Summary of the Measure

In a special election to be held on April 27, 2010, voters in the cities of Covington, Kent and unincorporated Fire District 37 in King County will decide whether to approve a Regional Fire Authority plan (Proposition No. 1).

Proposition No. 1 would effectively merge the Kent Fire Department and Fire District 37 into a Regional Fire Authority (RFA). The RFA would be funded by a six-year Fire Benefit Charge (FBC) that may not exceed 60 percent of the operating budget and a property tax that may not exceed $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed value. The FBC is based on a calculation of the cost of providing fire protection to a specific building. Factors such as the building’s use, size and risk are all considered in the FBC formula. The property tax assessment would replace the existing $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed value and would reduce the City of Kent’s property tax capacity by the tax rate collected by the RFA.

A six-member board of commissioners would govern the RFA with three members elected from the City of Kent and three from Fire District 37. The City of Covington would receive direct representation from the elected commissioners of Fire District 37, and an at-large non-voting member of the Covington City Council. There would also be an appointed citizen’s advisory board.

The measure requires a 60 percent super-majority approval.

Arguments FOR the Measure

The following arguments were put forth by the proponents of the measure:

• Population growth, an increased demand for fire and emergency services and budget shortfalls have reduced the Kent Fire Department’s ability to provide needed fire and emergency medical services. Response times have increased by 45 seconds in the last five years and the Kent Fire Department has seen close to a $3 million reduction in its budget due to the recession and declines in assessed property values. This plan would provide a sustainable fire protection and emergency medical services system that is capable of meeting increasing community demand. This means more stable funding for new fire stations, more firefighters and faster response times to medical and fire calls.

• A single purpose regional fire district benefits the community by reducing redundancies in administration and creating response efficiencies. Citizens will experience these efficiencies in the form of service improvements, better use of taxpayer dollars and improved insurance ratings.

• The planned authority supports accountability and responsiveness through its governance model. The fire benefit charge has to be reauthorized every six years. The governing board and citizen’s advisory board provide a check and balance system.

• This regional entity better allows for timely development of significant projects because of sustainable funding and a singular focus.

• This revenue model is more fair and flexible than the current property-tax only model. The RFA funding model reduces dependency on property taxes through a blended revenue stream (property taxes and FBC). The FBC is based on the cost of maintaining fire resources necessary to provide service to specific buildings. Fees are based on the use, size and risk of the building.

• The RFA will gain the ability to collect funds from tax exempt properties such as the Regional Justice Center which frequently utilizes EMS services.

• The RFA plan has been endorsed by Kent City Council, Covington City Council, Fire District 37 Commissioners, and Kent Firefighters Local 1747. There is no organized opposition to the measure.

• The measure needs to be presented to voters during this special election because of several time-sensitive issues. First, the City of Kent’s recent Panther Lake annexation, which takes effect on July 1, 2010, has created financial challenges. If the RFA were formed after July 1st, there would need to be an exchange of assets from Fire District 37 to the City of Kent since the annexation area included a large part of the Fire District. A November election would also result in a significant delay in the implementation of the FBC. In order to collect FBC monies, the charge needs to be created by June in order to start collecting FBC in 2011. Creating the FBC after June 2010 would delay revenue collection until 2012. This would result in the reduction of services since the RFA would be limited to collecting $1.50 per $1000 of assessed value. Finally, the City of Kent is interested in moving forward sooner rather than later to relief the workload burdens that have been created as a result of layoffs in 2009.

• The impact on an average household is reasonable. The average cost to an owner of a $240,000 house in Kent would be about $148 more per year in 2011 (due to the fire benefit fee). The owner of a similar house in Fire District 37 would pay about $28 more per year.

Arguments AGAINST the Measure

The following arguments were developed by the Ballot Issues Committee and put forth by an opponent of the measure:

• The RFA plan is overly focused on increasing revenue and pays little attention to streamlining services, reducing costs or providing improved services. While proponents of the measure argue that efficiencies will be created, staffing will actually increase slightly.

• Information being provided to voters is insufficient. Revenue projections and an agency budget for the new regional authority are not part of the information provided to voters.

• The FBC is comparable to a variable rate mortgage. It lacks a specific cap which makes the true cost of this district unclear and subject to considerable variability from year to year.

• The FBC is a poor option for a user fee since fire departments respond to relatively few fire emergencies. Seventy-five percent of the department’s calls are for EMS, not fire.

• Charging public facilities like the Regional Justice Center a user-fee such as the FBC does not make sense since this would simply shift costs from city to county government. The public will still have to bear the cost.

• This proposal is primarily intended as a bailout plan for the City of Kent. The city can offload a core municipal government service responsibility while retaining a portion of the revenues it had been using to fund it.

• The FBC will place an unreasonable burden on businesses and multi-family structures. In the Kent area, many businesses are already dealing with a bad economy and costs associated with the flooding risk related to the Howard Hanson Dam.

• This is the wrong time to place an additional economic burden on citizens. The Fire Department should deal with decreased revenue through cost reductions, not revenue enhancements.

Recommendation and Rationale

The Board of Trustees supports Proposition No. 1. Citizens depend upon reliable and sustainable emergency response systems and the current model in Kent, Covington and Fire District 37 is no longer financially viable. The fiscal problem facing these communities has already resulted in staff reductions and increased response times.  We support the use of the new fire benefit charge in combination with the property tax because it is fair and balances general purpose taxes with a user fee charged to facilities based on risk and need for service. The Board also supports the consolidation of previously separate service districts into a new regional authority—this is consistent with the increasing urbanization of King County and the need for new governance models to address the many annexations and incorporations that have taken place.

While we support this measure, we also believe that more clarity and transparency about the financial proposal is needed. The community and voters would benefit from additional details about the projected revenue that will be raised by the Fire Authority and the use of the funds. While we were able to obtain a summary of the proposed RFA budget, upon request, we believe a full six-year forecast should have been provided as part of the Regional Fire Authority Plan and ballot proposal. We would also recommend that the proposed RFA website include a side-by-side budget comparison of the current and proposed service models and related revenues and expenses.