HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/26/2013 03 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Study Final Report j a � r� 4
E r
�4 I
F' (Ag
. 7=Y ' , 7
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT •7
Item No. '3
For Meeting of: February 26, 2013
ITEM TITLE: Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Study - Final Report
SUBMITTED BY: Dave Willson, Fire Chief
CONTACT David Willson, 575 -6165
PERSON /TELEPHONE:
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Fire Protection Jurisdictions all around the Country are facing a decreased amount of
revenue compared to an increased cost of doing business. Besides the poor economy and_
flat tax base, other municipal departments such as Public Works and Law Enforcement are
requiring a higher percentage of the revenue pie to operate. This trend is causing a
continuous degradation in service provision for Fire Departments including those in the
Yakima Valley. In 2004 Legislation in Washington State was passed allowing Regional Fire
Authorities to form between two or more jurisdictions including Cities and County Fire
Districts. A Regional Fire Authority (RFA) collects a property tax and in some cases a
benefit fee which is voted by the public. An RFA is a junior taxing district which exclusively
funds the operations of the Fire Department. You will recognize this practice as the same
process that Fire Districts around the state use for operation.
This Report is the result of a feasibility study involving the City of Union Gap, The City of
Yakima, Yakima County Fire District 11 (Broadway), and Fire District 10 (Fruitvale). The
Intent of a Regional Fire Authority in this area is to maintain a level of service determined by
the public as an acceptable level and operate under direction of an elected panel
represented by the voters. A larger Fire Department formed by consolidating all four
jurisdictions would have efficiencies and an increased depth of service by design. The intent
of this RFA is not to reduce the cost of operation which can only be done by a reduction in
service. This could easily be done by eliminating members and services currently provided.
This kind of erosion is currently taking place,and is the driving force behind formation of
RFA's in the state. The intent of this RFA would be to provide a consistent funding source
that maintains the current level of service enjoyed by the citizens within the proposed RFA
area.
Resolution Ordinance Other
(specify)
Contract: Mail to:
Contract Term: Amount: Expiration Date:
Insurance Required? No
Funding
Phone:
Source:
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL 4.7 City Manager
:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Click to download
RFA paweracant
RFA Part 1
RFA Part 2
RFA Part 3
RFA Part 4
RFA Part 5
NMI What is a Regional Fire Authority?
• Single fire department made up of 2 or more
departments
• Separate, new taxing district
• Operated much like a fire district with elected
commissioners and a set budget base
I II Who's involved in the proposal?
• City of Yakima
• City of Union Gap
• Yakima Fire District #10
• Yakima Fire District #11
MINI Why form an RFA?
• Combined resource efficiency
• Increased depth of resources
• Dedicated funding source for maintained level of service
• Complete voter control over funding and service levels
� -- Funding Options?
• $1.50 per thousand
• $1.00 Per thousand + benefit charge
What is a Benefit Charge?
• A benefit charge is NOT a tax, it is a fee levied depending on
how much a property benefits from the fire department
• A formula is used to determine how much each property
owner is charged
• The $1.00 ad valorem plus the benefit charge is the revenue
source for the RFA
• The RFA also receives the County EMS levy monies
Cost of Proposed RFA?
CONSOLIDATED REV ENUE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2014
$1/$1,0131 wfo FBC (P_ 63 $6572„880 $6, 700. $6,444.615 $6.511.619 $6,573942 $6,636,854 $6,700368
EMS $1.345430 $1,460965 $1,070,496 $1,485.229 $1500.109 $1515.110 $1,530,2_61
TOTAL $8,018310 $8,161,073 $7915,111 $7.996$78 $8,074.051 $8151.964 $8,230.629,
NOTE: At the end of 2014 a GO Bard FEMME of $294975 ends
CONSOLIDATED EXPENSES
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013 21119
Fire/EMS Operating Exp. $12$03233 513,163,641$13,186,357 $13512 $13,046,274 $14183,275 $14,533,123
Capital $440,000 5440,000 $440,000 $440,000 $440.000 5440000 $460,000
Indirect Cost $480,509 5480509 $480,509 $480509 5480509 $430509 $480,509
TOTAL ' $13,823,7 2 r $14,084,150 ' S14,432,663 " $14,766,783 P $15,108,784 " 51.5.459,232
FBC $5,3115,432 $5,923,077 $6,791,755 $6,435,850 $6.694.732 %s6.g $7,228,603
average F71C $6,571,472
=I
How much will each property
owner pay?
• City must reduce tax collection of $1.00 so only change is the benefit charge
2013 Yakima Regional Fire Authority Benefit Charge Formula:
Square root of total aquas footage x SmM.d Factor z C.dpory Factor z Flo Flow Factor 0 Reagan* Factor x Rbi4 Factor z Ap011ca6M Db 000.t a FBC
From 400 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 16,000 20,000 30,000 60.000 100,000 140,000 200,000 300,000
To: 1,799 2,699 3,699 3,999 4,999 7,999 9,999 14,999 19,999 29,999 49,999 99,999 139,999 199,999 299,999 P40 Max
1 8landard Factor l 12 1
Campo Fscbn
Resiowroal 0.62 0.62 0.622 0.62 062 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.52 0.62
Motile Kamm 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0,53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
40.001400, 1.14 1.14 1.14 1 14 114 1.14 1.14 1.14 2.30 2.30 2.30 4.76 4.76 6.10 7.88 10.12
,Cornmerwr 0.77 0 -77 0.77 _ 0.77 092 0.92 _ 0 92 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.15 1.15 1.55 1.55 2.31 2.31
IF i Flo. rector.• 1 C 23 1 3 2,, 1 °231 0 23 l 0.23 l 0 231 0.23 ] 0 231 0 23 0.23 ] 0.23 1 023 ] 0.23 ] 0 23 I ...".31 0.23 1
Raa.aw. Factor.°
Residential 1.00 1.10 1.35 1.65 1 65 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 225 2 25 2 25 225 2.25 2.25 2.25
NOM' Mo w 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
40r111400. 150 150 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Cornrnertial 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1 18 1.18 1 75 1.75 1.75 2.65 4.00 400 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Risk rector. •"
upM wsard 1.00 1.00 ` 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ordinary ward -1 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Orman/ t+aaaru - 2 1.00 1.00 100 100 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
F_era ware • 0 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1,30 1.30 1.30
Extra ware - 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
Owco,mt0.
.4e.owum FM S7, n. 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
Marww 1.dcar Alan 0.980 0.980 0 980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980
Manual Cenral 111.11e 0.950 0.950 0 950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
A,i4.1 tc Local Alarm 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970
wonvdc Cam* A*,, 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925
aadaAzal 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0 250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
• Ac1tal 10. flow Factor . 0.72073104
Response factor is datrrnbs.d bpi,. rumba, of Mlegens . needed b deliver 9r. ,.puked Mellow
••- R M favor. apply 001100..11,.11 rr 9090 sr. defined by the NFPA ..d.. assigned by Map.rxlon parform.d by me FL. AUtrror/ty
Miii Annual Benefit Charge for Property Owners?
These tables show the amount of annual benefit charge to property owners.
This amount represents the increase in charges a property owner will see to
completely fund a Regional Fire Authority.
Business
50. FL t� SQ. FT_ Fee
Fee
a
1,320 $136.66 - 5,500 $3333.31 SQ. Ff. evert
2,178 $175.55 5,573 $335.51 891 $74.83
2,352 $181.42 61090 519073 1 $9 31
2,716 $196.03 6,344 $367.97 1,850 $12L44
2,918 $203.19 7,890 $:39.91.21 2,400 $13832
3,213 $71172 8274 $606.29 7_,E10 $
3,282 S714-04 8,285 $606_69 3,250 $197.54
3A00 $219.33 10,000 $78246 3,700 $25161
3595 577c 53 10,948 $818.70 3' 48
3.666 $32,!_75 12220 $864.96 4,200 5274.47
4,3911 $297_78 14.778 $1.100.411 4,500 I $284.10 .
4550 $309.18 21.665 $1.744.01 5.100 $412.43
4,500 $304.82 43,E $1$80-4E 7.381 $493.44
48M $314.09 50,603 $4283.96 8,250 $524.56
4 $315.88 53,274 $+139557 9010 $547 -89
4,959 $316.49 157,764 $14135.80 10,500 $59L79
5,014 $31824 284,249 S20,394.98 13.E $65&48
5,172 $32322 16,500 $74185
19,500 $806.47
imi City Tax Considerations?
• State RCW states that if an RFA is formed using the $1.00 per
thousand + benefit charge — the City shall reduce property tax
collection by $1.00 per thousand.
• Using 2012 TAV figures, the City of Yakima revenue will be reduced by
$5,559,278. The City of Yakima would no longer be funding the
Yakima Fire Department at a savings of $9,571,743. This leaves an
excess balance for the City of Yakima of $4,012,465 annually.
• Using 2012 TAV figures, the City of Union Gap revenue will be
reduced by $550,326. The City of Union Gap would no longer be
funding the Union Gap Fire Department at a savings of $1,263,999.
This leaves an excess balance for the City of Union Gap of $713,673
annually.
lil
1
• PLEASE NOTE: As listed in the Benefit Charge formula and example
tables, the additional cost of funding a sustained Regional Fire
Authority would be completely borne by the residential and business
property owners within the Regional Fire Authority boundaries. This
cost of service is applied in a fair system, collecting commensurate
with the property that benefits the most from the service. The
Benefit charge may be insignificant to some and substantial to others
compared to current tax collection practices.
• Both Cities will have excess revenue as noted above. If this excess
revenue is directed back into the Regional Fire Authority for Fire
Protection, the Benefit Charges listed above would be reduced by
72 %. The Cities would then see no change from what is currently
collected and the benefit charge would be very manageable to all
property owners. This modified funding option would have to be
agreeable to both Union Gap and Yakima Councils.
Recommendation of Feasibility
Study Group
The Feasibility Study Group voted unanimously to recommend to the Elected
Officials from each of the four participating jurisdictions to further study this
option funding Fire Services in our area. The results of the Feasibility Study do
show multiple advantages of a Regional Fire Authority.
• Sustained level of Fire Service and Medical Protection
• Increased depth of resources in the proposed coverage area
• Gained efficiencies by cooperative use of resources
• Consistent funding for Fire and Medical services
• Direct voter control of Services through initial and periodic voter approval
• Direct voter control by elected Commission governance
• Complete budgetary control by voter selected Commissioners
• Ability to produce definite future plans based on consistent revenues
• Increased budget savings for Union Gap and Yakima
mil Disadvantages of an RFA
• Increased fee collection to residents and businesses
• Loss of individual identities of current Fire Departments
• Loss of direct control of operations by elected officials in each
Jurisdiction
Considerations of Alternative
IIIIIII
Benefit Charge
• There was much in depth discussion about the added cost of this program
through the Benefit Charge. This Benefit Charge is required to meet the
revenue calculations for a Regional Fire Authority.
• For Yakima, Union Gap, and Fruitvale Citizens, their increased cost is exactly
what the Benefit charge is.
• For Broadway residents the increased cost will be slightly higher because they
are currently paying less than one dollar per thousand of property tax for
protection.
• As an alternative to charging the full amount needed for a Benefit Charge, the
Study group would ask the two municipalities to consider partially funding the
RFA with the savings realized by not funding their current Fire Departments.
As noted in the study document, the City of Yakima will see a savings of
$4,400,000 per year and Union Gap would see a savings of approximately
$718,000. If each City contributed a portion of this savings to pay for facilities
and maintenance costs, the Benefit Charge to the citizens would be reduced.
City .
Fire . District
Regional Fire Protection Feasibility
Final Report
February 26, 2013
Prepared or
City of Yakima
City of Union Gap
Yakima County Fire District #10
Yakima County Fire District #11
City of Yakima, City of Union Gap, Fire District 10 & Fire District 1.1
Regional Fire Protection Feasibility Report
Final Report
February 26, 2013
Prepared For:
City of Yakima
City of Union Gap
Yakima County Fire District #10
Yakima County Fire District #11
. .
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 I Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
Table of S
Acknowldgerrnts.
Executive .... ........... ...............,, ,.. .....,,.,._.....,.,,....,,....W ,......,;.....,,..
introduction;
Purpose of Feasibility Study . 7,
Problem Statement , 7
Feasibility Study Process ....... .........: ........ ................. ......... .................. 8
Feasibility Study group. 10
Financial Consultant ......................: ........ ........; .......,; ........; ..,....,.....,...11'_
Jurisdictional Service Levels'
.Staffing Levels Comparison .... ........: ........ ........ ..... ..........:........ :...,,...,12
Response Time Report .14
WSRB Presentation. 22
Financial Summary
Financial Forecast of individual Jurisdictions...,..::.. 31
A nalysis Document Notes ................ ........ :....,. ..,:...........,......,.,....32
Cost of Prnposed'RFA. 34
Benefit Charge Amount :.................. ......... ........ .................:. .......:.........
Benefit Charge Formula'. 35
Examples of Benefit Charge Amount .......:: .......:. ...... ..:.......: >.........:,......,. 37
CityTax Change Consideration .......:.......:. ........: ........ .................:.........38
ESCI Consultant' Report. 3
Study Croup Recommendation
Recommendation of Forming a Regional Fire Authority;: .4a
Considerations for Alternate Benefit Charges .............. :.......,...,.,., ........., 40
Appendices
Appendix A: RCW 52 & 84 41
Appendix B: Organizational Charts.,. . ........ ................ :.......,:......,..42
Appendix C: Consultant Selection Materials ................: ......... .......a;:.....,., 43'
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 i Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report'
Ackrir)wiedciements
This document is a culmination of investments of personal time and commitments made by a
group of volunteers in our community. The community as a whole owes much gratitude to
these individuals for their selfless dedication that resulted in this feasibility study and
recommendation. Members of the Feasibility Study Group met for 2 years gathering,
organizing, and analyzing volurries of data and information used in this project.
Special thanks must be given to Fred Bruning of CenterCal Properties and owner of the Valley
Mall, City of Yakima, Fire District 11, and Fire District 10 for their monetary contributions that
funded the financial study portion of this project.
Fire District 11 acted as the financier of the study and provided a place for the volunteer group
to meet.
Special thanks to the Kent Regional Fire Authority for providing many hours of expert advice
and for traveling to Yakima to deliver presentations and answer questions for our group. This
project certainly would have suffered if not for the help of the members of the Kent Fire
Authority. Our gratitude is owed to Chief Jim Schneider, Chief Greg Markley, Captain Larry
Rebel and the staff of Kent RFA.
The Washington Survey and Rating Bureau was more than generous with material and expert
presentations delivered by Robert Ferrell to the Study Group at our facilities.
Employees of both Fire Departments and Advance Life Systems ambulance service provided
manpower and equipment for learning demonstrations on manpower assignment and usage.
Thanks to all Council members and Mayors and Fire Commissioners for supporting this study.
Finally, thanks to the volunteers that actually performed this study and produced this
document.
Maureen Adkison Jennifer Norton
Micah Cawley Dan Olson
Kathy Coffey Ryan Omlin
Gary Collins Tyler Quantrille
Carl Cyr Thomas Sevigny
Chris Jensen Mlle Stewart
Ray Kempf Michael Trujillo
Nancie Lehrman Roger Wentz
Joe Mann Tim Whitehurst
Dave Matson Rocky Willette
Connie Mendoza David Willson
Eric Miller Woody Woodcock
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
Executive Summary
OBJECTIVE
Fire Protection Jurisdictions all around the Country are facing a decreased amount of revenue
compared to an increased cost of doing business. Besides the poor economy and flat tax base,
other municipal departments such as Public Works and Law Enforcement are requiring a higher
percentage of the revenue pie to operate. This trend is causing a continuous degradation in
service provision for Fire Departments including those, in the Yakima Valley. in 2004 legislation
in Washington State was passed allowing Regional Fire Authorities to form between two or
more jurisdictions including Cities and County Fire Districts, A Regional Fire Authority (RFA)
collects a property tax and in some cases a benefit fee which is voted by the public. An RFA is a
junior taxing district which exclusively funds the operations` of the Fire Department. You will
recognize this practice as the same process that Fire Districts around the state use for
operation.
This Report is the result of a feasibility study involving the City of Union Gap, The City of
Yakima, Yakima County Fire District 11 (Broadway), and Fire District 10 (Fruitvale). The Intent of
a Regional Fire Authority in this area is to maintain a level of service determined by the public
as an acceptable level' and operate under direction of an ,elected panel represented by the
voters. A larger Fire Department formed by consolidating all four jurisdictions would have
efficiencies and an increased depth of service by design. The intent of this RFA is not to reduce
the cost of operation which can only be done by a reduction in service. This could easily be
done by eliminating members and services currently provided. This kind of erosion is currently
taking place and is the driving force behind formation of RFA's in the state. The intent of this
RFA would be to provide a consistent funding source that maintains the current level' of service
enjoyed by the citizens within the proposed RFA area.
STUDY GROUP
Under direction of the Councils of Union Gap and Yakima and Commissioners of Fire District 11
and 10, a feasibility study was performed. This study was performed by a diverse 20 person
group that met for two years bringing this recommendation forward. The group was comprised
of Business owners, Residents, Elected Public Officials, Employees, and Fire Officials. The study
was facilitated by the Fire Chief from Yakima and Union Gap. A consulting firm was employed''
to perform the financial feasibility portion `ofthis study.
JURISDICTION BACKGROUND
The City of Yakima Fire Department is staffed fully with on duty full time career firefighters. The
Fire Department is funded from the General Fund by a combination of revenue sources, The
Fire Department also receives slightly more than one million dollars per year from the voter
approved county wide EMS levy.
The City of Union Gap Fire Department is staffed by full time career firefighters during the day
and a combination of career and volunteer firefighters in the evening. The Union Gap Fire
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 i Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
Department is funded much like Yakima from mixed sources of revenue through the General
Fund and slightly less than one hundred thousand dollars from the county wide EMS levy.
Yakima County Fire District 11 (Broadway) is funded by a Fire Service property tax and some
revenue from the county wide EMS levy. District 11 has a fire station on Washington Avenue
but rio firefighting force or standard fire equipment. District 11 contracts with Union Gap for
fire protection.
Yakima County Fire District 10 (Fruitvale) is funded by a Fire Service property tax and some
revenue from the county wide EMS levy. District 10 has no firefighting force or equipment and
contracts for service with the City of Yakima for fire protection.
FINANCIAL STUDY SUMMERY
At the onset of phase 3 of this project, the study group voted to employ a consulting firm to
perform the financial feasibility portion of this project. This decision was made on the premise
that the financial portion of the study needed to be performed by a professional firm for the
sake of accuracy, completeness and unbiased fact finding.
The entire report from the consulting firm of Emergency Service Consulting International (ESCI)
can be found in its entirety in the financial portion of this document. The scope of the report
from ESC was to determine if the four jurisdictions could join under the regulations of the
Revised Code of Washington and provide a same type service using the revenue sources
available to Regional Fire Authorities in Washington State. The consulting firm was not
employed to design or give advice on the amount of revenue to collect or how this particular
RFA budget should be modeled and therefore, the actual financial study document provided by
ESCI only recommends whether an RFA would be possible or not in this area
it must also be noted that this project officially started in January of 2011. The financial data
provided to ESCI was current at the time of acquisition in early 2012. Budgets and departments
change continuously so the data listed will have to be updated if the elected officials opt to
continue the process to the Planning Committee stage. With so many variables in this report, it
was unrealistic to update and change the figures to make this document current at the time
you read this. All figures used in the study are from the snapshot in time when ESCI gathered
all the information needed to make the compilations,
OPTIONS
As outlined in the findings of the Consultant report, a Regional Fire Authority is feasible with
the four participating jurisdictions if an ad valorem tax of $1 phis a benefit charge is used for a
revenue source. The total cost of the proposed RFA and the required benefit fee are outlined in
detail in the financial section of this report.
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 I Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
STUDY GROUP RECOMMENDATION
With the finalization of the feasibility study, the group voted unanimously to recommend that
the elected officials of all four jurisdictions proceed with further study of this funding option for
the fire service. This conclusion was made in part by the following positive aspects of forming a
Regional Fire Authority in our area:
• The combined resources of four jurisdictions offer a greater depth of service to
everyone within the proposed boundary. There would be a greater number of
firefighters and apparatus available to all citizens then currently exist,
• The public would have direct control over costs of a Regional Fire Authority and directly
determine the level of service they prefer.
* A dedicated funding source would allow a sustained level of service.
• A Regional Fire Authority would be governed by citizens elected as directors or
commissioners with the sole concern of making decisions for the Fire Department.
As noted in the Financial Summary, there are areas of the proposal that can be adjusted and
cost shifting possibilities.
Yakima/Union Gap/District 1O/District 11 I Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
Intrc)duction
Purpose of Feasibility Study
The objective of the Feasibility Study is to produce a recommendation for the elected officials
of all four participating jurisdictions. The produced recommendation will be to either move
forward with the Regional Fire Authority planning process or end the study due to infeasibility.
The study is to be based on four major areas. These areas are:
• Jurisdictional Statistics
• Jurisdictional Service Levels
• Financial Analysis
• Service Options
The recommendation is made by a Large group of stake holders and has the best interest of the
community in mind. The study includes an in depth financial analysis which includes financial
forecasts for the next six years. This document has been published for all elected officials with
the purpose of aiding their decision of forming a Planning Committee or riot.
Problem Statement
Regional Fire Authorities (RFA's) are a relatively new concept in the State of Washington. The
State Legislature permitted municipalities to form Regional Fire Authorities starting in 2004.
The first RFA was formed in 2006 by the City of Auburn, Algona, and Pacific. The legislation
allowing such actions was a result of lobbying by municipalities. Since the first RFA was formed
in Washington, eight others have formed with seven others in the process of studying the
option. This trend clearly makes a statement that Fire Departments are searching for a way to
maintain a level of service in this flat economy. Most taxing entities are faced with a shrinking
or flat revenue source while costs of providing services continuously rise. Municipalities in
particular are dealing with tough decisions of, which departments receive monies based on
priorities. In most Cities, Fire Departments receive a smaller portion of revenues each year for
several reasons. Some of these reasons are increased crime rates, prisoner costs, and City
infrastructure maintenance. Unfunded mandates from the State and Federal governments add
to the funding dilemma,
Fire Districts are in a slightly better position due to the fact that the property tax collection for
Fire Protection cannot be transferred to another division of the County. Fire Districts must deal
with flat property tax rates and increased operational costs. Fire Districts often face difficulties
in attracting and maintaining volunteer firefighters which adds to difficulties in coverage.
All of these issues lead many departments to seek a means of funding that is consistent and
somewhat stable.
As referenced in the Financial Analysis portion of this document, if nothing is done in the very
near future, service levels will continue to drop in the area of the proposed RFA As a true
example of this, in the time it has taken to produce this document, the City of Yakima reduced
the firefighting force by two positions which is what the analysis alludes to. Each year this
Yakima /Union Gap /District 1u /District 11 i Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
trend will continue unless the economy makes a solid and quick reversal or an alternate means
of Fire Department funding is implemented,
Feasibility Study Process
On January 10, 2011 at 09:30 Mayor Jim Lemon of Union Gap called a meeting to order for the
purpose of discussing a Regional Fire Authority. Those in attendance were:
Mayor Jim Lemon
Councilman Roger Wentz U.G.
Councilman Dan Olsen U.G.
Dave Spurlock
Brian Buttler U.G.
Chief Bill Steele U.G.
Chief David Willson Yak.
Deputy Ch. Robert Stewart Yak,
Councilman Bill Lover Yak.
Mayor Micah Cawley Yak.
At this meeting, Mayor Lemon made it clear that the topic of discussion was the feasibility of
forming a Regional Fire Authority and not about consolidation or contracting for services. Chief
Steele and Chief Willson gave a cursory informational presentation about Regional Fire
Authorities, A binder was supplied to all in attendance that gave basic information about
Regional Fire Authority formation in the State of Washington.
Discussion followed and it was re-iterated that the meeting was only to discuss if both Cities
were interested in researching the idea of a Fire Authority, Both Mayors gave approval to the
Fire Chiefs to continue with a study on the subject.
The next step in this process was to determine which Jurisdictions within a ccintiguous
boundary were interested in participating in the study sessions. A meeting was held at District
11 station 86 and was open to all surrounding jurisdictions.
In attendance were representatives from:
City of Union Gap
City of Yakima
Yakima County Fire District 12 (West Valley)
Yakima County Fire District 4 (East Valley)
Yakima County Fire District 11 (Broadway)
Yakima County Fire District 10 (Fruitvale)
Yakima County Fire District 1 (Highland)
Yakima County Fire District 2 (Selah)
At the conclusion of this meeting, four jurisdictions showed interest in participating in the
Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Study. The following four jurisdictions were confirmed at the
April 2011 meeting:
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 Regiona Fire Authority Feasibility Report
City of Yakima
City of Union Gap
Yakima County Fire District 11
Yakima County Fire District 10
In March of 2011, both municipal councils voted to officially participate in the Feasibility Study
of a Regional Fire Authority. Commissioners of Fire District 10 and Fire District 11 voted to
officially participate as well.
On January 28, 2011 a small contingency of Fire Officials and employees from Union Gap and
Yakima traveled to Kent Washington to attend a daylong meeting with the Kent Regional Fire
Authority Officials. This meeting gave great insight into the process, procedures, involvement
required and hardships to be encountered in our own Feasibility Study process.
The process of forming a regional Fire Authority in the State of Washington historically takes
several years depending on the size and complexity of the jurisdictions involved. Using advice
and research of other Fire Authorities in the state of Washington, it was decided to form a
Study Group of stakeholders from the area of the proposed Regional Fire Authority boundaries.
This group would then form the format and process of the Feasibility Study.
The process was divided into five phases. These phases are:
1. Jurisdictional Statistics
2. Jurisdictional Service Levels
3. Financial Analysis
4. Recommendation Formation
5. Document Compilation and presentation to Elected Officials
The stakeholders group known as the Feasibility Study Group was formed and began meeting
monthly on March 3, 2011 for two hours sessions. The Fire Chiefs of both Cities were
facilitators at these meetings. The Assistant to the Yakima Fire Chief was the official record
keeper and kept notes of all meetings. The monthly study sessions were not open to invite of
the public and media in the interest of open unguarded conversation. As a group, we felt this
decision was advantageous and did in fact allow the group to express open feelings and ideas
from all points of view.
The study sessions included presentations from experts from the Washington Survey and Rating
Bureau, Kent Regional Fire Authority Representatives, and demonstrations by Paramedic
Ambulance crews and Fire crews.
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 J Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
Feasibility Study Group
One of the first decisions to be made in this process was to use a group of participants that
represented a cross section of stakeholders. The group needed enough participants to get a
well rounded viewpoint but at the same time it could not be so large that the process would
grind to a halt procedurally, After questioning other groups that have been through this
process, we decided to use a target of 20 persons in the Study Group. The group was made up
of:
✓ Elected Officials
® Fire Officials
■ Residents
■ ' Business Owners
® Employees
The Study, Group worked for two years on this project selflessly giving up their own time month
after month in order to present a worthwhile document and a well informed recommendation,
Feasibility tudy Group Members are:
Maureen Adkison......`akima Council Member
Micah Cawley...........Yakima Mayor
Kathy Coffey ...........Ya ki m a Council Member
Gary Collins,......... ;..Fire District 10 Commissioner
Carl Cyr,.. .. Fire'' District 10 Commissioner
Chris Jensen............Union Gap Fire Chief
Ray empf ..............Union Gap Resident
Nancie Lehrman....,...Yakima Resident
Joe Mann ............. Yakima Business Owner
Dave Matson............Union Gap Council Member
Connie Mendoza.......Study Group Record Keeper
Eric Miller . Employee Representative
Jennifer Norton,....,...mployee Representative
Dan Olson .,......,..,,..Union Gap Council Member
Ryan Ornfln.,..,,:a,,..,.Di trio 10 Resident
Tyler Quantrille.........Employee Representative
Thomas Sevigny.......Fire District 11 Commissioner
Allie Stewart .............Union Gap Business Representative
Michael Trujillo "..........Employee Representative
Roger Wentz............Union Gap Council Member
Tim Whitehurst.........Employee Representative
Rocky Wllette. >.....,.Fire District 11 Commissioner
David Willson...........Yakima Fire Chief
Woody 1oodcock.....Yakima Business Owner
The diverse group of participants clearly added differing 'points, of view and caused much
discussion on every topic of this process, Decisions were made by a majority vote of the group.
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 I Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
Financial Consultant
After the second phase was corripleted, discussion was held concerning the financial analysis. It
was determined that no one in the study group had the training or expertise to perform a
proper financial analysis for this important project.
Because the Feasibility Study Group had no operating budget, the elected officials of each
jurisdiction were asked for funding to employ a consulting firm. The City of Yakima agreed to
fund $12,500, Fire District 10 and 11 each agreed to fund $2,500 and the Valley Mall Manager
agreed to fund $5,000 for a financial analysis. An invitation was sent to companies to provide
proposals for a financial analysis of the Regional Fire Authority.
Three firms responded and made presentations to the Study Group. The firms were:
• Matrix Consuiting
• ESCI Consulting International
• Fire Service Consulting Inc.
Fire Service Consulting Inc. withdrew from the process after reviewing the scope of work
documentation provided.
The Study Group unanimously chose ESCI Consulting Iriternational to perform the financial
analysis. The financial analysis process took nearly five months to complete from beginning to
end. it rust be noted that that budgets, tax collection rates, and other aspects of
governmental finances change constantly. We are using the data that was current at the time
of collection for this process. The financial data used in the analysis is from the year 2011
which was the last full year prior to the beginning of the analysis by ESCI. If the elected officials
choose to pursue this project further and form a Planning Committee, the financial information
will certainly need to be updated.
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 11
Staffing Levels Como(lrison
FIREFIGHTERS PER THOUSAND IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
All services must be proportional to requests for use As examples, most jurisdictions place
traffic counters on roads to determine which roads should be repaired or upgraded as a
priority. Public transportation is often evaluated by number of paid riders over a given span of
time. Public safety is also driven by usage. Because medical aid calls are directly proportional
to population and fires are closely proportional to population, the population count in a
jurisdiction is used to determine the level of service. This is expressed as "Firefighters per
thousand or Police Officers per thousand".
Various organizations have proclaimed a recommended number of Firefighters per thousand.
You must keep in mind that these are recommendations and are not statutes that must be
adhered to. The most prominent recommendations come from these organizations:
• icrviA (international City/County Management Assoc.) recommends 1.59 FF per thousand
• NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) recommends 1.33 FF per thousand
* National average 1.27 FF per thousand
• Washington Cities average (46,000-125,000) 1.36 FF per thousand
These numbers include support staff such as Chief Officers, Training, Fire Marshal, and
Secretarial personnel.
The City of Yakima Fire Department employs 87 personnel which includes the mechanic in our
city of 91,600. The City of Union Gap has a population of 6300 and employs 95 employees in
the Fire Department. This equates to ratios of:
* City of Yakima .95 FF per thousand
• Union Gap 1.50 FF per thousand
• Combined Yakima& Union Gap .99 FF per thousand
The numbers listed above do not give the true picture of deficiency until you realize how many
firefighters we employ compared to the average. To equal the average number of firefighters
per thousand in the state of Washington we (combined) would have to hire 36 more
firefighters.
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 12
FIREFIGHTERS PER THOUSAND BY CITY/POPULATION
City Foriulatior'i If of FF FF/1000
Everett 103,019 190 1.844
Bellevue 122,363 247 2.019
Spokane Valley 125,000 165 1320
Kent 109,986 175 1.591
Yakirria 91,067 87 0.955
Renton 100,000 163 1.630
Bellingham 80,055 99 1.237
Valley Fire (Auburn) 79,222 86 1.086
Kennewick 73,917 78 1.055
Marysville 61,000 85 1.393
Pasco 55,246 54 0.977
Olympia 46,478 55 1.183
Average 87,279 124 1.358
Yakirna/Ur)iori Gap/District 10/Disttict 11 i Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 13
Response Time Reports
Without oxygen, Brain heath occurs in 4 -6 minutes.
American Heart Association
sir
In Cardiac Arrest, for every minute that passes odds of survival decrease by 10 %.
American Heart Association
tn.ms at Sunni. 1
la[ r—
R
la _ . —�_ _�. _ '
K I 1
r �a r
1
l P ) • s 1 • 1 S v
nr n *Penn
Fire Doubles in Size approximately every 1 Minute.
National Fire Protection Association
" :: ''' 4
,,..
,. 4; 1 '
pi j , . 1 lit
{ . 1
When the fire extends from the room of origin, you are lox more likely to die.
National Fire Protection Association
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 14
Time — Temperature Standard
The lItime-temperature curve i' standard in figure below is based on data from the National
Fire Protection Association (NEPA) and the Insurance Services Organization (SO), which have
established that a typical point source of ignition in a residential house will "flash over" at
some time between 5 and 10 minutes after ignition, turning a typical "room and contents" fire in
to a structural fire of some magnitude. To show relevance between fire growth and fire
department service delivery, below the Time Curve is overlaid with Cascade of
Events diagram from above,
hieSh over
A Lihrestra,ned
Nc Fire Growth
Fire Growth tette
„ Autorp Spcinkt.;
; 1,4inutes
2 3 4 5 6- 7 8 9 10
Tune Vane
c floteetion Report ' Firs SyMptem Response ttme
Fe 0 of of t
A Dtspettti Turn Respene to Set Up
larm
ta Lin tto out 5merie
rs, I
Time incitrectly
1 Manageable ' 1 m Pty Mehogeoblo
Time Temperature Curve and Cascade of Events
The utility of the time-terni)erature curve for fire station placement is limited a number of factors.
1, It does not account for the time required for the existence of a fire to be
"discovered" and reported to the Fire Department via the 911 system.
2. The time from ignition to flashover varies widely (5-30 minutes depending on
building characteristics); thus it cannot provide a singular valid basis for the
allocation of resources.
3. The curve is constantly shifting, given the numerous changes in building
construction, built in suppression systems, the increased use of fire resistive
materials for furniture and other items typically found in the interior of occupied
buildings.
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 15
Cascade of Events
The CFAI has defined response time elements as a cascade of events. This cascade is
to that used by the medical community to describe the events leading up to the
initiation, mitigation, and ultimate outcome of a cardiac arrest. It is imperative to keep
in mind that certain intervals described can be directly influenced by the fire service
station locations and design, staffing levels, as well as local rules and
procedures for response (turnout; and travel time). Others factors can be
influenced indirectly such as the alarm interval through public education and
engineering initiatives. The fire service can also influence the call - processing interval
through its ability to define standards and compel performance by its dispatch centers.
Measures
Careful definition of terminology is essential to any conversation about response
performance standards. It becomes even more critical when an organization attempts to
benchmark its performance against other providers. The following definitions are
standardized for discussion of response performance parameters within the Fire
Service.
Below shows the Cascade of Events in a general overview diagram:
Ni1'4 17i o itgc4 1.41#
i d le 11nir~ i tir,.e. t. 4 ii i ifltk "" i .
(0140 .ii i 1 i PA r iii hue ;
xkent.:.. Ci®at gcrk1 Pitfot x*tk ty me Ina it Arsamar ... knrtsa# estta tiaf.... w Untal Er„,
4404444 e•i r atm allSWOlitE ilre area ii.e. ®001 li ns. al will
point ■ Au A.n4a, 0 abi r fF"tiA P) 0'11 it Iit, 5, t0Uit :. .10% : #i$t #
rrtriat,i 11 rcIpsildcn fvott {yo 15 rat :0 trrrt
w , ,
ala�ttt 4444 444 44,. g Iatmttti 1eave1 -_
Cascade of Events (1)
Definition of Events
Event Initiation Point - The point at which factors occur that may ultimately result in an
activation of the emergency response system. Precipitating factors can occur
seconds, minutes, hours, or even days before emergency event awareness is
reached. An example is the patient who ignores chest discomfort for days until it
reaches a critical point at which he /she makes the decision to seek assistance
(emergency event awareness). It is rarely possible to quantify the point at which event
initiation. occurs.
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 1J.. 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
Event Awareness - The point at which a human being or technologic "sentinel"
(i.e., smoke detector, infrared heat detector, etc.) becomes aware that conditions
exist requiring and activation of the emergency response system. This is considered
the emergency event awareness.
Alarm Interval - Measured time between emergency event awareness and the
alarm time.
Alarm Time - The point of receipt of the emergency event at the public safety
answering point (PSAP) to the point where sufficient information is known to the
dispatcher to deploy applicable units to the emergency. (Time- stamp)
Call Processing Interval - The first ring of the 9 -1 -1 telephones at the dispatch
center and the time the CAD operator activates station and /or company alerting
devices. This can, if necessary, be broken down into two additional parameters:
"call taker intervar' (the interval from the first ring of the 9 -14 telephone until the
call taker transfers the call to the dispatcher) and "dispatcher interval' (the interval
from the time when the call taker transfers the call to the dispatcher until the
dispatcher (CAD operator) activates station and /or company alerting devices. Sixty (60)
seconds is an industry standard. (Measured time between alarm time and dispatch
time)
Dispatch Time - Is the time when the dispatcher, having selected appropriate units for
response with assistance from the CAD system, initiates the notification of
response units. (Time - stamp)
Turnout Interval - Measured time between dispatch time and turnout time.
Turnout Time - When units acknowledge notification of the event to the beginning
point of response time (wheels rolling). *Measured component known as "Turnout Time"
required by HB1756*
Travel Interval - Measured time between turnout time and on scene time of initial
company. *Measured component known as "Response Time" required by HB1756* CFAI
recognizes the need to categorize each emergency response zone into relevant
categories (urban, suburban, rural and wilderness) and measure appropriate
travel times for each category. CFAITs method for clarification is more precise than
what HB 1756 specifically requires.
Initial Company Time - The point at which the initial company arrives on scene.
Initiation of Action - The point at which operations to mitigate the event begin. This may
include available to respond to another request for service
Initial Full Alarm Assignment Interval - Measured time between initial company on scene
time and Initial Full Alarm Assignment is completed.
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
1'11111 ' i ■,+* "` , , 1111;!'11 'rl is Ii) (1
Response Time - The combined measured time from dispatch time and includes
turnout and travel intervals to initial company arrival time.
Controlled Time - Time when the forward progress of the fire has been stopped or when
ABC's have been addressed and managed.
Termination of Event - The point at which unit(s) have completed the assignment
and are available to respond to another request for service.
Adopted Standards
"Every fire jurisdiction shall adopt service delivery objectives in a written statement
for all services that are provided in an emergency mode." These include the following, if
appropriate:
FIRE SUPPRESSION
1. Turnout Time:
Goal /Standard:
1. The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a turnout time standard of
120 seconds (2:00) for a structure fire incident, which the department
should meet .90% of the time.
2010 Average 183 seconds (3:03) met standard 53%
Goal /Standard:
i. The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard of 240
seconds (4:00) for the arrival of the first engine company to a fire
suppression incident, which the department should meet 90% of the
time.
2010 Average 261 seconds (4:21) met standard 86%
Goal /Standard:
ii. The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a response /travel time
standard of 480 seconds (8:00) for the arrival of the full complement of a
1st alarm response to a fire suppression incident, which the department
should meet 90% of the time
2010 Average 528 seconds (8:48) met standard 87%
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 18
EMS
1. Turnout Time:
Goal /Standard:
The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a turnout time standard of 90 seconds (1:30)
for an EMS incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
2010 Average 134 seconds (2:14) met standard 63%
Goal /Standard:
The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard of 240 seconds (4:00)
for a BLS unit, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
2010 Average 284 seconds (4:44) met standard 79%
SPECIAL OPERATIONS (Hazardous Materials, Technical Rescue)
1. Turnout Time:
Goal /Standard:
The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a turnout time standard of 120 seconds
(2:00) for a Hazmat incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
2010 Average 175 seconds (2:55) met standard 67%
Goal /Standard:
The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard for "Operations"
level personnel on scene in 240 seconds (4:00), which the department should meet
90% of the time.
2010 Average 395 seconds (6:35) met standard 59%
AIRCRAFT RESCUE & FIREFIGHTING
1. Turnout /Travel Time:
Goal /Standard:
The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a turnout time standard of 160 seconds
(2:00) for an aircraft incident at the airport, which the department should meet 90%
of the time.
FAA Requirement = 180 seconds (3:00)
2010 Average 119 seconds (1:59) met standard 100%
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 19
Goal /Standard:
The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard of 240 seconds (4:00)
for an aircraft incident at the airport, which the department should meet 90% of
the time.
2010 Average 190 seconds (3:10) met standard 100%
WILDLAND
1. Turnout /Travel Time:
Goal /Standard:
The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a turnout time standard of 160 seconds
(2:00) for a wildland fire incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
FAA Requirement = 180 seconds (3:00)
2010 Average 189 seconds (3:09) met standard 62%
Goal /Standard:
The Yakima Fire Department has adopted a travel time standard of 240 seconds (4:00)
for a wildland fire incident, which the department should meet 90% of the time.
2010 Average 388 seconds (6:28) met standard 61%
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 20
al A YAKIMA COUNTY FPD # 10 11 UNION GAP & YAKIMA LAM
3 r `.' ie., *
o' w 0.-- ate `'
T \ Al *
IL
Mr..-
' \ A \ 101 0 ' 3 ? e' N `[,, l • ] liini ' \ , _
— 4 .... f• ..' - .. ..1. 1 5 l ■ 1 411 .1 p pv.,„, .., _ _
I 1�� '-'�.' _ I ll ` i g trria 't� at°S1� '��� - - 0 ellF- ' ....L I el " ity.trz....s Int i 41 ' - Mue.41, 004, ; � •� " - O � a� � � I�a`I G� . t 10101 l ] �p
to @, 71: '• v it �t , z w i ta.rr■i�i ' � + yv
. i ri 4 � } ' rl �., a■ �, (� XA11J1] a �0, sL "t1 it ♦ ha reff 0 OBI 1 to
F, .-w 77777///II�{ "j T�. 11I 111 Ma, tllgra1ri 11 tf t' !`i �'A, 0 • g
'' ...e__W�lu iii � 11 - itil�i14173m1�4411 14N1�'1!11111ccW 11. r tamAr IATISI.es,: alit:: ' is -, - a4 b
I--' ` 1 .� Olg ., 1 e_9's 1 I1rx!IL::M� � rn.,� :! 1
w r B � Nx. A Parr na A a Pl it a r ``J i a O qt � ,�:Ol1�
_ , 1� Itgq1? 1 11a .�. :13 �1r1 e
0'O ---..- 0 .Y ■' _ � �' . 111 I2 I ra 4 �"'1, !! O fan
131111di1� !E p' ;
o ii-z, � .. —1t�FF�� I� � � .� i13� am .1 ,,`�
T $ ` � � I t ; 111 a• �i -o� l ��' 1 � ar� WY. s�
N i j1 N •
_ D : at n 7 , �.a�� ituu "'IMII ) ...,
r+ _� 1 1 :1 111- s i _ !i
a --RD �� I= x., � II11l iri3 `' \`� f tj
1 V 8111W t1
' - - I lal " ;›
• U. .t•.. w a .P x.•01 .10.41.•• v.. +�.4,.M x.....1w...e V..w a.. •' ada
C.
'‹ , .F 1.....11 m.. 1
. • .q. 1,A. ..1..010 r.... C..2 -.1
N �
F WASHINGTON
I1 suIlG. - - —
S P.ATING BUREAU
1.01.1 A.. M..
i : .M w1.:em W.*f0 U . y ........ IboM a.n.. ,40 c.!.S*At .....wry. N JU K71 ..............0 i...Mt.....w....... A...* ......wr..e .M. .wnn.. ...•s aex.M..,l... I* NO. w M .M.+
.y .ro w. ...U ... .. .w + w r . •.. [...w I,*iOq'b y....
WASHINGTON SURVEYING
& RATING BUREAU
Your Independent Rating Bureau
July 7, 2011
WSRB -Who we are
■ The only Property Rating Bureau in WA
Starting our 100th year
v Independent
/Not for Profit
/Public Service institution
/Managed and domiciled in WA
- Licensed and Regulated by OIC
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 22
Primary Funding of WSRB
Insurance Companies (Subscribers)
Assessments
Property Premiums
Functions - File on Behalf of
We obtain regulatory approval:
Insurance Policy Forms
Rules calculating premiums
Advisory Loss Costs (rates)
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report A
Functions - Building Inspections
Commercial Structures evaluated
• Construction
• Occupancy
• Protection (public and private)
• Exposures
Report on observed conditions
Functions - Evaluate Community Fire Services
•
•
wohoplk
I s tir H1111
T44 \ . = 0;4
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 24
Public Protection Evaluations
■ Public Protection Classification (PPC)
• A rating of the fire protection capabilities of a
community
= Used to determine the Protection Class (PC)
Rating of properties in the community
PPC - History
► NBFU established a PPC evaluation program in
1909
• Chicago, 1871
• Seattle, 1889
• Baltimore, 1904
• San Francisco, 1906
• And many other cities
■ Since 1911, WSRB has been providing PPC in
Washington
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 25
PPC - What We Evaluate
1. Alarm Receiving and Dispatch
2. Fire Department
3. Water Supplies
4. Fire Prevention Activities
Alarm Receiving and Dispatch
■ Alarm Center Infrastructure
■ Communication Equipment
■ Staffing
► Fire Department Notification
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 26
Fire Department
■ Apparatus and Equipment
• Pumpers, Ladders, Tenders etc.
• Hose, Nozzles, SCBA's, etc.
• Condition and Maintenance
■ Geographic Distribution
• Distance between fire station and properties
being protected
► Staffing
• On duty
▪ Volunteer
• Training
Water Supply
■ Demand vs. Supply
• Fire Flow, Pumps, Tanks, Reservoirs, Water Mains
■ Fire Hydrants
• Installation, Distribution
► Alternative Water Supplies
• Hauled Water (Tender Shuttles)
• Lakes and Rivers
■ Testing and Maintenance
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 27
Fire Prevention Activities
► Inspections of new and existing buildings
► Code Enforcement
► Pre -Fire Planning
► Public Education
PPC - The Results
► A numerical classification of 1 through
10 representing the fire protection
capabilities in the community
• A Class 1 being exceptional fire protection
• A Class 10 representing less than minimum
recognized fire protection
► PPC of a community is the starting point
for determining the Protection Class (PC)
rating of an individual building or
property. PC of buildings also dependent
on:
• Distance to responding fire station
▪ Distance to fire hydrant
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 28
1.20
1.00 -
0.80 --
0.60 --
0.40
0,20
0.00
2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10
■ COMMERCIAL PROPERTY • HOMEOWNERS
Homeowners % change by PC
280 -
270 -
2.60
250
2.40
2.30 -
220
:2.10
22,00
g 1.90
1.80
E 1.70
u160 •
t.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
uo
.00 - r r a • ,
2 3 q 0 6 7 8 SA 9 10
Protection class
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 29
PPC - The Results
■ City of Yakima: PC 4
► City of Union Gap: PC 5
■ Yakima County Fire District 10: PC 5
► Yakima County Fire District 11: PC 8
WASHINGTON SURVEYING
& RATING BUREAU
■ Customer Service: 206- 217 -0101
■ Phone: 206 - 217 -WSRB (9772)
■ Fax: 206 - 217 -WFAX (9329)
■ E -Mail: robert.ferrell @wsrb.com
■ Web access: www.wsrb.com
Yoj ndejjjentRatin9 Burju
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 30
Financial Summary
The financial data used in this study is from years 2010 and 2011. The budgetary information in
this report must be updated if the Regional Fire Authority is an accepted option by the elected
officials.
Financial Forecasts of individual Jurisdictions
Figure 31: Yakima FD Fire & EMS Operations Fund Balance Forecast, 2012 - 2017
Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Budget
Revenue 10,767,769 11,248,132 11,694,613 11,768,629 12,153,721 12,550,681
Expenditures I 1
Salaries 7,466,593 I 7,653,258 7,844,589 8,040,704 8,241,722 I 8,447,765
Benefits & Taxes 1,868,918 2,177,841 2,358,576 2,547,257 2,744,210 2,949,777
Supplies & Expense 687,733 I 703,427 719,479 I 735,898 I 752,691 I 769,867
Interfund Transfers 239,938 245,413 251,014 256,742 262,601 268,593
Debt 508,049 515,231 511,828 217,544 I 217,869 217,744
Total Expenditures 10,771,231 11,295,170 11,685,486 11,798,144 12,219,092 12,653,745
Revenue Gain /(Loss) J (3,463) (47,039) 9,127 (29,515) (65,370) (103,064)
Figure 40: District #10 Forecast Summary, 2012 - 2017
Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Budget
Beginning Balance 25,296 14,754 3,590 (11,200) (27,163) (44,310)
Revenue 63,545 64,119 62,227 62,829 63,460 64,115
Expenditures
Salaries & Wages 6,768 6,937 7,111 7,288 7,471 7,657
Benefits & Taxes 720 738 756 775 795 815
Supplies & Expense 7,225 7,390 7,559 7,731 7,907 8,088
Intergov't Services 59,374 60,218 61,592 62,997 64,435 65,905
Total Expenditures 74,087 75,283 77,017 78,792 80,608 82,465
Ending Balance 14,754 3,590 (11,200) (27,163) (44,310) (62,660)
Figure 61: Union Gap FD Fire & EMS Operations Fund Balance, 2012 - 2017
Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Budget
Revenue 1,361,999 1,449,110 1,452,353 1,502,150 1,553,547 1,606,594
Expenditures
Salaries 827,685 848,377 869,587 891,326 913,609 936,450
Benefits & Taxes 310,637 344,258 367,121 390,912 415,663 441,408
Supplies & Expense 80,677 82,518 84,401 86,327 88,297 90,312
Interfund Transfers 88,000 90,008 92,062 94,163 96,312 98,510
Capital 10,000 10,228 10,462 10,700 10,945 11,194
Debt 45,000 73,721 28,721 28,721 28,721 28,721
Total Expenditures 1,361,999 1,449,110 1,452,353 1,502,150 1,553,547 1,606,594
Fund Activity 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 I Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report ER
Figure 72: District #11 Forecast Summary, 2012 - 2017
Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Budget
Beginning Balance 37,159 26,584 15,111 3,866 (8,274), (21,306)
Revenue
Revenue - Fire 37,815 38,193 38,575 38,961 39,350 39,744
Revenue- EMS 6,849 6,917 8,030 8,082 8,163 8,265
Total Revenue 44,664 45,111 46,605 47,043 47,514 48,009
Expenditures
Salaries 4,900 5,023 5,148 5,277 5,409 5,544
Benefits & Taxes 400 410 420 431 442 453
Supplies & Expense 44,875 45,899 46,946 48,018 49,114 50,234
External Taxes 100 102 105 107 109 112
Transfer to Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0
Machinery & Equipment 5,000 5,114 5,231 5,350 5,472 5,597
Total Expenditures 55,275 56,548 57,850 59,182 60,545 61,940
Ending Fund Balance 26,548 15,111 3,866 (8,274) (21,306) (35,236)
The consultant increased all wage and benefit packages by 2.5% per year and all other expenses
were adjusted using a ten year average CPI -U of 2.282.
The tables above show an increase of expenditure which is greater than the increase in revenue
for Yakima, District 11, and District 10. It must be noted that the Fire Districts would not
increase expenditures at the rate noted due to the limit on tax collection. The study shows that
Union Gap Fire Department revenue will increase by the amount of 2.5% of wage and benefit
cost and 2.282% of all other costs per year. Also note that none of the four jurisdictions
currently have a funded Capital facilities or apparatus replacement fund. There is no Capital
improvement funds listed in the cost of the RFA except an amount of $15,000 which was listed
in a Capital fund of one of the jurisdictions at the time of data collection. The total assessed
valuation forecast for each of the four jurisdictions is listed below.
Figure 67: TAV Growth Rates by Year, 2013 - 2017
Year Growth Rate
2013 0.30%
2014 0.45%
2015 0.65%
2016 1.00%
2017 1.25%
Analysis Document Notes
The study group developed an organizational chart that met the needs of the community,
offered a better depth of combined service with nearly the same number of personnel currently
in the Yakima and Union Gap Fire Departments. A Regional Fire Authority is independent of the
City Government and therefore will have added costs not associated with the current Fire
Department budgets. The costs are called "in kind costs" and include services such as Legal,
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
Human Resources, Finance, Payroll, printing etc, The estimate of these costs by ESCI was based
°
on averages of three cities around the United States. Many of these " kind services were
addressed by the addition of one position in the RFA titled Administrative Services Specialist.
In the organizational chart, the Fire iVlarslial, Deputy Fire Marshal, and Secretary are not
reflected in the RFA costs and could be would be funded by a fee, the cities, or code and safety
inspection services could be retained by the cities and those positions eliminated from the RFA.
The consultant's scope of work was to determine if an RFA was financially possible using either
of the two possible revenue plans allowable in the Revised Code of Washington. ESC! was not
contracted to formulate a budget for the RFA or make recommendations on budget amounts of
the RFA. For this reason you will note in the analysis document that ESCI used the maximum
allowable Benefit Charge to calculate the feasibility of an RFA. The study group compiled a
budget that included a Benefit fee that was lower than the ESCI calculation.
Funding Options
Two options are available to fund an RFA in Washington State. The first option (A) is a single ad
valorurn tax of up to $1.50 per thousand of assessed valuation. Six !Regional Fire Authorities in
Washington use this option. These departments are mostly volunteer organizations with a
lower employee cost The consultant's analysis determined that the proposed RFA would not
be possible using this formula.
The second funding option 8) is a two tiered collection of up to SLOO per thousand of assessed
valuation property tax and a Benefit Charge collection of up to 60% of the operating budget of
the RFA, The ESCI analysis confirmed that the proposed RFA is feasible using this option. Two
other Regional Fire Authorities in Washington use this form of revenue. Those Organizations
are in Auburn and Kent and are staffed by full time career firefighters.
A Benefit fee is designed to apply a fee to properties that benefit most from the Fire
Department. A formula can be used that shares the cost of the department fairly within the
RFA. The formula used by our study group is an adaptation of the formula used by Kent
Regional Fire Authority. This formula is somewhat complex and spreads the costs in a
reasonable fashion.
When a Benefit Charge is used as a funding source, the measure must be approved by voters in
the boundary of the RFA by a Super Majority vote of 60% and must be renewed by the voters
every six years.
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 I Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 33
Cost of Proposed RFA
The chart below shows the combined revenue generated by one dollar per thousand property
tax collections and the EMS levy currently collected, This chart also shrews the cost of In kind"
services as calculated by ESCI and a Capital improvement fund that allows fire apparatus to be
replaced at planned intervals and fire station repair, remodel and replacement. The figures
highlighted in yellow show the amount required to be collected as a benefit charge to keep the
organization solvent and in line with forecasted expense increases.
CONSOLIDATED REVENUE
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$1/$1000 w/o FBC (P. 63) $6,672,880 $6,700,108 $6,444,615, = =$6,511619 $6,573,942 $6,636,854 $6,700,368
EMS $1,345,430 $1,460,965 $1,470,496 $1,485,229 $1500,109 $1,515,110 $1,530,261
TOTAL $8018 $8,161,073 $7,915,111 $7,996,848 $8,074,051 $8 $8,230,629
NOTE' At the end of 2014 a GO Bond revenue of $294,975 ends
CONSOLIDATED EXPENSES
2013 2014 2015 ......... 2017 2018 2019
Fire/FMS Operating `Exp $ 12,903,233 $13,163,641°.$13,186,357 $13,512;154 513,846,274 5141: «,275 514,536,723
Capital $440,000 $440,000 $440,000 5440,000 $440,000 $440,060 $440,000
indirect Cost $480,509 $480,509. $480,509 $480,509 $480,509 5480,509 5480,509
TOTAL $13,823,742 514,084,150 $14,106,866 $14,432,663 $14,766,783$15,108,784 $15,459,232
FBC 55,805,432 $5,923,077 $6,191,755 $6,435,850 $6,692,732 $6,956,820 57,228
average FBC 56,571,472
The Fire Benefit Charge listed above is 43.4% of the operating budget which is far below the
allowable O% by statute.
Benefit Charge Amount
The required Benefit Charge increases each year in accordance with increase operating costs,
An average was calculated over the span of six years which would be the next required voter
approval period. The average Benefit Charge for properties in the RFA area is $6,571,477. This
Charge must be collected in an equitable manor using the formula listed below, This formula
can be adjusted to shift cost sharing from one type of property to another. As an example, the
formula can be adjusted to place more charges on private residences than business.
Yakima/Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 I Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
2013 Union Gap/Yakima Regional Fire Authority Benefit Charge
Analysis Summary
■ Residential
# Parcels
Residential 24,850 79.6% Mobile
Mobile Home 3,151 101% Home
Commercial 2,684 e.6% v Commercial
Apartments 547 1.8%
Total Parcels* 31,232 a Apartments
Square Footage is Residential
Residential 50,755,606 5o.1%
Mobile Home 3,559.994 3 5% L , Mobile Home
Commercial 42,039,848 41.5% w Commercial
Apartments 5,006.598 4.9%
Total SF 101,362,046 is Apartments
FBC Allocation •, S
Residential $ 3,265,416 49.0% .. • Residential
Mobile Home 223,025 3.3% + '
Commercial 2,689,466 40.4% : Mobile Home
Apartments 479,847 7.2% A Commercial
Total FBC $ 6,657,755 II Apartments
Total Parcels exceeds Actual # of Legal Parcels (31,007) because some parcels have multiple uses.
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 1 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 35
7 2013 Yakima Regional Fire Authority Benefit Charge Formula:
3 Square root of total square footage x Standard Factor x Category Factor x Fire Ftow Factor x Response Factor x Risk Factor x Applicable Discount a FBC
m
C
5'
From 400 1,800 2,700 3,600 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 16,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 100,000 140,000 200,000 300,000
= To: 1,799 2,699 3,599 3,999 4,999 7,999 9,999 14,999 19,999 29,999 49,999 99,999 139,999 199,999 299,999 No Max
G) .
- 0
0 (Standard Factor l 18 I
vl
.- r
h Category Factors
N Residential 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
Mobile Homes 0.53 0.53 0,53 0,53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0,53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0,53 0.53 0.53
2 Apartments 1.14 1.14 1.14 1,14 114 1.14 1.14 1.14 2.30 2.30 2.30 4.76 4.76 6.10 7.88 10.12
Commercial _ 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.15 - 1.15 1.55 1.55 2.31 2.31
1-1
(Firs Flow Factor-" l 0.23 l 0.23 1 0.23 l 0.23 i 0.23 r 0.231 0.23 l 0.23 l 0.23 1 0.23 j 0.23 1 0.23 1 0.23 l 0.23 l 0.23 l 0.23
Response Factor:••
m Residential 1.00 1.10 1.35 1.65 1.65 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25
d4 • Mobile Homes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
= Apartments 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 ' 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
ty
Commercial 1,18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.65 _ 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 - 4.00
T
Risk Factor. " ""
C 1.00 Light Hazard 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.0 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
D Ordinary Hazard - 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
- Ordinary Hazard - 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
.c Extra Hazard - 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
- ri Extra Hazard - 2 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40
CD
0.)
Er Discounts:
= Automatic Fire Sprinklers 0.900 - 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
-< Manual Local Alarm 0.980 0,980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980
r
N Manual Central Alarm 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
-a Automatic Local Alarm 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970
O
q Automatic Central Alarrn 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925
Agricultural 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 - 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
w
tr
• Actual Are flow Inform 0.22673109
"Response Factor is determined by Me number of firefighters needed to deliver the required fireflow
'"' Risk factors apply to commerclat property, are defined by the NFPA and are assigned by inspection performed by the Fire Authority
Belovv are tables of sample business and of single family residences that show the annual
Benefit charge collection. This Benefit Charge represents the amount of increase the land
owner or business owner would see to properly fund a completely self sufficient Regional Fire
Authority with a sustained level of service. Note: the calculations for businesses are presuming
a sprinkler protected building.
Business
SQ. FT. Benefit Fee SQ. FT. Benefit Fee
1,320 5136.66 5,500 5333.31
2,178 5175,55 5,573 5335.51
2,352 5182.42 6,090 5350.73
2,716 5196.03 6,344 $357,97
2,918 5203.19 7,890 5399.21
3,213 5213,22 8,274 5606.29
3,282 5214.04 8,285 5606.69
3,400 5219.33 10,000 5782.46
3,595 5225.53 10,948 $818.70
3,666 5227.75 12,220 5864.96
4,390 5297.78 19,778 51,100.40
4,550 5303.16 21,665 51,744.01
4,600 5304.82 43,687 53,980.46
5314.09 50,603 54,283.96
4,940 5315.88 53,274 54,395„57
4,959 5316.49 157,164 510,175.80
5,014 5318.24 284,249 520,394.90
5,172 532122
Residerital
SQ. FT, Benefit Fee
850 574.83
1,350 594 31
1,850 5121.44
2,400 5138,32
2,800 5183.36
3,250 5197.54
3,700 5257.61
3,900 526448
4,200 5274.47
4,500 5284.10
5,100 5412 43
7,300 5493.44
8,250 5524.56
9,000 5547.89
10,500 5591.79
13,000 5658.48
16,500 5741„85
19,500 5806.47
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 l Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 37
City Tax Change Consideratiort
it is important to note that in accordance with State Mandate, when a Regional Fire Authority
uses the one dollar per thousand property tax plus a Benefit Charge, the participating city must
reduce property tax collection by one dollar, The property owner will not notice this change
other than on an annual tax statement, The city revenue will be reduced.
Using 2012 TAV figures, the City of Yakima revenue will be reduced by $5,559,278. The City of
Yakima would no longer be funding the Yakima Fire Department at a savings of $9,571,743,
This leaves an excess balance for the City of Yakima of $4,012,465 annually.
Using 2012 TAV figures, the City of Union Gap revenue will be reduced by $550,326, The City of
Union Gap would no longer be funding the Union Gap Fire Department at a savings of
51,263,999. This leaves an excess balance for the City of Union Gap of 5713,673 annually.
PLEASE NOTE: As listed in the Benefit Charge formula and example tables, the additional cost of
funding a sustained Regional Fire Authority would be completely borne by the residential and
business property owners within the Regional Fire Authority boundaries, This cost of service is
applied in a fair system, collecting commensurate with the property that benefits the most
from the service. The Benefit charge may be insignificant to some and substantial to others
compared to current tax collection practices.
Both Cities will have excess revenue as noted above. If this excess revenue is directed back into
the Regional Fire Authority for Fire Protection, the Benefit Charges listed above would be
reduced by 72%. The Cities would then see no change from what is currently collected and the
benefit charge would be very manageable to all property owners. This modified funding option
would have to be agreeable to both Union Gap and Yakima Councils,
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 38
ESC/
Consultant Report
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 Regional Are Authority Feasibility Report 39
Yakima Fire Department,
Union Gap Fire e art en ,
Yakima County Fire District # 10, and
Yakima un y Fire District #11
Washington
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
April 2012
fi . Emergency Services
Consultl ig
25200 SW Parkway Ave, Suite °3 Oregon * 97070* www,ESC!,us • 800- 757 - 3724`
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts ##10 and ##11, Washington
Table of Contents
Table of` Figures . iii
Executive .......:................. .....:.... .............. :.......:.....,.. ......:,...,....,,........1
Background.:......... ......... ........................... ........: ................: ........• 1
Summary Findings ........ ........::......... ........: ..... .. ::,.....,,:..,.....,..,.. :.:, .,...... ,...., ®::. 1
Regional Fire Authority...., ,.....,, ......... ......... ......... .......: ........., ...,....,.,,.., .,..
Option A - Regional Fire Authority (100 percent property tai) ........ ........: ........: .....,:::....,.... 5
Option B — Regional Fire Authority (Benefit Charge). : . .......:. .......:.................: .......:.......... `5
C onclusion.,:....,:.,„ .....,,; . : .......: . .......' ,....,.:.,, .,...:. ,.. 7
Regional Fire Authority Expiained. 8
Fiscal Analysis. "12
Historic Residential Property Sales .....................: ................: ........ ........> ....,.,,.,,...,.,13
Hi storic Unemployment Rate ..:........ ........:.......::.. ,.. .,.:.....,.::.....,.: :.......:_ 14`
Annual lnfiation Rate...:. .,.,,. . .................: .....:: :...,,...:: ..r...:::........16
Historic Financial Review of Yakima FD ,,..,...:......,: ... .....:: .......:.........; ,,,...,.: .....,,.......... M 8
Yakima FD Status Quo Financial Forecast, 2012'- 20117 ..... .....:........ ........ ................6
Historic Financial Review of Yakima County Fire District #10 .......::.. .....: 2
District #10 Current Status Financial Forecast, 2012 — 207.....:........ ......:.. ....... ..........
Historic Financial Review of Union Gap FD
Union Gap FD Current Status Financial Forecast, 2012 - ,2017e: _.,,. __;r .......: ................. 1
Historic Financial Review of Yakima County Fire District #11 .......::.......:: ........ ::........ 7
District #11 Current Status Financial Forecast, 2012 — 2017 .....:: .................:. ......:.........40
Formation of a Yakima Area RFA.
Summary of the Initiative ,...... :,,.. »...3
Obje ctive of the Initiative ......... ........: ......:......... ::..,,,...s ,..,.,,.,.:.....,.,: ,..,...:...,.,.,,
Fiscal Analysis of Regional Fire Authority .,. :..,.....8=
RFFinancial Conclusion....: : . ......... ......... ...:..:.. ......:.. ................: :.,,.::,.: .....,.,.:....,...55'
App endix: Survey of Current Conditions .......:.......:........:: ......::....... # .....,..: ........,.......
Survey Table 1. Organizational Governance .:: .................; ..,..,., ...,,...:.,.,..,.. .,....,:,........7
Survey Table 2: Fiscal Management„... : ,,,...., ;.......,,77
Survey Table 3: Organizational Management ..................:: ........: ........: ........ .......:- ..,.....8
Survey Table 4: Planning for Fire and Emergency Medical Protection ...... ......::. ........:........8 "
Survey Table 5: Human Resources Management .....: ........: .a,,,..:, .......: ., ,,...,:......,,;_...,.....139''
Survey Table 8: Informational and Technology Services
Survey Table 7: Organizational Staffing „ 8
Survey Table 8: Emergency Management .....:.......:........; ......,,, ....,..;:....,._.; ........,.,..,.,,.g9
Survey Table 9: Emergency Communications ........:.................... ....... ........: ........:.......100'
Survey Table 10: Service Delivery System .....' . ......... ........: ........: .......::. ......: :.,,.. ,.. :..,,,,.101'
Survey Table 11: Emergency Services Training Program ,,. .......... .... ... 102
Survey Table 12. Capital Improvement & Repl'acement ...... :. ......: .......:. ........: ................ !0 '
Survey Table 13: Yakima Station 90) ....: .......: :,..,..,;:.,...,,,; ..,,,,,.: ....,,. :.........: ,.,....::',..,.,.105'
Survey Table 14: Yakima. Station 1,... .. ,,.. : ..........:........:...... ..., -- .,..,;, ..,.....,,, ...;,,...,.106
Survey Table 15: Yakima Station 92 ....... . .... ........:.. ............... ... s,, ...,...,,::........;....,,.10 }7
Survey Table 18: Yakima Station 93.... :...,.,,:;, .,,,,,,,, :... .....: ......::.. .....: ........ ::....,...,:.......10'_
Survey Table 17: Yakima Station 134. 109
tea., „4.
Pape
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 18: Yakima Station 9 .....: ...........,.... : ......... ......::......... .......:: ........:......110
Survey Table 19: Yakima Fire Training Center .........:.... ...: .r.....;....,...: ,,......:........;.....,111
Survey Table; 20 Yakima Fire Apparatus Maintenance ....... . .......:.......: ........:..............1
Survey Tablet: Union Gap Station 5 :.... ....:........: ..... ..e, ,...........,.._.. ...,...::...............113
Survey Table 2: Fire District #11 Station ..., .,,r .............: ...a.._..,...,..,, ....,,..: ..,.,.......,.114
Page ii
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Table of Figures
Figure 1: City of Yakima Median Value, and Home Sales, 2006 — 2011 ........ ......::........: .....:............13
Figure 2: Median Value and Home Sates in Union Gap, 2006 — 2011 ........ : ... ....:. ........: 14
Figure 3: Unemployment 2002 2011 .. ........ ... .... ........ .. .......... ....:: ......... 15
Figure 4: Graphical Unemployment 2002 — 2011 ......... .......:. ........< ........: ....,,.., .....,., ...,...:..........1
Figure : TAV Growth Rates, 2013 — 2017,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,r....., ,, , „ ..,: „ ....., ......,::...,.... .....,.........,..16
Figure 6. Average CPI -U History, 2002 — 1013112011 , ;....,,... 16
Figure T Historic and Average CPI -U Graphic, 2002 - 10/31/2011.m, „ w, ..,.:. 17
Figure 8: CPI-U Forecast Budget Impact Graphic, 2013 — 2021,...,., .. ... ....:. ......... ......,., ,...,.. :,..........17
Figure 9; Yakima FD Debt .......:. .......:. ........ .......: ........ 1;8'
Figure 10: City of Yakima and Tax Rate History, 2008 - 2012 19
Figure 11: Yakima FD Fire Revenue History, 2008 — 2012 ...:....... .:....... ..:, . .,.,,. 19
Figure 12 Yakima FD EMS Revenue History, 2008 — 2012 20
Figure 13: Yakima FD Fire Operations Expenditures History, 2008 - 2012.,: : ........: 20
Figure 14: Yakima FD EMS Expenditures History, 2008 — 2012 ......... ........: .......:. ......... 20
Figure 15: Yakima FD Estimated 1n- Direct Cost ......... ....,..: ......21
Figure 16: Yakima FD Fire Operations Fund Balance History, 2008 - 2012 21
Figure 17: Yakima FD EMS Operations Fund Balance History, 2008 -- 2012 .,......:. ...:......... 21
Figure 18: Yakima FD Fire 8, EMS Operations Fund Balance History, 2008 — 2012 .,....22
Figure 19 Yakima FD Capital Reserve Fund Balance History, 2008 2012 : .................„ ..,,. ; ,..,.....m22
Figure 20: Yakima FD Vehicle Replacement Plan Summary 24
Figure 21: FD Unfunded Pension and Medical, 2008'_ 2012 : ...................... 26
Figure 22: TAV Growth Rates by Year, 2013 -- 2017 ......................... 27
Figure 23: Yakima FD Forecast, TAV, 2012 — 2017 ....: ......... ......... 27
Figure 24 Yakima FD Fire Revenue Forecast, 2012 -- 2017 .:.,..,.., 28
Figure 25: Yakima FD EMS Revenue Forecast, 2012 — 2017 : ........: .... ...:. .......::. .. ....:.. .................28
Figure 26: Yakima FD Medical and Dental Benefit Costs by Percentage, 2008 * 2012 .,.,,.:... ... 29
Figure 27: Yakima FD Fire Expenditure Forecast, 2012 — 2017 29
Figure 28: Yakima FD EMS Expenditure Forecast, 2012 — 2017 ......:. ....... ........ ....29
Figure 29: Yakima FD Forecast Summary Fire Operations, 2012 — 2017 ...,: .,,..,. _,.....: ................, 30
Figure 30: Yakima FD Forecast Summary EMS Operations, 2012 — 2017..: : ........: ......... .......::......... 30
Figure 31: Yakima FD Fire & EMS Operations Fund Balance Forecast, 2012 — 2017 .......:. .................30
Figure 32: District #10 TAV and Tax Rate History, 2008 — 2012 ........ .......:: .......: .a.,..::, ,.............,.. 32
Figure 33 District #10 Revenue History, 2008 — 2012 ,,, 32
Figure 34 District #10 Expenditures History, 2008 — 2012 ...: ,...,...: ;,, ,,, ,,,;,,,,,,,,, 33
Figure 35: District #10 Fund Balance History, 2008 — 2012 33
Figure 36: TAV Growth Rates by Year, 2013 - 2017 ........ ..... „ .,,:.......,.. ....,, 34
Figure 37: District #10 Forecast TAV, 2012 — 2017 ....: ......... :......,,. 34
Figure 38: District #10 Revenue Forecast, 2012 — 2017 ....... ...... ........ ...... ....... 34
Figure 39: District #10 Expenditure Forecast, 2012 — 2017 .:: ........: ........:....,.... 35
Figure 40: District #10 Forecast Summary, 2012 — 2017 ...m ..: .......:: ........ .......... .. . ....: 36
Figure 41': Union Gap Fla Debt': . 36
Figure 42: City of Union. Gap TAV and Tax Rate History, 2008 — 2012 ......, .,, „37
Figure 43: Union Gap FD Revenue History, 2008 — 2012 ...... ...... ..: , 37
Figure 44: Union Gap FD Fire Operational Expenditures History, 2008.2012 38
Figure 45: Union Gap FD EMS Expenditures History, 2008 -2012 .: ......... .... ...::.....,..........::........ 38
} . Page iii
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 46: Union Gap FD Estimated In- Direct Cast .....: .......:: ........: .......:: ........ 39
4T Union Gap FD Fire Operations Fund Balance History, 2008 — 2012 ..,.... :..,...,.. 39
Figure 48: Union Gap FD EMS Operations Fund Balance History, 2008 — 2012.....x. 39
Figure 49: Union Gap FD Fire & EMS Operations Fund Balance, 2012 — 2017 ,.,... :....,..., 40
Figure 50: Union Gap FD Capital Reserve Fund Balance History, 2008 — 2012 40
Figure 51: Union Gap FD Vehicle Replacement Plan Summary ......:. ........ ......... ........ 41
Figure 52: TAV Growth Rates by Year, 2013 - 2017 .: ......... :. 41
Figure 53: City of Union Gap Forecast TAV, 2012 — 2017 ,.... 42
Figure 54: Union Gap FD Revenue Forecast, 2012 — 2017 ...: : .......,;. 42
Figure 55: Union Gap FO Medical and Dental Benefit Costs by Percentage, 2008 - 2012., ......,: :......,..43
Figure 56:: Union Gap FD EMS Medical /Dental Benefit Costs by Percentage, 2008 2012 44
Figure 57: Union Gap FD Fire Expenditure Forecast, 2012 — 2017.., :;.........44
Figure 58: Union Gap FD EMS Expenditure Forecast, 2012 y- 2017 44
Figure 59 Union Gap FD Forecast Summary Fire Operations, 2012 — 2017 . .......:. ........ ..................45
Figure 60 Union Gap FD Forecast Summary EMS Operations, 2012 — 2017 45
Figure 61 Union Gap FD Fire & EMS Operations Fund Balance, 2012 — 201 ......:: ........ ........:.........4`
Figure 62 District #11 TAV and Tax Rate History, 2008 —
Figure 63 :: District #11 Fire Revenue History, 2008 — 2012 ...:: . ......... ........ ......:. ........ 47
Figure 64„ District #11 EMS Revenue History, 2008 — 2012..m . ......... .......: „ ®_...: ,,.,....: .......- ;.,..,..,.t7
Figure 65 District #11 Expenditures History, 2008 — 2012 8
Figure 66 District #11 Fund Balance History, 2008 — 2012 ..: .......:.......... 49
Figure 67. TAV Growth Rates by Year.; 2013 - 2017 .: 49
Figure 68 District #11 Forecast TAV, 2012 — 2017,..., .,, :.,..,... : 49
Figure 69: District #11 Fire Revenue Forecast, 2012 - 2017 .: 50
Figure 70; District #11 EMS Revenue Forecast, 2012 — 2017 ...,...,._50
Figure 71'° District #11 Expenditure Forecast, 2012 — 2017 51
Figure 72: District #11 Forecast Summary, 2012 — 2017 .,.,.,.. :,.......52
Figure 73 RFA Administration and Support Staffing (Conceptual) .... ......... ..... . . .. . ... .. : :..,......54
Figure 74: RFA Administrative and Support Staffing Cost Increases (Conceptual) ,. 54
Figure 75: RFA Fire Marshal Staffing (Conceptual } ..... .......:. ........_ ........, ._....,,.., ,,.... .,.,,..,,...,..... 55
Figure 76: RFA Fire Marshal Staffing Cost increases (Conceptual) ..:..... .... ......... . .. 55
Figure 77: RFA Career Operational Personnel (Conceptual) : .......:......... 55
Figure 78: RFA Career Operational Personnel, Cost Increases(Conceptual) , 56
Figure 79; RFA Organizational Chart (Conceptual) ....: 57
Figure 80: RFA impact on Taxable Assessed Valuation .,..... 58
Figure 81 RFA Consolidated Baseline Taxable Assessed Valuation . ......:, .,....r :. 58
Figure 82' RFA Budgeted Baseline Consolidation Fire Revenue 2012.._...... . 59
Figure 83 RFA Budgeted Baseline Consolidation EMS Revenue, 2012 .....::: ......... . ........ . .......:......... 59
Figure 841 RFA Budgeted Consolidation Fire Expense, Baseline 2012 ..................................................... 80
Figure 85; RFA Budgeted Baseline Consolidation EMS Expense, Baseline 2012.., : .... .... .. ..... ......... 60
Figure 86: RFA Fire Operations Consolidated Expense. Baseline Projected Through 2017 :..,...,..61
Figure 87: RFA EMS Operations Consolidated Expense, Baseline Projected Through 2017 ........:... ......61
Figure 88: Option A; RFA Fire Operations Fire Revenue, 2012 — 2017 ........: ........ ..,,..,.., 62
Figure 89: Option A: RFA Financial Summary Fire, 2012 — 2017 .... 62
Figure 90 Option B; RFA Fire Operations Consolidated Fire Revenue, 2012 — 2017,., .,..., ., 83
Figure 91 Option B: RFA Fire Operations Consolidated EMS Revenue, 2012 — ,,. 64
Figure 92: Option B: RFA Financial Summary Fire, 2012 — 2017 „ ;,.
Figure 93: Option B RFA Financial Summary EMS, 2012 —
Page iv
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 94: Status Quo Yakima Annual Balance — All Sources/All Services 66
Figure 95: Yakima Revenue/Expense Projection
Figure 96: Status Quo District #1 0 Annual Balance — All Sources/All Services
Figure 97: Status Quo District #10 Revenue/Expense Projection
Figure 98: Status Quo Union Gap Annual Balance —Ali Sources/All Services 67
Figure 99: Status Quo Union Gap Revenue/Expense Projection
Figure 100: Status Quo District #11 Annual Balance — All Sources/All Services
Figure 101: District #11 Revenue/Expense Projection 69
Figure 102: Option A. RFA with Regular Property Tax —All Agencies, 70
Figure 103: Option A. RFA Revenue/Expense fillaximum Property Tax 70
Figure 104: Option B: RFA with Benefit Charge — All Agencies 71
Figure 105: Option B. RFA Revenue/Expense — Maximum Benefit Charge 72
* $1*.*19.1.C4.1.#1,04 Page v
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts ##10 and #11, Washington
Executive Summary
This report details the fiscal analysis of the Yakima Fire Department;, (YFD), Yakima County Fire
District ##10 (District #10), Union Gap Fire Department (UFD), and Yakima County Fire District
##11 (District ##11) as they exist today and as they are forecast into the future, independently and
as a Regional Fire Authority. The noted agencies are evaluating the potential mutual benefits
and the feasibility of forming, of a Regional Fire Authority. ESCI has been contracted to perform
the fiscal analysis portion of this deliberation.
Background
ESCI conducted on-site interviews with key stakeholders to determine the historic and current
fiscal status of the four agencies. Research was also completed to obtain background
information bearing on the fiscal climate of the region, specifically identifying factors that bear on
revenues and expenses for the four agencies. Research included taxable assessed valuation
growth, retail home sales history, unemployment statistics, the ten -year history of the Consumer
Price Index — Urban for the region, revenue and expense histories for each of the four agencies,
and their current and projected debt liabilities. - The limitation of this report or any forecasting
endeavor is that it relies upon data that reflects > a 'snapshot in time" and projects forward from
there. Communities seldom stand still, and numerous events and actions can change the
current conditions which, if projected out, can change the results of forecasts, However, as of
this writing, ESCI is not aware of any major initiatives or actions that would substantially modify
the conclusions of this report,
Summary of Findings
The Yakima County Assessor has projected that the 2012 residential values will decline by 1 to
2 percent, offset slightly by growth in commercial and agricultural, property. There were four
projects cited as meaningful development in both Yakima and Union Gap in the next few years,
which help offset that residential value decline. Home sales in both Union Gap and Yakima
have steadily declined in rate since 2006, with median prices for these homes slightly increasing
in Yakima and increasing at a steeper rate in Union Gap,
Unemployment generally reflects the broader state and national trends in that it is high relative
to the last five or six years. The troubling data point is that the Yakima County unemployment
peak over the last ten years was 2011 at 0.76 percent. It is reasonable to conclude that as the
Paget
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
economy slowly improves, unemployment rates will eventually decline; but is not ;likely to
substantially drop in the projection horizon this study has focused on which is through 2017,
The inflation rate was projected using the Consumer Price index for all urban consumers (CPI
U) reported for the 2002 through October 31, 2011, period for the West Coast class B/C
(population 50,000 — 1,500,000) Statistical Area as compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor.
With a low of -0.6 percent to a high of 3.5 percent over the last ten years, the average inflation
index rate is 2;282 percent, which was used to calculate expense increases for forecasts and
projections. The exception to this is in salaries and 'benefits. ECI used 2.5 percent as the
inflation factor for forecasts as a conservative approach and to reflect the potential for higher
increases due to mandatory subjects of bargaining, binding arbitration, and comparable
analyses
Both Yakima and Union Gap have long -term debt obligations. Conversely, neither district has
long -term debt, primarily due to the contractual relationship each has with its city counterpart.'
Yakima has a limited general obligation bond debt outstanding of $825,000 as of December 31,
2011. it has provided a training tower for the department and is scheduled to mature in 2014.
in addition, Fire Station 92 was constructed with funds through the city Real Estate Excise Tax,
being used here as a dedicated revenue stream to cover the debt balance of $645,000 as of
December 31, 2011. This debt is due to be satisfied in 2022. Finally, two fire engines and a
ladder truck are being funded by the Yakima Fire Department Capital Reserve Fund and
general property taxes from the city. The combined total of that debt is $1,128,124. These
debts are scheduled to be satisfied in 2020 and 2021, respectively.
Union Gap has a fire station remodel project which was funded through a limited general
obligation bond with an outstanding balance of $180,000 as of December 31, 2011. This debt is
due to be satisfied by 2013. The city has also leased a new fire engine, which is being paid
through general property taxes. It is scheduled to be satisfied in 2022.
All four agencies receive Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy funds which they share with
the county. The county allocates revenue on a formula based on population, EMS response
activity, and other factors. Each agency also receives funds according to its form of
government Fire Districts #10 and #11 receive property taxes as their primary source of
revenue. Washington State law limits a fire district's property tax to $1.50 per $1,000 of taxable
assessed valuation (TAV) if the district has at least one employee. Otherwise, the district is
Page 2
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Gap, which absorb support costs such as finance services and legal services on behalf of their
fire departments. The recommended annual capital reserve investment for Yakima is $1 56,733
over current contributions. The indirect costs for Yakima are estimated to be $426,570 (or 3,96
percent of its budget). The recommended annual capital reserve investment for Union Gap is
$33,478 over current contributions, The indirect costs for Union Gap are estimated to be
$53,939 (or 3.96 percent of budget).
Regional Fire Authority
A Regional Fire Authority (RFA) is a new governmental structure whereby all participating
agencies fall under this new structure with a new tax base, a new operational plan, and a new
legal framework. A planning committee is formed, made up of equal representation of elected
officials from each of the participating agencies. It can include fire districts, cities, towns, port
districts, and tribes,
The planning committee develops a plan, which becomes essentially the constitution of the new
entity and which specifies how the RFA will be funded, operated, and governed. The plan is
presented to the electorate (which is defined as all of the voters within the footprint of the
proposed RFA) of the participating agencies and is approved with either a 50 percent favorable
vote (if the funding mechanism requires a simple majority) or 60 percent favorable vote (if the
funding mechanism requires a supermajority, such as a benefit charge or EMS levy).
RFA impact on Cities
The cities of Yakima and Union Gap would have to address their tax rate if an RFA were
formed. City property tax is capped at a maximum statutory rate of $3,601$1,000 (if the city
includes a fireman's pension fund). Thus, if a city is part of an RFA, it must either:
a) Promise to reduce its levy rate by the equivalent amount of property taxes levied by the
RFA to have a net zero impact to its taxpayers, or;
b) Convince taxpayers that the tax increase will improve other services in the city.
In no event, however, can a city exceed its statutory maximum levy rate when adding the RFA
property tax levy into the calculation An example cif the impact to cities follows .
v page 4
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #1O and #11, Washington
The reduced property tax rate coupled with the benefit charge provides funds in excess of
expenses by a large enough rear irn that indirect costs and capital investment, increases are
easily absorbed. Alternatively, the benefit charge could be reduced to 50 percent of the
operating budget and continue to meet projected expenses with a 'comfortable .margin. If the
RFA plan were established to provide a scalable benefit charge, the rate could be set on an
annual basis to meet but not substantially exceed projected costs for a given year, as long as
the total benefit charge does not exceed the statutory 60 percent of operating costs maximum. it is important to note that the benefit charge is based on a quantifiable formula ;established by
the participating agencies, `'typically developed with professional assistance. The formula
reflects the relative benefit a property receives from the fire authority over and above the service
paid for by the property taxes. Once implemented, some taxpayers will see the amount they
pay for fire protection reduced while others will see their total costs increase. It cannot be fairly
represented by dividing the total costs by the total number of properties. With that stipulation,
the following comparison is, only used as an illustration of relative changes in costs between
status quo and an RFA with benefit charge.
akkrma 2012 2013 2014. 2015 2016 2017
Status Quo
Effective Levy Rate - Fire 1.642 1.721 1.774 1.827 1.873 1.916
Levy Rate - 0.214 + 0.214 0.231 0.231 0,231 0,230
Cobineri Levy Rate 1.856 1.935 2.005: 2.058 2.104 2.146
RFA with Benefit Charge
Combined Fire Levy+ Benefit Charge _ 2.061 2,081 2.098 2:112 2.121
Levy Rate - EMS - 0.231 0.231 0.231 0,231 ; 0.230
Total Rate 2.292 2.312 2.329 2.343 2.351
Effective Tax Rate Change , 0.357 0.307 0.271 0.239 0.205
Fire District #10 .............. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Status Quo
Effective Levy Rate - Fire 0.797 0.803 0,807 0.810 0:810 [ 0.808
Levy Rate - EMS 0.135 0.135 0.157 0.157 0.157 0.157
Combined Levy Rate 0.932 0.938 0.964 0.967 ....... 0967 0965
RFA with Benefit Charge
Combined Fire Levy + Benefit Charge 2.061 2.081 2.098 2 2 . 12 1
Levy Rate - EMS -- 0.231 0.231 0.231 0,231 ; 0,230
Total Rate 2.292 2.312 2.329 2.343 2.351
Effective Tax fiate Change 1.354 . 1. % .. 1.362'. 1.376 1.386'
Page 6
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11,Wahingtor
Union Gap 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Status Quo
Effective Levy Rate - Fire 1,378 1.485 1.539 1.591 1.640 1.685
'
Effective Levy Rate - EMS 0.774 0,817 0.803 0.803 :0.837 0,850
Levy Rate - EMS 0,178 0.177 0.211 0.211 0211 0.211
Combined Levy Rate 2.330 2.479 2.553 2.605 2.688 2.746
RFA with Benefit Charge
Combined Fire Levy + Benefit Charge - 2.061 2.081 2.098 2.112 2.121;
Levy Rate - EMS t -- 0,231 0231 0.231 0.231 0.230
Total Rate 2.292 2.312. 2.329 2.343 2.351
Effective Tax. Rate Change (0.197 ) (0:241) , 0.276) (0 .a (0,395)
Fire District #11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Status Quo
Effective Levy Rate - Fire 0.745 0.751 0.755 0757; 0.757 0.755
Levy Rate - EMS 0.135 0,136 0.157'' 0,157 0.157 0,157
Combined Levy Rate 0,880 0.887 0.912 0.914 0.914 0,912
RFA with Benefit Charge
0ornbined Fire Levy + Benefit Charge 2,061 2.081 2.098 2.112 2,121
Levy Rate - EMS - 0.231 0.231 0.231 0.231 0.230
l*otat Rate 2.292 2.312 2,329 2.343 2.351
Effective Tax Rate Change 1 5 1'F 400 1.415 1.429 1.439
Conclusion
A Regional Fire Authority is fiscally viabte and sustainable if it were formed with a benefit charge
(Option 8). It allovts for the RFA to fund indirect charges through contracts with the cities,
contracted out to other potential providers, or absorbed into the RFA as an internal service it
provides, itself._ it also funds the capital investment necessary to, maintain a reliable fleet of
apparatus vie!" into the future. A scalable benefit charge, if identified in the plan' and approved
by voters, maintains flexibility in matching expenses on an annual basis.
Page 7
}Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Regional Fire Authority Explained
The basis of this study is the evaluation of the financial opportunities or drawbacks posed by the
formation of a Regional Fire Authority (RFA or Authority) by the Yakima Fire Department, Union
Gap Fire Department, Yakima County Fire District #10, and Yakima County Fire District #11 _
An RFA is a new governmental structure whereby all participating agencies fafl under this new
structure with a new tax base, a new operational plan, and a new legal framework.
Should the decision be made to move forward with RFA formation, the first step is the formation
of a Planning Committee, considered to be the most important component of the process. The
Planning Committee is charged with establishing the RFA Plan, which specifies how the
Authority will be funded, operated, and governed. While the formation of a Planning Committee
is the first procedural step, this step will likely follow many informal meetings and discussions by
the participating jurisdictions.
Most successful RFAs have established formal steering committees composed of a wide variety
of stakeholders to determine the feasibility of creating an RFA far in advance of forming the
actual Planning Corrnittee. Such is the case for the key stakeholders here. A formal steering
committee has been in existence for some time now and has convened regularly to evaluate the
potential for an RFA. The steering committee has contracted with ESCI to perform the fiscal
analysis of the RFA structure as identified by that committee_
It is important to establish a common understanding of what a Regional Fire Authority is
including the tools and options available and relevant considerations. The following section
describes RFAs in some detail to provide a common understanding for the steering committee
and other interested parties.
The Planning Committee is comprised of three elected officials appointed from each of the
participating agencies, assuring an equal voice in the decision-making process for everyone
involved. Moving forward with the formation of an RFA also requires approval by all of the
affected governing bodies prior to the initiative being put before the voters. The Planning
Committee composition, responsibilities, and procedures are addressed in further detail in the
legal considerations discussion provided in the following text,
page 8
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima. Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Funding Mechanisms
A key consideration of the RFA formation decision is that of funding, The RFA Plan will identify
funding sources that may include some or all of the following;
• Fire levies * $1.50/$1,000 of taxable assessed valuation maximum.
• EMS levies - $0,50/51,000 of taxable assessed valuation maximum - most commonly
expires at 6 or 10 years; can be permanent if approved by voters.
• Excess levies - amount set by governing body and approved by voters - short duration.
• Benefit charges - a reduced property tax rate of $1.00/$1,000 of taxable assessed
valuation plus a maximum of 60 percent of the RFA's total operating costs as a charge
levied against properties (mostly businesses) based on a complex formula establishing
the benefit for each individual property of the RFA's service to that property (RCA(
52.26.180 - .270).
• Bonds for capital purchases amount set by governing body for capital improvements
only.
Facilities and Equipment
The ownership or transfer of ownership of capital assets is not prescribed by law and is
determined by the Planning Committee. Although ownership of facilities and equipment may be
transferred or even leased to the newly formed RFA, the responsibility for existing bonded
indebtedness for capital assets remains with the originating agency until the debt is satisfied.
Staffing and Personnel
Under a Regional Fire Authority configuration, employees and members of the agencies joining
forces become employees and members of the new organization, including career and
volunteer personnel, Unless otherwise declared in the process of forming the new Authority,
employees will retain the rights, benefits, and privileges that they had under their pre-existing
collective bargaining agreements.
Roles and responsibilities assigned to agency personnel may change in a newly formed RCA
when modifications are necessary in the interest of service delivery requirements. For this
reason, involvement of key stakeholders from the onset of the process is essential.
Governance and Administration
A Regional Fire Authority is governed by a single governance board. The number of board
rnetnipers and the length of their service terms are determined by the Planning Committee. The
statute authorizing the formation of an RFA does not place limitations on the number of
Page 9
Fegional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Sap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
members serving on the board, leaving that decision to the Planning Committee and, ultimately,
the voters.
Administration of the new RFA, once established, becomes the responsibility of the newly
established governing board. The Planning Committee, however, will include in its body of work
identification of the composition of the RFA's administrative staff. The fire chief and his/her
command staff, as agreed to by the Planning Committee, will subsequently report to the
governing board.
Legal Considerations
A number of important legal considerations must be taken into account in the formation of a
FRegional Fire Authority:
Fire Protection Jurisdiction — Only "fire protection jurisdictions' may participate in the
formation of an RFA. RCVV 52.26.020 defines fire protection jurisdictions as "fire district,
city, town, port district or Indian Tribe."
Regional Fire Authority Flan — Planning Committees are tasked with forming the RFA
Plan. The RFA Plan outlines the plan for governance, financing, operations, boundary
changes and other considerations, and is the plan that the voters are asked to approve
when voting on the formation of the RFA. The RFA plan is a critical document in the
formation of the RFA and serves a role similar to a charter or constitution for the ongoing
operation of the RFA.
Formation Procedures — Like any other type of significant consolidation, the formation of
an RFA requires careful planning. Because the RFA essentially creates a new entity,
there is an added layer of complexity to the planning. The new entity will need to
register with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), establish new accounts with the County
and vendors, assign and/or negotiate contracts, negotiate labor agreements, establish
payroll systems as needed, etc. In other words, the formation of a new entity can be
incredibly time intensive and attention to detail is critical. The formation of an RFA is not
subject to review by a Boundary Review Board or a County legislative authority. The
formation of an RFA is, however, likely subject to compliance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), where the planning committee vvouid, in all likelihood,
act as the lead agency.
The advantages of formation of an RFA are that it allows participating agencies to retain the
strengths of each agency, minimize the weaknesses of each agency, and establish new "best
practices" not currently provided by the participating agencies; it facilitates a contemporary look
at services, resources, and costs, finding the right balance for the community; it retains (or has
the potential to retain) pre policy of the participating agencies in a governing
board, thus utilizing the vision and commitment that initiated the implementation of strategy; it
0.4fflv.tt /mots g
Page 10
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #1 0 and #1 1, VtWaslington
creates an opportunity to "right -size" the revenue with the cost of operation; and it provides an
active role for the citizens being served in setting their service levels and costs.
The disadvantages of pursuing this strategy are the loss of autonomy, the loss of a familiar`'
structure (although RFAs operate almost identically to a fire district), the investment of time and
effort to develop an RFA plan can be rendered moot by the voters, and funding options are not
better for RFAs than they are for fire districts.
There are numerous configuration options with an RFA, Careful consideration of the options,
issues contained in the RFA Plan, and fiscal and operational forecasting are critical to a long-
term, successful formation.
Page 11
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Fiscal Analysis
This section of the report provides an overview of each organization in its current independent
status and a projection through 2017 assuming the organization structure and working
conditions remain unchanged. This will provide a current view of the financial impact of Yakima
and Union Gap departments as they are operating today (as departments of the City) and
Yakima County Fire District #10 and Yakima County Fire District #11 as they currently contract
for services. For the city departments not all costs are currently allocated to the department, as
the cities absorb some support costs on behalf of their fire departments.
Economic Indicators
Economic indicators specific to Washington, Yakima County, and the local area will provide the
historical basis for projecting future costs that impact the operation of each organization.
Information in this section is provided to substantiate the forecast and projected increases in
taxable assessed value (TAV), revenue, and expenditures. This will be accomplished by
reviewing the history of retail home sales, unemployment statistics, and the previous ten years
of the Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U).
Taxable Assessed Value
The development of the potential change in taxable assessed value for the four organizations
was developed by interviews with the county tax assessor and the planning divisions from both
Yakima and Union Gap. There are two primary components for the Taxable Assessed Value.
1. Re-assessment of existing property: The county assessor's office reviews and
assigns revised property tax values annually with a legally mandated requirement for a
site visit every six years. The assessor projects that the 2012 residential value will
decline between 1 and 2 percent, offset by a slight growth in commercial and agricultural
property.
2. New Construction: New construction is added to the taxable assessed value when the
property is placed in service. Historically, $300-400 million dollars of taxable new
construction is added to the tax base each year for the calculation of property tax
revenue. In 2011, taxable new construction was $118 million. The assessor's office
projects the new construction number to remain relatively low for the next few years,
Both city planning divisions identified specific projects that could provide new construction and
economic growth to the area In Yakima the projects were
• Continued development of the Congdon Orchards site This is a mixed use
development.
• The old Sawmill site has been awarded $20 million in LIFT funds to create infrastructure
for re-developing the site This property is also zoned for mixed use.
* 0..0...$ $0
Page 12
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Union Gap projects are:
• A $20 million, 125,000 square foot facility in Washington Plaza. The planning office
projects this facility to be taxable in 2013.
• A $20 million, 120,000 square foot retail facility at Long Fiber Road and Valley Mall
Boulevard. The planning office projects this facility to be taxable in 2014/15.
Historic Residential Property Sales
The assessor's office utilizes recent residential home sales to establish new appraised values.
The following figures record the numbers of existing home sales and the median value by
quarter from January 2006 through September 2011 for the City of Yakima and Union Gap.
Retail home sales have trended down from 2006 to current in Yakima. The average sale price
of these homes has been in the range of $130,000 to $160,000.
Figure 1: City of Yakima Median Value and Home Sales, 2006 - 2011
Home Sales in Yakima, WA
Count Price
900 $180,000
800 5160,000
700 r $140,000 -
600— - S120,000
�
Count of
i
500— — — '— $100,000 Horne Safes
Per Quarter
400 - — - — $80,000
300 I - $60
I i I r ! $40,400 imam
100 i I - - H - - - -' 520, Medan Price
0 so
Q1 Q2Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q30401 02Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q304 01 Q2 03 Q401 Q203
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ,,,
q. Figure 2 illustrates the number of home sales and the median value by quarter from January
2006 through September 2011 for Union Gap. The chart reveals that average retail home sales
are between 40 and 60 per quarter. The peak sales prices of $200,000 were in first quarter of
2009. Since then, the sales value of homes being sold ranged between $140,000 and
$185,000.
http: / /www. city - data. com /city/Yakima- Washington.html.
.,.„,,,,e.,—,cm.,ww Page 13
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 2: Median Value and Home Sales in Union Gap, 2006 — 2011
Home Sales in Union Gap, WA
count
200 $200,000
180 $180,000
__
160 $1684,400 jj
140 $140 I
cf
120 $120,000 H orne s
100 $100,000
80 – – .— 580,000
60= - - - -- � $64,000
40 544,000 1111 24 52:000 Medal Pry
i, `. A, 1 1
Q1 Q2Q3 Q4Q1 Q2 Q304 0102:3 :40102 03Q4 Q2 Q3 :40102 03
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Retrieving home sale information from Zillow reaffirms the information above. As of February
14, 2012, 939 homes are listed for sale in Yakima County. The Yakima County Assessor's
office reflects that 2,028 single family homes were sold in 2011.
Historic Unemployment Rate
The level of employment in the region could potentially impact the number of homes being sold
and the ultimate sale price. In the following table (Figure 3), the historic unemployment rates are
shown for Yakima County.
2 http: / /www. city- data.com /city /Union- Gap- Washington.html
3 http: / /www.zillow.com/ homes /yakima- county - washington_rb
4 http: / /yes.co.yakima.wa.us /Assessor /use_sales.aspx
I tproper, ".,owe,C40. °'w Page 14
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 3: Unemployment 2002 - 2011
Year Unemployment Ten -Year
Rate Average
2002 9.65%
2003 9.59%
2004 8.50%
2005 7.40%
2006 6.79%
2007 6.21%
2008 6.84%
2009 8.95%
2010 9.69%
2011 9.76% 8.34%
Another way to visualize the unemployment picture in Yakima County is depicted in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Graphical Unemployment 2002 - 2011
12.00%
10.0CM
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
'♦ Unemployment Rate
2.00% - Ten -year Average _
0.00% 1 1
e ,ot 15:1 e
The growth in the unemployment rate from 2007 through 2011 doesn't provide any
encouragement that the housing market will improve dramatically in the next few years. Due to
the information provided above, for the purposes of projecting future growth in Taxable
Assessed Valuation (TAV), the following percentage growth rates (Figure 5) will be used to
calculate the 2012 TAV as the base and is projected through 2017.
*: Page 15
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and ##11, Washington
Figure : TAV Growth Rates, 2013 - 2017
Year Growth Rate
2013 0.30%
2014 0,45
2015 0E65%
2016 1.00
2017 125%
Annual Inflation Rate
Inflation is also an important consideration when forecasting cost. For the purpose of this
analysis, ESCI will use the average Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI -U)
reported for the 2002 through October 31, 2011, period for the west coast class 1C (population
50,000- 1,500,000) Statistical Area as compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor. The
information is displayed in both table and graphical format (Figure 6 and Figure 7 ).
Figure 6: Average CPI -U History, 2002 « 1013112011
Year CPM_J. AVG
2002 1,50
2003 2.00 °l0
2004 2.70/o
2005 2.90%
2006 2.90'10
2007 3,10%
2008 3.50 °l0
2009 0.600 .........
2010 1.00 °l
2011 3.00 %0 2262%
5 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers,
Series Id: CULT 400SA0 Not Seasonally Adjusted, Size Class t31C (population 50,000 — 1,500,000)
Page 16
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 7: Historic and Average CPI -U Graphic, 2002 - 10/31/2011
4.00%
— CPI - U
—AVG
3.00%
2.00%
1.00% - - - —
0.00% - I -1— I r ,
-1.00% -
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
A historic review of the ten -year average Consumer Price Index — Urban (CPI -U) was 2.282
percent per year. This rate is used for analytical purposes during this financial review. The use
of this value is an estimate to project potential cost trends in future years. However, the actual
CPI -U for a given year could be higher or lower. Historic data was used to develop an inflation
index for the years 2013 through 2021 (Figure 8). The CPI -U average increase will be applied
to other revenue and expense categories of the 2012 budget to develop the financial forecast
for each agency. Expenditures in 2021 are projected to be approximately $1.23 for each of
today's dollars.
Figure 8: CPI -U Forecast Budget Impact Graphic, 2013 - 2021
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Page 17
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Historic Financial Review of Yakima FD
Yakima FD Debt
Yakima Fire Department has four debt obligations. Three of the four debt obligations are net
recorded as budgeted expense to the fire department. As shown in Figure 9 below, only the
lease purchase of two fire trucks is charged to the fire department budget. Fire Station No. 92 .
and the ladder truck are charged to Yakima Finance and the training tower is charged to the
City Debt Fund (Account 284) with other general' obligation bond debts.
Figure 9: Yakima FD Debt
Origination Principal
Funding
Description Source £?ri Date Date pate Principal Balance of
Amount 12/31/11
Revenue to Recorded as an
Two F Capital 3/15/2011 121112020 $576,847 $523,124 expense in the
Engines Fund fire department
Capital fund 332
BEET Loan paid by
Fire Station (Real REET funds.
No 92 Estate 515 511/2022 815,000 645,000 Loan expenses
Excise charged to fund
Tax) 281 — Finance
Ladder Property Loan expenses
Truck Tax 8/28/2008 12/1/2021 760,000 605,000 charged to fund
281 — Finance
GO Bond paid
Limited with mill; levy of
Training General $8 L oan
9/1/2004 12/1/2014 2,300 825
Tower Obligation expenses
Bond charged to fund
284 - Cit . Debt.
T t ... .... x w .... ....:,'
For the purpose of this review (to collect and report all costs associated with the fire
department), all of the above debt will be shown as debt expense in the financial statements.
Revenue from REET (Real Estate Excise Tax) funds and the GO (General Obligation) Bonds
will be included in revenue for the fire department to offset the debt. Revenue is not specifically
recorded for the payment of the debt on the two fire engines. Principal and interest payments
are recorded as a charge to the capital fund. Since no designated funding source has been
established for this debt, no income will be shown in the fire department budget to pay this
amount, All income in the capital fund win remain to grow the balance for future fund
purchases.
Page 18
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts *10 and #11, Washington
City' of Yakima Taxable Assessed Value (TAV) History
Figure 10 shows the historical TAV for the City of Yakima from 2008 through 2012. It >includes
the change in TAV by year and the applicable tax rate.
Figure 10: City of Yakima and Tax Rate History, 2008 — 2012
Description 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Budget 2012 Budget
TAV 4,586,923,853 5,104,315,771 5,368,959,341 5,389,218,769 5,599,278,437
..mx .. .. „ii,I. 3 :i. w a us ��Va
The average annual percent of change for TAV from 2009 through 2012 was an increase of
5.52 percent.
Yak FD Revenue History
The following figure provides a detailed review of fire operations revenue for the Yakima FD
from 2008 through 2012. The City of Yakima made the decision that revenue received for
to District #10 would be transferred to the Capital Fund in 2011:
Figure 11: Yakima FD Fire Revenue History, 2008 — 2012
Decr 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Actual Actual Actual Budget. Budget
City Contribution 8,312,889 8,825,000 9,163,154 9,015,258 9,195,805
DNS Safer Grant 72,000 69 +000 27,000 0 0
State Patrol Fire Transfer 2,016 0 0 3,000 3,000
Fire trivesticgatiort 74 1,360 655 - 1,000 1,000
Training Programs 1.250 3750 5,100 0 0
Training Services 82,065 76,247 76,247 45,000 5,000
Photostat 0 100 0 500 500
Fire Protection Services 0 16,545 404 0 0
GO Bond Revenue 293,788 267,678 296,550 296,550 293,875
REST Debt Revenue 17,130. 72,275 75,813 75,813 72,563
Total Revenue 8,820,835 9,475,388: 9,701,013 9,439 721 ..9,571743
l Effective Tax Rate 1.812 1.729 1707 1 = ,673 1.642
Total fire operations revenue has increased -8.5 percent from 2008, The City's revenue
contribution is the amount of funds that are required to fully fund the fire department operations
budget. The rate shown in Figure 11 is the effective tax rate required to fund fire operations at
the same level as the City contribution to the fire department s budget. The following table lists
the historical EMS revenue for the Yakima FD:
a7 Page 19
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 12: Yakima FD EMS Revenue History, 2008 - 2012
Description 208 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011, 2012 Budget
Actual Budget
!Department of Health 1,644 1726 2,186 1;726 1726
Pre - Hospital Grant
Interest income 871 729 651 750 300
Property Taxes - 1,043,993 1,046,241 1,091,820 1,118,000 1,194,000
EMS Le
;, n w
Effective Tax Rate 0228 0.205 0,204 0.208 0214
Yakima FD Expenditures History,
Figure 13 and Figure 14 depict the historical spending for Yakima FD fire and EMS operations
from 2008 through 2012.
Figure 13: Yakima FD Fire Operations Expenditures History, 2008 - 2012
Description 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Budget 2012 Budget
6,379,374 6,937,373 7,087,961 6,759,757 6,694,968
Benefits & Taxes 1,332,111 ' 1,432,577 1, 498,388 1,507 329 1,671,797
Su• dies & Exsense 631,132 595,097 565,491 555,777 579,803
lnterfund Transfers 93,765 98,453 103,376 106,477 117,125
Debt 384,453 411,888 445 798 510381 508,049
.6'0 ..' . i .` lr , w 1 ` ¢ gad ' r r
Salaries, taxes and benefits account for 87.5 percent of the total 2012 fire operations budget
expense which is consistent with 87.4 percent in 2008 actual expenses.
Figure 14: Yakima FD EMS Expenditures History, 2008 - 2012
Description 2008 'Actual .::2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Budget 2012 Budget
c ° t 1e u 648,510 698,458 688,492 736,233 771,625
Benefits & Taxes 139,183 145,583 148,985 157,002 197,121
Su•.lies & Ex•ense 128,357 178,520 108,198 107,930 107,930
Interfund Transfers 168,263 144,177 147,850 120,739 122
Debt 0 0 0 0 0
�. ., .„ ..1 - "Tot ..... 84 „ { 1 4. "meek 1440„„.= . -. w", = °
Salaries taxes and benefits account for 80.8 percent of the total 2012 EMS operations budget
expense which is an increase of 8.2 percent from 72.6 percent of 2008 actual expenses.
The expenditures reflected above (Figure 13 and Figure 14) would` be low compared to that of
an RFA, as the costs do not include expenditures associated with some internal services
provided by the City. These costs are generally referred to as in -kind or in direct charges and
include payroll processing, human resources, accounts payable, risk management, legal, IT
Page 20 '
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
ESC I recommends that the capital reserve fund be used for the funding of a vehicle
replacement plan. ESC1 developed a vehicle replacement plan for the Yakima FD projecting the
useful life of vehicles and scheduling the replacement date for these vehicles based on the
remaining useful life. The replacement date assumes that all vehicles will be placed in reserve
status for five years prior to disposal. Figure 20 shows a vehicle replacement plan summary for
Yakima FD.
Page 23
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Implementation of the above vehicle replacement plan would require a fund balance of
$3,426,083 on December 31, 2011, and an annual accrual /budget of $362,483 adjusted for
inflation.. Based on the current capital fund balance, to fully fund the reserve would require an
infusion of $3,134,660. A large infusion to capital replacement is not a viable option. for the
Yakima FD. An alternative ,would be to increase the capital fund over a 20-year period. This
would require an incremental contribution to the capital fund of $158,733 per year, At the end of
20 years the account would be fully funded.'
Yakima FD Unfunded Liabilities
The Yakima FD has an unfunded liability for the firefighter pension fund (FPF) and retired
medical benefits for LEOFF1 qualifying members. Based on an actuarial report prepared by the
City's actuary (Milkman, LLC) dated May 7, 2009, for the 2008 valuation period, there is a total
of $33,584,000 in unfunded liability; $9,289,000 for pension and $24,295,000 for medical
benefits The City's policy is to "pay as you go' for these expenses, and it tracks all activity for
this liability in Fund 612.
The City of Yakima collects a specific firefighter pension levy amount to fund this obligation and
pays the liability based on current revenue streams, Cities are authorized to collect a firefighter
pension tax of $0.225, per $1,000. Figure 21 depicts the historical activity of this fund from 2008
to 2012.
Page 5
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Yakima FD Forecast Taxable Assessed Value (TAV)
The forecast percent of growth for the TAV from 2013 through 2017 are shown in Figure 22
below:
Figure 22: TAV Growth Rates by Year, 2013 — 2017
Year Growth Rate
2013 0,30%
2014 0,45%
2015 0,65%
2016
2017 1,25%
Figure 23 forecasts the changes in the TAV from 2012 through 2017 using the growth factors
above.
Figure 23: Yakima FD Forecast TAV, 2012 — 2017
Description 2012 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
TAV 5,599278,437 5,616,076,272 5,641,348,616 5,678,017,382 5,734,797,555 5,806,482,525
Yakima FD Forecast Revenue
The City contribution to the revenue of fire operations is a forced value to cover the
department's costs for a given year. The corresponding effective tax rate is also shown to
provide a comparative cost as if the department operated under an REA. AR other revenue
categories except debt have been inflated at the ten-year average CPI-U of 2,..282 percent.
Debt revenue from REET funds and GO bonds are equal to the amortization schedule for these
line items,
Figure 24 and Figure 25 reflect fire and EMS revenue forecasts between 2012 through 2017,
* Silva
Page 27
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Distracts #10 and #11, Washington
▪ Salaries and wages were increased at 2.5 percent. This value was selected as a
conservative approach to forecasting mandatory subjects of bargaining issues,
O Medical == benefits are the fastest growing cost in this expense category from 2008 to
2012, These costs increased to 19.191 percent of permanent wages in 2012 and had
an average increase in cost of 9.644 percent per year from 2009 to 2012. The table
below displays the growth in percent of medical and dental by year. This cost category
will be calculated with a base cost of 19.191 percent of permanent wages and increased
9.644 percent per year in the analysis.
Figure 26: Yakima FD Medical and Dental Benefit Costs by Percentage, 2008 - 2012
MedicalIDental Medical /Dental
as a
Year Percentage of Percent of
Wages Change
2008 13.603%
2009 : 12.215% - 10,208%
2010 14.230% 16.502%
2011 16.297% 14,521%
2012 19.191 % 17,760%
Ali expense categories were inflated at the ten -year average CPI -U of 2,282 percent except for•
debt. Debt payment was forecast using the current amortizations /payment schedule. Figure 27
and Figure 28 reflect forecast expenses for fire and EMS through 2017.
Figure 27: Yakima FD Fire Expenditure Forecast, 2012 -- 2017
Description 2012 Budget .... ' 2013 ..:. 2014 2015 = .... 2016 . 2017
Salaries 6,694,968 6,862,342 7,033,901 7,209,748 7,389,992 7,574,742
Benefits & Taxes 1,671,797 1,953,814 2,114,305 2,281 600 2,455,937 ; 2 637,566
Sus •lies & Ex9ease 579,803 593,034 606,567 s 620,409 634,567 649,048
inter Transfers 117 125 119,798 122,532 125,328 128,188 131,113
Debt 508,049 515,231 511.828 217,544 217,869 217,744
T x ... • end, [ire .: .. ' _ 1 .
Figure 28: Yakima FD EMS Expenditure Forecast, 2012 - 2017
Description........; 2012 Budget 2013 2014 ...... 2015 2016 2017
IFEEZ21111111111111111 771,625 790,916 810,688 830,956 851,729 873,023
Beriefits 84 Taxes 197,121 224,027 244,271 265,658 288,272 312,210
Su .lies & Ex•ense 107,930 110,393 112,912 115,489 118,124 120,820
Intel Transfers 122,813 125,616 128,482 131,414 134,413 137,480
Debt rg 0 0 0 y 0 0 0
.
! .I n. k •. * "Y SP. 6 b.
feHrsow Page 29
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #1 0 and #11, Washington
Changes in assumption for TAV, CPI -1J, wages and benefits could alter the overall projection of
these assumed values. The assumptions and ;results above do not include any costs for the
replacement of department vehicles or the funding of the unfunded liabilities for pension and
medical insurance
e # .. „ page 1
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts ##10 and #11. VVashingtori
Historic Financial Review of Yakima County Fire District #10
Figure 32 below shows the historical TAV for District #10 from 2008 through 2012, It includes
the change in TAV by year and the applicable tax rate.
Figure 32: District #10 TAV and Tax Rate History, 2008 — 2012
Description 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 201.1. Budget 2012 Budget
EZEIM11111111111111 59 ,013,957 61,677,634 64,537,646 65, 576,924 67,913,846
i
The annual average percent of change in TAV between 2009 through 2012 was an increase of
4.15 percent.
District ##10 Revenue History
Figure 33 below provides a detailed review of revenue for District #10 from 2008 through 2012.
Property tax revenue was not segregated between district operations and funds received from
the county for the EMS levy. ESCI estimated the amount of EMS levy funds and adjusted fire
operations property tax revenue.
Figure 33: District #10 Revenue History, 2008 - 2012
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Description Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget
Property Tax — Fire 50,110 54,856 55,997 59,199 54,137
Property Tax — EMS (estimate) 9,726 10 8,703 , 8,853 9,168
Interest Income 1,314 666 383 0 240
Unrealized Gain 57 (74) (6) 0 0
Miscellaneous Recovery Prior Year 34 0 0 0 0
Levy Rate Fire 0.849 0.886 0.868 0.903 0,797
Levy Rate FMS 0.165 0.164 0.135 0.135 0.135
District #10 Expenditures History
The following table depicts the historical spending for District #1 0 from 2008 through 2012.
G EMS levy rate used for the estimate was taken from the actual rate received by District #11.
Page 32
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
District #1 0 Forecast Taxable Assessed Value (TAV!
Figure 36 below shows the forecast TAV growth rates for District #10 front 2013 through 2017.
It includes the change in TAV by year
Figure 36: TAV Growth Rates by Year, 2013 — 2017
Year Growth Rate
2013 0.30%
2014 045%
2015 0_65%
2016 1.00%
2017 '1.25%
Figure 37 fc)recast the changes in the TAV from 2012 through 2017 using the growth factors
identified above.
Figure 37: District #10 Forecast TAV, 2012 — 2017
Description 2012 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
TAV 67,913,846 68,117,588 68,424,117 68.868,873 69,557,562 70,427,032
District #10 Forecast Revenue
Property tax revenue growth is limited to 1 percent of previous year's revenue as outlined in
RON/V 84.55.0101. All other revenue categories have been inflated at the ten-year average CPI-
U of 2.282 percent.
Figure 38: District #10 Revenue Forecast, 2012 — 2017
2012
Description Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Property Tax - Fire 54,137 54,678 55,225 55,777 56,335 56,898
Property Tax - EMS 9,168 9,196 6,751 6,795 6,863 6,949
interest Income 240 245 251 257 263 269
Unrealized Gain 0 0 0 0 0 0
Misc Recovery Prior Year 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenue 63,545 64,119 62,227 62,829 , 63,460 64,115
Levy Rate—Fire 0/97 0.803 0.807 0.810 0.810 0.808
Levy Rate - EMS 0,135 0.135 0.157 0.157 0.157 0.157
Revenue for EMS operations includes the same growth factors as fire revenue with the
exception of the property tax revenue. The voters of Yakima County voted to approve
Resolution No 317-2011 establishing the EMS levy amount of $0.25 per 61,000 of TAV
effective date of January 1, 2014. For this analysis, 2013 property revenue was calculated at
Page 34
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts ##10 and #11, Washington
the same rate as the 2012 budget. The tax rate for property fax revenue for 2014 through 2017
was re -set at $0.25 per 51,000 of TV. However, the amount shown is less than the calculated
rate as the County retains 37.156 percent of the payment.
District ##10 Forecast Expenditures
Wage and benefit expenses have been increased by 2.5 percent. All other expense categories
were inflated at the ten -year average CPI-W of 2.282 percent.
Figure 39: District #10 Expenditure Forecast, 2012 -- 2017
Descript 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Budget:
Salaries & Wages
Salaries & Wa *es . • ::
Benefits T 720 738 756 775 795 815 288 Total Salaries & Wages , 8 472
Su• ,.lies & Ex•ense
Office & 0 eratin * Sue *lies 100 102 105 f 1
• - ® Services 01 . . .
Accountin 6 400 409 418 428 43Ei
Postage 25 26 ' 26 27 27 28
Travel 1,800 1,841 1,883 1,926 1,970 2,016
Advertising 150 153 157 161 164 168
Pb Box Pent 50 51 52 54 55 56
insurance 1,300 1,330 1,360 1,391 1,423 1,455
Membership & Dues 600 614 828 642 657 872
Registration Fees` 300 307 314 321 328 336
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Supplies & Expense 7,225 7,390 7,559 7,731 7,947 8,088
intergovernmental services
Fire Protection — Yakima 58,874 60,218 61, 62,997 ; 64,435 65,905
Elections 540 0 0 0.' 0 0
Total Intergovernmental 59,374 60,218 61,592 62,997 64,435 65,905
tai Ex. a ..r.....,tl.."... .. ., ** rr
District #10 Forecast Summary Fund Balance
The following figure (Figure 40) depicts a summary forecast for each fund to prov a snapshot
of what the fund balance would be in the years 2012 through 2017.
Page 35
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
City of Union Gap Taxable Assessed Value (TAV) History
Figure 42 below shows the historic TAV for the City of Union Gap from 2008 through 2012. It
includes the change in assessed value by year and the applicable tax rate
Figure 42: City of Union Gap TAV and Tax Rate History, 2008 - 2012
Description 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Budget 2012 Budget
TAV 471,955,419 516,343,353 546,353,843 528,1127,448 550,326,067
The average annual percent of change for TAV from 2009 through 2012 was an increase of
4.02 percent.
Figure 43 provides a detailed review of revenue segregated by fire and EMS for the Union Gap
FD from > 2008 through 2012. In the 2012 budget, revenue in the amount of $30,000 has been
included for the provision of service to District #11. Prior to 2012, District #11 didn't pay a fee
but provided use of a fire station in exchange for service.
Figure 43: Union Gap FD Revenue History, 2008 - 2012
2008 2009. 2010 2011 2012
Desscription Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget
City Contribution -- Fire 694,413 677,927 663,392 735,581 758,087
General Obligation Bond Debt 35,000 37,500 37,500 40,000 45,000
Fire Protection Services 3,444 2,865 2,148 2,800 2,800
Fire Protection Fee - District #11 0 0 0 0 30,000
Fire Protection Services Plan 2,655 1,975 3,675 2,000 2,400
Review
Total Fire Revenue 735,512 720,267 706,715 780,381 838,287
EMS Levy 94,003 93,343 96,120 93,344 98,000
City Contribution - EMS 300,085 385,021 393,116 473,131 425,712
Total EMS Revenue 394,088 478,364 489,236 566,475 523,712
Effective Tax Rate - City 471 1;313 1.214 1.393 1.378
Contribution Fire
EMS Levy Rate 0.199 0:181 0.176 0.177 0.178
Effective Tax Rate - City
Contribution EMS 0.636 0.746 0.720 0.896 0.774
The rate shown in Figure 43 is the effective tax rate required to generate revenue for funding
the provision of fire and EMS operations at the level the city contributed from 2008 through
2012.
Pagel'
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Union Gar) FD Expenditures History
The following tables depict the historical spending for Unic)n Gap FD fire operations and EMS
operations from 2008 through 2012.
Figure 44: Union Gap FD Fire Operational Expenditures History, 2008 - 2012
D 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
escriptior)
Actuals Actuais Actuals Budget Budget
445,406 453,112 433,525 i 442,036 480,364
Benefits & Taxes 121,782 128,935 139,869 137,224 155,746
SUS. 1 ies & Exe ense 94,239 57,095 47,397 99,590 59.177
Interfund Transfers 39,085 43,624 48,423 61,531 88,000
IERM11111111 0 0 0 0 10,000
Debt 35,000 37,500 37,500 40,000 45 000
Ex eh' ,L7 73511
Salaries, taxes, and benefits account for 75.9 percent of the total 2012 fire department budget
expense which is consistent with 77.1 percent in 2008 actual expenses.
Figure 45: Union Gap FD EMS Expenditures History, 2008 - 2012
D 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
escription
Actuals Actuals Actuals Budget Budget
283,883 345,753 332,310 368,939 347,321
Benefits & Taxes 67,009 88,514 108,260 132,088 154,891
Sue *lies & Ex sense 22,075 22,054 22,259 35,448 21,500
Interfund Transfers 21,121 22,043 26,407 30,000 0
Debt 0 0 0 0 0
UM" ftires.
Salaries, taxes, and benefits account for 95.9 percent of the total 2012 EMS budget expense
which is an increase of 6.9 percent from 89,0 percent in 2008 actual expenses.
The expenditures reflected above (Figure 44 and Figure 45) would be Iow compared to that of
an RFA as the costs do not include expenditures associated with some internal services
provided by the City. These costs are generally referred to as in-kind or in-direct charges and
include payroll processing, human resources, accounts payable, risk management, legal, IT
support, budgeting and financial control/reporting. To estimate this amount, ESCI reviewed
other clients that calculate and record a charge for services to the fire department. The table
below provides an estimate of in-direct charges for the Union Gap FD.
Page 38
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 49: Union Gap FD Fire & EM a Operations Fund Balance, 2012 - 2017
�ecei�s #isn 200E .... 2009 2010 2011 2012
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget
Revenue 1,129,600 1,198,631 1,195,951 1,346,856 1, 361,999
Expenditures
salaries 798,865 765,835 ` 810,975 827,685
Benefits & Taxes 188,791 217,449 ' 248,130 269,312 310,637
Supplies & Expense 116,314 79,149 69,656 135,038 80,677
Irtterfurid Transfers 60,206 65,668 74 91,531 88,000
Capital 0 0 0 0 10,000
Debt 35,000 37,500 37,500 40,000 45
Total Expenditures 1,129,600 1,198,631 1,195,951 1,346,856 1,361,999
• ._. ,4„ ....... .
Union Gap FD Capital Reserve Fund
Union Gap FD maintains a capital reserve fund. 1- listorically, this account is used for the
payment of all capital expenditures. Figure 50 reflects the history of that fund from 2008
through 2012.
Figure 60: Union Gap FO Capital Reserve Fund Balance History, 2008 - 2012
esceiptitin 2008. 2009 2010 2011 2012
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget
Beginning Balance 308,902 299,563 233,875 221,338 253,196
Revenue
iriteifund Transfer 0 34,000 178,336 0 30,000
Interest Income 0 312 ; 450 200 800
Total Revenue 0 34 7 312 178,786 200 30,800
Expenditures
Wireless Communications 9,339 0 0 0 0
Ladder Service Agreement 0 100,000 0 0 0
Intereston Loan 0 0 191,323 0 0
Apparatus 0 0 0 0 200,000
Capital Equipment 0 0 0 0 50,000
Total Ex .enditures 9,339 100,000 191,323 0 250,000
n
EUI recommends that the capital reserve fund be used for the funding of a vehicle
replacement plan. ESCI developed a vehicle replacement plan for the Yakima FD projecting the
useful life of vehicles and scheduling the replacement date for these vehicles based on the
remaining useful life: The replacement date assumes that all vehicles will be placed in reserve
status for five years prior to disposal. Figure 51 lists a recommended vehicle replacement plan
summary for Union Gap FU.
Page 40
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 51: Union Gap FD Vehicle Replacement Plan Summary
Reserve
Years
Vehicle Purchase Useful Replacement Required' Annual
Number Date Life Cost '
Make left as of Reserve
@
12/31/11 Requirement
12/31/11
E-1
Engine 85 1999 ! ghtliner 25 14 $425,000 $187,000 $17,000
Frei
E-1,
Engine 285 1999 ghtliner 25 16 $425,000 153,000 17,000
Frei
Tender 85 1884 Dar ley 25 0 $295,000 295,000 11,800
Brush 85 1999 Ford F-450 25 19 $65,000 15,600 2,600
2012 E-1Tyr)lioori 25 24 $421,196 16,848 16,848
1999 Suburban 15 3 $35,000 28,000 2,333
Ambulance 1999 Ford E-350 20 8 $92,000 55,200 4,600
Dodge
2006 Durango 15 10 $35,000 11,667 2,333
TotaiFundirt0Requirement $782, $ 47
Implementation of the preceding vehicle replacement plan would require a fund balance of
$890,093 December 31, 2011, and an annual accrual/budget of $90,826 adjusted for inflation.
Based on the current capital fund balance, to fully fund the reserve would require an infusion of
$669,555. A large infusion to capital replacement is not a viable option for the Union Gap FD.
An alternative would be to increase the capital fund over a 20-year period. This would require
an incremental contribution to the capital fund of $33,478 per year. At the end of 20 years the
fund would be fully funded.
Union Gap FD Current Status Financial Forecast, 2012 — 2017
Using the assumptions outlined in the section entitled Economic Indicators, projections of
financial stability were created for Union Gap FD. Future financial forecasts use the 2012
budget as the beginning point for all calculations. Any changes made to the base data are
identified in the section being reviewed.
City of Union Gap Taxable Assessed Value (TA V) History
The growth factors used for TAV are shown in Figure 52.
Figure 52: TAV Growth Rates by Year, 2013 2017
Year Growth Rate
2013 0.30%
2014 0,45%
2015 0,65%
2016 1,00%
2017 1.25%
41 ,
Page 41
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
No, 317-2011 establishing the EMS levy amount of $0.25 per $1,000 of TAV effective date of
January 1, 2014. For this analysis, 2013 property revenue was calculated at the same rate as
the 2012 budget, The tax rate for property tax revenue for 2014 through 2017 was re-set at
$0.25 per $1,000 of TAV with a normal withholding from the county which drives the collection
rate down to ,211 per $1,000 of TAV,
Union Gap FD Forecast Expenditures
Salary, wages, and benefit expenses represent in excess of 76 percent of total expenditures for
Union Gap FD. To accurately estimate future cost, increases have been calculated with the
following projections,
is Salaries and wage were increased at 2.5 percent. This value was selected as a
conservative approach to forecasting mandatory subjects of bargaining issues.
• Fire medical benefit costs is the fastest growing cost in this expense category from 2008
to 2012. These costs increased to 34.55 percent of permanent wages in 2012 and
average annual increases in cost were 10.797 percent per year from 2009 through 2012.
Figure 55 displays the growth in medical and dental benefit costs as a percent of salaries and
wages by year
Figure 55: Union Gap ED Medical and Dental Benefit Costs by Percentage, 2008 — 2012
Medical/Dental
as a Percent
Year
Percentage of Change
Wages
2008 23.090% alliMIMIN
2009 25.170% 9.008%
2010 30,300% 20.381%
2011 33,900% 11881%
2012 34.550% 1.917%
AP,Vf.
EMS medical benefit expenses also are a growing cost in this category from 2008 to 2012.
These costs increased to 24,120 percent of permanent wages in 2012 and averaged an
increase in cost of 16,751 percent per year from 2009 through 2012. Figure 56 displays the
growth in medical and dental benefits as a percent of salaries and wages by year. This cost
category will be calculated with a base cost of 24.120 percent of wages and increased 16.751
percent per year in the analysis.
Page 43
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washingto
Figure 56: Union Gap FD EMS Medical/Dental Benefit Costs by Percentage, 2008 - 2012
Year Medical /Dental as a Percent
Percentage of Wages Change
2008 1� 11
2009 18.320 °l 3095 °lo
2010 590% - 36:736%
2011 22.32010 92.680%
2012 24:120 8.065'10
AD other wage and benefit categories were increased at a 2. percent annual average, All non -
wa ge and salary- expense categories were adjusted to the ten -year average CPI -U of 2.282
percent except for debt. Debt payment was forecast using the current amortizationslpayment
schedule.
Figure 57: Union Cap FD Fire Expenditure Fore t, 20 -- 2017
Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Bridget
Salaries 480,364 492,373 504,682 517,299 53{1,232 643,488
Benefits & Taxes 155,746 173,581 192,157 211,574 231,841 252,990
Su.•lies & Ex•ens 59,177 60,527 61,909 63,321 64,788 66,244
lntertund Transfers 88 000 90,008 92,062 94,163 98,512 98,510
10,000 10,228 10,462 10,700 10,945 11,194
debt 45,000 73,729 28,721 28,721 - 28,721 28,721
Figure 58: Union Gap ED EMS Expenditure Forecast 2012 -: 2017
2012
[ escr°iption 2013 2014 2015 20'16 2017
Budget
.. - 347, 356,004 364,904 37 4 , 027 38 3,37 7 3 92,962
Benefits & Taxes 154 „891 170,897 174,964 179,339 183,822 1
u.•lies & Ex.ense 21,500 21,991 22,492 23,006 23,531 24,068
Interfund Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Debt 0 0 0 0 0 0
r
Union Gap FD Forecast Summary Fund Balance
The following figures depict the summary act for each fund to provide a snapshot of what
the fund balance would be in the years 2012 through 20 17.
7 Figure 54 is based on maintaining the current level of service and is not inclusive of potential increases
city size, value, annexation, and growth.
ITT -, Page 44
Regierial Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
replacement of department vehicles or the funding of the unfunded liabilities for pension and
medical insurance.
*
Page 46
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Historic Financial Review of Yakima County Fire District #11
Figure 62 shows the historical TAV for District #11 from 2008 through 2012. It includes the
change in assessed value by year and the applicable tax rate.
Figure 62: District #11 TAV and Tax Rate History, 2008 — 2012
Descrip tion. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget
TAV` 39,307,104 42,477,523 44,360,020 47,987,633 50,733,198
r 4 „W ..{. ... ¢ ..... .# o iYao t - ° +.... .._.:._ + „, mm w.v.. '.,... 7r' ' + zki2rt
The average percentage annual change in TAV from 2009 through 2012 was an increase of
6.60 percent.
District #11 Revenue History
Figure 63 and Figure 64 provide a detailed review of fire and EMS revenue for District #11 from
2008 through 2012.
Figure 63: District #11 Fire Revenue History, 2008 —2012
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Description
Actual Actual Budget
Property Taxes 38,546 39,257 37,771 38,186 37,815
Interest Income 1,339 2,400 1,555 0 0
Unrealized Gain /(Loss) 58 (266) - (375) 0 0
Scrap Sales 761 0 0 0 0
Agency D e posits 959 1,888 0 0 0
Tax Rate 0.083 0,924 0 8 r1 0 79 0.745
Figure 64: District #11 EMS Revenue History, 2008 — 2012
2008 2009
2010 2011 2012
Description, .
Actual Actual ... Actual Budget Budget
Property Taxes 6,478 6,976 5,982 6,478 6,849
interest Income 109 68 38 0 0
Unrealized Gainl(Loss) 5 (6) (9) 0 0
Scrap Sales 0 0 0 0 0
In -Lieu of Tax (State) 4 7 5 0 0
x & r r : +
Tax Rate 0.165 0.164 0135 0.135 0.135
Page 47
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
District #11 Expenditures History
Figure 65 depicts District #11 expenditures from 2008 through 2012,
Figure 65: District #11 Expenditures History, 2008 - 2012
D 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
escription
Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget
Salaries
Secrete 2,400 2400 2,400 2,400 2,400
Commissioners 1,050 1,470 1,610 2,500 2,500
Total Salaries 3,450 3,870 4,010 4,900 4,900
Benefits & Taxes
Benefit Direct 264 296 307 400 400
Total Benefits & Taxes 264 296 307 400 400
Supplies & Services
Office & Operating Supplies 0 0 0 0 0
Small Tools & Minor
2,866 0 0 0 0
Equipment
Professional Services 0 0 0 0 5,000
Telephone 74 0 0 5,000 0
Postage 0 0 0 75 75
Travel 0 0 220 200 200
Advertising 0 0 0 100 100
Insurance 2,895 656 3,991 2,500 2,500
R & M 2,491 0 6,510 2,000 2,000
Service Fee - Union Gap 0 0 0 , 0 30,000
Miscellaneous 38,579 44,783 7,091 5,000 5,000
Interest on Tax Refunds 1 0 22
Total Supplies and Service 46,906 45,439 17,834 14,875 44,875
External Taxes 111 45 73 100 100
Transfer to reserve 12 017
Machinery and Equipment 0 6,706 5,000 5,000
'Ttj nditu Agit487,,.7„, 8:, 2;8
„
District #11 Summary of General Fund Balance History
Figure 66 summarizes the fund activity and balance of District #11 from 2008 through 2012„.
Page 48
Analysis
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Anal y
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
D
Figure
20
rpet6i06r: District #11 Fund
20
n d Balance
2010
e History, 2 008 - 2012
2011 2012
Actual Actual Actu Budget 7,15
t Budget
Beginning Ba lance 15,560 1 (4, 9 7,
Revenue - Fire 41,663 43,279 38,951 38,1_86 8
37,8 15
Revenue S 6,596 7,035 6,014 6,478 6. 4 9
Total Revenue 48,259 50,314 44,965 44,664 44,664
Expenditures
Salaries 3,450 3 4 4,900 4 ,9 0 0
Benefit & Taxes 264 296 307 400 44,875
External Taxes 400
Supplies & Expenses 46,906 45,439 17,834 14,875 ss,01.-,4
111 45 73 100 100
0
T a es t rese 12,017 0 0 0 „
Machinery and Equipment 0 8 0 5 , 0 00 5,000
Total Ex enditures 62,748 56,356 I 22, 7 2 7 24 25,275 55,275
Endin Fu " 7 7$ 0
'Relattce% 0„, '1
District #11 Current Status Financial Forecast, 2012 - 2017
Using the assumptions outlined in the section entitled Economic Indicators, financial forecasts
were projected for District #11. Future financial forecasts use the 2012 b b
budget as the beginn
Po
int for all calculations. Any changes made to the base data are identified in the section being
reviewed.
District #11 Forecasted Taxable Assessed Value (TAV)
The growth factors used for the TAV of District #11 are shown in Figure 67
Figure 67: TAV Growth Rates by Year, 2013 - 2017
Year Growth Rate
2013 0.30%
2014 0.45%
2015 0.65
2016 1.009(0
2017 125%
Figure 68 forecast the changes in the TAV from 2012 through 2017 using the growth factors
listed above.
Figure 68: District #11 Forecast TAV, 2012-2017
Description 2012 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
TAV 50733.198 50,885,398 51,114,382 51,446,625 51,981,092 52,610,605
Page 49
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
District #11 Forecast Revenue
Property tax revenue growth is limited to 1 percent of the previous year's revenue as outlined in
ROW 84.55.0101. All other revenue categories have been inflated at the ten-year average CPI
-
U of 2.282 percent,
Figure 69 and Figure 70 illustrate revenue forecasts for fire and EMS operations for six years
from 2012 through 2017.
Figure 69: District #11 Fire Revenue Forecast, 2012 - 2017
Description 2012 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Property Taxes 37,815 38,193 38,575 38,961 39,350 39,744
Interest Income 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unrealized Gain/Loss) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scrap Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asenc 1:ie(iosits 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tax Rate 0745 0751 0.755 0157 0757 0755
Figure 70: District #11 EMS Revenue Forecast, 2012 - 2017
Description 2012 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Property Taxes 6,849 6,917 8,030 8,082 8,163 8,265
Interest Income 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unrealized gainl(Loss) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scrap Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Lieu of Tax State 0 0 0 0 0 0
4'4Aa", :k FO L! i 14.4 - '4 -f *"." '
-
Tax Rate 0,135 0,136 0,157 0.157 0.157 0,157
Revenue for EMS operations include the same growth factors as fire revenue with the exception
of the property tax revenue. The voters of Yakima County approved Resolution No. 317-2011
establishing the EMS levy amount of $0.25 per $1,000 of TAN/ effective date of January 1, 2014.
For this analysis, 2013 property revenue was calculated at the same rate as the 2012 budget.
The tax rate for property tax revenue for 2014 through 2017 was re at $0,25 per $1,000 of
TAV. However, the amount shown is less than the calculated rate as the County retains 37,156
percent of the payment,
District #1 / Forecast Expenditures
Wage and benefit expenses were increased by 2.5 percent, All other expense categories were
inflated at the ten-year average OPI-U of 2,282 percent except for debt. Figure 71 reflects
expenditure forecasts for the next five years.
Page 50
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap. Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 71: District #11 Expenditure Forecast, 2012 - 2017
Description 2012 Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Salaries
Secretary 2,400 ' 2,460 2,522 2,585 2,649 2,715
Commissioners i 2,500 2,563 2,627 2,692 2,760 2 829
Total Salaries 4,900 5,023 5,148 5,277 5,409 5,
Benefits & Taxes
Benefit Direct 400 410 420 431 442 453
Total Benefits & Taxes 400 410 420 431 442 453
Supplies & Services
Office 8 Operating Supplies 0 0 0 0 0 0
Small Tools & Minor Equipment 0 0 . 0 (} 0 0
Professional Services 5,000 5,114 5,231 5,350 5.472 5,597
Telephone 0 0 0 0 0 0
Postage 75 77 78 80 82 84
Travel 200 205 209 214 219 224
Advertisin• 100 102 105 107 109 112
Insurance 2,500 ; 2,557 2,615 2,675 2,736 2,799
R & M 2,000 2,046 2,092 2,140 2,189 2,239
Service Fee Union Gap 30,000 30,685 31,385 32,101 32,834 33,583
Miscellaneous 5,000 5,114 5,231 5,350 5,472 5,597
Interest on Tax Refunds 0 0 0 0 0
Total Supplies and Service 44,875 45,899 46,946 48,018 49,114 50,234
External Taxes 100 ; 102 105 '107 109 112
Transfer to Reserve 0 0 0 0 0
Machine and E•ui•ment 5,000 5,114 5,231 5,350 5,472 5,597
dte, tee'
3
District #11 Forecast Summary Fund Balance
Figure 72 depicts the forecast summary for each fund to provide a snapshot of what the fund
balance would be in the years 2012 through 2017. Changes in assumption for TAV, CPI
wages and benefits could alter the overall projection of these assumed values.
�, Page 51
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 72: District #11 Forecast Summary, 2012 - 2017
Description 2{ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Budget get
Be* innin* Balance 37,159 ` 26,584 15,111 3,866 8,274 , 21,306
Revenue
Revenue - Fire 37,815 38,193 38,575 38,961 39,350 39,744
Revenue - EMS 6,849 6,917 8,030 8,082 8,163 8,265
Total Revenue 44,664 45,111 46,606 47,043 47,514 48,009
Ex sertditures
Salaries 4,900 5,023 5,148 5,277 5,409 5,544
Benefits & Taxes 400 410 420 431 442 453
Su lies & Ex *ease 44,875 45,899 46,946 48,018 49,114 50,234
External Taxes 100 102 105 107 109 112
Transfer to Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0
Machine & *Went 5,000 5,114 5,231 5,350 5,472 5,597
Total Ex *enditures 65,275 56,548 57,850 59,182 60,546 61,940
�r: }
. * Page 52
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts ##10 and #11, Washington
Formation of a Yakima Area RFA
Summary of the Initiative
This strategy joins the Yakima County Fire Districts #10 (District #10) and #11 (District #11), the
City of Yakima (YFD), and the City of Union Gap (UGFD) into a Regional Fire Authority. The
concept is developed in consideration of the fact that the agencies involved have contiguous
boundaries, along with effective pre- existing working relationships with contract protection
services being provided by ;Yakima Fire Department to Yakima County Fire District #10 and
Union Gap Fire Department to Yakima County Fire District #11
Objective of the Initiative
The objective of the proposed strategy is to leverage geographic and service delivery similarities
in the two city fire departments and their contract counterparts in an effort to maintain or
enhance fire and emergency medical service delivery while providing operational efficiencies
and reducing or stabilizing costs.
piscussiorr
Approaches to service delivery are similar in these two service providers (i.e„ urban versus
suburban versus rural), with both cities and both contract districts> having significant resource
constraints. Fire suppression and emergency medical services are delivered to the four
communities in a like manner, with Yakima having a greater depth of resource concentration
than does Union Gap. Further, both ambulance transport providers respond to all four of the
jurisdictions.
Figure 73 lists the current budgeted full -time equivalent (FTE) administrative personnel positions
in Yakima FD and Union Gap ED followed by the conceptual operations staffing configuration
for the newly formed RFA as decided by the steering committee, and a summary of the
projected changes in overall staffing numbers. The positions listed in this and subsequent
tables do not include in -kind service positions and costs from the Cities of Yakima and Union
Gap. Typically these would be external to the fire department and provided by other
departments within city government. The continuation of an in-kind service agreement from the
Cities of Yakima and Union Gap will need to be reviewed and negotiated in an RFA.
Page
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
The table below calculates a cost increase in total wages clue to the pay level discrepancies
between the Yakima FD and Union Gap FD, assuming the top of the affected range as a
conservative approach. Figure 78 depicts the pay level changeslequalization by pay category,
Figure 78: RFA Career Operational Personnel Cost Increases (Conceptual)
YFD Extended UGFD Extended Total Extended
Operations Base YFD Base UGFD Wages Not Adjustments Wages
Wage Wages Wage Wages Adjusted Adjusted
er.
Battalion Chief 98,015 294,045 0 0 294,045 0 294,045
Captain 87,249 523,494 71,564 214,693 738,187 47,055 785,242
Lieutenant 78,693 944,316 0 0 944;316 0 944,316
Firefighter (FF) 70,423 3,943,688 54,174 379,217 4,322,905 113,744 4,436,649
Total 'Career 5,706,643 593,910 6,299A53 160,799 6A 0 2
The wage equalization projected cost increase will be $160,799 plus applicable benefit cost roll
ups„
Page
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 79: RFA Organizational Chart (Conceptual)
II Board of Directors 1
Chief
I
I I
Deputy Chief Administrative Deputy Chief
Operations Services Support
Specialist
li I 1 -.---- 1 -- ,_____Ii--
I 1
Public Education EMS/Training Fire Marshal
Battalion Chiefs Captain
l3) Administrative Officer Mechanic
Assistant •
1
Deputy
Secretary Fire Marshal
Captains (6)
Lieutenants (15) Training LT Mechanic I
II
1
Firefighters (63) Assistant P1
Secretary
•
8 Client provided conceptual organizational chart.
If •fin w..,... c.m.rw
Page 57
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Fiscal Analysis of Regional Fire Authority
The 2012 budget data provided by the clients was used to consolidate Yakima FD, Union Gap
FD, District #10, and District #11 into a combined RFA, as detailed in the following discussion.
Yakima FD and Union Gap FD operate as departments of the cities' general fund budget
Financing for the municipal fire departments is derived from a variety of sources available to
each city. The elected officials, by adopting the municipal budget, determine how much or what
revenue sources are dedicated to provide fire protection, Fire districts and Regional Fire
Authorities, on the other hand, have specific revenue sources and limits identified by statute.
RFA Consolidated Taxable Assessed Value
Projected increases for new construction and assessed value of existing properties utilize the
same assumptions used in the existing conditions portion of the report. Figure 80 demonstrates
the assumptions used to develop future TAV amounts.
Figure 80: RFA Impact on Taxable Assessed Valuation
Year Growth Rate
2013 0.30%
2014 0.45%
2015 0,65%
2016 1.00%
2017 125%
Figure 81 provides a view of the consolidated TAV for the combined organization.
Figure 81: RFA Consolidated Baseline Taxable Assessed Valuation
Year Yakima Union Gap District #10 District #11 Total
2012 5,599,278,437 550,326,067 67,913,846 50,733,198 6,268,251,548
2013 5,616,076,272 551,977,045 68,117,588 50,885,398 6,287,056,303
2014 5,641,348,616 554 460 942 68 424 117 51 114,382 6,315,348,056
2015 5 678 017,382 558,064 938 68,868,873 51,446,625 6 356,397,818
2016 5,734,797,555 563,645,587 69,557,562 51,961,092 6419,961,797
2017 5,806,482,525 570,691,157 70,427,032 52,610,605 6,500,211,319
RFA Revenue for Baseline Year 2012
The initial development of fire operations revenue was to combine the 2012 budget data into a
consolidated statement. Figure 82 and Figure 83 depict an inter-governmental transfer of the
Fire Control Services fee from District #10 to Yakima and District #11 to Union Gap. The
amount of the transfer of these payments is removed from the revenue consolidation. By
Page 58
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Option A funding of an RFA for fire services would result in a negative cash flow each year from
$1.3 mUlion in 2013 to $2.1 million in 2017. Based on the data presented and with the
assumptions listed, if Option A is selected to fund fire operations, the new RFA will be operating
with a cumulative deficit funding of $8.4 million for fire operation by 2017.
Option B: Operations Revenue with Benefit Charge - Future Projections 2012 - 2017
In Figure 90, ESCI calculates the consolidated fire revenue for the new organization, assuming
that the new taxing entity's tax rate includes the benefit charge with the regular tax rate set at
$1,00 per $1,000 of TAV plus 60 percent of the operating costs established as a benefit charge.
Also included is re-setting of the EMS levy at $0.25 per 61,000 of assessed property valuation in
2014. All other line items have been increased by the ten-year average CPI-U of 2_282 percent
Figure 90 reflects a regional fire authority fire and EMS operations revenues through 2017.
Figure 90: Option B: RFA Fire Operations Consolidated Fire Revenue, 2012 - 2017
Cousoli*Outed
Description 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
2012 Budget
City Contribution/ 10,045,844 6,287,056 6,315,348 8,356 398 6 419 962 6 484 161
Property Tax
Benefit Charge @ 0 6,694,372 6,847,138 7,003,389 7,183,207 7,326,671
60% cif Budget
State Patrol Fire 3,000 3,068 3,138 3,210 3,283 3,358
Transfer
Fire Investigation 3800 3,887 3,975 4 056 4,159 4,254
Fire Protection
0 0 0 0 0 0
Fee FD #11
Plan Reviews 2,400 2,455 2,511 2,568 2,627 2,687
Training Services 5,000 5,114 5,231 5,350 5,472 5,597
Photostat 500 511 523 535 547 560
Interest Income 245 251 257 263 269 275
GO Borid
338,875 294,600 294,975 0 0 0
Bevenue
REET Debt
F(evenue
72,563 75,938 74150 72,225 75,300 73,050
• .i'11frat 4 40,4 27 1 2 3 347'*** :1 3 ‘ 012'47
Effective Tax Rate 1.603 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.998
In Option B of the RFA model, fire income will increase $3.0 million dollars over the 2012
budgeted revenue and would be $3.6 million dollars more than Option A. If both the property
taxes collected and the benefit charge were shown as a combined levy rate, the rate would be
equivalent to $2.065 per $1,000 of taxable assessed value in 2013 climbing to $2.125 per
$1,000 TAV in 2017,
Page 63
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 93: Option B: RFA Financial Summary EMS, 2012 -- 2017
2012
Description Budget 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Revenue 1,735,755 1,573,836 1,460,965 1,470,496 1,485,229 1,500,109
Expenditures
Salaries 1,118, 946 1,146,920 1,175,593 1,204,982 1,235,107 1,265,985
Benefits & Taxes 352,012 377,737 387,181 396,860 406,782 416,951
Supplies & Expense 129,430 132,384 135,405 138,495 141,655 144,888
Interfund Transfers 122,813 125,616 128,482 131,414 134,413 ; 137,480
Debt 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Expenditures 1,723,201 1,782,656 1,826,660 1,871,751 1,917,957 1,965 304
E S Fund Balan 12,655 (208,820) :(365,695) (401,255) , (432,728) (486;194)
The summary for EMS operations shows that a declining cash balance is generated for each
year 2013 through 2017. The significant 'increase in EMS underfunding for the RFA is that the
City of Union Gap is no longer subsidizing EMS operations.
If Option B is selected, the new RFA will generate a cumulative positive cash flow of $13;6
million, Both scenarios would have an accumulative negative cash flow of $1.4 million for EMS
operation through 2017.
RFA Financial Conclusion
The creation of an RFA including Yakima FD, Union Gap FD. District #10, and District #11 will
be operating with a significant funding deficit under Option A. In Option B, positive revenues will
provide necessary funding to cover the shortfall in EMS operations, fund the capital reserve,
and provide for in -kind services currently paid by the cities. Any changes to the assumptions
made for this report, current service levels, or new revenues must be made carefully to avoid
inadvertently impacting the fiscal viability of an RFA.
Summary
The following are the fiscal status projections for each of the participating departments /districts,
implementing the revenue (all sources) and expense (ail services) assumptions contained in this
report.
The Yakima Fire Department provides service in an urban setting for its citizens and provides
contracted services to the citizens of Yakima County Fire District #10.
Page 65
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 94: Status Quo Yakima Annual Balance — All Sources /All Services
Description 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017
Budget
All Revenue 10,767,769 11,248,132 11,694,613 11,768,629 12,153,721 12,550,681
All Expense 10,771,231 11,295,170 11,685,486 11,798,144 12,219,092 12,653,745
Balance (3,463) (47,039) 9,127 (29,515) (65,370) (103,064)
*Increased EMS levy funds begin
Figure 95: Yakima Revenue /Expense Projection
16.0
Millions
14.0-
12.0 - __ _ . . .
10.0 MI • • ......
80 •IUU
6.0 MIME 11
111 . . . . onsi All Revenue
2.0 • • • • • • II — —All Expenses _
0.0 I f I - 1 I • 1 • I • 1 • I
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
For Yakima, expenses exceed revenue with a widening gap until the EMS levy increase is
implemented in 2014, when revenue covers expenses. The gap then begins widening again,
with an expanding deficit through 2017. Calculating the average growth of expense and
revenue from 2012 through 2017 and projecting that average out to 2022, the lines eventually
converge. However, this assumes no additional capital expenditures and no additional budget
reductions. Yakima Fire Department is projected to be in a deficit under its current operating
model.
Yakima County Fire District #10 currently contracts with the Yakima Fire Department for fire and
emergency medical services for its citizens.
Figure 96: Status Quo District #10 Annual Balance — All Sources /All Services
Description 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017
Budget
All Revenue 63,545 64,119 62,227 62,829 63,460 64,115
All Expense 74,087 75,283 77,017 78,792 80,608 82,465
Balance (10,542) (11,164) (14,790) (15,963) (17,148) (18,350)
. Increased EMS levy funds begin
I lauppory s,,..„,c.M,wp Page 66
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 97: Status Quo District #10 Revenue /Expense Projection
100,000 -
90,000 -
80,000
70,000 -
6,
• • • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • •
40,000 • • • • • • • ■ •
20,000 • • • II ■ • •
20,000
=NAll Revenue
•All Expenses
10,000 . .
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
For District #10, expenses far exceed revenue with a widening gap that significantly increases
even after the full implementation of the EMS levy in 2014. The revenues are insufficient to
meet projected expenses and are also insufficient to operate a fire department independently.
The contract with Yakima Fire Department is necessary for adequate fire protection for the
residents of the district, and a permanent solution is needed. This projection assumes no
capital expenditures and no additional revenue. Yakima County Fire District #10 is projected to
continue to be in a serious deficit under its current operating model.
Union Gap Fire Department provides service in a suburban setting for its citizens and provides
contracted services to the citizens of Yakima County Fire District #11. Further, the city provides
a fiscal subsidy to the fire department to augment the emergency medical services costs.
Figure 98: Status Quo Union Gap Annual Balance — All Sources /All Services
Description 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017
Budget
All Revenue 1,361,999 1,449,110 1,452,353 1,502,150 1,553,547 1,606,594
All Expenses 1,361,999 1,449,110 1452,353 1502,150 1,553,547 1,606,594
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0
"Increased EMS levy funds begin
Vonno swue C.rrMur
Page 67
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 99: Status Quo Union Gap RevenuelExpense Projection
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000 — mos MI II
1,000,000
1.11111 MEM Net Revenue
500,000 — —0— All Ex•enses
0 — • •
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
For Union Gap, revenue in this scenario is equal to the projected expenditures since the city
subsidizes the fire department to span the shortfall. This subsidy ranges from $425,000 in 2012
to $485,000 in 2017. This graph assumes no capital expenditures and no additional revenue.
Union Gap Fire Department is projected to be in a stable financial situation under its current
operating model as long as the city continues to subsidize the annual gap for its fire department.
Yakima County Fire District #11 currently contracts with the Union Gap Fire Department for fire
and emergency medical services for its citizens.
Figure 100: Status Quo District #11 Annual Balance — All Sources /All Services
Description 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017
Budget
Total Revenue 44,664 45,110 46,605 47,043 47,513 48,009
Total Expense 55,275 56,548 57,850 59,182 60,545 61,940
Balance (10,611) (11,438) (11,245) (12,139) (13,032) (13,931)
'Increased EMS levy funds begin
Page 68
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 101: District #11 Revenue /Expense Projection
80,000 -
70,000 -
60,000
50,000 -
40,000
30,000
u...'.»u
20,000 IIUIIUUII
All Revenue
10,000 —All Expenses
0 � • ,_1 •
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
For District #11, expenses far exceed revenue with a widening gap that significantly increases
even after the full implementation of the EMS levy in 2014. The revenues are insufficient to
meet projected expenses and are also insufficient to operate a fire department independently.
The contract with Union Gap Fire Department is necessary for adequate fire protection for the
residents of the district, and a permanent solution is needed. This projection assumes no
capital expenditures and no additional revenue. Yakima County Fire District #11 is projected to
continue to be in a serious deficit under its current operating model.
There are two variations to the Regional Fire Authority being considered; one using the
standard property tax revenues as its primary revenue source (Option A), and the other being a
combination of a lower property tax rate and benefit charge (Option B). In both options, it is
assumed that all four agencies form a Planning Committee, whose responsibility it is to
establish an RFA plan providing for the governance, design, financing, and development of fire
protection and emergency services pursuant to RCW 52.26. The funding mechanism is the
variable between the two options.
Under Option A, the funding mechanism is a property tax with a statutory limit of $1.50/$1,000
of assessed valuation, plus the shared revenue from the existing EMS levy for the county. The
below chart reflects all revenues and all expenses of the four agencies combined.
Page 69
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 102: Option A: RFA with Regular Property Tax — All Agencies
Description 2012 2013 2014* 2015 2016 2017
Budget
Total Revenue ** 12,207,982 11,390,244 11,318,747 11,093,310 11,206,829 11,316,132
Total Expenditures 12,405,589 12,903,233 13,163,641 13,186,357 13,512,154 13,846,274
Balance (197,607) (1,512,989) (1,844,894) (2,093,045) (2,305,325) (2,530,142)
*Increased EMS levy funds begin
* *$1.50/$1,000 AV plus EMS levy revenue
Figure 103: Option A: RFA Revenue /Expense — Maximum Property Tax
14 - -
Millions
12 —
10 •
8
1111111111
6
I I II , I I I
4
2
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Property Tax @ $1.50/$1,000 AV + EMS levy
—o— Expenditures
The combined maximum property tax revenue and the EMS levy revenue from all four agencies
would not meet the projected expenses required to support an RFA in Option A. The combined
revenues fail to meet the projected revenues in the short term and continue to fall behind over
the long term. Frequent property tax lid lifts would be required to keep the gap from widening,
but would still be inadequate to meet the needs of the RFA without additional augmentations,
such as bonded debt for capital facilities and equipment or increasing the EMS levy rate over
the current rate charged by the county.
Under Option B, the funding mechanism is a combination of a lower property tax and a benefit
service charge (benefit charge). RCW 52.26.180 - .270 authorizes a regional fire authority to
Page 70
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
impos a benefit charge. Cities and towns do not have benefit charge authority (except when
included as part of an RFA). A benefit charge is a service fee and not a tax. ,
The benefit charge applies to improvements to real property and personal property and
pro fessional assistance is typically required to establish the formula and basis for assess the
charge. A benefit charge must be approved by a 60 percent vote. If approved by the voters, a
benefit charge can constitute no more than 60 percent of the operating budget. The approva t of
a benefit charge also reduces the maximum tax levy from $1.50 to $1.00 but does not affect the
EMS tax levy rate'.
Figure 104: Option B: FIFA with Benefit Charge — Ali Agencies
2012
Description. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Budget
Total Revenue* 12,207,982 14,941,088 15,008,211 14,918,500 15,160,055 15,400.722
Total Ex+enditures 12,405,589 12,903,233 13,163,641 13,186,357 13,512,154 13,848,274
Balance (197,607) 2 } 037,055 1,* ' ,570 1x' 32,143. 1.647.001 ' 1 *5 . ;
1. 1,000 plus EMS Levy revenue plus, maximum Benefit Charge
1° Snure Seminars, Fire Service Consolidations, Brian K. Snure, presenter.. Snure Law Office, PSC 612 S, 227 St.....
Des Moines, WA 98198 -6838.
Page 71
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Figure 105: Option B: RFA Revenue /Expense — Maximum Benefit Charge
16 -
Millions
14
12 _c
10
■
111 1
1
s
uluull I II
6 11111111
1
11 11111
4
2
1
111
1
0
1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Benefit Charge @ 60%
MIMI Property Tax @ $1.00/$1,000 AV + EMS Levy
—4—Expenditures
The combination of the lower property tax revenue, the EMS levy revenue and the maximum
benefit charge from all four agencies would exceed the revenue necessary to meet the
projected expenses required to support an RFA in Option B. The property tax revenue and the
EMS levy revenue would have to shoulder the burden of covering capital facilities and
equipment expenses as the benefit charge is not allowed to cover these expenses. The benefit
charge can be adjusted up or down to meet the projected expenses from year to year as long as
the benefit charge formula included this scalable factor as part of the RFA service plan and did
not exceed 60 percent of the operating budget. The scalable nature of the benefit charge allows
the charge to be established at the rate required to meet anticipated expenses. In in this case,
the rate could be set at 50 percent and meet or exceed the projected expenses through 2017.
Page 72
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and ##11, Washington
Survey Table 2: Fiscal Management
Survey Components Union Gap .... District #11 Yakima District #10
1 ' a : -1 :r. rr:.rnr w.r:: rrw rn .
A. Assessed property value, $550 $50,733,198 $5 437 $67,913,846
FY 2012
Fire Operations Fire Operations
B Revised 2012 general = $838,287 + $x,133,653
operating fund budget, fire EMS = $44,664 EMS $74,087
department $523.712 total = $1;199,459
$1,361,999 Total=
$10,333,141
Fire 8,, EMS Fire operations
operations are are
supplemented supplemented
by city general by city general
fund revenue fund revenue.
The total The total
C. General fund property amount amount $63,205
tax, city levy FY 2012 transferred to $44,564 transferred to
cover fire cover fire
operations was operations was
$838,287 and $9,079,153.
the amount to EMS property
EMS was tax revenue was
$523,712 $1,194,000
Effective Fire Effective Fire
Levy rate (city Levy rate (city
contribution to contribution to
fire department Fire fire department
budget 2008 =0.981 budget
calculated as a 2009 = 0.924 calculated as a
2010 = 0.851 levy rate)
levy rate) 2008 = 1 .014
2011 = 0.931 2008 = 1 -796
2008 = 1.558 2009 = 1.050
2012 = 0.880 2009 = 1.705
i) levy rate (FY 2008 2009 = 1.395 2010 = 1.003
EMS 2010 = 1.685
through 2012) 2010 1.294 2011 = N/A
2011 1,478 2008 -{,.155 2011 = 1.527 2012 = 0.932
2009 = 0.165 2012 = 1.621
2012 = 1.523
EMS levy rates 2010 = 0,135 EMS levy rates
2008 0,835 2011 0.0 2008 = 0.228
2009 0.926 2012 = 0.0 2009 = 0.205
2010 = 0.895 2010 = 0.204
2011 = 1.073 2011 = 0.214
2012 =0.952 2012 =3.214
Budgeted
ii} general fund levy $1.298,320=
percentage collected FY Received 99,72 %;
2011 $1,288,439
Percent 99.2 °l
Limited GO for
D. Bonds, fire department None None training center, None
matures in 2014
$0.05 per
i) levy rate N/A N/A N/A
thousand
Page 77
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and 11, Washington
Survey Components Union Gap. District #11 Yakima District #10
$10,000 is
included in the Capital not in
fire budget for the budget but
machinery & recorded in
equipment. capital fund
iv) capital outlay $5,000_ N/A
$250,000 is number 332,
included in fund 2012 expense
113 for the amount in fund
purchase of an 332 = $126,500
engine
H. Municipal overhead
EMS $100,000
i) reserve fund N/A N/A to dispatch N/A
contributions Fire 575,000 to
capital fund
ii) fleet rental charges 0 N/A N/A N/A
iii) fleet maintenance $7x300 $0 $65,000 0
charges
Fire = $6,000
iv) motor fuel charges 50 $84,000 $0
Ems $5,000
Total insurance
v) property /casualty recorded in Fire Fire - $117,125
insurance Operations 52,500 $117,125
= $22,813 $1;30{}
budget $35,000
Budget includes
$155,746 for
benefit and Fire
vi) medical and dental taxes. No N/A $1;058,380 N/A
insurance segregation EMS
provided by $125,542
expense
category,
vii) workers' Fire =$135,833
$27,327 N/A N/A
compensation EMS = $16,415
The city doesn't
establish a mod
rate for worker's
viii) workers' Fire = 0.8555 N/A comp. Annual N/A
compensation mod rate, Admin = 0.1892 amount based
on open claims
and estimated
new claims.
Fire = $323,343
ix) employee pension plan See ;above N/A EMS = $37,064 N/A
x) city administrative No charges to N/A No charges to N/A
overhead fire department fire department
" Page 82
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Components Union Gap District #11 Yakima District #10
E. Fees for service
ii) billing for fire response Yes No No No
To be started
iii) inspection fee No No No
1/01112
iv) hazardous materials Yes No No No
v) recovery outside of city No No No No
vi) airport/port fee(s) No No No No
vii) event stand -by
charges Yes No No No
u* k Page 85
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11„ Washington
Survey Table 8: Emergency Management
Survey Components Union Gap District #11 Yakima District #10
>..
A, Responsible for a Union Cap Yes Ykima
Emer.eroc Manesement? •rovides .rovides
A. Internal personnel
ICS positions
resources elsewhere inI1A
county
County. ;....... ,.
l , External personnel County EM Emergency
resources Management
Page
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 11: Emergency Services Training Program
Survey Components Union Gap District #11 Yakima District #10
Tower, confined
Vent prop, train space, vehicle
A. Training facilities (tower, on buildings= fire, forced
props, pits) within the entry, vehicle
community ` extrication
Go to Yakima Yes, burn room
i) live fire prop Station 95 or and live fire
North Bend prop
In the
ii) fire and driving grounds Yes
commun
B. Classroom facilities Kitchen table Yes
Page 102
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Components Union Gap'; District #11 Yakima District #10
F. Grants or gifting N/A N/A
G. Special fees N/A N/A
Page 104
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 13: Yakima Station 90
Address: 1218 Race Street
Not Pictured
Survey Comps cents Administrative offices
b AVA w .......
A.
Construction type Unknown
B. Date Unknown
C. Seismic protection/energy audits Unknown
D. Auxiliary power Unknown
E, Condition Unknown
F. Special - considerations (ADA, mixed Unknown
gender appropriate, storage, exhaust
removal etc )
iglarattif
2 11 4 _, ISM : 1 , w
.wx:xw.rix .......w. ... . w.w.wxx:. ...: .... _:..m.. .... .
�
A. Exerciselworkout Unknown
B. Kitchen /dormitory Unknown
C. Lockers /showers Unknown
D. Training /meetings Unknown
E Washerldryer Unknown
AA Sprinkler system Unknown
B. Smoke detection Unknown
C. Security Unknown
D. Apparatus exhaust system Unknown
Comments: This facility was not inspected by ESCI. The station houses the reserve program apparatus
and is not an emergency response facility. The status of the reserve program is currently on hold and in
doubt,
Page 105
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 14: Yakima Station 91
Address: 401 North Front Street
1 1
-
4; 1r
Survey Components Administrative Offices
1. Structure
A. Construction type Masonry
B. Date 1974
C. Seismic protection /energy audits No
D. Auxiliary power Yes
E. Condition Good
F. Special considerations (ADA, mixed
gender appropriate, storage, exhaust See below
removal, etc.)
2. Square Footage 9,405
3.Facilities Available
A. Exercise /workout Yes
B. Kitchen /dormitory Yes
C. Lockers /showers Yes
D. Training /meetings Yes
E. Washer /dryer Yes
4. Protection Systems
A. Sprinkler system Partial
B. Smoke detection Yes
C. Security Adequate
D. Apparatus exhaust system Yes
Page 106
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 15: Yakima Station 92
Address: 7707 Tieton
1
-1.1 _.✓
�I •ww w 111 within
II i� 1
u
Survey Components
1. Structure I
A. Construction type Masonry
B. Date 1978
C. Seismic protection /energy audits No
D. Auxiliary power Yes
E. Condition Good
F. Special considerations (ADA, mixed Yes
gender appropriate, storage, etc.)
2. Square Footage 8,032
3.Facilities Available
A. Exercise /workout Yes
B. Kitchen /dormitory Yes
C. Lockers /showers Yes
D. Training /meetings Yes
E. Washer /dryer Yes
4. Protection Systems
A. Sprinkler system Yes
B. Smoke detection Yes
C. Security Adequate
D. Apparatus exhaust system Yes
OF "..,ow„' 1m `'....1" Page 107
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 16: Yakima Station 93
Address: 511 North 40 Avenue
•
- :411111111.011.111110111,_
•
CM OF Yq
a 4-101
_ _ ."'s •
f4f
Survey Components
1. Structure
A. Construction type Wood Frame
B. Date 1996
C. Seismic protection /energy audits No
D. Auxiliary power Yes
E. Condition Good
F. Special considerations (ADA, mixed Yes
gender appropriate, storage, etc.)
2. Square Footage 8,789
3.Facilities Available
A. Exercise /workout Yes
B. Kitchen /dormitory Yes
C. Lockers /showers Yes
D. Training /meetings Yes
E. Washer/dryer Yes
4. Protection Systems
A. Sprinkler system Yes
B. Smoke detection Yes
C. Security Adequate
D. Apparatus exhaust system Yes
Page 108
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 17: Yakima Station 94
Address: 2404 W. Washington Avenue
•
—
- -
Survey Components
1. Structure
A. Construction type Wood frame
B. Date Unknown
C. Seismic protection /energy audits No
D. Auxiliary power Yes
E. Condition Good
F. Special considerations (ADA, mixed Yes
gender appropriate, storage, etc.)
2. Square Footage 3,200
3.Facilities Available
A. Exercise /workout Yes
B. Kitchen /dormitory Yes
C. Lockers /showers Yes
D. Training /meetings Yes
E. Washer /dryer Yes
4. Protection Systems
A. Sprinkler system No
B. Smoke detection Yes
C. Security Adequate
D. Apparatus exhaust system Yes
Page 109
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 18: Yakima Station 95
Address: 807 Knob Hill Blvd.
•
116, ler
y ,
s'
Survey Components
1. Structure
A. Construction type Masonry
B. Date 1985
C. Seismic protection /energy audits No
D. Auxiliary power Yes
E. Condition Good
F. Special considerations (ADA, mixed Yes
gender appropriate, storage, etc.)
2. Square Footage 16,409
3.Facilities Available
A. Exercise /workout Yes
B. Kitchen /dormitory Yes
C. Lockers /showers Yes
D. Training /meetings Yes
E. Washer /dryer Yes
4. Protection Systems -
A. Sprinkler system No
B. Smoke detection Yes
C. Security Appropriate
D. Apparatus exhaust system Yes
lamp.., 5.m.n Ce.wt.u' Page 110
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 19: Yakima Fire Training Center
Address: 807 East Knob Hill Blvd.
4 r
our
.1 ' U.. -v � r ri
•
I r - A
•
Survey Components
1. Structure
A. Construction type Construction block masonry
B. Date 1996
C. Seismic protection /energy audits No
D. Auxiliary power N/A
E. Condition Good
F. Special considerations (ADA, mixed N/A
gender appropriate, storage, etc.)
2. Square Footage Not available
3.Facilities Available
A. Exercise /workout N/A
B. Kitchen /dormitory N/A
C. Lockers /showers N/A
D. Training /meetings At adjacent fire station 95
E. Washer /dryer N/A
4. Protection Systems
A. Sprinkler system N/A
B. Smoke detection N/A
C. Security Appropriate
D. Apparatus exhaust system N/A
I'"'.y,"'&,""' Page 111
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 20: Yakima Fire Apparatus Maintenance
Address: 2200 Fruitvale Blvd.
•
•
•
Survey Components
1. Structure
A. Construction type Masonry
B. Date 1995
C. Seismic protection /energy audits No
D. Auxiliary power No
E. Condition Good
F. Special considerations (ADA, mixed No
gender appropriate, storage, etc.)
2. Square Footage Fire Dept. portion 4,800
3.Facilities Available
A. Exercise /workout N/A
B. Kitchen /dormitory N/A
C. Lockers /showers N/A
D. Training /meetings N/A
E. Washer /dryer N/A
4. Protection Systems
A. Sprinkler system No
B. Smoke detection No
C. Security Adequate
D. Apparatus exhaust system No
"'mica`""" Page 112
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 21: Union Gap Station 85
Address: 107 Ahtanum Road
if
c
,
' -' _ - -
Survey Components Administrative Offices
1. Structure
A. Construction type Masonry
B. Date 1970
C. Seismic protection /energy audits No
D. Auxiliary power unknown
E. Condition Fair
F. Special considerations (ADA, mixed
gender appropriate, storage, exhaust No
removal, etc.)
2. Square Footage 6,508
3.Facilities Available
A. Exercise /workout Yes
B. Kitchen /dormitory Yes
C. Lockers /showers Yes
D. Training /meetings Yes
E. Washer /dryer Yes
4. Protection Systems
A. Sprinkler system No
B. Smoke detection Yes
C. Security Adequate
D. Apparatus exhaust system No
linrt�rn Caw6oM Page 113
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis
Yakima, Union Gap, Yakima County Fire Districts #10 and #11, Washington
Survey Table 22: Fire District #11 Station 86
Address: 68 W. Washington Avenue
•
• r
1 i i
•
Survey Components
1. Structure
A. Construction type Masonry
B. Date 1965
C. Seismic protection /energy audits No
D. Auxiliary power Unknown
E. Condition Fair
F. Special considerations (ADA, mixed No
gender appropriate, storage, etc.)
2. Square Footage 3,072
3.Facilities Available
A. Exercise /workout N/A
B. Kitchen /dormitory Yes
C. Lockers /showers N/A
D. Training /meetings Yes
E. Washer /dryer Unknown
4. Protection Systems
A. Sprinkler system No
B. Smoke detection Yes
C. Security Adequate
D. Apparatus exhaust system No
Unworn? firm. Crook, WI
Page 114
Recommendation of Forming a Regional Fire Authority
The Feasibility Study Group voted unanimously to recommend to the Elected Officials from
each of the four participating jurisdictions to further study this option funding Fire Services in
our area, (Note: the Fire Chiefs did not vote in the process of the study group and remained as
"facilitators" in the process). The results of the Feasibility Study do show multiple advantageous
of a Regional Fire Authority. Among these positive findings are:
• Sustained level of Fire Service and Medical Protection
• Increased depth of resources in the proposed coverage area
• Gained efficiencies by cooperative use of resources
o Consistent funding for Fire and Medical services
* Direct voter control of Services through initial and periodic voter approval
• Direct voter control by elected Commission governance
• Complete budgetary control by voter selected Commissioners
• Ability to produce definite future plans based on consistent revenues.
• Increased budget savings for Union Gap and Yakima
There are certain disadvantageous of forming a Regional Fire Authority. Among these findings
are:
• Increased fee collection to residents and businesses
• Loss of individual identities of current Fire Departments
• Loss of direct control of operations by elected officials in each Jurisdiction
After all considerations, the Study Group respectfully requests that you consider the merits of
this proposal and further study the formation of a Regional Fire Authority.
Considerations for Alternate Benefit Charges
There was much in depth discussion about the added cost of this program through the Benefit
Charge. This Benefit Charge is required to meet the revenue calculations for a Regional Fire
Authority, For Yakima, Union Gap, and Fruitvale Citizens, their increased cost is exactly what
the Benefit fee is. For Broadway residents the increased cost will be slightly higher because
they are currently paying less than one dollar per thousand of property tax for protection. As
an alternative to charging the full amount needed for a Benefit Charge, the Study group would
ask the two municipalities to consider partially funding the RFA with the savings realized by not
funding their current Fire Departments, As noted in the study document, the City of Yakima
will see a savings of $4,400,000 per year and Union Gap would see a savings of approximately
$718,000. If each City contributed a portion of this savings to pay for facilities and maintenance
costs, the Benefit Charge to the citizens would be reduced.
Yakima/Union Gap/District 10/District 11 I Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 40
Appen d ix
YakirnaitUrlion Gap/District 10/District 11 I Regional Are Authority Feasibility Report 41
must be staggered.
(c) Regional fire protection service authority commissioners shall take an oath of office in the manner
specified by RCW 52,14.070,
(4)(a) A regional fire protection service authority plan may create commissioner districts. If commissioner
districts are created, the population of each commissioner district must be approximately equal,
Commissioner districts must be redrawn as provided in chapter 29A 76 RAW,
(b) Commissioner districts shall be used as follows: (i) Only a registered voter who resides in a
commissioner district may be a candidate for, or serve as, a commissioner of the commissioner district; and
(ii) only voters of a commissioner district may vote at a primary to nominate candidates for a commissioner
of the commissioner district. All voters of the proposed authority must be eligible to vote at a general election
to elect a commissioner of the commissioner district, If a plan includes elected officials from participating fire
protection jurisdictions, the commissioner districts may be based, in part, on the jurisdictional boundaries of
the participating jurisdictions.
t 011 c141 §3 ;2004c129'§ 8.1 _
RCW Q
Powers of govenrolg a
(1) The governing board of the authority is responsible for the execution of the voter- approved plan.
Participating jurisdictions shall review the plan every ten years The board may
(a) Levy taxes and impose benefit charges as authorized in the plan and approved by authority voters„
(b) Enter into agreements with federal, state, local, and regional entities and departments as necessary
to accomplish authority purposes and protect the authority's investments;
(c) Accept gifts, grants, or other contnbutions of funds that will support the purposes and programs of the
authority;
(d) Monitor and audit the progress and execution of fire protection and emergency service prof ° to
protect the investment of the public and annually make public its findings,
(e) Pay for services and enter into leases and contracts, including professional service ntracts
(f) Hire, manage, and terminate employees; and
(g) Exercise powers and perform duties as the board determines necessary to carry out the purposes,
functions, and projects of the authority in accordance with Title 52 RCW if one of the fire protection
jurisdictions is a fire district, unless provi +' = • otherwise in the regional fire protection service authority plan
or in accordance with the statutes identified in the plan if none of the fire protection jurisdictions is a fire
district.
(2) An authority may enforce fire codes as provided under chapter 19 27 RCVV,
,2006 c 200 § 6; 2004 c 129 ;§ 91
RCW 52.26.070
Service authority — Formation — Challenges.
If the voters approve the plan, including creation of a regional fire protection service authority and imposition
of taxes and benefit charges, if any, the authority is formed on the next January 1st or July 1st, whichever
occurs first. The appropriate county election officials sell, within fifteen days of the final certification of the
election results, publish a notice in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the authority
declaring the authority formed, A party challenging the procedure or the formation of a voter - approved
authority must file the challenge in writing by serving the prosecuting attorney of each county within, or
partially within, the regional fire protection service authority and the attorney general within thirty days after
the final certification of the election. Failure to challenge within that time forever bars further challenge of the
authority's valid formation,
Roos c 200 § 5; 2004 C 129 § 7 l
RCW 52.26.080
Organization and composition of governing
board — Commissioner positions districts
(1) The board shall adopt rules for the conduct of business. The board shall adopt bylaws to govern authority
affairs, which may include;
(a) The time and place of regular meetings;
(b) Rules for calling special meetings;
(c) The method of keeping records of proceedings and official acts;
(d) Procedures for the safekeeping and disbursement of funds; and
(e) Any other provisions the board finds necessary to include.'
(2) The governing board shall be determined by the plan. However, only elected officials of participating
fire protection jurisdictions and elected commissioners of the authority as provided in subsection (3) of this
section are eligible to serve on the board.
(3)(a) A regional fire, protection service authority plan may create one or more regional fire protection
service authority commissioner ;positions to serve on a governing board. The following provisions define the
qualifications, compensation, terms, and responsibilities of regional fire protection service authority
commissioner positions:
(i) R W 62.14.01 0 governs the compensation, qualifications, and ability to serve as a volunteer
firefighter;
(ii) RCW 52 14 030 governs the polling places for elections, and
(iii) RCVS 52:1 .050 governs commissioner vacancies,
(b) The terms of office for regional fire protection service authority commissioner positions may be
established by the plan, however, no single term may exceed six years and the terms of multiple positions
[2011 c 141 § 2; 2006 c 200 § 2; 2004 c 126 §
Service RCW 52.26.050
(1) A regional fire protection service authority planning committee may, as part of a regional fire protection
service authority plan, recommend the imposition of some or all of the following revenue sources, which a
regional fire protection service authority may impose upon approval of the voters as provided in this chapter
(a) Benefit charges under RCVV 52.26 180 through 52.26 2 f 8 ;
(b) Property taxes under RCW 52.26 140 through 52. .17) and84 52.044 and R 84 09 30,
84.52.010, 84.52.052, and 84.52.059„ or
(c) Both (a) and (b) of this subsection.
(2) The authority may impose taxes and benefit charges as set forth in the regional fire protection service
authority plan upon creation of the authority, or provided for in this chapter after creation of the authority.
If the plan authorizes the authority to impose benefit charges or sixty percent voter approved t es, the plan
and creation of the authority must be approved by an affirmative vote of sixty percent of the voters within the
of the authority voting on a ballot proposition as set forth in RCW 52.26.050. However, if the plan
provides for alternative sources of revenue that b me e e if the plan and creation of the authority is
approved only by a majority vote, then the plan with alternative s r s of revenue and creation of the
authority may be approved by an affirmative vote of the majority of those voters, If the plan does not
authorize the authority to impose benefit charg. es or sixty percent voter approved taxes, the plan and
creation of the authority must be approved by an affirmative vote of the majority of the voters within the
boundaries of the authority voting on a ballot proposition as set forth in ROW 52.28.060. Except as provided
in this section, all other voter approval requirements under law for the levying of property taxes or the
imposition of benefit charges apply. Revenues from these taxes and benefit charges may be used only to
implement the plan as set forth in this chapter.
124 r. c 200 § 3; 2004 c 129 6.]
s
RCW 52 26 m
Serv"ce plan Submission to voters
zr
The governing bodies of two or more adjacent fire protection jurisdictions, upon receipt of the regional fire
protection service authority plan under RCW 52.26.040, may certify the plan to the ballot, including
identification of the revenue options specified to fund the plan, The governing bodies of the fire protection
jurisdictions may draft a ballot title, give notice as required by law for ballot measures, and perform other
duties as required to put the plan before the voters of the proposed authority for their approval or rejection
as a single ballot measure that both approves fomiation of the authority and approves the plan, Authorities
may negotiate interlace! agreements necessary to implement the plan. The electorate is the voters voting
within the boundaries of the proposed regional fire protection service authority. A simple majority of the total
persons voting on the single ballot measure to approve the plan and establish the authority is required for
approval, However, if the plan authorizes the authority to impose benefit charges or sixty percent voter
approved taxes, then the percentage of total persons voting on the single ballot measure to approve the plan
and establish the authority is the same as in RCW 52 26,050. The authority must act in aw•i Mance with the
general election laws of the state. The authority is liable for its proportionate share of the costs when the
elections are held under RCW 29A 04,321 and2 9A.04,330.
12006 c 200 § 4; 2064 c129 § 6
2
RCW Planning committee — Formulation of service
plan — Competition with private ambulance
(1) A regional fire protection service authority planning committee shall adopt a regional fire protection
service authority plan providing for the governance, design, financing, and development of fire protection
and emergency services. The planning committee may consider the following factors in formulating its plan;
(a) Land use planning criteria; and
(b) The input of cities and counties located within, or partially within, a participating fire protection
jurisdiction.
(2) The planning committee may coordinate 'its activities with neighboring cities, towns, and other local
governments that engage in fire protection planning.
(3) The planning committee shall
(a) Create opportunities for public input in the development of the plan,
(b) Adopt a plan proposing the creation of a regional fire protection service authority and recommending
governance, design, financing, and development of fire protection and emerg cy service facilities and
operations, including maintenance and preservation of facilities or systems. The plan may authorize the
authority to establish a system of ambulance service to be operated by the authority or operated by contract ;
after a call for bids. However, the authority shall not provide for the establishment of an ambulance service
that would compete with any existing private ambulance service, unless the authority determines that the
region served by the authority, or a substantial portion of the region served by the authority, is not
adequately served by an existing private ambulance service. in determining the adequacy of an existing
private ambulance service, the authority shall take into consideration objective generally accepted medical
standards and reasonable levels of service ch must be published by the authority. Following the
preliminary conclusion by the authority that the existing private ambulance service is inadequate, and before
establishing an ambulance service or issuing a call for bids, the authority shall allow a minimum of sixty days
for the private ambulan service to meet the generally accepted medical standards and accepted levels of
service, In the event of a second preliminary conclusion of inadequacy ihhin a twenty-four - month period,
the authority may immediately issue a call for bids or establish its own ambulance service and is not
required to afford the private ambulance service another sixty -day period to meet the generally accepted
medical standards and reasonable levels of senfice. A private ambulance service that is not licensed by the
department of health or whose license is denied, suspended, or revoked is not entitled to a sixty -day period
within which to demonstrate adequacy and the authority may immediately issue a call for bids or establish
an ambulance service; and
(c) in the plan, recommend sources of revenue authorized by R+W 52 26,050, identify the portions of the
plan that may be amended by the board of the authority without voter approval, consistent with RCW
52.26.050, and recommend a financing plan to fund selected fire protection and emergency services and
projects.
(4) Once adopted, the plan must be forwarded to the participating fire protection jurisdictions' governing
bodies to initiate the election process under RW 52.2;.060.
(5) If the ballot measure is not approved, the planning committee may redefine the selected regional fire
protection servi. ce authority projects, financing plan, and the ballot measure. The fire protection jurisdictions'
governing bodies may approve the new plan and ballot measure, and may then submit the revised
proposition to the voters at a subsequent election or a special election. if a ballot measure is not approved
by the voters by the third vote, the planning committee is dissolved.
(8) "Regular property taxes" has the same meaning as in RCW 84.04=140.
[2011c141 §1:2.: 20o § 2004 c 12g §2.t
Notes:
Reviser's note: The definitions in this section have been alphabetized
pursuant to RCW I.08.015(2)(k).
RCW 52 26 030
Planning committee — Formation — Powers.
Regional fire protection service authority planning committees are advisory entities that are created,
convened, and empowered as follows:
(1) Any two or more adjacent fire protection jurisdictions may create a regional fire protection service
authority and convene a regional fire protection - ice authority planning committee. No fire protection
jurisdiction may participate in more than one authority.
(2) Each governing body of the fire protection jurisdictions participating in planning under this chapter
shall appoint three elected officials to the authority planning committee. Members of the planning committee
may receive compensation of seventy dollars per day, or portion thereof, not to exceed seven hundred
dollars per year, for attendance at planning committee meetings and for performance of other services in
behalf of the authority, and may be reimbursed for travel and incidental expenses at the discretion of their
respective governing
(3) A regional fire protection service authority planning committee may receive state funding, as
appropriated by the legislature, or county funding provided by the effected counties for start-up funding to
pay for salaries, expenses, overhead, supplies, and similar expenses ordinarily and necessarily incurred,
Upon creation of a regional fire protection service authority, the authority shall within one year reimburse the
state or county for any sums advanced for these start -up costs from the state or county.
(4) The planning cOmmittee shall conduct its affairs and formulate a regional fire protection service
authority plan as provided under RCW 52 26 040.
(b) At its first meeting, a regional fire protection service authority planning committee may elect officers
and provide for the adoption of rules and other operating procedures.
(6) The planning committee may dissolve itself at any time by a majority vote of the total membership of
the planning committee. Any participating fire protection jurisdiction may withdraw upon thirty calendar days'
written notice to the other jurisdictions.
RCW 522601
Findings
The legislature finds that:
(1) The ability to respond to emergency situations by many of Washington states fire protection
jurisdictions has not kept up with the state's needs, particularly in urban regions:
(2) Providing a fire protection service system requires a shared partnership and responsibility among the
federal, state, it tI, and regional governments and the privates or;
(3) There are efficiencies to be gained by regional fire protection service delivery while retaining loo l
control; and
(4) Timely development of significant projects n best be achieved through enhanced funding options
for regional fire protection service agencies, using already existing taxing authority to address fire protection
emergency service needs and new authority to address critical fire protection projects` and emergency
services.
[2004 c 12 i.t
RCW 52.26.020
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly; requires otherwise,
(1) "Board" means the governing body of a regional fire protection service authority.
(2) "Elected official" means an elected official of a participating fire protection jurisdiction or a regional fire
protection district commissioner created under RCW 52.26 080.
(3) 'Fire protection jurisdiction" means a fire district, city, town, port district, municipal airport, or Indian
tribe.
(4) "Participating fire protection jurisdiction" means a fire protection jurisdiction participating in the
formation or operation of a regional fire protection service authority.
(5) "Regional fire protection service authority" or "authority" means a municipal corporation, an
independent taxing authority within the m ning of Article VII, section 1 of the state Constitution, and a
taxing district within the meaning of Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution, whose boundaries are
coextensive with two or more adjacent fire protection jurisdictions and that has been created by a vote of the
people under this chapter to implement a regional fire protection service authority plait.
(6) 'Regional fire protection service authority plan" or "plan" means a plan to develop and finance a fire
protection service authority project or projects, including, but not limited to, specific capital projects, fire
operations and emergency service operations pursuant to RCW 52 26 040(3)(b), and preservation and
maintenance of existing or future facilities.
(7) "Regional fire protection se i authority planning committee" or "planning committee committee" means the
advisory committee created under RCVV 52.25;030 to create and propose to fire protection jurisdictions a
regional fire protection service authority plan to design, finance, and develop fire protection and emergency
service projects,
RCW .
Transfer of responsibilities and employees to
authority — Civil service system.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in the regional fire protection service authority plan, ail powers, duties, and
functions of a participating fire protection jurisdiction pertaining to fire protection and emergency services
shall be transferred to the regional fire protection service authority on its creation date or on the effective
date that a fire protection jurisdiction is subsequently annexed into an authority.
(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in the regional fire protection service authority plan, and on the
creation date of the regional fire protection service authority or, In the case of a fire protection jurisdiction, on
the effective date that the tire protection jurisdiction is subsequently annexed into an authority, all reports,
documents, surveys, books, records, files, papers, or written material in the possession of the participating
fire protection jurisdiction pertaining to fire protection and emergency services powers, functions, and duties
shall be delivered to the regional fire protection servi authority; all real property and personal property
including cabinets, furniture, office equipment, motor vehicles, and other tangible property employed by the
participating fire protection jurisdiction in carrying out the fire protection and emergency services powers,
functions, and duties shall be transferred to the regional fire protection service authority; and all funds,
credits, or other assets held by the participating fire protection jurisdiction in connection ' the fire
protection and emergency services powers, functions, and duties shall be transferred and credited to the
regional fire protection service authority.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in the regional fire protection service authority plan, any appropriations
made to the participating fire protection jurisdiction for carrying out the fire protection and emergency
services powers, functions, and duties shall be transferred and credited to the regional fire protection service
authority.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in the regional fire protection service authority plan, whenever any
question arises as to the transfer of any personnel, funds, 0 Its, documents, records, papers, files,
equipment, or other tangible property used or held in the exercise of the powers and the performance of the
duties and functions transferred, the governing body of the participating fire protection jurisdiction shall make
a determination ination as to the proper allocation
(3) Except as otherwise provided in the regional fire protection service authority plan, all rules and all
pending business before the participating fire protection jurisdiction pertaining to the powers, functions, and
duties transferred shall be continued and acted upon by the regional fire protection service authority, and all
existing contracts and obligations shall remain in fun force and shall be performed by the regional fire
protection service authority
(4) The transfer of the powers, duties, functions, and personnel of the participating fire protection
jurisdiction shall not affect the validity of any act performed before creation of the regional fire protection
service authority.
(5) If apportionments of budgeted funds are required because of the transfers, the treasurer for the
authority shall certify the apportionments.
(6)(a) Subject to (c) of this subsection, all employees of the participating fire protection jurisdictions are
transferred to the jurisdiction of the regional fire protection service authority on its creation date or, in the
case of a fire protection jurisdiction, on the effective date that the fire protection jurisdiction is subsequently
annexed into an authority. Upon transfer, unless an agreement for different terms of transfer is reached
between the collective bargaining representatives of the transferring employees and the participating fire
protection jurisdictions, an employee is entitled to the employee rights, benefits, and privileges to which he
or she would have been entitled as an employee of a participating fire protection jurisdiction, including rights
to:
(I Compensation at least equal to the level at the time of transfer;
(ii) Retirement, vacation, sick leave, and any other accrued benefit;
together with any outstanding general obligation debt, equal to one and one -half percent of the value of the
taxable property within the authority. The authority may provide for the retirement of the bonds bY ex ss
property tax levies. The voters of the authority must approve a proposition authorizing the bonds and levies
by an affirmative vote of three - fifths of those voting on the proposition at an election. At the election, the total
number of persons voting must constitute not less than forty percent of the voters in the authority who voted
at the last preceding general state election. The maximum term of the bonds may not ex «= .d twenty -five
years. Elections shall be held as provided in ROW 39. 366.[50.
(3) Obligations of an authority shall be issued and sold in accordance with chapters 39 46 and 39 5C
ROW, as applicable,
MOW c 200 10; 2004 c 129 § 141
RCW 5228.1 40
Levy of t es — Levies
election — Indebted/less — Definition.
(1) To carry out the pu s; for which a regional fire protection service authority is created, as authorized In
the plan and approved by the voters, the governing board of an authority may annually levy the following
taxes
(a) An ad valorem tax on all taxable pro.: located within the authority not to exceed frfty cents per
thousand dollars of assessed value;
(b) An ad valorem tax on all property located within the authority not to exceed fifty cents per thous nd
dollars of assessed value and which will not cause the combined levies to exceed the constitutional or
statutory limitations. This levy, or any portion of this levy, may also be made when dollar rates of other taxing
units are released by agreement with the other taxing units from their authorized levies; and
(c) An ad valorem tax on all taxable property located within the authority not to exceed fifty cents per
thousand dollars of assessed value if the authority has at least one full -time, paid employee, or contracts
with another municipal corporation for the services of at least one full-time, paid employee. This levy may be
made only if it will not affect dollar rates which other taxing districts may lawfully claim nor cause the
combined levies to exceed the constitutional or statutory limitations or both.
(2) Levies in excess of the amounts provid µ• in subsection (1) of this section or in excess of the
aggregate dollar rate limitations or both may be made for any authority purpose when so authorized at a
special election under RCW 84 52.052. Any such tax when levied must be certified to the proper county
officials for the collection of the tax as for other general taxes, The taxes when collected shall be placed in
the appropriate a ority fund or funds as provided by law, and must be paid out on warrants of the auditor
of the county in which all, or the largest portion of, the authority is located, upon authorization of the
governing board of the authority.
(3) Authorities may provide for the retirement of general indebtedness by excess property t levies as
set forth in RCW 52 26.130.
(4) For purposes of this chapter, the term 'value of the taxable property"' has the same meaning as in
RCW 39,36 ,01 ,
[2006 c 200 § 11, 2004 c 129 § is]
(c)(a) Referendum action on the proposed reannexation under this section may be taken by the voters of
the area proposed to be reannexed if a petition calling for a referendum is filed with the city or to : uncil,
or governing body of the fire protection district, within a thirty -day period after the adoption of the resolution
under (a )(ii) of this subsection, which petition has been signed by registered voters of the area proposed to
be reannexed equal in number to ten percent of the total number of the registered voters residing in that
area.
(ii) if a valid petition signed by the requisite number of registered voters has been so filed, the effect of
the resolutions shall be held in abeyance and a ballot proposition to authorize the rearm ation shall be
submitted to the voters of the area at the next special election date specified in RCW 29A 04 30 that occurs
forty -five or more days after the petitions have been validated. Approval of the ballot proposition authorizing
the reannexation by a simple majority vote shall authorize the reannexation.
(2004 c 129 § it] RCW
Dissolution of fire protection district — Election
— Transfer of responsibilities.
Any fire protection district within the authority may be dissolved by a majority vote of the registered electors
of the district at an election candeded by the election officials of the county or counties in which the district
is located in a** rdance with the general election laws of the state. The proceedings for dissolution may be
initiated by the adoption of a resolution by the board. The dissolution of the district shall not cancel
outstanding obligations of the district or of a local improvement district within the district, and the county
legislative authority or authorities of the county ;or counties in which the district was located may make
annual levies against the lands within the district until the obligations of the districts are paid. All powers,
duties, and functions of a dissolved fire protection jurisdiction within the authority boundaries, pertaining to
providing fire protection se s may be transferred, by resolution, to the regional fire protection service
authority.
E2# r•. c 129 1 .1
RCW ..
obligation bonds.
(1) An authority may incur general indebtedness for authority purposes, issue bonds, notes, or other
evidences of indebtedness not to exceed an amount, together with any outstanding nonvoter approved
general obligation debt, equal to three-fourths of one percent of the value of the taxable property within the
authority. The maximum term of the obligations may not exceed twenty years. The obligations may pledge
benefit charges and may pledge payments to an authority from the state, the federal government, or any fire
protection jurisdiction under an interlocal contract. The interlocal contracts pledging revenues and taxes are
binding for a term not to exceed twenty -five years, and taxes or other revenue pledged by an interlocal
contract may not be eliminated or modified if it would impair the pledge of the contract.
(2) An authority may also issue general obligation bonds for capital purposes not to exceed an amount,
(iii) Promotion and service time accrual; and
(iv) The length or terms of probationary periods, including no requirement for an additional probationary
period if one had « x n completed before the transfer date.
(b) If any or all of the participating fire protection jurisdictions provide for civil service in their fire
departments, the collective bargaining representatives of the transferring employees and the participating
fire protection jurisdictions must negotiate regarding the establishment of a civil service system within the
authority. This su • = = ion does not apply if none of the participating fire protection districts provide for civil
service,
(c) Nothing contained in this section may be construed to alter any existing collective bargaining unit or
the provisions of any existing collective bargaining agreement until the agreement has expired or until the
bargaining unit has been modified as provided by law.
[2011c271 §1,2006c290; § 7;2ao c120§ 81
Withdrawal RCW 52.26.110
(1) As provided in this section, a regional fire protection service authority may withdraw areas from its
or reannex into the authority areas that previously had been withdrawn from the authority under
this section..
(2)(a) The withdrawal of an area is authorized upon :: (i) Adoption of a resolution by the board approving
the withdrawal and finding that, in the opinion of the board, inclusion of this area within the regional fire
protection service authority will result in a reduction of the authority's tax levy rate under the provisions of
ROW 84 52 010; or (li) adoption of a resolution by the city or town council approving the withdrawal, if the
area is located within the city or town, or adoption of a resolution by the governing body of the fire protection
district within which the area is located approving the withdrawal, if the area is located outside of a city or
town, but within a fire prof 'on district:
(b) A withdrawal under this section is effective at the end of the day on the thirty -first day of December in
the year in which the resolution under (a)(i) or (ii) of this subsection is adopted, but for purposes of
establishing boundaries for property tax purposes, the boundaries shall be established immediately upon the
adoption of the resolution.
(c) The withdrawal of an area from the boundaries of an authority does not exempt any property therein,
from taxation for the purpose of paying the costs of redeeming `any indebtedness of the authority existing at
the time of withdrawal.
(3)(a) An area that has been withdrawn from the boundaries of a regional fire protection service authority
under this section may be reannexed into the authority upon: () Adoption of a resolution by the board
proposing the reannexation; and (li) adoption of a resolution by the city or town uncil approving the
reannexation, if the area is Is ed within the city or town, or adoption of a resolution by the governing body
of the fire protection district within which the area is lo ted approving the reannexation, if the a - is
located outside of a city or 10Wri but within a fire protection district.
(b) A reannexation under this section shall he effective at the end of the day on the thirty -first day of
December in the year in which the adoption of the resolution under (a)(ii) of this subsection occurs, but for
purposes of establishing boundaries for property tax purposes, the boundaries shall be established
immediately upon the adoption of the resolution.
RCW ■ ■
located. Levy of taxes — To be made by county or
counties where authority is
At the time of making general tax levies in each year the county legislative authority or authorities of the
county or counties in which a regional fire protection service authority is located shall make the required
levies for authority purposes against the real and personal property in the authority in accordance with the
equalized valuations of the property for general t purposes and as a part of the general taxes. The tax
levies are part of the general tax roll and must be collected as a part of the general taxes against the
property in the authority.
12004 c121 181 '
RCW 52.26.160
Taxation of lands lying within authority and
forest protection assessment area.
in the event that lands lie within both a regional fire protection service authority and a forest protection
assessment area they shall be taxed and assessed as follows:
(1) If the lands are wholly unimproved, they are subject to forest protection assessments but not to
authority levies;
(2) If the lands are wholly improved, they are subject to authority levies but, not to forest protection
assessments; and
(3) If the lands are partly improved and partly unimproved, they are subject both to authority levies and to
forest protection assessments. -iowever, upon request, accompanied by appropriate legal descriptions, the
county assessor shall segregate any unimproved portions which each consist of twenty or more acres, and
thereafter the unimproved portion or portions are subject only to forest protection assessments.
12004 c 129 § 17.1
RCW ■
Collection
it is the duty of the county treasurer of the county in which the regional fire protection service authority
created under this chapter is located to collect taxes authorized and levied under this chapter. However,
when a regional fire protection service authority is located in more than one county, the county treasurer of
each county in which the authority is located shall collect the regional fire protection service authority's taxes
RCW 52.26.210
Benefit charges --- Administration and collection
by county treasurer.
Each regional fire protection service authority shall contract, prior to the imposition of a benefit charge, for
the administration and collection of the benefit charge by each county treasurer, who shall deduct a
percentage, as provided by contract to reimburse the county for expenses incuiTed by the county assessor
and county treasurer in the administration of the resolution and this chapter. The county treasurer shall
make distributions each year, as the charges are collected, in the amount of the benefit charges imposed on
behalf of each authority, less the deduction provided for in the contract
(2004 sing zit
RCW 52.26.220
Benefit charges — Submission to voters
Renewal.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter to the contrary, any benefit charge authorized by this
chapter is not effective unless a proposition to impose the benefit charge is approved by a sixty percent
majority of the voters of the regional fire protection service authority voting at a general election or at a
special election called by the authority for that purpose, held within the authority. A ballot measure that
contains an authorization to impose benefit charges and that is approved by the voters pursuant to ROW
52.26.060 meets the proposition approval requirement of this section. An election held under this section
must be held not more than twelve months prior to the date on which the first charge is to be assessed. A
benefit charge approved at an election expires in six years or fewer as authorized by the voters, unless
subsequently reapproved by the voters.
(2) The ballot must be submitted so as to enable the voters favoring the authorization of a regional fire
protection service authority benefit charge to vote "Yes" and those opposed to vote "No." The ballot question
is as follows:
Shall . the regional fire protection service authority composed of (insert the participating fire
protection jurisdictions) „ be authorized to impose benefit charges each year for.,, (insert number of
years not to exceed six) years, not to exceed an amount equal to sixty pe *.zrit of its operating budget, and
be prohibited from imposing an additional property tax under ROW 52 26 140(1)(0?
YES NO
IP
(3) Authorities renewing the benefit charge may elect to use the following alternative ballot:
(ii) "Personal propertyy' does not include any personal property used for farming, field crops, farm,
equipment„ or livestock.
(b) Improvements to real property" does not inc€ude, permanent growing crops, field improvements
installed for the purpose of aiding the growth of permanent crops, or other field improvements normally not
subject to damage by fire,
1004 c 129 g 241 ;
RCW m
Benefit charges — Exemptions.
All personal property not assessed and subjected to ad valorem taxation under Title 84 RCW, all property
under contract or for which the regional fire protection seriim authority is receiving payment for as
authorized hy law, all property subject to chapter 84.28 RCW, and all property that is subject to a contract for
services with an authority, is exempt from the benefit charge imposed under this chapter,
psi • eta g 251 ,
RCW ..
Benefit
assessor's duties,
(1) The resolution establishing benefit charges as specified in R 52, 26.180 must specify, by legal
geographical areas or other specific designations, the charge to apply to each property by location, type, or
other designation, or other info ation that is necessary to the proper computation of the benefit charge to
be charged to each property owner subject to the resolution.
(2) The county asses or of each county in which the regional fire protection service authority is located
shall determine, and identify the personal properties and improvements to real property that are subject to a
benefit charge in each authority and shall furnish and deliver to the county treasurer of that county a listing
of the properties with information describing the location, legal description, and address of the person to
whom the statement of benefit charges is to be mailed, the name of the owner, and the value of the property
and improvements, together with the benefit charge to apply to each,. These benefit charges must be
rtified to the county treasurer For collection in the same manner that is used for the collection of fire
protection charges for forest lands protected by the department of natural resources under RCW 76 . 04 610
and the same penalties and provisions for collection apply,
12004 c 129 g 26 .1
that are imposed on property located within the county and transfer these funds to the treasurer of the
-..
county in which the majority of the authority lies.
[zoo4 c 129g raj
;
RCW 52.28.180
Benefit charges.
(1) The governing board of a regional fire protection service authority may by resolution, authorized in the
plan and approved by the voters, for authority purposes authorized by law, fix and impose a benefit charge
on personal property and improvements to real property which are I. me=ted within the authority on the date
specified and which have received or will receive the benefits provided by the authority, to be paid by the
owners of the properties. A benefit charge does not apply to personal property and improvements to real
property owned or used by any recognized religious denomination or religious organization as, or including,
a sanctuary or for purposes related to the bona fide religious ministries of the denomination or religious
organization, including schools and educational facilities used for kindergarten, primary, or secondary
educational purposes or for institutions of higher education and all grounds and buildings related thereto.
However, a ben. efit charge does apply to personal property and improvements to real property owned or
used by any recognized religious denomination or religious organization for business operations, profit!
making enterprises, or activities not including u. se of a sanctuary or related to kindergarten, primary, or
secondary educational purposes or for institutions of higher education. The aggregate amount of these
benefit charges in any one year may not exceed an amount equal to sixty percent of the operating budget
for the year in which the benefit charge is to be collected. It is the duty of the county legislative authority or
authorities of the county or counties in which the regional fire protection service authority is located to make
any necessary adjustments to assure compliance with this limitation and to immediately notify the governing
board of an authority of any changes thereof.
(2) A benefit charge imposed must be reasonably proportioned to the measurable benefits to property
resulting from the services : * ded by the authority. it is acceptable to apportion the benefit charge to the
values of the properties as found by the county assessor or assessors modified generally in the proportion
that fire insurance rates are reduced or entitled to be reduced as the result of providing the services. Any
other method that reasonably apportions the benefit charges to the actual benefits resulting from the degree
of protection, which may include but is not limited to the distance from regularly maintained fire protection
equipment, the level of fire prevention services provided to the properties, or the need of the properties for
specialized services, may be specified in the resolution and is subject to contest on the grounds of
unreasonable or capricious action or action in excess of the measurable benefits to the property resulting
from services afforded by the authority. The governing board of arr authority may determine that certain
properties or types or classes of properties are not receiving measurable benefits based on criteria they
establish by resolution. A benefit charge authorized by this chapter is not applicable to the personal property
or improvements to real property of any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, organization, or association
maintaining a fire department and whose fire protection and training system has been accepted by a fire
insurance underwriter maintaining a fire protection engineering and inspection service authorized by the
state insurance commissioner to do business in this state, but the property may be Prot * by the authority
under a ; contractual agreement.
(3) For administrative purposes, the benefit charge imposed on any individual property may be compiled
into a single charge, provided that the authority, upon request of the property owner, provide an itemized list
of charges for each measurable benefit included in the charge,
(4) For the purposes of this section and RCVV 52 . 26 190 through 52 26 270, the following definitions
apply:
(a)(i) "Personal property" includes every form of tangible personal property including, but not limited to, all
goods, chattels, stock in trade, estates, or crops,
'shall the, regional fire protection service authority composed of (insert the participating fire protection
jurisdictions) . , . . be authorized to continue voter-authorized benefit charges each year for .. , . (insert
number of years not to exceed six) years, not to exceed an amount equal to sixty percent nt of its operating
budget, and be prohibited from imposing an additional property tax under ROW 52.26.140(1)(0)?
YES NO
Roos c zoo § 12; zoo4 a 129 § 28.1
RCW ■
Benefit charges — Establishment — Public
hearings — Notice to property owners.
(1) Not fewer than ten days nor more than six months before the election at which the proposition to impose
the benefit charge is submitted as provided in this chapter, the governing board of the regional fire protection
service authority shall hold a public hearing specifically setting forth its propo l to impose benefit charges
for the support of its legally authorized activities that will maintain or improve the services afforded in the
authority. A report of the public hearing shall be filed wfth the county treasurer of each county in which the
property is located and be available for public inspection.
(2) Prior to November 15th of each year the governing board of the authority shall hold a public hearing
to review and establish the regional fire protection service authority benefit charges for the subsequent year, ,
(3) All resolutions imposing or changing the benefit charges must be filed the county treasurer or
treasurers of each county in which the property is located, together with the rR * *rd of each public hearing,
before November 30th immediately preceding the year in which the benefit charges are to be coil d
behalf of the authority.
(4) After the benefit charges have been established, the owners of the property subject to the charge
must be notified of the amount of the charge.
12004 0120 § 29,1
Benefit RCW 52.26.240
Limitation imposition
property s ,,
A regional fire protection service authority that imposes a benefit charge under this chapter shall not impose >
all or part of the property tax authorized under ROW 52 .26.140(1)(c),
c 129 § 331 ,
RCW 52.26.280
Civil service — Wheal authorized or required.
(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, a regional fire protection service authority may, by resolution of
AS board, provide for civil service for its employees in the same mariner, with the same powers, and with the
same force and effect as provided by chapter 41.05 RCW for cities, towns, and municipalities, including
restrictions against the discharge of an employee because of residence outside the limits of the regional fire
protection service authority.
(2) If. an agreement is reached to provide for civil service under RCW 52.25.1 26,10 0(6), the regional fire
protection service author
RCW 52.26.290
Annexation ot territory.
Territory that is annexed to a participating jurisdiction is annexed to the authority as of the effective date of
the annexation. The statutes regarding transfer of assets and employees do not apply to the participating
jurisdictions in the annexation
Roos c 200 S 9ai'
RCW 52.26 300
Annexation of fire protection jurisdiction
adjacent to authority.
{1) A fire protection jurisdiction that is adjacent to the boundary of a regional fire protection service authority
is eligible for annexation by the authority.
(2} An annexation is initiated by the adoption of a resolution by the governing body of a fire protection
jurisdiction requesting the annexation, The resolution requesting annexation must then be filed with the
governing board of the authority that is requested to annex the fire protection jurisdiction
(3) Except as otherwise provided in the regional fire protection service authority plan, on receipt of the
resolution requesting annexation, the governing board of the authority may adopt a resolution amending its
plan to establish terms and conditions of the requested annexation and submit the resolution and plan
amendment to the fire protection jurlsrciction requesting annexation. An election to authorize the annexation
may be held only if the governing body of the fire protection jurisdiction seeking annexation adopts a
[2004 c129 § 301
RCW 5226.250
Benefit Complaints Review
After notice has been given to the property owners of the amount of the charge, the governing board of a
regional fire protection service authority imposing a benefit charge under this chapter shall form a review
board for at least a two-week period and shall, upon complaint in writing of an aggrieved party owning
property in the authority, reduce the charge of a person who, in their opinion, has been charged too large a
sum, to a sum or amount as they believe to be the true, fair, and just amount, .
i2o04 c 129 § 311
RCW 52 262 60
Benefit Model resolution
Assistance by Washington fire commissioners
association.
The Washington fire commissioners association, as soon as practicable, shall draft a model resolution to
impose the regional fire protection service authority benefit charge authorized by this chapter and may
provide assistance to authorities in the establishment of a program to develop benefit charges,
[20 04 c 129 § 321
RCW 52.26270
Benefit charges — Additional exemption.
A person who is receiving the exemption contained in RCW 36 through 84.36,389 is exempt from
any legal obligation to pay a portion of the benefit charge imposed under this chapter as follows.
(1) A person who meets the income limitation contained in RCW 84 38.381 (5)(a) and does not meetthe
income limitation contained in RCW 36 (i) or (ii) is exempt from twenty -five percent of the
charge,
(2) A person who Meets the income limitation contained in RCW 84 35.38 1 (5)(b)(i) is exempt from fifty
percent of the charge; and
(3) A person who meets the, income limitation contained in RCW 84.36 381(5)(b)(ii) shall be exempt from
seventy -five percent of the charge
resolution approving both the annexation and the related plan amendment.
(4)(a) An annexation is authorized if the voters in the fire protection jurisdiction proposed to be annexed
approve by a simple majority vote a single ballot measure approving the annexation and related plan
amendmen #.
(b) An annexation is effective on the date specified in the ballot measure. In the event the ballot measure
does riot specify an effective date, the effective date is on the subsequent January 1st or July 1st, whichever
occurs first.
[2011 c 271 § 2.]
RCW a' .
Captions
Captions used in this act are not any part of tile law.
[2004 c 129 § 35,1
RCW . a
If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance i s held i nvalid, the remainder of
the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.
(21. c 1'29 § 371 '>
84.09.030
Taxing district boundaries -- Establishment.
(1)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection (1), for the purposes of property taxation
and the levy of property taxes, the boundaries of counties, cities, and all other taxing districts
shall be the established official boundaries of such districts existing on the first day of August
of the year in which the property tax levy is made.
(b) The boundaries for a newly incorporated port district or regional fire protection service
authority shall be established on the first day of October if the boundaries of the newly
incorporated port district or regional fire protection service authority are coterminous with the
boundaries of another taxing district or districts, as they existed on the first day of August of
that year
(2) In any case where any instrument setting forth the official boundaries of any newly
established taxing district, or setting forth any change in the boundaries, is required by law to
be filed in the office of the county auditor or other county official, the instrument shall be filed
in triplicate, The officer with whom the instrument is filed shall transmit two copies of the
instrument to the county assessor.
(3) No property tax levy shall be made for any taxing district whose boundaries are not
established as of the dates provided in this section=
12o08 c 86 § 501, 2007 c 285 § 3; 2004 c 129 § 19; 1996 c 230 §'1613; 1994 c 292 § 4. Prior; 1989 c 375 § 8
1989 c 217 § 1 , prior 1987`c 358 § 1 `,1987 c 62 § 1 ; 1984 c 203 § 9; 1981 c 26 §4; 1961 c 1 § 84 09 030,
prior. 1951 c 116 § 1; 1949 c 65 § 1; 1943 c 182 § 1. 1939 c 136 § 1, Rem Supp 1949 § 11106 -1. Formerly
RCW .84'08 160.x.
Notes:
Severability -- Savings -- Part headings not law -- 2008 c 86: See notes
following RCW 82. 14.030.
Captions not law -- Severability _- 2004 c 129: See RCW 52.28.900 and
52 26,901.
Part headings not law - -1996 c 230: See notes following RCW 57.02.001
Findings -- Intent - -1994 c 292: See note following RCW 57,04 050.
Severability 1984 c 203: See note following RCW 35.43.140.
84.09.035
Withdrawal of certain areas of a library district, metropolitan park
district fire protection district, or public hospital district -- Date
effective.
Notwithstanding the provisions of ROW 84.09:030, the boundaries of a library district,
metropolitan park district, fire protection district, or public hospital district that withdraws an
area from its boundaries pursuant to ROW 27.12.355, 35.51.360, 52.04.056, or 70.44.235,
which area has boundaries that are coterminous with the boundaries of a tax code area, shall
be established as of the first day of October in the year in which the area is withdrawn.
[1989 c 378 § 9, 1987 c 138 § 5.1
http :// pps.leg.wa, ovirewidefault.a p ?Cite =84,09 c.full true 2/22/2011
84,09.037
School district boundary changes.
Each school district affected by a transfer of territory from one school district to another
school district under chapter 28A,315 RCW shall retain its Preexisting boundaries for the
purpose of the collection of excess tax levies authorized under RCW 84.52.053 before the
effective date of the transfer, for such tax collection years and for such excess tax levies as
the superintendent of public instruction may approve and order that the transferred territory
shall either be subject to or relieved of such excess levies, as the case may be For the
purpose of all other excess tax levies previously authorized under chapter 84.52 RCVV and all
excess lax levies authorized under ROW 84.52,053 subsequent to the effective date of a
transfer of territory, the boundaries of the affected school districts shall be modified to
recognize the transfer of territory subject to ROW 84,09.030.
(2005c263 §615; c263 1990c33 §597, 1987 c 100 § 3)
Notes
Findings -- Purpose -- Part headings not law -- 2006 c 263: See notes
following RCW 28A, 150230 .
Purpose Statutory references -- Severability 1990 c 33: See RCW
28A 900i 00 through 28A.900.1 02.
84.09.040
Penalty for nonperformance of duty by county officers.
Every county auditor, county assessor and county treasurer who in any case refuses or
knowingly neglects to perform any duty enjoined on him by this title, or who consents to or
connives at any evasion of its provisions whereby any proceeding herein provided for is
prevented or hindered, or whereby any properly required to be listed for taxation is unlawfully
exempted, or the valuation thereof is entered on the tax roll at tess than its true taxable value,
shall, for every such neglect, refusal, consent or connivance, forfeit and pay to the state not
less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, at the discretion of the court, to
be recovered before any court of competent jurisdiction upon the complaint of any citizen
who is a taxpayer, and the prosecuting attorney shall prosecute such suit to judgment and
execution.
(1961 c 15 § 84 09 040. Prior 1925 ex,s c 130 § 109: 1897 c 71 § 89, 1
Formerly RCW 84 58.410 )
84.09.050
Fees and costs allowed in civil actions against county officers.
Whenever a civil action is commenced against any person holding the office of county
treasurer, county auditor, or any other officer, for performing or attempting to perform any
duty authorized or directed by any statute of this state for the collection of the public revenue,
such treasurer, auditor or other officer may in the discretion of the court before whom such
action is brought, by an order made by such court and entered in the minutes thereof, be
allowed and paid out of the county treasury, reasonable fees of counsel and other expenses
for defending such action.
[1961 c 15 § 84 09.050 Prior: 1925 ex s c 130 § 110, 1897 c 71 § 90. 1893 c 124 § 93; RRS§ 11271
Formerly RCW 84 56 420 )
httpidittapps,,leg,,wa„govircwidefaultaspx?cite=84.09&fuli--true 2/22/2011
- :
84, 09.060
Property tax advisor.
See RCW 84.48.14g
84.09 07t?
Authority of operating agencies to levy taxes.
Nothing in this title may be deemed to grant to any operating agency organized under
chapter 43.52 RCW, or a project of any such operating agency, the authority to levy any tax
or assessment not otherwise authorized by law
(1983 2nd ex s, c 3 § 561
Notes
Construction -- Severability -- Effective dates 1983 2nd ex s. c 3: See
notes following RCW 82.04.255,
http :// pps.leg.wa ov /rcw /def ultaspx ?cite - 4.0 &full —true 2/22/2011
84.52.125 Fire protection districts -- Protection from levy prorationing.
84.62.130 Fire protection district excess levies.
84.52.135 County levy for criminal justice purposes.
84 52.140 Additional regular property tax levy authorized.
84.52.700 County airport district levy authorized.
84,52 703 Mosquito control district levies authorized.
84,52 706 Rural county library district levy authorized
84 52 709 intercounty rural library district levy authorized
84.52.712 Reduction of city levy if part of library district,
84.52.713 Island library district levy authorized.
84.52.718 Levy by receiver of disincorporated city authorized,
84.52.719 Second-class city levies,
84,52 721 Unclassified city sewer fund levy authorized.
84 52 724 City accident fund levy authorized.
84.52,727 City emergency fund levy authorized.
54.52.730 City lowlands and waterway projects levy authorized
84 52,733 Metropolitan municipal corporation levy authorized,
84 52,736 Metropolitan park district levy authorized
84.52.739 Code city accident fund levy authorized.
84 52 742 County lands assessment fund levy authorized,
84.52 745 General county levy authorized.
84.52 749 County rail district tax levies authorized.
84.52.750 Solid waste disposal district — Excess levies authorized.
84.52 751 County hospital maintenance levy authorized.
84.52.754 Park and recreation service area levies authorized.
84.52.757 Park and recreation district levies authorized
84,52.760 County road fund levy authorized.
84.52 761 Road and bridge service district levies authorized,.
84,52 763 City firerrienS pension fund levy authorized
84.52 769 Reduction of city levy if part of fire protection district.
84.52.772 Fire protection district levies authorized.
84.52.775 Port district levies authorized.
84_52.778 Public utility district levy authorized.
84.52.784 Water-sewer district levies authorized.
84,52.786 Cultural arts, stadium and convention district tax levies authorized.
84.52:787 Cemetery district levy authorized
84.52.790 Public hospital district levy authorized.
84.52,793 Air pollution control agency levy authorized,
84.52.799 Veteran's relief fund levy authorized.
http://apps.leg,Wa.govircwidefauit.aspx?cite=8452&full=true 2/22/2011
84_52..802 Acquisition of open space, etc., land or rights to future development
by certain entities -- Property tax levy authorized,
84 52808 River improvement, fund levy authorized.
84 52,811 Intercounty river control agreement levy authorized
84.52.814 Flood control zone district levy authorized
84.52.817 Irrigation and rehabilitation district special assessment authorized.
84.52.820 Reclamation district levy authorized.
84.52 823 Levy for tax refund funds.
Notes:
Levy for refunds, RCW 84,68 040.
Levy for services for persons with developmental disabilities or mental health
services: RCW 71.20.110.
84.52.010
Taxes levied or voted in specific amounts — Effect of constitutional
and statutory limitations.
Except as is permitted under ROW 84.55.050, all taxes shall be levied or voted in specific
amounts,
The rate percent of all taxes for state and county purposes, and purposes of taxing
districts coextensive with the county, shall be determined, calculated and fixed by the county
assessors of the respective counties, within the limitations provided by law, upon the
assessed valuation of the property of the county, as shown by the completed tax rolls of the
county, and the rate percent of all taxes levied for purposes of taxing districts within any
county shall be determined, calculated and fixed by the county assessors of the respective
counties, within the limitations provided by law, upon the assessed valuation of the property
of the taxing districts respectively.
When a county assessor finds that the aggregate rate of tax levy on any property, that is
subject to the limitations set forth in ROW 84.52,043 or 84,52.050, exceeds the limitations
provided in either of these sections, the assessor shall recompute and establish a
consolidated levy in the following manner.
(1) The full certified rates of tax levy for state, county, county road district, and city or town
purposes shall be extended on the tax rolls in amounts not exceeding the limitations
established by law, however any state levy shall take precedence over all other levies arid
shall not be reduced for any purpose other than that required by ROW 84.56 010. If, as a
result of the levies imposed under RCVV 36.54.130, 84,34,230, 84.52.069, 84 52 105, the
portion of the levy by a metropolitan park district that was protected under ROW 84.52_120,
8452125,8.452.135 and 84.62 140, the combined rate of regular property tax levies that
are subject to the one percent limitation exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any
property, then these levies shall be reduced as follows:
(a) The levy imposed by a county under ROW 84.52.140 shall be reduced until the
combined rate no longer exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any property or
shall be eliminated;
(b) If the combined rate of regular property tax levies that are subject to the one percent
limitation still exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any property, the portion of
the levy by a fire protection district that is protected under ROW 84.52.125 shall be reduced
until the combined rate no longer exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any
property or shall be eliminated;
(c) If the combined rate of regular property tax levies that are subject to the one percent
limitation still exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any property, the levy
imposed by a county under ROW 84.52.135 must be reduced until the combined rate no
httryliappsitegi‘va.govircwidefaultasPx?cite=z84.5284f1111=true 2/22/2011
longer exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any property or must be eliminated;
(d) If the combined rate of regular property tax levies that are subject to the one percent
limitation still exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any property, the levy
imposed by a ferry district under ROW 36.54.130 must be reduced until the combined rate no
longer exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any property or must be eliminated;
(e) If the combined rate of regular property tax levies that are subject to the one percent
limitation still exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any property, the portion of
the levy by a metropolitan park district that is protected under ROW 84.52.120 shall be
reduced until the combined rate no longer exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of
any property or shall be eliminated;
(1) if the combined rate of regular property tax levies that are subject to the one percent
limitation still exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any property, then the levies
imposed under ROW 84 34.230, 84.52.105, and any portion of the levy imposed under ROW
84.52.069 that is in excess of thirty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value, shall be
reduced on a pro rata basis until the combined rate no longer exceeds one percent of the
true and fair value of any property or shall be eliminated; and
(g) If the combined rate of regular property tax levies that are subject to the one percent
limitation still exceeds one percent of the true and fair value of any property, then the thirty
cents per thousand dollars of assessed value of tax levy imposed under ROW 84.52.069
shall be reduced until the combined rate no longer exceeds one percent of the true and fair
value of any property or eliminated,
(2) The certified rates of tax levy subject to these limitations by all junior taxing districts
imposing taxes on such property shall be reduced or eliminated as follows to bring the
consolidated levy of taxes on such property within the provisions of these limitations;
(a) First, the certified property tax levy rates of those junior taxing districts authorized
under ROW 36.68.525, 36.69.145, 35.954..100, and 67.38.130 shall be reduced on a pro rata
basis or eliminated;
(b) Second, if the consolidated tax levy rate still exceeds these limitations, the certified
property tax levy rates of flood control zone districts shall be reduced on a pro rata basis or
eliminated;
(c) Third, if the consolidated tax levy rate still exceeds these limitations, the certified
property tax levy rates of all other junior taxing districts, other than fire protection districts,
regional fire protection service authorities, library districts, the first fifty cent per thousand
dollars of assessed valuation levies for metropolitan park districts, and the first fifty cent per
thousand dollars of assessed valuation levies for public hospital districts, shall be reduced on
a pro rata basis or eliminated;
(d) Fourth, if the consolidated tax levy rate still exceeds these limitations, the first fifty cent
per thousand dollars of assessed valuation levies for metropolitan park districts created on or
after January 1, 2002, shalt be reduced on a pro rata basis or eliminated;
(e) Fifth, if the consolidated tax levy rate still exceeds these limitations, the certified
property tax levy rates authorized to fire protection districts under ROW 62.16.140 and
5216.160 and regional fire protection service authorities under ROW 52.26.140(1) (b) and (c)
shall be reduced on a pro rata basis or eliminated; and
(I) Sixth, if the consolidated tax levy rate still exceeds these limitations, the certified
property tax levy rates authorized for fire protection districts under ROW 52,16 130, regional
fire protection service authorities under ROW 52,26,140(1)(a), library districts, metropolitan
park districts created before January 1, 2002, under their first fifty cent per thousand dollars
of assessed valuation levy, and public hospital districts under their first fifty cent per thousand
dollars of assessed valuation levy, shall be reduced on a pro rata basis or eliminated .
j2009 c 551 § 7, 2007 c 54 § 26; 2005 c 122 § 2, Prior. 2004c 129 § 21: 2004 c 80 § 3; 2003 c 83 § 310, prior
2602 c 248 § 15, 2002 c 88 § 7 1995 2nd sp.s. c 13 § 4; 1995 c 99 § 2; 1994 c 124 § 36; 1993 c 337 § 4; 1990
c 234 § 4: 1988 c 274 § 7; 1987 c 255 § 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 § 101,1973 tstex.s c 195 § 146, 1971 ex.& c
243 § 6; 1970 exs, c 92 § 4; 1961 c15 § 84 52,0,10; prior, 1947 c 270 § 1; 1925 ex,s, c 130 § 74; Rem Suer)
1947 §11235; prior; 1920 ex s c 3 § 1 1897 c 71 § 62' 1893 c 124 § 63 1
http://apps,leg,wa.govircwfdefault.Aspx?cite 2/22/2011
Notes.
Severability -- 2007 c 54: See note following R W 82.04;050.
Application -- 2005 c 122: See note following RCW 84,52 125.
Captions not law -- Severability -- 2004 c 129: See ROW 52.26,900 and
52.26 901.
Effective date 2004 c 80: See note following ROW 84E2,135. _
Findings -- intent -- Captions, part headings not law -- Severability --
Effective date -- 2003 c 83: See notes following RCW 36,57A,200.
Intent -- 1995 2nd ens. c 13: See note following RCW 84.48.080.
Finding - -1993 c 337: See note following ROW 84 52.105,
Purpose - -1988 c 274: The legislature finds that due to statutory and
constitutional limitations, the interdependence of the regular property tax levies of
the state, counties, county road districts, cities and towns, and junior taxing
districts can cause significant reductions in the otherwise authorized levies of
those taxing districts, resulting in serious disruptions to essential services
provided by those taxing districts. The purpose of this act is to avoid unnecessary -_
reductions in regular property tax revenue without exceeding existing statutory
and constitutional tax limitations on cumulative regular property tax levy rates:
The legislature declares that it is a purpose of the state, counties, county road
districts, cities and towns, public hospital districts, library districts, fire protection
districts, metropolitan park districts, and other taxing districts to participate in the
methods provided by this act by which revenue levels supporting the services
provided by all taxing districts might be maintained. "' [1988 c 274 § 1
- -1988 c 274: If any provision of this act or its application to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application
of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. "` [1988 c 274 §
131 '
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates -- Construction --
1973 let a .s, a 195: See notes following ROW 84.52.043.
Severability - -`1971 ex.s. c 243: See ROW 84.34,920,
Intent - -1970 ex.s. c 92: "It is the intent of this 1970 amendatory act to
prevent a potential doubling of property taxes that might otherwise result from the
enforcement of the constitutionally required fifty percent assessment ratio as of
January 1, 1970, and to adjust property tax millage rates for subsequent years to
levels which will conform to the requirements of any constitutional amendment
imposing a one percent limitation on property taxes. It is the further intent of this
1970 amendatory act that the statutory authority of any taxing district to impose
excess levies shall not be impaired by reason of the reduction in mileage rates for
regular property tax levies. This 1970 amendatory act shall be construed to
effectuate the legislative intent expressed in this section." [1970 ex_s, c 92 § 1.)
Effective date — Application - -1970 ex.s . a 92: `This act shall take effect
July 1, 1970 but shall not affect property taxes levied in 1969 or prior
years." [1970 ex.s, c 92 § 111
http :/l apps leg , .wa.gov /rcwfdefautt,aspx?cite - 84.52 &full =tale 2/22/2011
84.52.018
Calculation of tax levy rates when the assessment of highly valued
property is in dispute.
Whenever any property value or claim for exemption or cancellation of a property
assessment is appealed to the state board of tax appeals or court of competent jurisdiction
and the dollar difference between the total value asserted by the taxpayer and the total value
asserted by the opposing party exceeds one-fourth of one percent of the total assessed
value of property in the county, the assessor shall use only that portion of the total value
which is not in controversy for purposes of computing the levy rates and extending the tax on
the tax roll in accordance with this chapter, unless the state board of tax appeals has issued
its determination at the time of extending the tax.
When the state board of tax appeals or court of competent jurisdiction makes its final
determination, the proper amount of tax shall be extended and collected for each taxing
district if this has not already been done, The amount of tax collected and extended shall
include interest at the rate of nine percent per year on the amount of the board's final
determination minus the amount not in controversy, The interest shall accrue from the date
the taxes on the amount not in controversy were first due and payable. Any amount extended
in excess of that permitted by chapter 84.55 RCW shalt be held in abeyance and used to
reduce the levy rates of the next succeeding levy.
11994 c 124 §37 1989 c 378 § 15; 1987 c 155 §
84.52.020
City and district budgets to be filed with county legislative
authority,
lt shall be the duty of the city council or other governing body of every city, other than a city
having a population of three hundred thousand or more, the board of directors of school
districts of the first class, the superintendent of each educational service district for each
constituent second-class school district, commissioners of port districts, commissioners of
metropolitan park districts, and of all officials or boards of taxing districts within or
coextensive with any county required by taw to certify to the county legislative authority, for
the purpose of levying district taxes, budgets or estimates of the amounts to be raised by
taxation on the assessed valuation of the property in the city or district, through their chair
and clerk, or secretary, to make and file such certified budget or estimates with the clerk of
the county legislative authority on or before the thirtieth day of November.
12005 c 52 § 1: 1994 c 81 § 85 1986.c 222 § 27; 1975-'76 299 ex.s c 118 § 33, 1975 c 43 § 33; 1951 c 15 §
84 52 020. Prior. 1939 c 375 1; 1925 ex.s c 130 § 75; RRS § 11235; prior 1909 c 138 § 1; 1893 c 71 §§ 2, 3.1
Notes:
Severability --1975-76 2nd exs. c 118: See note following RCW
28A 505018
Effective date -- Severability -- 1975 c 43: See notes following RCW
28A.535.050.
84.52.025
Budgets of taxing districts filed with county commissioners to
indicate estimate of cash balance.
The governing body of all taxing districts within or coextensive with any county, which are
required by law to certify to a board of County commissioners, for the purpose of levying
http://apps,leg.wa.govircwidefault.aspx?cite=84.52&full=true 2122/2011
district taxes, budgets or estimates of the amounts to be raised by taxation on the assessed
valuation of the property in the district, shah clearly indicate an estimate of cash balance at
the beginning and ending of each budget period in said budget or estimate.
(1961 c 52 § 1
84.52.030
Time of levy.
For the purpose of raising revenue for state, county, and other taxing district purposes, the
county legislative authority of each county, and all other officials or boards authorized by law
to levy taxes for taxing district purposes, must levy taxes on all the taxable property in the
county or district, as the case may be sufficient for such purposes, and within the limitations
permitted by taw.
12014 c 106 § 312,1994 c 124 § 38, 1961 c 15 § 84 52 030. Prior, 1927 c 303 § 1; 1925 ex.s. c 130 § 77, RRS
§ 11238.; poor 1903 c 165 § 1 , 1897 c 71 § 63 1893 c 124 § 64, 1896 p 5 a9 § 78, Code 1881 § 2880
Notes:
Effective date - 2010 c 108: See note following RCW 35.102 145.
84.5 .04{?
Levies to be made on assessed valuation.
Whenever any taxing district or the officers thereof shall, pursuant to any provision of law or
of its charter or ordinances, levy any tax, the assessed value of the property of such taxing
district shall be and considered as the taxable value upon which such levy shall be
made
(1961 r 15 52040. 6606 1919c142 §3 RRS § 11228.1
84.52,043
Limitations upon regular property: tax levies.
Within and subject to the limitations imposed by RCW 84.52,050 as amended, the regular ad -_
valorem tax levies upon real and personal property by the taxing districts hereafter named
shall be as follows:
(1) Levies of the senior taxing districts shah be as follows: (a) The levy by the state shall
not exceed three dollars and sixty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value adjusted to
the state equalized value in accordance with the indicated ratio fixed by the state department
of revenue to be used exclusively for the support of the common schools; (b) the levy by any
county shall not exceed one dollar and eighty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value,
(c) the levy by any road district shall not exceed two dollars and twenty -five cents per
thousand dollars of assessed value; and (d) the levy by any city or town shall not exceed
three dollars and thirty -seven and one -half cents per thousand dollars of assessed value.
However any county is hereby authorized to increase its levy from one dollar and eighty
cents to a rate not to exceed two dollars and forty -seven and one -half, cents per thousand
dollars, of assessed value for general county purposes if the total levies for both the county
and any road district within the county do not exceed four dollars and five cents per thousand
dollars of assessed value, and no other taxing district -has its levy reduced as a result of the
increased county levy;
httpi /apps.Seg wa.gev /rcwl cfau1t,aspx cite— 4.5 full true 2/22/2011
(2) The aggregate levies of junior taxing districts and senior taxing districts, other than the
state, shall not exceed five dollars and ninety cents per thousand dollars of assessed
valuation,. The term "junior taxing districts includes all taxing districts other than the state,
counties, road districts, cities, towns, port districts, and public utility districts, The limitations
provided in this subsection shall not apply to: (a) Levies at the rates provided by existing law
by or for any port or public utility district; (b) excess property tax levies authorized in Article
VII, section 2 of the state Constitution; (c) levies for acquiring conservation futures as
authorized under RCW 84.34.230; (d) levies for emergency medical care or emergency
medical services imposed under RCW 84.52.060, (e) levies to finance affordable housing for
very lowqricome housing imposed under RCW 84 52 105; (f) the portions of levies by
metropolitan park districts that are protected under ROW 84,52 .120; (g) levies imposed by
ferry districts under RCW 35.54.130; (h) levies for criminal justice purposes under ROW
84.52.135; (i) the portions of levies by fire protection districts that are protected under RCW
84.52,125; and (j) levies by counties for transit purposes under ROW 84,52 140
12009 c 551 § 6; 2005 ci2293,2094 c 8994; ,2003 c 839311; 1995c993 ,1993 c 337 § 3; 1990 c 234 §
1989 c 376936, 1988 c 274 5;19731st ex,s,L 196 § 1341
Notes:
Application — 2005 c 122: See note following RCW 84.52.125,
Effective date -- 2004 c 80: See note following ROW 84.52.135,
Findings — Intent -- Captions, part headings not law -- Severability --
Effective date -- 2003 c 83: See notes following ROW 36.57A.200
Finding -- 1993 c 337: See note following ROW 84 52,105.
Purpose -- Severability -- 1988 c 274: See notes following ROW 84.52.010.
Effective date —1973 2nd ex.s. c 4: "Sections 4 through 6 of this '1973
amendatory act shall be effective on and after January 1, 1974." [1973 2nd ex.s
c 4 6.1
Emergency — 1973 2nd ex.s. c 4: "Except as otherwise in this 1973
amendatory act provided, this 1973 amendatory act is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, the support of the
. .
state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect
immediately." [1973 2nd eks. c 4 § 7.)
Construction -- 1973 1st ex.s. c 195: "Sections 135 through 152 of this 1973
amendatory act shall apply to tax levies made in 1973 for collection in 1974, and
sections 1 through 134 shall apply to tax levies made in 1974 and each year
thereafter for collection in 1975 and each year thereafter." [1973 1st ex ,s, 0 195 §
1551
Severability — '1973 1st ex,s,, c 195: "If any provision of this 1973
amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or
circumstances is not affected." [1973 1st ex.s. c 195 § 153.1
Effective dates and termination dates -- 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 as amended
by 1973 2nd ex,s, c 4): "This 1973 amendatory act, chapter 195, Laws of 1973,
is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and
safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions,
and shall take effect immediately: PROVIDED That section 9 shall take effect
January 1, 1975, and section 133(3) shall take effect on January 3'1, 1974:
PROVIDED, FURTHER, That section 137 shall not be effective until July 1, 1973,
at which time section 136 shall be void and of no effect: PROVIDED, FURTHER,
That section 138 shall not be effective until January 1 1974, at which time
httpliapps.legma,govircwidefault.aspx?cito=84 2/22/2011
section 137 shall be void and of no effect PROVIDED, FURTHER, That section
139 shall not be effective until July 1, 1974 at which time section 138 shall be
void and of no effect, and section 139 shall be null and void and of no further
effect on and after January 1, 1975: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That sections 1
through 8, sections 10 through 132, section 133(1), (2), (4), and (5), and section
134 shall not take effect until January 1 1974, at which time sections 135, 136,
and sections 140 through 151 shall be void and of no effect: PROVIDED,
FURTHER, That section 152 shall be void and of no effect on and after January
1, 1975." [1973 2nd ex.s. c 4 § 3 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 § 154.)
84.52.044
Limitations upon regular property tax levies -- Participating fire
protection jurisdictions.
(1) If a fire protection district is a participating fire protection jurisdiction in a regional fire
protection service authority, the regular property tax levies of the fire protection district are
limited as follows:
(a) The regular levy of the district under RCW 52 16,130 shall not exceed fifty cents per
thousand dollars of assessed value of taxable property in the district less the amount of any
levy imposed by the authority under RCW 52.26. 140(1)(a);
(b) The levy of the district under RCW 52.16.140 shall not exceed fifty cents per thousand
dollars of assessed value of taxable property in the district less the amount of any levy
imposed by the authority under RCW 52.26.140(1)(b); and
(c) The levy of the district under RCW 52:16,160 shall not exceed fifty cents per thousand of assessed value of taxable property in the district less the amount of any levy
imposed by the authority under RCW 52.26 140(1)(ch
(2) If a city or town is a participating fire protection jurisdiction in a regional fire protection
service authority, the regular levies of the city or town shall not exceed the applicable rates
provided in RCW 27.12.390, 52.04.051, and 84.52 043(1) less the aggregate rates of any
regular, levies made by the authority under RCW 52.26.140(1)
(3) If a port district is a participating fire protection jurisdiction in a regional fire protection
service authority, the regular levy of the port district under RCW 53.36.020 shall riot exceed
forty -five cents per thousand dollars of assessed value of taxable property in the district less
the aggregate rates of any regular levies imposed by the authority under RCW 52 26.140(1).
(4) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Fire protection jurisdiction" means a fire protection district, city, town, Indian tribe, or
port district, and
(b) "Participating fire protection jurisdiction" means a fire protection district, city, town
tribe, or port district that is represented on the governing board of a regional fire
protection service authority.
12004 c 129 § 20 ]
Notes:
Captions not law 4- Severability - -`2004 c 129: See R W 52.26.900 and
52.26.901.
w �. . - <: +.. ._. .. i, ...... o v ... W .. . ... .......,: .M... ...=,.p
84.52.050
Limitation of levies.
ht p if :pp .le a. vlro l efault. spx cite= .5 8 fiutl =true 2/22/2011
Except as hereinafter provided, the aggregate of all tax levies upon real and personal
property by the state and all taxing districts, now existing or hereafter created, shalt not in
any year exceed one percentum of the true and fair value of such property in money,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That nothing herein shall prevent levies at the rates now provided
by law by or for any port or public utility district The term "taxing district'" for the purposes of
this section shalt mean any political subdivision, municipal corporation, district, or other
governmental agency authorized by law to levy, or have levied for it ad valorem taxes on
property, other than a port or public utility district. Such aggregate limitation or any specific
limitation imposed by law in conformity therewith may be exceeded only as authorized by law
and in conformity with the provisions of Article VII, section 2(a) (b), or (c) of the Constitution
of the state of Washington.
Nothing herein contained shall prohibit the legislature from allocating or reallocating the
authority to levy taxes between the taxing districts of the state and its political subdivisions in
a manner which complies with the aggregate tax limitation set forth in this section.
11973 1st ex s c 194 § 1 1973 c 2 § 1' (Initiative Measure No 44, approved November 7, 1972). Prior. 1972
ex.s. c1248, 1971 ex s. c 299 § 24; 1970 ex;s. c 92 § 5; 1970 ex s c 8 § 4; prior 1969 ex.s. c 262 § 65,
1969 ex.s. c 216 § ;i , 1967 ex.s, c 133 § 3,1961 c 143 § 1; 1961 c 15 § 84,52.050; prior 1957 c 262 § 1; 1953
c 175 § 1;; 1951 2nd ex s, c 23 § 2; 1951 c 255 § 1, pad, 1950 ex.s c 11 § 1, part; 1945 c 253 § 1. part,: 1941 c
176 § 1, part 1939 c 83 § 1f part; 1939 c 2 (initiative Measure No,129), 1937 c i (initiative Measure No 1141.,
1935 c 2 ( tnitiative Measure No. 94); 1933 c 4 (Initiative Measure No 64); of RRS § 11238 11238 -1a. 11238 -
lb, 11238 -1c, 11238.1d, Rem Supp 1941 § 11238; Rem Sup)) - 1945 § 11238 -1e
Notes.
Effective date -- Severability -- 1972 ex.sx c 124: See notes following RCW
28A.180.250.
Effective date __ Severability - -1971 ex.s c 299: See notes following RCW
82.04 050:
Intent -- Effective date -- Application - -1970 ex .s. c 92: See notes following
ROW 84,52,010.
Limitation on levies: State Constitution Art, 7 § 2.
State levy for support of common schools; ROW 84.52.065 and 84 52.067
84.52.0502
Rules for administration.
The department of revenue shall adopt such rules consistent with chapter 274, Laws of 1988
as shall be necessary or desirable to permit its effective administration.
pods c103 §29; 1988c274 §9.1
Notes;
Purpose -- Severability -- 1988 c 274: See notes following RCW 84.52.010:
84.52.052
Excess levies authorized --` When -- Procedure. !'
The limitations imposed by R W 84.52.050 through 4.52,056, and ROW 84.52..043 shall not
prevent the levy of additional taxes by any taxing district, except school districts and fire
protection districts, in which a larger levy is necessary in order to prevent the impairment of
the obligation of contracts. As used in this section, the term "taxing district" means any
county, metropolitan park district, park and recreation service area, park and recreation
district, water -sewer district, solid waste disposal district, public facilities district, flood control
Ittp.l /apps.1eg.wa. ovtrcw /default.asps.?cite =84 52 full =tru..e. 2122/2011
zone district, county rail district, service district, public hospital district road district, rural
county library district, island library district, rural partial-county library district, intercounty rural
library district, cemetery district, city, town, transportation benefit district, emergency medical
service district with a population density of less than one thousand per square mile, cultural
arts, stadium, and convention district, ferry district, city transportation authority, or regional
fire protection service authority,
Any such taxing district may levy taxes at a rate in excess of the rate specified in RCW
84 52,050 through 84.52.056 and84.52_043 , or 54.55,0'10 through 84.55 050, when
authorized so to do by the voters of such taxing district in the manner set forth in Article VII,
section 2(a) of the Constitution of this state at a special or general election to be held in the
year in which the levy is made,
A special election may be called and the time therefor fixed by the county legislative
authority, or council, board of commissioners, or other governing body of any such taxing
district, by giving notice thereof by publication in the manner provided by law for giving
notices of general elections, at which special election the proposition authorizing such excess
levy shall be submitted in such form as to enable the voters favoring the proposition to vote
yes" and those opposed thereto to vote 'riot
[2004 c 129 § 222003 c 83 § 312. Prior:2002 c 248 § 16; 2002 c 180 § 1; 1996 c 230 § 1615; 1993 c 284 §
1991 c 138 § 1; 1989 c 53 § 4. 1988 ex- c 1 § 18: poor'1983 c 315 § 10; ta8ac 303 § 16: 1983 c 130 § 11,
1983 c 2 § 19; prior: 1982 lst ex s. c 22 § 17; l
325 § 1, 197'7 c 4 § 1, 19'7'3 lst ex,s c 195 § 102; 1973 1st ex.s c 195 § 147; 19'73 c 3 § 1, 1971 ex s. c 288 §
26, 1965 ex.s e 113 § 1, 1963 c 112 § 1; 1961 c 15 § 84,52 052, poor 1959 c 304 § 8, 1959 c 290 § 1, 1957c
§ 15' 1957 c 32 § 1; 1955 c 93 § 1; 1953 c 189 § 1, 1951 2ne c 23 § 3; prior; 1951 c 255 § 1, part,
1950 ex,s c 11 § 1 part; 1945 c 253 § 1, pail, 1941 c 176 § 1, part, 1939 c 83 § 1, part; 1939 c 2 (tem Maas
Na. 129) 1937 c 1 (loft Meas No 114), 1935 c 2 (nil Meas No 94), 1933 c4 (Mit. Meas. No 64), Rem.
Supp 1945 § 11238-1e, part.]
Notes
Captions not law -- Severability — 2004 c 129: See ROW 52,26.900, and
52 26 901.
Findings — Intent -- Captions, part headings not law -- Severability --
Effective date -- 2003 c 83: See notes following RCW 36.57A 200
,
Contingent effective date -- 2002 c 180: "This act takes effect January 1,
2003, if the proposed amendment to Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution
authorizing multiyear excess property tax levies is validly submitted to and
approved by the voters at the next general election. If the proposed amendment
is not approved, this act is void in its entirety." . 12002 c 180 § 4,1 The proposed
amendment to Article VII, section 2 was approved at the November 2002
election.
Part headings not law -- Effective date -- 1996 c 230: See notes following
ROW 57,02.001.
Severability -- 1989 c 53: See note following RCW 36.73.020
Severability -- 1988 ex.s, c 1: See RCW 36,100.900.
Severability — 1983 c 315: See note following RCW 90,03 500.
Severability -- 1983 c 303: See RCW 36.60_905.
Severability 1983 c 2: See note following RCW 18 71.030
Severability -- 1982 1st ex,s c 22: See RCW 67.38.905,
Severability -- 1982 175: See note following RCW 36,58,100_
htt pps leg wa govrcweault t=8452&fllt
aspx7cie,u=rue
P. a - iidf 2/22/2011
Severability — 1981 c 210: See note following RCW 36 68.400.
Severability — 1977 exis. c 325: If any provision of this 1977 amendatory
act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder
of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is
not affected."' (1977 ex.s. c 325 § 5.1
Effective date -- 1977 ex.e. c 325: This 1977 amendatory act is necessary
for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the
support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take
effect July 1, 1977." [1977 ex.s, c 325 § 6,)
Severability --1977 c 4: If any provision of this 1977 amendatory act, or its
. . .
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the
act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not
affected." (1977 c 4 § 4.)
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates -- Construction --
1973 1st ex.s. c 195: See notes following RCW 84.52,043
Savings -- Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 288: See notes following RCW
84 40.030
84.52.053
Levies by school districts authorized — When 7 Procedure.
(1) The limitations imposed by RCW 84.52,050 through 84,52.056, and 84E2.043 shall not
prevent the levy of taxes by school districts, when authorized so to do by the voters of such
school district in the manner and for the purposes and number of years allowable under
Article VII, section 2(a) of the Constitution of this state. Elections for such taxes shall be held
in the year in which the levy is made or in the case of propositions authorizing two-year
through four-year levies for maintenance and operation support of a school district,
authorizing two-year levies for transportation vehicle funds established in ROW 28A 160.130,
or authorizing two-year through six-year levies to support the construction, modernization, or
remodeling of school facilities, which includes the purposes of RCW 28k320.330(2) (f) and
(g), in the year in which the first annual levy is made.
(2) Once additional tax levies have been authorized for maintenance and operation
support of a school district for a two-year through four-year period as provided under
subsection (1) of this section, no further additional tax levies for maintenance and operation.
support of the district for that period may be authorized, except for additional levies to provide
for subsequently enacted increases affecting the district's levy base or maximum levy
percentage. For the purpose of applying the limitation of this subsection, a two-year through
six-year levy to support the construction, modernization, or remodeling of school facilities
shall not be deemed to be a tax levy for maintenance and operation support of a school
district.
(3) A special election may be called and the time therefor fixed by the board of school
directors, by giving notice thereof by publication in the manner provided by law for giving
notices of general elections, at which special election the proposition authorizing such excess
levy shall be submitted in such form as to enable the voters favoring the proposition to vote
"yes" and those opposed thereto to vote "no",
[2010 C 237 § 4, 2009 c 460 § 2, 2007 c 129 § 3 1997 c 260 § 1, 1994 c 116 § 1987 lst ex s. c 2 § 103,
1986 c 133 § 1, 1977 ex.s, c 325 31
Notes:
Intent -- 2010 c 237: See note following RCW 84.52.0531
httpliapps.leg wa..govircwidefault. aspx?eite-84.,.5284full=true 2/22/2011
Effective date 2010 c 237 §§ 1 and 3-9: See note following RCW
84,52 0531
intent -- 2007 c 129: See note following RCW 28A.320,330,
Contingent effective date 1997 c 260: This act takes effect if the
proposed amendment to Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution authorizing
school levies for periods not exceeding four years is validly submitted to and is
approved and ratified by the voters at the next general election. If the proposed
amendment is not approved and ratified, this act is void in its entirety."' 11997 c
260 § 2 I House Joint Resolution No 4208 was approved and ratified by the
voters at the November 4, 1997, general election,
Intent -- Severability -- Effective date -- 1987 1st axis. c 2:See notes
following RCW 84,52.0531.
Contingent effective date -- 1986 c 133: This act shall take effect on
December 15, 1986, if the proposed amendment to Article VII, section 2 of the
state Constitution to change the time periods for school levies, House Joint
Resolution No 55, is validly submitted and is approved and ratified by the voters
at a general election held in November, 1986, If the proposed amendment is not
so approved and ratified, this act shall be null and void in its entirety." [1986 c
133 § 3,] 1986 House Joint Resolution No 55 was approved at the November
1986 general election. See Article VII, section 2 and Amendment 79 of the state
Constitution.
Severability -- Effective date –1977 ex.s. c 325: See notes following ROA?
84.52,052,
School district boundary changes: RCW 84.09.037,
School funds enumerated -- Deposits -- Uses RCW 28k320.330,
84.52.0531
Levies by school districts — Maximum dollar amount for
maintenance and operation support — Restrictions — Maximum
levy percentage — Levy reduction funds — Rules. (Effective until
January 1, 2012.)
The maximum dollar amount which may be levied by or for any school district for
maintenance and operation support under the provisions of RCW 84.52 053 shall be
determined as follows:
(1) For excess levies for collection in calendar year 1997, the maximum dollar amount
shall be calculated pursuant to the laws and rules in effect in November 1996,
(2) For excess levies for collection in calendar year 1998 and thereafter, the maximum
dollar amount shall be the sum of (a) plus or minus (b), (c), and (d) of this subsection minus
(e) of this subsection:
(a) The district's levy base as defined in subsections (3) and (4) of this section multiplied
;
by the district's maximum levy percentage as defined in subsection (6) of this section;
(b) For districts in a highinorthigh relationship, the high school district's maximum levy
amount shall be reduced and the rionhigh school district's maximum levy amount shall be
increased by an amount equal to the estimated amount of the nonnigh payment due to the
high school district under RCW 28A.545.030(3) and28A 545,050 for the school year
http:llappsiegiwaigovircwidefaultasPx 2/22/2011
commencing the year of the levy;
(c) Except for nonhigh districts under (d) of this subsection, for districts in an interdistrict
cooperative agreement, the nonresident school districts maximum levy amount shall be
reduced and the resident school districts maximum levy amount shall be increased by an
amount equal to the per pupil basic education allocation included in the nonresident district's
levy base under subsection (3) of this section multiplied by
(i) The number of full-time equivalent students served from the resident district in the prior
school year; multiplied by
(ii) The serving districts maximum levy percentage determined under subsection (6) of
this section; increased by
(iii) The percent increase per full-time equivalent student as stated in the state basic
education appropriation section of the biennial budget between the prior school year and the
current school year divided by fifty-five percent;
(d) The levy bases of nonhigh districts participating in an innovation academy cooperative
established under RCW 28A:340,080 shall be adjusted by the office of the superintendent of
public instruction to reflect each district's proportional share of student enrollment in the
cooperative;
(e) The district's maximum levy amount shall be reduced by the maximum amount of state
matching funds for which the district is eligible under RCW 28A,500.010.
(3) For excess levies for collection in calendar year 2005 arid thereafter, a district's levy
base shall be the sum of allocations in (a) through (c) of this subsection received by the
district for the prior school year and the amounts determined under subsection (4) of this
section, including allocations for compensation increases, plus the sum of such allocations
multiplied by the percent increase per full time equivalent student as stated in the state basic
education appropriation section of the biennial budget between the prior school year and the
Current school year and divided by fifty-five percent. A district's levy base shall not include
local school district property tax levies or other local revenues, or state and federal
allocations not identified in (a) through (c) of this subsection.
(a) The district's basic education allocation as determined pursuant to RCW 28A 150,250
28A 150 260 and 28A 150.350'
(b) State and federal categorical allocations for the following programs:
(i) Pupil transportation;
(ii) Special education;
(iii) Education of highly capable students;
(iv) Compensatory education, including but not limited to learning assistance, migrant
education, Indian education, refugee programs, and bilingual education;
(v) Food services; and
(vi) Statewide block grant programs; and
(c) Any other federal allocations for elementary and secondary school programs, including
direct grants other than federal impact aid funds and allocations in lieu of taxes
(4) For levy collections in calendar years 2005 through 2017, in addition to the allocations
included under subsection (3)(a) through (c) of this section, a district's levy base shall also
include the following:
(a)(i) For levy collections in calendar year 2010, the difference between the allocation the
district would have received in the current school year had *RCW 84,52,068 not been
amended by chapter 19, Laws of 2003 1st sp. sess ... and the allocation the district received in
the current school year pursuant to RCW 28A.505.220;
(ii) For levy collections in calendar years 2011 through 2017, the difference between the
allocation rate the district would have received in the prior school year using the Initiative 728
http://appsieg,wa.govirewidefautt. aspx?cite=-84.52&full=true 2/22/2011
rate and inc auocation rate me district received in the prior school year pursuant to RCW
28A.506,220 multiplied by the full-time equivalent student enrollment used to calculate the
Initiative 728 allocation for the prior school year and
(b) The difference between the allocations the district would have received the prior
school year using the initiative 732 base and the allocations the district actually received the
prior school year pursuant to RCW 28k400.205,
(5) For levy collections in calendar years 2011 through 2017, in addition to the allocations
included under subsections (3)(a) through (c) and (4)(a) and (b) of this section, a district's
levy base shall also include the difference between an allocation of fifty-three and two-tenths
certificated instructional staff units per thousand full-time equivalent students in grades
kindergarten through four enrolled in the prior school year and the allocation of certificated
instructional staff units per thousand full-time equivalent students in grades kindergarten
through four that the district actually received in the prior school year except that the levy
base for a school district whose allocation in the 2009-10 school year was less than fifty-
three and two-tenths certificated instructional staff units per thousand full-time equivalent
students in grades kindergarten through four shall include the difference between the
allocation the district actually received in the 2009-10 school year and the allocation the
district actually received in the prior school year
(6)(a) A district's maximum levy percentage shall be twenty-four percent in 2010 and
twenty-eight percent in 2011 through 2017 and twenty-four percent every year thereafter,
(b) For qualifying districts, in addition to the percentage in (a) of this subsection the
grandfathered percentage determined as follows:
(i) For 1997, the difference between the district's 1993 maximum levy percentage and
twenty percent; and
(ii) For 2011 through 2017, the percentage calculated as follows:
(A) Multiply the grandfathered percentage for the prior year times the district's levy base
determined under subsection (3) of this section;
(B) Reduce the result of (b)(ii)(A) of this subsection by any levy reduction funds as defined
in subsection (7) of this section that are to be allocated to the district for the current school
year
(C) Divide the result of (b)(i4)(9) of this subsection by the district's levy base, and
(D) Take the greater of zero or the percentage calculated in (b)(ii)(C) of this subsectton.
(7) "Levy reduction funds" shall mean increases in state funds from the prior school year
for programs included under subsections (3) and (4) of this section: (a) That are not
attributable to enrollment changes, compensation increases, or inflationary adjustments; and
(b) that are or were specifically identified as levy reduction funds in the appropriations act. If
levy reduction funds are dependent on formula factors which would not be finalized until after
the start of the current school year the superintendent of public instruction shall estimate the
total amount of levy reduction funds by using prior school year data in place of current school
year data Levy reduction funds shall not include moneys received by school districts from
cities or counties.
(8) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section unless the context
clearly requires otherwise.
(a) "Prior school year" means the most recent school year completed prior Co the year in
which the levies are to be collected,
(b) "Current school year means the year immediately following the prior school year
(c) "Initiative 728 rate" means the allocation rate at which the student achievement
program would have been funded under chapter 3, Laws of 2001, if all annual adjustments to
the initial 2001 allocation rate had been made in previous years and in each subsequent year
as provided for under chapter 3, Laws of 2001.
(d) "Initiative 732 base" means the prior years state allocation for annual salary cost-of-
living increases for district employees in the state-funded salary base as it would have been
http*llappsieg.wagovirewidefault,aspx7cite=84.,52&full—true
2/22/2011
calculated under chapter 4, Laws of 2001 if each annual cost-of-living increase allocation
had been provided in previous years and in each subsequent year
(9) Funds collected from transportation vehicle fund tax levies shall not be subject to the
levy limitations in this section_
(10) The superintendent of public instruction shall develop rules and inform school
districts of the pertinent data necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.
(11) For calendar year 2009, the office oldie superintendent of public instruction shall
recalculate school district levy authority to reflect levy rates certified by school districts for
calendar year 2009,
(2010 c 237 § 1.2010 c 99 § 10,2009 c 4 § 908,2006 c 119 § 2 2OO4c212 ,1997 s 259 § 2.1995 lstses
ell 1,1994 c 116§ 2,1993 c 465 1,1992 c49 I: 1990 c 33 601', 1989 c 141 §1; 1988 c 252
1987 lst ex c 2 § 101; 1987 c 185 § 40; 1985 c 374 §1 Prior 1981 c 264 §10; 1981 c 168 1; 1979 ex§ s
1721 1977 ex.s c 325
Notes:
Reviser's note: *(1) ROVV 84.52.068 was repealed by 2009 c 479 § 75.
(2) This section was amended by 2010 c 99 § 10 and by 2010 c 237 § 1, each
without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the
publication of this section under ROW 1,12.025(2). For rule of construction, see
ROW 1.12.025(1).
Expiration date -- 2010 c 237 §§ 1, 5, and 6: "Sections 1, 5, and 6 of this act
expire January 1, 2018," [2010 c 237 § 9,]
Effective date -- 2010 c 237 §§ 1 and 3-9: "Sections 1 and 3 through 9 of this
act are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or
safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and
take effect immediately [March 29, 20101." [2010 c 237 § 11,]
Intent -- 2010 c 237: "The legislature recognizes that school districts request
voter approval for two-year through four levies based on their projected levy
capacities at the time that the levies are submitted to the voters. It is the intent of
the legislature to permit school districts with voter-approved maintenance and
operation levies to seek an additional approval from the voters, if subsequently
enacted legislation would permit a higher levy." [2010 c 237 §
Expiration date -- 2010 c 99 § 10: "Section 10 of this act expires January 1,
2012." [2010 c 99 § 14.]
Findings -- Intent -- 2010 c 99: See note following RCVV 28A.340.080,
Effective date -- 2009 c 4: See note following ROW 28A.505,220.
Expiration date -- 2009 c 4 § 908: "Section 908 of this act expires January 1,
2012" [2009 c4 § 9091
Expiration date — 2010 c 237; 2006 c 119; 2004 c 21: "This act expires
January 1,2018" [2010 c 237 § 8; 2006 c 119 § 3; 2004 c 21 § 3,1
Funding not related to basic education -- 1997 c 259; "Funding resulting
from this act is for school district activities which supplement or are not related to
the state's basic program of education obligation as set forth under Article IX of
the state Constitution." [1997 c 259 § 1_]
Purpose -- Statutory references -- Severability -- 1990 c 33; See ROW
hrtp://apps,Iegma„govircvvidefautt, aspx?cite-84,52&full=true 2/22/2011
28A 900 100 through 28A 900.102.
Effective date - -1989 c 141: "This act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the, public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state
government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1,
1989,#" 1989 c 141 § 2.1
Intent — 1987 1st ex "s, c 2: ' "The legislature intends to establish the limitation
on school district maintenance and operations levies at twenty percent, with ten
percent to be equalized on a statewide basis. The legislature further intends to
establish a modern school financing system for compensation of school staff and
provide a class size reduction in grades kindergarten through three. The
legislature intends to give the highest funding priority to strengthening support for
existing school programs.
The legislature finds that providing for the adoption of a statewide salary
allocation schedule for certificated instructional staff will encourage recruitment
and retention of able individuals to the teaching profession, and limit the
administrative burden associated with implementing state teacher salary
policies. " [1987 1 st ex.s. c 2 § 1.
Severability -- 19871st ex.s . c 2: "If any provision of this act or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act
or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not
affected." [1987 1st ex.s. c 2 § 213,1
Effective date - -1987 1st ex,s. c 2: "This act shall take effect September 1,
1987." [1987 1st ex:s, c 2 § 214.1
Intent -- Severability > - -1987 c 185: See notes following RCW 51,12.1 0.
Severability - -1985 c 374: "If any provision of this act or its application to any or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application
of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1985 c 374
3,[
Effective date -- 1981 c 264: "Section 10 of this amendatory act shall
become effective for maintenance and operation excess tax levies now or
hereafter authorized pursuant to RCVV 84,52,0 53, as now or hereafter amended,
for collection in 1982 and thereafter." [1981 c 264 § 1 1 [
Severability - -.1981 c 264: See note following R W 28A =545,030
Effective date - -1979 ex.s. c 172: "This amendatory act is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, the support of the
state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect on
September 1, 1979," [1979 ex.s, c 172 § 3.1
Severability -1979 ex.s. c 172: "if any provision of this amendatory actor its .
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act
or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not
affected." [1979 e.s. c 172 § 2.
Severability -- Effective date - - 1977 a ks. c 325: See notes following RCW
84,52.052,
Payments to high school districts for educating nonhigh school district students;
http:lfapps.leg:wa. vlrcwfdefault.aspx?cite =8 .5 &ful[ = true 2/22/2011
Chapter 28A 545 RCVV.
Purposes: RCW 28A 45.030.
Rules to effect purposes and implement provisions, RCW 28A.545,110,
Superintendents annual determination of estimated amount due -- Process.
RCW 28A.545.07,
Levies by school districts -- Maximum dollar
amount for maintenance r —
Restrictions Maximum e
reduction funds Rules
until January 1 2018j
The maximum dollar amount which may be levied by or for any school district for
maintenance and operation support under the provisions of REW 84 52.053 shall be
determined as follows:
(1) For excess levies for collection in calendar year 1997, the maximum dollar amount
shall be calculated pursuant to the laws and rules in effect in November 1995.
(2) For excess levies for collection in calendar year 1998 and thereafter, the maximum
dollar amount shall be the sum of (a) plus or minus (b), (c), and (d) of this subsection minus
(e) of this subsection:
(a) The district's levy base as defined in subsections (3) and (4) of this section multiplied
by the districts maximum levy percentage as defined in subsection (6) of this section;
(b) For districts in a highlnonhigh relationship, the high school districts maximum levy
amount shall be reduced and the nonhigh school district's maximum levy amount shall be
increased by an amount equal to the estimated amount of the nonhigh payment due to the
high school district under RCW 28A,545,00() and28A.545.050 for the school year
commencing the year of the levy,
(c) Except for nonhigh districts under (d) of, this subsection for districts in an interdistrict>
cooperative agreement, the nonresident school districts maximum levy amount shall be
reduced and the resident school district's maximum levy amount shall be increased by an
amount equal to the per pupil basic education allocation included in the nonresident district's
levy base under subsection (3) of this section multiplied by
(i) The number of full-time equivalent students served from the resident district in the prior
school year multiplied by:
(ii) The serving districts maximum levy percentage determined under subsection (6) 01
this section; increased by;
(iii) The percent increase per full -time equivalent student as stated in the state basic
education appropriation section of the biennial budget between the prior school year and the
current school year divided by fifty -five percent;
(d) The levy bases of nonhigh districts participating in an innovation academy cooperative
established under RCW 28A,340.080 shall be adjusted by the office of the superintendent of
public instruction to reflect each district's proportional share of student enrollment in the
cooperative}
(e) The districts maximum levy amount shall be reduced by the maximum amount of state
http,ll apps. leg. wa. govtrcw /default.asp 2 cite= 4.52 &fu11=true 2/22/2011
matching funds for which the district is eligible under RCW 28A,500.010,
(3) For excess levies for collection in calendar year 2005 and thereafter, a district's levy
base shall be the sum of allocations in (a) through (c) of this subsection received by the
district for the prior school year and the amounts determined under subsection (4) of this
section, including allocations for compensation increases, plus the sum of such allocations
multiplied by the percent increase per full time equivalent student as stated in the state basic
education appropriation section of the biennial budget between the prior school year and the
current school year and divided by fifty-five percent. A district's levy base shall not include
local school district property tax levies or other local revenues, or state and federal
allocations not identified in (a) through (c) of this subsection.
(a) The district's basic education allocation as determined pursuant to RCW 28A,150.250,
28A,150.260, and 28A 150,350;
(b) State and federal categorical allocations for the following programs'
(i) Pupil transportation,
(ii) Special education;
(iii) Education of highly capable students;
(iv) Compensatory education, including but not limited to learning assistance, migrant
education, Indian education, refugee programs, and bilingual education;
(v) Food services, and
(vi) Statewide block grant programs; and
(c) Any other federal allocations for elementary and secondary school programs, including
direct grants, other than federal impact aid funds and allocations in lieu of taxes.
(4) For levy collections in calendar years 2005 through 2017, in addition to the allocations
included under subsection (3)(a) through (c) of this section, a district's levy base shall also
include the following:
(a)(i) For levy collections in calendar year 2010, the difference between the allocation the
district would have received in the current school year had *RCW 84,52.068 not been
amended by chapter 19, Laws of 2003 1st sp. sess, and the allocation the district received in
the current school year pursuant to RCW 28A.505.220;
(ii) For levy collections in calendar years 2011 through 2017, the difference between the
allocation rate the district would have received in the prior school year using the Initiative 728
rate and the allocation rate the district received in the prior school year pursuant to RCW
28A,505,220 multiplied by the full-time equivalent student enrollment used to calculate the
Initiative 728 allocation for the prior school year, and
(b) The difference between the allocations the district would have received the prior
school year using the Initiative 732 base and the allocations the district actually received the
prior school year pursuant to RCW 28A 400205.
(5) For levy collections in calendar years 2011 through 2017, in addition to the allocations
included under subsections (3)(a) through (c) and (4)(a) and (b) of this section, a district's
levy base shall also include the difference between an allocation of fifty-three and two-tenths
certificated instructional staff units per thousand full-time equivalent students in grades
kindergarten through four enrolled in the prior school year and the allocation of certificated
instructional staff units per thousand full-time equivalent students in grades kindergarten
through four that the district actually received in the prior school year, except that the levy
base for a school district whose allocation in the 2009-10 school year was less than fifty-
three and two-tenths certificated instructional staff units per thousand full-time equivalent
students in grades kindergarten through four shaft include the difference between the
allocation the district actually received in the 2009-10 school year and the allocation the
district actually received in the prior school year
(6)(a) A district's maximum levy percentage shall be twenty-four percent in 2010 and
twenty-eight percent in 2011 through 2017 and twenty-four percent every year thereafter;
http://apps.leg.wa,govirewidefault. aspx?rite=84.52&full=true 2122/2011
(b) For qualifying districts, in addition to the percentage in (a) of this subsection the
grandfathered percentage determined as follows:
(i) For 1997. the difference between the district's 1993 maximum levy percentage and
twenty percent; and
(ii) For 2011 through 2017, the percentage calculated as follows:
(A) Multiply the grandfathered percentage for the prior year times the district's levy base
determined under subsection (3) of this section;
(B) Reduce the result of (h)(ii)(A) of this subsection by any levy reduction funds as defined
in subsection (7) of this section that are to be allocated to the district for the current school
year;
(C) Divide the result of (b)(ii)(B) of this subsection by the district's levy base, arid
(D) Take the greater of zero or the percentage calculated in (b)(4)(C) of this subsection
(7) 'Levy reduction funds shall mean increases in state funds from the prior school year
for programs included under subsections (3) and (4) of this section: (a) That are not
attributable to enrollment changes, compensation increases, or inflationary adjustments; and
(b) that are or were spent cally identified as levy reduction funds in the appropriations act, If
levy reduction funds are dependent on formula factors which would not be finalized until after
the start of the current school year, the superintendent of public instruction shall estimate the
total amount of levy reduction funds by using prior school year data in place of current school
year data Levy reduction funds shall not include moneys received by school districts from
cities or counties
(8) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section unless the context
clearly requires otherwise.
(a) "Prior school year" means the most recent school year completed prior to the year in
which the levies are to be collected.
(b) "Current school year' means the year immediately following the prior school year
(c) "initiative 728 rate means the allocation rate at which the student achievement
program would have been funded under chapter 3, Laws of 2001, if all annual adjustments to
the initial 2001 allocation rate had been made in previous years and in each subsequent year
as provided for under chapter 3, Laws of 2001,
(d) "Initiative 732 base" means the prior year state allocation for annual salary cost-of-
living increases for district employees in the state-funded salary base as it would have been
calculated under chapter 4, Laws of 2001, if each annual cost-ef-living increase allocation
had been provided in previous years and in each subsequent year
(9) Funds collected from transportation vehicle fund tax levies shall not be subject to the
levy limitations in this section,
(10) The superintendent of public instruction shall develop rules and inform school
districts of the pertinent data necessary to carry out the provisions of this section,
(11) For calendar year 2009 the office of the superintendent of public instruction shall
recalculate school district levy authority to reflect levy rates certified by school districts for
calendar year 2009.
polo c 237 § 1, 2010 c 99 112009 c 4 908; 2006 c 1 19 2; 2004 c 21 2; 1997 c 259 2, 1995 1st sps
c 11 §3 1994 c 116 § 2; 1993 c 465 § 1, 1992 c 49 1; 1990 0.33 § 601; 1989 c141 § 1 1988 c 252
1987 1st ex,s. c 2 § 101; 1987 c 185 § 40; 1985 c 3'74 § Prior' 1981 c 264 § 10: 1981 c 168 § 1; 1979 exs
i721, 1977ex5 , c 325 § 4 1
Notes;
Reviser*s note: "(1) RCW 84,52.068 was repealed by 2009 c 479 § 75,
(2) This section was amended by 2010 c 99 § 11 and by 2010 c 237 § 1, each
without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the
http://appsiegma.govirowidefaultaspx?cite=84.52&full=true 2/22/2011
publication of this section under RCVV112.025(2) For rule of construction, see
RCW 1 12.025(1)
Expiration date -- 2010 c 237 §§ 1, 5, and 6: "Sections 1, 5, and 6 of this act
expire January 1, 2018." [2010 c 237 § 9.)
Effective date -- 2010 c 237 §§ 1 and 3-9: "Sections 1 and 3 through 9 of this
act are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or
safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and
take effect immediately [March 29, 2010)." [2010 c 237 § 11,]
Intent -- 2010 c 237: "The legislature recognizes that school districts request
voter approval for two-year through four-year levies based on their projected levy
capacities at the time that the levies are submitted to the voters, It is the intent of
the legislature to permit school districts with voter-approved maintenance and
operation levies to seek an additional approval from the voters, if subsequently
enacted legislation would permit a higher levy." [2010 c 237 § 3.)
Effective date -- 2010 c 99 § 11: "Section 11 of this act takes effect January
1, 2012 " [2010 c 99 § 15.)
Findings -- Intent -- 2010 c 99: See note following RCW 28A,340.080.
Effective date -- 2009 c 4: See note following RCW28A.505.220.
Expiration date -- 2009 c 4 § 908: "Section 908 of this act expires January 1„
2018." [2010 c 237 § 7; 2009 c 4 §909)
Expiration date -- 2010 c 237; 2006 c 119; 2004 c 21: This act expires
January 1, 2018." [2010 c 237 § 8; 2006 c 119 § 3, 2004 c 21 § 3 )
Funding not related to basic education -- 1997 c 259: "Funding resulting
from this act is for school district activities which supplement or are not related to
the state's basic program of education obligation as set forth under Article IX of
the state Constitution," [1997 c 259 § 1.1
Purpose -- Statutory references -- Severability -- 1990 c 33: See RCW
28A,900 100 through 28A.900 102.
Effective date -- 1989 c 141: This act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state
government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1,
1989" . [1989 c 141 § 2,]
intent -- 1987 1st ex.s. c 2: The legislature intends to establish the limitation
on school district maintenance and operations levies at twenty percent, with ten
percent to be equalized on a statewide basis. The legislature further intends to
establish a modern school financing system for compensation of school staff and
provide a class size reduction in grades kindergarten through three. The
legislature intends to give the highest funding priority to strengthening support for
existing school programs,
The legislature finds that providing for the adoption of a statewide salary
allocation schedule for certificated instructional staff wilt encourage recruitment
and retention of able individuals to the teaching profession, and limit the
administrative burden associated with implementing state teacher salary
policies." [1987 lst ex.s. c 2 §
htjp://apps,log,wa;govircwidefault.espx9;cite44.52&fult=true 2/22/2011
Severability -- 1987 1st ex.s. c 2: "If any provision of this act or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act
or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not
affected '(1987 lst ex.s. c 2 § 213 )
Effective date -- 1987 let ex.s. c 2: "This act shall take effect September 1,
1987" [1987 1st ex s. c 2 § 214.)
Intent -- Severability — 1987 c 185: See notes following RCW 51,12 130.
Severability -- 1985 c 374: "if any provision of this act or its application to any
person or Circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application
of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected."' [1985 c 374 §
3]
Effective date -- 1981 c 264: "Section '10 of this amendatory act shall
become effective for maintenance and operation excess tax levies now or
hereafter authorized pursuant to RCW 84.52 053, as now or hereafter amended,
for collection in 1982 and thereafter." [1981 c 264 § 111
Severability -- 1981 c 264: See note following RCW 28A 545,030,
Effective date -- 1979 eke. c 172: "This amendatory act is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the
state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect on
September 1, 1979." [1979 ex.s. c 172 § 3 ]
Severability -- 1979 ex.s. c 172: '1f any provision of this amendatory act or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act
or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not
affected " [1979 ex ,s, c 172 § 2.)
Severability -- Effective date 1977 exs. c 325: See notes following RCW
84_52.Q52.
Payments to high school districts for educating nonhigh school district students
Chapter 28A.545 RCW.
Purposes: RCW 28A,545.030.
Rules to effect purposes and implement provisions: RCW 284 545,110,
Superintendents annual determination of estimated amount due -- Process.
RCW 25A.545.070
84.52.0531
Levies by school districts — Maximum dollar
amount for maintenance and operation support —
Restrictions — Maximum levy percentage — Levy
reduction funds — Rules. (Effective January 1
2018.)
h 2/22/2011
The maximum dollar amount which may be levied by or for any school district for
maintenance and operation support under the provisions of RW 84,52 053 shall be
determined as follows:
(1) For excess levies for collection in calendar year 1997, the maximum dollar amount
shall be calculated pursuant to the laws and rules in effect in November 1996.
(2) For excess levies for collection in calendar year 1998 and thereafter, the maximum
dollar amount shall be the sum of (a) plus or minus (b); (c), and (d) of this subsection minus
(e) of this subsection:
(a) The district's levy base as defined in subsection (3) of this section multiplied by the
district's maximum levy percentage as defined in subsection (4) of this section;
(b) For districts in a highlnonhigh relationship, the high school district's maximum levy
amount shall be reduced and the nonhigh school district's maximum levy amount shall be
increased by an amount equal to the estimated amount of the nonhigh payment due to the
high school district under R W'- 28A.545.030(3) and28A.545.050 for the school year
commencing the year of the levy;
(c) Except for nonhigh districts under (d) of this subsection, for districts in an interdistrict
cooperative agreement, the nonresident school district's maximum levy amount shall be
reduced and the resident school district's maximum levy amount shall be increased by an
amount equal to the per pupil basic education allocation included in the nonresident district's
levy base under subsection (3) of this section multiplied by
(i) The number of full-time equivalent students served from the resident district in the prior
school year multiplied by
(ii) The serving district's maximum levy percentage determined under subsection (4) of
this section; increased by
(iii) The percent increase per full - time equivalent student as stated in the state basic
education appropriation section of the biennial budget between the prior school year and the
current school year divided by fifty -five percent;
(d) The levy bases of nonhigh districts participating in an innovation academy cooperative
established under RCW 28A.34OE080 shall be adjusted by the office of the superintendent of
public instruction to reflect each district's proportional share of student enrollment in the
cooperative;
(e) The district's maximum levy amount shall be reduced by the maximum amount of state
matching funds for which the district is eligible under FCW 28A.500 010.
(3) For excess levies for collection in calendar year 1998 and thereafter, a district's levy
base shall be the sum of allocations in (a) through (c) of this subsection received by the
district for the prior school year, including allocations for compensation increases, plus the
sum of, such allocations multiplied by the percent increase per full time equivalent student as
staled in the state basic education appropriation section of the biennial budget between the
prior school year and the current school year and divided by fifty -five percent, A district`s levy
base shall not include local school district property tax levies or other local revenues, or state
and federal allocations not identified in (a) through (c) of this subsection,
(a) The districts basic education allocation as determined pursuant to RCW 28A.150 250
28A.150.260 and 28A
(b) State and federal categorical allocations for the following programs:
(i) Pupil transportation;
(ii) Special education
(iii) Education of highly capable students;;
(iv) Compensatory education, including but not limited to learning assistance, migrant
education, Indian education, refugee programs, and bilingual education:
(v) Food services; and
http : / /apps.leg:wa.g .v /rcwldefault.asp ?cite= 4.5 &full =t e 2/22/2011
(vi) Statewide block grant programs, and
(c) Any other federal allocations for elementary and secondary school programs, including
direct grants, other than federal impact aid funds and allocations in lieu of taxes.
(4)(a) A district's maximum levy percentage shall be twenty-four percent in 2010 and
twenty-eight percent in 2011 through 2017 and twenty-four percent every year thereafter;
(b) For qualifying districts, in addition to the percentage in (a) of this subsection the
grandfathered percentage determined as follows;
(i) For 1997, the difference between the district's 1993 maximum levy percentage and
twenty percent, and
(ii) For 2011 through 2017, the percentage calculated as follows:
(A) Multiply the grandfathered percentage for the prior year times the district's levy base
determined under subsection (3) of this section,
(B) Reduce the result of (b)(6)(A) of this subsection by any levy reduction funds as defined
in subsection (5) of this section that are to be allocated to the district for the current school
year;
(C) Divide the result of (b)(ii)(B) of this subsection by the district's levy base; and
(0) Take the greater of zero or the percentage calculated in (h)(ii)(C) of this subsection;
(a) For 2018 and thereafter, the percentage shall be calculated as follows
(A) Multiply the grandfathered percentage for the prior year times the district's levy base
determined under subsection (3) of this section;
(8) Reduce the result of (b)(iii)(A) of this subsection by any levy reduction funds as
defined in subsection (5) of this section that are to be allocated to the district for the current
school year
(C) Divide the result of (b)(id)(B) of this subsection by the district's levy base; and
(0) Take the greater of zero or the percentage calculated in (b)(iii)(C) of this subsection.
(5) "Levy reduction funds" shall mean increases in state funds from the prior school year
for programs included under subsection (3) of this section: (a) That are not attributable to
enrollment changes, compensation increases, OF inflationary adjustments; and (b) that are or
were specifically identified as levy reduction funds in the appropriations act. If levy reduction
funds are dependent on formula factors which would not be finalized until after the start of the
current school year, the superintendent of public instruction shall estimate the total amount of
levy reduction funds by using prior school year data in place of current school year data.
Levy reduction funds shall not include moneys received by school districts from cities or
counties.
(6) For the purposes of this section, "prior school year" means the most recent school
year completed prior to the year in which the levies are to be collected
(7) For the purposes of this section, "current school year" means the year immediately
following the prior school year
(8) Funds collected from transportation vehicle fund tax levies shall not be subject to the
levy limitations in this section.
(9) The superintendent of public instruction shall develop rules and regulations and inform
school (districts of the pertinent data necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.
(2010 c 237 § 2; 2010 c 99 § it, 1987c2592 1995 1st so.s c 11 § 1; 1994 c 116 § 2; 1993 c 465 § 1,1
§
c,s 1990 33 §601: 1989 oi41 § 1 1988 c 252 § 1; 1987 1st ex.s. c 2 § 101;. 1987 c 185 §40, 1985c
374 § 1 Prior 1981 C264 § 10; 1981 c 168 § 1: 1979 ex.s o 172 §1, 1977 ex c 325 § 4
http-//appsJeg.Wa,govfrcwidefauitaSpX?cite=84.52&fUii=trUe 2122/2011
Notes:
Reviser's note: This sect on was amended by 2010 c 99 § 11 and by 2010 c
237 § 2, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated
in the publication of this section under RCW 112.025(2). For rule of construction,
see ROW 1.12 026(1),
Intent -- 2010 c 237: 'The legislature recognizes that school districts request
voter approval for two-year through four-year levies based on their projected levy
capacities at the time that the levies are submitted to the voters, It is the intent of
the legislature to permit school districts with voter-approved maintenance and
operation levies to seek an additional approval from the voters, if subsequently
enacted legislation would permit a higher levy" [2010 c 237 §
Effective date 2010 c 237 § 2: "Section 2 of this act takes effect January 1,
2018." 12010 c 237 § 10,1
Findings -- Intent -- 2010 c 99: See note following RCW 28A.340,080
Funding not related to basic education 1997 c 259: ''Funding resulting
from this act is for school district activities which supplement or are not related to
the state's basic program of education obligation as set forth under Article IX, of
the state Constitution," [1997 c 259 § 1]
Purpose -- Statutory references -- Severability -- 1990 e 33: See RCW
28A.900 100 through 28A,900.102
Effective date -- 1989 c 141: "This act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state
government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1,
1989, "[1989c141 §2._ [1989c 1
Intent -- 1987 1st ex,s. c 2: "The legislature intends to establish the limitation
on school district maintenance and operations levies at twenty percent, with ten
percent to be equalized on a statewide basis. The legislature further intends to
establish a modern school financing system for compensation of school staff and
provide a class size reduction in grades kindergarten through three, The
legislature intends to give the highest funding priority to strengthening support for
existing school programs,
The legislature finds that providing for the adoption of a statewide salary
allocation schedule for certificated instructional staff will encourage recruitment
and retention of able individuals to the teaching profession, and limit the
administrative burden associated with implementing state teacher salary
policies" [1987 1 st ex.s. c2 § 1,]
Severability -- 1987 1st ex.s. c "If any provision of this act or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act
or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not
affected." [1987 1st ex,s. c 2 § 213.]
Effective date -- 1987 1st ex.& c 2: "This act shall take effect September 1,
1987"[1987 1st ex,s, c 2 214.]
Intent Severability -- 1987 c 185: See notes following ROW 51 12130,
Severability -- 1985 c 374: "If any provision of this act or its application to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application
of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected," [1986 c 374 §
http:h'apps.leg,wa.govircwfdefault,aspx?cite=84..52&full=true 2/22/2011
3.1
Effective date -- 1981 c 264: "Section 10 of this amendatory act shall
become effective for maintenance and operation excess tax levies now or
hereafter authorized pursuant to RCW 84,52 053, as now or hereafter amended,
for coliectiori in 1982 and thereafter " (1981 c 264 § 11.1
Severability -- 1981 c 264: See note following RCW 28A 545.030.
Effective date — 1979 exe, c 172: "This amendatory act is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the
state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect on
September 1, 1979."11979 ex,s, c 172 § 3.)
Severability -- 1979 exe, c 172: If any provision of this amendatory act or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act
or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not
affected " [1979 ex.s. c 172 § 2.]
Severability -- Effective date -- 1977 es.s. c 325: See notes following RC1N
84.52,052.
Payments to high school districts for educating nonhigh school district students:
Chapter 28A.545 RCW,
Purposes: RCW 28A.545.030,
Rules to effect purposes and implement provisions: RCW 28A.545.110
Superintendent's annual determination of estimated amount due -- Process.
RCW 28A.545.070.
84.52.054
Excess levies — Ballot contents — Eventual dollar rate on tax rolls.
The additional tax provided for in Article VII, section 2 of the State Constitution, and
spec a by RCW 84.52,052., 84,52.053, 84..52 0531, and 84 52,130, shall be
set forth in terms of dollars on the ballot of the proposition to be submitted to the voters,
together with an estimate of the dollar rate of tax levy that will be required to produce the
dollar amount: and the county assessor, in spreading this tax upon the rolls, shall determine
the eventual dollar rate required to produce the amount of dollars so voted upon, regardless
of the estimate of dollar rate of tax levy carried in said proposition. In the case of a school
district or fire protection district proposition for a particular period, the dollar amount and the
corresponding estimate of the dollar rate of tax levy shall be set forth for each of the years in
that period. The dollar amount for each annual levy in the particular period may be equal or in
different amounts.
12007 c 54 §2t; 1986 c 133 § 2, 1977 ex s c 325 § 2; 1977 c 4 § 2 1973 1st ex,s. G 195 § 103, 1961c15 §
84,52;054. PriQT: 1955 c 105 § 1)
Notes:
Severability -- 2007 c 54: See note following RCW 82.04.050,
Contingent effective date -- 1988 c 133: See note following RCW
84,52 053,
http ://apps .wa.govircwide fault aspx7cite=84,52&full—true 2/22/2011
Severability -- Effective date -- 1977 ex.s. c 325: See notes following RCW
84 52Q52
Severability -- 1977 c 4: See note following RCA,' 84 52,052,
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates Construction --
1973 1st ex.5. c 495: See notes following RCW 84.52 043
,
84.52.056
Excess levies for capital purposes authorized.
(1) Any municipal corporation otherwise authorized by law to issue general obligation bonds
for capital purposes may, at an election duly held after giving notice thereof as required by
law, authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds for capital purposes only which does
not include the replacement of equipment, and provide for the payment of the principal and
interest of such bonds by annual levies in excess of the tax limitations contained in ROW
84 52.050 to 84.52,056, inclusive and RCW 84 52.043. Such an election may not be held
more often than twice a calendar year and the proposition to issue any such bonds and to
exceed the tax limitation must receive the affirmative vote of a three-fifths majority of those
voting on the proposition and the total number of persons voting at the election must
constitute not less than forty percent of the voters in the municipal corporation who voted at
the last preceding general state election.
(2) Any taxing district has the right by vote of its governing body to refund any general
obligation bonds of said district issued for capital purposes only, and to provide for the
interest thereon and amortization thereof by annual levies in excess of the tax limitations
provided for in RCW 84 52.0501°84,52.056 , inclusive and RCW 84 52 043,
(3) For the purposes of this section, "bond includes a municipal corporation's obligation
to make payments to the stale in connection with a financing contract entered into by the
state by or on behalf of a municipal corporation under chapter 39.94 RCW,
)2010 c 115 § 3; 1973 1st ex.s. c 195 9 1 1973 lst ex.s c195 § 148 1961 c 15 § 84 52,056. Prior 1959 c
290 § 2, 1951 2nd ex.s. c 23 § 4; prior% 1951 c 255 § 1, part, 1950 ex,s, C111part , 1945 c 253 § 1, part
1941 c 176 § 1 part. 1939 c 83 § 1, part. 1939 c 2 (init. Maas No 129), 1937 c 1 (init. Meas No 114); 1935 c
2 Oral Mess No 94); 1933 c4 (Init. Mess No 64), Rem Supp 1945 § 11238-1e, part)
Notes:
Authority -- 2010 c 115: See note following RCW 39 94.030,
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates -- Construction --
1973 let ex.s, c 195: See notes following RCW 5452043.
84.52.063
Rural library district levies.
A rural library district may impose a regular property tax levy in an amount equal to that
which would be produced by a levy of fifty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value
multiplied by an assessed valuation equal to one hundred percent of the true and fair value of
the taxable property in the rural library district, as determined by the department of revenue's
indicated county ratio: PROVIDED, That when any county assessor shall find that the
aggregate rate of levy on any property will exceed the limitation set forth in ROW 84.52.043
and 84.52.050, as now or hereafter amended, before recomputing and establishing a
consolidated levy in the manner set forth in ROW 84,52 010, the assessor shall first reduce
the levy of any rural library district, by such amount as may be necessary, but the levy of any
rural library district shall not be reduced to less than fifty cents per thousand dollars against
the value of the taxable property, as determined by the county, prior to any further
adjustments pursuant to ROW 84.52,010. For purposes of this section "regular property tax
http://apps,logiwai.goyirow/default.aspx?otte=84.52&1011=true 2/22/2011
levy shalt mean a levy subject to the limitations provided for in Article VII, section 2 of the
state Constitution and/or by statute.
12001 c 187 § 25,1997 c 3 § 125 (Referendum Bill No 47, approved November 4, 1997), 1973 let ex a c 195
§105 1973 1st exm c 195 150", 1970 ex s c 92 9 1
Notes:
Contingent effective date -- 2001 a 187: See note following RCW
84,70,010
Application -- 2001 c 187: See note following RCW 84 40 020,
Application -- Severability -- Part headings not law — Referral to
electorate -- 1997 a 3: See notes following RCW 84.40.030.
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates -- Construction --
1973 1st exis. c 195: See notes following RCW 84.52,043,
Intent -- Effective date -- Application -- 1910 ex.e, a 92: See notes following
RCW 84,52.010,
84.52.065
State levy for support of common schools.
Subject to the limitations in RCW 84.55,010, in each year the state shall levy for collection in
the following year for the support of common schools of the state a tax of three dollars and
sixty cents per thousand dollars of assessed value upon the assessed valuation of all taxable
property within the state adjusted to the state equalized value in accordance with the
indicated ratio fixed by the state department of revenue,
As used in this section, the support of common schools" includes the payment of the
principal and interest on bonds issued for capital construction projects for the common
schools,
[1991 sps c 31 §16 1979 ex s c 218 g 1, 1973 lstex,s c 195 § 106: 1971 ex s c 299 § 25, 1969 ex s c 216
§ 2 1967exsc1331j
Notes:
Severability -- 1991 sp.s. a 31.: See RCW 43.991 900
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates -- Construction --
1973 1st ex.s. a 195: See notes following RCW 84,52.043.
Effective date Severability -- 1971 exisi a 299: See notes following RCW
82 04 050.
Limitation of levies: RCW 84:52.050.
84.52.067
State levy for support of common schools — Disposition of funds.
All property taxes levied by the state for the support of common schools shall be paid into the
general fund of the state treasury as provided in RCW 84.5b.280,
[2009 c 479 § 73, 2001 c 3 § 7 rinittative Measure No 728, approved November 7, 20091 1967 ex,s, c 133 §
http://apps.legiwaigovircwidefaultaspx?cite=8 2/22/2011
21
Notes:
Effective date - 2009 c 479: See note following ROW 2.56.030
Short title -- Purpose. -- Intent -- Construction -- Severability -- Effective
dates -- 2001 c 3 (Initiative Measure No, 728): See notes following RCW
28A.505.10.
84.52.069
ergency medical care and service levies.
(1) As used in this section, "taxing district" means a county, emergency medical service
district, city or town, public hospital district, urban emergency medical service district,
regional fire protection service authority, or fire protection district,
(2) A taxing district may impose additional regular property tax levies in an amount equal
to fifty cents or less per thousand dollars of the assessed value of property in the taxing
district. The tax shall be imposed (a) each year for six consecutive years, (b) each year for
ten consecutive years, or (c) permanently, A tax levy under this section must be specifically
authorized by a majority of at least three - fifths of the registered voters thereof approving a
proposition authorizing the levies submitted at a general or special election, at which election
the number of persons voting "yes" on the proposition shall constitute three - fifths of a number
equal to forty percent of the total number of voters voting in such taxing district at the last
preceding general election when the number of registered voters voting on the proposition
does not exceed forty percent of the total number of voters voting in such taxing district in the
last preceding general election; or by a majority of at least three - fifths of the registered voters
thereof voting on the proposition when the number of registered voters voting on the
proposition exceeds forty percent of the total number of voters voting in such taxing district in
the last preced general election. Ballot propos shall conform with ROW 29A .3 . 10.
A taxing district shall not submit to the voters at the same election multiple propositions to
impose a levy under this section.
(3) A taxing district imposing a permanent levy under this section shall provide for
separate accounting of expenditures of the revenues generated by the levy The taxing
district shall maintain a statement of the accounting which shall be updated at least every two
years and shall be available to the public upon request at no charge.
(4) A taxing district imposing a permanent levy under this section shall provide for a
referendum procedure to apply to the ordinance or resolution imposing the tax. This
referendum procedure shall specify that a referendum petition may be filed at any time with a
filing officer, as identified in the ordinance or resolution. Within ten days, the filing officer shall
confer with the petitioner concerning form and style of the petition, issue the petition an
identification number, and secure an accurate, concise, and positive ballot title from the
designated local official. The petitioner shall have thirty days in which to secure the
signatures of not less than fifteen percent of the registered voters of the taxing district, as of
the last general election, upon petition forms which contain the ballot title and the full text of
the measure to be referred, The filing officer shall verify the sufficiency of the signatures on
the petition and, if sufficient valid signatures are properly submitted, shall certify the
referendum measure to the next election within the taxing district if one is to be held within
one hundred eighty days from the date of filingg of the referendum petition, or at a special
election to be called for that purpose in accordance with ROW 29A,04,330,
The referendum procedure provided in this subsection shall be exclusive in all instances
for any taxing district imposing the tax under this section and shall supersede the procedures
provided under all other statutory or charter provisions for initiative or referendum which
might otherwise apply,
(5) Any tax imposed under this section shall be used only for the provision: of emergency
medical care or emergency medical services, including related personnel costs, training for
such personnel, and related equipment, supplies, vehicles and structures needed for the
provision of emergency medical care or emergency medical services.
http.11app , leg. wa,govtrcwidefault.espx`lcite =84.52 full =true 212212011
(6) if a county levies a tax under this section, no taxing district within the county may levy
a tax under this section If a regional fire protection service authority imposes a tax under this
section,, no other taxing district that is a participating fire protection jurisdiction in the regional
fire protection service authority may levy a tax under this section. No other taxing district may
levy a tax under this section if another taxing district has levied a tax under this section within
its boundaries: PROVIDED, That if a county levies less than fifty cents per thousand dollars
of the assessed value of property, then any other taxing district may levy a tax under this
section equal to the difference between the rate of the levy by the county and fifty cents:
PROVIDED FURTHER, That if a taxing district within a county levies this tax, and the voters
of the county subsequently approve a levying of this tax, then the amount of the taxing district
levy within the county shall be reduced, when the combined levies exceed fifty cents,
Whenever a tax is levied countywide, the service shall, insofar as is feasible, be provided
throughout the county. PROVIDED FURTHER, That no countywide levy proposal may be
placed on the ballot without the approval of the legislative authority of each city exceeding
fifty thousand population within the county: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That this section
and ROW 36,32.480 shall not prohibit any city or town from levying an annual excess levy to
fund emergency medical services: AND PROVIDED, FURTHER, That if a county proposes to
impose tax levies under this section, no other ballot proposition authorizing tax levies under
this section by another taxing district in the county may be placed before the voters at the
same election at which the county ballot proposition is placed: AND PROVIDED FURTHER,
That any taxing district emergency medical service levy that is limited in duration and that is
authorized subsequent to a county emergency medi l service levy that is limited in duration,
shall expire concurrently with the county emergency medical service levy.
(7) The limitations in ROW 84.52.043 shall not apply to the tax levy authorized in this
section
(8) If a ballot proposition approved under subsection (2) of this section did not impose the
maximum allowable levy amount authorized for the taxing district under this section, any
future increase up to the maximum allowable levy amount must be specifically authorized by
the voters in accordance with subsection (2) of this section at a general or special election.
(9) The limitation in ROW 84.55.010 shall not apply to the first levy imposed pursuant to
this section following the approval of such levy by the voters pursuant to subsection (2) of
this section.
(10) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply
(a) "Fire protection jurisdiction' means a fire protection district, city„ town, Indian tribe, or
port district: anid
(b) ''Participating fire protection jurisdiction" means a fire protect district, city, town,
Indian tribe, or port district that is represented on the governing board of a regional lire
protection service authority.
12004 c 129 §23. 1999 c 224 .§.1 ; 1995 c 318 § 9; 1994 c 79 § 2 1993 c 337 § 5 1991 c 175 § 1, 1985 c 348
1,198 c 131 § 5, 1979 ex.s, c 200 § 1.l
Notes:
Captions not law -- Severbility 2004 c 129: See RCW 52.26 900 and
52.26,901;
Application - -1999 c 224: "'This act applies to levies authorized after July 25,
1999. " [1 999 c 224 § 3.]
Effective date - -1995 c 318: See note following ROW 82.04.030,
Finding — 1993 c 337: See note following ROW #34.52105.
Purpose -- 1984 c 131 §§ 3-9: See note following ROW 29A_ 6,210
Severability - -1929 exi*st c 200: "It any provision of this act or its application
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the
application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not
http :llapps.le .wa, vlrcw /dcfa.ult.aspx ?cite - 84.52 &f'u1k e 2/22/2011
affected " [1979 ex s. c 2 0 03 §
84.52.070
Certification of levies to assessor.
(1) It is the duty of the county legislative authority of each county, on or before the thirtieth
day of November in each year, to certify to the county assessor the amount of taxes levied
upon the property in the county for county purposes, and the respective amounts of taxes
levied by the board for each taxing district, within or coextensive with the county, for district
purposes
(2) It is the duty of the council of each city having a population of three hundred thousand
or more and of the council of each town, and of all officials or boards of taxing districts within
or coextensive with the county, authorized by law to levy taxes directly and not through the
county legislative authority, on or before the thirtieth day of November in each year. to certify
to the county assessor the amount of taxes levied upon the property within the city, town, or
district for city, town, or district purposes,
(3) if a levy amount is certified to the county assessor after the thirtieth day of November,
the county assessor may use no more than the certified levy amount for the previous year for
the taxing district. This subsection (3) does not apply to the state levy or when the assessor
has not certified assessed values as required by ROW 8448.130 at least twelve working
days before November 30th,
polo c 1o6 § 313; 1994 c 81 § 86, 1988 c 222 § 28; 1961 c 15 § 84 52_970 Poor 1925 ex.s: c 130 § 78, RRS
11239: prior 1890 p 558 §§§ 77, 78; Code 1881 § 28611
Notes:
Effective date #_ 2010 c 106: See note following RCW 35.102,145.
Effective data }- 1988 c 222: See note following RCW 84.40.040.
84,52.080
Extension of taxes on rolls -- Form of certificate - Delivery to
treasurer.
(1) The county assessor must extend the taxes upon the tax rolls in the form prescribed in
this section. The rate percent necessary to raise the amounts of taxes levied for state and
county purposes, and for purposes of taxing districts coextensive with the county, must be
computed upon the assessed value of the property of the county. The rate percent necessary
to raise the amount of taxes levied for any taxing district within the county must be computed
upon the assessed value of the property of the district. All taxes assessed against any
property must be added together and extended on the rolls in a column headed consolidated
or total tax. In extending any tax, whenever the tax amounts to a fractional part of a cent
greater than one -half of a cent it must be rounded up to one cent, and whenever it amounts
to one -half of anent or less it must be dropped. The amount of all taxes must be entered in
the proper columns, as shown by entering the rate percent necessary to raise the
consolidated or total tax and the total tax assessed against the property.
(2) For the purpose of computing the rate necessary to raise the amount of any excess
levy in a taxing district entitled to a distribution under ROW 84,33.081 „ other than the state,
the county assessor must add the district's timber assessed value, as defined in ROW
84.33.035, to the assessed value of the property. However, for school districts maintenance
and operations levies, only one - half of the districts timber assessed value or eighty percent
of the timber roll of the district in calendar year 1983 as determined under chapter 84.33
ROW, whichever is greater, must be added to the assessed value of the property.
(3) Upon the completion of such tax extension, it is the duty of the county assessor to
make in each assessment book, tax roll or list a certificate in the following form'
hitp :lla ps,leg. a. vircwwdefault.espx? cite =8 .52&cfull =true> 2/22/2011,
i, .. , , assessor of county, state of
Washington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
correct list of taxes levied on the real and personal
property in the county of ...:. for the year two
thousand
Witness my hand this . _ . day of .... . 20.
. ... , . , County
Assessor
(4) The county assessor must deliver the tax rolls to the county treasurer, on or before the
fifteenth day of January, taking a receipt from the treasurer. At the same time, the county
assessor must provide the county auditor with an abstract of the tax rolls showing the total
amount of taxes collectible in each of the taxing districts
12010 c 106 § 314; 1989 c 378 § #6, 1988 c 222 § 29: 1985 c 184 § 1984 c 204 § 14; 1965 ex.s. c 7 § 1,
1961 c 15 § 84 52:080, Prior 1925 ex :s c'130'§ 79: RRS § 11240; prior 1969 c 230 § 4; 1905 c 128 § 1, 1897
C 71 §§ 64, 65; 1893 c 124 §§ 65, 66; 1890 p 566 §§ 79; 81; Code 1881 § §, 2883, 2884.]
Notes:
Effective date -- 2010 c 106: See note following RCW 35,1 02,145.
Effective date w_ 1985 c 184 § 2: "Section 2 of this act is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the
state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect
immediately, and shall be effective for taxes levied for collection in 1986 and
thereafter, [1 985 c 184 § ;.
Savings -# Effective date --1984 c 204: See notes following RCW
84.33 035:
84.52.085
Property tax errors.
(1) If an error has occurred in the levy of property taxes that has caused all taxpayers within
a taxing district, other than the state, to pay an incorrect amount of property tax, the assessor
shall correct the error by making an appropriate adjustment to the levy for that taxing district
in the succeeding year The adjustment shall be made without, including any interest. If the
governing authority of the taxing district determines that the amount of the adjustment in the
succeeding year is so large as to cause a hardship for the taxing district or the taxpayers
within the district, the adjustment may be made on a proportional basis over a period of not
more than three consecutive years
(a) A correction of art error in the levying of property taxes shall not be made for any
period more than three years preceding the year in which the error is discovered
(b) When calculating the levy limitation under chapter 84.55 RCW for levies made
following the discovery of an error, the assessor shall determine and use the correct levy
amount for the year or years being corrected as though the error had not occurred. The
amount of the adjustment determined under this subsection (1) shall not be considered when
calculating the levy limitation:
(c) If the taxing district in which a levy error has occurred does not levy property taxes in
the year the error is discovered, or for a period of more than three years subsequent to the
year the error was discovered, an adjustment shall not be made .
http :/ /apps. leg. wa, govlrcw /defy lt.aspx?cite= 4x5 &fulj= true 2/22/2011
(2) If an error has occurred in the distribution of property taxes so that property tax
collected has been incorrectly distributed to a taxing district or taxing districts wholly or
partially within a county, the treasurer of the county in which the error occurred shall correct
the error by making an appropriate adjustment to the amount distributed to that taxing district
or districts in the succeeding year The adjustment shah be made without including any
interest. If the treasurer, in consultation with the governing authority of the taxing district or
districts affected, determines that the amount of the adjustment in the succeeding year is so
large as to cause a hardship for the taxing district or districts, the adjustment may be made
on a proportional basis over a period of not more than three consecutive years. A correction
of an error in the distribution of property taxes shah not be made for any period more than
three years preceding the year in which the error is discovered.
12001 0 185 § 14.]
Notes:
Effective slate - Application -- 2001 c 185 § 14: "Section 14 of this act takes
effect January 1, 2002, and applies to errors that occur on and after January 1
2002." [2001 c 185 § 17.j,
84.52. 105
Affordable housing levies authorized -- Declaration of emergency
and plan required.
(1) A county, city, or town may impose additional regular property tax levies of up to fifty
cents per thousand dollars of assessed value of property in each year for up to ten
consecutive years to finance affordable housing for very low - income households when
specifically authorized to do so by a majority of the voters of the taxing district voting on a
ballot proposition authorizing the levies. If both a county, and a city or town within the county,
impose levies authorized under this section, the levies of the last jurisdiction to receive voter
approval for the levies shall be reduced or eliminated so that the combined rates of these
levies may not exceed fifty cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation in any area
within the county. A ballot proposition authorizing a levy under this section must conform with
RCW 84.52,05 4.
(2) The additional property tax levies may not be imposed until:
(a) The governing body of the county, city, or town declares the existence of an
emergency with respect to the availability of housing that is affordable to very low- income
households in the taxing district; and
(b) The governing body of the county, city, or town adopts an affordable housing financing
plan to serve as the plan for expenditure of funds raised by a levy authorized under this
section, and the governing body determines that the affordable housing financing plan is
consistent with either the locally adopted or state - adopted comprehensive housing
affordability strategy, required under the Cranston - Gonzalez national affordable housing act
(42 U.S.C. Sec. 12701, et seq.,), as amended:
(3) For purposes of this section, the term 'very low - income household "' means a single
person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose income is at or below fifty percent
of the median income, as determined by the United States department of housing and urban
development, with adjustments for household size, for the county where the taxing district is
located.
(4) The limitations in RCW 84.52.043 shall not apply to the tax levy authorized in this
section
[1 ass c 18 5 10 1993 c 337 § 2 j
Notes
Effective date -- 1995 c 318: See note following RCW V 2.04.030,
1 1 1
ettp,f /apps.1eg wa,g v /row /def ult.asp 7 ite 84.52 &full =true
Finding - -'1993 c 337: The legislature finds that:;
(1) Many very low- income residents of the state of Washington are unable to
afford housing that is decent, safe, and appropriate to their living needs;
(2) Recent federal housing legislation conditions funding for affordable
housing on the availability of local matching funds;
(3) Current statutory debt limitations may impair the ability of counties, cities,
and towns to meet federal matching requirements and as a consequence, may
impair the ability of such counties, cities, and towns to develop appropriate and
effective strategies to increase the availability of safe, decent, and appropriate
housing that is affordable to very low- income households; and
(4) It is in the public interest to encourage counties, cities, and towns to
develop locally based affordable housing financing plans designed to expand the
availability of housing that is decent, safe, affordable, and appropriate to the
living needs of very low- income households of the counties, cities, and
towns." [1993 c 337 § 11
84.52.120
Metropolitan park districts -- Protection of levy from r r i niin —
Ballot proposition.
A metropolitan park district with a population of one hundred fifty thousand or more may
submit a ballot proposition to voters of the district authorizing the protection of the district's
tax levy from prorationing under RCW 84.52.010(2) by imposing all or any portion of the
district's twenty -five cent per thousand dollars of assessed valuation tax levy outside of the
five dollar and ninety cent per thousand dollar of assessed valuation limitation established
under RCW 84.52.043(2), if those taxes otherwise would be prorated under R W 84 52,010
(2)(c), for taxes imposed in any year on or before the first day of January six years after the
ballot proposition is approved. A simple majority vote of voters voting on the proposition is
required for approval.
11995 c :99 § •�
54.52.925
Fire protection districts -- Protection from levy prorationing.
A fire protection district may protect the district's tax levy from , prorationing under RCNAI
84.52:010(2) by imposing up to a total of twenty cents per thousand dollars of assessed
value of the tax levies authorized under RCW 5216.140 and 52.16 160 outside of the five
dollars and ninety cents per thousand dollars of assessed valuation limitation established
under RCW 84.52. 043(2), if those taxes otherwise would be prorated under RCW 84.52.010
(2)(e)•
12005 c 122 § 1.j
Notes:
Application -- 2005 c 122: "This act applies to taxes levied for collection in
2006 and thereafter.'" [2005 c 122 § 4]
84.52. f 0
http; / /apps.le .wa.gov /row /defautt.asp ?cite 84. 2&full =true 2/22/2011
Fire protection district excess levies.
The limitations imposed by PEW 84 82.050 through 84.02 056, and84 52.043 shall not
prevent the levy of taxes by a fire protection district, when authorized so to do by the voters
of a fire protection district in the manner and for the purposes and number of years allowable
under Article VIi section 2(a) of the Constitution of this state. Elections for taxes shall be held
in the year in which the levy is made, or in the case of propositions authorizing two -year
through four -year levies for maintenance and operation support of a fire district, or
authorizing two -year through six -year levies to support the construction, modernization, or
remodeling of fire district facilities, in the year in which the first annual levy is made, Once
additional tax levies have been authorized for maintenance and operation support of a fire
protection district for a two -year through four -year period, no further additional tax levies for
maintenance and operat support of the district for that period may be authorized.
A special election may be called and the time fixed by the fire protection district
commissioners, by giving notice by publication in the manner provided by law for giving
notices of general elections, at which special election the proposition authorizing the excess
levy shall be submitted in a form as to enable the voters favoring the proposition to vote ' "yes"
and those opposed to vote "no."
[2002c10 § 2.l
Notes:
Contingent effective date — 2002 c 180: See note following R W
84 52 052,
84.52.135
County levy for criminal justice purposes.
(1) A county with a population of ninety thousand or less may impose additional regular
property tax levies in an amount equal to fifty cents or less per thousand dollars of the
assessed value of property in the county in accordance with the terms of this section;
(2) The tax proposition may be submitted at a general or special election.
(3) The tax may be imposed each year for six consecutive years when specifically
authorized by the registered voters voting on the proposition, subject to the following;
(a) If the number of registered voters voting on the proposition does not exceed forty
percent of the total number of voters voting in the taxing district at the last general election
the number of persons voting "yes" on the proposition shall constitute at least three of a
number equal to forty percent of the total number of voters voting in the taxing district at the
last general election,
(b) if the number of registered voters voting on the proposition exceeds forty percent of
the total number of voters voting in the taxing district at the last preceding general election,,
the number of persons voting " on the proposition shall be at least three of the
registered voters voting on the proposition.
(4) Ballot propositions shall conform with RCW 29A,36,210,
(5) Any tax imposed under this section shalt be used exclusively for criminal justice
purposes.
(6) The limitations in RCNAI 84 52.043 do not apply to the tax authorized in this section.
(7) The limitation in RCW 55 0}10 does not apply to the first lax levy imposed pursuant
to this section following the approval of the levy by the voters pursuant to subsection (3) of
this section.
(2004 c 80 § 11
rtp.1 /a psieg wa, vlr ldefaulL,a px?cite 4,52&fuil =tru 2/2212011
Notes:
Effective date -_ 2004 c 80: 'This act takes effect July 1, 2004." t2004 c 80 §
5.
54.52.140
Additional regular property tax levy authorized.
(1) A county with a population of one minion five hundred thousand or more may impose an
additional regular property tax levy in an amount not to exceed seven and one -half cents per
thousand dollars of the assessed value of property in the county in accordance with the
terms of this section;
(2) Any tax imposed under this section shall be used as follows:
(a) The first one cent for expanding transit capacity along state route number 520 by
adding core and other supporting bus routes
(b) The remainder for transit-related expenditures;
(3) The limitations in ROW 84. 52.043 do not apply to the tax authorized in this section,
(4) The limitation in ROW 8455.010 does not apply to the first tax levy imposed under this
section
pods c 551 , 5 j
84.82.700
County airport district levy authorized.
See RW 14.08.230.
84.52.703
Mosquito control district levies authorized
See ROW 17.28100, 17.28.252, and 17.28,200:
84.52.706
Rural county library district levy authorized.
See ROW 27.12.050 and 27.12
84.52.709 '
fnfercounty rural library district levy authorized.
httpslfapps,l .wa. ovlrcwldefault,asp ?cite =84.52 &full=true 2/2212011
See RCW 27.12 150 and 27.12,222.
84.52.712
Reduction of city levy if part of library district.
See RCW 27 12.390.
84.52.713
Island library district levy authorized.
See RCW 27, and 27.12.222,
84.52.718
Levy, by receiver of disincorporated city autfiorizeti. .
See RCW .07.180:
84.52.7
Secoratf-class city levies.
See RCW 35.23.470.
84.52.721
Unclassified city sewer fund levy authorize.
See RCW 35.30.020._
84.52.724
City accident fund levy authorized.
See RCW 35.31.060.
84.52, 727
City emergency fund levy authorized.
http:1/ apps. leg.wa.gov /rcW /default.aspX cite -84.52 &full =true 2/22/2011
See RCW 35.32A.06S0;
84.52.730
City lowlands and waterway projects levy authorized.
See RCW 35 56 190
84.52.733
Metropolitan unicipal corporation levy authorized.
See RCW 35.58.050._
84.52.736
Metropolitan park district levy authorized.
See RCW 35.61.210.
84.52.739
Code city accident fund levy authorized.
See RC 35A,31 070.
84.52.742
County lands assessment fund levy authorized.
See RCW 36.33.120 and 36.33.140. -
84.52.745
General county levy authorized.
See RCW 36.40 090
84.52.749
County rail district tax levies authorized.
http.iiapps.leg.wa.govircwld faultaspx7cite- 4,52 &fullNtru 2/22/2011
See ROW 36 60 040
84.52.750
Solid waste disposal district — Excess levies authorized.
See ROW 36 58.150,
84.52.751
County hospital maintenance levy authorized.
See ROW 36 62,090.
84.52.754
Park and recreation service area levies authorized.
See ROW 36 68 520 and 36 68.525.
84.52.757
Park and recreation district levies authorized.
See ROW 36.69.140 and 36 69.145.
84.52.760
County road fund levy authorized.
See ROW 36,82,040,
84.52.761
Road and bridge service district levies authorized.
See ROW 36 83 030 and 36.83.040,
84.52.763
City firemen's pension fund levy authorized.
http://apps.leg.wa.govirewidefetiltasPx 2/22/2011
See ROW 41 16.060,
84.52.769
Reduction of city levy if part of fire protection district.
See ROW 52 04,081.
84.52.772
Fire protection district levies authorized.
See ROW 52,16.130, 52,16 140, and 52.16 160.
84.52.775
Port district levies authorized.
See ROW 53.36.020, 51.36.070, 53.36.100, and 53.47 040.
84.52.778
Public utility district levy authorized.
See ROW 54 16.080.
84.52.784
Water-sewer district levies authorized.
See ROW 57,04,050, 57.20.019, and 57.20.105.
84.52.786
Cultural arts, stadium and convention district tax levies authorized.
See ROVV 67,38.110 and 67.38.130.
84.52.787
Cemetery district levy authorized.
http 2/22/2011
See ROW 68 52 290 and 68 52 310,
84.52.790
Public hospital district levy authorized.
See RCW 7044 060,
84.52.793
Air pollution control agency levy authorized.
See ROW 70 94.091.
84.52.799
Veteran's relief fund levy authorized.
See ROW 73.08.080
84.52.802
Acquisition of open space, etc., land or rights to future
development by certain entities — Property tax levy authorized.
See ROW 84.34,230
84.52.808
River improvement fund levy authorized.
See ROW 86 12.010.
84.52.811
lntercounty river control agreement levy authorized.
See RCW 86 13.010 and 86.13 030.
84.52.814
htip://apps.leg.wa.goviicwidefauit,..aspx eite 2122/2011
Flood control zone district levy authorized.
See RCW 86 15 160
84,52.817
Irrigation and rehabilitation district special assessment authorized.
See RCW 87 84 070.
84.52.820
Reclamation district levy atithorlzed.
See RCW 89 30 391 through 9 30 397
84.52.823
Levy for tax refund funds.
See RCW 84 68 040
http://apps leg .govirewidefault aspx?cite=84,52&full 2/22/2011
September of the year before the taxes are payable;
(2) "Limit factor" means:
(a) For taxing districts with a population of less than ten thousand in the calendar year
prior to the assessment year one hundred one percent;
(b) For taxing districts for which a limit factor is authorized under RCW 84.55.0101, the
lesser of the limit factor authorized under that section or one hundred one percent;
(c) For all other districts, the lesser of one hundred one percent or one hundred percent
plus inflation; and
(3) ''Regular property taxes" has the meaning given it in RCW 84.04140,
12007 sp.9 c 1 § 1 Prior. 1997 c 393 § 20,1997 c 3 § 201 (Referendum Bill No 47, approved November 4,
1997); 1994 c 301 § 49; 1983 1st ex,s c 62 §
Notes.
Reviser's note: On November 8 2007, Initiative Measure No 747 was
declared unconstitutional in its entirety in Washington Citizens Action of
Washington v, State, Washington State Supreme Court (No. 78844-8),
Application -- Effective date -- 2007 sp.s. c 1: See notes following RCW
84 55 0101.
Intent 1997 c 3 §§ 201-207: See note following ROW 84 55.010.
Application -- Severability -- Part headings not law -- Referral to
electorate -- 1997 c 3: See notes following RCW 84,40.030,
Short title -- intent -- Effective dates -- Applicability -- 1983 1st ex.s. c 62:
See notes following RCW 84.36.477.
84.55.010
Limitations prescribed.
Except as provided in this chapter, the levy for a taxing district in any year shall be set so that
the regular property taxes payable in the following year shalt not exceed the limit factor
multiplied by the amount of regular property taxes lawfully levied for such district in the
highest of the three most recent years in which such taxes were levied for such district plus
an additional dollar amount calculated by multiplying the increase in assessed value in that
district resulting from new construction, increases in assessed value due to construction of
electric generation wind turbine facilities classified as personal property, improvements to
property, and any increase in the assessed value of state-assessed property by the regular
property tax levy rate of that district for the preceding year.
12008 c 184 §1; 1997 c3 § 202 (Referendum Bill No 47, approved November 4,1997); 1979 ex,s 0215 § 2,
1973 1st s 67 § 1,1971 ex.s c 288 § 201
Notes:
Reviser's note: Throughout chapter 84.55 RCW the phrase this 1971
amendatory act" has been changed to "this chapter" For codification of "this
1971 amendatory act" [1971 exs, c 288], see Codification Tables,
intent —1997 c 3 §-§. 201-207: "It IS the intent of sections 201 through 207 of
this act to lower the one hundred six percent limit while still allowing taxing
districts to raise revenues in excess of the limit if approved by a majority of the
voters as provided in ROW 84 55050" [1997 c 3 § 208 (Referendum Bill No. 47,
h0p://apps.. I eg govirewidefault aspx?ci te=84 5 5&fulNrue 2/22/2011
approved November 4, 1997).]
Application -- Severability --Part headings not law -- Referral to electorate
- -1997 c 3: See notes following ROW 84.40 030.
Effective date -- Applicability - -1979 ex.s. c 218: "This act is necessary for
the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of
the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect
immediately: PROVIDED, That the amendment to RCW 84,55,010 by section 2
of this act shalt be effective for 1979 levies for taxes collected in 1980, and for
subsequent years. "' [1979 ex.s. c 218 § 8.]
84.55.O10 f
Limit factor —t Authorization for taxing district to use one hundred
one percent or less - Ordinance or resolution.
upon a finding of substantial need, the legislative authority of a taxing district other than the
state may provide for the use of a limit factor under this chapter of one hundred one percent
or less. in districts with legislative authorities of four members or less, two - thirds of the
members must approve an ordinance or resolution under this section. In districts with more
than four members, a majority plus one vote must approve an ordinance or resolution under
this section, The new limit factor shall be effective for taxes collected in the following year
only
[2007 sp s c 1 § 2 1997 c 3 § 204 (Referendum 8i #i No, 47, approved November 4 1997) t
Notes:
Reviser's note: On November 8, 2007, Initiative Measure No. 747 was
declared unconstitutional in its entirety in Washington;. Citizens Action of
Washington v. State, Washington State Supreme Court (No. 78844 -8),
Application -- 2007 sp.s, c 1; "This act applies both prospectively and
retroactively to taxes levied for collection in 2002 and thereafter, " [2007 sp.s. c 1
3•l,'_
Effective date -- 2007 sp.s, c 1: "This act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health; or safety, or support of the state
government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately
[November 29, 20071" [2007 spas, c 1 § 4.]
Intent -- 1997 c 3 §§ 201.207: See note following ROW 84.55 010
Application -- Severability -- Part headings not law -- Referral to
electorate -- 1997 c 3: See notes following ROW 84.40,030
84.55.01 8
Restoration of regular levy.
if a taxing district has not levied since 1985 and elects to restore a regular property tax levy
subject to applicable statutory limitations then such first restored levy shall be set so that the
regular property tax payable shall not exceed the amount which was last levied, plus an
additional dollar amount calculated by multiplying the increase in assessed value in the
district since the last levy resulting from new construction, increases in assessed value due
to construction of electric generation wind turbine facilities classified as personal properly,
improvements to property, and any increase in the assessed value of state - assessed
http: / /apps,ic .wa. ov /rcw /default.aspx?cite 84. &full =true- 2/22/201]
property by the property tax rate which is proposed to be restored, or the maximum amount
which could be lawfully levied in the year such a restored levy is proposed.
[2006 c 184 § 2' 1999 c 96 § 1 1979 ex.s. c 218 �} ]
84.55.0211
Limitation upon first levy for district created from consolidation.
Notwithstanding the limitation set forth in RCW 84.55,010, the first levy for a taxing district
created from consolidation of similar taxing districts shall be set so that the regular property
taxes payable in the following year shall not exceed the limit factor multiplied by the sum of
the amount of regular property taxes lawfully levied for each component taxing district in the
highest of the three most recent years in which such taxes were levied for such district plus
the additional dollar amount calculated by multiplying the increase in assessed value in each
component district resulting from new construction, increases in assessed value due to
construction of electric generation wind turbine facilities classified as personal property,
improvements to property, and any increase in the assessed value of state - assessed
property by the regular property tax rate of each component district for the preceding year:
12006 c 184 § 3.199i c 3 § 203 (Referendum Bill No 47, approved November 4 1997), 1971 ex.s c 288 §
21 a
Notes:
Intent - -1997 c 3 §§ 201 -207: See note following RCW 84 55.010.
Application — Severability Part headings not law -- Referral to
electorate -- 1997 c : See notes following RCW 84 .40.00
Savings -- Severability - -1971 ex.s. c 288: See notes following RCW
84 40,030
84.55.030
Limitation upon first levy following annexation.
For the first levy for a taxing district following annexation of additional property, the limitation
set forth in RCW 84.55.010 shall be increased by an amount equal to (1) the aggregate
assessed valuation of the newly annexed property as shown by the current completed and
balanced tax rolls of the county or counties within which such properly lies, multiplied by (2)
the dollar rate that would have been used by the annexing unit in the absence of such
annexation, plus (3) the additional dollar amount calculated by multiplying the increase in
assessed value in the annexing district resulting from new construction, increases in
assessed value due to construction of electric generation wind turbine facilities classified as
personal property, improvements to property,' and any increase in the assessed value of
state - assessed property by the regular property tax levy rate of that annexing taxing district
for the preceding year
[ 2 0 0 6 c 1 8 4 § 4,'1973 1st s, c 195 § 107; 1971 ex.s. c 288 § 22.]
Notes:
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates *- Construction --
1973 1st ex.s. c 195: See notes following RCW 84,52.043.
Savings -- Severability - -1971 ex.si c 288: See notes following RCW
:40,030 `,•
http llapp ovlrcwldefault.asp 9cite 4,55 fu.]1 -true 2/22/2011
84.55.035
inapplicability of limitation to newly-formed taxing district created
other than by consolidation or annexation.
RCW 84.55 010 shall not apply to the first levy by or for a newly-formed taxing district
created other than by consolidation or annexation,
This section shall be retroactive in effect and shall be deemed to validate any levy within
its scope, even though the levy has been made prior to June 4, 1979,
[1979 exs c 218 § 5
84.55.040
increase in statutory dollar rate limitaticin.
If by reason of the operation of RCW 84,52,043 and 84-52 050, as now or hereafter amended
the statutory dollar rate limitation applicable to the levy by a taxing district has been
increased over the statutory millage limitation applicable to such taxing district's levy in the
preceding year the limitation on the dollar rate amount of a levy provided for in this chapter
shall be increased by multiplying the otherwise dollar limitation by a fraction, the numerator of
which is the increased dollar limitation and the denominator of which is the dollar limitation for
the prior year
11973 1St. eX.S. C 195 § 199: 1973 lsi ex.s. c 195 § 151; 1971 ex s, c 288 23 1
Notes:
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates -- Construction —
1973 1st ex.e, c 195: See notes following RCW 84.52,043,
Savings -- Severability -- 1971 ex.s. c 288: See notes following RCW
84.40.030,
84.55.045
Applicability of chapter to levy by port district for industrial
development district purposes.
For purposes of applying the provisions of this chapter:
(1) A levy by or for a port district pursuant to RCW 53.36.100 shall be treated in the same
manner as a separate regular property tax levy made by or for a separate taxing district; and
(2) The first levy by or for a port district pursuant to RCW 53.36 100 after April 1, 1982,
shall not be subject to RCW 84 55010
[1982 lst ex,s. c 3 § 2.)
Notes:
Effective date -- 1982 1st ex.& c 3: See note following RCW 53,36 100
84.55.047
http:happs.,legmagovircwidefau1taspx?citc=8435&full=true 2/22/2011
Applicability of chapter to community revitalization financing
increment areas.
Limitations on regular property taxes that are provided in this chapter shall continue in a
taxing district whether or not an increment area exists within the taxing district as provided
under chapter 39.69 R.
12001 212 24 )
Notes:
Severability -- 2001 c 212: See RCW 39.89.902
84.55.050
Election to authorize increase in regular property tax levy —
Limited propositions — Procedure.
(1) Subject to any otherwise applicable statutory dollar rate limitations, regular property taxes
may be levied by or for a taxing district in an amount exceeding the limitations provided for in
this chapter if such levy is authorized by a proposition approved by a majority of the voters of
the taxing district voting on the proposition at a general election held within the district or at a
special election within the taxing district called by the district for the purpose of submitting
such proposition to the voters. Any election held pursuant to this section shalt be held not
more than twelve months prior to the date on which the proposed levy is to be made, except
as provided in subsection (2) of this section, The ballot of the proposition shall state the dollar
rate proposed and shall clearly state the conditions, if any, which are applicable under
subsection (4) of this section,
(2)(a) Subject to statutory dollar limitations, a proposition placed before the voters under
this section may authorize annual increases in levies for multiple consecutive years, up to six
consecutive years, during which period each year's authorized maximum legal levy shall be
used as the base upon which an increased levy limit for the succeeding year is computed,
but the ballot proposition must state the dollar rate proposed only for the first year of the
consecutive years and must state the limit factor, or a specified index to be used for
determining a limit factor, such as the consumer price index, which need not be the same for
all years, by which the regular tax levy for the district may be increased in each of the
subsequent consecutive years, Elections for this purpose must be held at a primary or
general election, The title of each ballot measure must state the limited purposes for which
the proposed annual increases during the specified period of up to six consecutive years
shall be used
(b)(i) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (2)(b), funds raised by a levy under
this subsection may not supplant existing funds used for the limited purpose specified in the
ballot title, For purposes of this subsection, existing funds means the actual operating
expenditures for the calendar year in which the ballot measure is approved by voters. Actual
operating expenditures excludes lost federal funds, lost or expired state grants or loans,
extraordinary events not lilrre ly to reoccur, changes in contract provisions beyond the control
of the taxing district receiving the services, and major nonrecurring capital expenditures,
(ii) The supplanting limitations in (b)(i) of this subsection do not apply to levies approved
by the Voters in calendar years 2009, 2010, and 2011, in any county with a population of one
million five hundred thousand or more. This subsection (2)(b)(ii) only applies to levies
approved by the voters after July 26, 2009,
(iii) The supplanting limitations in (b)(i) of this subsection do not apply to levies approved
by the voters in calendar year 2009 and thereafter in any county with a population less than
one million five hundred thousand. This subsection (2)(b)(iii) only applies to levies approved
by the voters after July 26, 2009,
(3) After a levy authorized pursuant to this section is made, the dollar amount of such levy
may not be used for the purpose of computing the limitations for subsequent levies provided
for in this chapter, unless the ballot proposition expressly slates that the levy made under this
section will be used for this purpose,
http:/ /app s e g.wa.govircwidefault.aspx?cite 2/22/2011
(4) If expressly stated, a proposition placed before the voters under subsection (1) or (2)
of this section may
(a) Use the dollar amount of a levy under subsection (1) of this section, or the dollar
amount of the final levy under subsection (2) of this section, for the purpose of computing the
limitations for subsequent levies provided for in this chapter
(b) Limit the period for which the increased levy is to be made under (a) of this subsection
(c) Limit the purpose for which the increased levy is to be made under (a) of this
subsection, but if the limited purpose includes making redemption payments on bonds, the
period for which the increased levies are made shall not exceed nine years;
(d) Set the levy or levies at a rate less than the maximum rate allowed for the district; or
(e) Include any combination of the conditions in this subsection,
(5) Except as otherwise expressly stated in an approved ballot measure under this
section, subsequent levies shall be computed as if
(a) The proposition under this section had not been approved: and
(b) The taxing district had made levies at the maximum rates which would otherwise have
been allowed under this chapter during the years levies were made under the proposition
12009 c 551 § 3: 2008 c 319 § 1, 2007 c 380 § 2, 2003 1st sp.s. c 24 § 4, 1989 c 287 § 1; 1986 c 189 § 1, 1979
s c 21.8 § 3: 1973 lstex.s c 195 § 109: 1971 exs, c 288 § 24.)
Notes:
Application — 2008 c 319: This act applies prospectively only to levy lid lift
ballot propositions under FRC1A/ 84,55.050 that receive voter approval on or after
April 1, 2008." [2008 c 319 § 2.)
Effective date — 2008 c 319: This act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state
government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [April
1, 2008] " (2008c 319 §8,1
Finding -- Intent -- Effective date — Severability -- 2003 1st so.s, c 24: See
notes following RCW 82.14A50.
Severability -- Effective dates and termination dates -- Construction --
1973 1st ex.s. c 195: See notes following RCW 52043
Savings Severability — 1971 ex.s, c 288: See notes following RCW
84.40.030.
84.55.060
Rate rules — Educational program — Other necessary action.
The department of revenue shall adopt rules relating to the calculation of tax rates and the
limitation in RCW 84.55,010, conduct an educational program on this subject, and take any
other action necessary to insure compliance with the statutes and rules on this subject.
11979 ex s c 218 § 6.)
httpliapps.leg.wa,govircwidefault,aspx?cite=84,558cfull—true 2/22/2011
84.55.070
inapplicability of chapter to levies for certain purposes.
The provisions of this chapter do not apply to a levy, including the state levy, or that portion
of a levy, made by or for a taxing district.
(1) For the purpose of funding a property tax refund paid under the provisions of chapter
84,68 ROW
,
(2) Under ROW 84 89 180, or
(3) Attributable to amounts of state taxes withheld under ROW 84 56.290 or the provisions
of chapter 84.09 ROW, or otherwise attributable to state taxes lawfully owing by reason of
adjustments made under ROW 84,48.080,
12000 c 350 9 11 ' 1 st ex‘s c 28 9 1081 c 228 § 3 1
Notes:
Application 2009 c 350 §§10 and 11: See note following RCW 84.69,180,
Severability -- 1982 1st ex.s. c 28: See note following ROW 84A8...080*
84.55.092
Protection of future levy capacity.
The regular property tax levy for each taxing district other than the state may be set at the
amount which would be allowed otherwise under this chapter if the regular property tax levy
for the district for taxes due in prior years beginning with 1986 had been set at the full
amount allowed under this chapter including any levy authorized under RCW 52.16.160 that
would have been imposed but for the limitation in ROW 52 18.065, applicable upon
imposition of the benefit charge under chapter 52,18 ROW.
The purpose of this section is to remove the incentive for a taxing district to maintain its
tax levy at the maximum level permitted under this chapter, and to protect the future levy
capacity of a taxing district that reduces its tax levy below the level that it otherwise could
impose under this chapter, by removing the adverse consequences to future levy capacities
resulting from such levy reductions
[1998c168 1985 c 274 § 4, 1986 c 107 § 3 I
Notes:
Reviser's note: Restored to the RCW September 20, 2001, under the
Washington Supreme Court decision in City of Syne') et a! v Frederick C Kige et
al 31 P.3d 659, 144 Wn.2d 819, which declared Initiative Measure No 722
(2001 c 2) unconstitutional in its entirety.
Purpose — Severability -- 1988 c 274: See notes following RCW 84.52.010
Severability -- Construction -- 1988 c 107: See notes following RCW
39,67,010.
84.55.100
Determination of limitations.
The property tax limitation contained in this chapter shall be determined by the county
assessors of the respective counties in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:
http-//apps,leg.wa.govircwidefault.aspx?cite=84,55&full 2/22/2011
PROVIDED, That the limitation for any state levy shall be determined by the department of
revenue and the limitation for any intercounty rural library district shall be determined by the
library district in consultation with the respective county assessors:
11983c223§1]
55.110
Withdrawal of certain areas of a library district metropolitan park
district, fire protection district, or public hospital district --
Calculation of taxes due
Whenever a withdrawal occurs under R W 27,12.355 35,6„,:____1,360, 52.04.056 or 70 44 „235,
restrictions under chapter 84.55 R W on the taxes due for the library district, metropolitan
park district, fire protection district, or public hospital district, and restrictions under chapter
84.55 RCW on the taxes due for the city or town if an entire city or town area is withdrawn
from a library district or fire protection district, shall be calculated as if the withdrawn area had
not been part of the library district, metropolitan park district, fire protection district, or public
hospital district, and as if the library district or fire protection district had not been part of the
city or town.
[1987c138 §61
84.55.121?
Publid hearing Taxing district's revenue sources - Adoption of
tax increase by or i nance or resolution.
A taxing district, other than the state, that collects regular levies shall hold a public hearing on
revenue sources for the district's following year's current expense budget. The hearing must
include consideration of possible increases in property tax revenues and shall be held prior to
the time the taxing district levies the taxes or makes the request to have the taxes levied. The
county legislative authority, or the taxing district's governing body if the district is a city, town,
or other type of district, shall hold the hearing. For purposes of this section, "current expense
budget” means that budget which is primarily funded by taxes and charges and reflects the
provision of ongoing services. It does not mean the capital, enterprise, or special assessment
budgets of cities, towns, counties, or special purpose districts:
If the taxing district is otherwise required to hold a public hearing on its proposed regular
tax levy a single public hearing may be held on this matter;
No increase in property tax revenue, other than that resulting from the addition of new
construction, increases in assessed value due to construction of electric generation wind
turbine facilities classified as personal property, and improvements to property and any
increase in the value of state - assessed property, may be authorized by a taxing district, other
than the state, except by adoption of a separate ordinance or resolution, pursuant to notice,
specifically authorizing the increase in terms of both dollars and percentage, The ordinance
or resolution may cover a period of up to t years, but the ordinance shall specifically state
for each year the dollar increase and percentage change in the levy from the previous year:.
[2006 c 184 t 6, 1997 c 3 § 209 (Referendum Bill Na 47 approved November 4, 1997), 1995 c 251 § 1 ?]
Notes:
Severablity -- Part headings not law — Referral to electorate -- 1997 c 3:
See notes following ROW 84,40.03Q,
2/22/2011
http:// apps. 1egma,,govircwidefau1t, =84 &ful1=
8455,
Limitation adjustment for certain leasehold interests.
For taxes levied for collection in 2002, the limitation set forth in RCW 84.55.010 for a taxing
district shall be increased by an amount equal to the aggregate assessed valuation of
leasehold interests subject to tax by the district under RCW 840.41Q, multiplied by the
regular property tax levy rate of that district for the preceding year
12001 c 26 § 4.1
http' / /apps,leg,wa ovlrcwldefault,aspx?cite=84,55 &full -true 2/22/20 I
Appendix B
Yakirria/Uniori Gap/Disthict 10/District 11 J Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report 42
Cit of Union Gap
City of Yakima
$178 ill • $974,025
(8 Administrative FTE's)
(2 Administrative FTE's)
•
Chief
Chief
Deputy Chief Administrative Deputy Chief
I t Operations Assistant Support
1
6aptains (3) I
Secretary Public
Firefighters (6) Battalion Chiefs Education EMS /Training
Secretary Captain Mechanic
(3) O
•
Captains (6)
Lieutenants (12)
Firefighters (57)
Current Departments
Combined
$1,152,169 w
(10 Administrative FTE's)
Chief Chief
I I
Deputy Chief I Deputy Chief
Operations Support
Administrative
Assistant
Battalion Chiefs
Mechanic
(3) Public Education EMS /Training
Secretary Officer Captain
(
Captains (6)
Lieutenants (15)
Firefighters (63)
RFA Administration
$1,079,843
1 .0) (9 Administrative FTE's)
$72,326
Board of Directors
Chief
■
Deputy Chief Deputy Chief
Operations Administrative Services Support
Specialist
I �
i, Battalion Chiefs
Mechanic
( Administrative
Assistant
Public Education Officer EMS /Training Captain
Captains (6)
Lieutenants (15)
Firefighters (63)
Secretary
RFA Administration
` $1,087,517
(10 Administrative FTE's)
Board of Directors (- $7674)
Chief
I �
Deputy Chief AdTistrative FYChieOperations vices port
Sr visor
Battalion Chiefs Administrative Mechanic
(3) Assistant
� I i
Public Education EMS /Training
Secretary Captain
Captains (6) Officer Mechanic
Lieutenants (15) Assistant
Firefighters (63)
RFA Administration
` $1,206,479
(11. Administrative FTE's)
(- $126,636)
Board of Directors
Chief
I I I I
Deputy Chief Administrative Deputy Chief
Operations I Services Support
Specialist
I I I
I I I I
Battalion Chiefs Administrative Mechanic
Public Education EMS /Training
(3) Assistant
() Officer Captain
_
I I
OrMIIE -1 _IIL,
Captains (6) Mechanic
Secretary
il L Lieutenants (15) Training LT Assistant
Firefighters (63)
RFA Administration
(1.3)
$1,206,479
(14 Administrative FTE's)
Board of Directors
1 ( $126,636)
Chief
I I I
I
Deputy Chief Administrative Deputy Chief R
Operations Services Support Generating-
Specialist , Self- sustaining
I
r I 1---
- -
1 I
Battalion Chiefs Public Education E /Training Fire Marshal
(3) Administrative Officer Captain Mechani
Assistant
1 Deputy
I I Secretary
Captains (6) I Fire Marshal
Lieutenants (15) Training LT Mechanic
Firefighters (63) Assistant
i
Secretary
Fire Chief
• Chief Financial Officer - Ensure the financial soundness and
intregrity of the RFA to ensure its capability to meet
commitments and continue to provide high quality service.
• Ensures long -range economic and financial planning;
Develops goals and objectives.
• Develops and plans department budget; recommends to
governing board.
• Establishes department policies and procedures
• Perfoms department service effectivness analysis
• Renders opinions, suggestions to governing board as
required
Deputy Fire Chief
Operations
• Emergency Operations
• Day to day personnel operations
• Haz- Mat /Tech Rescue teams
• Disaster Planning & Mitigation
• EMS
• Apparatus placement and manning
• Volunteer program
• Operations budget management
• Thorough knowledge of Department rules and regulations,
firefighting methods, equipment, laws and ordinances pertaining
to firefighting and fire prevention.
Deputy Fire Chief
Support
• Training Division
• Strategic Planning
• Facilities & Equipment
• Apparatus Maintenance
• Labor negotiations
• Safety
• Investigations
• HB 1756
• WSRB Coordinator
• Annual Reporting
• Support budget management
• Grant administrator
• Thorough knowledge of Department rules and regulations, firefighting methods,
equipment, laws and ordinances pertaining to firefighting and fire prevention.
Administrative Services Specialist
• Administer Human Resource Management Programs, develop policies,
procedures, programs, etc.
• Civil Service - Develop and administer recruitment & selection process
• Compensation and benefit administration
• Manage medical benefits program
• Employee orientations, performance evaluations, etc.
• Participates in labor negotiations
• Workers Compensation (L &I)
• Payroll Officer - Manage payroll, earned leave benefits, timekeeping, employee
benefits, unemployment insurance, personnel recordkeeping
• Ensure compliance with State and Federal Labor laws, FMLA, OHSA reporting.
• Maintain confidential employee personnel /medical files
• Assists with employee discipline, investigations, hearings, etc.
Administrative Assistant
• Secretary to the Board of Governance - attends meetings and
records minutes
• Public Disclosure Request Coordinator - establish and maintain
procedures for systematic retention, protection, retrieval, transfer
and disposal of inter- related records, files and information
• Assists the Chief in the coordination, development and monitoring
of the budget; Manages department accounts payables &
receivables. Preparation of expenditure and revenue narratives,
composition of justifications, budget analysis, summaries, capital
improvement programs, account balances and related budget
documents.
• Keeps department website current and uploads pertinant
information
• Provides administrative support to Chief & DC's
Secretary
• Answer telephones; respond to routine citizen inquiries or
complaints; provide information or services to callers and
visitors; and take messages or refer callers and visitors to
appropriate personnel or divisions.
• Assists with Public Records Requests and retention logs,
etc.
• Maintains department files, training files, etc.
• Provide administrative support for administrative staff
• Coordinate Department Correspondence, etc.
• Maintain department calendars
• Make travel arrangments and provide other administrative
services
Appendix
Yakima /Union Gap /District 10 /District 11 I Regional Fire Authority Feasibility Report
SCOPE OF WORK
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY FEASIBILITY STUDY
Yakima, Union Gap, Yak. Co. Dist 11, 10
Project Objective:
Provide a document of financial information that will assist the Stakeholder Study Group in making an
informed decision on the feasibility of forming a multi jurisdictional Regional Fire Authority. The
financial document will ultimately be included in a comprehensive report of recommendation to the RFA
Planning Committee.
Project Scope:
The scope of this financial study will cover the following areas:
O Determine complete combined current operating budget expenditures and revenues of all four
jurisdictions including all monetary obligations, and ongoing regular debts and expenditures.
• Estimate the annual cost of providing near similar services to the combined region of all four
jurisdictions including and estimated cost of living increase and equipment and facilities
maintenance and replacement, fuel cost increases and other soft cost issues, Near similar
services include same or better response times and same type services.
• Determine financial impacts to all jurisdictions governmental budgets involved in the RFA. This
would include property tax limitations or reductions due to the formation of the junior taxing
district etc,
• Determine tax and/or other fees needed to sustain the RFA budget,
The finished document will be in a format that is easily understood by citizens, business owners,
and other members of the study group. A digital copy will be provided so the Planning
Committee can publish multiple copies and include the study in the recommendation document
to elected officials.
Project parameters:
The financial analysis should be completed in less than 3 months. A better timeframe would be 2
months if at all possible. The emphasis will be on a more complete and accurate product rather than a
speedily done study. These time frames may or may not be realistic and could be adjusted with
justification. The study group understands that you will not be able to provide a solid cost estimate nor
a definite time frame at the time of your presentation. In order to make our decision, we will have to
have these two items addressed within a two week period after presentations.
Page 1 of 1
ANIN
Emergency a ffi ces Consulting
. .� ..**** 1'SC) AtfnV3At to 9 300 732 72721
August 15, 2011
David A. Willson
Fire Chief
Yakima Fire Department
401 North Front Street
Yakima, WA 98901
RE RFA Fiscal Analysis Scope of Work and Pricing Proposal
Chief Wilson:
Thank you for your interest in Emergency Services Consulting International as
a potential resource as you evaluate the viability of an RFA, with ESCI
undertaking a specific focus on Fiscal Analysis,
Both Don Bivins and l enjoyed meeting you last Thursday and appreciated the
attention of your Regional Fire Authority Study Group. We felt the questions
asked by the group were insightful, and we were happy to share our
perspectives on the important issues surrounding your initiative.
I have attached a Scope of Work detailing the Fiscal Analysis deliverable ESCI
proposes to provide to the study agencies. We have assigned a very capable
team to your project: Don E3iviris as Project Manager, Don Stewart analyzing
financial alternatives and, as an option, Steve Streissguth performing a Capital
Assets Review (Optional Task 3-A-1).
We propose to perform this work for $22,374, including the optional Capital
Assets Review, If you choose to remove this task from the scope and would
like us to, instead, analyze your current capital improvement plans, this would
reduce our proposed price to $19,544.
I am pleased to discuss scope particulars with you further after you have had a
chance to review the suggested level of effort. if you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me directly at 500- 757 -3724, Again, thank you for
CarpGr6lt the opportunity.
25200 PA' Parkway Avenue.:.
Wrlxan'nkle, 411 974772 Sincerely,
Vass:' 543.576.7x78
Fax; 50142 [r522.
Eastern Sex
249 Normandy Saab ;l
Mnartsriite, NC 78117 .q +.
Voce: 744 660.302A
Fax 704 159 5916
Naldonwl cap4mk :.
4425 Nor 22 t4rtY8 Martin E. Goughnour
?2433
vaiat 703 2730911. Senior Vice President
Fax 703 275 9363 .':
-Ac Emergency Ser ces Consulting
44 t4S eSt In10.0eXt u 500 757 3724
Attachment A
Scope of Work
Regional Fire Authority Fiscal Analysis Study
ESCI proposes the following scope of work to assist the fire agencies of the cities of Yakima and Union
Gap and Yakima County fire protection districts #10 and #11 that are currently investigating mutual
benefits and the feasibility of the formation of a Regional Fire Authority (RFA). The goal of this work will
be to evaluate the viability of an RFA, with a specific focus on Fiscal Analysis. ESCI and its consultants
have extensive experience with the provision of fire and emergency services under a variety of
governance models, including the financial components of those various governance models. The ESCI
project team understands governance and service models that include municipal, fire district, fire
authority (joint powers authority), cooperative, contracting, agency formation, RFA, merger, and
consolidation_
Phase I: Project Initiation
Task 10A Project Initiation & Development of Work Plan
ESCI Team Members on Bivins, Don Stewart
Anticipated Project Hours 4 hours
ESC i will meet with and the converse with representatives of the four agencies, or their project liaisons,
and the study group membership to gain a comprehensive understanding of the current status of the
process_ ESCI's project manager will develop and refine a proposed work plan that will guide ESCIls
project team. This work plan will be developed identifying:
O Primary tasks to be performed
• Person(s) responsible for each task
• Time table for each objective to be completed
• Method of evaluating results
O Resources to be utilized
• Possible obstacles or problem areas associated with the accomplishment of each task
This meeting will also help to establish working relationships, make logistical arrangements, determine
an appropriate line of communications, and finalize contractual arrangements,
Task 108 Acquisition & Review of Background Information
Task 1-C Stakeholder Input/Primary Fieldwork
ESCI Team Members Don Bivins, Don Stewart
Anticipated Project Hours 42 hours
Prior to arrival on-site and before meeting with the study group. ESCI will request pertinent information
and data from the agencies' assigned project managers. This data will be used extensively in the
financial analysis and development of the report document.
ESCI will conduct interviews as determined by the agency representatives to review and capture
background data. These interviews may include
* Fire department managers and other key staff
* Finance function managers
• Human resource function coordinators
• Others as they may contribute to this project
Outcome: Gain an understanding of the financial process of each fire agency and acquisition of
background financial material for the development of a fiscal analysis.
Phase II: Baseline Evaluation
The initial phase of the study will focus on a baseline assessment of the current financial condition of the
participating agencies. ESCI will conduct a financial review of the fire departments and fire protection
districts based on the elements included in the follow rig tasks. The purpose is to develop a baseline
financial statement and method to evaluate the financial viability of an RFA.
Task 2-A Organization Overview
ISO Team Members Don Bivins, Don Stewart
Anticipated Project Hours 24 hours
Task 2-A: Organizational Overview
ESCI will create a general financial statement of the four fire agencies. included in the financial report is
an overview of each agency. This section will include:
* Service area population and demographics
• Brief history, formation, and general description of each agency
• Governance, oversight, and lines of authority
• Operating budget, funding, fees, taxation, and financial resources
Phase III: Financial Viability of a Regional Fire Authority
ESCI will use the completed baseline assessment to identify the fiscal ramifications of forming a Regional
Fire Authority specific to each participating agency. Items in this section of the report include, but are
not limited to, the areas listed below. The detailed information provides the study group and elected
officials with the information necessary to make important decisions regarding the financial component
of a Regional Fire Authority.
Task 3-A Capital Assets and Capital Improvement Programs
Task 3-8 Fiscal Analysis
ESCI Team Members Don Bivins, Don Stewart
Anticipated Project Hours 36 hours
Task 3-A: Capital Assets and Capital Improvement Programs
Esc!. will review current capital improvements plans and create a forecast for capital facilities and
apparatus replacement.
Task 3 -A -1 Review Capital Assets
ESCI Team Members Steve Streissguth
Anticipated Project Hours 24 hours
Task 3-4-.1: Review Capital Assets (Optional)
ESCI will review status of current major capital assets (facilities and apparatus) and analyze needs
relative to the existing condition of those assets and their viability for continued use in future service
delivery, including:
Facilities — Tour and make observations in areas related to fire station efficiency and functionality.
Items to be contained in the report include:
* Design 6 Code compliance
* Construction * Staff facilities
• Safety * Efficiency
Environmental issues * Future viability
Apparatus j Vehicles — Review and make observations regarding inventory of apparatus and equipment.
Items to be reviewed include:
• Age, condition, and serviceability
* Distribution and deployment
* Maintenance
• Regulations compliance
* Future needs
Task 3EB: Fiscal Analysis
ESCI uses computer- driven model budgets of each agency to allow a comparative examination of the actual
public costs and as a tool for analyzing the financial effects of a Regional Fire Authority. Current funding
mechanisms are identified and comprehensive financial outcomes are provided. ESCI will:
* Review and analyze each agency's combined current operating revenues and expenditures
• Including all monetary obligations, regular debts, and other obligations
* Analyze and estimate the annual cost of near similar, services to the region
* Analyze financial impacts to all jurisdictions involved in the FIFA
* Analyze and forecast tax and /or fees required for sustainability
® Including the evaluation of property tax limitations or reductions due to the formation
the junior taxing district
* Review and analyze legacy debt (seismic retrofit construction, workers' compensation, capital,
delayed facility upgrades, etc.)
* Develop projected consolidated budget of an RFA extending to a minimum of five years
6 Financial projection will include a provision for estimating the impact of inflation
• Identify financial issues of RFA formation
* Identify areas of short and long -term cost avoidance and costs
Phase IV: Development, Review, and Delivery of Project Report
ESCI will assemble the overview
Task 4-A Development and Review of Draft Project Report
Task 4-B Delivery and Presentation of Final Project Report
ESC! Team Members Don Rivins, Don Stewart
Anticipated Project Hours 32 hours
Task 4-44: Development and Review of Draft Project Report
ESCI will develop and produce two copies and an electronic version of the draft written report for review
by the study group. Client feedback is a critical part of this project and adequate opportunity will be
provided for review and discussion of the draft report prior to finalization. The report will include;
• Detailed narrative analysis of each report component structured in easy-to-read sections and
accompanied by explanatory support to encourage understanding by both the study group
membership and civilian readers
e Clearly designated recommendation(s) highlighted for easy reference and catalogued as
necessary in a report appendix
• Supportive charts, graphs, and diagrams, where appropriate;
Task 4-8: Delivery and Presentation of Final Project Report
ESCI will complete any necessary revisions of the draft and produce ten copies of the final written
report, along with an electronic version in pdf file format, A formal presentation of the project report
will be made by ESCI project team member(s) to the study group. The presentation will include the
following:
• A summary of the nature of the report, the methods of analysis, the primary findings, and
critical recommendations
e Supportive audio-visual presentation
' Review and explanation of primary supportive charts, graphs, and diagrams where appropriate
• Opportunity for questions and answers, as needed
* All presentation materials, files, graphics, and written material will be provided to the client at
the conclusion of the presentation(s)
. Blaine / Lynden
• Bothell, City of
. Bremerton
• Camas, City of Fire Department
• Central Kitsap Fire /Rescue
• Chelan Fire District #1
• Clark County Fire District No 11
County Fire District No 12
• Douglas County Fire District No. 2
• Enumclaw, City of
• Island County Fire District No. 3 EMS
• Kent Fire Department 1 KingCounty
b King County Fire District No. 13
King County Fire Department No 38
• Lopez Island
• Mason County Fire District No 2
• McNeil Island Correctional Facility Fire Department
• Montesano, City of
• !I kited, City of
• Olympia, City of Fleet Maintenance Evaluation
• Orcas Island
• Pierce County No.
a Pierce County Fire District No, 23
• Prosser, City of & Benton County FD No, 3
• Poulsbo, City of
• Poulsbo Fire Department
• Juan County Fire District No, 2
• Juan County ty Fire District No 4
• SeaTac, City of
• Sedro - Wooley, City of
• Skagit County EMS
• Snohomish County Fire Department No. 8
• South Kitsap Fire/ Rescue
" Spokane County Fire District No. 13
• Tukwila, City of
• Woodinville Fire and Life
" Woodland, City of
EXECUTIVE E SEARCH/ASSESSMENT CENTER
" Bellevue Fire Department
• Benton County Fire District No, 4
• Chelan County Fire District No. 7
• Clark County Fire District No, I
• Clark County Fire District No.
▪ Clark County Fire District No.
• Grays Harbor No. 5
▪ Island County Fire District No. 3
• Jefferson County Fire Department No 3
• King County Fire District istrict No. 13
htt.p:/lesci „us/7page id=36 "' 7/6/2011
- King County Fire Protection District No 26
- Kirkland Fire Department
• Kitsap County Fire District No, 1
• Montesano, City of Fire Department
- Pacific County Fire District No, 1
• Pierce County Fire District No 21
• Poulsbo, City of Fire Department
• Pullman, City of
• Richland, City of
- Richland, City of Fire Department
• Shoreline Fire Department
▪ Snohomish County Fire District No, I
• Snohomish County Fire District No 8
- Spokane County Fire District No 4
• Spokane County Fire District No 8
• Spokane Valley Fire Department Na, 1
• Walla Walla County Fire Department No 5
• Whatcom County Fire District No, 5
• Woodinville, City of Fire and Life
• Yakima County Fire District No, 4
FEASIBILITY STUDY
• Anacortes/Skagit County Fire Districts 11 & 13
• Blaine / Lynden
- Bothell, City of
• Central Kitsap/South Kitsap/Brernenon
• Chehalis and Centralia — Fire and Police
• Clark County Fire District No SNancouver
• Clark County Fire District No. 11 & 12
• Denton County No, 3, City of Prosser
• Eastside Fire and Rescue
• Enumclaw/King County Fire District No, 28
• Kent, City of/King County FD No. 40
• Longview, City of/Cowlitz County Fire & Rescue
• SeaTacfTukwila
• Thurston County No. 9
▪ Yakima, City of/West Valley Fire District No, 12
HEALTH AND SAFETY AUDIT
• Kirkland Fire Department
MASTER PLAN
• Chelan County Fire District No. I
• Clark County Fire District No. 6
• Douglas County Fire District No 2
MISCELLANEOUS CONSULTING SERVICES
• Clark County Fire District No. 1
http://esci ,usi?page_id=36 7/6/2011
• Clark County Fire District No, 6
• Clark County Fire District No.
Cowlitz County Fire District No 2
• Monroe-Snohomish
a Richland Fire Department !!
• Snohomish County No, 8
• Spokane County Fire District No, 8
w Vancouver Fire Department
• Whatcom County
• Wliatcorn County Fire & Rescue
PRE4S0
a Pierce County Fire District No 21
TAN ' IS OF COVER
• Spokane, City of
STATION LOCATION/DEPLOYMENT ANALYSIS
• Auburn, City of
• Maple Valley, City of
• Richland, City of
• Yakima, City of
STRATEGIC PEAT;
• Anacortes
• Benton County FPD No 4
• Clallam County Fire District No, '3
• Clark County Fire District No.
• Clark County Fire District No 11
▪ Chelan Fire District No 1
• Cowlitz County Fire District No 2
▪ Kent Fire Department / King County
• King County Fire District No, 13
• King County Fire Protection District No. 16
• King County Fire District No. 39
• Mason County Fire District No 2
• Mason County Fire District No.
• Montesano, City of
• Pierce County Fire District No 8
• Pierce County Fire District No. 21''
• Pierce County Fire District No 23
▪ Poulsbo Fire Department
• Richland, City of
• San Juan County Fire District N. 2
Q San Juan County Fire District No. 4
• Sedro- Woolley Fire Department
• Snohomish County Fire Department No 1
• Snohomish County Fire Department No. 7
http: / /esci.us / ?page_id=36 7/6/2011
. Snohomish County Fire Department No, 8
t Spokane County Fire District No,
• Thurston County No,
• Washintontate Firefighters Association
\Vhatcom County Fire District No. 4
• Woodland, City of
Testimonials
"The time and effort ESCI has spent working with the OCFA and its staff in conducting an
organizational review, facilitating our strategic planning processes, developing a deployment plan,
and SOC document have set the stage for some amazing things to happen within the Authority.
ECI's ability to understand the hugely complex nature of our service area, and what it takes to
"cover the dirt" was critical. The same complexities, although ambiguous at times, exist within our
political environment, with our cities, labor groups, ; and other internal and external stakeholders, The
end results were collaborative processes that worked and will make a difference within the Orange
County Fire Authority_"
Chip Prather, Fire Chief (Retired)
Orange County, CA
"After three attempts to recruit a Fire Chief for McKenzie Fire & Rescue, I ask the Board of Directors
to hire a professional company to do the hiring process, I' was relieved when ESCI was awarded the
contract because of their past performance and high quality of people working for them. I would like
to report that I was impressed with your perso el and they exceeded my expectations,
The chief that we hired at your recommendation was, a very "Good Fit" for our combination
department and is working out very well. All phases of the process; recruitment, selection, testing and
background checks were handled by your personnel in a confidential and very professional manner. I
would highly recommend ESCI and would like to especially thank Jerry Freshour and Bill Linhart for
the high quality professional job that they did for McKenzie Fire & Rescue. "'
Dana Burwell -- Interim Chief ' .:..
McKenzie Fire & Rescue
Dana Burwell — Battalion Chief
Springfield Fire and Life Safety
°ECI's capacity to respond to these complex and often competing issues, have not been matched
anywhere. We are pleased to have had the opportunity to work with your exceptional organization,
and are very satisfied with the results."
Richard Gist, Principal Assistant to the Director
Kansas City, MO
"ESCI conducted a thorough review of our organization. The team was most professional in
responding to the various needs of the city. The assessment has been well received by the elected
officials, management, employees, and the public.
http: / /esci,usl?page id =36 7/6/2011
Mary Ann Hinshaw, Deputy City Manager
City of Wilmington, NC
"I found working with the team from "'ESCI to be a very rewarding and positive experience, The
Master Plan final report and presentation were professional, easy to follow, and extremely thorough, I
would highly recommend ESCL "
Bill Mund, Chief
St Cloud Fire Department, MN ''
"ESCI's consultants represented the highest level of professional services and, although by its nature
a complex study, your report was capably presented and well understood by the Town Council. In
nearly 40 years of local government experience I have rarely worked with consulting firms who
meshed so well with Town staff and worked with them side by side."
Thomas M Illartinsen, Town Manager
Town of Paradise Valley, AZ
"ESCI made a very complex and comprehensive planning process enjoyable and rewarding. The end
product was a strategic plan which our department uses on a daily basis and it shows our community
we have a plan for their future safety,'
Gary Faucett , Fire Chief
Lake Stevens Fire Department, WA
"SCI produced a quality product and was able to present it in a polished and professional manner. "
Allen Blocker, Operations Chief
Clay County, FL
"Fire District ##I, now part of the East County .Fire & Rescue, utilized the services of ESCI three years
ago when seeking candidates for our Fire Chief's position.,
All aspects = of the search including the advertising, analysis of applications, comprehensive
assessment of candidates and the selection of finalist were very professional. The result was the hiring
of an exceptional Fire Chief.
"At this time the only executive search group our fire district would consider using is ESCI. "`
George iloober, Commissioner
Clark County, WA
#I wanted to get back to you concerning the team of professionals utilized by ESCI in the completion
of the Westminster Fire Department Master Plan. The document looks great and the presentation by
ESCI team before the City Council went very well. It was a pleasure working with ESCI 'team
members who demonstrated their expertise throughout the project. I will certainly refer your firm to
other fire departments.'`'
Jim Cloud, Fire Chief
Westminster, CO
http : / /esci,us / 7/6/2011
RATING SHEET
ESCI
1= POOR 10 EXCELLENT
Experience in this type of project?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Knowledge of subject? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 '-
Resources to perform study?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -8 9 10
Perception of quality of work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Examples of work)
Perception of professionalism ?' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9 10
Did presentation cover all matter in REP? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cost? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(1 =unreasonable 2= reasonable)
instr ctitoils: Rate on a scale of 1— 10.
1 Poor 10 = Excellent
If you don't have a rating in an area - give it a 5 which is considered neutral
(Example: If no cost estimate is given at this time, rate it a
Prot)osal to Conduct a Financial Analysis
for the Regional Fire Authority
Yakima, Union Gap, Fire Districts #10, 11,
Washington
matrix
„„„s ui rig group
August, 2011
consulting Introduction to the
Matrix Consulting Group
Members of the team have provided management
r more than
30 years.
• We are a public safety specialty firm with experience
working over 250 fire departments.
experience • Our fire service
analysis and resource studies as well as the
reorganization i feasibility.
* We are Flad in California but have a Regional Office
in nearby Spokane.
matrix
Goilll °ITI out`.
National Fire and EMS Studies
• The project team has conducted feasibility, management studies,
master plans and other fire studies for over 250 agencies.
• The experience cited is that of the firm the project team who
would work with the FZFA Study Group.
• Selected recent national clients that include many alternative service
delivery studies are;°
Albemarle county, Virginia Peoria, Illinois
Bellingham, Washington Pinellas County, Florida
Cleveland Suburban,
Ohio Pinellas Suncoast, Florida
Dubuque, Iowa Reno Nevada
Glenview, Illinois Seminole County, Florida
No alk, Connecticut est Metro Des Moines, Iowa
matr
;c ;n a� I it gr ()tip
Our Team's Experience
• Richard Brady - Project Manager President of the
Matrix Consulting Group; over 30 years experience,
including anaIsis of reorganization feasi ilit in scores of fire
studies.
• Greg Mathews - Project Analyst; Vice President with the
Matrix Consulting Group; over 20 years of public safety
experience prior Deputy i r. ct r cf it for the City of
Los Angeles.
• We are public safety professionals with significant backgrounds
in financial analysis, NOT financial consultants with a basic
understanding of public safety.
matrix
group
The RFA Study Group's Objectives
use a professional consultant to conduct Phase ill— Financial
Analysis— of the Feasibility
• To determine existing "loaded" annual costs of the four
independent fire operations.
• To estimate nu i costs of a "near similar" Regional Fire
Authority.
identify the fiscal impacts to t. he exis i ng jurisdictions' budget
• To determine taxes and/or fees to sustain the RFA budget.
matrix
cons[iitirici group
(Inoiti Hui itstio:1
. suoReJedo Ailiped 4-
*fend pue leau
. leuuosied
poddns pue ewd J oj sisoo 5ugels papeoi-Atind 4-
pal!tu!1 : nq
apnpu! sJaApp 1903 POOJ pue teuoneJedo AJewpd •
.popunol ale sanuaAal kiesseoeu pue
sisoo qo!qm uodn sieleweded leuollededo auk SB pooh
se Aluo Si Aprils Allucpseal ejo sisAleue lepueir4 aqi •
S!SA1BUV leloueulA
OA!430113 Ue 101 uo!lepunoA eql
Staffing Questions to Ensure
Financial Analysis Integrity
How will RFA staff be compensated? At what salary
and benefit level compared to existing agencies?
How will support staff be employed, through contract
services or in-house personnel? This includes
payroll, resources, i technology,
fleet maintenance * How rnany staff do you intend to deploy in the new
services, legal, etc.
RFA: down-sizing up-
sizing provide "near similar" services?
...and many other questions.
matrix
c. 1J1tC C chi € i
Fleet - related Questions to Ensure
Financial Analysis Integrity
0 Will you downsize the existing fleet due to redundant
apparatus?
• Will you respond with different types of apparatus
than present upon consolidation of agencies?
• Will you fund a (best-practice) fleet replacement fund
to ensure timely change -out of aged equipment.
• Where and how will you fuel?
• ....and many other questions.
matrx
r.onsu'linq groin;
facility Facility based Questions to Ensure
Financial Analysis Integri.ty
• vvill you close any fire stations or intend to add new
stations in the near future?
• Will you fund a (best-practice)
slide, and Capital Improvement sinking fund?
As shown by these the sophistication
principles accuracy of the financial analysis is based the RFA
operational
simple, we can do complex, or somewhere in-
between.
matrix
,onsinting group
Why Select the
Matrix Consultin g Group?
• Extensive experience with fire service issues from an analytical
perspective :hroughout the na:ion.
• We pride ourselves on independence and objectivity.
• We use seasoned and senior public safety analysts on our team that
has worked together on numerous similar public safety projects.
• A detailed analytical approach giving the Study Group supportable
financial information to continue the feasibility study.
• Washington-based office (we are just down the road— almost).
• Estimated cost: $18,000 - S21,000 in staff time and travel-related.
Approximately 9-12 week delivery of report.
matrix
t:tin:A Wig gl Oil!)
Illustrative Reference (2011 study)
Mr. Frederick Stouder
City Manager
City of Kenmore, WA
425
Recently completed law enforcement study
evaluating present King County Sheriff Contract and
optional methods/costs for alternative police service
delivery.
matrix
nq gnotw
RATING SHEET
MATRIX
1= POOR 10 = EXCELLENT
Experience in this type of project?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Knowledge of subject? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C3
Resources to perform study?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 '_ 10
Perception of quality of work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Examples of work)
Perception of professionalism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Did presentation cover all matter in REP
1 2 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cost? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(1 =unreasonable 2= reasonable
Instructions : fiat on a scale of � .
1'= Poor 1.0= Excellent
if you don't have a rating in an area — give it a Which is considered neu ; I.
(Example: if no cost estimate is given at this time, rate it a 5)
- )7,
)
FTtierE' ay, c82'-'.
August 9, 2 011
David Willson, Acting Fire Chief SENT VIA E IL AND U.S. IL
City of Yakima
401 North Front Street
Yakima, Washington 98901
Dear Chief Willson:
This letter is confirming our telephone conversation yesterday.
Fire Service Consulting, Inc. (FSC) will not be responding to your recent Request for
Proposals (RFP).
The present workload of the personnel that would be working on this project is very high,. 1
n not comfortable that we can dedicate the on-site time necessary to provide a quality
.oduct you deserve.
The partners of FSC have over sixty (60) years of experience in developing and implementing
fire service mergers, consolidations, inter-local agreements, fire authorities and fire benefit
charges in the State of Washington.
We would consider it an honor if in the future when you have need for experienced.
independent fire service management experts that you would again consider us.
Thankirig you in advance,
David L. Crossett,
Ckcra..imat
(206)930-9169 t‘tit, (253)988-5255
fire301(aaol.cotri sniarstrom@earthlink.net