Loading...
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.