HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/2022 10. Fire Department Cost Recovery Fees Y�'1114'+
`c,...41
4)?
CL3LOril
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 10.
For Meeting of: June 7, 2022
ITEM TITLE: Fire Department Cost Recovery Fees
SUBMITTED BY: Aaron Markham, Fire Chief
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Chief Markham will provide a verbal follow-up report regarding cost recovery fees in the Fire
Department.
ITEM BUDGETED:
STRATEGIC PRIORITY:
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY THE CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type
0 Memo 5/19/2022 Corer Memo
2
YAKIMA FIRE DEPARTMENT Administration
pu �y� 401 Northma Front Street Fire Suppression
� ri Yaki , Washington 98901 Fire Investigation
r - Phone(509)575-6060 Fire Training
FARE DI$ Fax(509)576-6356 Fire Prevention
www.yakimafire.com Special Operations
MEMORANDUM
May 19, 2022
To: Bob Harrison
City Manager
From: Aaron Markham
Fire Chief
Re: Cost Recovery Follow-up
Mr. Harrison,
This memorandum is a follow-up report on the cost recovery item that was proposed to City Council during a study session
in late December of 2021. At that time council requested staff bring back more information in May of 2022, as to the
feasibility of such a program for the fire department. Ryan Bleek from the legal department was assigned to assist with a
potential ordinance change that would be required to implement such a program. During his research of cost recovery
code provisions and policies from other jurisdictions in Washington State, he wasn't able to find any that sought recovery
for incidents that were not explicitly identified as eligible for cost recovery by statute, except for the one Riverside Fire
Authority resolution that was provided by EF Recovery (EFR). He researched the relevant case law and the RCWs that EFR
claims support their broad interpretation of cost recovery authority and came up with the following findings:
A city may not impose taxes or fees unless granted explicit or implicit authority by statute or the
Washington Constitution, and if there is doubt as to whether such authority exists, then it must be
assumed that it does not.Arborwood Idaho,L.L.C. v. City of Kennewick, 151 Wn. 2d 359, 374,89 P.3d 217,
225 (2004). A city may,when granted the authority, impose nontax "regulatory fees." Id. at 552 (internal
quotations omitted). The distinction between a tax and a regulatory fee is an important one, because
otherwise a city could avoid "constitutional limitations on taxes by simply charging its citizens a 'fire
department fee'or a 'police fee.'Id.
The legislature has authorized cities to impose cost recovery fees for "extraordinary costs incurred . . . in
the course of protecting the public from actual or threatened harm resulting from the hazardous materials
incident," and "the actual costs associated with the cleanup or removal of hazardous waste and other
hazardous materials, including debris or vehicle operating fluids, when responding to a vehicle accident
on private or public property, including public roadways." RCW 4.24.314; RCW 35.103.060.
By enumerating the specific instances where a city has the authority to charge regulatory fees for the protection from,
and the cleanup and removal of, hazardous waste and other hazardous materials, the City's ability to collect regulatory
fees is likely limited to these narrow instances. If the legislature intended for a city's general police power under the
Constitution to include broad authority to charge for fire department regulatory fees, then it would not have been
necessary for the legislature to enumerate the above regulatory fees.
We will provide all-risk emergency and non-emergency services to our community
We are committed to serving with courage and compassion as stewards of public trust
We shall leave a positive and genuine impact on all who call upon us
3
It is our opinion that implementation of a cost recovery fee schedule outside of the specific parameters of a true hazardous
material response incident is not supported by the Revised Code of Washington. The question then becomes whether or
not it is worth the administrative time and effort to collect fees in such instances. The fire department is already a part of
the South East Washington Special Operations Group (formally known as the Tri-County Hazardous Materials Response
Group) that has a mechanism in place to reimburse departments involved in a significant hazardous material response
should one occur within the jurisdictional boundaries of the team. For that reason,any benefit derived from cost recovery
efforts would likely not be worth the required administrative time.