The URL can be used to link to this page

2019 1008 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 Regular Meeting Agenda October 8, 2019, 7 PM Call to Order – 7 p.m. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Summary Reports: Mayor’s Report 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. 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 September 24, 2019 b. Claims and Payroll Old Business #2 pg 43 Fire Impact Fee Ordinance Presented by Kris Robbins, Community Development Director Summary: Review options and provide direction to staff Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 1 of 141 October 8, 2019, City Council Meeting – Page 2 #3 pg 116 Larson Rec Center Funding Motion Presented by Cindy Jensen, Finance Director Summary: Review options and provide direction to staff #4 pg 119 Grant County Conservation District Funding Motion Presented by Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager Summary: Review options and provide direction to staff #5 pg 126 LTAC Funding for the Chamber of Commerce Motion Presented by Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager Summary: Review options and provide direction to staff New Business #6 pg 128 Fireworks MLMC Title 8.04 Clean Up Ordinance - First Presentation Presented by Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager Summary: Council to review and consider adoption at the next meeting #7 pg 134 Repeal Clover Drive Vacate Ordinance - First Presentation Presented by Kris Robbins, Community Development Director Summary: Council to review and consider adoption at the next meeting #8 pg 140 Solid Waste Services Franchise Motion Presented by Cindy Jensen, Finance Director Summary: Review options and provide direction to staff Administrative Reports Council Communications and Reports Adjournment Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 2 of 141 MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL September 24, 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, Leonard, Riggs, and Hankins. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Myers led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR’S REPORT Agenda Change Item #3 Nuisance Abatement Resolutions have been cancelled due to compliance. Port of Moses Lake Mobility Guard Mayor Liebrecht was invited to attend an airport maneuver exercise and was asked to convey a warm thank you to the community for the great hospitality received by the Air Force participants. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT New Employee Finance Director Cindy Jensen introduced and provided a brief biography about Wendy Parks the new Accounting Manager. Budget Workshop Interim City Manager Fuhr requested Council confirmation to schedule the 2020 Budget Workshop on Saturday, October 26. PRESENTATION Grant County Health District Executive Director Teresa Atkinson provided a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate the organization’s goals, priorities, and funding sources. She requested Council to consider increasing the allocation of funds from the City for 2020. She also requested everyone like them on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/GCHD.WA/ CONSENT AGENDA #1 a. City Council meeting minutes dated September 10, 2019b.Claims in the amount of $418,047.72; claim checks in the amount of $53,616.89; prepaid claim checks in the amount of $2,109,443.06; and payroll checks in theamount of $400,500.39c.Employee Policies Resolution 3782d. Build on Unplatted O’Reilly Resolution 3783 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 3 of 141 e. Award On Call Airport Engineering Services Contract f. Boeing Wastewater Discharge Without A Connection Action taken: Deputy Mayor Curnel moved to approve the Consent Agenda, second by Council Member Riggs. The motion carried 7 – 0. OLD BUSINESS #2 Larson Rec Center Design and Budget Update City Engineer Richard Law and Lee Driftmier provided a presentation showing the costs and layout of the proposed facility. Finance Director Cindy Jensen reviewed the memo distributed in April regarding potential allocations to fund a new facility and advised that the State has a loan program with very low interest rates. Council requested to have the funding information in the next meeting packet before they will proceed with approval of the next steps in building a Rec Center. NEW BUSINESS #3 Nuisance Abatements – Cancelled due to compliance. #4 SAFER Personnel Grant Resolution 3781 The Homeland Security Grant will provide funding to cover 75% of wages and benefits during the first two years and then 25% of wages in benefits in the third year for hiring three Firefighters. Action taken: Council Member Leonard moved to approve Resolution 3781, second by Deputy Mayor Curnel. The motion carried 7 – 0. #5 LTAC Application Funding Approval Staff thanked Executive Assistant Lia Gunderson for ensuring the applications were complete and available to the committee in advance of the meeting. The LTAC members met on September 17 to review 14 applications for funding in the year 2020. Seven applications were recommended for a portion of the requested amounts and two for the full request for a total of $266k. Action taken: Council Member Leonard moved to approve the recommended funds as listed removing the Chamber of Commerce to allow for further address and questions, second by Deputy Mayor Curnel. The motion carried 5 – 2. Council Members Jackson and Hankins were opposed. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Municipal Services Director Fred Snoderly stated there was only a reduction of 124 million gallons during water conservation months this year which is likely attributed to the wet weather this summer. He also announced that Northshore sewer main repair will begin on Monday and the Coolidge water main will begin this Thursday. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 4 of 141 Interim City Manager Kevin Fuhr brought back the actual cost to city property tax would be in the amount of $902 per year if 20% of registered voters approved to annex the Grant County Conservation District. An alternative way to join the District would be through a negotiated cost within an Interlocal Agreement. Council requested staff to post information online that spells out the responsibilities of the GCCD, the MLIRD, and the Watershed Council. Mr. Fuhr also announced that the School District has found a new location east of Highway 17 for a new elementary school. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS Council Member Jackson asked what the status was for helping the homeless this year. Staff replied that there is no funding for a warming shelter and funds resulting from new legislation will not be available until next year. Council Member Myers said that Grant County Transit has made a conditional offer of employment to their next General Manager. Council Member Leonard announced the Fireman’s Breakfast being held on October 5, starting at 6 a.m. Council Member Hankins asked if the Stratford Road project was on schedule. Staff replied yes, they will wrap up the work in November and the resurfacing will be done next year. Mayor Liebrecht asked if the homework assignments from the September 10 Study Session could be given to another staff person and the reply was to give them to Municipal Services Director Fred Snoderly. She also thanked Mr. Snoderly for agreeing to work on improving safe drop off locations for students. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. ______________________________________ Karen Liebrecht, Mayor ATTEST____________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 5 of 141 To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager From: Cindy Jensen, Finance Director Council Meeting Date: October 8, 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 145284 - 145569 $2,167,971.93 Payroll Checks 0063158 - 0063175 $18,684.20 Electronic Payments Payroll ACH -10/4/2019 $383,645.90 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 Finance Director 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 10-08-19, Page 6 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 7 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 8 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 9 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 10 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 11 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 12 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 13 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 14 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 15 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 16 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 17 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 18 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 19 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 20 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 21 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 22 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 23 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 24 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 25 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 26 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 27 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 28 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 29 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 30 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 31 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 32 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 33 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 34 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 35 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 36 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 37 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 38 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 39 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 40 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 41 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 42 of 141 STAFF REPORT To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager From: Kris Robbins, Community Development Director Date: October 3, 2019 Proceeding Type: Old Business Subject: Fire Impact Fee Ordinance 2932 Legislative History: • First Presentation: September 10, 2019 • Second Presentation: October 8, 2019 • Requested Action: Discussion Staff Report Summary The Community Development and Fire Departments 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. Auburn has approved fees and we are recommending consideration of their code procedure for approval. 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 court 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. The attached report has also been updated to break out the costs for Medical Facilities into the sub-categories of Hospitals and Clinics, and Skilled Nursing and LC (assisted living, memory care, and adult family homes). The code attached is from the City of Auburn that has also adopted such fees. Their information is provided as an example. We will modify it and prepare for the next meeting. Staff would like some feedback on the report as well as the code for the next meeting. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 43 of 141 Fiscal and Policy Implications This report is required to be approved by ordinance. Options Option Results • Accept report and draft regulations as presented. Staff will draft an ordinance for approval at the following Council meeting. • Take no action This would come back to Council for further discussion and direction. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Moses Lake City Council review the report and the proposed Auburn code and comment for acceptance and adoption at a future meeting. Attachments A. Auburn Ordinance adopting Fire Impact Fees (example) B. Updated Fire Impact Fee Study Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • Ordinance Fire Impact Fees Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 44 of 141 Chapter 19.06 FIRE IMPACT FEE Sections: 19.06.010 Findings and authority. 19.06.020 Definitions. 19.06.030 Reserved. 19.06.040 Assessment of impact fees. 19.06.050 Independent fee calculations. 19.06.060 Credits and adjustments. 19.06.070 Exemptions. 19.06.080 Appeals. 19.06.090 Establishment of impact fee account for fire protection. 19.06.100 Refunds. 19.06.110 Use of funds. 19.06.120 Review and update of impact fees. 19.06.130 Miscellaneous provisions. 19.06.010 Findings and authority. The council of the city of Auburn (the “council”) hereby finds and determines that new growth and development, including but not limited to new residential, commercial, retail, office, and industrial development, in the city of Auburn will create additional demand and need for fire protection facilities in the city of Auburn, and the council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of fire protection facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. The city of Auburn has conducted a study documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on fire protection facilities. This study has contributed to the rates as established in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts this chapter to assess impact fees for fire protection facilities. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.020 Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 or given their usual and customary meaning. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 45 of 141 A. “Act” means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, as now in existence or as hereafter amended. B. “Building permit,” for the purposes of this chapter only, means an official document or certification which is issued by the city and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure. In the case of increased impacts on fire protection facilities caused by a change in use or occupancy of an existing building or structure, and where no building permit is required, the term “building permit” shall specifically include business registrations. C. “Capital facilities plan” means the capital facilities plan element of the city’s comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, and such plan as amended. D. “City” means the city of Auburn. E. “Council” means the city council of the city of Auburn. F. “Department” means the department of planning and development. G. “Development activity” means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use of land, that creates additional demand and need for fire protection facilities. H. “Director” means the director of the department of planning and development or the director’s designee. I. “Downtown plan area” means the study area as identified and adopted in the City of Auburn Downtown Plan dated May 2001 that is defined by the boundary of the Union Pacific Railroad on the west and State Route 18 on the south. The eastern boundary is defined as F Street Southeast from State Route 18 to East Main Street, East Main Street from F Street Southeast to E Street Southeast, and E Street Northeast from East Main Street to 4th Street Northeast. The northern boundary is defined as 2nd Street Northwest from the Interurban Trail to D Street Northwest, 3rd Street Northwest/Northeast from D Street Northwest to Auburn Avenue, and 4th Street Northeast from Auburn Avenue to E Street Northeast. For the purposes of this chapter, the downtown plan boundary has been slightly modified to avoid bisecting properties. J. “Dwelling unit” means a building, or portion thereof, designed for residential occupancy consisting of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living quarters for one family only. K. “Encumbered” means to reserve, set aside or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations or other liabilities incurred for fire protection facilities. L. “Feepayer” is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any governmental entity commencing a land development activity which creates the demand for additional fire protection facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. “Feepayer” includes an applicant for an impact fee credit. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 46 of 141 M. “Fire protection facilities” means fire trucks and apparatus, and fire stations, and any furnishings and equipment that are used with fire trucks and apparatus or fire stations and which can be capitalized. N. “Fire protection project improvements” means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development or users of the project and are not fire protection system improvements. No fire protection improvement or facility included in a capital facilities plan approved by the council shall be considered a fire protection project improvement. O. “Fire protection system improvements” means fire protection facilities that are included in the city of Auburn’s capital facilities plan and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to fire protection project improvements. P. “Hearing examiner” means the examiner who acts on behalf of the council in considering and applying land use regulatory codes as provided under Chapter 2.46 ACC. Where appropriate, “hearing examiner” also refers to the office of the hearing examiner. Q. “Impact fee” means a payment of money imposed by the city of Auburn on development activity pursuant to this chapter as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the fire protection facilities needed to serve new growth and development. R. “Impact fee account” or “account” means the account established for the fire protection facilities’ impact fees collected. The account shall be established pursuant to ACC 19.06.090 and comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. S. “Independent fee calculation” means the fire protection impact calculation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the fee schedule. T. “Interest” means the interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool, if not otherwise defined. U. “Owner” means the owner of record of real property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property. V. “State” means the state of Washington. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 47 of 141 19.06.030 Reserved. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.040 Assessment of impact fees. A. Effective January 1, 2006, the city shall collect impact fees, based on the fee schedule of the city of Auburn, from any applicant seeking development approval from the city for any development activity within the city. B. The amount of impact fees shall be determined at the time an applicant submits a complete application for a building permit using the impact fee schedules then in effect, or pursuant to an independent fee calculation accepted by the director pursuant to ACC 19.06.050, and adjusted for any credits pursuant to ACC 19.06.060. C. Payment of impact fees shall be made by the feepayer at the time the building permit is issued for each unit in the development. The amount to be paid shall not be increased for any applicant that submitted a complete application for the building permit before the city established the impact fee rates. D. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to ACC 19.06.060 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ACC 19.06.060 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit awarded. Impact fees, as determined after the application of appropriate credits, shall be collected from the feepayer at the time the building permit is issued. E. The department shall not issue a building permit unless and until the impact fees have been paid or credit(s) awarded. F. For complete single-family building permit applications for new development, redevelopment or a change in use, and prior to or at the time of issuance of any single-family residential building permit for a dwelling unit that is being constructed, the applicant may elect to record a covenant against title to the property on forms prepared and provided by the city that requires payment of fire impact fees due and owing by providing for automatic payment through escrow of these fire impact fees due and owing to be paid no later than at time of closing of the sale of the unit or at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit, whichever comes first. Failure to pay shall result in the following: 1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid, the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACC 1.25.030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city. For the purposes of applying ACC 1.25.030 and 1.25.065, the responsible party shall constitute a property owner, the Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 48 of 141 property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occurring, and the impact fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted property(ies) under these sections. 2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges. In addition to the actions authorized in subsection (F)(1) of this section, the city may record a lien against the permitted property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full. 3. The appeals process authorized in ACC 19.06.080 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section. G. For complete multifamily building permit applications for new development, redevelopment or a change in use, and prior to or at the time of issuance of any multifamily residential building permit that is being constructed, the applicant may elect to record a covenant against title to the property on forms prepared and provided by the city that requires payment of fire impact fees due and owing by providing for automatic payment through escrow of these fire impact fees due and owing to be paid no later than at time of closing of the sale of the unit, or at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit, whichever comes first. Failure to pay shall result in the following: 1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid, the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACC 1.25.030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city. For the purposes of applying ACC 1.25.030 and 1.25.065, the responsible party shall constitute a property owner, the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occurring, and the impact fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted property(ies) under these sections. 2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges. In addition to the actions authorized in subsection (G)(1) of this section, the city may record a lien against the permitted property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full. 3. The appeals process authorized in ACC 19.06.080 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 49 of 141 H. For nonresidential development composed of new development, redevelopment or a change in use and inclusive of commercial office and retail uses, light and heavy manufacturing uses, but excluding warehousing and distribution uses, and institutional development including but not limited to public and private schools and colleges and hospitals, and prior to the issuance of any permit application and following the execution of a payment agreement on forms prepared and provided by the city, the applicant may elect to pay fire impact fees due and owing, less any credits awarded, no later than prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit, whichever comes first. Failure to pay shall result in the following: 1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid, the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACC 1.25.030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city. For the purposes of applying ACC 1.25.030 and 1.25.065, the responsible party shall constitute a property owner, the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occurring, and the impact fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted property(ies) under these sections. 2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges. In addition to the actions authorized in subsection (H)(1) of this section, the city may record a lien against the permitted property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full. 3. The appeals process authorized in ACC 19.06.080 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section. (Ord. 6455 § 4, 2013; Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.050 Independent fee calculations. A. If, in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in the fee schedule accurately describes or captures the impacts of the new development, the applicant shall conduct an independent fee calculation and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations, once accepted by the city. B. Feepayers may opt not to have the impact fees determined according to the fee schedule. Such feepayers shall prepare and submit to the director an independent fee calculation for the development activity for which a building permit is sought. The documentation submitted shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 50 of 141 C. A nonreimbursable administrative fee shall be charged for each independent fee calculation. The fee shall be deposited with the city to pay for city review of the independent fee calculation upon submittal of the documented independent fee study. D. After the city completes its review, the actual fees and expenses will be determined and the cash deposit shall be adjusted to provide for a refund by the city or additional payment by the feepayer. E. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the fee schedule are valid, the director shall consider the documentation submitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation which the director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the alternative, require the feepayer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case-by-case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or where adjustment is deemed by the director to be appropriate based on principles of fairness under the circumstances of the case. F. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be appealed to the office of the hearing examiner subject to the procedures set forth in ACC 19.06.080. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.060 Credits and adjustments. A. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits for fire protection impact fees be awarded to him/her for fire protection system improvement projects provided by the feepayer in excess of the standard requirements for the feepayer’s development if the land, improvements, and/or the facility constructed are identified as fire protection system improvements that provide capacity to serve new growth in the capital facilities plan, or the director, at his/her discretion, makes the finding that such land, improvements, and/or facilities would serve the fire protection goals and objectives of the capital facilities plan. B. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall determine the value of dedicated land by using available documentation or selecting an appraiser from a list of independent appraisers maintained by the department to determine the value of the land being dedicated. The value of improvements will be determined through documentation submitted by the feepayer. C. The feepayer shall pay the cost of the appraisal and shall deposit on account the estimated cost of the appraisal as determined by the city at the time the feepayer requests consideration for a credit. D. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, where applicable, the legal description of the site donated, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate and return such signed document to the director before Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 51 of 141 the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 days shall nullify the credit. E. Any claim for credit must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. F. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ACC 19.06.080. G. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the fee rate in the fee schedule has been reasonably adjusted for other revenue sources which are earmarked for, or proratable to, funding fire protection facilities. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.070 Exemptions. A. The following shall be exempted from the payment of fire protection impact fees: 1. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size and use at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure. 2. Alterations or expansion or enlargement or remodeling or rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional units are created and the use is not changed. 3. Alterations of an existing nonresidential structure that does not expand the useable space and that does not involve a change in use. 4. Miscellaneous improvements, including but not limited to fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. 5. Demolition or moving of a structure. 6. Any building permit application that has been submitted to the department before 5:00 p.m. the business day before the first effective date of the fire protection impact fee rate schedule and subsequently determined to be a complete application by the city. 7. All development activity within the “downtown plan area” as defined in ACC 19.06.020(I); provided, that this exemption shall sunset on December 31, 2006, unless otherwise extended by the city council. In order to comply with RCW 8.02.060(2), impact fees for development activity in the downtown plan area shall be paid for with public funds other than from impact fee accounts during the exemption period set forth herein. B. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption identified in this section. Determinations of the director shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ACC 19.06.080. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 52 of 141 19.06.080 Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be made by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal submitted under protest shall be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue have been paid. Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first paying the fees, providing the applicant is willing to provide a satisfactory security of the appealed fee amount in accordance with the requirements of ACC 17.14.010(A) prior to issuance of the building permit. Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first paying the fees, provided the applicant is willing to postpone issuance of the building permit until after the appeal process when the revised final fee is known. B. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director’s decision with respect to the independent fee calculation, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner. C. Appeals shall be taken within 10 days of the director’s issuance of a written determination by filing with the office of the hearing examiner a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof and depositing the necessary fee, which is set forth in the existing fee schedules for appeals of administrative decisions. The director shall transmit to the office of the hearing examiner all papers constituting the record for the determination, including, where appropriate, the independent fee calculation. D. The hearing examiner shall fix a time for the hearing of the appeal, give notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same as provided in Chapter 2.46 ACC. At the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or attorney. E. The hearing examiner is authorized to make findings of fact regarding the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or amount of the credit, or the accuracy or applicability of an independent fee calculation. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final, except as provided in subsection (G) of this section. F. The hearing examiner may, so long as such action is in conformance with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the determinations of the director with respect to the amount of the impact fees imposed or the credit awarded upon a determination that it is proper to do so based on principles of fairness, and may make such order, requirements, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have the powers which have been granted to the director by this chapter. G. Any feepayer aggrieved by any decision of the office of the hearing examiner may appeal the hearing examiner’s final decision as provided in Chapter 2.46 ACC. (Ord. 6442 § 30, 2012; Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 53 of 141 19.06.090 Establishment of impact fee account for fire protection. A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in special interest-bearing accounts. The fees received shall be prudently invested in a manner consistent with the investment policies of the city. B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the fees collected pursuant to this chapter: the fire protection facilities impact fee account. Funds withdrawn from these accounts must be used in accordance with the provisions of ACC 19.06.110. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in the account and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected. C. On an annual basis, the financial director shall provide a report to the council on the fire protection impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and the fire protection system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within six years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written findings an extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the delay. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.100 Refunds. A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or, where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ACC 19.06.090, the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first-in, first-out basis; provided, that any party that voluntarily elects to use the alternative fee payment method specified in ACC 19.06.040 shall sign as a condition of use of the alternative fee payment method a waiver of right on a form prepared and provided by the city to recovery of fire impact fees not spent within the statutory six-year timeframe. B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such claimants. A potential claimant or claimant must be the owner of the property. C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the director within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period shall be retained by the city and expended on the appropriate fire protection facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the city. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 54 of 141 F. If and when the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the fire protection impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail to the last known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the city, but must be expended for the appropriate fire protection facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within an account or accounts being terminated. G. The city shall also refund to the developer of property for which impact fees have been paid all impact fees paid, including interest earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.110 Use of funds. A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees: 1. Shall be used for fire protection system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development; and 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in fire protection facilities serving existing developments; and 3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operations. B. As a general guideline, fire protection impact fees may be used for any fire protection system improvements which could otherwise be funded by a bond issue of the city. C. Fire protection facilities impact fees may be spent for fire protection system improvements, including but not limited to fire trucks, apparatus, and fire stations, including planning, land acquisition, site improvements, necessary off-site improvements including mitigation, construction, engineering, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized. D. Impact fees may be used to recoup fire protection system improvement costs previously incurred by the city to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs. E. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of fire protection system improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 55 of 141 provided are consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.120 Review and update of impact fees. A. The fee rate schedules set forth in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn shall be reviewed by the council no later than two years after the effective date of the attached fee rate schedule, and no more than every two years thereafter. B. The fee schedules set forth in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn shall be reviewed by the council as it may deem necessary and appropriate in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the city’s comprehensive plan. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.130 Miscellaneous provisions. A. Existing Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of RCW 82.02.050(1)(c). B. Captions. The chapter and section captions used in this chapter are for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions of this chapter. C. Severability. If any portion of this chapter is found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such finding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other section of this chapter. (Ord. 6341 § 4, 2011; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) The Auburn City Code is current through Ordinance 6719, and legislation passed through June 17, 2019. Disclaimer: The city clerk’s office has the official version of the Auburn City Code. Users should contact the city clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.auburnwa.gov Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 56 of 141 Code Publishing Company Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 57 of 141 Rate Study For Impact Fees For Fire Protection Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 58 of 141 City of Moses Lake, Washington TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………page 7 2. Statutory Basis and Methodology………………………………………………………………..page 9 3. Fire Impact Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………..page 16 List of Variables Variable Title Page A Fire Apparatus 16 B Emergency Responses 17 C Fire Stations 18 D Apparatus Cost 18 E Useful Service Life 19 F Apparatus Percent of Fire Responses 20 G Station Cost per Square Foot 22 H Annual Emergency Fire Incidents at Land Use Types 24 I Number of Dwelling Units or Square Feet 26 J Adjustments for Revenue Credits 57 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 59 of 141 List of Formulas Formula Title Page F-1 Inventory and Emergency Responses 16 F-2 Annual Cost Per Apparatus 18 F-3 Cost per Apparatus per Fire or Medical Incident 19 F-4 Total Apparatus Cost per Fire Incident 20 F-5 Annual Station Cost 22 F-6 Station Cost Per Fire and Medical Incident 23 F-7 Annual Fire Incident Rate Per Unit of Development 24 F-8 Fire Incident Capital Cost Per Unit of Development 29 F-9 Cost per Apparatus per Fire or Medical Incident 41 F-10 Apparatus Cost per Medical Incident 41 F-11 Station Cost per Fire and Medical Incident 43 F-12 Annual Medical Incident Rate per Unit of Development 43 F-13 Medical Incident Capital Cost per Unit of Development 48 F-14 Fire and Medical Cost per Unit of Development 55 F-15 Adjustments and Impact Fees 57 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 60 of 141 List of Tables Table Title Page 1 Fire Protection Apparatus Inventory 17 2 Fire and Medical Building Inventory 18 3 Annualized Apparatus Cost 19 4 Apparatus Cost per Response 20 5 Annual Fire and Medical Incidents 21 6 Fire Incident Response by Type of Apparatus 21 7 Total Apparatus Cost per Fire Incident 22 8 Annualized Station Cost per Square Foot 23 9 Station Cost per Fire and Medical Incident 24 10 Fire Incidents 25 11 Fire Incidents at Specific Land Uses 26 12 Traffic Related Fire Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses) 27 13 Total Annual Fire Incidents by Land Use 28 14 Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use 29 15 Engine Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories 30 16 Ladder Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories 31 17 Medic Vehicle Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories 32 18 Brush Truck Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use 33 19 Staff Vehicle Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents 34 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 61 of 141 Table Title Page 20 Tender Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use Categories 35 21 Squad Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use Categories 36 22 Rescue Vehicle Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use Categories 37 23 Other Apparatus / Equipment Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use Categories 38 24 Fire Station Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents and Land Use Categories 39 25 Example of Calculation of Total Capital Cost for a Residential Unit 40 26 Total Capital Cost of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories 40 27 Medical Incident Response by Type of Apparatus 42 28 Total Apparatus Cost per Medical Incident 42 29 Medical Incidents 43 30 Medical Incidents at Specific Land Uses 44 31 Traffic Related Medical Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses) 45 32 Total Annual Medical Incidents by Land Use 46 33 Annual Medical Incidents by Land Use 47 34 Engine Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories 49 35 Medic Unit Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories 50 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 62 of 141 Table Title Page 36 Squad Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories 51 37 Staff Unit Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories 52 38 Other Apparatus & Equipment Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories 53 39 Fire Station Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories 54 40 Total Capital Cost of Responses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories 55 41 Total Cost of Response to Fire and Medical Incidents by Land Use Category 56 42 Fire Impact Fees by Land Use 58 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 63 of 141 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. IMPACT FEE RATE Type of Development Unit Fee Single – Family Dwelling unit $708.29 Multi-Family Dwelling unit $708.29 Medical Facilities Hospitals & Clinics Square Foot $4.45 Skilled Nursing & LC Square Foot $7.60 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 64 of 141 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. 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 65 of 141 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 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) Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 66 of 141 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) 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) Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 67 of 141 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) 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 68 of 141 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) 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 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 69 of 141 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 (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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 70 of 141 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. 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 71 of 141 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. 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 72 of 141 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. 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” Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 73 of 141 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). 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 74 of 141 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 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 75 of 141 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 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 76 of 141 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. 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 77 of 141 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. 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 78 of 141 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 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 (G): 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 79 of 141 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 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. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 80 of 141 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. 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 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 81 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 82 of 141 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 (Skilled Nursing &LC) 27 5% 4 Hospital & Clinic 6 1% 1 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 10-08-19, Page 83 of 141 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 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 84 of 141 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). 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 10-08-19, Page 85 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 86 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 87 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 88 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 89 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 90 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 91 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 92 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 93 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 94 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 95 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 96 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 97 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 98 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 99 of 141 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 medical 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 10-08-19, Page 100 of 141 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 Hospitals & Clinics 447 + 27 Allocated 16.36% Skilled Nursing & LC 1209 + 73 Allocated 44.26% 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 10-08-19, Page 101 of 141 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 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 102 of 141 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) 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 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 103 of 141 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. 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 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 104 of 141 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. This series of tables does not include the cost for units that do not respond to medical incidents. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 105 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 106 of 141 Table 35: Medic Unit Cost of Reponses to Medical Incidents at Land Use Categories 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. 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 10-08-19, Page 107 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 108 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 109 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 110 of 141 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 ($71.83 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 10-08-19, Page 111 of 141 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 10-08-19, Page 112 of 141 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 Hospital & Clinic Per Square Foot $4.31 $0.28 $4.59 Skilled Nursing & LC Per Square Foot $7.35 $0.49 $7.84 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 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 113 of 141 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). 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);" Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 114 of 141 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. 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 Hospitals & Clinics $4.59 $0.14 $4.45 Skilled Nursing & LC $7.84 $0.24 $7.60 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 10-08-19, Page 115 of 141 STAFF REPORT To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager From: Cindy Jensen, Finance Director Date: October 4, 2019 Proceeding Type: Old Business Subject: Larson Recreation Center Funding Options Legislative History: •First Presentation:September 24, 2019 •Second Presentation:October 8, 2019 •Action:Motion Staff Report Summary Council heard a report from The Driftmier Architects on their progress on designing a new recreation center at Larson Field. They presented a project with an estimated cost of $10 million without sales tax or architect and engineering fees. Adding 8.1% for sales tax, and an estimate of 5% for additional architect and engineering costs, the total for the project comes to about $11.35 million. At the September 24, 2019 meeting, Council asked that a financing plan be brought back for review. The City is eligible to use the State Treasurer’s Local Option Capital Asset Lending (LOCAL) program, and using an interest rate estimate of 3.0% over a 20 year term, the total debt service on $11.35 million is about $763,000 annually. Background When we contracted with The Driftmier Architects to design the Larson Recreation Center, Council was presented a memo that detailed funding sources for the project. A spreadsheet that summarizes the available resources for the project is attached. Between General Obligation Debt being paid in full and the ongoing Hotel/Motel Tax, the City has about $900,000 available for debt service starting in 2021, which is more than adequate to fund the estimated $763,000 annual payment for 20 years. The assumption on interest rates in that memo was 5% for a 20 year municipal bond. Since then, we have researched more financing options, and are considering using the Washington State Treasurer’s LOCAL program. The State brings together the borrowing needs of many local government units into a certificate of participation program, which issues bonds on our behalf. This saves local governments a couple of ways—the issuance cost of the bonds are split among all the participants, and the State has a much higher credit rating than most local governments so Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 116 of 141 can garner more favorable interest rates. They were able to issue bonds for a real estate project with a 20 year term for a net interest cost of 2.66% in September 2019. Fiscal and Policy Implications We will need to go through an application process with the State. This borrowing will be counted against our bonded debt capacity. I believe we are in a strong position, since we have identified the repayment streams, and we have adequate non-voted general obligation debt capacity. I did learn that it is a reimbursable program (i.e. we don’t get all the money upfront), and the construction contract needs to be in place before the State’s bond sale. They issue bonds in February, June, and October. Since the Federal Reserve dropped their interest rate in September and have indicated that there may be more easing in the near future, anytime next year would be good times to bond. Looking at a project time-line with the architects, the next steps if Council says “go” include creating detailed specifications for a bid document, and then a bid award process. It will likely take until next spring/summer to have a firm contract in place, which would put us in the June bond issue at the earliest, and possibly move us into the October. We can be on a parallel path with the bidding process to get the forms completed for the LOCAL program. With a June bond issue, we will need to have all the required documents executed with the State by late April, while an October bond issue would have a July deadline. Options Option Results • Review and make a motion for staff to start the borrowing process through the LOCAL program. Engineering can go forward with next steps to secure bids on the Larson Recreation Center project. Finance will start the process with the State Treasurer. • Review and ask staff to research other financing options. The City may issue bonds for the project. • Take no action Delay the next steps on the construction project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council makes a motion to direct Engineering to continue the bid specification process for the Larson Recreation Center, and Finance to continue to pursue project financing through the State LOCAL program. Attachments A. Spreadsheet Legal Review N-A Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 117 of 141 One Time Cash available Parks Mitigation Fund Balance as of 10/1/2019 $680,000 General Fund balance-one time property sales 700,000 Less: balance of Driftmier contract (to get to bid)(400,000) Available for pre-project expenses $980,000 Resources Available for Annual Debt Service Total 2021 2022 Civic Center Debt $1,665,000 General Obligation Bonds for Civic Center-Final payment in 2020 $685,000 Interfund Loans for Civic Center-Final payment in 2021 980,000 Less: Utility portion (not available for General Purposes)(156,300) (64,300) (92,000) 1,508,700 620,700 888,000 Hotel Motel Tax-City's 2% Annual Revenue Estimate $357,000 $357,000 Less: Dedicated Expenses (73,000) (73,000) Available for Debt Service 284,000 284,000 Less: Operating Costs of the New Facility $5.00 per Square Foot estimated at 30,000 Sq Ft.(150,000) (150,000) Existing rent for The Learning Center 24,000 24,000 Net Increase in operating expenses (126,000) (126,000) Total Available (and by year)$1,666,700 $904,700 $762,000 City of Moses Lake Resources Available for Larson Recreation Center Project As of 10/1/2019 *Assumes a total project cost of $11,350,000, borrowing total amount for 20 years with net interest cost of 3.0% Annual Debt Service of $763,000 * Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 118 of 141 STAFF REPORT To: City Council From: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager Date: October 4, 2019 Proceeding Type: Old Business Subject: Rejoin the Grant County Conservation District Legislative History: • Prior Presentations: September 10 and 24, 2019 • Current Presentation: October 8, 2019 • Action: Motion Staff Report Summary The Grant County Conservation District has requested that the City rejoin their organization. The City opted out of the GCCD a couple of years ago due to several factors. With the current poor health of Moses Lake and the work that the GCCD and the Watershed Council are performing to help make the lake healthy again, the GCCD is in need of financial and political support from the City of Moses Lake to further their efforts. Background The City of Moses Lake joined the Moses Lake Conservation District 1975. Over the years, the MLCD became the Grant County Conservation District (GCCD). On January 1, 2018, the Grant County Commissioners approved a new fee of $4.96 on every parcel located within the city limits. The City Council elected to withdraw from the GCCD deciding that there was no corresponding benefit to the citizens for the fee increase. Since withdraw from the GCCD, the City has been impacted by two years of blue-green algae. The GCCD and Watershed Council have been working on solutions to help make the lake healthy again. The GCCD has submitted a plan including the steps that it would take to help make the lake healthy again. They are also submitting grants to help fund cleanup efforts, and in doing so, needs the City’s financial and political support of those grants. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 119 of 141 The Grant County Health District and the Moses Lake Chamber of Commerce have issued letters of support for the City of Moses Lake rejoining the GCCD. Fiscal and Policy Implications The GCCD is funded by one of two options; a $4.96 fee on every parcel within the City of Moses Lake that would be paid by the property owners or an Inter local Agreement with the City in which the City would negotiate a price and pay the GCCD directly for services. In order for the GCCD to collect the $4.96 from each parcel, the proposal would need to be put on a ballot and voted on by the citizens of Moses Lake. It would take a majority vote with at least 20% turnout rate of the voters within the city. For this to happen, the City would need to get the measure on the ballot in the 2020 November General Election. The other option would be that the City draft and ILA with the GCCD and pay the negotiated rate directly to the GCCD. If the GCCD were to collect from all of the eligible parcels in the City, they would receive approximately $46,900. A third option could be that the City sign an ILA with the GCCD for one year and pay a negotiated rate and then take the measure to the citizens in November of 2020 for future funding. Staff Recommendation Staff requests Council to provide direction to staff on how to proceed with rejoining the GCCD. Attachments A. B. Letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce GCCD Response Plan Legal Review N-A Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 120 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 121 of 141 Grant County Conservation District (GCCD) Conservation Districts • The district is respected for putting people with questions and concerns about soil, water, and related natural resource issues in touch with people with answers and solutions. • The district is recognized as the local hub that connects land users to educational, financial, and technical assistance for applying conservation practices and best management technologies to address soil and water quality problems. • Conservation districts are local governments at work and their specific responsibility is management of our soil and water resources. The idea behind their formation is to keep decision making on soil and water conservation matters at the local level. GCCD has been a part of our community for over 60 years. A long history of serving and providing technical, financial, and educational services to the community. A few examples of services provided. • Conservation district operated a nursery providing plant materials and technical assistance to the community for over 25 years. • Directed the Clean lakes project. Provided technical – financial – and administrative assistance resulting in over 3.5 million dollars of conservation projects implemented in the Moses Lake Watershed. • GCCD is in our schools – filling gaps in environmental education to the children in our community. Adding skill sets that teachers are not able to provide - have been teaching for over 15 years - in 2018 taught in 10 schools to over 1,100 students – this includes Water on Wheels, Wheat Week, and Trout in the Classroom. • Providing technical and financial assistance to lake front property owners on erosion control practices. • Implemented a project that afforded handicap lake access facility to Moses Lake. Technical and financial assistance made this possible. Helping those in need. • Assisted the city implement the Storm water management plan. • Provided Moses Lake community gardens to 6 senior facilities - raised beds and vertical garden boxes – included all materials, compost, handicap accessible and technical assistance. Just a few examples of what GCCD has provided the community. Much more can and would be accomplished as a member of GCCD. Assistance to the Moses Lake Watershed Council • Provide leadership to the Moses Lake Watershed Council – chair the council – schedule and conduct monthly meetings – record keeping • Grant writing and administration • Technical assistance – watershed resource inventory – watershed plan development • Best Management Practice Implementation If we look at the history of restoration activities on Moses Lake there have been a number of very successful individual projects. What has been missing is an organization with the resources necessary to Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 122 of 141 carry out a long-term program. Moses Lake will not be fixed with a single project approach. It will take long range strategies and management systems that take many years to fully implement. Phase I Management Objectives Review of all the major nutrient loading components to Moses Lake as a starting point in the development of a nutrient allocation strategy to improve Moses Lake’s water quality. It is important to first characterize the various loading components to Moses Lake. The major external loading components considered are groundwater inflow, Rocky Ford Creek, Crab Creek, urban and sub-urban land management practices and septic system maintenance. In addition, sediment release of nutrients acting as an internal loading component needs further evaluation and treatment strategies developed. Watershed and Hydrologic Characterization To better manage water quality, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment for Moses Lake and its major sources needs to be completed. An in-lake TP criterion will be proposed based on the water quality targets to reduce the seasonal, in-lake TP concentration to 50 ug/L. Although this TP value exceeds the lake nutrient criterion established in Washington State water quality standards for surface water, it will be recommended that 50 ug/L TP be the new criterion for Moses Lake. Preliminary load allocations to achieve this TP concentration in the lake will be evaluated and recommendation criterion developed for the following major sources to the lake: Rocky Coulee Waste way, Rocky Ford Creek, Crab Creek, and groundwater. Phosphorus loading from these sources will be determined and load allocations for nonpoint and point sources within each of these sources will be established from this study. This study recommends allocations be established in the future, based on the discharge characteristics of point sources and land-use classifications of nonpoint sources. Water Quality Monitoring and Treatment Evaluation Plan Develop and maintain a sampling survey strategy to allow for a current annual assessment of nutrient loading to Moses Lake, including whole-lake nutrient concentrations. This will permit an evaluation of current restoration measures and their effects, as well as supplement historical work, in establishing TP load allocations for the major nutrient sources. Proposed Actions - Deliverables A. Update Moses Lake Watershed Inventory. • Evaluate land use – focus on changes. • Establish level of resource management on Agricultural, urban, and suburban lands with focus on nutrient – pest – and water management. B. Thorough analysis of ¼ mile shoreline buffer along both banks of Crab Creek, Rocky Ford Creek, and the 122 miles of Moses Lake shoreline. C. Best Management Practices and systems implemented to achieve a positive impact on water quality in Moses Lake. D. Information Education Plan. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 123 of 141 a) Establish and maintain Web Page. b) Develop urban resource management fact sheets for nutrient management – xeriscape systems – water management – riparian buffer systems. c) Develop sub-urban resource management fact sheets – pasture management – nutrient management – pest management – fencing – riparian buffers. d) Workshops – urban and suburban resource management systems. e) Fact sheet septic tank maintenance. E. Develop enhanced Water Quality Monitoring program. F. Review the body of work comprising the diagnostic and restoration work completed on Moses Lake from 1963-1998. G. Identify the historical restoration projects implemented on Moses Lake and its watershed, and evaluate the current status of the restoration efforts. H. Establish and recommend an in-lake nutrient criterion, based on historical data. I. Model and estimate preliminary TP load allocations for Moses Lake to meet the in-lake nutrient criterion. J. Recommend additional study of Moses Lake that can be used, with the historical data, to finalize and facilitate implementation allocations. K. Develop treatment strategies for alum with implementation plan. L. Develop dilution strategies with implementation plan. M. Develop carp management strategies with implementation plan. N. Research and develop engineered wetland strategies for P and N controls. Phosphorus Management Plan As part of a phase I diagnostic feasibility study numerous lake management alternatives will be considered for the reduction of phosphorus in Moses Lake. A water quality improvement program will include the following watershed management strategies: • Watershed characterization • Lake modeling to determine the nutrient load that will meet the nutrient standard • Lake alum treatment • Fish management • Aquatic plant management • Dilution with Columbia river water delivered through irrigation district canal systems • Urban, sub-urban management plan for targeted BMP implementation • Agricultural plan for targeted BMP implementation • Comprehensive information education program • Extensive stream and lake monitoring 1/4 mile buffer will be studied along both shores of Crab Creek, Rocky Ford Creek and the 122 mile shoreline of the lake for a detailed land use analysis to establish targeted areas for BMP implementation. • Septic system inventory – evaluation – action plan Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 124 of 141 Other Influences that need study • Other nutrient loading sources to be considered • (1) On-site septic and sewage leachate • (2) Stormwater runoff (unknown contributions from City of Moses Lake stormwater collection system) • (3) Waterfowl contributions (more than 50,000 waterfowl winter on Moses Lake each year) • (4) Net pen fish production by the state Department of Fish & Wildlife in the south basin. This is a brief overview of what a watershed management plan will require. This is just phase I. Phase II – funding and plan implementation. Phase III – complete watershed characterization and plan. Phase IV – watershed BMP implementation. Phase V – Lake monitoring and rapid response plans. All phases • Information education components • Communication plans • Grant applications • Grant implementation • Grant administration • Research and review of emerging technologies • Monitoring If we are serious about cleaning up Moses Lake it will take an organization that has the skill sets to lead an effort of this scope and magnitude. Conservation Districts were created to be that organization. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 125 of 141 STAFF REPORT To: City Council From: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager Date: October 4, 2019 Proceeding Type: Old Business Subject: LTAC Application Chamber of Commerce Legislative History: • First Presentation: September 24, 2019 • Second Presentation: October 8, 2019 • Action: Motion Staff Report Summary After the LTAC’s recommendations for funding and the City Council’s approval at the September 24 meeting, there was a question about the Moses Lake Chamber of Commerce’s funding. The Chamber had originally requested $50,000 to be used for services related to the visitor center. The LTAC committee reduced their request to $10,000 and diverted some of their funds to the City’s Communication and Marketing Specialist. The Chamber Director sent an email to the Council regarding the funding, which in turn, prompted a response from the Parks & Rec Department. Background The Chamber of Commerce has historically been tasked with promoting the City and assisting visitors with information related to the city and city events. In 2019, the City created a new Communication and Marketing Specialist position with the goal of taking on additional responsibility with promoting the City. Additional LTAC funding was given to the Communication and Marketing Specialist in the 2020 budget to promote City events. The P&R Department has said that they could take on the visitor center duties including but not limited to answering phone calls, distributing maps and brochures, handling walk in customers, and mailing out information. The P&R Department would run the visitor center out of the museum and would have museum staff assist with the listed duties. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 126 of 141 If the P&R Department was tasked with handling these additional duties, they would ask the Council for the remaining $10,000 that were previously recommended to be allocated to the Chamber. On October 3, I met with Chamber Director Debbie Doran-Martinez about the P&R Department taking on the visitor center role. She was fine with moving the role of the visitor center to the P&R Department and wanted a little time to run the change through her board to discuss the change. Fiscal and Policy Implications If the Parks & Rec Department takes on the additional duties of the visitor center, we would ask for the additional LTAC funding to pay for those duties. Options Option Results • Allocate additional LTAC funds to Parks and Rec Department Take on additional visitor center duties. • Take no action. Let duties remain with the Chamber of Commerce. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends taking on additional duties of the visitor center and receive additional LTAC funding for this task. Attachments – None. 07Legal Review – N-A Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 127 of 141 STAFF REPORT To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager From: Debbie Burke, City Clerk Date: September 16, 2019 Proceeding Type: New Business Subject: Fireworks Regulation Code Clean Up Ordinance Legislative History: • First Presentation: October 8, 2019 • Second Presentation: October 22, 2019 • Action: First Presentation Staff Report Summary The new position of City Clerk has been tasked with cleaning up conflicting sections in the Municipal Code. Due to the number of corrections needed within MLMC 8.04 Title Fireworks, a stand-alone document has been drafted for Council approval. Background Nine ordinances have been presented to Council regarding fireworks regulations since 1940. These ordinances were not codified correctly and the existing content is conflicting with inconsistent penalties. Fiscal and Policy Implications No fiscal impact. Options Option Results • Adopt the Ordinance MLMC 8.04 will be clear with consistent penalties. • Take no action. The Code will be unclear and have inconsistent penalties. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 128 of 141 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council consider adoption upon second presentation. Attachments A. Draft Ordinance Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • Ordinance Fireworks Regulations September 16, 2019 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 129 of 141 ORDINANCE – 1st Presentation AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING AND REPEALING CONFLICTING CONTENT OF MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 8.04 TITLED “FIREWORKS” Whereas, RCW 70.77 governs the regulation of fireworks and allows local jurisdictions to adopt regulations that are more restrictive; and, Whereas, Ordinances 23A, 132, 642, 1111, 1677, 2092, 2255, 2592 and 2683 have amended the fireworks regulations since 1940; and, Whereas, these ordinances were adopted without showing legislative mark up; and, Whereas, these ordinances were adopted without repealing conflicting content or amending the penalty sections for newly established subsections. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsections 8.04.010, 8.04.030 and 8.04.035 of the MLMC are hereby repealed. Section 2. The remaining 8.04 Sections are amended in accordance with Exhibit A. Section 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication of its summary as provided by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake, WA and signed by its Mayor on __________, 2019. _____________________________________ Karen Liebrecht, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 130 of 141 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney Vote: Riggs Liebrecht Myers Jackson Curnel Leonard Hankins Aye Nay Abstain Absent Date Published: Date Effective: Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 131 of 141 Ordinance Exhibit A Chapter 8.04 FIREWORKS Sections: 8.04.010 Permit Required for Sales - Application.(repealed and replaced with former 8.04.037) 8.04.020 Public Display of Fireworks- Employee Compensation Insurance - Liability Insurance. 8.04.030 Discharge of Fireworks. (repealed and replaced with former 8.04.038) 8.04.035 Prohibition of New Year’s Eve Fireworks. 8.04.01037 Sale of Fireworks Prohibited. 8.04.0308 Discharge of Fireworks. 8.04.04039 Lighting and/or Releasing Sky Lanterns. 8.04.0540 Penalty for Violations. 8.04.020 Public Display of Fireworks- Employee Compensation Insurance - Liability Insurance: It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to put on a public display of fireworks or discharge special fireworks unless a permit to do so has been issued by the city pursuant to the authority stated in RCW 70.77.260. The applicant for a permit for a public display of fireworks shall, at the time of submit an application and fee, with submit histhe state issued permit license for inspection, and furnish proof that he carries compensation insurance for his employees as provided by the laws of the state, and he shall file with the Chief of the Fire Department a certificate of insurance in the minimum amount of five hundred thousand dollars combined single limit covering bodily injury liability, property damage liability, including products liability, premises liability and contractual liability, with the applicant named as insured therein and which shall also name, as additional insured parties, the city, its officers and employees acting in their capacity as agents of the city. (Ord. 1111, 1983; Ord. 642, 1972) 8.04.01037 Sale of Fireworks Prohibited: It is unlawful for any person to offer for sale at retail or wholesale, or to sell at retail or wholesale any fireworks within the City of Moses Lake after June 27, 2007. (Ord. 2255, 5/9/06) 8.04.0308 Discharge of Fireworks: It is unlawful for any person to discharge any fireworks including, but not limited to, those defined and referred in RCW 70.77 within the City of Moses Lake after June 26, 2007, unless a permit for a public display of fireworks has been granted by the City pursuant to Moses Lake Municipal Code 8.04.020. (Ord. 2255, 5/9/06) Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 132 of 141 8.04.04039 Lighting and/or Releasing Sky Lanterns: The lighting and/or releasing of sky lanterns or like material shall be prohibited in the City of Moses Lake. “Sky lantern” is defined as a miniature, unmanned air balloon that relies upon an open flame as a heat source to heat the air inside the lantern with the intention of causing it to lift into the atmosphere. A sky lantern is typically made of rice paper or flame resistant paper with a fuel cell in the opening. (Ord. 2683, 6/11/13) 8.04.0540 Penalty for Violations: Failure to comply with any provision of this chapter shall subject the violator to the C-7 following penalties as they are defined in Chapter 1.08 of this code.: Violation Penalty Failure to obtain permit required for sales (8.04.010) C-7 Failure to obtain permit for public display (8.04.020) C-7 Failure to obtain permit for public display (8.04.020) C-7 Discharging fireworks and pyrotechnics (8.04.030) C-7 Sale and Discharge of Fireworks on New Year’s Eve (8.04.035) C-7 Lighting and/or releasing sky lanterns (8.04.039) C-7 (Ord. 2683, 6/11/13; Ord. 1677, 1995; Ord. 1111, 1983) Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 133 of 141 STAFF REPORT To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager From: Kris Robbins, Community Development Director Date: October 3, 2019 Proceeding Type: New Business Subject: Repeal Ordinance 2923 – Clover Drive Vacation Legislative History: • First Presentation: October 8, 2019 • Second Presentation: • Requested Action: 1st Reading Staff Report Summary The Community Development Department has been working with the consultants on the Desert Point No. 3 Plat that is located adjacent to the Clover Drive area that has been in previous discussions with the Council. Background In April of 2019, the developers had provided a request to vacate a portion of right-of-way to the Council. This was approved and an ordinance was adopted. While working on the development, staff concurred with the developers that the area that was requested to be vacated was not dedicated right-of-way but a grant of easement. This means that the process for the right-of-way vacation is no longer valid. Therefore, staff is requesting to repeal Ordinance 2923 vacating that portion of Clover Drive. This will alleviate the issues with their project moving forward. Fiscal and Policy Implications None. Options Option Results • Consider the repealing of Ordinance 2923 as presented. Approval of ordinance will be moved to the next meeting. • Take no action This would come back to Council for further discussion. Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 134 of 141 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Moses Lake City Council consider the request and proposed adopt the ordinance at the next meeting. Attachments A. Ordinance 2923 –Original Vacation of Clover Drive B. Ordinance – Repealing Ordinance 2923 Legal Review The following documents are attached and subject to legal review: Type of Document Title of Document Date Reviewed by Legal Counsel • Ordinance Repeal Ordinance 2923 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 135 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 136 of 141 Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 137 of 141 ORDINANCE – 1st Presentation AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2923 VACATING A PORTION OF CLOVER DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Moses Lake has the ability to vacate right-of-way through the process within RCW 35.79; and WHEREAS, the City Council followed the required process for vacating a portion of Clover Drive; and WHEREAS, the City has not been compensated for one half the purchase price for the vacated property and is not yet effective; and WHEREAS, the city staff have determined that the area requested for vacation was not dedicated right-of-way but a grant of easement for the purpose of roadway. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance 2923 vacating a portion of Clover Drive is hereby repealed. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after its passage and publication of its summary as provided by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Moses Lake, WA and signed by its Mayor on May 28, 2019. _____________________________________ Karen Liebrecht, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________________ Debbie Burke, City Clerk Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 138 of 141 APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ Katherine L. Kenison, City Attorney Vote: Riggs Liebrecht Myers Jackson Curnel Leonard Hankins Aye Nay Abstain Absent Date Published: Date Effective: Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 139 of 141 STAFF REPORT To: Kevin Fuhr, Interim City Manager From: Cindy Jensen, Finance Director Date: October 4, 2019 Proceeding Type: Old Business Subject: Solid Waste Hauler Selection Legislative History: • First Presentation: June 25, 2019 • Second Presentation: October 8, 2019 • Requested Action: Motion Staff Report Summary A Council sub-committee tasked with reviewing a draft proposal from our current Solid Waste contracted hauler, Lakeside Disposal, requested that we also entertain a proposal from the local hauler Consolidated Disposal Services, Inc. (CDSI). Each of the haulers has submitted their proposals and a comparison of the costs is attached. We are asking Council to select a hauler to negotiate the next solid waste collection contract. Background Our current hauling contract with Lakeside Disposal expires in August 2020. Because of the long lead times necessary to implement a solid waste collection system, the City started a review process to select the next hauler. Council requested that we solicit proposals from our current contractor, Lakeside Disposal, and the hauler who serves most of the rest of Grant County, CDSI. We have costed the proposals by going back to 2018 activity, and recalculating the hauler payments using the new proposed rates from both companies. If we look just at the rate adjustments, CDSI is less than Lakeside by about $138,200 for an entire year. However, Lakeside is willing to give most of their rate reductions immediately (and some even retroactively), which Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 140 of 141 is an “upfront” savings of about $606,000 between now and August of 2020. They both are proposing a similar CPI adjustment for rate adjustments in subsequent years. Other things Council could consider would include: • The inconvenience of a transition of haulers to our customers. The hauler owns the commercial containers and those would need to be swapped out. There is also a potential of changes in days and routes with a different hauler. • A local office and place to drop recycling materials. • Customer service and the management of complaints. Fiscal and Policy Implications Both of the proposals are a significant reduction from current rates, so we can review reducing customer rates after the last interfund loan is paid in 2020. Options Option Results • Move to select a contractor that we would then enter into negotiations with to finalize a contract. Going forward with a solid waste contractor. • Request more information Provide staff with specific items to research and present. • Take no action Shortens CDSI implementation time, and forfeits most of the current savings offered by Lakeside. Staff Recommendation Staff requests Council provide direction to staff on how to proceed with negotiation the next Solid Waste Franchise Agreement. Attachments – None. Legal Review -- N/A Moses Lake Council Packet 10-08-19, Page 141 of 141