HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013.06.24 Council Workshop PacketAGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. June 24, 2013
1, CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEM 3ERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Public Facilities District Board Interviews:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 19, 2013.
2. Applications (4) (Council packets only).
(b) Cemetery Fees:
1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
June 20, 2013.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
3. Niche Photos.
(c) County Economic Development Plan:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 19, 2013.
2. Economic Development Plan (copy provided electronically; copy available for public
review in the Planning office or on the City's webpage at www.pasco-
wa. gov /citycouncilMports.
3. List of Projects Previously Assisted.
(d) ALS Ambulance Service Options:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated June 17, 2013.
2. Table, "ALS Ambulance Service Contract Options ", 6/17/13.
3. Proportionate Cost Example.
4. Letter to Franklin County District 3, 6/22/12.
5. Agenda Report to City Council, 6/11/12 (4 pages).
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
Potential Litigation
(b)
Real Estate Acquisition
(c)
Real Estate Disposal
7, ADJOURNMENT
REMINDERS:
1. 11:00 a.m., Saturday, June 22, Pasco's Highland Park — Juneteenth Parade (check in at 10:00 am).
(COUNCILMEMBERS REBECCA FRANCIK, BOB HOFFMANN and TOM LARSEN)
2. 7:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 25, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd — Tri- Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau
Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Rep.; TOM LARSEN, Alt.)
3. 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 26 — 12:00 p.m., Friday, June 28, Three - Rivers Convention Center —
Association of Washington Cities Annual Conference. (COUNCILMEMBERS REBECCA
FRANCIK, BOB HOFFMANN, SAUL MARTINEZ, TOM LARSEN and AL YENNEY)
Workshop Meeting 2 June 24, 2013
4. 2:00 p.m., Thursday, June 27, Booth Building, Pasco — RYSC- AmeriCorps Volunteer Appreciation
Event. (MAYOR PRO -TEM REBECCA FRANCIK)
5. 4:00 p.m., Thursday, June 27, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd — TRIDEC Board Meeting.
( COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Rep.; TOM LARSEN, Alt.)
6. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, June 27, 710 W. Court Street — Benton - Franklin Community Action
Connections Meeting. ( COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
7. 1:30 p.m., Monday, July 1, KGH — Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting.
( COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.)
8. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 3, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue — Franklin County Mosquito Control District
Meeting. ( COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.)
9. 10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 4 — Pasco's Grand Old 0' of July Parade. (Check in at registration table at
4'h& Marie at 9:00 a.m.) ( COUNCILMEMBERS REBECCA FRANCIK, MIKE GARRISON, BOB
HOFFMANN and TOM LARSEN)
10. 9:15 p.m., Thursday, July 4, Dust Devils Stadium — Pasco's 4t' of July Fireworks Celebration.
(MAYOR PRO -TEM REBECCA FRANCIK) (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO
ATTEND)
* The City Council business meeting of July 1 has been canceled.
The next meeting will be held Monday, July 8 *
* City Hall will be closed on Thursday, July 4 in honor of the 4`s of July Holiday
TO: City
FROM: Gary
SUBJECT: Public
I.
II.
III.
IV
AGENDA REPORT
June 19, 2013
Workshop Mtg.: 6/24/13
District Board Interview
REFERENCE(S):
1. Applications (4) (Council packets only)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/24: Council to conduct brief interviews with Spence Jilek, Carl Leth, Craig Maloney
and Spencer Sandquist.
HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The
Public
Facilities District
Board is composed of five members; terms are for
four
years.
The Board meets
quarterly.
B) The Public Facilities District Board oversees operation of the Pasco Public
Facilities District and payment of Pasco's share of a special state grant intended
for "regional centers." It may acquire, construct, operate and maintain any
qualified regional public facilities.
C) At the present time, there is one position whose term has expired.
1. Position No. 3 (currently Spence Jilek)
D) The Council screening committee recommends that, as outlined in Resolution No.
3388, the incumbent in Position No. 3 be interviewed prior to consideration for
reappointment.
E) At the present time, there is one vacancy on the Commission:
1. Position No. 4 (vacant) term expiration date of 7/14/14
F) After Council Screening Committee review of all applications, the following have
been selected to interview for possible appointment:
1. Carl Leth ............ ............................... ...........................1620 N. Road 84
2. Craig Maloney ........................ ...........................6103 Candlestick Drive
3. Spencer Sandquist ............................. 6626 Chapel Hill Blvd, Apt G304
DISCUSSION:
A) After conduct of interviews at the June 24 Workshop meeting, it is proposed that
appointments be made at the July 15 meeting.
4(a)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutch 1 Manager
FROM: Rick Terway,
Administrative & Community S r kDirector
SUBJECT: Cemetery Fees
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Niche Photos
June 20, 2013
Workshop Mtg.: 6/24/13
Regular Mtg.: 7/15/13
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/24: DISCUSSION
7/15: MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. , amending Section
3.07.060 of the Pasco Municipal Code, and further, authorize
publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. In 2000 the City installed the first niche in the central area of the cemetery and
has had many compliments on it, however, the cost of construction dictates a high
price for each niche. In recent years there has been an increasing demand for
niche space at a more affordable price.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Staff has put together a program utilizing space in the cemetery that cannot be
used for standard grave excavation; this area is being developed into a "niche
garden". The niche banks are more moderately priced and give customers more
options. Current niche price is limited to $940 per niche. The new prices will
vary from $437 to $577 per niche.
B. Because of the differing price structure, staff recommends changes to PMC
3.07.060 as shown on the attached ordinance. This will allow staff to keep
pricing in line with the demand and the market for these services.
4(b)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington amending Pasco Municipal
Code Section 3.07.060 "Cemetery."
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco Cemetery has had an increasing number of requests for
placement of cremains. The City has constructed a niche garden to increase the number of niches
offered and pricing at various levels; and
WHEREAS, it is more effective to administratively set pricing for the various niches based
on market rates and the cost of operations; and
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, Does
Ordain as Follows:
Section 1. That PMC Section 3.07.060 entitled "Cemetery" shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
3.07.060 CEMETERY:
Fee / Charge Reference
A) Charge for lots exclusive of endowment care :
1) Baby
$250.00
Ord.
3881
2) Adult and Juvenile
$650.00
Ord.
3881
3) Urn
$340.00
Ord.
3881
4) Urn (on existing grave)
$170.00
Ord.
3881
B)
Charge for lots exclusive of endowment care:
1) Niche
$940.00
94
3881
with urn
1) Niche Prices Posted at Cemetery
C)
Charges for Burials, Inurement:
1) Baby
$450.00
Ord.
3881
2) Adult and Juvenile
$725.00
Ord.
3881
3) Urn (burial)
$275.00
Ord.
3881
4) Niche (inumment)
$275.00
Ord.
3881
D)
Charges for Disinterment:
1) Baby
$450.00
Ord.
3881
2) Adult and Juvenile
$725.00
Ord.
3881
3) Urn
$275.00
Ord.
3881
4) Niche
$275.00
Ord.
3881
E)
Charges for Endowment Care:
30%
of cost
Ord.
3881
(Ord.
3881, 2008; Ord. 3819, 2007; Ord. 3660, 2004; Ord.
3543, 2002)
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after its passage and publication as
required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of
2013.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Reference 2
Photo above shows the multi- tiered niche which is the first of several planned for
the niche garden. Each compartment hold one urn
Central niche located near office, each compartment is capable of holding two
urns
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council June 19, 2013
FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6/24/13
SUBJECT: County Econo is Development Plan
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Economic Development Plan (copy provided electronically; copy available for public
review in the Planning office or on the City's webpage at www.pasco-
wa. eov /citvcouncilrenorts).
2. List of Projects Previously Assisted
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/24: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
See below
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In 1997, the state legislature directed that a small portion of the state sales tax receipts
(0.09 %) be allocated to counties for "public facilities serving economic development
purposes." Franklin County, working with the cities of Connell, Pasco, Kahlotus and
Mesa, as well as the Port of Pasco, created an economic development plan to include a
list of "projects" which might be funded, in whole or in part, with the new revenue
source. Once the list was prepared, the county issued 20 -year bonds to generate about $6
million for a variety of projects subsequently funded in the 1999 timeframe. As the
annual sales tax revenue has grown (largely due to the growth in Pasco), additional
bonds have been issued to consume the annual amount of tax receipts associated with the
state's .09% allocation.
B) The various projects assisted by the County's economic development fund has ranged
from streets and utility extensions for industrial lands east of Oregon Avenue in Pasco
and the container terminal at the Port, to a sewer lagoon repair in Mesa and sewer
treatment facility in Connell. In addition, air conditioning was added to the TRAC
facility while the County also constructed an RV park and the ice pavilion adjacent
TRAC. The list of previously assisted projects is provided in reference # 2.
C) As the annual amount of sales tax receipts has flattened recently to the current level of
about $1.1 million, the amount available for new projects is the amount left after the
required bond payments (about $750,000 per year); thus, about $300,000 annually should
be available for new projects.
D) The current economic development plan is several years old, cites data at least a decade
old and restricts projects to the list contained therein, many of which have been
completed or are outdated. Of additional concern is the plan's listing of TRAC as a $10
million project to include a wide variety of expenditures. This provides the basis for the
County to unilaterally allocate all or a portion of the annual "economic development
funds" to make various expenditures at TRAC; in the past, those expenditures have
ranged from renovation of the front entrance area to purchase of computers, tables and
chairs.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Given the age of the current economic development plan, its reliance on a closed list of
projects for funding eligibility and the relatively modest annual cash flow (in terms of
capital projects), it appears prudent and timely to urge Franklin County to develop a new
economic development plan. Such a plan should:
• give greater consideration to the fundamental purpose of the state's funding
allocation (economic development);
include policies to encourage use of the funds for public infrastructure investments
which will foster or leverage private investment in the tax base; 4(c)
establish a funding process which can respond to private investment opportunities
(which may require decisions in a few weeks — not several months or a year).
B) Staff has discussed this with counterparts at the Port of Pasco and they also indicate
general support for development of a new economic development plan. Of course, the
Port would want to participate in that effort, as should all of the four cities in the county.
Staff recommends Council address a written request to the County Commission seeking
a new economic development plan providing a current foundation for allocation of the
.09 funds for economic development purposes and reflecting the objectives cited above.
N N h mm S m W N N N a FJ m I
m � v
z' «W
O s '0�m
E L$
W
' a
Z
c
1 A �iol Em a
U a w w
m w W vv �am�mnSsyG$m`N°rry
M o ~ O!^ NN N N W Nl9Ybt'IN maN �tm0 mbNn Ys
6 N a
c 3 9 0 6
0 v EmH
nm
pp0 S0 NOI�NYY Om pOOOO{N § ymc
NN A PO W V N w w mp��tt3 mm M�SOm� t7 (v+
C fA W _ t0 < d
Z d W N ^y G �"' r N N
y- w °c
Utoo m w W
> >W ,d � ,"ySp "�ow$wpwaw$'o opWopp �o
o c c c c c e c c e e e c c c c
�% C} m w aw ww ww wwwwwww� C www� aw
ppT
Y Ids E �'o c'o� � 0 �� 0 m 9E Eo c
c i xo �'c4L)L)C.) pc33�c� �c43�o�c°� z'ci
c0 N }9 W S S $ccc YC� pc c cc _e c c_ Cpe v y ,5 II��5 L1�� meo a
L 0 e ~JZ JZYY YYYYS2 Y� .T. YYYY� 5
LL c� @� @ @ @ @ @�� @E E
C LL C LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 7 '� LL LL LL LL LL J LL
m a �a 2pS$ 8gg Ics w a pp �qqq�
W N C N N N N N N N N N N N
RN"
N N N N y
N w P c
ac cE a a
M t7 °m W aE g a
a QVQ a q
N u a E E rK.2a O Nj, C G, O N>, w
m 1 O a{lW. c N �Ip W C? O W a o
a c c —° m m V g c m e .ggyc
u n
170 � NI� C o $p ag a— z a mw �wgv
ci U 3 �� g � «
�' a umC Ti ru °e �3 W mE CC Yl O1 �'y �V c ;sec
Y
d�q >�i
C 9 G O=1tio �,� —��(p9 ep Up .2J W y D�`SLLO jW�y�y>�p5p W�
o 'oho o`F�°LLaa c
*6 c *6 0 LL %`6
9 E«
ry LL�g LL o 0 0 0`o '6 's'8 `o '�c X cs `o
�`oonc�ic�c319 me
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Crutchfie k Manager
SUBJECT: ALS Ambulance Service Options
I. REFERENCE(S):
June 17, 2013
Workshop Mtg.: 6/24/13
1. Table, "ALS Ambulance Service Contract Options ", 6/17/13
2. Proportionate Cost Example
3. Letter to Franklin County District 3, 6/22/12
4. Agenda Report to City Council, 6/11/12 (4 pages)
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/24: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Pasco has operated its ambulance services since the late 1970s, reorganizing the
service as a utility function in 2007. As such, the cost of ambulance service is
fully accounted for within a separate "ambulance services fund" which is
supported by a monthly availability fee of $6.25/household and receipt of
ambulance transport fees. Unfortunately, the total of those fees is not sufficient to
cover 100% of ambulance service cost, so the city's general fund subsidizes the
ambulance fund by at least $400,000 /year.
B) City has provided ambulance service to Franklin County Fire District #3
(FCFD #3), as a primary responder (automatic response via dispatch), under the
terms of a contract for at least 30 years. Pasco ambulance also responds to Walla
Walla Fire District #5 (WWFD #5) and North Franklin Hospital District (NFHD)
under contract, but only as a secondary responder. All three contracts are
different, as they were negotiated separately, and at different times, prior to the
city reorganizing the ambulance services as a utility. Pasco continues to serve
WWFD #5 and NFHD, but FCFD #3 has recently elected to provide only BLS
service (no paramedics) within its district, rather than pay an increased contract
fee for the full ambulance service previously provided by Pasco (which included
paramedics).
C) Staff has reviewed the existing contracts as well as optional fee structures to
identify viable options to be offered neighboring districts. The contract options
are based on the fundamental premise (as directed by Council in June 2012) that a
service paid for by Pasco residents should cost at least the same as the Pasco
resident pays for the same service. The two basic options are:
■ Primary Response: Pasco ALS (Paramedic) ambulance responds immediately
to dispatch on 911 call (same as if the call was inside Pasco);
• Secondary Response: Pasco ALS ambulance responds to dispatch after
dispatch receives district request for Pasco ALS assistance (example: FCFD #3
responds to 911 dispatch call, travels to scene of call and determines if ALS is
needed — if so, asks dispatch to call Pasco ambulance...).
D)
Primary response
service
level
should cost at least the same as the Pasco resident
pays for the same
service
level
($6.25 /month/household).
Secondary response is a
4(d)
lower service level (longer response time) so need not carry the same price tag as
primary service. There is a cost, however, to have an ambulance waiting to
respond and that is reflected in the "availability" fee. The insurance industry
reflects the same premise by offering different coverage levels for different annual
premiums. In no event, however, can someone buy insurance to cover an event
after the event. In other words, an availability fee is essential if one is to have an
ambulance respond when one calls.
E) Although state law offers multiple ways for unincorporated areas to fund
ambulance services, the most common method is an emergency medical services
(EMS) levy (property tax). This can be done by the county commissioners or
individual fire districts (either is subject to voter approval) and is evident in more
than half of the counties around the state, including nearby Walla Walla, Yakima
and Grant Counties. This is the option rejected by Franklin County 3 voters last
year (at 35/$1,000). The North Franklin hospital district operates its ambulance
service on a hospital district property tax levy (equivalent to an EMS levy) of
264/$15000.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) As reflected in the table depicting "contract options" (reference 1), assuming all
three districts prefer "secondary response" service level, a relatively simple but
equitable formula can be used to result in an annual contract fee (to reflect
"availability" equity with Pasco residents). The formula is based on the number
of housing units (same as Pasco) but uses a fraction (32 %) of the full rate paid by
Pasco residents; this is to reflect the "secondary response" service level (lower
service level than provided in Pasco). Use of this formula offers relatively simple
and fair ability to update the contract fee annually to reflect changes in the district
(more or fewer housing units) and the city (change in monthly household charge).
As neither of these factors (housing units or monthly charge) is likely to change
significantly from year to year, the annual contract fee would change only in
modest degrees overtime.
B) To "calibrate" the initial annual rate /unit (32% of current $6.25 /month), reference
2 reflects allocation of the annual cost of operating one Pasco ALS ambulance
unit to the four using agencies (including Pasco), based on population. The
resulting allocations very closely reflect the 32% rate factor (the proportionate
allocation would suggest a slightly higher percent). The proportionate allocation
does not include the indirect value of the fact Pasco pays for two additional full -
time ALS ambulance units, thus making the first unit much more "available" than
if it were the only unit operated by the group. In other words, two additional
paramedic "back -up units" are free to the districts, for purposes of this allocation
analysis.
C) Districts are more familiar with the effect on property tax rates, so the table in
Reference 1 includes the effective "additional property tax rate" required to pay the
annual contract fee for the respective district (vs. the 2012 fee paid under the old
contract). In the case of both Franklin County 3 and Walla Walla 5, the additional
property tax rate would be 2/$1,000 (or $4 /year for a $200,000 home) to provide
secondary ALS response from Pasco. In the case of Franklin County 3, the
additional property tax rate required to continue the previous primary ALS
response from Pasco would be 12/$1,000 (or $24 /year for a $200,000 home).
D) North Franklin Hospital District (NFHD) is somewhat different from the other
two, in that it is not a "Fire District" and Franklin County 3 lies between it and
Pasco. It also extends to north Franklin County, to include Connell.
Consequently, Pasco often provides "rendezvous service" (when a Pasco
paramedic ambulance meets N.F. ambulance near Eltopia or so and either takes
N.F. patient to Tri- Cities hospital in a Pasco ambulance, or gets into an N.F.
ambulance to provide ALS service on the way to Tri- Cities hospital). In either
case, though, a Pasco ambulance is pulled from stand -by and "out of service" for
the duration of the call.
E) Staff has recently discussed the attached information with representatives of the
three districts, to explain council's policy perspective as well as the details of the
two contract options. While all three districts would prefer to view the provision
of the ALS ambulance secondary response as a "mutual aid" function (therefore,
no charge to the district), there is reluctant acknowledgement that there is a cost to
operation of the ambulance system -but no acceptance of the formula or fees
suggested in Reference 1.
F) There is concern on the part of the districts that the availability fee is simply too
much for the approximate 100 times they collectively use the ALS service
annually. While it may appear expensive when one divides it by the number of
ALS calls, one must remember it reflects the cost of having the ALS ambulance
"ready to respond" (car and home insurance is expensive if one only rarely uses it
— but it needs to be in place nonetheless). More to the point, if the three districts
were to operate one ALS ambulance jointly (without Pasco), it would cost at least
$300,000 annually just to have one paramedic available around the clock (24/7),
assuming they provide the necessary EMT driver and equipment from existing
resources. Thus, the combined $148,000 they would pay annually for secondary
response from Pasco (and free back up) is considerably less than half what they
would pay on their own for the same service.
G) Staff requests council discussion of the options provided in Reference 1 and either
confirm or direct otherwise, so the appropriate advice can be provided to the three
districts in a timely fashion. Of particular urgency is Franklin County 3, as the
district is in the process of determining its options for a property tax ballot issue in
November to provide some level of ambulance services within its district (they
must decide before August 5).
d
.. +Vi
I
V
irr
6C
q
Q
0
V
}y
C
y
b
N
ar
'c3
Q
Y
O
N
C1
M_
O
N
0
b
Y
Y
b
N
U
O
0
N
Q
.O
W
N
0
N
ti
Fri
0
a
'b
cd
a
N
W
E7
W
O
N
M
y
y
N
O
O
U
O
x�
y
M
N
W
U
b
U
U
a
W
O
<d
O
C
m
N
y
I
U
a
O
y
U
O_
69
U
^O
O
3
0
O
O
O
O
sus
0
N
U
N
N
N
W
U
N
to
O
V
N
M.:
O ccd
7:1 T
� O
Q, v4
a� y
y O
'O
0
O J.,
ar
Q
kn
Goel
N
Q
0
U
0
a
Cd
QI
LP
Cd
O
W
O
0
N
Y
U
y
U
cd
Cd
0
0
4
Cd
0
Cd
Cd
a
U
ro
O
Q
x
w
z
0
W
0
0
Cd
U
Cc
ctl
O
a
H
Per
S
W
N
C
N
W
N
0
N
N
3
U
W
.d
fL
O
N
it
Y
tom.
S1
N
O
N
U
O
irk
.ej
air
N
O
N
.0
O
a
Fr'
y
n
�w
o
�
N
N
Q
fi
�
u
O
q
O
O
O
.r
O
O
r
V
7) q d
z
a
Q
x
R
D
CA
V
CA
0000
q
m
00
O
d d
M
O
O
O
69
os
5~9
d
�i
O
d
O
n
vNi
F:
69
69
69
Itt
Ci4
cc
ss
bA
b
VN1
O
N
N
x
M
�
�
w
z
y
b
N
ar
'c3
Q
Y
O
N
C1
M_
O
N
0
b
Y
Y
b
N
U
O
0
N
Q
.O
W
N
0
N
ti
Fri
0
a
'b
cd
a
N
W
E7
W
O
N
M
y
y
N
O
O
U
O
x�
y
M
N
W
U
b
U
U
a
W
O
<d
O
C
m
N
y
I
U
a
O
y
U
O_
69
U
^O
O
3
0
O
O
O
O
sus
0
N
U
N
N
N
W
U
N
to
O
V
N
M.:
O ccd
7:1 T
� O
Q, v4
a� y
y O
'O
0
O J.,
ar
Q
kn
Goel
N
Q
0
U
0
a
Cd
QI
LP
Cd
O
W
O
0
N
Y
U
y
U
cd
Cd
0
0
4
Cd
0
Cd
Cd
a
U
ro
O
Q
x
w
z
0
W
0
0
Cd
U
Cc
ctl
O
a
H
Per
S
W
N
C
N
W
N
0
N
N
3
U
W
.d
fL
O
N
it
Y
tom.
S1
N
O
N
U
O
irk
.ej
air
N
O
N
.0
O
a
Fr'
y
n
AMBULANCE SERVICE
Proportionate Cost Example
$2.1 million/year cost, net of transport receipts
3 ambulance crews
_ $700,000 /year /ambulance
83,000 total service area population (Pasco + FCFD #3 + WWFD #5 + NFHD)
_ $8.43 /capita
FCFD #3 (6,300) ............ $53,109
WWFD #5 (4,584) ......... $38,643
NFHD (7,719) ............... $65,071
Represents proportionate annual share of one (1) ambulance stand -by
MAYOR (509) 545 -3404 / Fax(509)545-3463
r.V. DuX L7.7, �Dlo ivonn 3ra avenue) Pasco, Washington 99301. / www.pasco- wa.gov
June 22, 2012
Tom Hughes, Chairman
Board of Commissioners
Franklin County Fire District No. 3
2108 N. Rd. 84
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Ambulance Service Contract
Dear Chairman Hughes:
Please accept this letter in follow -up to the meeting with city representatives on May 31, regarding the city's
need to modify the ambulance service contract fee so it would equate to the cost being borne by Pasco
residents for the same service.
As requested, the matter was presented to the Pasco City Council at its June 11 workshop meeting. After
considerable discussion, the general consensus of the City Council reiterated the city's objective that District
No. 3 pay an annual fee equal to that which the city would receive if the households in the district were
subject to the monthly "availability charge" paid by all Pasco households. Based on 2010 census data and
the 2013 availability charge to Pasco residents, the District's 2013 fee would approximate $180,000.
However, in recognition of the sudden adverse effects such a change would have on the District's 2013
budget, coupled with the District's apparent desire to seek a legislative change to RCW52.12, the City
Council indicated that it would favorably consider a new contract fee at 50% of the full rate for 2013,
increasing to 100% of the full rate for 2014.
In accordance with the general direction of the City Council, we have revised the previous ambulance service
contract (enclosed) for your review. Please advise if further meetings are necessary to effect the changes
acceptable to the city.
Additionally, I want to extend my appreciation to the Commission and your chief for the continued
dialogue. Pasco and Fire District No. 3 have a long history of cooperation and hope we can continue
thinking of innovative ways to provide services to our jurisdictions.
MW /GC /TL
enclosure
cc: City Council
Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
Sincerely,
Matt Watkins
Mayor
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Gary Crutchfr Manager
SUBJECT: Ambulance Service ontract with Fire District #3
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Letter to Fire District #3 dated 12/14/11
June 5, 2012
Workshop Mtg.: 6/11/12
II, ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/11: Discussion
I1I. FISCAL IMPACT:
See below.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The city created its ambulance service in the late 1970s due to the cessation of
such services from the private sector (funeral homes and hospitals). At that time,
the city extended ambulance service to Fire District 43 for a nominal contract fee.
In the late 1990s the city required a contract fee of about $24,000 per year, which
has grown via an annual CPI factor to about $30,000 annually.
B) Conversion of the city's ambulance service to a utility function (and associated
accounting) requires an accurate assessment of costs, per state law. The most
recent cost of service analysis (required by the state auditor's office) resulted in an
"availability" fee of $5.85 per month (scheduled to increase to $6.25 /month in
January 2013). That monthly fee is paid by each residential and business unit in
the city, but such a monthly fee is not paid by units in Fire District #3. The other
element of ambulance cost is assigned to the "transport" fee. That fee is $660 for
city residents but $990 for non- residents (including Fire District #3). The higher
fee for non - residents is a reflection of the fact that the city uses its own tax funds
to subsidize (substantially) the ambulance operation. If Fire District #3 were
subject to the same monthly availability fee that city residents pay, the annual
contract fee would amount to about $180,000 (2450 housing units x $6.25 x 12)
for 2013.
C) State law provides limited options for fire districts to fund ambulance services.
The most common method used by districts around the state is the Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) levy. This requires voter approval of an additional
property tax within the fire district to raise dollars necessary to pay for ambulance
service. In the case of Fire District 93, an EMS levy of approximately
$0.20 /thousand would be sufficient to offset the estimated 2013 "availability" fee
(assuming the same rate as city units). An EMS ballot measure could be included
on the November 2012 ballot if the District acts to place the question on the ballot
by August 7, 2012,
D) Other "options" for the District include seeking a change in current state law
(RCW 52.12.135) so that any fire district can contract directly with an adjoining
city for the provision of ambulance services and apply the same ambulance utility
rates in the fire district that are used in the adjacent city. That law currently
permits "rural" fire districts to do so but defines "rural" as less than 10 persons
per square mile — Fire District #3 is about 50 persons per square mile (the donut
4(b)
hole alone is over 1,000 persons per square mile). Changing state law will require
at least one year and the outcome of such an effort is uncertain — at best. Another
option is for Franklin County to enter into an interlocal annexation agreement
with Fire District #3 and the city; such an agreement could provide a negotiated
contract fee as part of the financial mitigation plan desired by Fire District #3 in
association with an annexation plan. That option, however, requires participation
by Franklin County.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) After notice to Fire District #3 (December of last year) and completion of the
ambulance utility cost of service study, staff advised the District (in April) that
Council expects the District's contract fee to reflect, at the very least, the same
rate paid by city residents. A recent meeting with Fire District #3 representatives
indicated they needed to know with certainty the Council's position in this matter,
as their actions must be based on the city's formal position.
B) Council should confirm its posture that the District's contract fee at least reflect
the rate paid by city residents (unless it believes otherwise). Another
consideration could be the timing of that change. Since the city notified the
District late last year, it is not unreasonable to expect change in January 2013 (one
year notice). However, given the magnitude of the change and the desire of the
District to seek an expedient means of fulfilling the revised contract fee
requirement, Council may wish to stage the increase. For example, perhaps 50%
of the new fee be required for 2013 and 100% in 2014; this would reduce the
immediate financial impact to the District while they attempt to change state law
or present an EMS levy to district voters sometime in 2013, for effect in 2014.
W
Z H
3 �u
I
icix t '
r
r Y
96£ AM �,rM F
H
t ^' t � t�i� yti
mow• -�"" �� � t rl' h �`}
„mss y� z
i ? FII�ttLK- tii%�1t4 '
I
�'
rs
U
iL
J
CITY MANAGER
(509) 545 -3404 /
Fax (509)
545 -3403
P.O. Box 293, (525 North
3rd Avenue) Pasco,
Washington
99301 / www,pasco- wa.gov
December 14, 2011
Todd Blackman, Chairman
Franklin County Fire District No. 3 Board of Commissioners
2108 N. Road 84
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Ambulance Service Contract
Dear Chairman Blackman:
Please be advised that the Pasco City Council will consider an updated cost of service analysis
for its ambulance utility early next year. It is certain to increase the availability charge paid
monthly by Pasco residents and the transport fee may be adjusted as well. As those changes are
implemented, the annual fee for ambulance service to your district must also be adjusted.
The current agreement does not provide for adjustment of the contract fee, other than through the
annual CPI factor, As that will not allow the kind of adjustment expected, the only option for
Pasco is to advise the District now that it must terminate the contract effective December 31,
2012 (the current agreement requires one -year written notice for termination). Termination can
be avoided, however, if the District and Pasco can agree on a revised contract fee prior to the
termination date. To that end, please also consider this letter an invitation to discuss the revised
costs as soon as the Pasco City Council has adopted its changes (expected in February or March
2012).
Please feel free to contact me or Chief Gear to advis,
GC /tlz
cc: City Council
Chief Gear
Finance Manager
preference.