Department labor force strongly desires a change to PSRFA.
Option 2: Status Quo Plus Enhanced Services. The main benefit of this option is that it secures
additional services that would benefit the community – but we can support this only if the City secures
additional revenues to fund them. The request for additional revenues could be expanded to support
Fire Department operations in general, addressing the financial sustainability issue. Downsides are the
same as Option 1.
28
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Option 3: Tukwila Fire Department Funded with Property Taxes (No FBC). The main benefits of this
option are that it gets the Fire Department off the City’s budget, and the City could retain control over
the new agency if the City Council is the governance board. The downsides are financial: the current
Fire Department budget cannot be maintained with the maximum $1.50/$1,000 A.V. fire levy (the 2022
fire budget, without central overhead costs, equates to $1.80/$1,000 A.V. property tax). This option
would be heavily dependent on 60% voter approval of excess levies to maintain service levels. The other
financial downside is the additional cost necessary to stand up a new agency with administrative staffing
and support costs, plus the cost of funding reserves each year, plus the cost of working capital (needed
in the months between receipt of property taxes from the County.) This option also simply reconstitutes
the existing City department in a new government—it does not advance regionalization.
Option 4: Tukwila Fire Department Funded with Property Taxes and an FBC. The main benefits of this
option are that it gets the Fire Department off the City’s budget, and the City could retain control over
the new agency if the City Council is the governance board. The advantages are the financial
sustainability of an FBC—which the City cannot deploy under current state law (an effort to change the
law this year in Olympia was unsuccessful but could be attempted in future sessions). Like Options 3
and 5, another disadvantage is the higher total cost since the new agency will require administrative
staffing and services, reserves, and cash flow.
Option 5: Tukwila Regional Fire Authority. The main benefit of this is the same as Option 4: the
department comes off the City budget. One difference is that governance control would need to be
shared with the RFA partner agency (the City alone cannot create an RFA). The partner modelled is a
practically defunct fire district a few blocks in size, already served by the City, that is about to be
dissolved by the state. Other potential partners include adjacent fire districts including those serving
the Burien and West Hill areas – but neither of those agencies are currently interested in pursuing this
option. This option otherwise shares the financial sustainability advantages of Option 4. Some
advantages of regionalization could be secured if the City partnered with another functional fire district
to create the RFA. Like Options 3 and 4, a disadvantage is the higher total cost since the new agency will
require administrative staffing and services, reserves, and cash flow.
Option 6: Contract for Service from RRFA. The benefits of this option are that it appears to be one of
the least expensive options. The initial estimate from the RRFA for a contract is slightly less expensive
than the PSRFA contract, but some sizeable costs are missing from this estimate, including the cost of
dispatch services, capital reserve funding, and the cost of bringing on the Tukwila labor force at pay
rates ensuring no salary decrease. This option would be a necessary precedent to annexing with the
RRFA. The downsides of this option are first, under a contract, the City loses financial control, and it
cannot reconstitute the Fire Department if the contract proves unacceptable over time. Second, the
ability to implement this option is uncertain: it will require a negotiation to integrate the two existing
labor forces which may or may not succeed. Third, this option does not address the City’s financial
sustainability challenge – unless voters approved a special levy to support the cost of the contract.
Option 7: Contract for Service from PSRFA. The benefits of this option are that it also appears to be one
of the least expensive options, although the bid estimate is somewhat higher than the RRFA bid. This
option is a necessary precented to our preferred option: annexation to the PSRFA. The labor issues in
Option 6 and 8 are minimal, as the Tukwila and PSRFA Unions have met and identified no issues in their
CBA's if they were to merge. The downsides of this option are that the City loses financial control and
29
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
cannot reconstitute the Fire Department if the contract proves unacceptable. The option does not
address the City’s financial concerns unless voters are asked to approve a special levy to support the
cost of the contract. This City’s firefighters most prefer an outcome in which they become employees of
PSRFA.
Option 8: Annexing to RRFA after initially contracting for service. The benefits of this option are that it
gets the Fire Department off the City’s budget, and firefighters prefer to move to an RFA as their
employer rather than remain at the City. Annexing to RRFA is estimated to cost just slightly more than
annexing to PSRFA but these are very preliminary numbers. The major downsides are the risk of the
initial contracting period (discussed in Option 6), and the whole annexation process itself. The City
would have very little leverage in the annexation negotiation and annexation is contingent upon
approval of the RRFA Board, the City Council, and ultimately, the voters.
Option 9: Annexing to PSRFA after initially contracting for service. Like Option 8, the benefits of this
option are that it gets the Fire Department off the City’s budget, and firefighters prefer to move to an
RFA as their employer rather than remain at the City. Annexing to PSFA is estimated to cost just slightly
less than annexing to RRFA but these are very preliminary numbers. The major downsides are the risk of
the initial contracting period (discussed in Option 7), and the whole annexation process itself. As in
Option 8, the City would have very little leverage in the annexation negotiation and annexation is
contingent upon approval of the PSRFA Board, the City Council, and ultimately, the voters.
VIII.Public Engagement Strategies the City Should Consider as Part of its
Deliberations Following Delivery of this Report
Committee members completed a homework assignment between meetings to develop
recommendations on this issue—the fifth task in our mission. Our individual views here are strongly
aligned. That said, we are not experts in public communications, so our input is at a fairly high level.
First, we believe the community will be interested in learning about the future for the fire department,
especially if the recommendation is to make a significant change from the current operating model.
Second, we think the Community should be educated about the several items, including but not limited
to:
The cost/financial impact of any proposed change. If the proposed action will cost more
(overall, or to a segment of the community), what are the associated benefits?
Details of the changes proposed and how it will affect residents and businesses
Impacts on service levels, response times
Why is a change being proposed?
Some background on how the fire department operates today and the services it provides
Third, we encourage the City to use a wide array of strategies to engage the community, potentially
including some or all of the following:
Town Hall meetings
30
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Social media
Flyers/direct mail/letters to residents and businesses
Tukwila blog posts
Tukwila news outlets articles
Providing information flyers at community gathering places, such as mosques and churches.
Communication through councilmembers
IX.Conclusion
Tukwila residents and businesses are fortunate to receive a very high level of Fire/EMS services today
from the Fire Department. We have four fire stations serving our small City, two of which were
completely rebuilt just two years ago with the proceeds of City voter-approved bonds. The City is
funding ongoing needs for apparatus and equipment replacement. We have dedicated firefighters on
staff, and they operate using a relatively new inventory of fire apparatus and equipment; the City
continues to invest in these assets each year. Largely because of the large number of fire stations in the
City, we enjoy the fastest “first unit on scene” response time in all of South King County.
High-quality fire/EMS service is expensive to provide, and in response to this we have seen extensive
regionalization of these services across south King County in the last 15 years. Tukwila benefits from
many aspects of this regionalization but remains a relatively small, stand-alone fire service, one of only 7
cities in the County operating a fire department today.
The City has many options in terms of how Fire/EMS services are provided in the future. We were
presented with nine options for consideration and examined each of these in detail. General Fund
budget challenges increase the importance of exploring these options. That said, the City’s financial
challenges cannot be wholly laid at the door of the Fire Department.
Each of the options we reviewed have benefits and drawbacks. Based on the information we have been
provided, and the eight criteria we identified as most relevant to making a choice among these options,
our preferred option is something not initially proposed to us. Rather, it is an iteration of one of the nine
options: to annex directly to PSRFA. Unfortunately, direct annexation does not appear to be something
either PSRFA or RRFA are willing to consider at this time.
In light of this reality, our recommendation to the City is ….. \[to be completed based on discussion at
Meeting 10\]
While cost is a very important consideration in making a choice of what to do, financial estimates of
each option are preliminary and will change over time and upon closer examination. And cost is only one
of the eight criteria we identify as being important. We encourage the City to consider all eight criteria
presented.
We thank the City Council for the opportunity to serve on this Committee. It was a very challenging
effort and involved the review and consideration of a great amount of information. We are grateful to
the City administration and Fire Department for their support of our efforts. We look forward to
discussing our recommendations with you.
31
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Attachments
# Title Page
A Committee Member Names and Affiliations
B Staff and Consultant Support Team
C Templates describing all Nine Options
D Estimated 2022 Costs of the Nine Options
E Results of Informal Committee Survey Evaluating
Options as against the Eight Criteria and Overall
32
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Attachment A
City of Tukwila
Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee
Committee Members and Affiliations
Member Affiliation
Sally Blake Resident
Jim DavisGeneral Manager, DoubleTree Suites by Hilton, Seattle-
Airport-Southcenter
Katrina DohnResident
Ramona GroveResident
Hien Kieu (Vice-Chair) Executive Director, Partners in Employment (PIE)
Peggy McCarthy Resident
Jovita McConnell Resident
Ben Oliver Starfire Sports, Tukwila
Andy Reiswig Director, Facilities, Physical Security & Real Estate, BECU
Dennis Robertson Resident
Abdullahi Shakul Resident
Verna Seal (Chair) Resident
33
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
Attachment B
Committee Support Team
Name Title
Allan Ekberg Mayor
David Cline City Administrator
Vicky Carlsen Finance Director
Jay Wittwer Fire Chief
Norm Golden Deputy Fire Chief
James Booth IAFF Local 2088 President
Jake Berry Public Safety Analyst
Laurel Humphrey Legislative Analyst
Bill Cushman Fire Agency Strategic Financial Planner
Karen ReedFacilitator, Karen Reed Consulting LLC
34