1. Alternative Delivery Options for Fire & EMS Services
Washington city/County Management Association
Annual Conference
WALLA WALLA, Washington
AUGUST 18, 2016
Alice Ostdiek
Stradling, Yocca Carlson & Rauth PC Seattle, Washington |

2. Alternative Delivery Options
“All or Nothing”
Retain City Service
New revenue options?
Annexation
Into Fire District
Into RFA
“Somewhere In Between”
Interlocal Contracting
Regional Fire Authority Formation
Alice Ostdiek |

3. Framework for Analysis
Political Considerations
Is City control important?
Levels of service and service areas?
Where is the accountability?
City Council?
Alternate governing body?
Service improvements?
Ease of administration? Economies of scale?
What are the labor & employment challenges?
Bargaining environment
Alice Ostdiek |

4. Framework for Analysis
Financial Considerations
What is the effect on levy capacity?
City, FPF, EMS, other Jr. levies
Do you need new revenue sources?
New taxes?
Fire Benefit Charge?
What about capital financing needs (and challenges)?
Are there timing and transition issues?
Alice Ostdiek |

5. Paying for City Fire Services
Source: State Auditor’s Office, Local Government Financial Reporting System (LGFRS)
Alice Ostdiek |

6. Understanding Aggregate Levy Rates
1% Limit ($10/$1,000)
$5.90 Limit
“Other” 50¢
Other Issues
Firefighters’ Pension Levy? Sound Transit Levy?
Alice Ostdiek |

7. All or Nothing? Retaining City Fire Services
Retain City control
Levels of service
Service areas
Budget
Debt Issuance
Alternative tools to enhance revenues?
Alice Ostdiek |

8. Retaining City Fire Services
Additional Property Tax Options:
Fire Pension Fund RCW / RCW
Levy Lid Lift RCW (50% vote)
EMS Levy RCW (60% vote; 40% turnout)
Renewal of unexpired levy or levy lid lift – 50% vote
Bond Levy RCW (60% vote; 40% turnout)
No replacement of equipment
Other Revenue Sources
Fire Benefit Charge RCW (*New since 2012)
City must have annexed territory since 2006
Max 60% of Department Budget
60% vote; other administrative steps
REET RCW and .015 (2016 Amendments)
Capital Facility Maintenance only (operations thru 2016)
$100k or 25% per year (up to $1 million per year)
Alice Ostdiek |

9. All or Nothing? Annexation
Change boundaries of Fire District / RFA
Adds new “overlapping” district
City gives up control over services
Except through contract?
Effect on existing levy
City levy reduced by FPD/RFA levy rate
FPD - Increase max rate from $3.375 to $3.60 before offset
Potential for levy bumping issues (FPF, Jr taxes)
Alice Ostdiek |

10. Mechanics of Annexation into a Fire District
City* may initiate annexation into FPD **
City Council must adopt ordinance
Public interest finding
Fire District Board must concur
County Board/Council must adopt resolution to put on ballot:
"Shall the [city of ] be annexed to and be a part of fire protection district?
YES NO
Requires “dual” simple majorities:
50+% approval in City AND
50+% approval in Fire District
Statutory citation: RCW et seq
* Not available to cities over 300,000 population (Seattle)
** FPD must be adjacent to city
Mechanics of Annexation into a Fire District
Alice Ostdiek |

11. Mechanics of Annexation into a Regional Fire Authority
City may initiate annexation into RFA*
City Council may adopt resolution requesting annexation
RFA Board may:
Adopt resolution setting terms of annexation and amending RFA Plan**
Return resolution and Plan amendments to City
City Council must approve RFA resolution and Plan amendments
Ballot measure
Submitted within City only; simple majority
If Plan amendments require vote of RFA, that would be separate (timing?)
Statutory citation: RCW * RFA must be adjacent to city ** Subject to RFA Plan requirements for amendments
Mechanics of Annexation into a Regional Fire Authority
Alice Ostdiek |

12. Somewhere In Between Interlocal Contracting
Retain some control / give up some control
Flexible design
Relies on Parties’ continuing cooperation
Finances & Debt
Decisionmaking
Does not provide:
New revenue sources
Additional debt capacity
Alice Ostdiek |

13. Considerations for Interlocal Contracting
Revenue
Who pays whom?
How much?
From what source?
Services
What levels of service?
Whose standards?
Other
Employment / Labor issues
Facilities / Assets
O&M costs
Debt issuance?
Alice Ostdiek |

14. Somewhere In Between Regional Fire Authority
Retain some control (indirectly?)
Flexible design (mostly)
New revenue & debt capacity for fire
Adds new overlapping taxing district
Potential levy “bumping” issues
Effect on existing City levies
No increase to $3.60; offsets against RFA levy
Alice Ostdiek |

15. Regional Fire Authorities
RFA Basics Overview:
Parties - 2+ Jurisdictions (FPDs, Cities)
Formation Steps
Create RFA Planning Committee
Carefully draft RFA Plan
Vote – Each participating jurisdiction
60% Approval if Taxes/FBCs
Revenues
Property Taxes
FBCs
Other Fees
Carefully Drafted RFA Plan is Key!!
Alice Ostdiek |

16. Review: Framework for Analysis What goals are you trying to achieve?
Are the primary goals financial?
Increase resources available for fire services?
Relieve General Fund pressure?
Grapple w/ levy limitations?
New service areas? Need for new capital investments?
Are the primary goals political?
Improve service levels or integrate new service areas?
Improve decisionmaking or accountability?
Alter bargaining environment?
Alice Ostdiek |

17. Stradling, Yocca Carlson & Rauth PC Seattle, Washington
Discussion?
Alice Ostdiek
Stradling, Yocca Carlson & Rauth PC Seattle, Washington |
Alice Ostdiek |

18. Alternative Fire and EMS Service Delivery August 18, 2016

19. Regional Fire Authority
A municipal corporation in Washington State and is considered a separate taxing district.
Boundaries must be coextensive with two or more fire protection jurisdictions (fire districts, city, tribal entity or existing RFA) that want to cooperate and form such an entity.
Created by the vote of the people. An RFA operates pursuant to a Plan, which is formulated by a Planning Committee and approved by the voters.

20. Regional Fire Authority
The Planning Committee is responsible to approve the RFA “Plan”.
This establishes how the RFA will operate, receive revenues, and governance.
The Planning Committee is comprised of three (3) elected officials from each participating entity.
The Plan (and its sub-sections) are developed by the use of subcommittees.
The subcommittees submit recommendations to the Planning Committee at intervals throughout the process for consideration, input, and ultimate approval.

21. Recommended Sub-Committee’s
Organizational Design
Administrative
Finance
Operations
Prevention
Facilities
Human Resources
Fleet
Communications

22. Planning Committee Work Flow
Planning Committee (Elected Officials)
Work Product & Deliverables Identified by Planning Committee
Timeline Determined and Assignments Made to
Sub-Committee(s)
Sub-Committee Produces Work Product and Deliverables
Sub-Committee Delivers
Work Product and Deliverables to Planning Committee for Consideration

23. Implementing the “Plan”
Fire Authority
Created
Approved by City A Council
YES
Adopted by Planning Committee
Approved by District Board
Voted on by the People NO

24. Camas-Washougal Experience
Alternative Fire and EMS Service Delivery
Camas-Washougal Experience
August 18, 2016

25. Camas-Washougal What We’ll Cover
Description of current model
Background
Process
Issues
Results to Date

26. Camas-Washougal ILA Model
ILA between cities of Camas and Washougal for full portfolio of Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Services provided by the City of Camas
Stations owned individually
Apparatus and equipment owned by Camas

27. Camas-Washougal ILA Model
Cost of service shared based upon proportionate share of three service demand factors
50% allocated based on structure assessed value
Fire “protection” component
25% allocated based on population
Fire & EMS “protection” component
25% allocated based on total calls for service
Fire & EMS “demand” component

28. Camas-Washougal Background
Over a 30 year history of partnership in delivery of Fire, EMS and Ambulance services
Three party ILA between Camas, Washougal and East County Fire and Rescue District for ALS and transport services
Revenue based cost sharing (EMS levies, lid lift)
Program costs always a concern
Prior efforts to explore enhanced partnership and/or alternative service delivery models did not bear fruit
New Washougal Mayor in 2010 – renewed emphasis on exploring enhanced partnership

29. Camas-Washougal: Process
Washougal administration initiated conversation with Camas re: expanded partnership
– Ad Hoc Committee consisting of councilmembers from each city
July Staffing and operations consolidated on a trial basis via ILA (MOU with IAFF)
Feb RFA Planning Committee formed (Ad Hoc committee)

30. Camas-Washougal: Process
March 2012 – Chief positions consolidated
April 2012 – Overtime pools consolidated (MOU with IAFF)
Early 2013 – Decision to pursue formalizing consolidation (ILA model – not RFA)
Jan 1, 2014 – ILA effective for consolidation

31. Camas-Washougal Issues
Prior suspended efforts resulted in skepticism re: efficacy of partnership generally
Baby steps
Re-strengthen partnership
Concerns re: loss of control in decision making
Concerns re: balancing different financial situations
Same IAFF local in both cities - supportive
Minor wage differences between cities

32. Camas-Washougal Findings
Levy equalization issues complicate RFA consideration
Consolidation offers the overall cost advantages of forming an RFA, is less complex, affords flexibility for cost sharing model, and retains policy control with the cities
Consolidation could serve as a first step in forming an RFA in the future

33. Camas-Washougal Results to Date
Enhanced services
Regional policy consistency
Cost neutrality
Anticipated future cost savings
On-going risks and challenges

34. Regional Fire Authority Annexation The Tukwila Experience
Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers.
WCMA Conference – August 2016
David Cline, Tukwila City Administrator

35. The Big Takeaways
After years of discussions, Tukwila chose to not annex to Kent Regional Fire Authority in 2016
There wasn’t a crisis, yet
Finances didn’t pencil out – not a huge cost savings in the short term
Council and Community didn’t see need for change, while the Fire Union did
A Few Public Comments
“We love OUR fire department, why would we change?”
“We are willing to pay more to keep our OWN Fire Department”
- 65 Firefighters,
- 4 stations,
- $11 million annual budget
- 8 square miles

36. History Regionalization discussed for several years
2010 – Study of merging with City of SeaTac
– Kent Regional Fire Authority Several Workgroups and Study
2011 – First Steering Committee put on Hold as Kent RFA and SeaTac created contract model
2014 – Internal City Committee reviewed alternatives, recommended RFA as best option
2015 – Second Steering Committee, split recommendation to annex to Kent RFA
2016 – City Council decided not to annex to Kent RFA and focus on City Fire Department
2016 – City Council put public safety bond on Nov. 8 Election
Replacing 3 stations and fund Fire apparatus and equipment
Criminal Justice Center for Police and Courts

37. The Big Takeaways
After years of discussions, Tukwila chose to not annex to Kent Regional Fire Authority in 2016
There wasn’t a crisis, yet
Finances didn’t pencil out – not a huge cost savings in the short term
Council and Community didn’t see need for change, while the Fire Union did
A Few Public Comments
“We love OUR fire department, why would we change?”
“We are willing to pay more to keep our OWN Fire Department”
- 65 Firefighters,
- 4 stations,
- $11 million annual budget
- 8 square miles

38. History Regionalization discussed for several years
2010 – Study of merging with City of SeaTac
– Kent Regional Fire Authority Several Workgroups and Study
2011 – First Steering Committee put on Hold as Kent RFA and SeaTac created contract model
2014 – Internal City Committee reviewed alternatives, recommended RFA as best option
2015 – Second Steering Committee, split recommendation to annex to Kent RFA
2016 – City Council decided not to annex to Kent RFA and focus on City Fire Department
2016 – City Council put public safety bond on Nov. 8 Election
Replacing 3 stations and fund Fire apparatus and equipment
Criminal Justice Center for Police and Courts

39. This was a general time frame presented by the 2014 Exploratory Committee.

40. The Big Takeaways
After years of discussions, Tukwila chose to not annex to Kent Regional Fire Authority in 2016
There wasn’t a crisis, yet
Finances didn’t pencil out – not a huge cost savings in the short term
Council and Community didn’t see need for change, while the Fire Union did
A Few Public Comments
“We love OUR fire department, why would we change?”
“We are willing to pay more to keep our OWN Fire Department”
- 65 Firefighters,
- 4 stations,
- $11 million annual budget
- 8 square miles

41. This was a general time frame presented by the 2014 Exploratory Committee.

42.  Lessons Learned
Know why you changing model – Financial, Service, Leadership?
Do the detailed analysis
Financial First, include all costs – if it doesn’t pencil out, stop there, Operational, Indirect, Capital needs, Equipment replacement
Be objective – Make sure it isn’t run by the fire department
Clearly state what the City will do with its excess capacity – Use it or lose it
Recognize different stakeholders – Fire Union, City, Council, Community
Don’t underestimate the passion
“We love OUR fire department” to “I can’t believe the City Council/Mayor didn’t do this”
Financial – is there a deficit? Is it negatively impacting other City Services?
Service – is response time worsening? Need to close a station?
Leadership/Direction –Department working well? Strong leadership?

45. Fire Benefit Charge – Key Issue in moving to RFA
Allows charge based on need – can shift costs to Commercial from Residential
Can be up to 60% of operating costs
Has to be approved by 60% every six years
Can vary by geographic areas, business type

46. Fire Benefit Charge – Easily Explained
Initial imposition of FBC requires 60% voter approval (RCW )
Renewing existing FBC requires 60 for RFAs%, renew every 6 years (RCW )
The FBC takes the place of the 3rd 50 cent property tax levy (RCW )
Cannot exceed 60% of the annual operating budget (RCW )
Imposed on personal property and improvements to real property (RCW )
FBC is added to property tax bills
County charges a fee to collect the funds (currently 1%)
Formula shall be reasonably proportioned to the measurable benefits to property (RCW )
Any other method that reasonably apportions the benefit charges is acceptable. (RCW )
Exceptions, limitations:
Property owned by religious organizations (RCW )
Property not assessed and subjected to ad valorem taxation under Title 84 (RCW )
Property that is subject to a contract for services (RCW )
Low income, seniors that qualify for exemptions under RCW through are exempt from a portion of the FBC. 25%, 50% or 75% exemption

47. Fire Benefit Charge – Explained, Take 2
Kent Regional Fire Authority - Tukwila Service Area Benefit Charge Formula:
Square root of total square footage X 18 X Category Factor X Fire Flow Factor X Response Factor X Risk Factor X Applicable Discount = FBC
Total square footage of structure(s)
Category Factors:
,799
1, ,699
2, ,599
3, ,999
4, ,999
5, ,999
8, ,999
10, ,999
15, ,999
20, ,999
30, ,999
50, ,999
100, ,999
140, ,999
200, ,999
300, ,999
400, ,000
500, ,999
600, ,000
700, ,999
1,000,000 - and >
Residential
0.70
Mobile Homes
Apartments
1.60
3.25
6.70
8.60
11.10
14.25
Commercial
1.10
1.30
1.40
1.50
2.05
3.05
3.35
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.15
4.25
Fire Flow Factor:* *
Response Factor:**
Residental
1.00
1.35
1.65
2.25
Manufactured Homes
1.18
1.75
2.65
4.10
4.30
4.40
4.50
Risk Factor:***
Light Hazard
Ordinary Hazard - 1
Ordinary Hazard - 2
Extra Hazard - 1
Extra Hazard -2
Discounts:
Automatic Fire Sprinklers
0.900
Manual Local Alarm
0.980
Manual Central Alarm
0.950
Automatic Local Alarm
0.970
Automatic Central Alarm
0.925
Agricultural
0.250
*Fire flow factor is estimated until final tax and property data is certified by the King County Assessor
**Response factor is based upon the number of firefighters needed to deliver the required fireflow
*** Risk factors apply to commercial property, are defined by the NFPA and are assigned by inspection performed by the Fire Authority.

48. Tukwila Moving Forward
Keep our Fire Department – Ask Voters for Financial Support for Capital
Hire new Permanent Fire Chief
Continue Regional Efforts through South King County Training Consortium

49. Questions?