2019 0910 Council Agenda Packet Moses Lake City Council
Karen Liebrecht, Mayor | David Curnel, Deputy Mayor | Mike Riggs, Council Member | Don Myers, Council Member
Daryl Jackson, Council Member | Ryann Leonard, Council Member| Dean Hankins, Council Member
Moses Lake Civic Center – 401 S. Balsam
Study Session
September 10, 2019, 6 PM
Study Session – 6 p.m.
Comprehensive Plan Update
Presented by Kris Robbins, Community Development Director
The purpose of the study session is to allow the City Council to discuss matters informally and in greater detail than permitted at formal
Council meetings. While all meetings of the Council are open to the public, study session discussions are generally limited to the
Council, staff, and consultants.
Regular Meeting Agenda
September 10, 2019, 7 PM
Call to Order – 7 p.m.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Summary Reports:
Mayor’s Report
- Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Appointment Motion
Additional Business
City Manager’s Report
Citizen’s Communications – Identification
Citizens who would like to address the Council must complete one of the blue speaker request cards and submit it to the
City Clerk. There is a (5) minute time limit per speaker.
Presentation
Grant County Conservation District
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 1 of 98
September 10, 2019, City Council Meeting – Page 2
Consent Agenda Motion
All items listed below are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a Council Member requests specific items to be removed from the Consent Agenda for
discussion prior to the time Council votes on the motion to adopt the Consent Agenda.
#1 pg 3
a.City Council Meeting Minutes dated August 27, 2019
b.Bills and Checks
c.Accept Civic Center Glazing Project
Old Business
#2 pg 33
Voucher Audit Process MLMC 3.40.030 Ordinance 2931 - Second Presentation Motion
Presented by Cindy Jensen, Finance Director
Summary: Council to review and consider adoption
New Business
#3 pg 39
Fire Impact Fee Rate Study Ordinance – First Presentation
Presented by Kris Robbins, Community Development Director
Summary: Council to review and provide direction to staff
#4 pg 93
School District Property
Presented by Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager
Summary: Council to review and provide direction to staff
#5 pg 95
Emergency Sewer Project Resolution 3780 Motion
Presented by Fred Snoderly, Municipal Services Director
Summary: Council to review and consider adoption
Administrative Reports
Council Communications and Reports
Executive Session – none scheduled
Adjournment
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 2 of 98
MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL
August 27, 2019
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Moses Lake City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor
Liebrecht in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 401 S. Balsam St., Moses Lake,
Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Liebrecht; Deputy Mayor Curnel; Council Members Jackson, Myers, Riggs, and
Hankins.
Action taken: Council Member Riggs moved to excuse Council Member Leonard, second by Council Member Hankins. The motion carried 6 – 0.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Airport Board Chair and Former Mayor/Council Member Richard Pearce led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
SUMMARY REPORTS:
MAYOR’S REPORT
Mayor Liebrecht thanked Community Development Director Kris Robbins for sharing online recordings about government budgeting and urban growth area processes with Council.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORTf
City Employee Recognitions Human Resources Director Carlos Salazar announced 30 staff members who have
achieved 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years of employment. Many of the employees were in
attendance to accept years of service pins from the Director of their respective departments.
Fire Marshal Certification and New Hire Oath of Office
Fire Chief Brett Bastian provided a brief biography and introduction of his newest full-
time hire of Firefighter/EMT Anthony Toto who is filling the vacancy due to a recent retirement. Chief Bastian also presented Fire Marshal Derek Beach with his recently achieved designation of Certified Fire Investigator.
Voucher Correction in Meeting Packet
Finance Director Cindy Jensen advised that the first four pages of claims listed were a duplicate.
Legal Newspaper Update
Interim City Manager Kevin Fuhr advised that there is no need to adopt a new resolution
to replace the existing 1985 resolution designating the Columbia Basin Herald as the official newspaper for public notices.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 3 of 98
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – August 27, 2019
pg. 2
PRESENTATION
Airport Lease Agreements
Airport Board Chair Richard Pearce reviewed the changes listed in his handout that also included the current agreement and an article on ground leases. He also provided a detailed history of airport operations locally as well as regionally. Airport Board Member Tim Prickett distributed sample leases from Grant County International and Skagit County Airports. He advised that we are seeing the first major growth in general aviation in 40 years. State Representative and
Former Airport Board Member Tom Dent shared that he is also a member of the Commission conducting the SeaTac International Airport study for the Legislature, and that their first meeting will be held next month. Council concurred to form an Ad Hoc Committee made up of three Council and three Airport Board Members to meet with the City Attorney to redo the lease agreement.
CONSENT AGENDA
#1 a. City Council meeting minutes dated August 13, 2019 (as amended)b.Claims in the amount of $2,376,224.02; claim checks in the amount of$439,627.89; prepaid claim checks in the amount of $93,154.84; and payrollchecks in the amount of $461,075.05
c. Accept Salt Storage Canopy Projectd.Award Westlake Lift Station Upgradee.Authorize Telemetry Engineering Work Orderf. Robert Parrish Build on Unplatted Resolution 3776 (as amended)
Action taken: Council Member Jackson moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, second by Council Member Riggs. The motion carried 6 – 0.
PUBLIC HEARING
#2 Sagecrest Plat Development Agreement Ordinance 2930 The proposed agreement is with Hayden Homes, LLC for an 84-lot residential subdivision on approximately 21 acres across three plats that is located between Hansen Road and Westshore Drive. The agreement is a new strategy to expedite the platting process for the Developer, share costs of improvements, and eliminate covenants. Mayor
Liebrecht opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Two persons provided comments to Council and the Hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m.
Action taken: Council Member Riggs moved to adopt Ordinance 2930, second by Council
Member Myers. The motion carried 6 – 0.
NEW BUSINESS
#3 Sagecrest Major Plat I, II, and II Preliminary Approval
This action is typically a Consent Agenda item but was placed under New Business in
order to follow the Public Hearing for the Development Agreement. The Planning Commission reviewed the plats on June 13, 2019, and recommends approval based on the
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 4 of 98
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – August 27, 2019
pg. 3
Findings of Facts included in the Council Packet.
Action taken: Council Member Hankins moved to approve the preliminary plat as presented, second by Council Member Riggs. The motion carried 6 – 0.
#4 Finance Committee Resolution Staff drafted a resolution to add a Council Finance Committee in the Council Rules of
Governance in effort to streamline the bill pay process and improve the efficiency for staff to process the Council’s meeting packet. Council did not move to adopt the presented resolution and made the following motion which will need to be formally adopted by ordinance at a future meeting in order to amend the MLMC.
Action taken: Council Member Hankins moved to allow the Finance Director to pay bills prior to
Council Meetings and present the paid bills to the full Council for review in a regular meeting packet, second by Deputy Mayor Curnel. The motion carried 6 – 0.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Community Development Director Kris Robbins has been keeping Council informed regarding
Growth Management Act updates in the weekly report. She would like to conduct a Study Session with the Council on September 10 at 6 p.m. to review the Public Participation Plan and project updates to be proposed for the 2019 Comp Plan update.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS
Council Member Riggs attended the National Job Corps open house and graduation ceremony. 15 persons graduated the two-year training program. They currently have 236 students and 75 employees. He stated the program is an asset to the community and that he enjoyed the keynote address delivered by Congressman Dan Newhouse.
Council Member Myers advised that the Grant Transit Authority received 40 applications for the General Manager position and only six were qualified. They will conduct candidate interviews on September 11.
Mayor Liebrecht requested Directors to let their staff know that she is proud of the longevity
recognitions announced earlier and that some of the best employees are working for the City.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Liebrecht called an Executive Session at 8:25 p.m. to be held for 10 minutes pursuant to
RCW 42.30.110(1)(b) and (c) to discuss property acquisition and the sale of surplus property.
The Mayor extended the meeting three times for a total additional time of 15 minutes.
ADJOURNMENT
The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 5 of 98
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – August 27, 2019
pg. 4
______________________________________ Karen Liebrecht, Mayor
ATTEST____________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 6 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 7 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 8 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 9 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 10 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 11 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 12 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 13 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 14 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 15 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 16 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 17 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 18 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 19 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 20 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 21 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 22 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 23 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 24 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 25 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 26 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 27 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 28 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 29 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 30 of 98
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 31 of 98
Page 1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager
From: Fred Snoderly, Municipal Services Director
Date: September 3, 2019
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Accept Civic Center Security Glazing Project 2019
Legislative History:
• First Presentation:
• Second Presentation:
September 10, 2019
• Action Motion
Staff Report Summary L & M Cornerstone, LLC has completed the Civic Center Security Glazing
Project 2019 and the project is ready for final acceptance.
Background The project consisted of installation of glazing walls and pass-through windows on
the first floor of Finance and second floor of Administration, modifications to the existing counter
in Administration, a curtain wall in Administration, and engineering. The work completed was in
the amount of Sixty-five Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-five Dollars and Thirty-three Cents
($65,825.33), which corresponds with the original contract price. The work completed by the
contractor is physically complete and ready for acceptance.
Fiscal and Policy Implications Upon acceptance, the City will enter into the 60-day lien period as
required by Washington State Law.
Options
Option Results
• Motion to accept the project as
presented.
The 60-day lien period will begin.
• Take no action. The project will not be accepted at this time.
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Council accept the project as presented.
Attachments - None
Legal Review N-A
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 32 of 98
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager
From: Cindy Jensen, Finance Director
Date: September 5, 2019
Proceeding Type: Old Business
Subject: MLMC 3.40.030 Certification for Vouchers Ordinance 2931
Legislative History:
•First Presentation:
•Second Presentation
•Requested Action:
May 14, 2019
September 10, 2019
Motion
Staff Report Summary
RCW 42.24 governs the process for audit and review of payroll and claims payments for the City.
State law allows Council to approve claims and payroll paid at a summary level, if certain
stipulations are met, and the Washington State Auditor’s Office (SAO) has prescribed how the
governing body should record the approval of claim vouchers and payroll in the minutes. Moses
Lake Municipal Code (MLMC) 3.42 allows the City to prepay bills as long as they are brought to
Council at the next meeting, but MLMC 3.40.030 did not conform to the SAO guidance for
recording the payments in the minutes. Our current practice has been to prepay Payroll and a few
claims vouchers, but hold payment on most of the claim vouchers until after they are approved by
Council. Council thoroughly reviewed the voucher payment options at their August 27, 2019
meeting, and agreed to allow for prepayment of the bills to best match business cycles instead of
the City Council calendar.
Background
The City Council designated the Finance Director as the Auditing Officer and authorized bills to be
paid prior to the Council Meetings in 1986. Our internal control structure includes having
Department heads authorize bills for payment prior to sending to Finance. Then the Accounts
Payable Clerk audits the bills for accuracy, and the Finance Director does a final review for
propriety. This fulfills the requirement in RCW 42.24.080 to attest that the claims are “just, due
and unpaid obligations against the City.”
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 33 of 98
Page 2 of 3
RCW 42.24.180 allows expedited processing of the payment of claims when certain conditions
have been met. The statute allows the issuance of warrants or checks in payment of claims before
the legislative body has acted to approve the claims when: (1) the appropriate officers have
furnished official bonds; (2) the legislative body has adopted policies that implement effective
internal control; (3) the legislative body has provided for review of the documentation supporting
the claims within a month of issuance; and (4) that if claims are disapproved, they shall be
recognized as receivables and diligently pursued. The City meets all of these conditions, and is
therefore able to pay claims based on normal business cycles, instead of waiting to mail checks
until after a City Council meeting.
Because the Municipal Code indicates how claims approval is to be entered in the minutes, we are
requesting a change to MLMC 3.40.030 to conform to SAO guidance.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
Based on the discussion on the bill-paying process at the August 27, 2019 meeting, Council
recognized the benefits for the City and our vendors to have a more responsive bill paying process
that is not tied to when Council meetings occur. However, the full Council (as opposed to a sub-
committee) still wants to review the detail listing of the bills. Municipal Code Section 3.42 already
allows Council to review them after the fact, but our practice has been to wait to mail a majority
of the bills until after approval at a Council meeting, so the procedural change is that we will not
hold checks for pre-approval, but will still provide a list of bills at each meeting. Since we have gone
to paperless agendas, providing the detail lists of paid bills should no longer require reams of paper
to produce.
Options
Option Results
• Adopt the Ordinance Follow the SAO recommendation for
recording claims payments in the City Council
minutes.
• Modify the Ordinance Council could stipulate certain kinds or
amounts of claims should not be paid before
Council review.
• Do not adopt the Ordinance Maintain our current template for
documenting claims approval
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council approve the Ordinance as presented.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 34 of 98
Page 3 of 3
Attachments
A. Ordinance
B. Example Cover Page
Legal Review
The following documents are attached and subject to legal review:
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel
• Ordinance Voucher Audit Amendments 04/23/2019
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 35 of 98
ORDINANCE NO. 2931
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE SUBSECTION 3.40.030 TITLED “AUDITING CERTIFICATION” THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection 3.40.030 of the MLMC titled “Auditing Certification” is amended as follows:
3.40.030 Auditing Certification:
To indicate City Council approval for payment of those vouchers audited and certified by the Finance Director, the following statement must be entered in the City Council minutes:
Vouchers audited and certified by the Finance Director as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the City Council for approval.
As of __________ the City Council does approve for payment claims in the amount of__________; prepaid claims in the amount of ______________; claim checks in the amount of ________________; and payroll in the amount of ________________ .
Claim Checks ##### through ###### in the amount of $__________ ; Payroll Checks ##### through ##### in the amount of $_______________; and, Electronic Payments dated ##-## through ##-## in the amount of $ _______________
Section 2. Severability. If any section of this ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid as written or as applied to any particular person or circumstances, no other section of the ordinance shall be deemed to be invalid, but rather, should be deemed to have been enacted independently and without regard to the section affected.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect on October 1, 2019. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake, WA and signed by its Mayor on September 10, 2019.
_____________________________________
Karen Liebrecht, Mayor
ATTEST:
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 36 of 98
_______________________________________
Debbie Burke, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________________ Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney
Vote: Riggs Liebrecht Myers Jackson Curnel Leonard Hankins Aye
Nay
Abstain Absent
Date Published: September 16, 2019 Date Effective: October 1, 2019
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 37 of 98
To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager
From: Cindy Jensen, Finance Director
Council Meeting Date: Month dd, 2019
Proceeding Type: Consent Agenda
Subject: Semi-Monthly Disbursement Report
The following amounts were budgeted and sufficient funds were available to cover these payments:
Claim Checks ###### - ###### $xxx,xxx,xxx.xx Payroll Checks ###### - ###### $xxx,xxx,xxx.xx Electronic Payments date – date $xxx,xxx,xxx.xx
Summary
RCW 42.24 governs the process for audit and review of claims and payroll payments for the City. RCW 42.24.180 requires the review and approval of all payments at a regularly scheduled public meeting on at least a monthly basis. The State Budgeting, Accounting and Reporting Systems (BARS) Manual outlines the above format for approval by the City Council.
RCW 42.24.080 requires that all claims presented against the City by persons furnishing materials, rendering services, or performing labor must be certified by the appropriate official to ensure that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described, and that the claims are just, due and unpaid obligations against the City. RCW 42.24.180 allows expedited processing of the payment of claims when certain conditions have been met. The statute allows the issuance of warrants or checks in payment of claims before the legislative body has acted to approve the claims when: (1) the appropriate officers have furnished official bonds; (2) the legislative body has adopted policies that implement effective internal control; (3) the legislative body has provided for review of the documentation supporting the claims within a month of issuance; and (4) that if claims are disapproved, they shall be recognized as receivables and diligently pursued. The City meets all these conditions. To comply with the requirements, Finance staff schedule payment of claims and payroll for semi-monthly Council approval on the Consent Agenda. The payments listed in the schedule cover all claims and payroll payments during the period prior to the date of the Council meeting. All payments made during this period were found to be valid claims against the City. Details are attached and any questions should be directed to the City Manager or Finance Director. The City’s internal controls include certification of the validity of all payments by the appropriate department prior to submission for payment. The Director of Finance and Budget has delegated authority for the examination of vouchers and authorization of payments to the Finance, Accounts Payable, and Payroll staff. All payments are reviewed and validated. The Finance Division regularly reviews its processes to ensure appropriate internal controls are in place.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 38 of 98
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager
From: Kris Robbins, Community Development Director
Date: September 5, 2019
Proceeding Type: New Business
Subject: Fire Impact Fee Ordinance – First Presentation
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: September 10, 2019
• Second Presentation: September 24, 2019
• Requested Action: Discussion
Staff Report Summary
The Community Development Department and Fire Department have been working on impact
fees for the last year. The information provided is for your review and consideration is for the Fire
Department impact fees for adoption at the next council meeting.
Background
Over the last year, staff has been working with a consultant (Parametrix) and a presentation was
given to Council in April of this year on the ability to charge impact fees, the development of the
fees and the legal requirements of fees. Impact fees are one-time charges assessed by a local
government against a new development project to help pay for new or expanded public facilities
that will directly address the increased demand for services created by that development.
During our meetings, it was recommended to move forward with the fire impact fees to be
prepared for council consideration. Fire Chief Bastian worked on the report and based the report
on another entity that had meet the requirements of the RCWs and courts decisions. RCW
82.02.050 thru .110 and WAC 365-196-850 authorized cities planning under the Growth
Management Act to impose fees for fire protection facilities. The report provides additional details.
Fiscal and Policy Implications
This report is required to be approved by ordinance.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 39 of 98
Page 2 of 2
Options
Option Results
• Accept report as presented. Staff will provide the adopting ordinance for
approval at the next regular meeting.
• Take no action This would come back to Council for further
discussion.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Moses Lake City Council provide direction to staff on whether to
prepare the ordinance or request additional information.
Attachments
A. Rate Study for Impact Fees for Fire Protection
Legal Review
The following documents are attached and subject to legal review:
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel
• Rate Study Rate Study for Impact Fees for Fire Protection
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 40 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
1
Rate Study
For
Impact Fees
For
Fire Protection
City of Moses Lake, Washington
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 41 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3
2. Statutory Basis and Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..
3. Fire Impact Fees………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Impact Fee Rates Per Dwelling Unit
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 42 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
3
1. Introduction
The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for fire protection facilities (fire)
impact fees in the City of Moses Lake, Washington as authorized by RCW 82.02.090(7).
SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEE RATES
Impact fees are paid by all types of new development1. Impact fee rates for new
development are based on, and vary according to the type of land use. The following
table summarizes the impact fee rates for several frequently used land use categories.
Rates for other non-residential development are presented in the sections of this study
for each type of public facility.
TABLE 1: IMPACT FEE RATES PER DWELLING UNIT
Type of Development Unit Fee
Single – Family Dwelling unit $708.29
Multi-Family Dwelling unit $708.29
Medical Facilities Square Foot $12.06
Hotel-Motel Square Foot $0.73
Office Square Foot $0.33
Retail (shopping) Square Foot $0.48
Industrial Square Foot $0.44
Restaurant Square Foot $0.45
Churches Square Foot $0.96
Education Square Foot $0.54
IMPACT FEES VS. OTHER DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for the
capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the people who
occupy or use the new development. Throughout this study, the term “developer” is used as a
shorthand expression to describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including
builders, owners, or developers.
Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons: 1) to obtain revenue to pay for some
of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public policy that new development
should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it requires, and that existing development
should not pay all of the cost of such facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities
will be constructed to serve new development.
1 The impact fee ordinance may specify exemptions for low income housing and / or “broad public purposes”, but such
exemptions must be paid for by public money, not other impact fees. The ordinance may specify if impact fees apply to changes
in use, remodeling, etc.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 43 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
4
The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms of developer
contributions or exactions, such as: mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA (the
State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C); system development charges for water and
sewer authorized for utilities (RCW 35.92 for municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and
57.08for water districts); local improvement districts or other special assessment districts;
linkage fees; or land donations or fees in lieu of land.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This impact fee rate study contains three chapters:
• Chapter 1 provides a summary of impact fee rates for frequently used land use
categories, and other introductory materials.
• Chapter 2 summarizes the statutory requirements for developing impact fees, and
describes the compliance with each requirement.
• Chapter 3 presents impact fees for fire, and presents the formulas, variables and data
that are the basis for the fees, and documents the calculation of the fees. The
methodology is designed to comply with the requirements of Washington State Law.
2. Statutory Basis and Methodology
This chapter summarizes the statutory requirements for impact fees in the State of
Washington, and describes how the City of Moses Lake’s impact fees comply with the statutory
requirements.
STATUORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPACT FEES
The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1st Ex. Sess.)
authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees. RCW 82.02.050 – 82.02.090
contain the provisions of the Growth Management Act that authorize and describe the
requirements for impact fees.
The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments authorized by the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There are several important differences between impact
fees and SEPA mitigations. Three aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1)
the ability to charge for the cost of public facilities that are “system improvements” (i.e., that
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 44 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
5
provide service to the community at large) as opposed to “project improvements” (which are
“on-site” and provide service for a particular development); 2) the ability to charge small-scale
development their proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments; and 3) the
predictability and simplicity of impact fee rate schedules compared to the cost, time and
uncertain outcome of SEPA reviews conducted on a case by case basis.
The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes citations to the
Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to review the exact language of the
statutes.
Types of Public Facilities
Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees: 1) public transportation and
roads: 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4)
fire protection facilities (in jurisdictions such as Moses Lake that are not part of a fire district).
RCW 82.02.050(2) and (4), and RCW 82.02.090(7)
Types of Improvements
Impact fees can be spent on “system improvements” (which are typically outside the
development), as opposed to “project improvements” (which are typically provided by the
developer on-site within the development). RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and RCW 82.02.090(6) and (9)
Benefit to Development
Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably related to, and which
will benefit new development. RCW 82.02.050(3)(a) and (c). Local governments must establish
reasonable service areas (one area, or more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the
local government), and local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various
land uses. RCW 82.02.060(6)
Proportionate Share
Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system improvements
that are reasonably related to the new development. The impact fee amount shall be based on
a formula (or other method of calculating the fee) that determines the proportionate share.
RCW 82.02.050(3)(b) and RCW 82.02.060(1)
Reductions of Impact Fee Amounts
Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the development pays (if
such payments are earmarked for or proratable to particular system improvements). RCW
82.02.050(1)(c) and (2) and RCW 82.02.060(1)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of
dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are
in the adopted CFP as system improvements eligible for impact fees and are required as a
condition of development approval). RCW 82.02.060(3)
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 45 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
6
Exemptions from Impact Fees
Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees for low-income
housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all such exempt fees must be paid
from public funds (other than impact fee accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2)
Developer Options
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that
the impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate
study. RCW 82.02.060(5). Developers can pay impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee
calculations. RCW 82.02.060(4) and RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5). The developer can obtain a
refund of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend or obligate the impact fee
payments within 10 years, or terminates the impact fee requirement, or the developer does not
proceed with the development (and creates no impacts). RCW 82.02.080
Capital Facilities Plans
Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan (CFP) element or
used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities. The CFP must
conform to the Growth Management Act of 1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in
facility capacity for current development, capacity of existing facilities available for new
development, and additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW 82.02.050(4),
RCW 82.02.060(7), and RCW 82.02.070(2)
New Versus Existing Facilities
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(1)(a) and for the unused
capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(7) subject to the proportionate share
imitation described above.
Accounting Requirements
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies, expend or obligate the
money on CFP projects within 10 years, and prepare annual reports of collections and
expenditures. RCW 82.02.070(1)-(3)
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 46 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
7
Compliance With Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees
Many of the statutory requirements listed above are fulfilled in Chapters 3 of this study that
present the calculation of each type of impact fee. Some of the statutory requirements are
fulfilled in other ways, as described below.
Types of Public Facilities
This study contains impact fees for fire protection facilities, which is one of the four types of
public facilities authorized by statute: transportation, parks and fire.
In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are responsible for
specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees. The City of Moses Lake is legally
and financially responsible for the fire facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction. In no
case may a local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it may charge
impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities are "owned or
operated by government entities" (RCW 82.02.090 (7).
Types of Improvements
The impact fees in this study are based on system improvements that are described in Chapter
3 for fire protection facility impact fees. No project improvements are included in this study.
The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system improvements” (which are
typically outside the development), and "designed to provide service to service areas within the
community at large" as provided in RCW 82.02.050(9)), as opposed to "project improvements"
(which are typically provided by the developer on-site within the development or adjacent to
the development), and "designed to provide service for a development project, and that are
necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project" as provided in
RCW 82.02.050(6). The capital improvements costs contained in Chapter 3 complies with these
requirements.
Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact fees cannot be
used for operating or maintenance expenses. The cost of public facilities that can be paid for by
impact fees include design studies, engineering, land surveys, land and right of way acquisition,
engineering, permitting, financing, administrative expenses, construction, applicable mitigation
costs, and capital equipment pertaining to capital improvements.
Benefit to Development, Proportionate Share and Reductions of Fee Amounts
The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact fees: 1)
proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably related to expenditure
(RCW 80.20.050(3)). In addition, the law requires the designation of one or more service areas
(RCW 82.02.060(6)
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 47 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
8
1. Proportionate Share.
First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can be charged only for
the portion of the cost of public facilities that is "reasonably related" to new development. In
other words, impact fees cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating
efficiencies in existing facilities.
Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate share requirement that
are not specifically addressed in the law, but which follow directly from the law:
• Costs of facilities that will benefit new development and existing users must be apportioned
between the two groups in determining the amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in
either of two ways: (1) by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2)
calculating the cost per unit and applying the cost only to new development when calculating
impact fees.
• Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should be based on the
government's actual cost. Carrying costs may be added to reflect the government's actual or
imputed interest expense.
The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship to the requirement
to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees, where appropriate. These requirements
ensure that the amount of the impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share.
• The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for past and future
payments of other revenues (if such payments are earmarked for, or proratable to, the system
improvements that are needed to serve new growth). Each impact fee calculated in this study
includes an adjustment that accounts for any other revenue that is paid by new development
and used by the City to pay for a portion of growth’s proportionate share of costs. This
adjustment is in response to the limitations in RCW 82.02.060 (1)(b) and RCW 82.02.050(2).
• The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of dedicated land, improvements
or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP, identified as
the projects for which impact fees are collected, and are required as a condition of
development approval). The law does not prohibit a local government from establishing
reasonable constraints on determining credits. For example, the location of dedicated land and
the quality and design of donated street, park or fire public facilities
3. Reasonably Related to Need.
There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be "reasonably related" to the
development's need for public facilities, including personal use and use by others in the family
or business enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide goods or
services to the fee-paying property or are customers or visitors at the fee paying property
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 48 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
9
(indirect benefit), and geographical proximity (presumed benefit). These measures of
relatedness are implemented by the following techniques:
• Impact fees are charged to properties which need (i.e., benefit from) new public facilities. The
City of Moses Lake provides its infrastructure to all kinds of property throughout the City,
therefore impact fees have been calculated for all types of property.
• The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in establishing fee amounts
(i.e., different impact values for different types of land use). Chapter 3 uses different
emergency response rates for each type of land use.
• Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their development will have less
impact than is presumed in the impact fee schedule calculation for their property classification.
Such reduced needs must be permanent and enforceable (i.e., via land use restrictions).
3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures.
Two provisions of Moses Lake’s impact fee ordinance comply with the requirement that
expenditures be "reasonably related" to the development that paid the impact fee. First, the
requirement that fee revenue must be earmarked for specific uses related to public facilities
ensures that expenditures are on specific projects, the benefit of which has been demonstrated
in determining the need for the projects and the portion of the cost of needed projects that are
eligible for impact fees as described in this study. Second, impact fee revenue must be
expended or obligated within 10 years, thus requiring the impact fees to be used to benefit to
the feepayer and not held by the City.
4. Service Areas for Impact Fees
Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within service areas that are
smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the fees. Impact fees are not required to use
multiple service areas unless such “zones” are necessary to establish the relationship between
the fee and the development. Because of the size of the City of Moses Lake and the accessibility
of its fire systems to all property within the City, Moses Lake’s fire systems serve the entire City,
therefore the impact fees are based on a single service area corresponding to the boundaries of
the City of Moses Lake.
Exemptions
The City’s impact fee ordinance addresses the subject of exemptions. Exemptions do not affect
the impact fee rates calculated in this study because of the statutory requirement that any
exempted impact fee must be paid from other public funds. As a result, there is no increase in
impact fee rates to make up for the exemption because there is no net loss to the impact fee
account as a result of the exemption.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 49 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
10
Developer Options
A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options regarding impact fees. The
developer can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed
development are less than the impacts calculated in this rate study. The developer can appeal
the impact fee calculation by the City of Moses Lake. If the local government fails to expend the
impact fee payments within 10 years of receipt of such payments, the developer can obtain a
refund of the impact fees. The developer can also obtain a refund if the development does not
proceed and no impacts are created. All of these provisions are addressed in the City’s impact
fee ordinance, and none of them affect the calculation of impact fee rates in this study.
Capital Facilities Plan
There are references in RCW to the “capital facilities plan” (CFP) as the basis for projects that
are eligible for funding by impact fees. Cities often adopt documents with different titles that
fulfill the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et. seq. pertaining to a “capital facilities plan”. The
Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan fulfill the requirements in RCW,
and are considered to be the “capital facilities plan” (CFP) for the purpose of this impact fee
rate study. In addition, the City’s Capital Investment Program (CIP) section of the City’s Budget
provides up-to date and detailed information about the projects in the CFP. The Fire
Department also produces an annual update of capital improvements within the fire
department as part of the department’s annual report.
The requirement to identify existing deficiencies, capacity available for new development, and
additional public facility capacity needed for new development is determined by analyzing
levels of service for each type of public facility. Chapter 3 provides this analysis for fire impact.
New Versus Existing Facilities, Accounting Requirements
Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital facilities plan, or
they can be used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities.
Impact fee payments that are not expended or obligated within 10 years must be refunded
unless the City Council makes a written finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason
exists to hold the fees for longer than 10 years. In order to verify these two requirements,
impact fee revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the government, and annual
reports must describe impact fee revenue and expenditures. These requirements are addressed
by Moses Lake’s impact fee ordinance, and are not factors in the impact fee calculations in this
study.
Data Sources
The data in this study of impact fees in Moses Lake, Washington was provided by the City of
Moses Lake, unless a different source is specifically cited.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 50 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
11
Data Rounding
The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In some tables in
this study, there may be very small variations from the results that would be obtained using a
calculator to compute the same data. The reason for these insignificant differences is that the
spreadsheet software was allowed to calculate results to more places after the decimal than is
reported in the tables of these reports. The calculation to extra places after the decimal
increases the accuracy of the end results, but causes occasional minor differences due to
rounding of data that appears in this study.
3. FIRE IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for fire protection facilities begin with an inventory of fire apparatus and stations
and the number of emergencies they responded to. Next is an analysis of the capital cost of fire
protection apparatus and stations including calculation of the capital cost per response. The
emergency responses are summarized according to the types of land uses that received
responses, and incident rates are calculated to quantify the average number of emergency
responses per unit of development for each type of land use. The costs per response and the
response incident rates are used to calculate the number and cost of responses to fire incidents
and to BLS incidents (basic life support medical responses) at each type of land use. The fire and
BLS cost per unit of development are combined to calculate the total cost per unit of
development. The total cost is adjusted for payments of other and the result is the fire impact
fee rates for the City of Moses Lake.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables of data, and
explanation of calculations of fire impact fees. The need for fire protection facilities is
influenced by a variety of factors, such as response time, call loads, geographical area,
topographic and manmade barriers, and performance standards established by the Moses Lake
City Council, and the National Commission on the Accreditation of Ambulance Services.
For the purpose of quantifying the need for fire and BLS apparatus and stations to serve growth
this study uses the ratio of apparatus and stations to incidents. The current ratio provides
acceptable levels of service. As growth occurs, more incidents will occur, therefore more
apparatus and stations will be needed to maintain standards.
Formula F-1: Inventory and Emergency Responses
The City of Moses Lake owns a variety of fire apparatus (i.e., fire engines, ladder truck, medic
units, etc.). Each vehicle responds to many emergencies. The average number of emergency
responses per apparatus is used as one element in calculating the cost per emergency
response.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 51 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
12
F-1. Emergency Responses ÷ Fire Apparatus = Responses per Apparatus
There are three variables that require explanation: (A) fire apparatus, (B) emergency responses,
and (C) fire stations.
Variable (A): Fire Apparatus
The term “fire apparatus” applies to vehicles that the City of Moses Lake uses for two
categories of emergency responses: fire emergencies and medical emergencies. The medical
emergencies will be referred to in this study as “ALS”
because the Moses Lake Fire Department provides Advanced Life Support (ALS) responses and
is typically the first responder to medical emergencies in Moses Lake. Table 1 contains a list of
each type of primary fire apparatus and the number of each type. Moses Lake also has several
older “reserve” apparatus that are dispatched as needed when a primary apparatus is out of
service for repairs or maintenance. The reserve apparatus are not routinely dispatched and are
excluded from the impact fee analysis because they are not used frequently enough to have a
material effect on the cost of providing fire protection facilities.
Variable (B): Emergency Responses
The annual responses for each apparatus type is shown in Table 1. The average number of
emergency responses for each type of apparatus is calculated by dividing the number of annual
emergency responses by the number of units making those runs. In many cases, more than one
apparatus is dispatched to an emergency incident. The number and type of apparatus
dispatched to each incident varies depending on the type and severity of the incident.
During 2015, Moses Lake’s 4 primary response apparatus were dispatched a total of
5,413 times to 3,895 emergency incidents (many times the seriousness of an incident requires
that more than one unit respond). Using the existing ratio of apparatus and station space per
incident maintains the current level of service and avoids any existing deficiency or unused
reserve capacity. This approach satisfies the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4) to determine
whether or not there are any existing deficiencies or reserve capacity in order to ensure that
impact fees are not charged for any deficiencies or reserve capacity (other than
reimbursement fees).
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 52 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
13
TABLE 1: Fire Protection Apparatus Inventory
Type of Apparatus Primary Apparatus Inventory Annual Emergency Responses Average Emergency Response Per unit
Engine 4 1,100 275
Ladder 1 411 411
Medic Unit 5 3,442 688
Brush Truck 2 38 19
Squad 1 58 58
Rescue 1 10 10
Tender 2 12 6
Staff Vehicles 4 488 122
Other2 5 8 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Other apparatus and equipment include 3 specialized trailers, a boat, and a support unit.
Variable (C): Fire Stations
The City of Moses Lake provides fire and ALS services out of 2 stations. Table 2 lists the stations
and the square footage of fire stations and support facilities. Table 12 also shows the total fire
and medical incidents, and the average square footage of fire station per incident (calculated by
dividing the total square footage of all fire stations by the number of annual fire and medical
incidents). The total incidents from stations (Table 2) is less than the total incidents from
apparatus (Table 1) because more than one apparatus responds to many calls, but often one
station is the source of all the apparatus responding to a call.
Table2: Fire and Medical Building Inventory
Station Fire Station Inventory (Square Feet)
Annual Incidents Square Feet Per Incident
1-E 3rd AVE 21,200 2294 9.25
2-W Broadway AVE 7,112 1148 6.2
Training Facility-E
3rd AVE
2,262 0 0
Total 30,574 3,442 8.88
Formula F-2: Annual Cost Per Apparatus
Formulas F-2 through F-4 are needed to calculate the apparatus cost per fire incident. The first
step in this calculation is to identify and annualize the cost of each type of apparatus using
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 53 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
14
formula F-2. The capital cost per apparatus is based on the cost of primary response apparatus
and major support equipment. The annualized capital cost per apparatus is determined by
dividing the capital cost of each type of apparatus by its useful life:
F-2. Fire Apparatus Cost ÷ Useful Life = Annual Cost per Apparatus
There are two variables that require explanation: (D) fire apparatus cost, and (E) useful life.
Variable (D): Fire Apparatus Cost
Table 3 shows the annualized cost for each type of primary apparatus listed in Table 1. The cost
per apparatus includes the vehicle, fire and ALS equipment, and communication equipment.
The apparatus and equipment costs in Table 3 represent current costs to purchase a new fully
equipped apparatus.
Variable (E): Useful Life
Table 3 also shows the number of years of useful life of each type of apparatus. The annualized
cost is calculated by dividing each apparatus cost by the useful life of that apparatus.
Table 3: Annualized Apparatus Cost
Type of Apparatus Total Cost per
Apparatus
Useful Life of
Component (Years)
Annual Cost (Column 2 / Column 3)
Engine $655,000 20 $32,750.00
Ladder $1,400,000 20 $70,000.00
Medic Unit $212,000 7 $30,286.00
Brush Truck $165,000 20 $8,250.00
Squad $220,000 25 $8,800.00
Rescue $200,000 20 $6,200.00
Tender $245,000 20 $12,250.00
Staff Vehicles $55,000 10 $5,500.00
Other2 $40,000 10 $4,000.00
Formula F-3: Cost Per Apparatus Per Fire or Medical Incident
The second step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is formula F-3. The capital
cost per fire or medical incident is calculated for each apparatus by dividing the annualized cost
per apparatus by the total annual incidents (both fire and medical) each type of apparatus
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 54 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
15
responds to. Each type of apparatus is analyzed separately because the number and type of
apparatus responding to an incident varies depending on the type and severity of the incident.
F-3. Annual Cost Per Apparatus ÷ Annual Responses Per Apparatus = Annual Apparatus Cost Per
Response
There are no new variables used in formula F-3. Both variables were developed in previous
formulas.
In Table 4 the cost per emergency response is calculated for each type of apparatus. Table 4
shows the annualized cost of one of each type of apparatus (from Table 3) and the average
annual emergency responses for each type of apparatus (from Table 1). Each apparatus cost per
response is calculated by dividing the annualized cost of that type of apparatus by the total
number of annual responses for the same type of apparatus.
Table 4: Apparatus Cost per Response
Type of Apparatus Annual Apparatus
Cost
Average Annual
Responses per
Apparatus
Apparatus Cost per
Response (column 2 / column 3)
Engine $32,750.00 275 $119.09
Ladder $70,000.00 411 $170.32
Medic Unit $30,286.00 3,442 $8.80
Brush Truck $8,250.00 19 $434.21
Squad $8,800.00 58 $151.72
Rescue $6,200.00 10 $620.00
Tender $12,250.00 6 $2,041.66
Staff Vehicles $5,500.00 122 $45.08
Other $4,000.00 2 $2,000.00
Formula F-4: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
The third step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is formula F-4. The total
apparatus cost per fire incident is calculated by multiplying the apparatus cost per response by
the percent of fire incidents each type of apparatus responds to. This calculation accounts for
the fact that multiple apparatus are dispatched to many incidents, and that some apparatus are
only dispatched to specific types of incidents. The result of this calculation is a weighted
average total cost of apparatus per fire incident.
F-4. Apparatus Cost Per Response x Apparatus Percent of Fire Responses = Apparatus Cost Per
Fire Incident
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (F) apparatus percent of fire responses.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 55 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
16
Variable (F): Apparatus Percent of Fire Responses
The next step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is to identify the annual number
of incidents that Moses Lake’s Fire Department responds to.
Emergency incidents are separated into two broad categories: Fire and medical. Table 5 lists the
annual number of fire and medical incidents responded to during 2015.
Table 5: Annual Fire and Medical Incidents
Type of Incident Average Annual Emergency
Incidents
Fire 546
Medical 2,896
Different types of fire emergencies need different types or combinations of apparatus. As a
result, the usage of apparatus varies among the types of apparatus. This variance is an
important factor in determining the cost per incident. The percent of fire responses by each
type of apparatus is calculated in Table 6 by dividing the annual fire responses for each type of
apparatus by the total annual fire incidents from Table 5. The result of the calculation in Table
6 is the percent of fire incidents responded to by each type of apparatus. For example, engines
provided 672 responses to the 546 fire incidents, equaling 122% of all fire incidents. Another
way to understand this data is that one average fire incident involved 1.22 engines, therefore
the cost of responding to a fire incident includes 122% of the cost of an engine. Other
apparatus typically respond to only some of the incidents. Tenders for example, respond to
1.4% of fire emergency incidents, therefore the cost to respond to the average fire incident
includes 1.4% of a ladder truck.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 56 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
17
Table 6: Fire Incident Response By Type of Apparatus
Type of Apparatus Total Annual Fire Related Responses for Apparatus
Annual Fire Related Incidents
Percent of Annual Fire Related Incidents Dispatched to (Col 2/488)
Engine 672 546 122%
Ladder 411 546 75.27%
Medic Unit 508 546 93%
Brush Truck 38 546 6.9%
Squad 58 546 10.6%
Rescue 10 546 1.83%
Tender 12 546 2.2%
Staff Vehicles 488 546 89.37%
Other 10 546 1.83%
TOTAL 2,245 546 400%
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is shown in Table 7. The cost per
response for each type of apparatus (from Table 4) is multiplied by the percent of fire incidents
dispatched to (from Table 6) resulting in the total apparatus cost per fire incident.
The “bottom line” in Table 7 is the apparatus cost per fire incident of $410.66. In other words,
every fire incident “uses up” $410.66 worth of apparatus.
Table 7: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
Type of Apparatus Apparatus Cost per
Response
Annual Percent
of Fire Incidents
Dispatched to
Apparatus Cost per Fire
Incident (Col 1 x Col 2)
Engine $119.09 122% $145.29
Ladder $170.32 75.27% $128.20
Medic Unit $8.80 93% $8.18
Brush Truck $434.21 6.9% $29.96
Squad $151.72 10.6% $16.08
Rescue $620.00 1.83% $11.35
Tender $2,041.66 2.2% $44.92
Staff Vehicles $28.94 89.37% $25.86
Other $45.08 1.83% $0.82
TOTAL $410.66
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 57 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
18
Formula F-5: Annual Station Cost
The annual station cost is determined by dividing the station capital cost by its useful life.
F-5. Station Cost Per Square Foot ÷ Useful Life = Annual Station Cost Per Square Foot
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (G) station cost per square foot.
Variable (F): Station Cost per Square Foot
Table 8 calculates the average annualized fire station cost per square foot. The cost per square
foot is based on the average cost of a station with similar size and capability to Fire Station 2.
The current average cost of construction for a station of this size, with land, furnishings,
equipment, and lending costs is approximately $4,100,000.00
The useful life represents the length of time the station will last before it needs to be replaced.
The annualized cost is calculated by dividing the estimated cost per square foot by the average
useful life. The “bottom line” of Table 8 is an annualized station cost of $ 8.45 per square foot.
Table 8: Annualized Station Cost per Square Foot
Type of Cost Cost Per Square Foot Building Useful Life (Years) Annual Building Cost per Square Foot (col 2 / col3 3)
Land $7.50
Building,
Furnishings, &
Equipment
$400.00
Cost of Borrowing $50.00
TOTAL $457.50 50 $9.15
Formula F-6: Station Cost Per Fire and Medical Incident
The station cost per fire and BLS incident is calculated by multiplying the annual station cost per
square foot by the station square feet per fire and BLS incident.
F-6. Annual Station Cost Per Square Foot x Station Square Feet Per Fire and Medical Incident =
Annual Station Cost Per Fire and Medical Incident
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 58 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
19
There are no new variables used in formula F-6. Both variables were developed in previous
formulas.
This calculation is shown in Table 9: the station cost per square foot (from Table 8) is multiplied
times the station square feet per incident (from Table 2). The result is the station cost of $71.83
per fire and BLS incident. In other words, each fire and BLS incident “uses up” $71.83 worth of
fire station.
Table 9: Station Cost Per Fire and Medical Incident
Annual Building Cost per Square Foot Square Feet per Incident Annualized Building Cost per Fire and Rescue Incident (col 1 x col 2)
$9.15 7.85 $71.83
Formula F-7: Annual Fire Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
The annual fire incident rate per unit of development (i.e., dwelling unit or square foot of non-
residential development) is calculated by dividing the total annual fire incidents to each type of
land use by the number of dwelling units or square feet of non-residential development for that
type of land use.
F-7. Annual Emergency Fire Incidents at Each Type of Land Use ÷ Number of Dwelling Units
or Square Feet of Each Type of Land Use = Annual Fire Incidents Per Unit of Development
There are two variables that require explanation: (H) annual emergency fire incidents at land
use types, and (I) number of dwelling units or square feet.
Variable (H): Annual Emergency Fire Incidents at Land Use Types
The emergency incident data comes from the City’s dispatch records, data showing dwelling
units comes from the OFM State of Washington Postcensal Estimates of Housing Units, 2017,
and the square feet of non-residential development is from the Fire Department risk
management database.
The database identifies each incident by occupancy type such as residences, office or retail. The
land use categories in this study were created by combining the numerous occupancy types
into broad land use categories for impact fees, such as residences, office, retail, restaurant and
industrial/manufacturing.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 59 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
20
During 2018, Moses Lake’s Fire Department responded to 546 fire incidents. Of the
546 fire incidents, 464 were traceable to a type of development (i.e., the incident occurred at a
specific property address, such as a residence or business) or they were traffic-related
(occurred on a roadway). Of the 546 fire incidents analyzed, 386 occurred at a specific property
and 78 were traffic related.
The records for the remaining 82 fire incidents did not allow the incident to be traced to either
a specific land use or a traffic-related incident, therefore these 82 incidents are apportioned to
land uses and traffic on the same basis as the 464 incidents that are traceable. Table 10 shows
the allocation of the 82 incidents without land use designations to the property and traffic
categories using the same percentage as the 464 incidents for which a location was identifiable.
Thus 58 of the 82 fire incidents were allocated the same as the incidents at identifiable lands
uses, and the other 24 fire incidents were allocated the same as the traffic-related incidents.
Table 10: Fire Incidents
Incident Location Incidents Identifiable by Location
Incidents Not Identifiable by Location
Total Incidents
Total 464 82 546
At Properties,
percent of total
386 70.7% 58 10.6% 444
In Roads & Streets
percent of total
78 14.3% 24 4.4% 102
There are four tables on the following pages that present the allocation of fire incidents among
types of land use: Table 11 shows the fire incidents that were identifiable by land use type,
Table 12 shows the fire incidents that were traffic related. Table 13 combines the fire incident
data (land use and traffic), and Table 14 shows the fire incident rate per unit of development.
Table 11 shows the distribution of the 464 fire incidents that are traceable to a land use along
with the percent distribution of these 464 incidents. In column 4 the total fire incidents to land
use (464 traceable + 58 allocated) is allocated among the land use types using the percent
distribution column. The result is the total annual fire incidents at each of the land use types.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 60 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
21
Table 11: Fire Incidents at Specific Land Uses
Land Use Annual Fire Incidents Identifiable to Land Use
Percent of All Fire Incidents Identifiable to Land Use
Allocate 82 Incidents to Land Uses (Col 2 x 82)
Residential 184 33.7% 27
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort 20 3.7% 3
Medical Care Facility 33 6% 5
Commercial:
Office 11 2% 2
Retail 72 13.2% 11
Restaurants 11 2% 2
Industrial 19 3.5% 3
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
3 0.5% 0
Education 33 6% 5
Total 386 58
Variable (I): Number of Dwelling Units or Square Feet
The traffic-related fire incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the amount of traffic
generated by each type of land use. In Table 12, the number of dwelling units and square feet
of non-residential construction in the City of Moses Lake is multiplied times the number of trips
that are generated by each land use type as reported in the 8th Edition of Trip Generation by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). (The trip rates are one-half of ITE’s trip rates in
order to account for the trips each land use generates while excluding the “return” trip). The
result is the total trips associated with each land use type. The percent of trips associated with
each land use type is calculated from the total of all trips.
In the final calculation in Table 12 the total 102 annual fire incidents that are traffic-related (78
traceable + 24 allocated) is allocated among the land use types using the percent of trips
generated.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 61 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
22
Table 12: Traffic Related Fire Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
Land Use Moses Lake Units of Development
ITE Trip Generation Rate / 2 per D.U. or Per Unit of Development
Total Trips (col 1 x col2)
Percent of Trips Generated
Annual Traffic Related Fire Incidents per Unit of Development (Col 5 x 78)
Residential 9,200 d.u 4.23228 38,937 29.16% 23
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
732,000
Sq.Ft
0.00446 3,265 2.5% 2
Medical Care
Facility
701,099 Sq.
Ft
.00825 5,784 4.3% 3
Commercial:
Office 2,790,000SqFt 0.00551 15,373 11.54% 9
Retail 1,723,000 SqFt 0.02147 36,993 27.7% 22
Restaurants 152,200 SqFt 0.06358 9,677 7.2% 6
Industrial 4,900,255 SqFt 0.00349 17,102 12.8% 9
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit 345,000SqFt 0.00456 1,573 1.2% 1
Education 747,920SqFt 0.00645 4,824 3.6% 3
Total 133,528 100% 78
Table 13 summarizes the results of the analysis of fire incidents. The total annual fire incidents
is a combination of the fire incidents allocated among direct responses to land use categories
(from Table 11) and the allocation of traffic related incidents based on trip generation rates
(from Table 12).
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 62 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
23
Table 13: Total Annual Fire Incidents by Land Use
Land Use Annual Fire
Incidents Direct to
Land Use
Annual Traffic
Related Fire
Incidents by
Land Use
Total Annual Fire
Incidents by Land Use
Residential 184 23 207
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
20 2 22
Medical Care Facility 33 3 36
Commercial:
Office 11 9 20
Retail 72 22 94
Restaurants 11 6 17
Industrial 19 9 28
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit 3 1 4
Education 33 3 36
Total 386 78 464
The final step in determining the annual fire incident rate per unit of development is shown in
Table 14. The total annual fire incidents for each type of land use (from Table 13) are divided by
the number of dwelling units or square feet of structures to calculate the annual incident rate
per dwelling unit or square foot. The units of development are the same as was used to
determine traffic-related incidents (see Table 12).
The results in Table 14 show how many times an average unit of development has a fire
incident to which the City of Moses Lake responds. For example, a residence has an average of
0.0257fire-related incidents per year. This is the same as saying that 2.57% of residential
occupancies have a fire-related incident in a year.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 63 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
24
Table 14: Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use
Land Use Total Annual Fire
Incidents to Land
Use
Units of
Development
Fire Incidents per
Development
Residential 207 9.200 d.u 0.0225 per dwelling unit
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
22 732,000 Sq.Ft 0.00003 per sq ft
Medical Care Facility 36 701,099 Sq. Ft 0.000050 per sq ft
Commercial:
Office 20 2,790,000SqFt 0.000009500 per sq ft
Retail 94 1,723,000 Sq Ft 0.0000545 per sq ft
Restaurants 17 152,200 Sq Ft 0.0000111 per sq ft
Industrial 28 4,900.255 SqFt 0.0000057 per sq ft
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit 4 345,000SqFt 0.0000115 per sq ft
Education 36 747,920SqFt 0.00004813 per sq ft
Total 464
Formula F-8: Fire Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
The capital cost of fire incidents per unit of development is determined by multiplying the
annual fire incidents per unit of development (from Table 14) times the annual capital cost per
fire incident of each type of apparatus (from Table 7) and fire station (from Table 8), then
multiplying that result times the useful life of the apparatus or fire station.4
F-8. Annual Fire Incidents Per Unit Of Development x Annual Cost Per Fire Incident x
Useful Life Of Apparatus or Station = Fire Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-8. All three variables were developed in previous
formulas.
4Some fire impact fees are calculated for the economic life of the property paying the impact
fee, rather than the useful life of the apparatus and stations that provide the fire protection.
Both methods meet the legal requirements for impact fees. The method used in this rate study
charges impact fees for the first of each type of apparatus and station needed for new
development, but subsequent replacements of apparatus and stations are funded by other
revenues available to the City of Moses Lake.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 64 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
25
In the tables on the following pages, each fire incident rate (from Table 14) is multiplied by the
annual capital cost per fire incident. The result is then multiplied times the useful life of the
apparatus or station to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for each type of
apparatus and station.
For example, residential units average 0.023 fire incidents per year (i.e., 2.3% of a fire incident
per year). In Table 15, multiplying this incident rate times the annual capital cost of an engine
($145.29 from Table 7) per incident indicates a cost of $2.38 per dwelling unit to provide it with
fire engines for one year.
Since an engine lasts 20 years, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 20 times the annual
rate, for a total of $65.40.
Table 15: Engine Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
Land Use Unit of Development Annual Fire Incident Rate Engine Cost @ $145.29 per incident Engine Life Cost @ 20 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $3.27 $65.40
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $0.004 $0.08
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $0.009 $0.18
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $.01 $0.20
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft $0.005 $0.10
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $0.00121 $0.04
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $.0001 $.02
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $0.01 $0.20
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $0.006 $0.12
$3.32 $66.34
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 65 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
26
Table 16 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a ladder truck responding to fire
incidents. The incident rate (from Table 14) is multiplied by the ladder’s capital cost per fire
incident ($128.20 from Table 7) The result is then multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a
ladder truck to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks.
Table 16: Ladder Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
Land Use Unit of
Development
Annual Fire
Incident Rate
Ladder Cost
@ $128.20
per incident Ladder Life Cost
@ 20 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $2.88 $57.60
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $0.004 $0.08
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $0.008 $0.16
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $.001 $0.02
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft $0.0045 $0.09
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $0.0014 $0.03
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $.001 $.02
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $0.01 $0.20
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $0.005 $0.10
$58.30
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 66 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
27
Table 17 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for medic vehicles responding to
fire incidents. The incident rate is multiplied by the unit capital cost per fire incident ($8.80
from Table 7). The result is then multiplied times the 7-year useful life of an aid vehicle to
calculate the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles.
Table 17: Medic Vehicle Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use
Categories
Land Use Unit of
Development
Annual Fire
Incident Rate
Medic Unit
Cost @
$8.80per
incident
Medic Unit Life
Cost @ 7 Year
Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $.20 $1.40
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $0.0003 $0.002
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $0.0005 $0.004
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $.00009 $0.0006
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft $0.0003 $0.002
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $0.00009 $0.0006
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $.00007 $.0005
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $0.0007 $0.005
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $0.0003 $0.002
$1.42
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 67 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
28
Table 18 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a brush truck’s response to fire
incidents. The incident rate is multiplied by the brush truck’s capital cost per fire incident
($29.96 from Table 7). The result is then multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a brush truck
to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for brush trucks.
Table 18: Brush Truck Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use
Land Use Unit of Development Annual Fire Incident Rate Brush Truck Cost @$29.96 per Incident
Brush Truck Life Cost @ 20 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $0.67 $13.40
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $0.0009 $0.02
Medical Care
Facility
Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $0.002 $0.04
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $0.0003 $0.006
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft $0.001 0.02
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $0.0003 0.006
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $0.000191 $0.004
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $0.002 $0.04
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $0.001 $0.02
$13.56
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 68 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
29
Table 19 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles responding to fire
incidents. The incident rate is multiplied by the staff vehicle capital cost per fire incident
($28.94 from Table 7). The result is then multiplied times the 10 year useful life of a staff
vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles.
Table 19: Staff Vehicle Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use
Categories
Land Use Unit of
Development
Annual Fire
Incident Rate
Staff Vehicle
Cost @$28.94
per Incident
Staff Vehicle
Life Cost @ 7
Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $0.65 $4.55
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $0.0009 $0.006
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $0.004 $0.03
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $0.0002 $0.001
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft $0.001 0.007
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $0.0003 0.002
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $0.0002 $0.001
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $0.002 $0.01
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $0.001 $0.007
$4.60
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 69 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
30
Table 20 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for Tender units responding to fire
incidents. The incident rate is multiplied by the Tender capital cost per fire incident ($44.92
from Table 7). The result is then multiplied times the 20 year useful life of a Tender to calculate
the capital cost per unit of development for Tenders.
Table 20: Tender Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use Categories
Land Use Unit of
Development
Annual Fire
Incident Rate
Tender Cost
@$44.92 per
Incident
Tender
Vehicle Life
Cost @ 20
Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $1.01 $20.20
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $.001 $.02
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $.003 $.06
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $.0004 $.008
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft $.002 $.04
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $.0005 $.01
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $.0003 $.006
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $.004 $.08
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $.002 $.04
$20.50
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 70 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
31
Table 21 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a Squad response to fire
incidents. The incident rate is multiplied by the Squad’s capital cost per fire incident ($16.08
from Table 7). The result is then multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a Squad to calculate
the capital cost per unit of development for Squad’s.
Table 21: Squad Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use Categories
Land Use Unit of
Development
Annual Fire
Incident Rate
Squad Cost
@$16.08 per Incident
Squad Life
Cost @ 20 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $.36 $7.24
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $.0005 $.01
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $.001 $.02
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $.0002 $.003
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $.0006 $.01
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $.0001 $.002
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $.01 $.03
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $.006 $.01
$7.33
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 71 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
32
Table 22 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a Rescue Vehicle response to
fire incidents. The incident rate is multiplied by the Rescue Vehicle capital cost per fire incident
($11.35 from Table 7). The result is then multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a Rescue
Vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for Rescue Vehicles.
Table 22: Rescue Vehicle Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use
Categories
Land Use Unit of Development Annual Fire Incident Rate Rescue Vehicle Cost
@$11.35 per
Incident
Rescue Vehicle Life
Cost @ 20
Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $.26 $5.11
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $.0003 $.007
Medical Care
Facility
Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $.0007 $.01
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $.0001 $.002
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft $.0004 $.008
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $.0001 $.002
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $.0009 $.002
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $.0009 $.002
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $.0004 $.009
$5.15
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 72 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
33
Table 23 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for other apparatus / equipment’s
response to fire incidents. The incident rate is multiplied by the other apparatus / equipment’s
capital cost per fire incident ($45.08 from Table 7). The result is then multiplied times the 10-
year useful life of other apparatus / equipment to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for apparatus / equipment.
Table 23: Other Apparatus / Equipment Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and
Land Use Categories
Land Use Unit of
Development
Annual Fire
Incident Rate
Other
Apparatus /
Equipment
Cost @$45.08
per Incident
Other
Apparatus /
Equipment
Life Cost @
10 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $1.01 $10.10
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $.001 $.03
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $.003 $.05
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $.0004 $.009
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft $.002 $.02
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $.0005 $.01
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $.0003 $.003
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $.003 $.03
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $.002 $.02
$10.27
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 73 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
34
Table 24 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for Fire Stations that house fire
apparatus. The fire incident rate (from Table 14) is multiplied by the fire station’s capital cost
per fire and medical incident ($71.83 from Table 9). The result is then multiplied times the 50-
year useful life of fire stations to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for fire
stations.
Table 24: Fire Station Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use
Categories
Land Use Unit of
Development
Annual Fire
Incident Rate
Fire Station
Cost @$71.83
per Incident
Fire Station
Life Cost @
50 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.0225per dwelling unit $1.62 $80.81
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00003 per sq ft $.002 $.11
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.000060 per sq ft $.004 $.22
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.000009677 per sq ft $.0007 $.03
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0000354 per sq ft $.003 $.13
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.0000107 per sq ft $.0008 $.04
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000007537 per sq ft $.0005 $.03
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00007826 per sq ft $.006 $.28
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00003877 per sq ft $.003 $.14
$81.79
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 74 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
35
Table 25 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station (from Tables 15 – 24)
to show the capital cost of responses to fire incidents for one unit of residential development.
Table 25: Example of Calculation of Total Capital Cost for a Residential Unit
Cost Component Cost Source
Engine $65.40 Table 15
Ladder $57.60 Table 16
Medic Unit $1.40 Table 17
Brush Truck $13.40 Table 18
Staff Vehicle $4.55 Table 19
Tender $20.20 Table 20
Squad $7.24 Table 21
Rescue $5.11 Table 22
Other Apparatus / Equipment $10.10 Table 23
Fire Station $80.81 Table 24
Total $265.81
This example is repeated for each land use to combine its capital costs of all types of apparatus
and station in Table 26.
Table 26: Total Capital Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use
Categories
Land Use Unit of Development Fire Incident Life Cost of All Apparatus and Station
Residential Per dwelling unit $265.81
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
Per square foot $0.37
Medical Care Facility Per square foot $0.77
Commercial:
Office Per square foot $0.29
Retail Per square foot $0.43
Restaurants Per square foot $0.14
Industrial Per square foot $0.12
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per square foot $0.86
Education Per square foot $0.47
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 75 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
36
Formula F-9: Cost per Apparatus per fire or Medical Incident
The annual cost per type of apparatus is the same as in Table 3. The cost per
apparatus per fire or BLS incident is the same as Table 4.
Formula F-10: Apparatus Cost per Medical Incident
The calculation of apparatus cost per medical incident is similar to the calculation of
costs per fire incident in Table 7. The total apparatus cost per medical incident is calculated by
multiplying the cost per apparatus per response by the percent of medical incidents each type
of apparatus responds to. This calculation accounts for the fact that multiple apparatus are
dispatched to many incidents, and that some apparatus are only dispatched to specific types of
incidents. The result of this calculation is a weighted average total cost of apparatus per
medical incident.
F-10. Apparatus Cost Per Response x Apparatus Percent of Medical Responses = Apparatus
Cost Per Medical Incident
There are no new variables used in formula F-10. The first variable is identical to
the data from Table 4, and the second variable concerning the percent of medical responses
works identically to Variable F, but using medical responses instead of fire responses.
Different types of medical emergencies need different types or combinations of apparatus. As a
result, the usage of apparatus varies among the types of apparatus. This variance is an
important factor in determining the cost per incident. The percent of medical responses by
each type of apparatus is calculated in Table 27 by dividing the annual medical responses for
each type of apparatus by the total annual medical incidents from Table 5. The result of the
calculation in Table 27 is the percent of medical incidents responded to by each type of
apparatus. For example, engines provided 746 responses to the 3,407 medical incidents,
equaling 21.9% of all medical incidents. Another way to understand this data is that one
average medical incident involved 0.219 engines therefore the cost of responding to
a medical incident includes 21.9% of the cost of an engine.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 76 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
37
Table 27: Medical Incident Response by Type of Apparatus
Type of Apparatus Total Annual Medical Responses for Apparatus Percent of Annual Medical Related Incidents Dispatched to (Col 2/ 2896) Engine 956 33% Ladder 87 3% Medic Unit 3,186 110% Brush Truck 0 0% Squad 12 0.004% Tender 0 0% Staff Vehicles 198 6.8% Other Apparatus & Equipment 22 0.8% Total 4,461 153.6%
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per medical incident is shown in Table 28. The
cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 7) is multiplied by the percent of
medical incidents dispatched to (from Table 27) resulting in the total apparatus cost per
medical incident. The “bottom line” in Table 28 is the apparatus cost per medical incident of
$73.77.
Table 28: Total Apparatus Cost per Medical Incident
Type of Apparatus Apparatus Cost Per Response Annual Percent of Medical Incidents Dispatched to Apparatus Cost per Medical Incident (Col2 * Col3) Engine $119.09 33% $39.30 Ladder $170.32 3% $5.11 Medic Unit $8.80 110% $9.68 Brush Truck $434.21 0% $0.00 Squad $151.72 0.004% $0.61 Rescue $620.00 0% $0.00 Tender $2,041.66 0% $0.00 Staff Vehicles $45.08 6.8% $3.07 Other Apparatus & Equipment $2,000.00 0.8% $16.00 Total $5,590.88 $73.77
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 77 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
38
Formula F-11: Station Cost per Fire and Medical Incident
The station cost per fire and medical incident is the same as Table 9. The formula is the same as
Formula F-6.
Formula F-12: Annual Medical Incident Rate per Unit of Development
Formula F-12 is the same as Formula F-7. The annual medical incident rate per unit of
development is calculated using the same methodology as described for fire incidents in Tables
10-14.
There are no new variables used in formula F-12. The variables are identical to those used in
Formula F-7, but using medical incidents instead of fire incidents.
During 2015, Moses Lake’s Fire Department responded to 2,896 medical incidents. Of the
2,896 medical incidents 2,559 were traceable to a type of development (i.e., the incident
occurred at a specific type of property such as a residence or business) or they were traffic-
related (occurred on a roadway) and were included in the following detailed analysis of
incidents to land uses. Of the 2,896 medical incidents analyzed 2,487 occurred at a specific
property and 72 were traffic-related.
The remaining 337 medical incidents were not traceable to either a specific property or a
traffic-related incident, therefore these 337 are apportioned to land uses and traffic on the
same basis as the 2,896 incidents that are traceable. Table 29 shows the allocation of the 337
incidents without land use designations to the property and traffic categories using the same
percentage as the 2,896 incidents for which a location was identifiable. Thus 325 of the 337
medial incidents were allocated the same as the incidents at identifiable lands uses, and the
other 12 medical incidents were allocated the same as the traffic-related incidents.
Table 29: Medical Incidents
Incident Location Incidents Identifiable by Location Incidents Not Identifiable by Location Total Incidents
Total 2,559 337 2,896 At Properties % of Total 2,487 85.8% 325 11% 2,812 97.94% In Roads & Streets % of Total 72 2.5% 12 0.04% 84 2.05%
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 78 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
39
There are four tables that present the allocation of medical incidents among types of land use:
Table 30 shows the medical incidents that were identifiable by land use type, Table 31 shows
the medical incidents that were traffic-related. Table 32 combines the medical incident data
(land use and traffic), and Table 33 shows the medical incident rate per unit of development.
Table 30 shows the distribution of the 2,896 medical incidents that are traceable to a specific
land use along with the percent distribution of these 2,896 incidents. In column 4 the total
2,896 medical incidents to land use (2,559 traceable + 337 allocated) is allocated among the
land use types using the percent distribution column. The result is the total annual medical
incidents at each of the land use types.
Table 30: Medical Incidents at Specific Land Uses
Land Use Medical Incidents Identifiable to Land Use Percent of All Medical Incidents Identifiable to Land Use
Residential 854 + 29 Allocated 883 30.56%
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
54 + 6Allocated 60 2.07%
Medical Care Facility 1656 + 101 Allocated 1,757 60.62%
Commercial:
Office 49 +2Allocated 51 1.75%
Retail 49+ 3Allocated 52 1.8%
Restaurants 6 + 1 Allocated 7 .25%
Industrial 49 + 8 Allocated 57 1.95%
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit 11 + 1 Allocated 12 0.40%
Education 15+ 2 Allocated 17 0.60%
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 79 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
40
The traffic-related BLS incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the amount of traffic
generated by each type of land use. In Table 31, the number of dwelling units and square feet
of non-residential construction in Moses Lake is multiplied times the number of trips that are
generated by each land use type in the same manner as Table 12. The result is the total trips
associated with each land use type. The percent of trips associated with each land use type is
calculated from the total of all trips.
In the final calculation in Table 31 the total 84 annual medical incidents that are traffic-related
(72 traceable + 12allocated) is allocated among the land use types using the percent of trips
generated.
Table 31: Traffic Related Medical Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
Land Use Moses Lake Units of Development
ITE Trip Generation Rate / per D.U. or Per
Unit of
Development
Total Trips (col 2 x col3)
Percent of Trips Generated
Allocate 84 Traffic Related Medical
Incidents by
Land use (Col 5 *84)
Residential 9.200 d.u 4.23228 38,937 29.16% 24
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
732,000 Sq.Ft 0.00446 3,265 2.5% 2
Medical Care
Facility
701,099 Sq. Ft .00825 5,784 4.3% 4
Commercial:
Office 2,790,000SqFt 0.00551 15,373 11.54% 10
Retail 1,723,000 Sq Ft 0.02147 36,993 27.7% 23
Restaurants 152,200 Sq Ft 0.06358 9,677 7.2% 6
Industrial 4,900.255 SqFt 0.00349 17,102 12.8% 11
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit 345,000SqFt 0.00456 1,573 1.2% 1
Education 747,920SqFt 0.00645 4,824 3.6% 3
Total 133,528 100% 84
Table 32 summarizes the results of the analysis of medical incidents. The total annual medical
incidents is a combination of the medical incidents allocated among direct responses to land
use categories and the allocation of traffic related incidents based on trip generation rates
(from Table 31)
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 80 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
41
Table 32: Total Annual Medical Incidents by Land Use
Land Use Annual Medical Incidents Direct to Land Use
Annual Traffic Related Medical Incidents by Land Use
Total Annual Medical Incidents by
Land Use
Residential 869 14 883
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort 58 2 60
Medical Care Facility 1736 19 1755
Commercial:
Office 41 10 51
Retail 29 19 48
Restaurants 7 6 13
Industrial 46 11 57
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit 11 1 12
Education 15 2 17
Total 2812 84 2896
The final step in determining the annual medical incident rate per unit of development is shown
in Table 33. The total annual medical incidents for each type of land use (from Table 32) are
divided by the number of dwelling units or square feet of structures to calculate the annual
medical incident rate per dwelling unit or square foot. The units of development are the same
as was used to determine traffic-related incidents (see Table 30). The results in Table 33 show
how many times an average unit of development has a medical incident to which the City of
Moses Lake responds.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 81 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
42
Table 33: Annual Medical Incidents by Land Use
Land Use Total Annual Medical Incidents to Land Use Units of Development Annual Medical Unit of Incidents per Development
Residential 883 9,200 d.u 0.10 Per Dwelling Unit
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
60 732,000
Sq.Ft
0.00008 per square foot
Medical Care Facility 1755 701,099 Sq.
Ft
0.0025 per square foot
Commercial:
Office 51 2,790,000SqFt 0.00001 per square foot
Retail 48 1,723,000 SqFt 0.00002 per square foot
Restaurants 13 152,200 SqFt 0.00009 per square foot
Industrial 57 4,900,255 SqFt 0.000001
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit 12 345,000SqFt 0.00003
Education 17 747,920SqFt 0.00002
Total 2,896
Formula F-13: Medical Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
The capital cost of medical incidents per unit of development is determined by multiplying the
annual medical incidents per unit of development (from Table 32) times the annual capital cost
per medical incident incident of each type of apparatus (from Table 28) and fire station, then
multiplying that result times the useful life of the apparatus or fire station.
F-13. Annual medical Incidents Per Unit Of Development x Annual Cost Per Medical Incident
X Useful Life Of Apparatus or Station = Medical Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-13. The variables are identical to those used in
Formula F-8, but using BLS incident rates and costs instead of fire incident rates and costs.
In Tables 34 – 40 on the following pages, each medical incident rate (from Table 32) is
multiplied by the annual capital cost per medical incident. The result is then multiplied times
the useful life of the apparatus or station to calculate the capital cost per unit of development
for each type of apparatus and station.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 82 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
43
This series of tables does not include the cost for units that do not respond to medical
incidents.
Table 34 calculates the BLS related capital costs of an engine per unit of development. For
example, residential units average 0.10 medical incidents per year (i.e., 10% of a medical
incident per year). Multiplying this by the annual capital cost of $39.30 per incident (from Table
28) produces the result that it costs $3.93 per dwelling unit to provide it with engines for one
year. Since the engine lasts 20 years, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 20 times the
annual rate, for a total of $78.60.
Table 34: Engine Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories
Land Use Unit of
Development
Annual Medical
Incident Rate
Engine Cost
@ $39.30 per
incident Engine Life Cost
@ 20 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.10 Per Dwelling Unit $3.93 $78.60
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00008 $.003 $.06
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.0025 $.10 $2.00
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.00001 $.0004 $.008
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.0008 $.02
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.00009 $.0003 $.006
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000001 $.00004 $.0008
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00003 $.001 $.02
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.0008 $.02
$80.73
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 83 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
44
Table 35 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for medic units responding to
medical incidents. The incident rate (from Table 33) is multiplied by the medic unit capital cost
per medical incident ($9.68 from Table 28) The result is then multiplied times the 7 year useful
life of a medic unit to calculate the capital cost of development for medic units.
Table 35: Medic Unit Cost of Reponses to Medical Incidents at Land Use
Categories
Land Use Unit of Development Annual Medical Incident Rate Medic Cost @ $9.68 per incident Medic Life Cost @ 7 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.10 Per Dwelling Unit $.97 $6.79
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00008 $.0008 $.006
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.0025 $.02 $.14
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.00001 $.0001 $.0007
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.0002 $.0014
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.00009 $.0002 $.0014
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000001 $.00001 $.00007
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00003 $.0003 $.0021
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.0002 $.0014
$6.94
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 84 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
45
Table 36 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for Squad units responding to
medical incidents. The incident rate (from Table 33) is multiplied by the Squad unit capital cost
per medical incident ($0.61 from Table 28) The result is then multiplied times the 20 year useful
life of a Squad unit to calculate the capital cost of development for Squad units.
Table 36: Squad Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories
Land Use Unit of Development Annual Medical Incident Rate Squad Cost @ $0.61 per incident Squad Life Cost @ 20 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.10 Per Dwelling Unit $.06 $1.20
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00008 $.00005 $.001
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.0025 $.002 $.04
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.00001 $.000006 $.00012
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.00001 $.0002
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.00009 $.00005 $.001
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000001 $.0000006 $.000012
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00003 $.0002 $.004
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.00001 $.0002
$1.25
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 85 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
46
Table 37 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for Staff units responding to
medical incidents. The incident rate (From Table 33) is multiplied by the Staff unit capital cost
per medical incident ($3.07 from Table 28) The result is then multiplied times the 10 year useful
life of a Staff unit to calculate the capital cost of development for Staff units.
Table 37: Staff Unit Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use
Categories
Land Use Unit of Development Annual Medical Incident Rate Staff Unit Cost @ $3.07 per incident Staff Unit Life Cost @ 10 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.10 Per Dwelling Unit $.31 $3.10
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00008 $.0002 $.002
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.0025 $.008 $.08
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.00001 $.00003 $.0003
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.00006 $.0006
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.00009 $.0003 $.003
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000001 $.000003 $.0003
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00003 $.00009 $.0009
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.00006 $.0006
$3.19
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 86 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
47
Table 38 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for Other Apparatus and
equipment responding to medical incidents. The incident rate (From Table 33) is multiplied by
the Other Apparatus and equipment capital cost per medical incident ($0.04 from Table 28) The
result is then multiplied times the 10 year useful life of a Other Apparatus and equipment to
calculate the capital cost of development for Other Apparatus and equipment.
Table 38: Other Apparatus & Equipment Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents
at Land Use Categories
Land Use Unit of Development Annual Medical Incident Rate Other Apparatus Cost @ $16.00 per incident
Other Apparatus Life Cost @ 10 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.10 Per Dwelling Unit $1.60 $16.00
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Sq Ft 0.00008 $.001 $.01
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.0025 $.04 $.40
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.00001 $.0002 $.002
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.0003 $.003
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.00009 $.001 $.01
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000001 $.00002 $.0002
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00003 $.0005 $.005
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.0003 $.003
$16.43
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 87 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
48
Table 39: Fire Station Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use
Categories
Table 39 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for Fire Stations that house medical
apparatus. The incident rate (From Table 33) is multiplied by the fire station’s capital cost per
fire and medical incident ($66.33 from Table 9). The result is then multiplied times the 50 year
useful life of a fire station to calculate the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations.
Land Use Unit of Development Annual Medical Incident Rate Fire Station Cost @ $71.83 per
incident
Fire Station Life Cost @ 50 Year Life
Residential Per Dwelling Unit 0.10 Per Dwelling Unit $7.18 $359.00
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
Per Sq Ft 0.00008 $.006 $.30
Medical Care Facility Per Sq Ft 0.0025 $.18 $9.00
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.00001 $.0007 $.04
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.001 $.05
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.00009 $.006 $.30
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.000001 $.00007 $.04
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Sq Ft 0.00003 $.002 $.10
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00002 $.001 $.05
$368.88
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 88 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
49
Table 40 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station from tables 34-39 to
show the total capital cost of responses to medical incidents for one unit of residential
development.
Table 40: Total Capital Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use
Categories
Land Use Unit of Development Medical Incident Life Cost of All Apparatus and Station
Residential Per Dwelling Unit $464.39
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Square Foot $0.38
Medical Care Facility Per Square Foot $11.66
Commercial:
Office Per Square Foot $0.05
Retail Per Square Foot $0.07
Restaurants Per Square Foot $0.32
Industrial Per Square Foot $0.31
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Square Foot $0.13
Education Per Square Foot $0.09 $477.40
Formula F-14: Fire and Medical Cost Per Unit of Development
The fire and medical costs per unit of development from the preceding tables are combined to
determine the total fire and medical cost per dwelling unit or non-residential square foot.
F-14: Fire Incident Capital Cost per Unit of Development + Medical Incident Capital Cost per
Unit of Development = Fire and Medical Cost per Unit of Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-14. Both variables were developed in previous
formulas and tables.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 89 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
50
In Table 41 the fire and medical costs per unit of development are added together to determine
the combined total fire and medical cost per dwelling unit or non-residential square foot.
Table 41: Total Cost of Response to Fire and Medical Incidents by Land Use
Category
Land Use Unit of Development Medical Incident Life Cost of All Apparatus and Station
Fire Incident Life Cost of All Apparatus and Station
Combined Life Cost of all Apparatus and Station
Residential Per Dwelling Unit $464.39 $265.81 $730.20
Non-Residential Hotel/Motel/Resort Per Square Foot $0.38 $0.37 $0.75
Medical Care Facility Per Square Foot $11.66 $0.77 $12.43
Commercial:
Office Per Square
Foot
$0.05 $0.29 $0.34
Retail Per Square
Foot
$0.07 $0.43 $0.50
Restaurants Per Square
Foot
$0.32 $0.14 $0.46
Industrial Per Square
Foot
$0.31 $0.12 $0.43
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit Per Square Foot $0.13 $0.86 $0.99
Education Per Square Foot $0.09 $0.47 $0.56
Formula F-15: Adjustments and Impact Fees
The final step in determining the fire services impact fee is to reduce the cost per dwelling unit
or non-residential square foot by subtracting any credits for other revenue from existing and
new development that the City of Moses Lake will use to pay for part of the cost of the same
fire protection facilities that are the basis of the impact fee, and any adjustment to comply with
RCW 82.02.050(7).
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 90 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
51
F-15: Fire and Medical Cost per Unit of Development – Adjustment for Revenue Credits =
Impact Fee per Unit of Development
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (J) adjustment for revenue credits.
Variable (J): Adjustment for Revenue Credits
Moses Lake does not have dedicated revenues for fire stations and apparatus, therefore there
is no adjustment for future payments of other revenues that are used to pay for the same new
fire stations and apparatus that are required to serve the new development. The only revenue
sources to be included in the adjustment are those that are used for fire services facilities
capacity expansion according to law and local policy or practice.
Adjustments are not given for other payments that are not used for new fire services facilities
needed for new development. Such an adjustment would extend to payments of all taxes for all
purposes to all forms of governments, which contradicts the well-established system of
restricting fees, charges, and many taxes for specific public facilities and services. Adjustments
are not given for revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs because
impact fees are not used for such expenses.
The final step in Table 42 (on the next page) is to further reduce the impact fees that would be
charged to new development in order to implement RCW 82.02.050(7) which provides that
“…the financing for system improvements to serve new development … cannot rely solely on
impact fees.” The statute provides no further guidance, and “not rely solely” could be anything
between 0.1% and 99.9%.
RCW 82.02.060(1)(b) requires an adjustment for revenue credits to be given only for
"...payments made or reasonably anticipated to be made by new development to pay for
particular system improvements in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other
payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement (emphasis
added);"
The adjustment of 3% used in Table 42 is comparable to what other jurisdictions that do not
have dedicated revenues for fire stations and apparatus have implemented by way of an
adjustment. Table 42 shows the cost per dwelling unit or non-residential square foot from
Table 41, the 3% adjustment, and the impact fee after the adjustment is subtracted from the
full cost.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 91 of 98
Rate Study for Impact Fees – City of Moses Lake
52
Table 42: Fire Impact Fees by Land Use
Land Use Total Fire and Medical Cost of Impact Development Credit Adjustment @ 3.00% Fire and Medical Impact Fee Per Unit of Development
Residential $730.20 $21.91 $708.29
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
$0.75 $0.02 $0.73
Medical Care Facility $12.43 $0.37 $12.06
Commercial:
Office $0.34 $0.01 $0.33
Retail $0.50 $0.02 $0.48
Restaurants $0.46 $0.01 $0.45
Industrial $0.43 $0.01 $0.44
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit $0.99 $0.03 $0.96
Education $0.56 $0.02 $0.54
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 92 of 98
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To: City Council
From: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager
Date: September 5, 2019
Proceeding Type: New Business
Subject: Moses Lake School District Property Purchase Proposal
Legislative History:
• First Presentation: September 10, 2019
• Second Presentation:
• Action: Motion
Staff Report Summary
The MLSD is proposing to purchase property on the Southwest corner of Wheeler Rd and Rd L NE
to build a new elementary school. The property is located within the City’s municipal airport
protection zone. The property is within the UGA but not within the current city limits. The MLSD
is on an accelerated timeline to get approval on this specific property.
Background
City personnel have had three meetings with the MLSD regarding the purchase of this property
for a new elementary school site. The City has shared information concerning Land Use
Compatibility and Airports along with a map showing the protection zones. The municipal airport
is identified by the City and state law as an “essential public facility” which requires protection by
the City through its zoning laws and comprehensive planning. The City Council has previously
adopted an airport master plan along with zoning and comprehensive plan provisions designated
to protect the airport.
The Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division sent a letter to the City
discouraging the building of a new school within the protection zone.
The school district would like to make a formal request of the City Council to support this site
selection for the location of the new elementary school.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 93 of 98
Page 2 of 2
Fiscal and Policy Implications
The location of incompatible and encroaching land uses within the airport protection zone may
have a negative impact on the airport operations and future development. Approval of such use
conflicts with the city’s current land use, comprehensive planning, and airport master plan, as
well as WSDOT Aviation’s specific recommendations. Allowing the siting of incompatible land
uses within the airport protection zone could also impact the city’s ability to receive future state
funding for the airport. Relocation of the municipal airport would, for all practical purposes, be
impossible.
Options
Option Result
•
•
Staff Recommendation
Attachments
A.
Legal Review
The following documents are attached and subject to legal review:
Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel
•
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 94 of 98
Page 1 of 2
STAFF REPORT
To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager
From: Fred Snoderly, Municipal Services Director
Date: September 6, 2019
Proceeding Type: New Business
Subject: Emergency Declaration for Sewer Main Replacement on
Northshore Drive
Legislative History:
• First Presentation:
• Second Presentation:
• Requested Action:
September 10, 2019
Motion
Staff Report Summary
The City Manager directed staff to create a Resolution declaring an emergency exists for public
works to address the failing sewer siphon across the lake from Northshore Drive under the
authority granted him in Resolution 3668 for emergency contracts up to $100,000. Staff is
requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying that an emergency exists as defined
in RCW 39.04.280(3) as required in Resolution 3668.
Background
The existing sewer main siphon from Northshore Drive and Broadway Avenue has experienced
multiple breaks in the past few years. This is due to the age and deterioration of the steel pipe that
have been in service for several decades. In order to prevent even more breaks, which could result
in property damage and dangerous conditions on the roadway, the City Manager directed staff to
create a Resolution declaring an emergency exists. This allows the City to waive the formal bidding
process for the re-routing of sewer mains in Northshore Drive to take the deteriorating pipe out of
service in the area where the breaks are happening.
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 95 of 98
Page 2 of 2
Fiscal and Policy Implications
The project will require city funds to be spent.
Options
Option Results
• Move to adopt the Resolution as
presented
Staff will proceed with the work.
• Take no action Work will cease on the contract.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council adopt the Resolution as presented
Attachments
A. Resolution 3780
Legal Review
N-A
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 96 of 98
RESOLUTION NO. 3780
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY AND WAIVING AND DISPENSING WITH THE STATUTORY COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS
Recitals 1. The City of Moses Lake is a code city operating under the authority of Chapter 35A RCW. 2. The City, under Title 35A.11 RCW and RCW 35A.13.230, has “… any authority
ever given to any class of municipality or to all municipalities of this state…”
3. The City has the authority to commence a public work without complying with the statutory bid requirements in an emergency situation under the authority given by RCW 35.22.620(6), RCW 39.04.280, and other Washington law. 4. Sewer main crossing the lake from Northshore Drive and Broadway Avenue has
broken in multiple places in the past. These breaks have caused spilled sewage into
the lake and disrupted service to local homes and businesses. 5. Existing sewer main was originally constructed with steel pipe which has become brittle and has experienced several recent failures. 6. Emergency repairs by City Staff to the pipe have not resolved the problem and it
is necessary to re-route the sewer main for a permanent fix to stop the damage to
streets and adjacent property 7. The sudden failure of the sewer main was an unforeseen circumstance beyond the control of the City and created an emergency condition for the citizens of the City. The failure of said sewer main presents a real, immediate threat to the health, safety,
and welfare of the City of Moses Lake; including material loss and damage to
property or bodily injury or harm. 8. Therefore, an emergency exists due to the failure of said sewer main, and complying with the statutory bid requirements would unnecessarily delay the completion of the sewer main repair and sewer service delivery, and any increased
costs associated with waiving the competitive bidding process will be outweighed
by the costs associated with the sewer main being out of service for an extended period and potential discharge to the lake. 9. There are sufficient unexpended monies available for repairs in the appropriate sewer utility account to complete the repairs.
Resolved 1. An emergency exists due to the recent failure of sewer main, and it is imperative to re-route the sewer system to take the existing siphon out of service as quickly as possible to insure the adequate delivery of sewer and to preserve and protect the
public’s health, safety, and welfare, to prevent property damage, and to prevent
extreme measures such as service shutdowns. 2. Because an emergency exists, under the laws of the state of Washington, the statutory bid requirements are dispensed with and waived for the repairs to sewer main in Northshore Drive.
3. This emergency condition was caused by a sudden break in the sewer main.
Information has been delivered to Contractors in the area that are capable and qualified to perform this public work. Contractors have a limited time to respond. Any and all actions taken by the City Manager prior to September 10, 2019 in connection with this emergency and the sewer main repair work, including the
selection of any Contractors and the execution of any contracts and other necessary
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 97 of 98
documents, are hereby approved, confirmed, and ratified.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake on September 10, 2019.
_____________________________________ Karen Liebrecht, Mayor ATTEST:
_____________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk
Moses Lake Council Packet 9-10-19, Page 98 of 98