The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW 2022-06-27 Item 4E - Discussion - Future of Fire/Emergency Medical ServicesCOUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared Ig Mayor's review Council review 6/6/22 LH 6/27/22 LH ITEM INFORMATION ITEM No. 4.E. STAFF SPONSOR: LAUREL HUMPHREY ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 6/6/22 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Future of Fire/EMS Services CATEGORY ® Discussion Mtg Date 6/6/22 Motion Mtg Date Resolution Mtg Date ❑ Ordinance Mtg Date Bid Award Mtg Date ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR Council ® Mayor ❑ Admin Svcs ❑ DCD ❑ Finance Fire ❑ P&R ❑ Police ❑ Pr SPONSOR'S SUMMARY Discussion on next steps for the City Council decision-making process on the Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee's recommendation. After the June 6 discussion, the City Council convened a work session on June 13 and the attachments have been updated. REVIEWED BY ❑ Trans&Infrastructure Svcs ❑ LTAC DATE: Community Svcs/Safety ❑ Finance & Governance ❑ Planning & Community Dev. ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. COMMITTEE CHAIR: RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR/ADMIN. COMMITTEE COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 6/6/22 6/27/22 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 6/6/22 Informational Memo dated 5/31/22 6/27/22 Informational Memo (updated 6/17/22) Council Q&A Log and attachments 135 136 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Laurel Humphrey, Legislative Analyst DATE: May 31, 2022 (Updated June 17, 2022) SUBJECT: Future of Fire/EMS Services City Council Decision Process ISSUE Next steps for the City Council's decision-making process on the recommendation of the Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND On May 23, 2022, the Chair and Vice -Chair of the Future of Fire/EMS Services Community Advisory Committee delivered its final recommendation to the City Council. The Committee convened a rigorous six-month process in which they explored nine different options for Fire/EMS service delivery. Options 1-9 • The Staff Team identified these as potentially workable options Blue cells are "Tukwila Only" options Green Cells are options in which Tukwila partners with other agencies 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—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: Annexation into Renton RFA, after contract Option 9: Annex into PSRFA, after contract The Committee evaluated all options in terms of how well each addressed its criteria, particularly Cost, Service Quality and Funding Sustainability. At the conclusion of this review, the Committee's recommendation (supported by 11 of 12 members) is for the City to begin work as soon as possible to negotiate a service contract with Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA) as a bridge to near-term annexation. 137 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Pros and Cons of this approach were shared by the Committee as follows: PROS CONS Immediate service enhancements at a lower cost than the City could provide due to economies of scale (CARES unit, enhanced fire marshal services, public education) City determines service levels but loses cost control Necessary step toward ultimate Committee preference of annexation Cost is slightly more than status quo, but includes enhanced services IAFF Local 2088 preference City will only have a nonvoting seat on the PSRFA Board Response times unchanged City will not have benefit of Fire Benefit Charge Secures benefits of regionalization Difficult to reinstate municipal fire service if needed Annexation is the Committee's ultimate preference. Reasons stated included the City having a voting presence on the Board, the cost of fire service shifting off the City's budget, voters having a more direct voice in how fire service is funded, and further efficiencies associated with regionalization of fire/EMS. The Committee recognized that annexation is not a guaranteed outcome of a short-term service contract. The full text of the report as well as all background material associated with the Committee can be found here: https://www.tukwilawa.gov/departments/mayors-office/key-city-plans- and-projects/future-of-fire-ems-services/ PSRFA is interested in engaging with the City on this but has requested a very specific and short timeline, seeking City Council direction by July 15 and a contract negotiated by September 1 and effective January 1, 2023. If a decision is not reached, PSRFA has indicated they are not open to a contract starting mid -year and will set aside further discussions with the City of Tukwila for an indeterminate time. DISCUSSION This discussion has been scheduled to recap the Committee's recommendation with the benefit of all Councilmembers being present and identify a tentative schedule for next steps. Staff is seeking City Council input on information and resource needs to assist in decision- making. A tentative schedule is as follows: 5/23/22 Committee Report Delivered 6/6/22 Recap of report, discussion on next steps June TBD Work Session June TBD Work Session (if needed) 6/27/22 COW Discussion 7/11/22 COW Discussion/Consensus 138 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 As is the practice with other significant and ongoing policy discussions of the Council, staff will maintain a question -and -answer log to track and ensure follow-up as well as enhance transparency of the discussions for the public. This document will be updated following each discussion on the topic. Councilmembers are also invited to email questions to be added to the document at any time. June 17, 2022 Update The City Council convened a work session on June 13, 2022 to meet with Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority Chief Morris and ask questions about a potential partnership. The Council Question & Answer Log has been updated to include information about the Center for Public Safety Management Report's recommendations as well as additional detail regarding a fire benefit charge. Staff is seeking continued Council discussion at the June 27, 2022 Committee of the Whole meeting and a potential consensus decision provided at the July 11, 2022 Committee of the Whole. ATTACHMENTS Updated Council Question & Answer Log 139 140 Future of Fire/EMS Services Council Question Follow -Up & Parking Lot Date Councilmember Comment/Question/Item Response 1. 5/23/22 Sharp 2. 5/23/22 Sharp There was a Safety Bond that was in process for 79 million, there was talk if there was an overage. What was the final cost of relating to the bond? There is not an overage associated with the Public Safety Bond. Voters approved $79M, and the city did not have authority to spend beyond that. One fire station was removed from the total plan due to the increased costs in the construction market during that timeframe. The bond itself was contained to $79 million. What changed was what the City was able to construct within the constraint of $79 million. Are there details on what the bond spent it money on, can a breakdown be had for citizens to review? All information related to the bond is part of the public record and available to the community. Additional financial detail can be found in this December 9, 2019 memo to the Finance Committee. In addition, the City Council appointed an independent Financial Oversight Committee, and more information can be found at its webpage. 3. 5/23/22 Sharp 4. 5/23/22 Sharp What is the timeframe as far making the final decision on the process? What is in this process as to why the timeline is short? How many positions would need if the contract for service is adopted? Where are the positions allocated? PSRFA has asked for a decision by July 1, 2022, to allow time for their implementation process. The PSRFA Fire Chief did say a grace period to July 15, 2022, would still work if needed. The contract would affect all positions in Fire, including represented and non -represented. 5. 5/23/22 Sharp When will the Chief of Fire need to resign from their position if this transition takes place in July? The July date refers to a Council decision point, not when a transition would occur. Final disposition of all positions will be determined during the contract negotiation process. 6. 5/23/22 Sharp 7. 5/23/22 Sharp 8. 5/23/22 Sharp What happens to the Deputy Chief, will they also be asked to resign or be offered a position within Tukwila Fire? Will there be any support positions that the City of Tukwila will lose, like mechanics? Who will own the Tukwila Fire's assets, like the stations, fire -fighting equipment, and vehicles? Final disposition of all positions will be determined during the contract negotiation process. Final disposition of all positions will be determined during the contract negotiation process. Based on other contracts, equipment has been transferred to the RFA and stations have been retained by the city or agency. Final disposition of Updated 6/21/22 Updated 6/21/22 assets will be determined during the contract negotiation process; Council direction required here. 9. 5/23/22 Sharp Specifically, the equipment that has yet to be fully paid, who pays those items off? The City of Tukwila will retain the debt from the Public Safety Bond. The servicing of the Public Safety Bond funds used to build the new stations will still be the responsibility of the City of Tukwila. The equipment and apparatus discussed above has been paid. Final disposition of assets will be determined during the contract negotiation process. 10. 5/23/22 Sharp Who is responsible to replace those items, trucks, and equipment? This will be largely dependent on whether we annex to the PSRFA or are still under contract and subject to contract negotiations. 11. 5/23/22 Sharp Pensions and retirement for firefighter personnel, is that paid by the new authority completely? Pension and retirement is through the state LEOFF 2 system. The retired LEOFF 1 fire fighters will continue to be the responsibility of the City of Tukwila. 12. 5/23/22 Sharp Who will be responsible to service the vehicles for repair? Depending on contract negotiations, if the vehicles transfer, all maintenance and/or replacement could be the responsibility of the PSRFA. Alternatively, the City may choose to retain that service. 13. 5/23/22 Sharp Will the addition of fire stations be required and if so, is it replacement of an existing station or will they be stand alone built stations? How many? No additional fire stations are required. 14. 5/23/22 Sharp What will happen to the budget dollars that was allocated to fire, will that line item go away? They will be used to pay for the contract for services with the RFA. 15. 5/23/22 6/6/22 6/6/22 Sharp The cost for service, will this be separate line item, or will it just show up blended into a citizen's taxes? Under the contracting model, funds for fire service will continue to come from the City's general fund and will not be a separate assessment to taxpayers. 16. Hougardy, Kruller Hougardy Why can't we proceed immediately into an annexation process? Why does the RFA require a contract first? Do we have recourse if the contract goes long? PSRFA Chief Morris will be available to answer this question. 17. Ultimately that will depend on the contract negotiations. The current contracts for services that the PSRFA has provide a minimum of five years for contracting and a two-year notification for voluntary termination of the contract. Updated 6/21/22 18. 6/6/22 Hougardy The City has no seat at the table with a contract. Where is the assurance Current PSRFA contracts provide one ad hoc nonvoting member. This that this will not be a problem? will need to be resolved in contract negotiations. Chief Morris will be available to address this question. 19. 6/22 Kruller What is the cost variance between status quo, contract, and annexation? See Attachment 2, Cost Comparison of Options (presented at 5/3/22 CAC Meeting) 20. 6/6/22 Kruller, McLeod How would the recommendations from the CPSM Operational and See Attachment 7, Update on CPSM Report Recommendations Administrative Analysis be addressed via contract or annexation? 21. 6/6/22 Kruller How do I know that CARES and Fire Marshal enhanced services will be These will be addressed via the contract negotiations. included when I have heard at other times that will not be the case? 22. 6/6/22 Kruller What are the offramps with the contract? This will need to be resolved in contract negotiations. The current contracts for services that the PSRFA has require a minimum of two - years notice for voluntary termination of the contract. 23. 6/6/22 Kruller What triggers an annexation vote by the public and what does not? As it relates to a contract, this will need to be negotiated. Ultimately, both the governing board of the RFA and the City Council would need to act to put annexation out to a public vote. 24. 6/6/22 Kruller What are the top 3 reasons IAFF 2088 favors a contract? IAFF Local 2088 President Booth will be available to answer this question. 25. 6/6/22 McLeod What do we get back if we do not progress from a contract to This will depend on contract negotiations. annexation? 26. 6/6/22 McLeod What are the mechanics/roles associated with contract negotiations? Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on the best way to engage in contract negotiations and key terms assuming that the Council wants to move forward. 27. 6/7/22 McLeod Why did the Committee recommend PSRFA over Renton? See Attachment 3, CAC Survey Results 28. 6/13/22 Quinn Have the structural issues in the Fire Department budget been resolved, and if not, reiterate the ongoing budget challenge of funding basic services in a growing city over time. The Community Advisory Committee discussed this challenge from the very first meeting. The meeting packet includes a good summary of both the Fire Department's budget as well as the General Fund budget and associated structural challenge. 29. 6/13/22 McLeod Provide examples of how fire benefit charge would impact Tukwila See Attachment 8, Examples of Regional Fire Authority Levy plus Fire properties. Benefit Charge vs Tukwila Levy for Fire Services Updated 6/21/22 FN 1 FN 2 FN 3 FN 3a FN 9 Attachment A All Figures for Year 2022 and all are ESTIMATES Comparing Options 1 - 9 • Comparable Expenses FTE Count' Wages & Benefits 2 Admin Overhead Facilities/Capital Reserves/Overhead3 Other O&M3a Other Reserves9 Option 1 Status Quo 65 $12,474,164 $67,103 $113,077 $1,563,820 $0 Option 2 Status Quo Plus Enhancements 68 $12,999,008 $67,103 $113,077 $1,784,861 $0 Option 3 Tukwila Fire District w/Property Taxes 75 $13,665,337 $422,553 $113,077 $2,087,460 $1,590,000 Option 4 Tukwila Fire District w/Property Taxes & FBC 75 $13,665,337 $422,553 $113,077 $2,087,460 $1,590,000 Option 5 Partner w/another Fire Provider to Create Tukwila RFA w/FBC 75 $13,665,337 $422,553 $113,077 $2,087,460 $1,590,000 Option 6 Contract for Service w/Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA) 52 $9,462,749 $4,249,099 $850,409 $0 $0 Option 7 Contract for Service w/Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA) 52 $10,474,671 $2,886,778 Option 8 Annexation into Renton RFA Option 9 Annexation into Puget Sound RFA $621,468 $265,980 $650,000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $14,218,164 $14,964,049 $17,878,427 $17,878,427 $17,878,427 $14,562,257 $14,898,896 $14,419,396 $14,196,240 FN 3b Retained Costs (Items City will Continue to be Responsible for)3b FN 4 FN 4a FN 5 Debt Service on FS 51,52 Debt Service on FS 53,544 FMO Contract Cost4a LEOFF 1 TOTAL City -Retained Costs $1,870,128 $0 $0 $261,000 $2,131,128 $1,870,128 $0 $0 $261,000 $2,131,128 $1,870,128 $0 $900,000 $261,000 $3,031,128 $1,870,128 $0 $900,000 $261,000 $3,031,128 $1,870,128 $0 $900,000 $261,000 $3,031,128 $1,870,128 $0 $0 $261,000 $2,131,128 $1,870,128 $0 $0 $261,000 $2,131,128 $1,870,128 $0 $610,937 $261,000 $2,742,065 $1,870,128 $0 $840,377 $261,000 $2,971,505 Estimated Cost of Fire Depts Est Cost w/Enhanced Services One -Time Startup Costs $16,349,292 N/A $17,095,177 $17,095,177 $20,909,555 $21,655,440 $1,000,000 $20,909,555 $21,655,440 $1,000,000 $20,909,555 $21,655,440 $1,000,000 $16,693,385 Included $17,030,024 Included $17,161,461 Included $17,167,745 Included Offsetting Revenues General Fund FN 7 Revenue/Property Tax Equivalent' RFA/District Taxing Authority Fire Benefit Charge Excess Levy Debt Service on FS51/52 FN 8 LEOFF 18 FN 6 FMO Revenue6 Fees for Service/Ambulance Fee Policy CARES Funding EMS Levy Estimated Revenues5 FN 10 Add't Reserves for RFA1° FN 5 $13,390,964 $13,733,505 $5,583,105 $827,200 $827,200 $13,331,713 $13,668,352 $308,393 $537,833 $0 $0 $12,047,859 $8,031,906 $8,031,906 $0 $0 $7,228,715 $7,228,715 $0 $0 $0 $9,092,121 $9,092,121 $0 $0 $6,579,744 $6,127,147 $0 $0 $320,263 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $1,870,128 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $261,000 $302,544 $605,088 $302,544 $302,544 $302,544 $605,088 $605,088 $605,088 $605,088 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $0 $100,800 $0 $0 $0 $100,800 $100,800 $100,800 $100,800 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $500,656 $16,349,292 $17,095,177 $20,909,555 $20,909,555 $20,909,555 $16,693,385 $17,030,024 $17,478,524 $17,255,368 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $317,063 $87,623 Attachment A Notes: (1) FTEs differ depending on the option. Option 1 shows current Tukwila FD staffing. Option 2 assumes 2 FTE added for the Fire Marshal Office and also includes 1 FTE for Public Education. Options 3-5 remove the 3 FTE for enhanced services but add 10 FTE for the administrative staffing needed to support a stand alone agency. Contract Options 6 & 7 show 52 FTE: this is the number that the contract cost is based on; the contracting agencies would absorb all additional Tukwila fire staff and the city would pay for them through a share of other costs (overhead, etc.). In Options 8 & 9, all FTE are part of a larger agency already after the initial contracting phase. (2) Wages & Benefits. Option 2 data includes wages and benefits for the enhanced services FTEs. Employee costs are updated from the financial plan to assume Fire Marshal office staff are uniformed position, rather than civilian, and reflect an assumption that CARES unit will be contracted from an agency that now has a CARES unit. (3) Reserves/Overhead: Reserves shown are only those funded in the current city budget, not all the reserves in the financial plan. In Options 6 & 7, reserves are increased to reflect the contract bids which both would require the City contribute to various reserve funds as part of the contract cost. (3a) Other O&M. O&M is adjusted to reflect vehicles and equipment needs of additional staff. (3b) Retained Costs differ by option, in that the City must contract for Fire Marshal Office services under Options 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. Taxpayers will support this cost through their City Taxes. (4) Retained Costs: No cost is included for remodeling of Stations 53 and 54. (4a) FMO Contract Cost in Options 3-5 reflect the current FMO costs of the City Fire Dept. Accordingly, these costs were removed from Comparable Expenses for these options W/B as well as Admin OH. In Options 6 and 7, the costs are included in the contract fee. In Options 8 & 9, the costs are pulled from the contract bids. (5) Estimated Total Costs and Total Revenues do not include one time start-up costs of approximately $1mm (likely more, depending on structure). (6) FMO Revenue. Additional revenue can be expected from enhancement of the FMO. Under Option 2, adding the two FTE is assumed to increase FMO revenue by $300k. This higher amount of total FMO revenue is included in Options 6, 7, 8, and 9. (7) Assessed Value for Tukwila is assumed to be $8,031,906,000 (8) LEOFF 1 is a retained City cost under all options and will be funded through general city revenues. (9) Other Reserves includes $1.09mm in reserves plus a $5mm loan from City to be repaid over 10 years to fund working capital and cash flow needs. (10) Additional Reserves for RFA. These additional amounts reflect the fact that, as a part of a much larger agency, the expenses and revenues allocable to, or coming from Tukwila, don't necessarily line up exactly from year to year. Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee Options Rating Survey Option 1: Status Quo Number of responses: 10 Times Chosen 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 i2. 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 222 21 2 2 2 111° 1 111110 11 1 11110 0" '0 11100 0 0 0 "0' 0 101110 aej� a�� ' y\a �\��' ��° ` e� �\°�' o� e�\ of ��o �a`�� 4oAs z t a o J toJ` °. °o' „lc, e� ° ��w� \\cj \`oj ca`• ,c9 �� ‹,` o° o� oma �a, a'6. ta� 0 0 0 �` e �`�� a�` a� .0 .4 Ota GOJ 5'6a` o, P� P, -o ,co \e Lo O� Q,c �J -� • 5 = very positive • 2 = somewhat negative • 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative • 1 = very negative • 0 - Don't know Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option. Number of responses: 7 Text answers: Doesn't seem feasible or efficient. The City needs to prioritize the Fire Department and give it the resources it needs for it to be effective. It seems untenable that other departments and projects have been given budget far in excess of what has been allocated to the Fire Department and that important services such as fire inspections have been discontinued. I believe the fire fighters are not happy and would prefer leaving the City because funding of their services had not been made a priority. Additionally, they would receive better pay and benefits at PSRFA. Regarding funding sustainabiliy, the city seems to have a lot of money - revenues are back to pre -pandemic levels (as reported), an additional $40M is scheduled to be spent on the PW shops (original budget of $30M, new budget of — $80M), a new multi-million dollar teen/senior center is proposed, additional staff are being added to other departments. While the Status Quo option maintains the type and quality of service we have now, it does not provide fiscal sustainability for the city's budget (unless it is found that one fire station is not needed) or enhanced services for the city's population. It is very clear that this needs to change and perhaps different management would provide better oversight on the budget. 147 Financial sustainability and ability to meet the needs of a diverse community is of concern with this option. This options provides better local control at a very high total dollars cost --especially if enhanced services are added. A bigger pool of resources would assist with the diverse needs of the community. With time, ability of meeting needs of businesses will be affected without financial sustainability. There will be a negative impact on labor force recruitment and retention. The one goal all fire departments share is the desire to offer their community the highest quality services possible. Overall control over operational and financial services should be made by the most knowledgeable and experienced professionals in the fire services. This is not meant to criticize, just state facts. Since continually listening to council meetings for a couple years it is obvious to me that the council has their hands full. Much more so as the years have gone by. Very complicated and huge issues on their plates. It is also obvious to me that even council members with years on the council don't have a full understanding of the fire department. How could they with all that they have to deal with now. Operational and financial decisions should be made by the professionals most knowledgeable and experienced in the fire service. Quality of services and response times ( which are good ) would possibly be affected negatively without financial sustainability in the projected years to come. We need all the enhanced services and this option does not do anything to attain that. Remaining in the status quo does not solve financial sustainability issues in the future. Totally against this option. This option is simply not sustainable. I have heard some creative options on how to keep the fire department a float and wonder why these options were not previously even suggested or explored which tells me that they are not feasible. Option 2: Status Quo "Plus" - funding for enhanced services Number of responses: 9 Times Chosen 8 6 4 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 33 3 33 I 2 10100 2 2 2 2 2 2211111 1 1II 10 11 1110 00 ' 110 0"'0 "00 1111100 ,00 0'0 0 "' 0 0 �ae�� be' c. 5`a tc� t �° `� et �\°c °� e�,\ °t ��` �a`�� °s�,r\ e t a g ° J kQ sQ ��' °c 0� •aJ �a� a� �a> c1 • " a\°° aL` �c° �a °oma wa\� °-e Pte P'0 \.�Q L°� �,e Pc° `'J) 0 • 5 = very positive 2 = somewhat negative 148 • 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative • 1 = very negative • 0 - Don't know Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option. Number of responses: 5 Text answers: The Enhanced Services add ons would provide more of the specific services the city needs but the lack of fiscal sustainability is still a huge reason not to favor this option (unless it is found that one fire station is not needed). Left with the city continuing to manage this I'm concerned the same fiscal forecast will resurface and voters will be back to square one. And yet the positive aspect of this system of oversight makes the council very accountable to Tukwila voters but only if the voters are made aware of it and current councils do not kick the issue down the road. Ability to meet the needs of a diverse community is still a concern even with the addition of enhancement services. This option is slightly better than Option 1 but at an even higher, unsustainable cost. A bigger pool of resources would assist with the diverse needs of the community. With time, ability of meeting needs of businesses will be affected. There will be a negative impact on labor force recruitment and retention. The one goal all fire departments share is the desire to offer their community the highest quality services possible. Enhanced services would cost us more and we basically cannot afford it. The community would not receive ALL of these enhanced services as well. Overall control over operational and financial services should be made by the most knowledgeable and experienced personnel in the fire services. Quality of services and response times ( which are good ) would possibly be affected negatively without financial sustainability in the projected years to come. Accountability and measuring outcomes would possibly deteriorate in the years to come. Overall control over operational and financial services should be made by the most knowledgeable and experienced professionals in the fire services. Remaining in the status quo does not solve financial sustainability issues in the future nor does paying additional monies for enhanced services. Again, I fear that if we try to do the enhanced services ourselves, we will be in worse shape than we were with just status quo. Why reinvent the wheel. 149 Option 3: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded solely by property taxes (no Fire Benefit Charge) Number of responses: 9 Times Chosen 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 33 3 33 3 2112:2110 111010 111110 11 010 0 0 0 0 22 1 111110 0 0 0 4 4 4 Ii 0 000 e c a h o J -4\a ,\a °may of o� • w� k° °� N§sO co to c, �a`o ec a�� ` �� to ,c.Q y �c(2` °� \o4 QJ �a,0 ap aQ . \°° aL` ��° tai\ °�° tial °,et P�\ P�\ °,k7:, �� °� Ore Pc,° '7 �.'\ • 5 = very positive • 2 = somewhat negative • 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative • 1 = very negative 0 - Don't know Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option. Number of responses: 6 Text answers: How much more can we ask the public to fund from property taxes? Not feasible. I don't fully understand this option but what I think I heard in the meetings is that this option wouldn't produce sufficient revenue to sustain the fire service. Option 3 doesn't improve the quality or type of service provided by the fire department, as the enhanced services are not included, and could even cause a decline (unless it is found that one fire station is not needed). It simply costs too much (even without the enhanced services) and is not fiscally sustainable. It also maintains a reduced share of the costs for properties at greater risk of needing fire services. I think this is a bad time for the government to ask more of taxpayers. And it seems that there has to be some unnecessary overhead costs involved in going back to the voters year after year asking them to secure funding for a very basic government service. This option still doesn't fully address the ability to meet the needs of a diverse community. Sustainability of funding depends heavily on property tax and overtime, the cost would still overrun the revenue from property tax + city revenue. 150 This option is slightly better than Opt's 1 & 2 but is only sustainable from a cost standpoint if citizens vote for property tax lid lifts for fire/public safety. Also, it cost significantly more and still leaves the cost equally shared between residential, multi -family, and business while the cost generations are not equal. Meeting needs of diverse community would be status quo. Meeting needs of business community could reduce in time with this option. This option too expensive. Labor force does not support this option. The professionals with the most knowledge and experience in the fire service should be making the decisions on operations and finances. No enhanced services with this option. Not a good option for financial sustainability. This option very low in my opinion. Option 4: Create a Tukwila Fire District, funded by both property taxes and a Fire Benefit Charge Number of responses: 9 Times Chosen 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 33 33 3 3 3 II2 222 2211111 1 111 10110 1010 0 0 00 1010 1110 III 010 11110 011010 0 eta eta • �a `\�� k° `� et • �\°� e�, t Jam` 0a\�4o °J\ . e t a y o J S° i° ‹'‘C o \ao ,ec Ja�.w1 �\\� �\�� taw �`�� Q �.�� a�o°ya`°0 t• -.4 e�0° `os). c�a ��`a °eta <5-0 t a J a J es Q -o ,o \�� Lo o, es �J �� • 5= very positive * 2= somewhat negative • 4= somewhat positive • 3= neither positive or negative • 1= very negative • 0- Don't know Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option. Number of responses: 4 Text answers: The projected costs in this scenario are high - would it really cost $2.6M (per Attachment A - $1 M additional salary and benefit, addition $730K for Admin Overhead and $900K for FMO - these costs are included in the wages and benefits of Option 1) to fund the finance department and other administrative services for a Tukwila RFA? If the City were paid to provide these services, it would be added revenue to them. If the City is looking for a financing vehicle, similar to the MPD, this seems the way to go. Regarding sustainability, the FBC would need to be voted on periodically (every 10 years?) and the voters may need to vote to finance apparatus purchases. 151 I have the same reservations about Option 4 as Option 3 but see that the Fire Benefit Charge is a step in the right direction for funding stability and distributing the costs for higher risk properties. This Option is slightly better than Opt 3 because it also includes a Fire Benefit Charge possibility that distributes cost more fairly. It is still very costly. No enhanced services and would cost more dollars to attain them. This option more expensive. Possibility of needs of business community not being met in time. Relies on voter approval. Labor force does not support this option. Supports enhanced services. Am not in favor of this option at all. Option 5: Partner with another fire service provider to create a Tukwila Regional Fire Authority --- with a Fire Benefit Charge Number of responses: 9 Times Chosen 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 11 3 3 33 3 31 33 222 Ili 2 2 222 2 22 211 1 1 1 0 00 '000 '0 0' '00 110100 0 0 0 011110 0 erwo6'.6' ir �,. \a`\��: �° `� :. et (1) e-4\ k eS r ��`. ` Ca`�� °k�r� e •t a g o ,. t°cc , t°, C• ° �a0 0� a�`C� \ \\� Car Oke oke c2 o� \°, 0. Lam a° ta\ ib• 64 <a a O�• et °0 o 5` P� P�o ,ko \fie Lo 0 P• `, \-\` • 5 = very positive • 2= somewhat negative • 4= somewhat positive • 3= neither positive or negative 1= very negative • 0- Don't know Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option. Number of responses: 4 Text answers: Similar comments as Option 3. I have the same reservations as Options 4 and 3 and the same positive opinion that the Fire Benefit Charge is a step in the right direction for funding stability and distributing the costs for higher risk properties. Maybe accountability would improve with more eyes on the issue? 152 000 00 This Option is similar to Opt 4 except the City gives up some control. It is still very costly and requires voter approval of funding increases. I fear meeting the needs of a diverse community would not be a priority with all that would have to be worked out starting a RFA. Starting your own RFA would incur costs such as IT support, payroll administrations, personnel server ( a very complicated issue ) , apparatus maintenance and financially planning for future apparatus replacement and station maintenance and replacement of station 54 for example. This option too expensive as well. Option 6: Contract for Service with Renton RFA Number of responses: 9 6 Times Chosen 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 2 12110 0 11 2 10 0 1 1 1 0110 121 1 2 1 0 0 01 10 212 122 11 ll 0 0 il 10 01 110 0 aet� .•\6Q' ()c 5`a t•\�� os °e et �\o�. o` et,\ oO` 4\ a`�� 4o°fir e t a Co Q of �to�` Qt0 `off apo eto \�� \\� \`� tam\ o� o` oy °� \off \Qoa �°` map` ta\\ w .0 �� wa�� aZ` ��t° et a\ o° O"' �ta\ �,-.4z1 e • 5= very positive • 2= somewhat negative • 4= somewhat positive • 3= neither positive or negative 1= very negative S 0 - Don't know Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option. Number of responses: 5 Text answers: Doesn't sound like Renton is interested in this option, so that negates any potential positives of this option. No going back if this option is selected. No control over service delivery other than through contracting specifications. Expensive in comparison with status quo. Firefighters would most likely prefer this arrangement to status quo - different management, better benefits and pay. This option really doesn't change anything about fiscal sustainability for the better. I appreciate that enhanced services are provided. 153 A contract requires the City to transfer Fire staff and equipment to RFA. If, for some reason the costs or services are not satisfactory how does the City go forward to provide Fire Services? The City's negotiating position is rather terrible. This option is totally unacceptable. Providing to a diverse community not as accessible as PSRFA. The pool of resources are not as varied and extensive. Enhanced Services not as developed. Our area is so unique with the residential population compared to the 100,000 plus population that comes to Tukwila during the day for business hence experienced in providing for the needs of a large business community. It is hard to compare Renton with this. They are more residential obviously. Contract required before annexation. More expensive for us that way. Impact on labor force, Renton RFA is not the preferential option for TFD personnel. They are not rated as "excellent" like PSRFA. Professionals with the most experience and knowledge in the fire service should have control over the operational and financial decisions. Am unaware of the overall quality of services from Renton Fire. There is more to this than just response times. Enhanced services purchased ( Comparing Options 1-9 under service levels, option 6) and unaware of quality of their enhanced services. Their needs are definitely different than ours. Considered a ladder to financial sustainability but would take much longer than PSRFA. Overall I would pick this option AFTER PSRFA with and without a contract. Option 7: Contract for Service with Puget Sound RFA Number of responses: 9 Times Chosen 8 7 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 3 111100 2 22 2 2 2222 111100 111110 000 0 000 11'0 11000 ' " 0 j� atw �: •�a c•` c(-' �° oe et �\oc. ec;\: t ��`: `� cac� °``ter\: e t a o .� toy i0 `o \ao et aoN \�w� \\� saw 0Z. • e \C's ct ama� \`ae \ ° 4, 0 46 \ace``�`�oo\< L OP P oP • 5= very positive • 2= somewhat negative • 4= somewhat positive • 3= neither positive or negative • 1 = very negative • 0- Don't know Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option. Number of responses: 5 Text answers: 154 No control over decision making so no control over cost containment or service levels. However, Renton's profile is more similar to Tukwila's that Puget Sound's is (complex city, not a lot of rural area) and they seem to be more cost conscious. They are a smaller organization and may be more willing to partner with Tukwila - more of a peer relationship than a top down relationship. I have not heard that they want to close fire station 52, so this is a plus in my opinion This option really doesn't change anything about fiscal sustainability for the better. I appreciate that enhanced services are provided. This Option is more costly (in the short term) than Opt 6 and is equally, totally unacceptable for the same reasons. Have more resources and a bigger pool to draw from to provide for a diverse community and having the enhanced services will benefit this criteria immensely. ( Different language's available, CARES, Public Education, Fire Prevention and PIO ( Public Information Officer for media etc. ) Additional resources would be available with this option benefiting businesses. It is a fair practice to determine the level of combustible materials in businesses as compared to a home owner and what would be needed for services. Labor force supports this option. Control over operational and financial decisions should be made by the professionals most experienced and knowledgeable regarding the fire service. Quality of services is already good and can only get better with enhanced services. The PSRFA has a great reputation and excellent rating. This RFA has been in operation for over a decade and has established accountability and measuring of outcomes. This is the best option for sustainability of funding due to sharing of resources, only paying one Chief and getting all three enhanced services. TFD is already participating with PSRFA in training, Zone 3 operations ,fleet maintenance and the Fire Marshalls office. This is a definitely an advantage to joining PSRFA with already established operations. This is my next choice of options if we cannot immediately annex into PARFA I think in order to get to annexation we are going to have do have a contract first. If not, how do we get to annexation without having to fund the fire department for another at least two years? 155 Option 8: Annex into Renton RFA (after first entering into a service contract) Number of responses: 9 Times Chosen 8 7 7 6 6 4 44 0 Saes Saes �`'\ae o�koi oQeta ok� koc° °kkJ ��o °0,c° °��to o�y eo a� \o ec \QJa� �a°� �a��c ta\�a • a\e e ao- ,6 tai °oma way ore P� P�°� \�Q cow O -e Peo `'�� 32 100 ' '00 ' 000 0"00 4 111000 11 0000'000 0 110 5 4 4 • 5 = very positive • 2 = somewhat negative • 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative ® 1 = very negative • 0 - Don't know Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option. Number of responses: 5 Text answers: Renton doesn't sound interested, so this is not a viable option. No control over decision making so no control over cost containment or service levels. However, Renton's profile is more similar to Tukwila's that Puget Sound's is (complex city, not a lot of rural area) and they seem to be more cost-conscious. They are a smaller organization and may be more willing to partner with Tukwila - more of a peer relationship than a top-down relationship. I have not heard that they want to close fire station 52, so this is a plus in my opinion but of course, they could decide this later unilaterally. No recourse if this option doesn't work. Voter's may not agree - property taxes have doubled in the last 5 years and their is some discontent about how the PSP was handled. This positives aspects of this option are it 1) provides a secure source of funding outside of the city's responsibility, thus making the fire departments expenses sustainable, 2) provides enhanced services that are better able to serve the most common EMS needs of our residential and business communities, 3) comes in at a reasonable cost when compared to some of the options 3, 4, and 5 and is comparable to the other options, and 4) provides a FBC which distributes the cost of fighting a fire more equitably. This option provides excellent service combined with sustainable, equitable costs. It is acceptable to me. 156 Providing to a diverse community not as accessible as PSRFA. The pool of resources are not as varied and extensive. Enhanced Services not as developed. Our area is so unique with the residential population compared to the 100,000 plus population that comes to Tukwila during the day for business hence experienced in providing for the needs of a large business community. It is hard to compare Renton with this. They are more residential obviously. Contract required before annexation. Impact on labor force, Renton RFA is not the preferential option for TFD personnel. They are not rated as "excellent" like PSRFA. Professionals with the most experience and knowledge in the fire service should have control over the operational and financial decisions. Am unaware of the overall quality of services from Renton Fire. There is more to this than just response times. Considered a ladder to financial sustainability but would take much longer than PSRFA. Overall I would pick this option 3rd after PSRFA with and without a contract. Option 9: Annex into Puget Sound RFA (after first entering into a service contract Number of responses: 9 Times Chosen 10 8 8 7 6 1 6 6 6 5 44 4 3 2 122 2 2222 22 2 1 1 1 1 111 '000, ,0,00 i11111 .0 ,0000 10 110 '100 11111 11000 110010 0 �e: c` �' ae�\��. otoe ta'`° ySy ep;\ °J�` kJ0a`�% o`�R• r\: \aet ,\ae o�5` oil ode �o s�o' ok `dao c°, Quo �a� �e� Ja •o�� o�� oto �Q o� 0,c,`"‘y o� �° �Q sa �a ca •t� . ' a\a� 0° ta\ oJ� yea\ 0 Pp`` 0\ ,So'` W�� Low o Qc° �J �.� • 5= very positive • 2= somewhat negative • 4 = somewhat positive • 3 = neither positive or negative 1 = very negative • 0 - Don't know Comments: please provide some commentary about your overall rating of this option. Number of responses: 7 Text answers: This makes sense, as we would have the enhanced services, as well as partnering with a well-established RFA. We can start with a contract, and then build the program over a couple of years. The City would lose control over decision-making and thus control over costs and services; PSRFA has stated they would eliminate fire station 52 which would adversely impact City safety, especially for those who live on Tukwila Hill (in the FS 52 area, 3 people lost their lives due to fire in 2021 and several families, 37 - 40, were 157 displaced due to another fire in 2020 - examples of the fire threat and consequences); PSRFA costs are high compared with Renton and in general. Since the PSRFA's FBC is permanent, they have the ability to continue to increase costs in tandem with property values increases, and again, the City would have no control over this. Tukwila is a more dense, complex city compared with the PSRFA area - we do not have large areas of sparsely populated, rural land; we do have a huge gas line that extends east/west beneath the central business district and other high risk situations - and would be better served by Renton RFA if the decision is made to annex. My first choice continues to be the status quo with a more robust FMO (could this be contracted out? Fire inspections are a high priority), Cares services from Renton (cost would be covered by the $100K from King County) and contracted educational services or use of City's existing communication group. As with Option 8 the positives aspects of Option 9 are it 1) provides a secure source of funding outside of the city's responsibility, thus making the fire departments expenses sustainable, 2) provides enhanced services that are better able to serve the most common EMS needs of our residential and business communities, 3) comes in at a reasonable cost when compared to some of the options 3, 4, and 5 and is comparable to the other options, and 4) provides a FBC which distributes the cost of fighting a fire more equitably. Additionally, it seems to be what the fire fighters want as it will probable provide higher wages and better working conditions/hours per week and has a FBC that does not have to go back to the voters for approval, making it more sustainable. With a larger consortium with shared personnel, there is greater ability to meet the needs of a large and diverse community. This option gives me more confidence in meeting this criteria. Additionally, it would provide the most impact on the labor force by having more personnel on duty at one time to alleviate the hardship experience by firefighters. This option and the contract into PSRFA are my top two options. This option also provides excellent service combined with sustainable, equitable costs. It is my first choice for two reasons. First, our FF's prefer it. Second, the PSFA provides service to Seatac which is a neighboring city and we can logically share fire stations. It is acceptable to me. Have more resources and a bigger pool to draw from to provide for a diverse community and having the enhanced services will benefit this criteria immensely. ( Different language's available, CARES, Public Education, Fire Prevention and PIO ( Public Information Officer for media etc. ) Their enhanced services are established and have a good reputation. They will also share in Hazardous Material operations, Technical Rescue ( Water and Rope ) for example because they are already established in our region. Additional resources would be available with this option benefiting businesses. It is a fair practice to determine the level of combustible materials in businesses as compared to a home owner and what would be needed for services. Labor force supports this option. Control over operational and financial decisions should be made by the professionals most experienced and knowledgeable regarding the fire service. Easier for a dedicated entity to plan for future knowing requirements needed. Quality of services is already good and can only get better with enhanced services. The PSRFA has a great reputation and excellent rating. This RFA has been in operation for over a decade and has established accountability and measuring of outcomes. This is the best option for sustainability of funding due to sharing of resources, only paying one Chief and getting all three enhanced services. TFD is already participating with PSRFA in training ( very important) , Zone 3 operations ,fleet maintenance and the Fire Marshalls office. This is a definitely an advantage to joining PSRFA with already established operations. This is my first choice option. 158 I think this is the way to go. My only worry, as I said in the contract option, is we have to figure out how to fund fire while we move to annexation. Also, the only way this will work is with full support of the union, the administration, and the council. 159 160 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee Weighted Averages Ability of provider to meet needs of diverse community Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract Enhanced Services District - Property Taxes District + RFA - with with Renton Fire Benefit other RFA Charge agency Option 7: Option 8: Option 9: Contract Annex to Annex to with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound Sound RFA RFA Ability of provider to meet needs of large business community Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Enhanced District - Services Property Fire Benefit Taxes Charge Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Option 7: Option 8: Option 9: Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract Contract Annex to Annex to District + RFA - with with Renton with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound other RFA Sound RFA RFA agency page 1 of 5 161 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 162 2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee Weighted Averages Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Enhanced District - Services Property Fire Benefit Taxes Charge i Option 4: Tukwila Fire District + Option 5: Option 6: Tukwila Fire Contract RFA - with with Renton other RFA agency Option 7: Contract with Puget Sound RFA Impact on labor force, recruitment and retention Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Enhanced District - Services Property Taxes Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract District + RFA - with with Renton Fire Benefit other agency RFA Charge Option 7: Contract with Puget Sound RFA Option 8: Option 9: Annex to Annex to Renton RFA Puget Sound RFA Option 8: Option 9: Annex to Annex to Renton RFA Puget Sound RFA page 2 of 5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee Weighted Averages Control over operational and financial decisions Option 1: Status Quo Option 2: Option 3: Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Enhanced District - Services Property Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract District + RFA - with with Renton Option 7: Option 8: Option 9: Contract Annex to Annex to with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound Fire Benefit other agency RFA Sound RFA Taxes Charge Overall quality of services (response times and more) Option 1: Status Quo Option 2: Option 3: Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Enhanced District - Services Property Taxes Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract District + RFA - with with Renton Fire Benefit other agency RFA Charge RFA Option 7: Option 8: Option 9: Contract Annex to Annex to with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound Sound RFA RFA page 3 of 5 163 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 164 2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee Weighted Averages Accountability for outcomes/ ability to measure outcomes Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract Enhanced District - District + Fire RFA - with with Renton Services Property Benefit other agency RFA Taxes Charge Sustainability of funding i Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Status Quo Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Enhanced District - Services Property Taxes Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract District + RFA - with with Renton Fire Benefit other agency RFA Charge Option 7: Contract with Puget Sound RFA Option 7: Contract with Puget Sound RFA Option 8: Option 9: Annex to Annex to Renton RFA Puget Sound RFA Option 8: Option 9: Annex to Annex to Renton RFA Puget Sound RFA page 4 of 5 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2022 Survey Results: Tukwila Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee Weighted Averages My overall rating of this option Option 1: Status Quo Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Status Quo + Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Tukwila Fire Contract Enhanced District - District + Fire RFA - with with Renton Services Property Benefit other agency RFA Taxes Charge Option 7: Option 8: Option 9: Contract Annex to Annex to with Puget Renton RFA Puget Sound Sound RFA RFA page 5 of 5 165 166 City of Tukwila Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee Survey Results Summary Total Reponses: 10 Numbers reflect Weighted Average by Response - 5 = 5 points, 1 = 1 point # Questions Option 1: Status Quo Option 2: Status Quo + Enhanced Services Option 3: Tukwila Fire District - Property Taxes Option 4: Tukwila Fire District + Fire Benefit Charge Option 5: Tukwila Fire RFA - with other agency Option 6: Contract with Renton RFA Option 7: Contract with Puget Sound RFA Option 8: Annex to Renton RFA Option 9: Annex to Puget Sound RFA 1 Ability of provider to meet needs of diverse community 3.6 3.8 3.1 3.7 3.7 3.3 4.5 3.9 4.6 2 Ability of provider to meet needs of large business community 3.8 4.1 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.2 4.6 3 Total costs, considering both costs to residents and businesses 2.9 2.2 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.6 4 Impact on labor force, recruitment and retention 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 3.0 4.0 3.9 4.9 5 Control over operational and financial decisions 4.3 4.1 3.6 3.9 3.7 2.6 3.1 3.0 2.9 6 Overall quality of services (response times and more) 4.1 4.1 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.4 7 Accountability for outcomes/ ability to measure outcomes 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.7 2.6 3.2 2.8 3.2 8 Sustainability of funding 1.8 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.8 3.8 4.3 My overall rating of this option 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.8 3.6 4.1 Cells are shaded to denote the two highest (green) and two lowest (peach) ratings in each row. Overview/Recap of the Approaches that the Two RFAs have taken in Existing Service Contracts April 2022 Item Puget Sound RFA Renton RFA Contract Bid given to Tukwila Note: these numbers are preliminary, subject to refinement and negotiation $14.2M • There may be an opportunity to reduce the PSRFA reserves cost since the City's equipment, apparatus and 2 of 4 facilities are in very good shape $14.4M • we know RRFA's number exclude some costs— particularly some labor costs and dispatch costs Who else does the RFA contract with? Maple Valley Fire District City of SeaTac Fire District 40 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 department employees? They all go to the RFA, except the Chief and possibly the deputy chief. Staff transferred retain rank and do 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 City go 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 contract term be? How soon could the City terminate if it wanted to? Note: The terms are subject to negotiation. The Sea Tac contract& Maple Valley contracts are for 20 years. They cannot be terminated in the first five years except for material breach. Thereafter, voluntary termination requires 2 years advance notice The FD 40 contract is for 20 years. It cannot be terminated in the first 8 years except or material breach. Thereafter, voluntary termination requires 3 years advance notice. What do the contracts say about annexation? Note: this would be a topic for negotiation The contracts do not make reference to annexation. The contract with FC 40 does not make any reference to annexation What do the contracts say about what happens to firefighters if the City ends the contract? Note: the terms are subject to negotiation. The City is required to make the RFA whole for some accrued employee costs. If the termination happens after the first 7 years but before the first 15 years of the contract, and: • the City re-establishes its fire department, Not discussed since no FD 40 employees were transferred as part of the current contract. 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. Payments SeaTac is invoiced quarterly. There is an annual true -up in the contract amount if 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. Semi-annual invoices. No true -up of expenses. Title to stations, apparatus Apparatus title is transferred. Equipment is transferred. These could be sold back to the original entity. Facilities are leased or transferred 170 Fire Benefit Charge—Deeper Dive Prepared for Future of Fire/EMS Community Advisory Committee / Meeting 5 / February 15, 2022 What's a Fire Benefit Charge? A Fire Benefit Charge (FBC) is an alternative supplemental funding mechanism governed by Chapter 52.18 RCW. Unlike the property tax, which is based on the value of both building structures and land, the FBC is imposed only on the improvements to real property and must be reasonably apportioned using a formula that considers the amount of services required to serve these properties. Only parcels with improvements are subject to the Benefit charge. The FBC does not take into consideration the value of the improvements. If a FBC is imposed, the General (Fire) Property Tax levy cannot exceed $1.00 per $1,000 (rather than $1.50 if there is no FBC). The Benefit Charge does not affect the EMS levy rate an agency may impose.' Before it can be imposed, a FBC must be voter approved (60% favorable vote, without validation). Collections can be increased by the Board of Commissioners from year to year without voter approval but cannot exceed 60% of the agency operating budget. There is no 1% cap on the amount that can be collected year to year as is true with property tax. The initial FBC is authorized for six years and needs to be reapproved by voters every six years. The reauthorization requires a simple majority vote. Recent changes in state law allow voters to approve 10 year or permanent reauthorizations of the FBC- but these require 60% approval. Annually, the board of fire commissioners sets the amount to be collected from the FBC and confirms the formula. The total revenue collected from the FBC cannot exceed 60% of the operating budget. Typically, the basic formula approach stays the same, but the total collected increases to address the shortfalls in the budget not addressed by property tax. So, what's the formula? The basic formula is somewhat inscrutable to the average person, but it is based on a nationally accepted approach to calculate the amount of fire flow needed to put out a structure. Specifically, FBC formulas typically include the following components: A. The Square Footage of improvements B. Fire Flow (SQRT(Sq. Ft.) x 18) – incorporating square footage C. Structure Category Weight Factor D. Cost per gallon E. Discounts (sprinklers, seniors and low income) An oversimplified formula is presented below: Square Footage x Fire Flow x Cost per Gallon x Structure Category Weight Factor x Discount or Additional Risk Charge = FBC 1 If there is a County EMS levy—as in King County—local fire agencies cannot impose their own EMS levy. 32 171 Walk me through this...how is my cost determined? The major driver of the FBC for any property owner is the size of the improvements on their property, and the category of structure type (residential, commercial, etc.). Square Footage This information is from the County assessor and includes not only primary residences/structures (including garage), but outbuildings on property as well. Fire Flow Fire Flow is the gallons of water required to put out a fire. It is calculated based on the formula SQRT(Sq. Ft.) x 18. (square root of the square footage of improvements multiplied by 18). This is a nationally recognized formula for calculating fire flow. (Ref: NFPA Handbook, 18th Ed., Ch 6, Water Flow Requirements for Fire Protection) Structure Categories & Weights Once the structure categories are identified, they are refined by the application of a weighting factor. Each category is assigned a weighted value that results in a targeted and defined portion of the benefit charge. In other words, the structure category weights define how much of the total benefit charge will be paid by each structure category. Sample categories: Single Family Residential Mobile Home Multi Family Small commercial Medium commercial Large commercial Cost Per Gallon The cost per gallon is determined by dividing the total fire flow by the Dollar amount of the Benefit Charge. Discount or Additional Risk Charge Statutes allow for discounts for structures that have sprinkler systems. By statute, senior and low income discounts are also applied. Some agencies have additional risk charges for particularly hazardous structures — for example, commercial gas storage. Exemptions State law exempts various types of property entirely from the FBC, such as, schools, church's, public and nonprofit low income housing, and government structures. 172 33 An oversimplified picture of how the FBC comes together 1. Identify categories of structures you will use in your FBC formula. Typical set below 2. Identify square footage and type of each structure in your jurisdiction and place it in the appropriate category 3. Determine the weighting for each category (Board sets the weights) 4. Identify any discounts applicable to the property — Sprinklers? Identify any risk surcharges 5. Do the math! Sample list: County assessor Weights increase with County assessor Determine the bill for Mobile Home records provide the size and complexity records provide this each structure. Single Family Residential this information of structure use. It's not always a straight line— some small commercial establishments may have an FBC very much like a single family residence. The weighting reflects the additional resources that are needed to put out a fire at these different types of structures information Multi family Small commercial Medium commercial Large commercial • Bills for an FBC are sent once a year by the County Assessor as part of the property tax statement (although the FBC is a fee not a tax). • An agency with an FBC must have an annual appeals process, similar to a property tax appeal process, but run locally by the agency imposing the fee, rather than the county assessor. 34 What's the end result of using an FBC? 1. Agencies that would otherwise be wholly dependent on property taxes and periodic lid lifts can stabilize their revenues to meet costs as economic conditions and demand changes year to year, without going back to voters. Stability of revenues stabilizes service levels. 2. Total revenue collections can exceed the amount that would otherwise be collected by maximum property tax rates for a fire agency that doesn't have an FBC. 3. With an FBC, cities who are within a fire district or RFA can retain more property tax capacity for their own use (since the fire agency's property tax capacity is reduced in exchange for being able to impose an FBC. 4. Overall, the agency collects more revenue from larger, more complex structures than it does from single family homes. In other words, the FBC shifts costs to multi -family and larger commercial properties, and away from small single family residential homes. Most FBC formulas and structure classifications used in Puget Sound are fairly similar. What communities/fire service providers in our area have a fire benefit charge? • Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (Covington, Kent, Maple Valley & SeaTac) • Renton Regional Fire Authority • Valley Regional Fire Authority (Algona, Auburn, Pacific) • King County Fire District 36 (Woodinville) • North Highline Fire District (south of Seattle city limits) • Northshore Fire Department (Kenmore and Lake Forest Park) • Snoqualmie Pass Fire & Rescue • Shoreline Fire Department • Central Pierce Fire & Rescue • King County Fire District 10 (Carnation, May Valley, Tiger Mountain, Preston) • South County Fire (Lynnwood) 174 35 Fire District/RFA finances with an RFA — simple Illustration: Cost of maintaining service over time Amount collected by FBC Property Tax levy lid lift Amount collected by $1.00 max property tax Time Note that even with an FBC, an agency will want to periodically seek a property tax lid lift to restore purchasing power of its fire levy, and keep FBC collections within a preferred range (and under the 60% operating budget max.) 36 175 Contract Considerations • Term • Termination • Annexation Timeframe • Costs • Services/Level of Service • Public Records • Governance • Offramps • Personnel • Equipment/Apparatus • Fire Stations/Land • Facilities Maintenance (inside/outside) • Any other issues from the City Council 176 Center for Public Safety Management (CPSM) Report Recommendations Prepared for the City of Tukwila City Council June 27, 2022 Overview of the CPSM Report 37 — General Recommendations in the CPSM Report 9 - Revenue Enhancements & Reduction in Overtime Recommendations 9 - Considerations for Reduction of Overtime Expenditures Introduction Many of the recommendations from the CPSM report have been implemented by the City of Tukwila. The majority of the remaining recommendations can be addressed in a Contract for Services with an RFA. Both Renton and Puget Sound have the resources and programs to immediately implement recommendations. Status of the 37 General Recommendations 13 - Currently Implemented as of June 2II22 10 - Related to Enhanced Services: Fire Marshal Office (FMO) Community Assistance Referrals and Education Services (CARES) Public Education program 12 - Related to Organizational Process 2 - Have Significant Labor Challenges What 13 Recommendations are Currently Implemented 4 - Use Operation Staff to Manage Programs 8 — Quality Review for Reports (Medical & Fire) 16 — Non -emergent Responses (Yellow) 22 — Company Fire Investigation (Tukwila & PSRFA Joint Fire Investigation Unit) 23 — Utilize BrycerTM Software (FMO) 27 — South King County Fire Training Consortium Program 28 — Training Program 31 — Health & Fitness Program 32 — After Action Reviews 33 — Civilian Emergency Management 34 — Update Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) 35 — Staff Training on WebEOC — Web -based Emergency Operations Center 36 — Develop City Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) What 10 Involve Enhanced Services (FMO -CARES -Public Education) 11 -Community Risk Reduction (Both RFAs) 12 — Pre -Fire Plans (Both RFAs) 13 — Pre -Fires on Mobile Terminals (Both RFAs) 14 — Seek Accreditation (PSRFA is accredited & Renton is in process) 17 — CARES Program (Both RFAs) 18 —Reduce Benefits to Pay for CARES staffing (County Funding exists) 21 —Company Inspection Program 24 —Civilian FMO Staff (Renton is civilian) — (PSRFA is Hybrid) 25 —Civilian Fire Marshal (Renton) 26 —Public Education Program (Both RFAs) What 12 Involve Organizational Process Change 2 — Increase Work Hours, Reduce K Days (4 -Platoon Schedule (Both RFAs)) 5 — Require Degrees for Promotions (Renton RFA) 6 — Use Evaluations for Promotions 7 — Perform Routine Audit of Telestaff 9 — Co -Utilization of Units (Regionalization (Both RFAs)) 10 — Roving Units (Closest Unit Dispatch Program (Zone 3/Dispatch)) 15 — Minimum Staffing of 12 (Term of Contract) 19 — Reduce Sick Leave (Rebound Program (Both RFAs)) 20 — Performance Measures (NFPA 1710) 29 — Physical Fitness Testing (Life Scan (Both RFAs)) 30 — Annual Medical Physicals (Life Scan (Both RFAs)) 37 — Auto -Dispatch Private Ambulance (Ambulance Availability (Zone 3/Dispatch) Significant Labor Challenges These two recommendations would involve collective bargaining with the Union. 1 — Part-time, on-call Staff 3 —Reduce Overtime Eligibility (Overtime currently defined in CBA) Attachment for Tukwila Future of Fire/EMS Services Examples of Regional Fire Authority Levy plus Fire Benefit Charge vs Tukwila Levy for Fire Services Tukwila funds fire services mainly through its property tax levy. Currently that is approximately $1.90/$1,000 of Assessed Value. For example, in the table below, in Example #1, a $350,000 Assessed Value Residential home of 1,120 square feet pays the equivalent of $664.83 per year in property taxes for fire services. Both Regional Fire Authorities charge a reduced property tax levy and also have a voter approved Fire Benefit Charge which assesses costs based on several factors such as fire risk and square footage. Their property tax levy rate is limited to not exceed $1.00/$1,000 Assessed Value. For the same Example #1, the Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA), charges an approximate $0.90 Property Tax Levy for a property Tax Levy of $315.00 per year and a Fire Benefit Charge of $160.62 per year, for a combined total cost of $475.62. This is a decrease of overall costs for this residential home of $189.21 per year. Other examples are shown changing the Assessed Value, Square Footage, and Type of Structure (Residential, Commercial, and Apartment). Ex. Tukwila Levy Rate of $1.90/1,000 AV for Fire Services Tukwila Property Assessed Square Equivalent Type Value Footage Levy Rate Puget Sound Regional Fire Authority (PSRFA) Fire Levy Total Rate at PSRFA $0.90 FBC Cost Increase / (Decrease) Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA) Fire Levy Total Rate at RRFA $0.90 FBC Cost Increase / (Decrease) 1 Residential 350,000 1,120 664.83 315.00 160.62 475.62 (189.21) 315.00 172.65 487.65 (177.18) 2 Residential 350,000 2,070 664.83 315.00 218.36 533.36 (131.47) 315.00 234.71 549.71 (115.12) 3 Residential 500,000 2,240 949.75 450.00 227.14 677.14 (272.61) 450.00 244.15 694.15 (255.60) 4 Residential 500,000 2,710 949.75 450.00 270.96 720.96 (228.79) 450.00 291.25 741.25 (208.50) 5 Commercial 521,700 3,556 990.97 469.53 453.73 923.26 (67.71) 469.53 487.71 957.24 (33.73) 6 Commercial 14,561,000 103,200 27,658.62 13,104.90 17,000.71 30,105.61 2,446.99 13,104.90 18273.79 31,378.69 3,720.07 7 Apartment 963,200 25,240 1,829.60 868.88 7,192.49 8,061.37 6,231.77 868.88 7731.09 8,599.97 6,770.37 8 Apartment 9,014,000 40,432 17,122.09 8,112.60 9,103.22 17,215.82 93.73 8,112.60 9784.95 17,897.55 775.46