3037 Fire Impact Rate StudyRate Study
For
Impact Fees
For
Fire Protection
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 89 of 208
City of Moses Lake, Washington
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………page 4
2. Statutory Basis and Methodology………………………………………………………………..page 6
3. Fire Impact Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………..page 12
List of Variables
Variable Title Page
A Fire Stations 13
B Station Cost per Square Foot 14
C Annual Emergency Incidents
at Land Use Types
16
D Number of Dwelling Units or
Square Feet
18
E Adjustments for Revenue
Credits
22
List of Formulas
Formula Title Page
F-1 Annual Facility (Station) Cost 14
F-2 Station Cost per Fire and
Medical Incident
15
F-3 Annual Fire and Medical
Incident Rate Per Unit Of
Development
16
F-4 Incident Capital Cost Per Unit
Of Development
20
F-5 Adjustments and Impact Fees 22
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 90 of 208
List of Tables
Table Title Page
1 Fire and Medical Building
Inventory
17
2 Annual Fire & Medical
Incidents
18
3 Fire and Medical Incident
Response by Type of
Apparatus
19
3a Annualized Station Cost per
Square Foot
20
4 Station Cost Per Fire and
Medical Incident
21
5 Fire and Medical Incidents 21
6 Fire and Medical Incidents at
Specific Land Uses
22
7 Traffic Related Fire and
Medical Incidents (Allocated
to Land Uses)
23
8 Total Annual Fire and Medical
Incidents by Land Use
24
9 Annual Fire Incidents by Land
Use
25
10 Fire Station Cost of
Responses to Fire Incidents
and Land Use Categories
26
11 Fire Impact Fees by Land Use 27
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 91 of 208
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 development. 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 $420.85
Multi-Family—Non-Sprinkled Dwelling unit $420.85
Multi-Family Sprinkled Dwelling unit $420.85
Medical Facilities Square Foot $0.73
Hotel-Motel Square Foot $0.26
Office Square Foot $0.07
Retail (shopping)Square Foot $0.07
Industrial—No on-site
suppression water storage
Square Foot $0.10
Industrial with full fire flow
suppression water storage
on site
Square Foot $0.07
Restaurant Square Foot $0.03
Churches Square Foot $0.02
Education Square Foot $0.02
IMPACT FEES VS. OTHER DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local governments for the
capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve new development and the people who
occupy or use the new development. Throughout this study, the term “developer” is used as a
shorthand expression to describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including
builders, owners, or developers.
Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons: 1) to obtain revenue to pay for some
of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public policy that new development
should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it requires, and that existing development
should not pay all of the cost of such facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities
will be constructed to serve new development.1
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 92 of 208
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: System development charges for water and sewer
authorized for utilities (RCW 35.92 for municipalities, 56.16 for sewer districts, and 57.08 for
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.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 93 of 208
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)
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 94 of 208
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 pro-ratable 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)
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 95 of 208
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.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 96 of 208
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 pro-ratable 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
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 97 of 208
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.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 98 of 208
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.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 99 of 208
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.
3. FIRE IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for fire protection facilities begins with an inventory of stations and the number of
emergencies they responded to. Next is an analysis of the capital cost of fire protection 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) and ALS (advanced life support medical responses) at each type of
land use. The fire, ALS 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 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.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 100 of 208
Variable (A): Fire Stations
The City of Moses Lake provides fire and ALS/BLS services out of 2 stations, and supplemental
staffing for critical incidents out of the administrative offices. Table 1 lists the stations and the
square footage of fire stations and support facilities. Table 2 shows the total number of fire and
medical incidents and shows a lower total number than the total incidents from stations (Table
1), and apparatus (Table 3), because more than one station or one apparatus responds to the
same incident. An example of this is a structural fire requiring all on duty staffing to respond.
This would be a single incident, but personnel and apparatus from all facilities would respond to
this incident.
Table1: Fire and Medical Building Inventory
Station Fire Station
Inventory (Square
Feet)
Annual Incidents Square Feet Per
Incident
1-E 3rd AVE 21,200 4404 4.81
2-W Broadway AVE 7,112 2203 3.23
Training Facility-E
3rd AVE
2,262 0 0
Administrative
Offices S Pioneer
Way
3,100 235 13.19
Total 33,674 6,842 21.23
Table 2 Annual Fire and Medical Incidents
Type of Incident Average Annual Emergency
Incidents
Fire 678
Medical 5,933
Total 6,611
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.
Example: In Table 3 the annual incidents are 5,435. Engines responded to 2,628 of those
incidents. This results in engines responding to 48.35% of all incidents.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 101 of 208
Table 3: Fire and Medical Incident Response by Type of Apparatus
Type of Apparatus Total Annual
Responses for
Apparatus
Annual
Emergency
Incidents
Percent of Annual
Incidents Dispatched to
(Col 2/602)
Engine 2,628 5,435 48.35%
Ladder 41 5,435 0.75%
Medic Unit 6,134 5,435 113%
Brush Truck 121 5,435 0.22%
Rescue 22 5,435 0.04%
Tender 23 5,435 0.04%
Staff Vehicles 247 5,435 4.5%
Other 10 5,435 0.018%
TOTAL 9,226 5,435 166.92%
Formula F-1: Annual Facility (Station) Cost
The annual facility cost is determined by dividing the facility capital cost by its useful life.
F-1. 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 (B): 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 $5,200,000.00.
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 3a is an annualized facility cost of $ 40.07 per square
foot.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 102 of 208
Table 3a: 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 $17.22 50 $0.34
Building,
Furnishings, &
Equipment
$790.00 50 $15.80
Cost of Borrowing $100.00 50 $2.00
TOTAL $907.22 50 $18.14
Formula F-2: Station Cost Per Fire and Medical Incident
The station cost per fire and medical incident is calculated by multiplying the annual station
cost per square foot by the station square feet per fire and medical incident rate.
F-2. 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-2. Both variables were developed in previous
formulas.
This calculation is shown in Table 4: the station cost per square foot (from Table 3a) is
multiplied times the station square feet per incident (from Table 1). The result is the station
cost of $385.11 per fire and EMS incident.
Table 4: 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)
$18.14 21.23 $385.11
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 103 of 208
Formula F-3: Annual Fire and Medical Incident Rate Per Unit of Development
The annual fire and medical 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 and medical
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-3 Annual Emergency Incidents at Each Type of Land Use ÷ Number of Dwelling Units
or Square Feet of Each Type of Land Use = Annual Fire and Medical Incidents Per Unit of
Development
There are two variables that require explanation: (C) annual emergency incidents at land use
types, and (D) number of dwelling units or square feet.
Variable (C): Annual Emergency 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, April 1,
2020 through April 1, 2023, and the square-feet of non-residential development is from the City
GIS database and 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 2022, Moses Lake’s Fire Department responded to 5,428 fire and medical incidents. Of
the 5,428 fire incidents, 5,326 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 5,428 incidents analyzed, 4,783 occurred at a specific
property and 543 were traffic related.
The records for the remaining 102 incidents did not allow the incident to be traced to either a
specific land use or a traffic-related incident, therefore these 102 incidents are apportioned to
land uses and traffic on the same basis as the 5,326 incidents that are traceable. Table 6 shows
the allocation of the 102 incidents without land use designations to the property and traffic
categories using the same percentage as the 5,326 incidents for which a location was
identifiable. Thus 92 of the 102 fire incidents were allocated the same as the incidents at
identifiable lands uses, and the other 10 fire incidents were allocated the same as the traffic-
related incidents.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 104 of 208
Table 5: Fire and Medical Incidents
Incident Location Incidents
Identifiable by
Location
Incidents Not
Identifiable by
Location
Total Incidents
At Properties 4,783
88%
109
2 %
4,892
In Roads & Streets 543
10%
543
Total 5,326 109 5,435
There are four tables on the following pages that present the allocation of incidents among
types of land use: Table 6 shows the incidents that were identifiable by land use type, Table 7
shows the incidents that were traffic related. Table 8 combines the incident data (land use and
traffic), and Table 9 shows the incident rate per unit of development.
Table 6 shows the distribution of the 4,783 incidents that are traceable to a land use along with
the percent distribution of these 4,783 incidents. In column 4 the total incidents to land use
(4,783 traceable + 102 allocated) are 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.
Table 6: Fire and Medical Incidents at Specific Land Uses
Land Use Annual Fire and
Medical Incidents
Identifiable to Land
Use
Percent of All
Fire and Medical
Incidents
Identifiable to
Land Use
Allocate 92 Incidents to
Land Uses (Col 2 x 92)
Residential 2,265 42.5%39
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
500 9.46% 9
Medical Facility 1,334 25%23
Office 130 2.4% 2
Retail 206 3.8% 3.5
Restaurants 150 2.8% 2.5
Industrial 104 2%2
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
22 0.4% .40
Education 72 1.35% 1.1
Roads / Streets 543 10.29%9.5
Total 5,326 100 92
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 105 of 208
Variable (D): 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 7, 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 7 the total 553 annual fire incidents that are traffic-related (543
traceable + 10 allocated) is allocated among the land use types using the percent of trips
generated.
Table 7: Traffic Related Fire and Medical 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 553)
Residential 10,804 d.u 4.23228 45,725 33.3% 184
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
752,000 Sq.Ft 0.00446 3,354 2.2% 12
Medical Care
Facility
710,000 Sq. Ft .00825 5,857 4%22
Commercial:
Office 750,000 SqFt 0.00551 4,132 3%17
Retail 1,800,000
SqFt
0.02147 38,646 28.2% 156
Restaurants 165,000 SqFt 0.06358 10490 7.5% 42
Industrial 6,000,000
SqFt
0.00349 20,940 16%88
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
345,000SqFt 0.00456 1,573 1.1% 6
Education 1,000,000SqFt 0.00645 6,450 4.7% 26
Total 137,167 553
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 106 of 208
Table 8 summarizes the results of the analysis of fire incidents. The total annual fire incidents
are a combination of the fire incidents allocated among direct responses to land use categories
(from Table 6) and the allocation of traffic related incidents based on trip generation rates
(from Table 7).
Table 8: Total Annual Fire and Medical Incidents by Land Use
Land Use Annual Fire
Incidents Direct to
Land Use
Annual Traffic
Related Fire
Incidents by
Land Use w/
Allocated
Total Annual Incidents
by Land Use
Residential 2,264 184+39 2,448
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
500 12+9 512
Medical Care Facility 1,334 22+23 1,356
Commercial:
Office 130 17+2 147
Retail 206 156+3.5 362
Restaurants 150 42+2.5 192
Industrial 104 88+2 192
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
22 6+.4 28
Education 73 26+1.1 99
Roads / Streets 9.5 92
Total 4,783 645 5,428
The final step in determining the annual fire incident rate per unit of development is shown in
Table 9. The total annual fire incidents for each type of land use (from Table 8) 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 7).
The results in Table 9 show how many times an average unit of development has a fire incident
to which the City of Moses Lake responds. For example, if a residence has an average of 0.029
fire-related incidents per year. This is the same as saying that 2.9% of residential occupancies
have a fire-related incident in a year.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 107 of 208
Table 9: Annual Fire and Medical Incidents by Land Use Categories
Land Use Total Annual Fire
Incidents to Land
Use
Units of
Development
Fire Incidents per
Development
Residential 2,448 10,804 d. u 0.023per dwelling unit
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
512 752,000 Sq. Ft 0.0007 per sq ft
Medical Care Facility 1,356 710,000 Sq. Ft 0.002 per sq ft
Commercial:
Office 147 750,000SqFt 0.0002 per sq ft
Retail 362 1,800,000 Sq Ft 0.0002 per sq ft
Restaurants 192 165,000 Sq Ft 0.001 per sq ft
Industrial 192 6,000,000 SqFt 0.00003per sq ft
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
28 345,000SqFt 0.00008 per sq ft
Education 99 1,000,000SqFt 0.00009 per sq ft
Formula F-4: Incident Capital Cost Per Unit of Development
The capital cost of fire and medical incidents per unit of development is determined by
multiplying the annual incidents per unit of development (from Table 9) times the annual
capital cost per fire incident of each fire station.2
F-4. Annual Incidents Per Unit Of Development x Annual Cost Per Fire Incident = Incident Capital
Cost Per Unit Of Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-4. All three variables were developed in previous
formulas.
2Some fire impact fees are calculated for the economic life of the property paying the impact
fee, rather than the useful life of the facilities/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 station needed for new development, but subsequent
replacements of stations are funded by other revenues available to the City of Moses Lake.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 108 of 208
In the tables on the following pages, each fire incident rate is multiplied by the annual capital
cost per fire incident. The result is then multiplied times the useful life of the station to
calculate the capital cost per unit of development for each station.
For example: Residential units average 0.029 fire incidents per year (i.e., 2.9% of a fire incident
per year).
Table 10: Fire Station Cost of Responses to Fire and Medical Incidents and Land
Use Categories
Land Use Unit of
Development
Annual Fire
Incident Rate
Fire Station
Cost
@$385.11
per Incident
Fire Station
Life Cost
Residential Per Dwelling
Unit
0.023 $8.86 * $443
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort
Per Sq Ft 0.0007 $.27 $.27
Medical Care
Facility
Per Sq Ft 0.002 $.77 $.77
Commercial:
Office Per Sq Ft 0.0002 $.08 $.08
Retail Per Sq Ft 0.0002 $.08 $.08
Restaurants Per Sq Ft 0.001 $.04 $.04
Industrial Per Sq Ft 0.0003 $.11 $.11
Institutions:
Churches / non-
profit
Per Sq Ft 0.00008 $.03 $.03
Education Per Sq Ft 0.00009 $.03 $.03
$10.27 $444.41
*Residential (1, 2, and multi-family residential is not calculated per square foot, but rather per
dwelling unit, each dwelling unit is calculated for the 50-year service life of a station) all other
occupancies are calculated on a per square foot basis only.
Formula F-5: Adjustments and Impact Fees
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 109 of 208
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 (E): 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 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 11 (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 pro-ratable to the particular system improvement (emphasis
added);"
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 110 of 208
The adjustment of 5% used in Table 11 is within the comparable range when compared with
other jurisdictions that do not have dedicated revenues for fire stations and apparatus have
implemented by way of an adjustment. Table 20 shows the cost per dwelling unit or non-
residential square foot from Table 10. The 5% adjustment, and the impact fee after the
adjustment is subtracted from the full cost.
Table 11: Fire Impact Fees by Land Use
Land Use Total Fire and
Medical Cost of
Impact Development
Calculated
Credit
Adjustment @
5%
Fire and Medical
Impact Fee Per Unit
of Development
Residential-1&2&3 Family
Homes, townhome,
apartments. Per unit. *
$443.00 $22.15 $420.85
Non-Residential
Hotel/Motel/Resort sq ft.
$0.27 $0.01 $0.26
Medical Care Facility
Hospitals & Clinics
$0.77 $0.04 $0.73
Commercial:
Office $0.08 $0.004 $0.07*
Retail $0.08 $0.004 $0.07*
Restaurants $0.04 $0.002 $0.03*
Industrial $0.11 $0.006 $0.10*
Institutions:
Churches / non-profit $0.03 $.002 $0.02*
Education $0.03 $.002 $0.02*
*Indicates land use types where the credit adjustment is a minimum of $0.01 per square foot
due the calculated credit adjustment being less than $0.01 per square foot.
REVISED Council Packet 10-10-23, Page 111 of 208