HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.11.14 Council Special Meeting Packet
AGENDA
City Council Special Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, November 14, 2022
City Council Chambers & GoToWebinar
Page
1. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS for REMOTE ACCESS - Individuals, who would
like to provide public comment remotely, may continue to do so by filling out
the online form via the City’s website (www.pasco-wa.gov/publiccomment) to
obtain access information to comment. Requests to comment in meetings
must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of this meeting.
To listen to the meeting via phone, call (631) 992-3211 and use access code
613-585-088.
City Council meetings are broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on
Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-
wa.gov/psctvlive and on the City’s Facebook page at
www.facebook.com/cityofPasco.
2. CALL TO ORDER
3. ROLL CALL
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
(b) EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Discussion with Legal Counsel about Current or Potential
Litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) (15 minutes)
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
3 - 17 (a) Ordinance - Amending Council Voting Districts, Based on
Redistricting Plan
18 - 43 (b) Ordinance No. 4622 - Amendment to the Pasco Municipal Code
Related to Ambulance Rates
Page 1 of 43
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4622, amending the Pasco
Municipal Code Section 3.35.010 Ambulance Utility Fees effective
January 1, 2023, and, further, publish by summary only.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 43
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council November 9, 2022
TO: Adam Lincoln, Interim City Manager City Council Special
Meeting: 11/14/22
FROM: Eric Ferguson, City Attorney
Executive
SUBJECT: Ordinance - Amending Council Voting Districts, Based on Redistricting
Plan
I. REFERENCE(S):
2017 Council Voting District Map
2022 Proposed Council Districts with Voting Precincts
Demographer’s Memo Transmitting Recommended City Council Redistricting
Plan
Memo Del Demográfo Transmitiendo El Plan De Rezonificación Recomendado
Por El Concejo Municipal
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
None
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
There is considerable history here, in short, circumstances were such because
of then-existing State law the City and ACLU were required to utilize the federal
court system to for the City of Pasco to come into compliance with the Federal
Voter Rights Act (VRA). On May 8, 2017, Council approved the most recent
revisions to the City of Pasco's City Council Voting Districts which were
subsequently approved and ordered by Judge Suko of the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Washington through a consent decree. Of note, under the
federal and state VRAs the U.S. Decennial Census is the standard by which
electoral districts shall be drawn, meaning that the districts established in 2017
under Judge Suko's order, were necessarily based on the 2010 census.
Page 3 of 43
As adopted, the City's districting plan provides for one (1) at -large, and six
distinct (6) City Council Districts, which now require adjustment based on the
results of the 2020 U.S. Census, specifically to account for population growth
and where that growth occurred, as well as changes in demographics and city
limit (corporate) boundaries over the previous decade.
Delayed by the impacts of a world-wide pandemic, the 2020 U.S. Decennial
Census was completed in August of 2021, rather than April, and the subsequent
release to Washington State Office of Financial Management who in turn
provided information to the States, Counties and Municipalities further delayed.
Completion of the U.S. Census and release of the information triggers the need
and opportunity for the City to review its City Council Districts to assure
compliance with the federal, and recently adopted state, Voter Rights Acts. The
2020 Census data was made available by the U.S. government in the fall of
2021, since that time, and per Council d irection, staff has been working with
specialized legal and demographic professionals to review and update City
Council District boundaries to account for changes in; city boundaries, total
population, voter population, and other pertinent demographic fact ors that have
occurred between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020.
As noted previously, the City Council districts were necessarily established
based on the 2010 census, the changes in population, corporate limits,
demographics in a rapidly growing community like Pasco, which occurred within
the decade between 2010 and 2020 have been significant. Considering
aforementioned changes, it is then reasonable to expect that the changes to the
six (6) districts, in terms of population and boundaries, will be proportionately
significant.
In preparing for the redistricting effort, it is helpful to keep in mind that the six (6)
City Council Districts require adjustments based on the results of the 2020 U.S.
Census, and the city limits map in effect at that time. Essentially, the City Council
District map that the Council will be adopting as part of the redistricting effort, will
reflect how the six Council districts best fit into the April 1, 2020 map for the
population, changes in corporate limits, and other statutorily relevant factors of
the City at that time, as determined by the 2020 U.S. Census and the two Acts.
As Council is aware, there have been annexations to the City subsequent to April
1, 2020. Annexation ordinances relating to each annexation subsequ ent to April
2020 should have identified the City Council district to which the newly annexed
property was assigned, these individual ordinances will in effect modify the yet
to be adopted April 1, 2020 district map. To the extent any of the annexation
ordinances fail to reflect a City Council district, or are no longer aligned with the
correct district under the adopted April 1, 2020 district map, those annexation
areas will be redesignated to align with a contiguous district by subsequent
ordinance. Fortunately, most of the area annexed since April 2021 is sparsely
populated.
Page 4 of 43
In February 2021, the City hired the services of Floyd, Pflueger & Ringer, P.S.,
as well as Dr. Peter Morrison who developed the current Council Voting Districts
in 2017 and assisted the City in updating Redistricting Plan.
Staff briefed Council on the progress and development of the Redistricting Plan
as information was received from the consultants and believes the draft plan
meets the criteria required per RCW 29A.76.010(4) and the federal VRA:
• Each internal director, council, or commissioner district shall be as nearly
equal in population as possible to each and every other such district
comprising the municipal corporation, county, or special purpose district.
• Each district shall be as compact as possible.
• Each district shall consist of geographically contiguous area.
• Population data may not be used for purposes of favoring or disfavoring
any racial group or political party.
To the extent feasible and if not inconsistent with the basic enabling legislation
for the municipal corporation, county, or district, the district boundaries shall
coincide with existing recognized natural boundaries and shall, to the extent
possible, preserve existing communities of related and mutual interest.
Council held two public comment sessions on Wednesday, November 2nd and
Monday, November 7th.
V. DISCUSSION:
Since the public comment session on November 7th, City staff, along with the
previously mentioned consultants has proceeded to draft an ordinance for
adoption that would reflect the map contained in the Draft Redistricting Plan.
During that process and the quality assurance process by our consultants, it was
discovered that there appears to be a disconnect from the census block
geography data that was altered by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2020 and the
data received from other sources both internally and from Franklin County. In
short, it is unclear to what degree this technical anomaly may or may not have
had on the map presented as the Draft Redistricting Plan as required by RCW
29A.76.010. As such, until it can be verified as the map that was adopted as the
Draft Redistricting Plan, Council cannot proceed with adoption of an ordinance
that complies with RCW 29A.76.010. The City's consultants have assured staff
that they will be able to verify the effects of these anomalies on the Draft
Redistricting Plan map within the next few days and assist staff in determining
whether the map requires being republished for additional written comment
before adoption.
Page 5 of 43
City of Pasco Council DistrictsMay 2017Council Voting Districts:District 1District 2District 3District 4District 5District 6Page 6 of 43
Council
District 1
Council
District 4
Council
District 6
Council
District 3
Council
District 2
Council
District 5
001
003
004
005
006
007
008
009010
011
012
014
016
018
019
021
022
023
026
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
042
043
044
046
047
048
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
060
062
063
065
066
067
102
020
045
105
107
106
013
002
113.01
113.02
015 114
17.01
17.02
024
025
115
116
W Cour
t
S
t E FosterWells Rd
Harris Rd
Us 395 NUs 395 NN 4Th AveRoad 60Harris RdE Ains
w
o
r
t
h
A
v
e
E A StN Ra
i
l
roadAve
W A St Heritage BlvdS 20Th AveN 4Th
AveS 10Th AveRoad 44W Ains
w
o
r
t
h
AveN 28ThAveW Lewis StRoad 36N 20Th AveBurden Blvd
W Court StRoad 100N 4Th AveS Oregon AveN 1S
t
AveN O
regon
AveN 10ThAveUs 395 SE Lewis StBroadmoor BlvdW Sylvester St
W Clark St
S MaitlandAveS 4Th AveRoad 68W Arge
nt
R
dRoad 68Sandifur Pkwy
I-182 E
Sandifur Pkwy
W Argent Rd
Us
1
2
EUs 395 SBurns Rd
Road 36I-182 W Us 395 SUs
1
2
W
I-182
E
Us 395 N
I-182
W
INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT
GIS DIVISION
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500
Feet
1 of 1NTS
10/27/2022 rka
2022 PROPOSED COUNCIL DISTRICTS
WITH VOTING PRECINCTS
District 6
District 5
District 4
District 3
District 2
District 1
2022 Proposed Council Districts
Voting Precincts
2022 PROPOSED COUNCIL DISTRICTS
WITH VOTING PRECINCTSPage 7 of 43
DEMOGRAPHER’S MEMO TRANSMITTING RECOMMENDED
CITY COUNCIL REDISTRICTING PLAN
City of Pasco, Washington
Peter A. Morrison, Ph.D.
Peter A. Morrison & Associates, Inc.
**DRAFT – Pending Formal Adoption by City Council**
OCTOBER 27, 2022
This memorandum documents relevant technical features of the Recommended City Council Redistricting
Plan (“the Redistricting Plan”) for the City of Pasco, Washington(“City”). These features are the basis for
my recommendation to adopt the Redistricting Plan as a “least change” six-district election plan, based upon
newly issued 2020 decennial Census data and in accordance with Washington State and federal standards.
Relevant considerations that guided this necessary rebalancing and Council Members’ further suggested
refinements to bring the City’s current plan into compliance with applicable legal standards are summarized
below. This Redistricting Plan rebalances each district’s total population, strengthening Hispanics’ share of
eligible voters in District 2, and maintains adherence to traditional districting criteria. Additionally, the
Redistricting Plan avoids any dilution of Hispanics’ voting strength in compliance with state and federal
requirements.
1. Right to representation. The Redistricting Plan realizes the intention of the City’s elected officials to adopt
a plan that assures the rights to representation of all the people in the City of Pasco.
2. Equipopulous Districts. Six of the City’s Seven Council Members are elected by district. As required by
law, these six districts are substantially equal in total population based upon 2020 Census (PL94-171) summary
population counts. “Substantially equal” means that each district is as close as practically possible to the
mathematical ideal of 12,851 persons in a district(i.e., one-sixth of the City’s 77,108 total population as counted
in 2020).
However, districts need not be exactly equal in total population to be compliant with state and federal law.
Courts allow districting plans with up to a 10-percent total deviation from this ideal. Total Deviation from Ideal
(“TDI”) is measured as the absolute difference between the most populous district and the least populous
district, divided by the ideal number (12,851). Table 1 below documents adherence to these “guard rails” and
compliance of the Redistricting Plan with the TDI.
Page 8 of 43
2
Table 1. Districts Equalized on Total Population as of 2020
In the Redistricting Plan, the most-populous district (District5) has a population of 13,413 residents, which is
4.37-percent too many. The least-populous district ( District 6) has 12,421 residents, which is 3.35-percent too
few. To calculate the Redistricting Plan’s TDI, the extreme deviations of District 5 and District 6 are combined
(4.37 plus 3.35), which total 7.72-percent. Relative to the maximum acceptable TDI (10 percent), the
Redistricting Plan’s 7.72-percent TDI is well-within the acceptable range of “substantial equality” as required
by law.
3. Respecting existing administrative boundaries. Insofar as possible, the Redistricting Plan respects the
current boundaries of city election precincts, to avoid the expense of modifying precincts presently in use.
4. Compliance with State and Federal Redistricting Requirements and Guidelines. RCW 29A.76.010
requires the City to prepare a redistricting plan based upon federal decennial census data. The Redistricting Plan
must also be consistent with the following criteria: (1) each district must be nearly equal in population, (2) as
compact as possible, and (3) consist of a geographically contiguous area; (4) the census population data may
not be used for “purposes of favoring or disfavoring any racial group or political party”1; and (5) as far as
feasible the districts should follow and coincide with natural boundaries and “preserve existing communities of
related and mutual interest.” RCW 29A.76.010. The Redistricting Plan is consistent with all of these criteria as
each new district under the Plan is nearly equal in population, as compact as possible, consists of a
geographically contiguous area, the population data used to form the new districts does not favor one race or
political party, and in forming the Plan all efforts were made to maintain communities of interest while
complying with other criteria and legal requirements and considerations.
Section 2 of the Federal Voting Rights Act prohibits vote dilution, defined as any electoral practice or procedure
that minimizes or cancels out the voting strength of members of racial or language minority groups in the voting
1 This provision does not alleviate the City’s obligations and requirements to comply with Washington’s Voting Rights Act, RCW
29A.92.020, which prohibits any election plan that “impairs the ability of members of a protected class or classes to have an equal
opportunity to elect candidates of their choice as a result of the dilution or abridgement of the rights of voters who are members of a
protected class or classes.”
Page 9 of 43
3
population.2 See pp. 6-10 at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1429486/download for an
overview of these prohibitions.
The Redistricting Plan complies with both the Washington State and Federal redistricting guidelines. Consistent
with them, the Redistricting Plan respects Hispanics’ ability to elect candidates of choice in three of the City’s six districts. In District 1 and District 6, Hispanics constitute an estimated 58.6-percent of the 2021 citizen voting-age population (CVAP). In District 2, Hispanics constitute an estimated 51.6-percent of the 2021 CVAP. The 2021 percentage will increase further with each passing year as native-born Hispanics under
age 18 reach voting age.3
Relevant demographic parameters for the Recommended Plan are shown in Table 2, along with the
corresponding data.
Table 2. Estimated Hispanic Share of Eligible Voters
(derived from 2021 American Community Survey estimates)
RECOMMENDED PLAN:
2 This is consistent with Washington’s Voting Rights Act, RCW 29A.92.020.
3 I rely upon the most current official data for distinguishing the City’s voting-age citizen population, in order to gauge Hispanics’
share of all eligible voters. The Census Bureau’s 2021 one-year American Community Survey estimates (furnished for this purpose)
document Hispanic voters’ emerging electoral influence for the City as a whole.
Page 10 of 43
4
Figures 1 & 2. Maps of Recommended Plan
(referencing census block geography)
The precise boundaries of each recommended new district visualized above are defined by GIS electronic shape
files, which define the district with reference to census block geography. These shape files have been furnished
to the City’s GIS department as a deliverable. These shape files should be archived as a permanent record of
the census block geography referenced for creating the precise boundaries of the Redistricting Plan as
implemented for holding future elections.
Page 11 of 43
5
Census block geography does not always correspond exactly with city streets. Where minor discrepancies arise,
the City may exercise reasonable discretion in aligning the district boundaries to correspond to actual streets for
purposes of holding elections.
These shapefiles are intended for the City’s use to prepare all necessary high-resolution maps for use in
implementing the Revised Recommended Plan--e.g., to display the district boundaries with reference to
recognized streets, voting precincts, newly-annexed territory, and other features to show eligible voters the
district in which they reside.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________
Peter A. Morrison
Peter A. Morrison & Associates, Inc.
October 27, 2022
Page 12 of 43
MEMO DEL DEMOGRÁFO TRANSMITIENDO EL PLAN DE REZONIFICACIÓN
RECOMENDADO POR EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL
Ciudad de Pasco, Washington
Peter A. Morrison, Ph.D.
Peter A. Morrison & Associates, Inc.
**BORRADOR**
27 DE OCTUBRE DEL 2022
Este memorándum documenta las características técnicas relevantes del Plan de Rezonificación
Recomendado por el Concejo Municipal (“el Plan de Rezonificación”) para la Ciudad de Pasco,
Washington (“Ciudad”). Estas características son la base para mi recomendación de adoptar el Plan de
Rezonificación como un plan de elección de seis distritos con un “cambio menor”, basado en los datos del
Censo decenal del 2020 publicados recientemente y de acuerdo con los estándares federales y del Estado de
Washington.
Las consideraciones relevantes las cuales guiaron este rebalanceo necesario, y las mejorías más extensas
sugeridas por los Miembros del Concejo para guiar el plan actual de la Ciudad hacia el cumplimiento con los
estándares legales correspondientes, están resumidas posteriormente. El Plan de Rezonificación reequilibra
la población total de cada distrito, reforzando la parte de votantes Hispanos elegibles en el Distrito 1, y cumple
con el criterio tradicional de la zonificación. Además, el Plan de Rezonificación evade cualquier reducción
de la fuerza de voto de los Hispanos, en cumplimiento con los requisitos estatales y federales.
1. Derecho a representación. El Plan de Rezonificación toma en cuenta la intención de los oficiales electos
de la Ciudad de adoptar un plan que asegure que toda la gente de la Ciudad de Pasco tenga derecho a
representación.
2. Distritos Poblados Igualmente. Seis de los Siete Miembros del Concejo de la Ciudad son electos por el
distrito. Como lo es requerido por la ley, estos seis distritos cuentan con una población total
considerablemente igual, de acuerdo con el resumen de los conteos de la población de Censo del 2020 (PL94-
171). “Considerablemente igual” significa que cada distrito está tan cerca como lo es prácticamente posible
al ideal matemático de 12,851 personas en un distrito (p. ej. un sexto de la población total de la Ciudad de
77,108 contada en el 2020).
Sin embargo, los distritos no tienen contar exactamente con la misma población total para cumplir con las
leyes estatales y federales. Los tribunales les permiten a los planes de zonificación un 10 por ciento de
desviación total de este ideal. Total Deviation from Ideal (“TDI”) (Desviación Total del Ideal) se mide como
la diferencia absoluta entre el distrito más poblado y el distrito menos poblado, divido (por el número ideal
(12,851). La Gráfica 1 posterior documenta el cumplimiento con estos “guardarraíles” y el cumplimiento del
Plan de Rezonificación con el TDI.
Page 13 of 43
2
Gráfica 1. Distritos Iguales con la Población Total del 2020
En el Plan de Rezonificación, el distrito más poblado (Distrito 5) tiene una población de 13,413 residentes, lo
cual es 4.37-por ciento de más. El distrito menos poblado (Distrito 6) tiene 12,421 residentes, lo cual es 3.35-
por ciento de menos. Para calcular el TDI del plan de Rezonificación, se combinan las desviaciones extremas
del Distrito 5 y el Distrito 6 (4.37 más 3.35), lo cual es 7.72-por ciento. Comparado con la TDI máxima
aceptable (10 por ciento), la TDI de 7.72 por ciento del Plan de Rezonificación se encuentra dentro del rango
aceptable de “igualdad considerable” requerida por la ley.
3. Respetar las fronteras administrativas actuales. Hasta la fecha, como lo es posible, el Plan de
Rezonificación respeta las fronteras actuales de los precintos de las elecciones de la ciudad, para evitar los
gastos de modificar los precintos que están actualmente en uso.
4. Cumplimiento con los Requisitos y las Normas de Rezonificación Estatales y Federales. RCW
29A.76.010 requiere que la Ciudad prepare un plan de rezonificación basado en los datos federales decenales
del censo. El Plan de Rezonificación también debe ser consistente con el siguiente criterio: (1) cada distrito
debe tener casi la misma población, (2) debe ser lo más compacto posible, y (3) debe consistir de un área
geográficamente adyacente; (4) los datos de la población del censo no pueden ser utilizados para “favorecer o
desfavorecer a cualquier grupo racial o partido político”1; y (5) lo más que sea viable, los distritos deben seguir
y coincidir con las fronteras naturales y “preservar a las comunidades actuales de intereses relacionados y
mutuos.” RCW 29A.76.010. El Plan de Rezonificación es consistente con todo este criterio ya que cada nuevo
distrito bajo el Plan cuenta con casi la misma población, es lo más compacto posible, consiste de un área
geográficamente adyacente, los datos de la población utilizados para formar los nuevos distritos no favorecen
1 This provision does not alleviate the City’s obligations and requirements to comply with Washington’s Voting Rights Act, RCW
29A.92.020, which prohibits any election plan that “impairs the ability of members of a protected class or classes to have an equal
opportunity to elect candidates of their choice as a result of the dilution or abridgement of the rights of voters who are members of a
protected class or classes.”
Page 14 of 43
3
a una raza o partido político, y al desarrollar el Plan, se hicieron todos los esfuerzos para mantener las
comunidades de intereses mientras que se cumple con otro criterio y requisitos legales y consideraciones.
La Sección 2 del Federal Voting Rights Act (Acto Federal del Derecho a Votar) prohíbe la reducción de los
votos, definido como cualquier práctica electoral o procedimiento que minimiza o cancela la fuerza de voto
de los miembros de minorías raciales o de idioma, en la población votante.2 Refiérase a las pp. 6-10 en:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1429486/download para un resumen de estas prohibiciones.
El Plan de Rezonificación cumple con las normas de rezonificación Federales y del Estado de Washington.
Consistente con ellas, el Plan de Rezonificación respeta la habilidad de los Hispanos de elegir a candidatos en
tres de los seis distritos de la Ciudad. En el Distrito 1 y en el Distrito 6, los Hispanos constituyen
aproximadamente un 58.6 por ciento de la población de ciudadanos con edad para votar (CVAP) en el 2021.
En el Distrito 2, los Hispanos constituyen aproximadamente un 51.6 por ciento del CVAP en el 2021. El
porcentaje del 2021 aumentará más conforme pasen los años, ya que los Hispanos nativos menores llegarán a
los 18 años y serán elegibles para votar.3
Comencé una evaluación de anexiones pendientes de dos “islas” de territorios grandes no incorporadas,
localizadas completamente dentro de la Ciudad. Sin ninguna anexión próxima, el Plan de Rezonificación
conserva la opción de que la Ciudad anexe una o dos de las “islas” a un distrito actual sin reducir la cantidad
de votantes elegibles Hispanos en el Distrito 1, Distrito 2, y Distrito 6.
Los parámetros demográficos relevantes del Plan Recomendado son mostrados en la Gráfica 2, junto con los
datos correspondientes.
Table 2. Cifras Estimadas de Votantes Elegibles Hispanos
(derivado de las estimaciones del 2021 American Community Survey)
PLAN RECOMENDADO:
2 Esto es consistente con el Washington’s Voting Rights Act, RCW 29A.92.020.
3 Dependo en los datos oficiales actuales para distinguir a la población de ciudadanos en la Ciudad con edad para votar, para poder
calcular la cantidad de Hispanos que son elegibles para votar. Los cálculos del American Community Survey (Encuesta de las
Comunidades Americanas) de un año, del Census Bureau (Departamento del Censo) del 2021 (proveído para este proyecto)
documentan la influencia emergente electoral de los votantes Hispanos de toda la Ciudad.
Page 15 of 43
4
Figure 1. Mapa del Plan Recomendado
(referente a la geografía del bloque del censo)
Las fronteras precisas de cada distrito nuevo recomendado, visualizadas anteriormente son definidas por los
archivos electrónicos de forma (shape files) GIS, las cuales definen al distrito con referencia a la geografía del
bloque del censo. Los archivos de forma han sido proveídos al departamento GIS de la Ciudad, como un
Page 16 of 43
5
producto final. Los archivos de forma deben ser archivados como un récord permanente de la geografía del
bloque del censo, utilizados como referencia para el desarrollo de las fronteras precisas del Plan de
Rezonificación implementado, para llevar a cabo las elecciones futuras.
La geografía del bloque del censo no siempre corresponde exactamente con las calles de la ciudad. Cuando
surjan discrepancias, la Ciudad quizás pueda ejercer su discreción razonable para alinear las fronteras de los
distritos para que correspondan con las calles actuales para poder llevar a cabo las elecciones.
Los archivos de forma sirven para que la Ciudad prepare todos los mapas de alta resolución para poder
implementar el Plan Revisado Recomendado –p. ej., para mostrar las fronteras de los distritos con referencias
a las calles reconocidas, los precintos de voto, los territorios recientemente anexados, y otras características
para mostrarles a los votantes elegibles a cuál distrito pertenecen.
Enviada respetuosamente,
__________________________________
Peter A. Morrison
Peter A. Morrison & Associates, Inc.
27 de Octubre del 2022
Page 17 of 43
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council November 9, 2022
TO: Adam Lincoln, Interim City Manager City Council Special
Meeting: 11/14/22
FROM: Darcy Buckley, Finance Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 4622 - Amendment to the Pasco Municipal Code Related
to Ambulance Rates
I. REFERENCE(S):
Ordinance
Pasco Ambulance Utility Rate Study
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4622, amending the Pasco Municipal
Code Section 3.35.010 Ambulance Utility Fees effective January 1, 2023, and,
further, publish by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Increase in monthly ambulance utility fee.
Increase in ambulance transport fee.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The City recently completed a periodic Ambulance Utility rate analysis as part of
the biennial budget process. As has been the case for the past several years,
the FCS Group (FCS) assisted the City in this effort.
The current rate of $16.20 per equivalent residential unit (ERU) was set in 2020.
While the success of previous adjustments to the utility rate including
implementation of ERUs and the GEMT program has served the Fund well,
analysis was needed to address the financial impact of upcoming addition al
planned Fire Stations No.85 in the near-term, and future Fire Stations Nos. 86
and 87. Beyond reviewing the existing rate to assure rate requirements were
being met, efforts were made in the evaluation to capture and analyze the impact
of expected growth and account user trends with related costs.
Page 18 of 43
The addition of fire stations, equipment and staffing will require increased
funding over the coming years. As a result of the recently awarded and accepted
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant that will
fund the staffing of Fire Station No. 85, a significant portion of the anticipated
rate revenue need will be avoided for three (3) years spanning from
approximately 2023 through 2025. This external funding allows the City to
absorb a smaller than necessary rate increase to fund the utility over the next
three (3) years, while simultaneously allowing for enhanced services (Sta. 85
online). During this time frame City staff with Council's policy making oversight
will need to develop a plan to fully absorb Fire Station No. 85 in 2026, while
planning for other future fire station additions.
As background, the Ambulance Utility for the City of Pasco was created in 2007
and is based on the authority outlined in RCW 35.21.766, which also places
additional constraints on the rate and costs. Limitations of the utility rate include;
not exceeding the total costs of the ambulance service and the inability of the
rate revenue to fund capital spending or major facility renovations. The Cost of
Service study includes two elements – Demand and Availability. Demand costs
are those costs associated with the actual response to incidents. Availability
costs are those costs associated with the infrastructure and personnel that need
to be in place to have the ability to respond to incidents. The revenue
requirements to support availability are the focus of the FCS analysis. The
revenue is collected by way of the rate that is included with other monthly service
charges on a City produced utility bill, like those for water or sewer service.
The demand portion of the Ambulance service has seen an increase in the total
number of incidents over the previous three years as has been described in
previous presentations of the 2021 Annual Performance Report. This trend was
also outlined in the 2021 Fire Department Master Plan. The Master Plan
identified needed departmental growth and made recommendations. The next
step is ensuring that appropriate funding is identified to address the planned
growth in all areas of the City. It is important to understand that the growth in the
incidents in need for emergency medical services are being driven by increasing
population, but also significantly higher utilization rates per capita - Pasco
residents are accessing emergency medical services at a higher rate than in the
past.
The current utility rate generates revenues that are used to cover costs
associated with the existing four fire stations, apparatus, equipment and
personnel. The current level of service being provided to the City is out of those
four (4) fire stations using four (4) front-line ambulances with two (2) “hot”
reserves and one (1) “cold” reserve. The “hot” reserves have the ability to be
placed in service immediately for either times when additional staff ing is required
due to high incidents occurring or to allow maintenance on the front line units.
Additional staffing included in the ambulance utility is the Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) Officer and 50% of an assistant medical/training officer. These
Page 19 of 43
individuals oversee the delivery of services and manage the associated
inventory, training, and regulatory requirements of the ambulance service.
On October 11, 2022, Council reviewed a presentation that outlined updated
revenue requirements. The revenue requirements calculated reflected up-to-
date ambulance service costs as well as the effect of the addition of Station No.
85 that is currently under construction. Also considered in the rate study was the
SAFER grant award which offsets rate increases over a three-year period, that
would otherwise be needed to staff Fire Station 85, which will be operational in
2023.
Other information shared at the October 11th Council workshop was the need to
increase transport rates. The ambulance transport rates have not changed since
2019. The monthly utility rate increased in 2019 and again in 2020. A Ground
Emergency Medical Transport (GEMT) rate is calculated annually for purposes
of participation in the federally supported GEMT supplemental entitlement
program. The value of the GEMT rate, which represents the fully allocated cost
of an ambulance response/transport is currently at $3,968. The October 11th
agenda report included discussion of the request to incrementally increase the
transport rate over the next many years to catch up with actual cost of transports.
Finally, at the October workshop, the occurrence and resulting demand on Fire
Department services for non-emergency activity was shared. Of paramount
concern was the potential for licensed health care or living facilities to request
non-emergency assistance that results in no transport and removes fire
department staff from availability. To offset the cost of these instances, the
establishment of a nontransport services rate, more commonly called a "lift
assist" was introduced. Per WAC-388 licensed health care facilities are expected
to adequately staff and train employees to provide such care without the
assistance of the emergency medical services community.
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends the implementation of rate study results to fund Ambulance
Utility operations, including Station No. 85 beginning January 2023 . Staff is
recommending the following:
Monthly Ambulance Utility Rate - Increase the monthly utility charge from the
current level of $16.20 to $16.66 in 2023, $17.42 in 2024 and $18.61 in 2025.
As discussed in the rate analysis, these rates are reflective of the benefit of the
SAFER grant for three (3) years while progressively increasing to full Ambulance
Fund (or 83% of revenue requirements) revenue requirement billing.
Transport Rate - Increase the transport rate in January 2023 of 50% for both
residential and non-residential patients. The proposed rate increase results in a
Page 20 of 43
transport rate of $975 and $1,650, respectively. Even with an increase of this
magnitude, the rate remains insufficient to fund actual cost associated with
transport service as described above. Furthermore, staff recommends an
increase in the transport rate structure of 20% annually until the rate mirrors the
cost of service. Phasing in the cost incrementally will result in a ten -year time
frame to establish a transport rate that is approximately 83% of cost. Often the
transport rate is paid by existing private insurance. Payment arrangements are
available should that accommodation be necessary. During the October 11th
workshop, the impact of transport rate change on low-income patients requiring
care from the Ambulance staff was discussed. To verify staff's understanding,
our Ambulance Billing Contractor was contacted. Input from the Contractor
verified that increases in the rate will not add cost burden to Medicaid nor
Medicare covered patients. Medicare patients only pay a percentage of a rate
that Medicare allows, not a percentage of what we charge. Medicaid patients are
assigned no out-of-pocket payment responsibility.
While not part of the recommendations under consideration this evening, a part
of the October 11th presentation was the concept of a "Lift Assist" type fee for
nonemergency non-transport services for licensed health care facilities. Staff will
return to Council at a later date for further consideration of a rate schedule
related to these type of services.
Finally, as a reminder, the revenue requirements study evaluated the potential
cost impact of additional stations through 2027. These longer-term rate
implications are only estimates and will be influenced by changes in Ambulance
budgets over the next many years, the timing of future demand as the result of
development, utilization trends, and bringing online of stations.
Paramount decisions resulting the are of new consideration in stations
surrounding the appropriate timing of new fire stations, the funding mechanisms
to support the approximate $14M in capital building cost, and the impact of
ongoing costs following const the ruction and apparatus purchase. While
anticipated revenue requirement to Ambulance ratepayers for the new stations
are outlined in the FCS study, the General Fund will also bear a portion of the
expense. The principle of growth paying for growth is an important consideration
for future planning. Faced with the demands of new station additions, staff
anticipates initiating a Fire Impact Fee study to assure new growth pays for its
impacts.
Page 21 of 43
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.010 - 1
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, AMENDING PASCO
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.35.010 AMBULANCE UTILITY FEES
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023.
WHEREAS, a revenue requirements study to determine the monthly availability (utility)
rate was jointly conducted between contractor FCS Group and City Staff covering the years range
of 2023 through 2027; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco hereby determines that the total costs
necessary to regulate, operate, and maintain the ambulance utility is accurately described in the
FCS Group cost-of-service study and hereby incorporates the same by this reference as Exhibit
A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco through the FCS Group cost-of-service
study has accurately identified the portion of the total costs attributable to availability costs and
demand costs; and
WHEREAS, an increase in rates is required to provide sufficient revenue for the operation
of the Ambulance Utility beginning in the year 2023 based on currently anticipated operational
revenues and expenses for the years of 2023 - 2025; and
WHEREAS, a Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant was
awarded that will allow for rate increases related to the addition of new fire station 85 to be phased
in over the years of 2023 - 2025; and
WHEREAS, the rates for ambulance transport service have not increased in step with costs
of transport services as determined by the annual calculation of the Ground Emergency Medical
Transport (GEMT) Rate, nor in conjunction with rate increases for availability costs as assessed
by the monthly utility rate; and
WHEREAS, this amendment is necessary to allow for cost reimbursement for non-
emergency non-transport services provided to licensed care facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 3.35.010 entitled “Ambulance Utility” of the Pasco Municipal
Code (PMC) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
Page 22 of 43
Ordinance – Amending PMC 3.35.010 - 2
3.35.010 Ambulance utility.
20192023 20202024 2025 Reference
Ambulance Service Rates
Resident Rate
$650.00975.00 $650.001,170.00 $1,400.00 3.85.080
Nonresident Rate
$1,1001,650.00 $1,1001,980.00 $2,380.00 3.85.080
Monthly Utility Rate per ERU
$15.5816.66 $16.2017.42 $18.61 3.85.040
Ambulance Service Business License
$150.00 $150.00 $150.00 5.15.030
[Ord. 4406 § 1, 2018; Ord. 4369, 2017; Ord. 4322, 2016; Ord. 4253, 2015; Ord. 4139,
2014; Ord. 4053, 2012; Ord. 3913, 2009; Ord. 3800, 2006; Ord. 3718, 2005; Ord. 3708, 2004;
Ord. 3677, 2004; Ord. 3645, 2003; Ord. 3610, 2003; Code 1970 § 3.07.010.]
Section 2. This Ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the
City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect on January 1, 2023.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of November,
2022.
_____________________________
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Published: _____________________________
Page 23 of 43
Slide 1FCS GROUP
Presentation to City Council
October 11, 2022
Martin Chaw, Project Manager
Skye Jiang, Sr. Analyst
Ambulance Utility
Rate Study 2022
Page 24 of 43
Slide 2FCS GROUP
About FCS Group
▪Utility rate and fee consulting
▪Utility management consulting
▪Financial planning and analysis
▪Economic servicesPage 25 of 43
Slide 3FCS GROUP
Scope of Work
Update previous ambulance utility rate study (2019)
-Current level of service + Open new Station #85 (2023)
-Depending upon growth, addition of new Station #87
-Depending upon growth, addition of new Station #86
Determine a proposed rate for non-emergency lift
calls for servicePage 26 of 43
Slide 4FCS GROUP
Ambulance Utility
●RCW 35.21.766 authorizes cities to form an ambulance utility
»Utility rates cannot exceed total costs
»Rate revenue funds cost of operating utility (includes apparatus, but cannot
include capital spending or major facility renovation)
●Cost of Service study required
»Demand –cost to respond to incidents
»Availability –cost to be on standby and available to respond to incidents
●City of Pasco’s ambulance utility
»Created in 2007
●Responded to over 7,300 incidents in 2021Page 27 of 43
Slide 5FCS GROUP
Fire Services in Pasco
St. #81
St. #82St. #83
St. #84
St. #85Page 28 of 43
Slide 6FCS GROUP
Trends in Incidents and Response Times
2019 2020 2021
Number of Incidents 5,842 6,194 7,342
Average Response time (minutes)6.07 6.35 6.03
Unit Notified to Enroute 1.20 1.23 1.04
Unit Enroute to Arrived at Scene 4.87 5.12 4.99
City Residential Population 75,432 76,379 78,700
Number of Incidents per 1,000
population
77.5 81.1 93.3
% Increase in Incidents per 1,000
population
4.6%15.0%Page 29 of 43
Slide 7FCS GROUP
Funding Fire Services
Fire
Services
Fire Impact
Fees
Ambulance
Utility Rates
General
Taxes
▪Fees assessed on new
development to fund
construction of fire stations
and apparatus
▪Collected over time as new
development occurs
▪Future study to update the
fire impact fees
▪Monthly rates assessed to
residents and businesses for
operation of ambulance
services
▪By City policy, ambulance
rates to recover 83%of
Ambulance Utility operating
costs
▪Continue to pay 17%of
Ambulance Utility operating
costs
▪Includes $420,000 annual
transfer from GF to
Ambulance Utility FundPage 30 of 43
Slide 8FCS GROUP
New Fire Stations
2023 2024 2025 2026
Station 85 (Fire engine + equipment +
Ambulance, 15FTEs)
Station 87 (Teleboom engine +
equipment, 12FTEs)
Station 86 (Fire engine + equipment +
Ambulance, 15FTEs)
*Photo: Teleboom fire truck
Forecasted station on-line
(depending upon growth)Page 31 of 43
Slide 9FCS GROUP
Analysis –Key Assumptions
Economic & Financial Factors
2022-2030 Annual Rate
General Inflation 6.0%
Labor Cost Inflation 6.0%
Benefit Cost Inflation 4.0%
Revenue Growth 3.2-5.2%*
Customer Growth 3.2-5.2%*
*Revenue and customer growth expected to increase in 2023 and 2024 due to additional
employment from new to City industrial and commercial growth.Page 32 of 43
Slide 10FCS GROUP
Fire Department Funding
$13.1 M $13.9 M $14.6 M $15.5 M $16.3 M
$7.6 M $8.0 M $8.4 M $8.9 M $9.4 M$20.7 M $21.9 M $23.1 M $24.4 M $25.8 M
$0.0
$5.0
$10.0
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$30.0
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027MillionsCity of Pasco Fire Department Sources of Funding
(Current Level of Service + Station 85)
Ambulance Utility General Fund Subsidy TotalPage 33 of 43
Slide 11FCS GROUP
Ambulance Utility Sources of Funding
$6.9 M $7.6 M $8.2 M $8.9 M $9.6 M
$1.4 M $1.5 M $1.7 M $1.8 M $2.0 M
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027MillionsAmbulance Utility Sources of Funding
(Current Services incl. Station 85)
Ambulance Utility General Fund Subsidy
General Fund subsidy represents 17% of ambulance utility rate revenue requirements. Rate revenue requirement reflect total co st
of ambulance utility, less non-rate revenues (e.g., transport payments, WA State GEMT revenues, etc.).Page 34 of 43
Slide 12FCS GROUP
Ambulance Utility Rate Revenue Requirement ($M)*
with Station 85 Only
$6.9 M $7.6 M $8.2 M $8.9 M $9.6 M
$-
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
$18.0
$20.0
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027MillionsAmbulance Utility Revenue Requirement and Monthly Utility Rates
(Current Services incl. St.85)
Ambulance Utility
*Amounts shown reflect net operating costs, inclusive of new Station 85 (scheduled to open in 2023), less non-rate revenues
include ambulance transport fees, Washington State Ground Emergency Management Transportation payments.
$16.66**
per month
$17.42**
per month
$18.61**
per month
$20.31
per month
$21.22
per month
Current Monthly Rate: $16.20 per ERU(2022)
**SAFER grant available to fund personnel costs for Station 85, and will allow City to phase-in rates over 3-year period.Page 35 of 43
Slide 13FCS GROUP
Ambulance Rates Phase-In Strategy
$16.66 $17.42 $18.61 $20.31 $21.22
$1.37 $1.22 $0.80
$-
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Monthly RateMonthly Ambulance Utility Rates
(Current Services + Station 85)
Monthly Rate Phase-In Strategy
Current
Rate
**SAFER grant available to fund personnel costs for Station 85, and will allow City to phase-in rates over 3-year period.
$18.03
without grant
$18.64
without grant
$19.41
without grant
$16.20
No SAFER
grant
No SAFER
grantPage 36 of 43
Slide 14FCS GROUP
Ambulance Utility Funding –New Stations 87 & 86
$6.9 $7.6 $8.2 $8.9 $9.6
$1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $1.2$1.5 $1.5 $1.6
$1.4
$1.5
$1.7 $1.8 $2.0
$8.3 M
$10.4 M
$13.0 M $13.9 M $14.9 M
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027MillionsAmbulance Utility Sources of Funding
(Current Level of Service + St. 85, 87, 86)
AU (Current+85)AU (87)AU (86)GF (Current+85)GF (87)GF (86)Total
Complementary General Fund operational cost for added Stations is not reflected. Only Ambulance Fund Costs are
in graph depiction.Page 37 of 43
Slide 15FCS GROUP
Ambulance Utility Rate Revenue Requirement
with New Stations 85, 86 and 87 ($M)
$7.2 M $7.8 M $8.4 M $9.1 M $9.9 M
$1.1 M $1.1 M $1.2 M $1.2 M$1.5 M $1.5 M $1.6 M
$-
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
$18.0
$20.0
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027AU Revenue Requirement ($M)Ambulance Utility Rate Revenue Requirement
(Current Services incl. St. 85, 87, 86)
Current incl St.85 Station 87 Station 86
Timing of rate impacts for Station 86 and 87 forecast only.
$16.66**
per month
$20.17**
per month
$24.73**
per month
$26.37
per month
$27.39
per month
**SAFER grant available to fund personnel costs for Station 85, and will allow City to phase-in rates over 3-year period.Page 38 of 43
Slide 16FCS GROUP
Ambulance Rates Phase-In Strategy
$16.66 $17.42 $18.61 $20.31 $21.22
$2.75 $2.62 $2.67 $2.72 $3.50 $3.39 $3.45
$1.37
$1.49
$0.94
$16.66
$20.17
$24.73 $26.37 $27.39
$-
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Monthly RateMonthly Ambulance Utility Rate
(Current Services incl. St. 85, 87, 86)
Monthly Rate (Current + St85)St 87 St 86 Phase-In Strategy Total
Current
Rate
**SAFER grant available to fund personnel costs for Station 85, and will allow City to phase-in rates over 3-year period.
$16.20Page 39 of 43
Slide 17FCS GROUP
Comparison with Jurisdictions
Richland Kennewick Pasco
Current (2022) Monthly Ambulance
Utility Rate $10.00 $14.12 $16.20
Levy Collection 2022 $19.2M $14.4M $11.8M
Residential Population 59,609 87,649 77,326
# of Fire Stations 5 5 4
# of People Covered per Station 11,920 17,530 19,330
Service Area (in square miles)42.7
(excludes Hanford)29.2 37.5
# of Square Miles Covered per Station 8.6 5.8 9.4
Ambulance Calls for Service (2020)5,299 7,357 4,626
Ambulance Calls per Station 1,060 1,471 1,157
Density (pop per square mile)1,544 3,057 2,271Page 40 of 43
Slide 18FCS GROUP
Non-Emergency Lift
2019 2020 2021
Number of non-emergency lift incidents 204 283 252
Number of Incidents per 1,000 population 2.7 3.7 3.2
% Increase in Incidents per 1,000 population 37%-14%
●Currently no fee assessed for non-emergency lifts
●To offset any costs, Staff recommends establishment of a penalty fee to licensed
care facilities. Page 41 of 43
Slide 19FCS GROUP
Conclusions & Next Steps
●Next Steps
»Increase rates to fully fund Ambulance Utility
operations, including new stations 85 (eff Jan 2023)
»Discussion related to growth and resulting community
needs to guide timing of construction of new stations 86
and 87
●Questions?Page 42 of 43
Slide 20FCS GROUP
Thank you!Page 43 of 43